The South was right. על אלה רגזה הארץ על עבד כי ימלוך the verse [Proverbs] says that "Because of what shakes the ground? Because of a slave when he rules." So you see the problem with having a slave rule. This I saw in the last presidency, and for that reason stopped looking at the news. For when a slave rules everything is destroyed.
However I admit that keeping the Union together was important. But to wage war on the South because of an unjust reason makes no sense. It would have been better to negotiate their reentry into the Union. Or else perhaps just leave things alone. After all the USA and Canada are neighbors. Would it have made sense to go to war with Canada just because they did not want to be part of the Union?
Besides that you can wonder if any slaves are actually free? The Federal government was never endowed with power to take private property at random. The Congress can tax but simply to declare a persons property to no longer belong to him is not among the powers given to the Federal Government. (Nor does an amendment to free them apply when the South was forced to agree. Being forced to agree is not the same thing as agreeing.) Slaves can be set free by a document signed by the owner or by money or by injury of limb. But other than that they remain slaves.
And I want to add that the whole idea of slavery being inherently wrong seems false since now blacks are enslaving whites. [So clearly they do not think slavery is wrong.]] Not just making whites work for blacks by means of the welfare state, but now literally trying to enslave the whites. So the whole idea of slavery being wrong is not an sincere argument. Of course I think this was their intention all along as they told me openly many years ago.
Of course if whites submit, then they deserve what they get. Rather it makes more sense to resist. Do not submit under any circumstances whatsoever.
[I would think that there ought to be laws that people can protect their property. What is after all the point of the second amendment of not for that very reason. Not to grant a right, but rather to recognize a natural right a person has to property their person and property?
However I admit that keeping the Union together was important. But to wage war on the South because of an unjust reason makes no sense. It would have been better to negotiate their reentry into the Union. Or else perhaps just leave things alone. After all the USA and Canada are neighbors. Would it have made sense to go to war with Canada just because they did not want to be part of the Union?
Besides that you can wonder if any slaves are actually free? The Federal government was never endowed with power to take private property at random. The Congress can tax but simply to declare a persons property to no longer belong to him is not among the powers given to the Federal Government. (Nor does an amendment to free them apply when the South was forced to agree. Being forced to agree is not the same thing as agreeing.) Slaves can be set free by a document signed by the owner or by money or by injury of limb. But other than that they remain slaves.
And I want to add that the whole idea of slavery being inherently wrong seems false since now blacks are enslaving whites. [So clearly they do not think slavery is wrong.]] Not just making whites work for blacks by means of the welfare state, but now literally trying to enslave the whites. So the whole idea of slavery being wrong is not an sincere argument. Of course I think this was their intention all along as they told me openly many years ago.
Of course if whites submit, then they deserve what they get. Rather it makes more sense to resist. Do not submit under any circumstances whatsoever.
[I would think that there ought to be laws that people can protect their property. What is after all the point of the second amendment of not for that very reason. Not to grant a right, but rather to recognize a natural right a person has to property their person and property?
