Talk:Slavery and States' Rights

Untitled
Lir, both the location of where this speech was given and its broader context may be helpful. user:sjc

Webster simply didn't know what he was talking about, or else deliberately chose to present a false analogy. His logic is valid in terms of ordinary contract law, but not of feudal relationships - which are what have passed down into this sort of constitutional and international law. With those, it is not like contract law at all. Contract law roughly says that the keeping of a promise is exchanged for the keeping of another promise, but feudal law says that the making of a promise is exchanged for the making of another promise, with the keeping being separately enforced and independent of the keeping of the other. (There is the possibility of a loophole, in that each promise may itself say "...provided the other promise is kept".) All this comes from the fact that there is no outside supporting and enforcing framework, unlike contracts within a polity. PML.

- What is "nationalist" supposed to mean in this context? How will the average well-informed reader have any clue to what the original writer intended to convey? P0M 23:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Probably means Lost Cause. Edited to reflect that. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is this article here?
Wikipedia doesn't treat every speech made in Congress as notable. This article simply summarizes the content of the speech, much of it in paraphrase surrounded by quotation marks. The speech was delivered in a committee hearing about an unrelated matter. More information about the context is needed. There is not even an assertion that this was an influential "Lost Cause" speech, at a time when rhetoric like this was commonplace among southern Democratic Party politicians. Without more context, I see no reason to keep this article. -- ℜ ob C. alias ALAROB 18:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)