Targeting Lost Causers

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 06/09/2009 | Richard Williams

[Davy Buck]

My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?

[Non-Sequitur]

I, and apparently some others around here, do not see any necessity to debate your contentions since they are simply your own opinions, rather than fact.

Considering I address all your opinion that you masquerade as fact I'd think you'd reciprocate.

What is also known in fact is that the 'Nashville' did not enter the harbor that day or the next, or the next. She continued to stand off.

But the Nashville was allowed to proceed once she identified herself to the Lane. If she did not enter Charleston it was not because the Lane prevented it. Therefore your claim of some sort of blockade, and your claim that it was the first act of war, is patently ridiculous.

[Who is John Galt?]

WIJG: The subject of the formal withdrawal of a State from the federal union quite obviously falls within the "numerous and indefinite" category, rather than the "few and defined" category, don't you think?

x: Of course not. Breaking up the union is about as serious as things can get. Like matters of war and peace it isn't for a single state to decide on its own.

"Of course not?" So you are stating that the right if State secession falls in the "few and defined" category? Where exactly is the power to prohibit State secession "defined", sport?

;>)

Let's say that the powers of the states vastly outnumber those of the federal government. It doesn't follow -- nor should it -- that the 10th Amendment gives the states some hidden Easter egg that allows them to bring the entire federal apparatus down at their own sweet will.

What planet are you from? IT'S NOT HIDDEN: with regards to State secession, you need only refer to the terms of the Tenth Amendment; and with regards to any inclination (apart from secession) the several States might develop "to bring the entire federal apparatus down at their own sweet will," they can do it any time they so please, under the terms of Article V (read it & weep)...

WIJG: The federal government had no power or right "to deliver the mails, to maintain federal courts, [or] to collect taxes," outside of the union. Once a State had formally withdrawn from the union, those delegated federal rights were of no effect within the seceded State.

x: Where does it actually say that in the Constitution? The federal government is delegated those powers, and there's no provision for secession. So long as the union isn't dissolved to the satisfaction of the various parties involved, the federal government is authorized to carry out those functions.

I love you 'union at any cost' types - your arguments are usually about two orders of magnitude outside the sphere of rational discussion. This one is no different. Under your sorry excuse for a rational argument, the federal government has the power or right "to deliver the mails, to maintain federal courts, [or] to collect taxes," in the Bahamas, or Honduras. After all, "[w]here does it actually say... in the Constitution" that the federal government doesn't possess those rights? Let's add in in Ireland - I hear they're making money over there, and the Constitution, as you argue the case, does not prevent the collection of US taxes in Ireland...

Hamilton: "The third will be found in that clause, which declares that Congress shall have power "to establish an UNIFORM RULE of naturalization throughout the United States." This must necessarily be exclusive; because if each State had power to prescribe a DISTINCT RULE there could be no UNIFORM RULE."

x: Breaking with the union would be far more serious than establishing a different rule of naturalization. So I don't think you can say that Hamilton would automatically agree with you.

"Far more serious?" Where was that standard established? I thought it was "CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT?" Did I misread Mr. Hamilton? What terms of the Constitution did State secession 'CONTRADICT?' Hmm? Or to what specific written terms is State secession "REPUGNANT?"

In fact, you prove my point - Article I, Section 8 declares, in writing, that Congress shall have the power "[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;" where does the Constitution declare, in similar terms, a federal power to prevent the departure of a member State, using military force?

Ante up, sport.

I'm looking at history and how it develops. You're ignoring that. You're not asking what the 10th Amendment meant in practice or in the context of the whole Constitution, you're simply assuming that it's your "Get Out of the Union Free" card.

Thanks for your opinion - that, and a couple of bucks (and a couple of Tums to deal with the heartburn your idiotic opinions give me), will get me a cup of coffee in Peach Springs or Fort Washakie...

That's taking one of Madison's sentences out of context. Look further on in the letter... Your citing a sentence from the letter to imply that Madison shared your view when he actually didn't indicates how fraudulent and farcical the arguments on these threads are.

Actually, I would suggest that your arguments are "fraudulent and farcical" - you simply ignore Mr. Madison's comments regarding "an abuse of the compact" as grounds "absolving the seceding party from the obligation imposed by it." And then you ignore Mr. Madison's (and Mr. Jefferson's) public, written, comments regarding the right of the States (as parties to the compact) to make such determinations for themselves.

Knock yourself out - you're obviously a 'cherry picker' when it comes to the historical record. Your refusal to address the citations I posted from The Federalist Papers proves my point.

(If you post a reply, and I don't get back to you immediately, don't worry - I'm visiting three States over the next four days. As you noted in your Post 1743, I need to "get out more"... ;>)

[rustbucket]

The first real Union? Your opinion of what is real or not real is a matter of interpretation.

And Lincoln's opinion was not?

So,

in 1776 the Union declared the Colonies "free and independent States."

Then in 1777 the Union acknowledged "sentiments and interests of a continent divided into so many sovereign and independent communities"

But reality was: those erstwhile colonies were NEVER out of the Union -- both by choice and necessity.

That's because, as Old Ben Franklin quipped in 1776, on signing the Declaration of Independence, "we must all hang together, or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

I take issue, of course, that it was the "Union" doing all that. If they were already united in a Union, why would this supposed Union say we need to be "uniting all our councils" [their words] as it did in asking the "sovereign and independent communities" to agree to the Articles of Confederation? If the states were sovereign, as the Continental Congress said they were and as King George III later agreed in the Treaty of Paris, then they were not subject to subject to control by the Continental Congress. They were sovereign, not the Continental Congress. I agree with Paul Johnson (whom I quoted to you before) that the states made themselves sovereign.

Since you argue that colonies were never out of the Union, perhaps you would like the 1833 speech of Daniel Webster where he argues that states were never out of the Union [Link]

However, before you accept Webster's arguments, you might also be interested in the following quote from George Washington. [Source: the records of Congress, August 22, 1789:

The President of the United States came into the Senate Chamber, attended by General Knox, and laid before the Senate the following state of facts, with the questions thereto annexed, for their advice and consent:

... "As the Cherokees reside principally within the territory claimed by North Carolina, and as that State is not a member of the present Union, it may be doubted whether any efficient measures in favor of the Cherokees could be immediately adopted by the general government ..."

And further along that line of reasoning, here is something from Congress on September 12, 1789:

And be it further enacted, That all rum, loaf sugar, and chocolate, manufactured or made in the states of North Carolina, or Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, and imported or brought into the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be subject to the like duties, as goods of the like kinds, imported from any foreign state, kingdom, or country are made subject to.

The US treated North Carolina and Rhode Island as foreign countries. Why would they do that if North Carolina and Rhode Island were never out of the Union?

[Who is John Galt?]

Pardon the typo(s) - I’m in a hurry, heading out of town...

[stand watie]

laughing AT you, LIAR, as MOST of your readers DO.

the TRUTH is that you've lied about so many things for so long that you cannot remember WHICH person that you told which LIE to.

remind everyone of you claim that on the SAME date/thread that Cortez was fighting Aztecs in Mexico AND then you claimed that he had NOT even arrived in Mexico at that time. ===> that made you look STUPID, as well as just plain DISHONEST.

fwiw, i laugh AT you "to your face", as that is (at least imVho) more HONEST that laughing at you & RIDICULING you "behind your back" as MANY other FReepers do in PMs.- your "word of honor" (to quote one FReeper in a PM) is "a contradiction in terms".

free dixie,sw

[rockrr]

"I take issue, of course, that it was the "Union" doing all that. If they were already united in a Union, why would this supposed Union say we need to be "uniting all our councils" [their words] as it did in asking the "sovereign and independent communities" to agree to the Articles of Confederation? If the states were sovereign, as the Continental Congress said they were and as King George III later agreed in the Treaty of Paris, then they were not subject to subject to control by the Continental Congress. They were sovereign, not the Continental Congress. I agree with Paul Johnson (whom I quoted to you before) that the states made themselves sovereign."

History being a messy affair, I would venture this - the peoples of the various colonies recognized the benefits of uniting into a federation. In some respects there were those who saw unification as a natural progression in the phenomena that would become known as Manifest Destiny. Their motives may have been mixed, as the formation of the various colonies had in their roots various cultural influences and imperatives, but the primary motivation was security. The world was a contentious and dangerous place and no colony could stand alone. Even loose confederations of groups of colonies wouldn't stand a chance against a hostile invasion.

There must have been a reason why the constitutions of the respective colonies went directly from pledging fealty to the crown to throwing in with the Continental Congress. Not one of the colonies organized itself into a free and independent country post revolution yet by declaring their independence from the crown and prevailing in the ensuing war they became de facto independent states. Why did they allow themselves to exist in such a illegitimate condition? Could it have been the "start-up costs"?

When you add the element of organization with all of its costs and complexities it should be no wonder that federalizing would be an attractive proposition.

The costs of waging war against the crown was an incredibly expensive affair and there were some, notably Thomas Jefferson, who had little interest in ponying up when it came time to pay the piper. The opportunity to spread those expenses across the more industrialized and monied northern colonies must have been irresistible. Of course that was a tactic that came back to bite them when Congress later enacted revenue generating tariffs that forced them to pay up.

So, post revolution, the colonies may have been pledged but they weren't necessarily wedded to the union. Each colony had to weigh the pros and cons of joining. All 13 did deliberate, and did ultimately join, subordinating any absolute sovereignty to the dual Federal/State sovereignty arrangement, with its acknowledged intricacies, as United States.

[stand watie]

actually, it is TRUE that you are WELL-known on FR for being a LOUTISH,VULGAR-talking, ignorant BIGOT & nothing more than that.

what i said about PMs concerning you is 100% correct - you are regarded as GARBAGE by & a "source of shame" to most of the FReepers here on the WBTS threads.

IF you had any common DECENCY, you would APOLOGIZE for your CRUDE language & RESIGN from FR. (of course, IF you had any sense of DECENCY, you wouldn't be "rockrr, the LOUT".)

free dixie,sw

[rockrr]

actually, it is TRUE that you are WELL-known on FR for being a LOUTISH,VULGAR-talking, ignorant BIGOT & nothing more than that.

Only in your fevered brain squat2pee. If you could provide evidence otherwise you would have.

Fortunately, no one cares about you or your goofy "opinions"...

[stand watie]

it is the NATURE of a DAMNyankee/statist to deceive, just as it is the NATURE of a serpent to slither.

furthermore, MOST DYs were PLEASED to believe ANYTHING (no matter how obviously silly/DISHONEST) if it makes the southland look bad and/or the aggressors from the north look LESS bad.

free dixie,sw

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

remind everyone of you claim that on the SAME date/thread that Cortez was fighting Aztecs in Mexico AND then you claimed that he had NOT even arrived in Mexico at that time. ===> that made you look STUPID, as well as just plain DISHONEST.

I'd be happy to recap that discussion for you, since you seem to have trouble with it. What you said was that the Spaniards celebrated Thanksgiving at El Paso "100+ years before the Pilgrims landed."

Now, see if you can follow along. I'll make it simple.

The Pilgrims landed in December, 1620. Cortez landed in Mexico in March 1519.

So what this comes down to is what you meant by "100+ years." If that means 100 years plus one day, then Cortez was still fighting the Aztecs on that date. If it means 101 years, Cortez had barely landed in Mexico. If it means 102 years or more, then Cortez was still in Cuba.

So it's back on your shoulders to explain just what you meant by "100+ years."

Of course, none of those really matter, since no Spanish expedition got anywhere near El Paso until Coronado in 1540. I've challenged you on any number of occasions to tell us exactly what you meant by "100+ years" but, in your typical fashion you either launch into another of your typical hate-filled rants or you try to shift the blame to some unverifiable source who told you something once, and which you apparently believe over any number of readily available sources.

So, which one will it be this time? Are you going to tell us exactly when this El Paso Thanksgiving happened, will you rant, or will you tell us that someone told you this information and you believe them. I'm going with rant.

fwiw, i laugh AT you "to your face", as that is (at least imVho) more HONEST that laughing at you & RIDICULING you "behind your back" as MANY other FReepers do in PMs.- your "word of honor" (to quote one FReeper in a PM) is "a contradiction in terms".

You know, of course, that no one believes you when you talk about the conversations that you're having in PMs. After the display of a couple of months ago, it's pretty apparent you don't have any friends left on FR.

[stand watie]

laughing AT you, LOUT.

if i was willing to violate the privacy of the authors of those PMs, i would "name names".

you are WELL-known to all here (including the other members of "The DAMNyankee Coven") as a semi-literate FOOL & a VULGAR-talking, ignorant bigot/LOUD-mouth.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

#1770 is just more LIES & SELF-impressed NONSENSE from FR's main SERIAL LIAR, "bubba ho-tep".

face it, "bubba" not even the other DYs believe anything you say, as you have been caught in too many OBVIOUS/CLUMSY/STUPID lies, that wouldn't fool a 3 year old child.

laughing AT you, as MOST other Freepers DO.

free dixie,sw

[rockrr]

You are a liar Squat2pee

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I don't suppose you'd care to identify the lies, would you?

Is it a lie that you said that the Spanish celebrated Thanksgiving in El Paso "100+" years before the Pilgrims landed? Is it a lie that the Pilgrims landed in December 1620? Is it a lie that Cortez landed in March 1519? Is it a lie that no Spaniard penetrated that far north until 1540?

Please, tell us all what the lie is. Tell us all about that El Paso Thanksgiving.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

face it, "bubba" not even the other DYs believe anything you say, as you have been caught in too many OBVIOUS/CLUMSY/STUPID lies, that wouldn't fool a 3 year old child.

Like the one I told about Texas privateers capturing a German U-boat, about the court battle to determine who would get to keep it, and about how it's now on display in a Galveston park? Oh, wait, that was you.

[stand watie]

actually, it is "bubba ho-tep" who is the SERIAL LIAR & YOU are the only Freeper that i know of who is STUPID enough to believe his CLUMSY LIES.

laughing AT both of you.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

fyi, i don't have enough time before i die to even LIST all the CLUMSY, STUPID, obvious LIES that you have told on this forum, especially if we start counting your “lies of omission” & cases where you “twisted the truth into a pretzel"

laughing AT you, as most of your readers DO.

free dixie,sw

[rockrr]

I’m not talking about bubba - I’m talking about you. You, Stand Watie, are a liar. Straight up. No embellishments to it. It is an indicator of your sickness that you are so enured of your own lies.

[rockrr]

There you go again with your liberal Projection^tm Stand Watie. Don't you recognize that it is a dead giveaway?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So when was that El Paso Thanksgiving exactly?