Posted by New Kid on September 23, 1998 at 06:08:37:
In Reply to: What the supreme Law means to me. posted by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. on September 22, 1998 at 00:17:07:
A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.
"...By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly
murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed
praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.
They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.
They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.
They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.
They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State... "
Paul, what do you do with a Congress who disregards the Constitution in favor of a "higher law", such that it causes them to disregard their oath? While the issue of slavery is debateable, these were legitimate grevances submitted before Congress [in particular, Northern Congressmen] to which they ignored. The only recouse felt by those who's rights had been trampled upon was succession. To which Lincoln resonded with an act of War. Thus entered the law of nations, under the law of war. All they wanted was to secure the rights they had been guarranteed under the Constitution. If they had redress under the judiciary, don't you think they would have done that?
Post a Followup