> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 7:22 PM > To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' > Subject: RE: So Austin > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > > Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:59 AM > > To: Killer Bs Discussion > > Subject: Re: So Austin > > > > It was really one of those things where it was both ways > > simultaneously. > > There is a good parallel with our modern situation. > > The freeing of the slaves would have had an economic impact on the > > South that would have devastated in a manner similar to what would > > happen if all foriegn oil were suddenly embargoed away from the US > > today. > > Well, it would have had an impact, but I don't think it would have been > that great. First of all, they could still have the labor of the > slaves....just as tenant farmers...as they did later. > > > As I said, there was slavery in the North prior to the Civil War, but > > it was not economically necessary as it was in the South. It much like > > the way Illegal immigrants are hired these days to increase profits by > > keeping labor costs low. > > But, it was abolished during the early 19th century. Indeed, slavery was > close to being abolished throughout the Union during that time, with > Virginia coming within one vote of abolishing slavery on several > occasions. > > > > > some noble cause like state's rights. > > > > Well, I think you have to consider that the majority of those > > monuments were built long ago when attitudes were quite different. > > The social inertia that supported the building of such is pretty well > > spent and is unlikely to ever build momentum again. > > I'd go so far as to say that with regard to the subject of racism, the > > South is in better shape than the North or the West. Things have > > changed a lot here. > > They have...I also agree that Texas has made more progress than many > northern states, but DWB is still an offense. > > > > Lincoln himself believed in the right of states to secede, > > ??? > <quote> > > I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the > Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not > expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe > to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic > law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express > provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure > forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not > provided for in the instrument itself. 12 > Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an > association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a > contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? > One party to a contract may violate it-break it, so to speak-but does it > not require all to lawfully rescind it? 13 > Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that > in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of > the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was > formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured > and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further > matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted > and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation > in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining > and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." 14 > But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States > be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the > Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 15 > It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can > lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect > are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States > against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or > revolutionary, according to circumstances. 16 > I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the > Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as > the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the > Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be > only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as > practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall > withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the > contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the > declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and > maintain itself. > <unquote> > > Lincoln's 1st inaugural adress > > Dan M.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
