Posted on 09/05/2006 4:23:20 PM PDT by wagglebee
Okay. if this is an indication of your grasp of history, then argument is pointless. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the slave states in the Confederate South, (ignore those slave states in the Union North behind the curtain).
"If you strike out against injustice, and the injustice is evil enough, you lie to live and fight another day. Respected? The Resistance movements across Europe, both against the Nazis and against the Soviet Empire, lied through their teeth every day. The CIA operatives in foreign lands lie through their teeth. Respected? Yes, they are respected, at least by anybody who has his head screwed on straight. "
Yes, but the Resistance never acknowledged any power of the Nazis except the gun. When these students write 'letters of apology' (however tongue-in-cheek) they are acknowledging that their cause is not important enough to go to prison over. Dying is one thing - you can't keep fighting after you're dead. While you're alive and in prison you are a very important symbol. Like Nelson Mandela.
"The maggotry are not willing to kill, and their form of peaceful disturbance will never change anything, because we all know we can disregard them, and do. "
Nonviolent resistance never solves anything? See India, the civil rights movement, the Soviet Union's fall, and all of the positive actions of the Nazi Resistance (the violent resisters simply died gloriously; the nonviolent ones saved thousands of lives). Almost all major positive change has been perpetrated by bloodless coups. Which is why I have no respect for terrorism. I have never seen a terrorist act in a case where all peaceful alternatives have been exhausted. And, given terrorism's propensity to propagate even more violence, it is doubly unforgivable.
They are only holding to their religious beliefs. Abortion and the pill are two of the sacraments. Just wait till they get around to involuntary castration (and they will).
After watching the left describe Terri Schiavo's torturous death as "euphoric" and "beautiful," it became very clear to me that what they did in the future will probably horrify and disgust me, but it won't surprise me.
Great posts. I want you on my team or to be on your team whenever a war might break out.
Vicomte13: OTOH, Redgolum and TradicalRC have the better analysis on the War Between the States. The late unpleasantness resulted from the unconstitutional attack of the "Union" against the lawfully seceding states.
There was no right of any state to secede except in the minds of demented Slavers who attacked the American nation.
They were appropriatedly dealt with but only after dragging the millions of non-Slavers into their dementia.
Slaver insanity ruined the South for over a century. Thank God for Abraham Lincoln.
Next, noting that the federales have the power ONLY to do what the constitution specifically reserves to the federales and leaving EVERYTHING ELSE to the states and the people respectively, show me WHERE in the TEXT of the constitution, as of 1861, the federales were specifically authorized to attack and conquer states exercising their right to secede or to deprive the conquered of their property without due process of law by presidential fatwa, however philosophically disreputable the form of property holding.
Your post is one more proof that liberals like the letter of the law BUT ONLY when it produces results they like and otherwise cavalierly ignore the law when inconvenient to their imaginings.
Your legally incoherent theory denying without any authority whatsoever the constitutional right to secede suggests a belief that the Commonwealth of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations could reject the constitution on several occasions and yet eventually ratify but that ratification, once cast, exhausts the state's ability to decide. Where is ratification itself so favored IN THE LANGUAGE of the constitution over refusal to ratify or over secession?
I would also refer you to the Articles of Confederation which required unanimity of the existing states to implement a new government (such as the current constitutional regime). The new "government" was instituted about three years BEFORE Rhode Island was bludgeoned into submission. That the constitutional convention claimed that 3/4 would be sufficient did not change the provisions of the Articles which governed at the time.
No one is suggesting re-instituting slavery but the Emancipation Proclamation itself a gross constitutional crime does not justify itself much less the rest of Lincoln's crimes. Lincoln was essentially John Brown with a lot more firepower, a lot more casualties, a lot more lawlessness and no better legal analysis. Bobby Lee rightfully assisted by J.E.B. Stuart and the US Marines hanged John Brown after Harper's Ferry. Lincoln was a smoother John Brown.
I will concede to you that Lincoln was a better man in that last year and that, after Mr. Booth's improvident behavior and its results, the nation suffered from his assassination (particularly the Southland) as the Southland fell under the knout of the likes of Pennsylvania's Thaddeus Stevens, and the New England Transcendentalist, Unitarian nutcases. Fortunately, the republic survived and, weather being destiny, has become near dominant in presidential politics and quite influential in Congress. The Arkansas Antichrist was a counterfeit Southerner.
The last Northern Demonrat elected was 46 years ago. And before him 62 years ago. Without the Southland, no Republican is electable. Without the Southland, the Congress would be the People's Soviet.
Lincoln was unfit to clean the latrines of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson. J.E.B. Stuart or James Longstreet.
The tenth amendment has no bearing upon any "right" of secession.
There is no question of the Federal government to put down insurrections and revolts. There is no power of any state to withdraw from the Union according to Madison. There is also no power that a state retained to attack federal installations and forces. States are EXPLICITLY forbidden from joining together in pacts, compacts or alliances WITHOUT Congressional approval. States are EXPLICITLY forbidden to create armies and navies. Thus, there is plenty within the document to prohibit secession.
Those who broke the law and attacked the Union had their property taken. Nothing wrong about that. Although humans could not truly be property in any case.
Refusal to ratify as RI and NC did initially meant that the new Government would not force them to join. But no one believed those refusals were anything but temporary anomalies. But the National government had essentially ceased to exist so the legal niceties had no relevence in any case. Congress could not even obtain a quorum for months at a time.
Your other ravings are not worthy of response.
The revolutionary war was a war of secession. So was the civil war. I guess it depends on whether you win or not.
"The revolutionary war was a war of secession. So was the civil war. I guess it depends on whether you win or not."
Correct.
Winning is everything.
"Conquest grants a title which the courts of the conqueror are bound to respect." - John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States.
Not really. There was no government erected with the consent of the governed in 1776. There were Royal Governors appointed by the King answerable ONLY to him in most of the colonies. All were governed by charters the people had no day in creating or approving. There was NO representation in the legistature. No accountability at all.
In 1861 there was a constitutional government created and approved by the American People. There were states with constitutionally elected governors and legislatures answerable ONLY to the people and representing ONLY the people. There was NO oppression of the South. Indeed, the leaders of the Nation had been Southern by an large margin, the legislature had been controlled by the South for almost our entire history, the Courts were dominated by Southern justices.
There is NO valid comparision equating conditions in 1776 and 1861. Nice try at moral equivalency though.
2. Madison's opinions have no relevance in the absence of ambiguity. The Tenth Amendment is not ambiguous.
3. Get some reading lessons and dive into Amendment Ten once again. You will figure it out eventually.
4. After the reading lessons, get around to reading the Articles of Confederation on the subject of what was necessary to amend or replace same.
5. Fort Sumter ceased to be federal territory on the day of South Carolina's secession. On that day, the people of South Carolina ceased to be subject to "union" law and NOTHING in the TEXT of the constitution says otherwise. Further, the later enactment would control over the earlier enactment IF they disagree. The Tenth Amendment, in the event of any conflict, controls over the rigging constitution. If you are a lawyer, you know that. If not, you know it now. Subsequently the "union" responded by murdering many thousands of them and both destroying and stealing their property as punishment for resisting the "union" invasion (as in the other ten Confederate states) Union military trespassers were able to stop trespassing on sovereign territory of South Carolina but failed to do so.
6. Fort Pickens ceased to be federal territory on the day that Florida seceded. Union military trespassers were free to stop trespassing on sovereign territory of Florida.
7. If any of 1-6 make no sense to you, get more reading lessons as necessary until you understand the printed word.
8. If Stonewall Jackson had lived to participate at Gettysburg, Lincoln probably would have had to use his best rhetorical skill to avoid the hangman's noose for presiding over the utterly illegal and unjustified attack on the Confederate States of America, the wanton slaughter of its people and the reckless campaign of property destruction waged by Sherman in his campaign of war crimes to the sea.
9. I am still waiting for you to provide the language of the TEXT of the constitution that prohibits secession in spite of the clear and unambiguous language of the Tenth Amendment. Of course, I shall continue waiting since there is NO SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT prohibiting secession any more than there is constitutional language to guarantee a right to slaughter unborn children, to require that Bruce and Lance be allowed to "marry" one another whatever mere state laws might provide, much less to adopt children together, to allow the federales to create pervert "rights" or to grant to the federales any sayso whatsoever over gummint misedjamakashun, among many other matters.
10. Lincoln arose from the big government Whig Party which succeeded the long discredited Federalist Party. In his one and only term in Congress, he disgraced himself on the matter of the Mexican War by standing in the well of the House whining away with flapdoodle to the effect that: "This chamber stands knee deep in blood....", blah, blah, blah, a speech ripped off (without attribution) by no other than George McGovern in his insane rants against the efforts of our government to prevent communist control of Vietnam. Then, twelve years or so later, elected with 39% of the vote in a four-way race and by a majority of electoral college votes, Lincoln eagerly dived into presiding over the greatest martial bloodbath in American history.
11. One may argue (as Lincoln did not) that Lincoln was waging war to end slavery or one may argue (as Lincoln did not) that he was waging war to uphold protective tariffs or one may argue (as Lincoln did to the New York Herald Tribune) that Lincoln waged war to "preserve the union" which no longer included eleven departed states regardless of the outcome as to slavery.
12. Of course, if he was "preserving" the union, why did the eleven states have to be readmitted to a union that Lincoln (and you) argued they could not leave? How could those states be required to ratify any constitutional amendments (13, 14 and 15) as a "condition" of "readmission" to the union which they supposedly could not leave? If he was "preserving" the union, how did he justify the naval blockade when international law does not allow the blockade of a nation's own ports? If, understandably, you are as actually eager to look for constitutional text which prohibits secession rights guaranteed by the plain and unambiguous language of Amendment Ten as O. J. Simpson is to find Nicole's actual killer on golf courses throughout the world, chew on those three questions. 13. Defeating communism was a real war against slavery on a world wide level. Reagan won. Lincoln would have smooched their red derrieres. He resisted fighting Santa Ana. (There may have been respectable reasons to resist that but Lincoln's reasons were nothing more than the usual anti-war drivel more common in our own age).
14. Republicans should recognize that Lincoln has little to do with the modern Republican Party and much to do with modern Demonrat heresies; that Jefferson and Jackson underlie Republicanism today as Hamilton and Lincoln underlie the centralized power and taxmania that are the false gods of the Demonrats.
15. It was also the judicial tyranny of Federalist "dead hand of the past" Chief Justice John Marshall that planted the time bomb that SCOTUS has become by inventing out of whole cloth the SCOTUS "power" to overturn legislation as "unconstitutional."
16. Jefferson: "That government governs best which governs least." Suggesting: Best of all....not at all????? The failure to attain quorums simply illustrates the reason for quorum rules. On those rare occasions when legislation was necessary, quorums could be attained.
17. Given that you attempt in vain to defend the likes of Lincoln on a conservative website, I am supposed to care as to your opinions of my posts because.........??????
18. Another question: Are you a product of gummint skewels as is suggested by your historical analysis or whatever that is??????
19. Take your screenname as your guideline and you will stop embarassing yourself.
If you won't tell your folks, I won't tell mine. Just kidding!
Of course, in this instance, we are both following the exemplary lead of Blessed Pius IX, who loved Jeff Davis and fashioned for Davis with his own hands a crown of thorns which was delivered to Davis while he was briefly imprisoned as the "union" figured out that no jury would convict him of anything and that they did not dare use a drumhead military tribunal against a man so well respected.
The pope committed such blasphemy? Incredible. That must have really pissed off the KKK.
The South was welcoming to Catholicism as the north was not. The South was welcoming to Judaism as the North was not. The north was welcoming and ruled (in many cases) by such phony ideologies posing as religion as atheism, agnosticism and particularly self-worshiping transcendentalism (a particularly hot dogma among the internal warmongering New Englanders against slavery since the slave trade was no longer providing wealth to northeastern fleet owners under the old triangle trade after 1808).
BTW, what do you think of that exemplar of northern "virtue" John Brown and his efforts at Potowatomie Creek and at Harper's Ferry????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.