Slavery gave birth to America...

[5fish]

Our nation was given birth because of slavery. Our Southern partners join the revolution because they fear Domestic insurrection. Domestic insurrection is code for "slave revolt" which was threaten by the British leadership here in the colonies....

Read the last grievance in our Declaration of independence.....read below


He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


If the British leadership had not threaten to use slaves if war broke out with the colonies there is a better then good chance our Southern partners in the Revolution would have stayed loyal to the British crown.

The White Southern's fear of armed slaves was so great that it forced them to join forces with their Northern neighbors in war against the British crown...

Here is a link where the Royal Governor was threatening the use of slave if war broke out....

http://www.americanrevolution.org/blk.html

I want to point out that in the states that listed their grievances for seceding form the union in every case Domestic Insurrection was listed as one of the reason for the state to secede for the union. White Southerns' truly believe that Northerns' would ferment slave revolts if Lincoln as president...

White Southern fear of Domestic Insurrection led them to revolt against the British crown and a later this fear would cause them to break away form the union.

 

[5fish]

I argue that without slavery, the Southern colonies would not have supported the DoI. I do not see any noted firebrands in the south crying for freedom form England and if I remember right there were many more Troy's in the Southern colonies then in the Northern colonies.

At this time in the 1770's there was the Somerset decision(1772) form the King's Bench that freeing slaves within the British isles and the Royal Virginia governor(1775) calling for slaves to join the royal cause against the rebels.

See the Somerset case effects the colonies....

The Somersett case was reported in detail by the American press and in Massachusetts there were several attempts by slaves to obtain freedom in 1773–74, which were supported by the General Court but vetoed by successive Governors. As a result, paradoxically, both pro- and anti-slavery colonies, for opposite reasons, hoped for a rapid break with English law in order to achieve their goals with regard to slavery.[12]


Now, Look in 1776 comes along the the Continental Congress pushed by those firebrands form the Northern colonies to declare our independence form England...with the Declaration of Independence.

The Southern slave owners chose is way of live over their loyalty to the crown and their children one day in the future would chose their way of life over their loyalty to our Constitution, plunging our nation into war.

We are taught it was taxation without representation that cause us to break form England but like all victor's we conveniently forget slavery's roll in our cause to break with the crown.

Slavery helped give birth to our nation and soon for the same reasons slavery would cause the near death of our nation....

 

[5fish]

Jefferson did have an anti slavery paragraph in the DoI. It did survive the final cut due to Southern colonies protests … Independences trumps slavery...

Snip... it is below... https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery/

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation hither … And he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Snip... https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery/

When Thomas Jefferson included a passage attacking slavery in his draft of the Declaration of Independence it initiated the most intense debate among the delegates gathered at Philadelphia in the spring and early summer of 1776. Jefferson’s passage on slavery was the most important section removed from the final document. It was replaced with a more ambiguous passage about King George’s incitement of “domestic insurrections among us.” Decades later Jefferson blamed the removal of the passage on delegates from South Carolina and Georgia and Northern delegates who represented merchants who were at the time actively involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Snip...http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/lessonplan/slavery.html

Those who drafted the Declaration believed that it was better to remove the section dealing with slavery than risk a long debate over the issue of slavery. They needed the support for independence from the southern states. The clause itself was stricken out at the request of delegates from South Carolina, and Georgia, but with the agreement of New England states. The delegates recognized that the Declaration was going to result in war with England and that if the colonies were not united, they would not prevail. It was too big an issue for thirteen separate and independent colonies to tackle before they had even formed a country or won independence from England.

 

[5fish]

Do you all realize our nation embraced or united around slavery so the white people of our nation could win their liberty...

 

[5fish]

I was hoping for someone to respond but here people are touchy about the fact we sold out Black slave so White men in America could be free... This knowledge alone justifies reparation for Black Americans because we step on them for our freedoms... We(America) has to reparation yes for slavery, for Jim Crow, for Red Lines and now for our Freedom too...

 

[MattL]

I was hoping for someone to respond but here people are touchy about the fact we sold out Black slave so White men in America could be free... This knowledge alone justifies reparation for Black Americans because we step on them for our freedoms... We(America) has to reparation yes for slavery, for Jim Crow, for Red Lines and now for our Freedom too...

I don't think people aren't responding because they necessarily disagree, I agree in fact I just don't have anything to add (well and only so much time in the day).

I do agree that the fear of slave uprisings was a key factor in the American Revolution, as you said the Brittish crown offered freedom to slaves who fought on their side.

Other very selfish interests in our independence were the debt built up by planters and merchants (like Thomas Jefferson) to England. Additionally the desire of White settlers to further encroach on Native American lands, in which Britain started to limit (why people like the Cherokee sided with Britain during the Revolution).

 

[Joshism]

I think there is still an American Revolution in 1776 even if slavery is a smaller institution in the colonies or somehow nonexistent (and the latter scenario is almost impossible to reasonably imagine).

we sold out Black slave so White men in America could be free

Let's be realistic: they were already enslaved and belonged to another race. Why wouldn't they get sold out? It may be shocking to modern sensibilities, but it isn't really surprising in the big picture.

 

[5fish]

Here is Spooner... AI...

Lysander Spooner was an abolitionist lawyer who argued slavery was unconstitutional, primarily using contract law to claim the U.S. Constitution, as a "social contract" for "We the People," inherently guaranteed liberty, making slavery void as a violation of natural rights and the document's core principles, not just a moral wrong but a legal impossibility. His key work, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, contended that no legitimate contract or law could uphold human bondage, viewing the Constitution as a pact securing freedom for all signatories.
Spooner's Contract Law Argument:

• The Constitution as a Contract: Spooner treated the Constitution as a voluntary agreement, or contract, made by "We the People" to secure liberty, not to enable oppression.
• Inherent Rights: Because the contract established liberty for all parties, it couldn't legally sanction slavery, which is a fundamental violation of natural rights.
• Preamble's Role: He emphasized the Preamble ("secure the blessings of liberty") as the guiding principle, meaning any clause seemingly allowing slavery must be interpreted in light of this primary goal.
• No "Positive Law" for Slavery: He argued that even colonial laws permitting slavery were weak and often connived at, never a strong, explicit "positive law," and certainly not a constitutional one.

Impact:

• Spooner's rigorous logical and legal arguments, though sometimes seen as extreme, profoundly influenced abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, convincing them slavery was indeed unconstitutional before the Civil War.
• He challenged the prevailing view that the Constitution supported slavery, proposing instead that it was a "glorious liberty document" that inherently prohibited it.

 

[TomEvans]

[*]The Constitution as a Contract: Spooner treated the Constitution as a voluntary agreement, or contract, made by "We the People" to secure liberty, not to enable oppression.

Him and Karl Marx.... but neither one knew much.

The Constitution was ratified by each state's RESPECTIVE voters, for THEIR STATE ONLY, as the supreme national authority of a separate de jure sovereign nation, 13 in all.

And the US government never claimed that the Constitution ENDED the states' separate de jure national sovereignty to form a single de jure sovereign nation.

Accordingly, the Constitution was simply an international agreement among those sovereign nations; and was therefore binding on each state only as international law, ultimately subject to the supreme tribunal of each state's respective electorate.

So states and territories could refuse to enforce fugitive slave provisions, without federal military invasion to enforce them; but slave-states could likewise secede in protest.

What the US could NOT legally do; was claim national union, and declare secession as "treason" AGAINST it.

Rather, this was a self-coup by an international government to seize de facto national authority , against 34 de facto popularly-sovereign nations, by Total War and totalitarian suppression, destroying consent to government.

 

[5fish]

You're arguing with Spooner... Spooner is considered by many a great legal scholar... He has an argument and wrote on it... unlike you... He gives you a path for your arguments..

Lysander Spooner argued the Constitution isn't a true social contract binding everyone because it lacks universal, explicit consent; he showed it was only a contract among the original ratifiers (a small group from the past) and died with them, leaving subsequent generations free, as no individual freely consents to be governed by a past agreement, making government's authority coercive, not contractual, for most people. He insisted true contracts require mutual agreement, which the Constitution, imposed on the unconsenting majority, fails to provide, thus having no inherent moral authority over them.
Here's how he broke down his argument:

• Contract Law Principles: Spooner viewed the Constitution as a legal contract. A fundamental rule of contracts is that they bind only those who freely agree to them, and contracts can't bind future generations.
• Lack of Universal Consent: He argued that only a tiny fraction of the people who lived in 1787 actually consented to the Constitution. Most people were born into the system without ever explicitly agreeing to its terms.
• "We the People" Fiction: The phrase "We the People" in the Preamble didn't represent all people, but just the specific, limited group who ratified it, and they are all long dead.
• No Tacit Consent: Mere presence in a country or voting doesn't equal consent to be bound by the Constitution forever; consent must be explicit and voluntary, not assumed.
• Coercion vs. Contract: Since the government uses force (taxes, laws, punishments) to compel obedience from those who never consented, it operates on coercion, not a valid social contract, making its laws unjust for many.
• Contract Died with the Signers: The original contract ended when the initial signers died. Their children never signed, so they inherited no obligation, meaning the Constitution holds no binding power over them.

In essence, Spooner used contract law to reveal the Constitution as a historical document that had lost its contractual force, leaving the government with no legitimate authority over those who never agreed to it

 

[5fish]

Rather, this was a self-coup by an international government to seize de facto national authority , against 34 de facto popularly-sovereign nations, by Total War and totalitarian suppression, destroying consent to government.

We need to end this self-coup nonsense...


The claim that the Lincoln presidency was the first modern self-coup in history is not supported by historical or legal analyses; his actions during the Civil War, while controversial and an expansion of presidential power, are largely viewed as measures taken to preserve the Union during an unprecedented rebellion, and they were subject to legal and political checks.

Analysis of the Claim

• Definition of a Self-Coup: A self-coup (or autocoup) typically involves the head of state dissolving or rendering the national legislature powerless and unlawfully assuming extraordinary powers to establish a dictatorship or an authoritarian regime, often without a clear mechanism for a return to constitutional governance or elections.
• Lincoln's Actions: Lincoln did take controversial, unilateral actions at the start of the Civil War to address the emergency, such as suspending the writ of habeas corpus and expanding the use of military courts for civilians in certain areas. He argued these steps were a necessary use of his presidential war powers to preserve the nation, citing the constitutional provision that allows for the suspension of habeas corpus "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it".
• Constitutional Context and Checks: Lincoln's actions were heavily contested by the judiciary and Congress.
  • Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, in Ex parte Merryman, ruled that only Congress had the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, a ruling Lincoln effectively ignored, arguing necessity in a time of national crisis.
  • Congress later passed the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act in 1863, which retroactively authorized Lincoln's power to suspend the writ and gave legislative approval for his actions, demonstrating that the legislative branch was still functional and asserting its role.
• Continuation of Democracy: Throughout the war, democratic processes continued. A presidential election was held in 1864, which Lincoln won, and power remained in the hands of the people through the vote, undermining the idea of a coup. After the war, presidential authority decreased, and the courts and Congress reasserted their influence.

Ultimately, while Lincoln's actions significantly expanded presidential power and sparked lasting constitutional debate, they were aimed at suppressing an internal rebellion and preserving the existing government and Constitution, rather than overthrowing them. The historical consensus views the South's secession as an unconstitutional act of treason and the war as an effort to restore the Union, not a self-coup by the president.

 

[TomEvans]

We need to end this self-coup nonsense...

True, it's been going on for 160 years, and de jure national sovereignty must be restored to the electorates of each de jure sovereign state, so that they may once again consent to their government.

The US government's legal argument, legally depends on Lincoln's false historical allegation that the states formed a de jure national union in 1776 which was political superior to the states from that point forward.

However this is wholly invalidated by the fact that the states declared 13 de jure sovereign nations in 1776, and FORMED 13 de jure sovereign nations in 1783; and likewise the fact that the respective state ELECTORATES unilaterally dissolved the Confederation in order to form a NEW SECOND union under the Constitution, which only required a minimum of nine states to carry it into effect BETWEEN THOSE RATIFYING STATES ONLY--- in full spite of the fact that the Confederation expressly bound each state to inviolably observe its provisions, and to any change requiring unanimous consent of the state legislatures.

Accordingly, the US government made NO valid legal argument of de jure national sovereignty, over ANY state.

Any analysis which claims that this was not a self-coup, is speaking strictly to the de facto authority seized by self-coup, while de jure national sovereignty belongs to the individual states, which SUPERSEDES such domestic de facto claims in international law hierarchy.

By law, the 1861–1865 actions constituted an illegitimate self-coup enforcing a false perpetual union—the military enforcement and Reconstruction occupation did not "legally change" state sovereignty (as no superior national authority legitimately existed to do so). Rather, it imposed de facto control through hostile occupation, suppressing the sovereign status of the states by force while retroactively denying their independence under a fabricated legal narrative. The states' de jure national sovereignty remained intact in principle but was overridden by conquest, with occupation serving as the mechanism to enforce the illegitimate consolidation.

his actions during the Civil War, while controversial and an expansion of presidential power, are largely viewed as measures taken to preserve the Union during an unprecedented rebellion, and they were subject to legal and political checks.

An INTERNATIONAL "union," which the US government claimed was always political superior to the states from its inception in 1776 onward; but this claim is wholly invalidated by the historical fact of each states de jure national sovereignty at that time, and which the US government NEVER CLAIMS was ever changed from 13 de jure sovereign nations to a single de jure sovereign nation or de jure national union.

Therefore these claims are purely de facto, NOT de jure national sovereignty; and thus are invalidated AS a self-coup by the international law hierarchy-- NOT a civil war or treasonous rebellion, insurrection, or any other such self-validating postbellum self-coup label.

So whatever the self-validating de facto claims by the self-coup or its lapdog "scholars;" the fact remains that de jure national sovereignty supersedes it in the international law hierarchy-- regardless of whether it's 160 years or 10,000.

The states simply NEVER CONSENTED to a de jure national union which would be their political superior; since they wanted to ESCAPE non-consensual government (by establishing each state as a de jure sovereign nation that was supremely ruled by its respective electorate); they did NOT want to make it inescapable like Lincoln did.

And so they had NO desire to form a national union, which could lawfully make Total War on any state, at the whim of the others-- let alone one where the electorate could only choose their supreme rulers, to compete against those of the other states.

If they wanted that, they could have skipped the whole Revolution; since it was no different for the South to be outvoted in Congress by the North, than for the colonists to be unrepresented in Parliament--- SAME RESULT.

They NEVER formed a national union; only federal, i.e. INTERNATIONAL.

No matter how many times you've heard it; again, that's de facto only.

 

[5fish]

Any analysis which claims that this was not a self-coup, is speaking strictly to the de facto authority seized by self-coup, while de jure national sovereignty belongs to the individual states, which SUPERSEDES such domestic de facto claims in international law hierarchy.

Some of the anti-secession arguments in 1860...

Opponents of Southern secession in the 1850s and during the Civil War used several legal and constitutional theories to argue that states could not unilaterally leave the Union. The core argument was that the Union was a perpetual and indissoluble body that predated the states themselves.
Key legal theories included:

• Perpetuity of the Union: This argument, strongly advanced by President Abraham Lincoln and later validated by the Supreme Court, stated that the Union was intended to be permanent. Proponents pointed to the language in the Articles of Confederation that described the Union as "perpetual" and noted the U.S. Constitution was created to form "a more perfect Union," not a temporary association.
• The Constitution as a Binding Contract: Lincoln argued that the Constitution was a binding compact that could not be unilaterally broken by only one of the parties involved. Secession would effectively violate the agreement and cause damage to the other states by nullifying treaties, trade agreements, and other multi-state obligations.
• National Sovereignty vs. States' Rights: Unionists contended that the federal government derived its authority directly from "We the People of the United States," as stated in the Preamble, rather than from the individual state governments. This "nationalist" view held that ultimate sovereignty rested with the American people as a whole, not with individual states.
• Secession as Anarchy: A practical and political argument was that allowing unilateral secession after an unfavorable election would lead to anarchy, as any disgruntled minority could simply leave the nation, rendering the concept of majority rule and constitutional republican government non-viable.
• Lack of Constitutional Provision: Opponents emphasized that the Constitution included a detailed process for adding new states but made no provision for a state to leave, implying it was not a permissible action.

Ultimately, the legal question was settled by the outcome of the Civil War and the subsequent Supreme Court case Texas v. White (1869), which ruled that states were part of an "indestructible Union" and that secession was unconstitutional.

 

[TomEvans]

Some of the anti-secession arguments in 1860...

Opponents of Southern secession in the 1850s and during the Civil War used several legal and constitutional theories to argue that states could not unilaterally leave the Union. The core argument was that the Union was a perpetual and indissoluble body that predated the states themselves.
Key legal theories included:

• Perpetuity of the Union: This argument, strongly advanced by President Abraham Lincoln and later validated by the Supreme Court, stated that the Union was intended to be permanent. Proponents pointed to the language in the Articles of Confederation that described the Union as "perpetual" and noted the U.S. Constitution was created to form "a more perfect Union," not a temporary association.
• The Constitution as a Binding Contract: Lincoln argued that the Constitution was a binding compact that could not be unilaterally broken by only one of the parties involved. Secession would effectively violate the agreement and cause damage to the other states by nullifying treaties, trade agreements, and other multi-state obligations.
• National Sovereignty vs. States' Rights: Unionists contended that the federal government derived its authority directly from "We the People of the United States," as stated in the Preamble, rather than from the individual state governments. This "nationalist" view held that ultimate sovereignty rested with the American people as a whole, not with individual states.
• Secession as Anarchy: A practical and political argument was that allowing unilateral secession after an unfavorable election would lead to anarchy, as any disgruntled minority could simply leave the nation, rendering the concept of majority rule and constitutional republican government non-viable.
• Lack of Constitutional Provision: Opponents emphasized that the Constitution included a detailed process for adding new states but made no provision for a state to leave, implying it was not a permissible action.

[/I]

All of this only claimed to CONTINUE the "national union" that was supposedly formed in 1776, and which was political superior to the states; and so they all fail WITH it.

Ultimately, the legal question was settled by the outcome of the Civil War and the subsequent Supreme Court case Texas v. White (1869), which ruled that states were part of an "indestructible Union" and that secession was unconstitutional.

De facto only; which is superseded by de jure national sovereignty in the international law hierarchy; via the historical fact that the states HAD no political superior in 1776.

I've explained this to you countless times, but I'm not going to argue the law with you--- that really IS how it WORKS.

If you want to believe that sovereign nations can be legally conquered by their international unions by self-coup, then you're just ignorant of the facts.

 

[5fish]

e facto only; which is superseded by de jure national sovereignty in the international law hierarchy; via the historical fact that the states HAD no political superior in 1776

Again, you're spelling dogma, not facts. There's no international hierarchy in 1770...

 

[TomEvans]

Again, you're spelling dogma, not facts. There's no international hierarchy in 1770...

What part of "free, sovereign and independent STATES" do you NOT understand?

 

[5fish]

What part of "free, sovereign and independent STATES" do you NOT understand?

They gave it all up, all of it to create the United States of America, so it is you who does not understand it...

 

[TomEvans]

They gave it all up, all of it

So you admit that they HAD it; while the US government does NOT claim that the states gave it up-- which means that they DIDN'T give it up.

to create the United States of America, so it is you who does not understand it...

"The United States of America" is a generic descriptive title which was used in 1776, 1781, and 1787, to refer to different INTERNATIONAL UNIONS of the free, sovereign and independent states in the American continent, specifically the original 13 free, sovereign and independent states pertaining to the American Revolution; and those recognized afterward.

So the only free, sovereign and independent states, were the INDIVIDUAL states themselves-- NEVER the Unions that they formed.

 

[5fish]

So the only free, sovereign and independent states, were the INDIVIDUAL states themselves-- NEVER the Unions that they formed.

Silly bear... You are an American, you follow the Constitution, you fight for the United States, you pay taxes to the United States, and you live within the borders of the nation called The United States... Our forefathers fought and died create the United States. Our forefathers fought and died to keep a more perfect union... You noticed I never mention one state's name... I live in Florida, and I may be a Floridian, but I am an American first...

 

[TomEvans]

Silly bear... You are an American, you follow the Constitution, you fight for the United States, you pay taxes to the United States, and you live within the borders of the nation called The United States... Our forefathers fought and died create the United States. Our forefathers fought and died to keep a more perfect union...

That was never the agreement.

You noticed I never mention one state's name... I live in Florida

Mystery solved.