.jpg)
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 ...
Squattie has tucker hisself out from his morning tantrum. Give him a chance to take a nap and a bit o that Thorazine and he’ll get right back to ya ;’}
lol... I’ve never seen anyone loonier on FR. I’m surprised he hasn’t been banned yet.
He does a lot of sucking up to the boss man who is a charitable sort...;’}
He does a lot of sucking up to the boss man who is a charitable sort...;’}Haha... silly loonie.
It'd be like banning the village idiot for being an idiot.
laughing at the whole lot of you, as MOST of the people (who bother to read the south-HATING bilge that you people spout) DO.
as for YOU, your "day of total humiliation" will come. (i'm curious as to which SILLY excuse that you will try to explain away the FACT that you repeatedly/knowingly LIED about Blackerby's book.)
free dixie,sw
BILGE like #1997 is the reason that MOST DAMNyankees are thought to be either STUPID, brain-DEAD or a combination of all three.
as for your comment about THORAZINE, drugs won't help what's wrong with the "motley collection of fools, nitwits, LIARS, BIGOTS, antisemites & cretins" that comprise the membership of "The DAMNyankee Coven of FRUITS, NUTS & LIARS".
most of the coven's "members" are so SELF-impressed & delusional that they aren't even embarrassed when they "get caught in a web of lies" of their own making. instead they tell at least TWO more equally silly/clumsy lies (that wouldn't fool my 3YO niece).
free dixie,sw
It'd be like banning the village idiot for being an idiot.haha...
we all note that you answered NONE of the questions posed to you in #1929. BILGE like #1997 is the reason that MOST DAMNyankees are thought to be either STUPID, brain-DEAD or a combination of all three.ti;dras for your comment about THORAZINE, drugs won't help what's wrong with the "motley collection of fools, nitwits, LIARS, BIGOTS, antisemites & cretins" that comprise the membership of "The DAMNyankee Coven of FRUITS, NUTS & LIARS".
most of the coven's "members" are so SELF-impressed & delusional that they aren't even embarrassed when they "get caught in a web of lies" of their own making. instead they tell at least TWO more equally silly/clumsy lies (that wouldn't fool my 3YO niece).
free dixie,sw
rustbucket: "And Lincoln's opinion was not?"
Lincoln was a lawyer < /gasp >. What Lincoln understood about contract law is that a contract does not come into existence at the moment of a document being signed. Instead, the contract comes into existence at the moment it is agreed to, and the parties begin to act as if there were a contract. In short: a verbal agreement is just as much a contract as a piece of paper.
The Union is a contract -- an agreement amongst the States and amongst "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." -- Note here the opening phrase is "We the People," not "We the States" a matter of some importance.
The American contract of Union actually began, however humbly and weakly, with the First Continental Congress in 1774, and it's Articles of Association.
Of course, you can say: that was no real Union, but I would respond, this was the moment of conception, so to speak, of the "Child" finally born in 1788. And that is clearly what Lincoln was referring to.
To say, as Lincoln did, that the Union is older than the States, is simply to report the fact that the conception of Union happened years before the Colonies were first declared to be States -- by the Union.
"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?"
In 1777, when the Articles of Confederation were written, the Union already consisted of a Continental Congress, with a national Army under its Congressionally appointed Commander in Chief -- George Washington -- plus numerous ambassadors and representatives to foreign nations negotiating for loans and military support, plus a printed currency. Imho, these are not trifling matters.
As to where that Continental Congress got its powers, consider this quote (my emphases added):
"The appointment of the delegates to both these congresses was generally by popular conventions, though in some instances by state assemblies.
"But in neither case can the appointing body be considered the original depositary of the power by which the delegates acted; for the conventions were either self-appointed "committees of safety" or hastily assembled popular gatherings, including but a small fraction of the population to be represented, and the state assemblies had no right to surrender to another body one atom of the power which had been granted to them, or to create a new power which should govern the people without their will.
"The source of the powers of congress is to be sought solely in the acquiescence of the people, without which every congressional resolution, with or without the benediction of popular conventions or state legislatures, would have been a mere brutum fulmen; and, as the congress unquestionably exercised national powers, operating over the whole country, the conclusion is inevitable that the will of the whole people is the source of national government in the United States, even from its first imperfect appearance in the second continental congress.."
Cyclopædia of Political Science. New York: Maynard, Merrill, and Co., 1899."
rb quoting George Washington: ""As the Cherokees reside principally within the territory claimed by North Carolina, and as that State is not a member of the present Union, "
Do not Washington's words "present Union" clearly imply a previous Union? And if not, for what, exactly, did Washington & his Army spend all those years of misery warring against the British? ;-)
Given the nature of your more recent posts, RockSmokerr, I’m withdrawing my offer to buy you lunch. Not that it will hurt you - you’re obviously a ‘ward of the state’...
I never had any doubt that you would...
Chew on this:
Whilst the General Assembly [of the State of Virginia] thus declares the rights retained by the States, rights which they have never yielded, and which this State will never voluntarily yield, they do not mean to raise the banner of disaffection, or of separation from their sister States, co-parties with themselves to this compact. They know and value too highly the blessings of their Union as to foreign nations and questions arising among themselves, to consider every infraction as to be met by actual resistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the same rights under the same instrument, to make every difference of construction a ground of immediate rupture. They would, indeed, consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them; but not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a government of unlimited powers.
- Thomas Jefferson, Declaration and Protest of Virginia on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on the Violations of them [by the federal government], 1825
Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you, RockSmokerr (what a surprise!)...
;>)
What does that have to do with you reneging on your offer?
;>)
Chew on this:
Let a regular [federal] army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government [in pursuit of unconstitutional ends]; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people [of the States] on their side, would be able to repel the danger [of unconstitutional federal actions backed by federal military force]. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a [federal] standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these [federal troops, attempting to enforce unconstitutional federal actions] would be opposed a [State] militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a [State] militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular [federal] troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition [by federal officials], more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46
And James Madison disagreed with you, RockSmokerr (another great big surprise ;>)...
While you were cherry-picking for quotables that you think buttress your claim to something or other you forgot your silly emoticon gramps...
;>)
;>)
Still no response to documented history, that directly contradicts your idiotic point of view? Typical.
Chew on this:
We there find that, notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities [to the federal government]<, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States. The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions. This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and refutes every hypothesis to the contrary.
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32
Even Hamilton disagreed with you, RockSmokerr...
;>)
You might want to find a supplement that ups your B complex dosage gramps. How does that “directly contradict (my) idiotic point of view”?
I hear that the mind is the second thing to go with advanced age...
The previous Union was, of course, the imperfect Union formed by the Articles of Confederation, which was the first attempt at Union, IMHO.
I suggest reading Van Tyne's discussion about whether the delegates of the First and Second Continental Congresses and the people/legislatures who sent them considered those congresses to constitute a Union. Van Tyne describes the instructions to the delegates from their various home states/conventions. They are revealing and not what one would expect if the Continental Congresses were more than simple defensive and diplomatic leagues. Here's a link. [Van Tyne]
This link is to a much longer, more detailed discussion than the synopsis of Van Tyne's arguments I found and posted earlier.
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.