Posted on 04/12/2010 12:12:09 PM PDT by wolfcreek
Based on the hundreds of e-mails, Facebook comments and Tweets I've read in response to my denunciation of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's decision to honor Confederates for their involvement in the Civil War -- which was based on the desire to continue slavery -- the one consistent thing that supporters of the proclamation offer up as a defense is that these individuals were fighting for what they believed in and defending their homeland.
In criticizing me for saying that celebrating the Confederates was akin to honoring Nazi soldiers for killing of Jews during the Holocaust, Rob Wagner said, "I am simply defending the honor and dignity of men who were given no choice other than to fight, some as young as thirteen."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
You say tomahto, I say tomayto!
“Perhaps my source is wrong? My reading of it is one in which Lincoln supported this proposed amendment as written. Can you provide a reference that will, perhaps enlighten me?”
OK......
Not too steady in his grasp of constitutional law, President Buchanan signed the joint resolution the day the Senate approved it: an unnecessary step, given the fact that Congressional power to propose amendments to the Constitution is not subject to presidential approval or veto. Two days later, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated as the sixteenth president of the United States and the proposed amendment was largely forgotten, although two states, Ohio and Maryland, actually ratified it! An Illinois state constitutional convention that met in 1862 purported to ratify the amendment, but had no legal authority to do so. Interestingly, Lincoln alluded to the Corwin amendment in his First Inaugural Address (paragraph 29). Although he stopped short of endorsing it, he said, “holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” Those were clearly not the words of a wild-eyed abolitionist (as Lincoln’s detractors portrayed him), but of a practical politician trying to manage an unprecedented crisis.
http://ghostamendment.com/
The Federal government denied the states the right to nullify Federal acts deemed detrimental to them as unconstitutional
--------------------------------------------------------
Non-Sequitur
They never had that right.
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson
"[T]he several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States, and of certain amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for general purposes, delegated to that government certain powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no effect."
---------------------------------------
Jefferson Davis
I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory. Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are indeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union, and against the agent of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a State, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other States of the Union for a decision; but when the States themselves, and when the people of the States, have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application.
---------------------------------------------------------
For - Nonsensical
James Webb: . . . to tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage, is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age.
Not too steady in your grasp of history. You are correct that the president plays no part in the amendment process but they will sign the amendment certificate as a show of support. Lyndon Johnson, for example, signed the 24th Amendment and I believe other presidents did as well for amendments passed out of Congress during their terms.
You say legal, I say illegal.
---------------------------------------------------------
James Madison
From this view of the resolution, it would seem inconceivable that it can incur any just disapprobation from those who, laying aside all momentary impressions, and recollecting the genuine source and object of the Federal Constitution, shall candidly and accurately interpret the meaning of the General Assembly. If the deliberate exercise of dangerous powers, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself, as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it, there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognised under all the state constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared.
But if the confederates had won then it would have been all right, is that it?
Article VI, Section 2:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
I thought you knew the USC...
Exaggeration aside, you overlook the obvious differences between the two. Grant won. Hood lost. Continuously. Grant accepted the surrender of three confederate armies. Hood slaughtered the only on he had.
For Idabooby.
Andrew Jackson
"I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."
For Nonsensical.
“Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a
nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” —Thomas
Jefferson
“The true barriers of our liberty are our State governments; and
the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man, is that of
which our Revolution and present government found us possessed.”
—Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.
"Nullification means insurrection and war; and the other states have a right to put it down." -- Andrew Jackson
In my opinion, Grant would have been more than happy if a guy like Hood was one of his corp commanders. Hood would have fit right in with Grant. Very similar in style.
“The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers.”
— Thomas Jefferson
Always find it amusing that Grant gets such a reputation as a “butcher” while Lee, who lost a proportional number of solider from his smaller army, is hailed as some great military genius.
Not to mention that Lee lost to lesser generals - Meade and McClellan, for example - while Grant beat every Southern general sent against him.
Except for Gettysburg D-3, what example do you have on the scale of Grant's headlong approach for Lee?
If by that you mean both men were aggressive, then yes I think Grant would have made good use of Hood as a division or corps commander. And his performance in those roles under rebel leadership was very good. Hood began failing when he was placed in Army command, and his performance in that role was nothing short of abysmal.
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.