Posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by cowboyway
Keep in mind, only a Yankee/Statist Bully would construe a person or group of individuals espousing the right of self-defense as a threat. You can take me at my word, I have made no threat to anyone, I posed a rhetorical question and you came back with a threat, should I take you at your word or not?
Not really. What’s past is past.
I’m just happy to be an American by birth and Southern by the grace of God.
That doesn't surprise me in the least, considering the psychotic nature of some of the posts from your compatriots Rustabout and Idabilly and Cowboyway. But while you can be somewhat puzzle-headed at times, and aren't beyond tossing out your own insults, I think you're basically harmless. Probably.
Should your secession ever succeed then we've nothing to fear from you.
Should the country split, the socialist side will eventually fail, then the two sides will re-join. Think East-West Germany circa 1992.
Let me state how I feel with a little test of sorts...
“Eastern Westvia” applies to join the United States, It’s people vote for admission and the congress approves it’s admission into the United States.
The government spends billions of dollars on “Eastern Westvia” building all manner of government facilities including parks and military bases on land it bought from the new state.
In one of these federal lands the US military discovered a substance that when processed will light up New York State for a thousand years with a fleck of dust the size of a grain of sand.
This substance is found no where lese on the planet but “Eastern Westvia”.
The governor and the state legislature decide that with this new substance they no longer need to be part of the United States and decide to secede.
Can you in this case justify secession....
So what combination of factors will make you come crawling back and asking to be admitted again?
If they want to go then they go, message is this, you cannot keep any state in the Union by threats of force.
So if a state wants to secede for profit despite the fact that the US government built it up and discovered a substance more valuable than gold or oil in that state, you have no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to secede and keep this material for themselves....
Whatever is in that state belongs to the state and not the nation at large?
Right, Mr. Spinmeister.........
Do you dispute that Lincoln received 59.4% of the electoral votes
Get off it. You were trying to use your lame argument to dispute the Judge's use of the popular vote to demonstrate just how unpopular Lincoln was.
Cowboyway, you give a whole new meaning to the term 'different'.
If that means different from you then that is a very good thing, indeed.
Point out where I ever claimed to be a great scholar. Show me the exact quote from me claiming that. Do it or STFU.
Every one of your post exhibits a certain pomposity and arrogance that is very typical of the snobby elitist. Take a look at Obama and you will see Non-Sequitur.
George Bush took 50.73% of the popular vote in 2004, Ronald Reagan took 50.75% in 1980.
51% of the popular vote is not a mandate because it means that 49% of the people were against you.
Reagan's 1984 victory would be a better example of a mandate when he got almost 60% of the popular vote.
There is no way to argue that 39% of the popular vote represents a political mandate by any candidate regardless of how you try to represent the electoral college.
I guess you firmly believe that the cause of the Revolutionary War was the right of the people to drink tax free tea.
If I'm Mr. Spinmeister then you're the Spinmeister King.
Get off it. You were trying to use your lame argument to dispute the Judge's use of the popular vote to demonstrate just how unpopular Lincoln was.
No, just pointing out how stupid your claim is. Douglas and Breckenridge were on the ballot in all the states, Lincoln was kept off the ballot in 9 and he still polled a higher percentage of the popular vote than either man. And it is still an indisputable fact that had Lincoln had a single opponent instead of three then he still would have won. And all the spin you and Judge Napolitano care to put on it won't change that.
If that means different from you then that is a very good thing, indeed.
I mean different from humans in general.
Every one of your post exhibits a certain pomposity and arrogance that is very typical of the snobby elitist. Take a look at Obama and you will see Non-Sequitur. 51% of the popular vote is not a mandate because it means that 49% of the people were against you.
So you're saying that neither Bush or Reagan had a mandate? Just to be clear.
Fine, but what about my two great great great grandfathers who were loyal to the United States, enlisted and fought under its flag in the Civil War, one of them losing a leg? To hear the Lost Causers side of things, they were little better than Nazis, war criminals, the pointy end of Lincoln's evil plan to end federalism and "the filth that flowed from the north" as Watie often says. Am I supposed to allow them to be dishonored?
Or else what, invade them? I say they go, bye bye.
I won't call them war criminals, however, the Union Generalship, that is a different question...
How so? Specifically what crimes did they commit?
I guess the "Torch" comes to mind.
In general if I try to put myself into the mindset of a 19th century Yankee, I just can't do it. I couldn't pick up a rifle and shoot at the Southerners, I would have been a huge copperhead, actually I would have joined the P.A.C.S. just on republican (little r) principles.
Like all people who think it is ok for the feds to intervene in states business as long as the "cause" is worthy, you forget one thing. The states alone had the constitutional right to decide whether or not they were free or slave. Thus the war was fought over states rights, whether the states seceded for a "worthy" cause or an evil one isn't the point. The point that statists, such as yourself, keep missing is that states rights take precedent over the feds, regardless of what that right entails.
Slavery would have died out of it's own volition in just a few years, without the loss of life and, more importantly, without the loss of the 10th amendment which we suffered through the action of the oppressive(yep, that's the word)Fed government under Lincoln.
I'm a jack booted thug, alright. Lock up your guns, I'm coming for them!
In fact, I never said I agreed with the action of the federal government, or that I felt states don't have the right to withdraw from the union. You assume much. I merely assert that while it is nice to suggest that slavery wasn't the driver behind the war because the alternative isn't a very morally comfortable position to be in, it doesn't change the fact that slavery was THE issue of the day and it was why the south seceded. The north didn't march into the south to free the slaves, that is true. They marched in to coerce the south back into the fold at the point of a gun. So yes, the war was fought over the secession. The secession came about because of the issue of slavery. You just can't separate one from the other.
Specifics please.
In general if I try to put myself into the mindset of a 19th century Yankee, I just can't do it. I couldn't pick up a rifle and shoot at the Southerners...
But you could have shot Yankees without any problems at all, is that it?
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.