Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: liege

A house divided cannot stand.

It’s rather silly, when the country is in danger, to go back to the civil war. The South did not win. We ‘are’ one country. The best country on the planet. It’s useless speculation that solves nothing and sounds a bit whiney.


17 posted on 03/15/2010 10:47:34 AM PDT by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it*s the new black. Mmm Mmm Mmm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ReneeLynn

The question is whether or not we are a Federal Country, or a National Country. The difference is in the role of the State in relation to the federal/national government; in one it is fully subservient and inferior to the federal/national government, while in the other the State is a sovereign entity which has given the federal/national government s specific list of powers and agrees to abide by its rulings on those powers.

To put it another way:
In the National model the National government is the slave-owner of the state and the state MUST comply with its commands/rules/decrees.
In the Federal system the Federal government is like unto an expert given free-reign over his field of expertise by the manager/project-lead who is the State.


40 posted on 03/15/2010 11:22:22 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: ReneeLynn
"It’s rather silly, when the country is in danger, to go back to the civil war. The South did not win. We ‘are’ one country. The best country on the planet. It’s useless speculation that solves nothing and sounds a bit whiney."

Actually, we are 50 sovereign states, a number of protectorates, and other territories under the umbrella of a large federation, an empire, if you will. If we were, indeed, one nation, there would be no need for individual state (as in nation-state) governments and bureaucracies; the federal government would simply administer everything. It is within our charter as sovereign states the ability to withdraw from the Union. Don't believe the bullshit you were fed in school.

Lincoln was a tyrant and a white supremacist, as can easily be gleaned from his own writings. He would not allow the Southern states to go their own way because that would diminish the power of the federal government, his government. His Emancipation Proclamation was an effort to begin an insurgency within the South as a means to force the CSA military to fight two wars. It remains an effective strategy.

Lincoln had every intention of sending freed slaves back to their land of origin, which the Nation of Islam has been demanding for years, by the way. His intention was to ship them to Liberia failing identification of the land of origin. Lincoln did not want them as slaves, true, but he also did not want them here.

41 posted on 03/15/2010 11:24:19 AM PDT by ronnyquest (That's what governments are for: to get in a man's way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: ReneeLynn

Respectfully, I have to disagree. I have nothing in common with libs/progs on either coast. Keep in mind, many empires have divided and been the better for it. The list of dissolved empires and former countries, is too long to list. The time for divorce from libs and progs grows daily closer, imho.


92 posted on 03/15/2010 1:37:09 PM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson