Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (348238)	1/27/2003 2:01:28 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 769670

Well the fact is, WV came about because of a hostile party, an enemy of the nation. So there was, disputably, law allowing for the "confiscation," so to speak. It was a time when the very rule of American law was being threatened. So, yes. You are correct. If Virginia wished to complain about WV on the basis of the Constitution, it had to accept the rest of the Constitution. This is not the only issue where a hypocritical claim to state's right was made by the South. Read about the Fugitive Slave Act. And it's a very odd thing that a region, the South, which supposedly believed in states' rights and local autonomy, pressed for this law which allowed the federal government to completely override the legal processes in the North: to send marshals in, to avoid the local courts, and to just seize people (they might be free born) and just drag them into the South as slaves. It shows that the South didn't believe in states' rights. It believed in slavery. States' rights was a defense of slavery. But when active federal power was needed to defend slavery, they were perfectly happy to utilize that also. pbs.org