|View single post by Texas Defender|
|Posted: Wed Dec 16th, 2009 08:07 am||
When I returned to posting on this thread, my objective was to contest your statement made on 28 November that: ".....in their hearts and minds, the leaders of secession knew that they had no moral, political, or legal ground to justify their attempt at rebellion."
You admitted the inaccuracy of this statement on your posting of 29 November. This could have ended the exchange. But the discussion then evolved to the question of secession. My objective in this case became to explain the reasoning of the: "leaders of secession" and their justification for seceding.
I had no interest in arguing the morality of slavery or the validity of the southern leaders' reasons for resorting to secession, or whether or not they might have prevailed in a case in a federal court. Those are matters of opinion as I previously stated. I pursued more limited objectives here. I believe that I have achieved these objectives in my postings since 29 November.
Now in your posting of 15 December, you asked me for examples from ordinances of secession in which states justified secession based on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the US Constitution. I believe that I gave you an excellent example in the Kentucky Ordinance.
In your posting on 16 December, you pretended to not see any relationship in the language. My response to that was to post the texts of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments for the basis of comparison.
After posting that, I noticed that you had amended your previous posting by adding, among other things, a reference (and link) to the various ordinances of secession, along with a condescending remark about: "helping" me identify which states based secession on the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Apparently, you want me to analyze all the various ordinances. This I have no intention of doing.
If you did not believe that the southern leaders justified secession based on the Amendments cited (And I cannot see how a reasonable person would take that position), then you simply could have agreed to disagree. Instead, it is apparent that you prefer to be an agent provocateur on this thread.
As I believe that I've met my stated objectives here, I'll get out of the way so that you might find other targets. Endless wrangling holds no appeal for me.
Last edited on Wed Dec 16th, 2009 09:36 am by Texas Defender