Valar13, on 10 July 2015 - 08:51 PM, said:
If I may interject, how many of those said letters also mention Constitution and rights violation? (Not number of times the words were used in the entire document, but how many of the letters say its about that.)
Yes. Slavery was an issue for the topic. But it wasn't the only thing it was about. Read the documents in an open minded manner. To give in points, Mississippi:
"...none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun" They literally thought (at that time at least) that if any other 'race' tried to work the fields, that they would die from sun exposure. And that only the "Black Race" could survive such exposure.
Get into their mindset, as well as that of the rest of the world and the relatively recent past of the world at that time, especially about slavery. Back then, black people were considered a completely different race. They weren't even seen as human (of course, we know differently). They were considered a completely different race. Different like a horse to a donkey. (If I'm correct...) They even had laws against whites and blacks from breeding, considering it on the level of a "human" (white person for the record by their accounts) preforming sex with a cow. It was considered immoral to even see them in that kind of concept.
Then, if you continue reading: "
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." They seriously thought their entire civilization was at risk. Looking at possible destruction, and seeing it as a breach of their Constitutional rights (which is mentioned as well in their article) to block a state from being able to choose for itself if it wanted to be a free or a slave state.
"...and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst." They were also afraid of freed slaves who were given the same rights as a white "human" to rebel, take all their jobs, and bankrupt them. All legitimate fears, to them.
Georgia: "
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic." They tried to peacefully talk it out for ten years. I wouldn't call them a succession group bent on destroying the Federal Government after trying to peacefully solve their problems..
South Carolina: "...
declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union..." They saw it as a breach of their rights as a state. Even though the topic was Slavery, their issue was state rights and how much are their rights in relation to the Federal Government. They didn't surprise the Union with attacks. They withdrew from the Union first. The Union didn't want that to happen (and so did much of the South as well which is why they waited so long before leaving). By all accounts, the Confederate States actually pursued their own Constitutional Rights to leave the Union as a whole.
On the other side, as I've stated before that I don't disagree to some extent about the Confederate flag, it technically was a breach of the Constitution to even have Slavery at all, as it breached the slaves rights granted to them by that very same Constitution. However, for that to actually apply, the slaves had to be seen as Human first. I do agree that there is a taint of slavery about the flag, but I can't agree that it's what the flag stands for either. I can see it's removal from government buildings (which was all that was suppose to be done), but I don't believe it should be prohibited for sale or for public display, as that would infringe upon our constitutional rights of self expression (which like all rights extends until it infringes upon someone else's rights).
Makes me wonder, what would happen when the first actual sentient computer is created? Would it have rights under our laws? Or if we actually had an open alien visitation? Would the aliens have rights under our laws? Just like with slaves, it may become a point of contention amongst people. Is a computer a thing, even if it can think for itself? Does it have any rights, even though it isn't classified as a "living" being? Could it be punished for breaking a "human" law? Can it be owned, or can it own other things? Could it, say, run for President or have a job? What rights would it have?
3
This topic is locked
