I asked myself a question the other day. "What if the South had won?" That got me to really thinking about a few things. For the past few years I have heard several thoughts on the issue of state vs federal and big vs small government. I have asked myself, "Who has the true power?" We are supposed to be a united country: The United States of America. Yet I ask you, who or what unites us? The very documents that established this country say, "We, the People..." So the union is kept together by the people. We are governed by the people for the sake of the people. Not the government governs for the sake of the govenrment.
What this has to do with the Civil War is this, the South was right. Not about slavery. Slavery is VERY wrong. But they are right about the issue of state rights. You see, the outward cause for the war may have been the issue of slavery but the real reason was that the Federal government started taxing the southern states without hearing their voice. Much like the way England did to us. During the "revolutionary" days, the colonials were patriotic englishmen. They did not want to start a war. They did not want to leave England. They just wanted equal say in government. That is all that the South wanted. When they did not get it, they esentially, "deradified" the Constitution.
What did radifing the Constitution do for the state? It gave them protection from outside nations. It also protected the states from each other. The Contitution was radified by selected represenatives from each state to agree to the contract. They had to agree to the stipulations contained within the Constitution. So the loyalty is to all of the other states. The parties of the contract were the people of each state. In a normal contract between two or more people, if the contract becomes void because someone has violated the terms, the contract is broken and restitution is to be made.
The process of a territory becoming a state now requires an Enabling Act. The Federal Congress votes on the Act and if is accepted, the territory becomes a state. So the territory first agrees to the Constituion and then the other states agree to allowing the territory to become part of the Union. In a contract, each party need to sign the contract to make it binding. But sometimes, a party can default or break the contract. If a party does not uphold their part of the contract, then the contract is void. Why does this not aply to te Constitution? It is a contract. If the Federal government violates the contract, should that then make the "contract" with the state void? Or atleast give them the option of backing out.
Our Federal government has taken many of our state rights and not just the current health care plan, but the appointment of senators by the state government, education, taxation, and many more that would take a while to expound apon.
I am not saying that the South should have seceded. I am not saying that they should not have fought for their rights. I simply beleive they had a right to leave the Union if the contact was broken. I wish the issue of slavery had not been so hyped up to over shadow the true issue of state rights. A solution was not reached. Yet now we live where our states and our people cant walk away from the contract with the rest of the states if the government violates it.
Do adn think what you will on my blog. Just know that I am a patriot and love my country just as the colonials did in their time. God Bless the US!
No comments:
Post a Comment