Cowboyway sees trolls everywhere. It's a phobia of his.
Posted on 03/10/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Idabilly
Over the course of American history, there has been no greater conflict of visions than that between Thomas Jefferson’s voluntary republic, founded on the natural right of peaceful secession, and Abraham Lincoln’s permanent empire, founded on the violent denial of that same right.
That these two men somehow shared a common commitment to liberty is a lie so monstrous and so absurd that its pervasiveness in popular culture utterly defies logic.
After all, Jefferson stated unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence that, at any point, it may become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…
And, having done so, he said, it is the people’s right to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Contrast that clear articulation of natural law with Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, where he flatly rejected the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Instead, Lincoln claimed that, despite the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment, no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; [and] resolves and ordinances [such as the Declaration of Independence] to that effect are legally void…
King George III agreed.
(Excerpt) Read more at southernheritage411.com ...
Perhaps you were tuned in to PBS on Election Night 2008 when the gentle scholar from one of the DC-area "Georges" (Georgetown, George Mason, GWU, etc. etc.) delivered a ha-ha about North Carolina's voting pattern being ever so much improved by the Yankee influx, by referring to the original Carolinian "Tarheel" residents as "Dukes of Hazzard", ha ha ha. Everyone at table enjoyed the joke. Including Judy, who started her career in Atlanta.
If Woodruff invited me on her set and I graced her table with a remark about black voters like that, I wonder what the reaction would have been?
Ha ha ha ha.
Didn't take you long after having been definitively refuted on just that point, to go back to lying to wolfcreek, did it?
Down hard, liar. You're done.
Wait until I go away, then come sneaking back with your lies again..... not this time.
This issue was previously argued and decided in this thread, for about the fourth or fifth time since 2003.
Go back and look at posts 215ff, esp. rustbucket's 257, 316, 320, and 338, and Non-Sequitur's 299 and 323, my 321, 331, and 349, et seq..
Please notice that my 349 was a re-posting of thread poster Idabilly's fetch at Post 79, which Non-Sequitur was studiously ignoring for nearly 300 posts at that point. N-S eventually replied at 351 with, "I've never said that secession was forbidden. But the way the Southern states chose to go about it was."
Which of course is a con, analyzable by Transactional Analysis something along these lines:
A. "I wish to perform a good deed in order to earn a reward."
B. "Very well, bring me the broom of the Wicked Witch."
A. "I have brought you the broom of the Wicked Witch."
B. "No, I wanted the broom of the Wicked Witch of the West. You have brought me the broom of the Wicked Witch of the East. I require the broom of the Wicked Witch of the West."
A. "I have brought you the broom of the Wicked Witch of the West. I claim my reward!"
B, "No, you've brought me the red broom of the Wicked Witch of the West. I specifically called for the green broom of the Wicked Witch of the West. Go and get me the green broom of the Wicked Witch of the West."
Of course, there is no green broom. At least, not the right one.
Now try to get Non-Sequitur to tell you who is the real Sovereign of the United States of America. He won't.
That's because his candidate is the (constitutionally unencumbered, absolute) United States Government.
Which by definition of "fascist" makes him a "fascist".
The only one bending the truth around here is you.
Down hard, liar. You're done. Right. You wouldn't know the facts of the rebellion if they bit you in the butt.
Wait until I go away, then come sneaking back with your lies again..... not this time.
Oh, were you away?
Utter bullshit. You come along and spout your Southron myths and your opinions and you call it 'decided'. That doesn't mean you've convinced anyone but yourself.
Utter Giraffe crap.
When your hero was proven wrong, you then said “ States DO have the right - ‘with permission’. Your willingness to throw Lincoln under the bus is proof it has been decided.
excuse me while i throw up
You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about, no great surprise there. To begin with I haven't seen a case where you have ever proven anyone wrong. And furthermore, I have never said that secession was not allowed if done with consent of the states. I've said before that I disagree with Lincoln on his position that secession is not allowed under any circumstances. And I challenge you to point to where I have ever said otherwise.
” I have never said that secession was not allowed if done with consent of the states. I’ve said before that I disagree with Lincoln on his position that secession is not allowed under any circumstances”
Thank you
If his position was wrong,then his whole war was wrong.
How was this ‘consent’ to take place? Your WHOLE bitch is that the South seceded without permission. Who do they receive this permission?
Lincoln didn’t believe this in the first place.
Nonsense. Regardless of Lincoln's position, the Southern acts of secession were illegal. War was the confederacy's decision and their responsibility.
How was this ‘consent’ to take place? Your WHOLE bitch is that the South seceded without permission. Who do they receive this permission?
All the parties affected by the decision. Madison wrote that a proper secession required the consent of the states. There is no reason to believe that the approval for a state to leave need be any more than what is required for a state to join - a simple majority in both houses of Congress.
Lincoln didn’t believe this in the first place.
Neither did Buchanan. But both were wrong on that. Had the Southern states worked with Congress to negotiate a settlement on all issues of disagreement then Buchanan certainly would have gone along.
Madison wrote:
On what principle the Confederation, which stands in the solemn form of a compact among the States, can be superseded without the unanimous consent of the parties to it? 2. What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it? The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed.
“Nonsense. Regardless of Lincoln's position, the Southern acts of secession were illegal. War was the confederacy's decision and their responsibility.”
Hogwash. South Carolina wanted a peaceful separation. It was Lincoln that broke promises and provoked the war.
Correct. Lincoln was a political nobody who won the presidency based on promises that he would NOT go to war against the South, promises that he broke almost immediately.
Considering the conditions, attempting to resupply Sumter was nothing less than a hostile act whose sole purpose was to ilicit a defensive response from the Confederacy. The Bay of Tonkin comes to mind.........
How anyone could refute this is inconceivable yet, there they are, the NS's of the world, wallowing in their lies, cowardness and irrational hatred.
End the Occupation!
Free Dixie!!
And what does that have to do with secession?
Hogwash. South Carolina wanted a peaceful separation. It was Lincoln that broke promises and provoked the war.
Nonsense. War was what the Davis regime decided to resort to in order to take Sumter. Blame Lincoln all you want, the simple fact is that Davis knew what would happen if he bombarded the fort and he did it anyway.
“And what does that have to do with secession?”
Not spelled out clear enough? Try this out:
Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power, and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could not have reserved any rights by the articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation. John Taylor
“Just don’t bombard any forts on your way out. That didn’t work out so well for you last time.”
I think comments like that could be perceived as trolling for trouble. Kinda makes one wonder if all the Sesch around here might have a point in there comments about you.
Did I really need the </sarcasm> tag.
Still no good. What does that have to do with secession? States were part of the United States under the Articles of Confederation. They were part of the United States when then ratified the Constitution. They were part of the United States in the interim between the two. Where is secession involved?
NS wouldn't have posted the above if you hadn't called him out for being exactly what he is: A TROLL.
A fact that is becoming obvious even to his faithful followers, bubba, x, rockrr, etc..............
Cowboyway sees trolls everywhere. It's a phobia of his.
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.