 DiLorenzo and others constantly refer to the Declaration of Independence as the authority for states to secede from the Union. Here is what the Declaration says about the matter:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
There is nothing in Jefferson's document that even comes close to supporting the secession of the southern states in 1860. The 'secession' was in fact an insurrection to protect the southern institution of slavery pure and simple. The south was the initiator of violence and no amount of quibbling about troops being moved here or there can change that. The south with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska was eager to expand its slave territory -- and no amount of quibbling can change that either.
As for damning Lincoln for the enormous loss of life -- no one at the time expected the war to last for any length of time.
You closed by saying, "The problem is, slavery was not the issue; Keeping the South in the Union in order to transfer its wealth to the North was the point." The issue was always slavery, the debate and animosity between North and South, Abolitionists and Slavers, building up for decades and being fought on the ground (in Kansas/Nebraska and by John Brown) and in the Supreme Court as well.  Commenté il y a 3899 jours |
