An opposing view: Descendant of black Confederate soldier speaks at museum

Thomasville Times-Enterprise ^ | 24 Feb 2004 | Mark Lastinger

[Gianni]

Article IV says Congress may prescribe laws for states to prove their acts.

They did. To support your argument, you need to show that Stat. 122 (1790) did not exist.

[Gianni]

Who's turn was it to water the plants?

I think it's covered.

[4CJ]

She does later in the book make the blanket statement that Lee was subverting the government, "while wearing a U.S. uniform."

So we'll chalk that up as a biased opinion, unsubstantiated by any facts.

[Gianni]

Biased opinion? From Ms Stewart? Perish the thought.

[4CJ]

Again, you try to sow confusion by attempting a twist on the meaning of simple words. You keep saying that secession was an act of the people but won't admit that it was a public act. The states seceded as states in conventions organized by the legislatures. That's as public as public gets.

Does the term "public official" mean anything to you? Public officials perform public acts. Public officials are the servants of the people. The "people" are sovereign over their Constitution, their legislature, judges, tax commsioners, county commisioners, governor, Attorney-General and other public officials.

Either way, you're screwed. If you are saying that the people acted outside of the legislature then they were indeed rebels and secession never existed since the legislatures had no say

Nope. Legislatures did not ratify the Constitution - constitutional conventions called by the legislature via election did. The people are sovereign over their elected officials.

If you admit that the legislatures turned over power to the conventions then that is covered under Article IV and since they didn't follow Article IV, they were rebels, and secession never existed because it was never proven.

Nope. Article IV covers public acts being "proven" to other states. The public acts in question were simply a call for elections to convention - which is legal. As previously noted, sovereign acts are not covered by either Article IV or the Supremacy clause.

[4CJ]

The Republican Party -- lackeys for the KKK. "Gradually the newspapers are revealing this close connec­tion between Republicanism and the Klan in the North: in such States as Maine, New York, and Indiana the influence is profound." Who woulda thunk it? Lucy says it, it must be true!

Must be gospel, if Stewart said it right? ;o)

[4CJ]

In 1875, in his Memoirs, Sherman freely admitted he lied about Hampton

The self avowed war criminal lied? I am shocked, shocked I tell ya!

[4CJ]

Methinks that it is you who "just doesn't get it." Nobody here has fantasies of killing US troops. No US troops have fantasies of killing US citizens.

Bump. Where did any one of us allude to that perceived fantasy?????

In spite of all your nonsense regarding the killing of US troops and weak attempts to draw parallels between citizens acting in their sovereign capacity as outlined in the DOI and Constitution, you are the only one who has demonstrated hostility on these threads. It is you who venerate those who killed offensively, and not in defense of their homes and families. It is you who initiates vitriolic flame-wars and calls Americans terrorists, and it is you who is in conflict with credible historians.

Bump again. It's one thing to be CONSERVATIVE, another to blindy follow simply because of a political label. If one looks at the issues - limited government, lower taxes, self-defense, etc the Republican party of 1860 is not the party of President Reagan.

[4CJ]

Mornin' Ms Stewart... Happy St Patrick's day!

ROTF! Whose turn is it to water the flowers?

[4CJ]

Sorry, just saw your 822. Plenty of water today.

[Non-Sequitur]

You seem to think getting the last word wins the argument. Are you female?

I'm as much a female as you are.

[#3Fan]

I didn't ask for an example of secession. I asked for an example of any act of a state which followed your interpretation of Article IV. If I understand you correctly, a state needed to: 1. petition the federal legislature for enact laws reagarding proof of an act 2. dawdle while such acts were being debated and passed 3. await the presidents approval of such acts 4. move forward with their planned act It can be anything that a state has done in the history of our republic. Have at it.

A 2-minute search revealed this:

The Governor announces Illinois is submitting a formal request to U.S. Health and Human Services Sec. Tommy Thompson asking to launch the first federally-approved drug importation pilot program.

"Pilot program" means that it will be an act in Illinois. I guess Illinois could just ignore the Congress and go ahead and act to allow Illinoisians to get drugs from Canada but it might get messy.

We like the Constitution of the United States of America. Not #3Constitution.

I simply repeat what it says.

Please show where I have stated that.

"English law" above.

Looking through the posts, it appears as though the victors are the ones doing all the crying.

Winners have nothing to cry over.

Plantation owners were secure in their property in the Union, and were by and large against secession until they realized that it was unstoppable. I have not seen evidence of it, but it does not seem unlikely that their support was given to secession in order to prevent a massacre a la the French revolution. If you could provide facts either in support or denial of that hypothesis, I would welcome them.

From here:

Lawyers made up 40 percent of the membership and slaveowners about 70 percent, although most owned fewer than fifty slaves.

and:

The election of delegates needed all the legitimacy the Texas legislature could give it, because what evidence still exists indicates that the election procedures did not even meet the minimal standards of the day. Delegates were often elected by voice votes at public meetings. Unionists were discouraged from attending such meetings or chose to ignore the process because they considered it illegal. As a result the delegates overwhelmingly favored secession.

Doesn't sound like the will of the people, it sounds like a bunch of thugs.

[#3Fan]

See post #819.

[#3Fan]

Does the term "public official" mean anything to you? Public officials perform public acts. Public officials are the servants of the people. The "people" are sovereign over their Constitution, their legislature, judges, tax commsioners, county commisioners, governor, Attorney-General and other public officials.

The legislatures convened the commissions. That alone makes it a public act (as if it wasn't obvious).

Nope. Legislatures did not ratify the Constitution - constitutional conventions called by the legislature via election did. The people are sovereign over their elected officials.

The people are the public and they acted as a state.

Nope. Article IV covers public acts being "proven" to other states. The public acts in question were simply a call for elections to convention - which is legal. As previously noted, sovereign acts are not covered by either Article IV or the Supremacy clause.

The people are the public and they acted as a state and therefore their act had to be proven to the other states as covered in Article IV.

[#3Fan]

The self avowed war criminal lied? I am shocked, shocked I tell ya!

Are Ike and Truman war criminals? If not why not?

[#3Fan]

Bump again. It's one thing to be CONSERVATIVE, another to blindy follow simply because of a political label. If one looks at the issues - limited government, lower taxes, self-defense, etc the Republican party of 1860 is not the party of President Reagan.

The government was smaller, taxes were lower, and we punished those that attacked us. Looks like Lincoln was a fine Republican in the sense of Reagan to me.

[Gianni]

Now Tommy Thompson is the Federal Legislature.

Boy, some people just can't win (that's you this time).

Please provide an example which meets the criteria that you set forth.

[Gianni]

The conservative is the one who pulls the lever for the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage internationalist with the (R) next to thier name.

You, me, and thousands of Keyes/McClintock/Salier supporters will not be allowed knowledge of the secret republican handshake until we learn to toe the line.

[Gianni]

The government was smaller, but Lincoln was hell bent on increasing its size.

taxes were lower, but Lincoln was hell bent on raising them.

we punished those that didn't like us.