View single post by ole
 Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 05:08 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Posts: 2031

  back to top

In the same way, the folks in the seceeding states, rightly or wrongly (opinions vary!) had decided in their own minds that the bond was broken and they had the same rights of declaring their independence from Washington as their grandfathers had in declaring thier independence from London.

I'd amend that to "some of the folks."  And the "same rights" were and could still be the natural rights of rebellion.

I'm of a mind that the Declaration had no force of Law. Apparently, Lincoln held it to be of greater importance than I. (He was a much deeper thinker and vastly better informed.)

In any case, Ed has tapped the essence of Southern justification for breaking away: the secesh had determined that their "oppression" justified dissolving the bonds.

With that observation, we can't go much further and remain on the topic of the DoI. State soverignty? The DoI declared independence of free, soverign and independent states yet, to a degree, the colonies agreed to a Continental Congress to monitor and coordinate the efforts of each state during the Rebellion.

When England caved, the "independent" colonies agreed to re-form with the Articles of Confederation. Finding that these were inadequate to ensure a national unity, the Constitution was created in which each state gave up a bit more of its soverignty.

And now I'm off topic and at a loss as to how to keep the discussion focused on the DoI. So I'll back out, hoping others can find a way.



 Close Window