Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
also, there are several southerners/copperheads "listed among the missing", who used to be on these threads. MOST of "the missing" simply got disgusted with the crazed/lunatic antics od the hate-FILLED, arrogantly ignorant, BIGOTED DAMNyankees of "the coven".
one SC lady, who used to be constantly on these threads, told me by phone (i called her on SCV/OCR business), a few weeks ago, that she "felt DIRTY" after being exposed to "that VULGAR-talking DY creep" on the WBTS threads & "won't be back until he's gone forever". she also said that, "I don't want my girls exposed to that sort of filth - that's why we home-school".
free dixie,sw
You and your imaginary friends. It’s funny how, when you quote them, they all sound exactly like you.
Now he’s cross-dressing too. I wonder if he does the Tallulah Bankhead version or the Vivien Leigh accent...;’}
UNLIKE you, i am NOT a SERIAL, KNOWING, clumsy, LIAR.- NEITHER do i believe that i'm "an expert on everything", as you seem to believe you are.
laughing AT you.(fwiw, "experts on everything" generally know NOTHING & are only "legends in their own mind".)
free dixie,sw
Tell your imaginary friends I said “hi.”
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
So have you decided where your El Paso Thanksgiving falls in the timeline of Spanish exploration of Texas? “100+ years” before December, 1620, right?
Working down through post 1717, trying to find actual arguments amongst all the insults...
I suggest that I post more rational, historically documented arguments than insults. Of course, my rational, documented conclusion may appear to be nothing but an 'insult' to you, and people holding irrational opinions similar to yours, so I reserve the right to perform my own count (if I ever become sufficiently bored or irritated to do so ;>)...
You may remember the historical sequence of events in 1861. After the destruction and surrender of Fort Sumter, President Lincoln declared a state of Insurrection.
What if Mr. Lincoln had declared a 'National Sodomy Day?' Care to elaborate, with citations from the Constitution that define the President's power to define "a state of Insurrection?" By the way, you yourself 'declared' in your Post 1528 that only Congress "can define just what exactly is an 'insurrection.' "
Looks like Mr. Lincoln must have been in violation of the Constitution, as you read it...
;>)
Here is a historical fact: the words "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union," or any similar, are not mentioned in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers or any other debate of 1787, at least that I've ever seen.
So what? The words "marriage," and "funeral," are not mentioned in the Constitution either. You would suggest that both are therefore unconstitutional. Congratulations.
As I have noted repeatedly, your arguments are completely irrational (and if you wish to consider that an 'insult,' it says more about your understanding of the historical facts, than my presentation thereof).
The omission of the phrase "perpetual union" from the new Constitution of 1787 is a matter of historical interest.
"Historical interest?" How nice. The people who drafted the Constitution, and sold it to the people of the States, were entirely familiar with the phrase (it was an important part of the previous 'law of the land') - and yet they chose not to include it in the Constitution.
Because of your personal biases, you discount that point completely.
(What were you saying about insults? In fact, you're insulting the intelligence of anyone reading your post... )
Of course President Lincoln's argument in 1861 was that the Articles' term "perpetual union" had been replaced in the Constitution with the phrase, "to form a more perfect union." Lincoln asked: how could a "more perfect union" not also be perpetual?
Let's look at Texas v. White (which I imagine you've never heard of):
...when these Articles [of Confederation] were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words.
Which, of course, is complete and utter bull crap (not the first, or last time such a product has issued from the 'High Court'). "It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words?" Bull crap - all they had to do was include 'boiler plate' language from the previous compact, including the words 'perpetual union.' They did not - and by your own argument, presented in Post 1510 (paraphrasing), "the Constitution does not mention [a perpetual union] because it did not in any way contemplate it."
I detect that you have some kind of problem understanding the difference between legal, lawful & constitutional processes such as amendments or constitutional conventions -- which are fully authorized in the Constitution -- on the one hand, versus violent and unlawful insurrections, rebellions, "domestic violence" and even invasion of Federal property -- which are not. Why is that?
Actually, you seem to be the one with "some kind of problem" - you suggested in your Post 1528 that only Congress "can define just what exactly is an 'insurrection' ", but then you stated in your Post 1799 that "President Lincoln declared a state of Insurrection." Gosh - looks like you're contradicting yourself (yet again)...
I discounted Rawle's opinions because, so far as I know, he was not involved in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, or in discussions of that time regarding it's meaning -- i.e., the Federalist Papers.
Congratulations.
President Jackson's proclamation of 1832 on Nullification and Secession, I'd put in a different category because:
* Jackson was a very popular war hero elected president -- the first since Washington. As such, his strong words against nullification and secession can be said to express the beliefs of most Americans at that time.
* Jackson was a slave owning Southerner, demonstrating that arguments for or against nullification and secession were not necessarily always North against South.
In other words, I'm not of course saying that Jackson was a constitutional expert. But I am saying his opinions, especailly as a Southerner, carried a lot of weight at the time and helped hold the country together.
Actually, you ARE saying that Mr. Jackson was a constitutional expert, if you weight his opinions more heavily than Mr. Rawle's. "Jackson was a very popular war hero elected president... his strong words against nullification and secession can be said to express the beliefs of most Americans at that time?" Bull crap - you might just as well weight Barack Obama's opinion of constitutional law, over Thomas Jefferson's, or William Rawle's.
WIJG: "(And, by the way, you are conflating nullification and secession, when, in fact, they are separate issues. ;>)"
BJK: I'd be most curious to see you explain how these are constitutionally separate issues.
In essence: a State could (theoretically) 'nullify' an unconstitutional federal action without leaving the union (and without violating your non-existent 'perpetual union' clause of your vapor-ware Constitution); while State secession in no way required the 'nullification' of any federal action or law, because State secession was nowhere prohibited by the written Constitution. They are entirely different issues - I am surprised (actually, not ;>) that you couldn't see the difference...
;>)
Now, do you want to discuss the exploration of Texas by the Spanish, since you seem to have some familiarity with the subject, or will you continue in the same way, with nothing more than the familiar string of insults?
I am impressed with your continued patience with this klown. He figures he can insult you all day as long as he follows it with a
;>)
I doubt if it's fair to say that either North or South "needed" the other economically in the same way that, for example, today the world "needs" Mideastern oil. Both could turn to other customers and other sources of supply, though no doubt at less profit.
And much of your discussion I don't dispute, except obviously, your apparent compulsion to throw in the unnecessary, and inaccurate, personal jab.
What I do dispute is your claim, based on links you provided, that 1860 annual per capita incomes fell in the ranges of $2,000 to $4,000. If you will just take a few minutes to review the 1860 census itself (see p 295), you'll see these numbers are utterly absurd. And I've already provided you with multiple links to more realistic estimates.
But what's the real issue here? Is it not the relative industrial power of the North versus South? So, are you going to dispute "conventional historical wisdom" which says the South lacked both population and industrial base necessary to support the large scale, multi-year Civil War? I didn't think so.
What I'll grant you is this: the South was not, in 1860, the economic backwater it later became, and the North was not yet the industrial colossus it was even then becoming.
Let me cite just two key items for you, both from 1859:
Point is, however valuable the South's agricultural exports may have been, even in 1860 it nowhere near matched the North's industrial output.
to "bubba, the LIAR": laughing AT you, as MOST of your readers DO.(IF you understood how you & the rest of the members of "the Coven" are viewed by NORMAL FReepers, you would flee FR in tears of humiliation.)
also, "bubba", tell everyone WHY i would want to discuss the history of Texas & New Spain with a DAMNyankee "know-it-all", who evidently knows LITTLE about the subject???
free dixie,sw
Perhaps to show that you can contribute something to a conversation other than foaming at the mouth ranting? To show that you actually do have some historical chops? You say I don't know much about the subject? Prove it and show me wrong. Otherwise, you only prove that you can't keep up with the adults.
As opposed to a Southron buffoon who revels in his ignorance and calls it superiority.
Have you come up with any historically documented facts that actually support your opinion? Or are you still spewing verbal sewage, unsubstantiated opinion, & hearsay?
;>)
Actually, given your (consistent) lack of historical documentation, supporting anything even approximating your opinions - "thanks for making my point"...
;>)
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.