 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
Dave Dorsey |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Hey RS, you mention the south was so awesome because they wanted slaves to count as 5/5ths of a person... quick question... could slaves cast 5/5ths of a vote during elections? Or could they only cast 3/5ths of a vote? |
Somehow this question didn't get answered. In case anyone was wondering, slaves didn't get to vote at all.
So basically, the magnanimous south treated human beings created in the image of God as property, forced them to work without pay, beat them if they didn't, raped and bred them for the purpose of producing new slaves, but wanted them to count as citizens for the purpose of determining how many of their slavemasters and owners would have places in Congress.
I'm not sure how any rational human could state in regard to the 3/5ths compromise that it was "obvious that the southerners believed that a slave was 5/5 of a person" -- that is without doubt one of the most disgusting and preposterous claims I have ever seen. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/17/18 4:04 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Resident... |
Aaron Scott |
I did not realize we were discussing the Civil War.
We weren't...until you wanted to act like the South treasured the black folks that lived there and felt that, because of that, they should be counted as a full person. (OK, that was just mean, but you deserved it--admit it!)
I simply responded to a false narrative you tried to impose upon our Constitution.
You mean that one about slaves being counted as only 3/5ths of a person? That's not only not false, it's not a narrative. It's just the truth.
And no, the war was fought over economics.
Well, yes...if by economics you mean slavery. You see, the South was upset that they wouldn't be able to keep spreading economics into new areas. They had had economics for well over two hundred years, and they needed economics to bring in the crops and do all sorts of other things around the place.
They were upset because if they didn't get to keep on spreading economics elsewhere, it would hurt their...economics (OK, that didn't work, but you get the idea).
Seriously, the economics you speak of is directly related to the economics of slavery. The South wanted to secede because they felt that slavery was being threatened...and they would allow NO ONE to threaten their FULLY EQUAL, BELOVED, CHERISHED SLAVES.
In short, the north 's economy depended on the south being in the Union. Thus the south could not be allowed to be independent. Had the south been allowed to go (which was their right), there would have been no war.
Right. And had Nazi Germany been permitted to keep Poland, there would have been no WWII.
And had we not gotten so upset about Pearl Harbor, we wouldn't have went to war with Japan.
Indeed, if the South had been permitted to have walked away once they no longer had the advantages that the 3/5ths Compromise and the other slavery compromises furnished them...if the South had been able to walk away getting the benefits of the UNITED STATES, working together, defeating Britain in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812...if the South had been able to walk away with no penalty for taking all the blessings of liberty and the United States, but not having any obligations to it...then, you're right, there would have been no war. But the United States BOUGHT much of the land that they wanted to spread slavery to (see the Louisiana Purchase), as well as spilled blood to settle and defend it.
The south was not "done wrong." What happened is that the South, in an election, lost the advantage they wanted. So, instead of dealing with it, they did what they had done so many times before: pitched a fit to try to get their way. Except this time, there wasn't a compromise. There was a war.
Secession was , in a particular sense, about slavery. But an article of Secession is not a declaration of war. Thus, no war "over slavery".
All you have to do--and you know this as a student of Civil War history--is read those articles of secession to determine WHY the south seceded. It was slavery. Period. No, it's not a declaration of war, but it served the same end: It was the determination to break away from a union to which they had willingly surrendered certain powers. And it was not doing because the United States did them wrong...but because they didn't get their way.
So no, I do not subscribe to your revisionist, politically correct view of history that is designed to promote white guilt.
Who in the world said anything about "white guilt"? Oh, wait--you did. I'm not trying to promote that at all. I was simply trying to tell the truth, but apparently since you would rather blame the north than to simply accept the fact that the south was wrong, you call it white guilt. Nope. It's just the truth. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
2/17/18 4:18 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Resident... |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | I did not realize we were discussing the Civil War.
We weren't...until you wanted to act like the South treasured the black folks that lived there and felt that, because of that, they should be counted as a full person. (OK, that was just mean, but you deserved it--admit it!)
I simply responded to a false narrative you tried to impose upon our Constitution.
You mean that one about slaves being counted as only 3/5ths of a person? That's not only not false, it's not a narrative. It's just the truth.
And no, the war was fought over economics.
Well, yes...if by economics you mean slavery. You see, the South was upset that they wouldn't be able to keep spreading economics into new areas. They had had economics for well over two hundred years, and they needed economics to bring in the crops and do all sorts of other things around the place.
They were upset because if they didn't get to keep on spreading economics elsewhere, it would hurt their...economics (OK, that didn't work, but you get the idea).
Seriously, the economics you speak of is directly related to the economics of slavery. The South wanted to secede because they felt that slavery was being threatened...and they would allow NO ONE to threaten their FULLY EQUAL, BELOVED, CHERISHED SLAVES.
In short, the north 's economy depended on the south being in the Union. Thus the south could not be allowed to be independent. Had the south been allowed to go (which was their right), there would have been no war.
Right. And had Nazi Germany been permitted to keep Poland, there would have been no WWII.
And had we not gotten so upset about Pearl Harbor, we wouldn't have went to war with Japan.
Indeed, if the South had been permitted to have walked away once they no longer had the advantages that the 3/5ths Compromise and the other slavery compromises furnished them...if the South had been able to walk away getting the benefits of the UNITED STATES, working together, defeating Britain in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812...if the South had been able to walk away with no penalty for taking all the blessings of liberty and the United States, but not having any obligations to it...then, you're right, there would have been no war. But the United States BOUGHT much of the land that they wanted to spread slavery to (see the Louisiana Purchase), as well as spilled blood to settle and defend it.
The south was not "done wrong." What happened is that the South, in an election, lost the advantage they wanted. So, instead of dealing with it, they did what they had done so many times before: pitched a fit to try to get their way. Except this time, there wasn't a compromise. There was a war.
Secession was , in a particular sense, about slavery. But an article of Secession is not a declaration of war. Thus, no war "over slavery".
All you have to do--and you know this as a student of Civil War history--is read those articles of secession to determine WHY the south seceded. It was slavery. Period. No, it's not a declaration of war, but it served the same end: It was the determination to break away from a union to which they had willingly surrendered certain powers. And it was not doing because the United States did them wrong...but because they didn't get their way.
So no, I do not subscribe to your revisionist, politically correct view of history that is designed to promote white guilt.
Who in the world said anything about "white guilt"? Oh, wait--you did. I'm not trying to promote that at all. I was simply trying to tell the truth, but apparently since you would rather blame the north than to simply accept the fact that the south was wrong, you call it white guilt. Nope. It's just the truth. |
Why was it wrong to secede and form a government to their liking? Economically, we were better off out of a league with Northern mercantilists. The north was motivated by greed. We fought against the very kind of system the British were imposing on the Colonies and we were right.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/17/18 4:23 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Resident... |
Aaron Scott |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | I did not realize we were discussing the Civil War.
We weren't...until you wanted to act like the South treasured the black folks that lived there and felt that, because of that, they should be counted as a full person. (OK, that was just mean, but you deserved it--admit it!)
I simply responded to a false narrative you tried to impose upon our Constitution.
You mean that one about slaves being counted as only 3/5ths of a person? That's not only not false, it's not a narrative. It's just the truth.
And no, the war was fought over economics.
Well, yes...if by economics you mean slavery. You see, the South was upset that they wouldn't be able to keep spreading economics into new areas. They had had economics for well over two hundred years, and they needed economics to bring in the crops and do all sorts of other things around the place.
They were upset because if they didn't get to keep on spreading economics elsewhere, it would hurt their...economics (OK, that didn't work, but you get the idea).
Seriously, the economics you speak of is directly related to the economics of slavery. The South wanted to secede because they felt that slavery was being threatened...and they would allow NO ONE to threaten their FULLY EQUAL, BELOVED, CHERISHED SLAVES.
In short, the north 's economy depended on the south being in the Union. Thus the south could not be allowed to be independent. Had the south been allowed to go (which was their right), there would have been no war.
Right. And had Nazi Germany been permitted to keep Poland, there would have been no WWII.
And had we not gotten so upset about Pearl Harbor, we wouldn't have went to war with Japan.
Indeed, if the South had been permitted to have walked away once they no longer had the advantages that the 3/5ths Compromise and the other slavery compromises furnished them...if the South had been able to walk away getting the benefits of the UNITED STATES, working together, defeating Britain in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812...if the South had been able to walk away with no penalty for taking all the blessings of liberty and the United States, but not having any obligations to it...then, you're right, there would have been no war. But the United States BOUGHT much of the land that they wanted to spread slavery to (see the Louisiana Purchase), as well as spilled blood to settle and defend it.
The south was not "done wrong." What happened is that the South, in an election, lost the advantage they wanted. So, instead of dealing with it, they did what they had done so many times before: pitched a fit to try to get their way. Except this time, there wasn't a compromise. There was a war.
Secession was , in a particular sense, about slavery. But an article of Secession is not a declaration of war. Thus, no war "over slavery".
All you have to do--and you know this as a student of Civil War history--is read those articles of secession to determine WHY the south seceded. It was slavery. Period. No, it's not a declaration of war, but it served the same end: It was the determination to break away from a union to which they had willingly surrendered certain powers. And it was not doing because the United States did them wrong...but because they didn't get their way.
So no, I do not subscribe to your revisionist, politically correct view of history that is designed to promote white guilt.
Who in the world said anything about "white guilt"? Oh, wait--you did. I'm not trying to promote that at all. I was simply trying to tell the truth, but apparently since you would rather blame the north than to simply accept the fact that the south was wrong, you call it white guilt. Nope. It's just the truth. |
Why was it wrong to secede and form a government to their liking? Economically, we were better off out of a league with Northern mercantilists. The north was motivated by greed. We fought against the very kind of system the British were imposing on the Colonies and we were right.
Resident, the Constitution is the social contract of America. If the U.S. had broken faith with the south, then the south would indeed have the "right" to secede (of course, whether the other states would recognize that right is a separate question).
But along with, as best I can tell, there being no actual broken contract, there is the fact that the south took full advantage of the benefits of belonging to the union, then, when it didn't suit them, they decided to go their separate way. It would be perhaps be analogous to taking the ferry across a river, but as soon as you no longer deem that there is a need for the ferry, you decide to not pay the bill.
The south had, along with the north, seceded from Britain to form the U.S. The Declaration of Independence understood the need to legitimize this separation by listing the broken faith brought about by Great Britain's offenses.
But the south's central claim seemed to be that, since Lincoln was elected and they assumed he would not permit them to spread slavery to new states, they wanted out. That was not a dealbreaker in terms of the Constitution, for the Constitution had not promised that slavery could be spread to every state, etc.
Yes, it would impact the south's economics if they couldn't keep on using slavery as the country moved west. But that begs the question of why would the north want to stop their "cash cow," so to speak, from making more money and the such? The more money the south had, the more goods they could buy from the north, etc.
Indeed, the south might have been better off, but we once again run into the fact that the south had survived (and the north, too) through a UNITED front against the British, etc. There was a time the south would NOT have been better off...so it seems kind of rotten to say, "Now that you have helped us become strong enough to take care of ourselves, goodbye."
Specific powers had been ceded to the federal government. The south had no right to unilaterally take those powers back. Further, consider just how wonderful it would have been if the south had a new treaty with Britain...and now Britain has a new toe-hold in America. The nation would likely not have survived had we had two competing nations in such proximity.
|
Last edited by Aaron Scott on 2/17/18 6:00 pm; edited 2 times in total |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
2/17/18 5:06 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dean Steenburgh |
Ruger Mini 14 is basically the same weapon as the AR 15
Both fire a .223 round
Both have the option of a 30 round magazine
But they have totally diff looks
Its not the gun ...it's the human behind the gun!
.
_________________
"Empty nest syndrome is for the birds!"
Email me at: SteenburghDean@gmail.com
Church planters are focused on just one thing ...introducing people to Jesus!
What are you focused on? |
Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4682
2/17/18 5:31 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Dean...yes, it is the human... |
Aaron Scott |
| Dean Steenburgh wrote: | Ruger Mini 14 is basically the same weapon as the AR 15
Both fire a .223 round
Both have the option of a 30 round magazine
But they have totally diff looks
Its not the gun ...it's the human behind the gun!
. |
Indeed, the human is the key factor. But consider that it's one thing is ISIS has nothing but baseball bats...and quite another if the have a nuke. In both cases, it's the mentality of the human that is behind it all, but I think all of us would rather them have baseball bats.
The same works when it comes to assault rifles. Yes, other guns will kill you just as dead, etc. But an assault rifle allows even greater firepower, range, etc., than is needed for any sane notion of self-defense. We must not think that a gun is a gun is a gun. I'd must rather get shot by a .22 in the leg...than a shotgun in the leg. You get the idea.
But as I mentioned in my first post, I think most people own assault rifles NOT because they really need it...but because it makes them feel macho, tough, etc. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but when we realize that this exceedingly dangerous type of gun is not really about safety, but about "look how touch I look holding my AR with my sunglasses on," it should make us see it in a different light.
If assault rifles came only in pink and were called "Gay Boy Guns," we'd see far fewer sold. Basically, I'm claiming that it's mostly marketing and/or paranoia. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
2/17/18 6:07 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Dean...yes, it is the human... |
Mat |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Dean Steenburgh wrote: | Ruger Mini 14 is basically the same weapon as the AR 15
Both fire a .223 round
Both have the option of a 30 round magazine
But they have totally diff looks
Its not the gun ...it's the human behind the gun!
. |
Indeed, the human is the key factor. But consider that it's one thing is ISIS has nothing but baseball bats...and quite another if the have a nuke. In both cases, it's the mentality of the human that is behind it all, but I think all of us would rather them have baseball bats.
The same works when it comes to assault rifles. Yes, other guns will kill you just as dead, etc. But an assault rifle allows even greater firepower, range, etc., than is needed for any sane notion of self-defense. We must not think that a gun is a gun is a gun. I'd must rather get shot by a .22 in the leg...than a shotgun in the leg. You get the idea.
But as I mentioned in my first post, I think most people own assault rifles NOT because they really need it...but because it makes them feel macho, tough, etc. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but when we realize that this exceedingly dangerous type of gun is not really about safety, but about "look how touch I look holding my AR with my sunglasses on," it should make us see it in a different light.
If assault rifles came only in pink and were called "Gay Boy Guns," we'd see far fewer sold. Basically, I'm claiming that it's mostly marketing and/or paranoia. |
As I have mentioned, I got shot with a 22 (short) in the leg when I was a young teen. It when all the way through my calf and came out the other side. You could have stuck a straw through it. The pain is another story for another day.
In the Corps (back in 1973) I qualified "Expert" (227/250) with an M-14 that only had iron sights. At 500 yards I hit the human silhouette 9/10 center mass from the prone position. In Infantry Training School at Camp Pendleton I trained with the M-16 in full auto. They were leftovers from Vietnam and were in bad condition - gas would come out of the charging handle and you could hold the grip and twist the register one way and the grip the other (the .45s were in bad condition as well).
I will say this to tell you, guns are for killing, and if you have them in your home be ready to kill, or see someone killed (perhaps someone you love). Some say guns are for sport, yet I find few sportsmen (and they are generally very careful with guns), but there many untrained amateurs.
Mat |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1994
2/18/18 8:50 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | UncleJD wrote: | | can you guys PLEASE find a way to quote a little less of the entire thread? Its REALLY annoying. |
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 |
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
2/18/18 2:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
cogvegan |
Wow this discussion thread is all over the place. It's like a pentecostal sermon. HA!
Back to the gun issue. I think guns should be controlled, I don't think just anyone should be able to own a gun or buy a gun. However, that's the problem. You can just buy a gun off the street in most cities and towns. So making new laws, doesn't help the already predicament that we are in. There is just no easy answer or quick fix to a problem that has gotten so out of hand.
I wish it was as easy as putting new restrictions on laws, but that's just going to initiate new laws that we already do not enforce. So basically, it's pointless. Mental Health is an issue and we shouldn't just pass it by, but we can't aways blame the actions of some on a mental health issue either.
So there's my two cents...for whatever it's worth. There's not really any easy answers to the mass shootings that seem to plague this country. |
Member
Posts: 30
2/18/18 3:55 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Resident... |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | I did not realize we were discussing the Civil War.
We weren't...until you wanted to act like the South treasured the black folks that lived there and felt that, because of that, they should be counted as a full person. (OK, that was just mean, but you deserved it--admit it!)
I simply responded to a false narrative you tried to impose upon our Constitution.
You mean that one about slaves being counted as only 3/5ths of a person? That's not only not false, it's not a narrative. It's just the truth.
And no, the war was fought over economics.
Well, yes...if by economics you mean slavery. You see, the South was upset that they wouldn't be able to keep spreading economics into new areas. They had had economics for well over two hundred years, and they needed economics to bring in the crops and do all sorts of other things around the place.
They were upset because if they didn't get to keep on spreading economics elsewhere, it would hurt their...economics (OK, that didn't work, but you get the idea).
Seriously, the economics you speak of is directly related to the economics of slavery. The South wanted to secede because they felt that slavery was being threatened...and they would allow NO ONE to threaten their FULLY EQUAL, BELOVED, CHERISHED SLAVES.
In short, the north 's economy depended on the south being in the Union. Thus the south could not be allowed to be independent. Had the south been allowed to go (which was their right), there would have been no war.
Right. And had Nazi Germany been permitted to keep Poland, there would have been no WWII.
And had we not gotten so upset about Pearl Harbor, we wouldn't have went to war with Japan.
Indeed, if the South had been permitted to have walked away once they no longer had the advantages that the 3/5ths Compromise and the other slavery compromises furnished them...if the South had been able to walk away getting the benefits of the UNITED STATES, working together, defeating Britain in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812...if the South had been able to walk away with no penalty for taking all the blessings of liberty and the United States, but not having any obligations to it...then, you're right, there would have been no war. But the United States BOUGHT much of the land that they wanted to spread slavery to (see the Louisiana Purchase), as well as spilled blood to settle and defend it.
The south was not "done wrong." What happened is that the South, in an election, lost the advantage they wanted. So, instead of dealing with it, they did what they had done so many times before: pitched a fit to try to get their way. Except this time, there wasn't a compromise. There was a war.
Secession was , in a particular sense, about slavery. But an article of Secession is not a declaration of war. Thus, no war "over slavery".
All you have to do--and you know this as a student of Civil War history--is read those articles of secession to determine WHY the south seceded. It was slavery. Period. No, it's not a declaration of war, but it served the same end: It was the determination to break away from a union to which they had willingly surrendered certain powers. And it was not doing because the United States did them wrong...but because they didn't get their way.
So no, I do not subscribe to your revisionist, politically correct view of history that is designed to promote white guilt.
Who in the world said anything about "white guilt"? Oh, wait--you did. I'm not trying to promote that at all. I was simply trying to tell the truth, but apparently since you would rather blame the north than to simply accept the fact that the south was wrong, you call it white guilt. Nope. It's just the truth. |
Why was it wrong to secede and form a government to their liking? Economically, we were better off out of a league with Northern mercantilists. The north was motivated by greed. We fought against the very kind of system the British were imposing on the Colonies and we were right.
Resident, the Constitution is the social contract of America. If the U.S. had broken faith with the south, then the south would indeed have the "right" to secede (of course, whether the other states would recognize that right is a separate question).
But along with, as best I can tell, there being no actual broken contract, there is the fact that the south took full advantage of the benefits of belonging to the union, then, when it didn't suit them, they decided to go their separate way. It would be perhaps be analogous to taking the ferry across a river, but as soon as you no longer deem that there is a need for the ferry, you decide to not pay the bill.
The south had, along with the north, seceded from Britain to form the U.S. The Declaration of Independence understood the need to legitimize this separation by listing the broken faith brought about by Great Britain's offenses.
But the south's central claim seemed to be that, since Lincoln was elected and they assumed he would not permit them to spread slavery to new states, they wanted out. That was not a dealbreaker in terms of the Constitution, for the Constitution had not promised that slavery could be spread to every state, etc.
Yes, it would impact the south's economics if they couldn't keep on using slavery as the country moved west. But that begs the question of why would the north want to stop their "cash cow," so to speak, from making more money and the such? The more money the south had, the more goods they could buy from the north, etc.
Indeed, the south might have been better off, but we once again run into the fact that the south had survived (and the north, too) through a UNITED front against the British, etc. There was a time the south would NOT have been better off...so it seems kind of rotten to say, "Now that you have helped us become strong enough to take care of ourselves, goodbye."
Specific powers had been ceded to the federal government. The south had no right to unilaterally take those powers back. Further, consider just how wonderful it would have been if the south had a new treaty with Britain...and now Britain has a new toe-hold in America. The nation would likely not have survived had we had two competing nations in such proximity.
|
|
So much here that is off the mark that I do not have time to even go through it all. What I have learned at an ASSEMBLIES OF GOD University is that the "spread of slavery into the western territories" debate, and in particular, the lands acquired in the Mexican War, is perhaps the most misunderstood part of the conflict. The North's objection was simply that, because of the 3/5 rule, any new slave States would continue to give the smaller southern States a balance in the Congress they other wise would not have had. Had the Missouri Compromise line been extended to the Pacific, at least four new "slave States" would have been added, attracting voters who would have been hostile to Whig, and later to Republican economic schemes of domination. There was NEVER any moral concern on the part of the average northerner over allowing slaves to migrate to the southwest. The number of slaves would not have increased, either. Their physical dispersion simply would have been altered, actually resulting in better care of the slaves. The northern objection was political and economic.
Had the Missouri compromise line been extended, it is doubtful the south ever would have seceded. But again, the north wanted no more Jeffersonian/Jacksonian states that would resist centralization. So there is your slavery conflict in a nutshell. Even though the SCOTUS had handed the south everything they had hoped for and more on a silver platter by way of the Dred Scott decision, the hostile Republicans had made it clear that they planned to override the SCOTUS, violently if need be. All of this is mentioned in the Secession Declarations of the 4 states that bothered to publish any.
As for secession, again, it would take too long. But no state "ceded" anything to the Federal Government when joining the union. Rather, certain duties were DELEGATED by the States to the Federal Government that was created by them as their common agent. The people retained their sovereignty, which includes the right to withdraw from the Union and to recall those delegated powers. It was the people of the States (not the legislatures) the decided on whether or not to join the Union. It is therefore the people who can withdraw from it. The seceding States used special conventions of the people to make that choice. Some state conventions, like that of Maryland, chose not to secede. But by even having such a convention, they were declaring it was the people's right to make that determination.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/18/18 4:21 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Resident... |
Aaron Scott |
The Articles of Confederation indicated a "perpetual union." This, our first constitution, was replaced with an even stronger constitution--the one we have now.
The notion of PERPETUAL UNION was manifest even prior to the Constitution. It would have been useless to have created a union if anyone, at any time, for any reason, could just up and leave. Why would we create a constitution if at any time it could become null and void at a state's will? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
2/18/18 6:13 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Resident... |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | The Articles of Confederation indicated a "perpetual union." This, our first constitution, was replaced with an even stronger constitution--the one we have now.
The notion of PERPETUAL UNION was manifest even prior to the Constitution. It would have been useless to have created a union if anyone, at any time, for any reason, could just up and leave. Why would we create a constitution if at any time it could become null and void at a state's will? |
The Articles of Confederation was a treaty between GOVERNMENTS of 13 sovereign nations. Yes, there was perpetually supposed to be a "league of friendship" among those nations, as the AoC stated. The same compact further stated that it could not be altered without a majority consent of constituent member states. But what happened? The supreme authority of THE PEOPLE over road the clear wording of the AoC. The PEOPLE of the State bypassed their State governments and created a completely different union, one that was not just a league among governments, but was a league between the PEOPLE of the States. Yet, they were not uniting in an aggregate sense, but as "the people composing 13 sovereignties" (Federalist). The States were still the parties to the NEW compact, but by agency of their people. Thus conventions of the people of each State overrode a treaty made between state governments,, in complete defiance of the AoC. The people of the States are the true sovereigns and remained so even after the adoption of the current Constitution. Thus, when the people of the 11 States, by means of the same sort of conventions, unratified the U.S. Constitution, they were in NO violation of any pact. They were expressing their sovereign right just as they had done by rejecting the AoC.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
2/18/18 6:29 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
