Clark wrote:I really agree with your stance on bush they are trying to make him look like Hitler or muslin. There is one thing I don’t agree with you about AND PLEASE NO ONE TAKE OFFENCE IM NOT FOR SLAVERY. I think Buchanan was in the right. The United States was in fact supposed to be just that states who banded together for military purposes as far as a federal basis goes. He was just going on the intentions of the for fathers and the constitution. Any state should have been free to leave the union. Buchanan basically said he wanted to stop them from leaving but it was not legal according to the constitution.
I don't think we have any real deep seeded disagreement here, but just to explore the subject a little more.
- "The United States was in fact supposed to be just that states who banded together for military purposes as far as a federal basis goes"
True, we were formed as a Confederacy where anyone could leave and the only real function was defense. But aren't you ignoring that wasn't working other then throwing the Brits off the saddle and we signed the Constitution? While the Feds should be doing a lot less, it goes well beyond just defense. It also contains no provision for States leaving. And consider if they leave there is no provision for denying US citizens in those states Constitutional rights.
- "I think Buchanan was in the right."
Where I disagree with you on this is you sound like it was a plan on his part. I think he didn't want to deal with it and didn't. The South was clearly arming and fortifying, and he dealt with it by backing down and treading water until he could pass the mess off to Lincoln. War may have already been inevitable, but it was certainly worse then had the South been dealt with earlier. The US government had the authority to extend military control in the South, which was US territory, and instead actively avoided it under Buchanan allowing the South to act as a country in a country and prepare to revolt.
- "Any state should have been free to leave the union."
Pre-Constitution they could and post-Constitution there was no provision. We were the same people who joined a union freely. This is not like Tibet or Chechnya which were conquered and assimilated. If by "should" you mean "had the right" I don't know what you're basing it on once they ratified the Constitution.