Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]
For years I have admired Congressman Ron Paul’s principled stance on spending and the Constitution. That said, he really damaged himself when he blamed President Lincoln for the Civil War, saying, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war… [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”
This is historical revisionism of the worst order, and it must be addressed.
For Congressman Paul’s benefit – and for his supporters who may not know – seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President. After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
I have no problem with a trial but a BIG problem with total disregard of the law Jefferson condoned as well as his attempt to convict Burr prior to the trial in the press by pronouncements about his certain guilt.
Much like the Reynolds scandal, I find it unusual that you consider that even the least bit out of the ordinary. Even today, police routinely issue statements to the press expressing the "guilt" of even the most minor, petty criminals well before their trials, just as opposition political parties are certain to make hay when one of their adversaries gets caught up in an extramarital affair and bribery scandal. Yet when Jefferson does it, you make it as if it were some great and extraordinary offense to common decency? Once again, you betray your own extreme personal prejudices against Jefferson and the extent to which they distort your ability to provide measured historical analysis.
That is entirely false historians (at least competent historians) do NOT claim H fired the first shot in fact they all agree that he had stated beforehand that he did not believe in dueling and would NOT fire at Burr. His pistol went off when he was struck and the resulting shot was nowhere close to Burr. As he was removed from the dueling ground H believing the gun had not discharged warned those aiding him to be careful with it since it was still loaded.
It is also false that Burr fought only that duel.
My “outrage” with Jefferson is because of the extra-legal obsession Jefferson showed in destroying Burr not because he was brought to trial. Jefferson encouraged the violation of due process of law; had Burr dragged a thousand miles from the scene of the “crime”; had NO real evidence that a crime had been committed; ignored his co-conspirator’s real guilt and was ready to violate any law or common decency to destroy the man.
These actions were far worse that any claimed occurred under cover of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
No there was no real contract between Great Britain and its colonies. Colonies were chartered by the King who could revoke them at any time. They were created on an ad hoc basis generally by private companies.
The Union was created in an entirely different manner through deliberation and agreement.
This is why our revolution was not really treason since there was no prior agreement between the parties one was entirely subordinate to the other. In fact, one of the biggest rallying cries for the colonists was the demand that the “rights of Englishmen” not be violated and that we have representation. We were slaves to the colonial system and slaves always have the right to fight for their freedom.
---------------------------------------------------
Well, neither can you, you gaywana latex filled Whistledick.
You can't claim any supremacy over States that are no longer a party to the Compact. Either they remained in the Union and Section 4 applies, or they Seceded. If you chose option two (secession,) then what authority does the U.S Congress have over a Sovereign Country ? Like it has been said four million times, there is nothing that prohibits Secession and the power to coerce a States was WITHHELD..
You can take this and shove it right up your Lincoln...
Madison 31st of May, 1787 contradicts every thing you've previously said ! He rejected that whole clause "authorizing force of the whole against a delinquent state".:
“The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
Secession is insurrection. The Constitution authorizes its suppression. And your boys committed insurrection for the odious reason that they wanted to continue treating other human beings like livestock. Enough said.
Hamilton was also accused of having an affair with Angelica Church, his sister-in-law so unproven scurrilous claims were not going in one direction.
Under the rules of the day the Reynold’s affair being entirely private was not to be used as political ammunition.
H was foolish to believe that it would not be since he was dealing with Democrats who never operate according to the rules. He was just like the Republicans of today believing the RATS can be believed and trusted.
The fact that H fell for the Honey Trap set up to catch him does him no credit particularly since he knew that his enemies were constantly trying to bring him down. After all the first political party was formed explicitly to destroy him and his policies.
How ironic is it that the crown considered each colony more autonomous than the neo-Yankees would deem states today. Colonies; their sovereignty from each other, was more understood by the crown and the colonist then than now. That memory seems to have been extinguished by the flood of statism, post Civil War.
And you Union boys just worshiped at the alter of diversity and human rights.. Rolling eyes and pukes..
You said it, now good bye. AMF.
The people of a state cannot have an insurrection against themselves. If you believe the state(s) is/are the equals of the Federales, that is.
You would have it that ratification, oaths, and the words of the Constitution have no meaning.
So much for that vaunted "Southern honor."
I thought you said you were done? What happened?
Outside of Jefferson’s flunkies NO ONE claimed Burr had ever mentioned separating the western states (territories). There was no ONE shred of evidence supporting that charge. Nor were there any military forces ever raised or equipped to undertake an invasion.
Land speculation was a national pastime and there is no doubt that it was part of Burr’s intention or that it was not treasonous.
The system worked IN SPITE of the President’s attempt to intimidate it into an unjust verdict. He did all he could to prevent justice from being served.
Andy Jackson was a firm Burr supporter and developed a hatred of Jefferson over this incident. HE would have never supported any secessionist scheme.
Virtually all of the egregious charges Wilkinson leveled against Burr were ideas W was pushing which he tried to hide until the court penetrated his veil of lies. Everyone in Louisiana knew they were lies but Jefferson did not care and he was involved in every aspect of the persecution unleashed against Burr and the other innocent men.
Luther Martin was right in complaining about “the hand of malignity”.
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact”
Sometimes I see displays of sheer stupidity that goad me from my pledge. It's a failing on my part -- I can't do anything about the idiots who do things like pick fights with the dictionary.
Secession was, though.
Police are extremely closed mouth about criminals guilt. In fact, they are called alleged guilty parties or some other euphemism even Oswald is the “accused assassin”.
Jefferson’s actions in this case were loathsome through and through and were an offense to the law. Perhaps you can educated me as to other president’s doing something similar? Practically ALL his actions around this event were affront’s to common decency. In fact, he did NOTHING to aid Burr getting a fair trial.
You must be kidding the crown did not consider the colonies autonomous at all. If their legislatures were a problem to the crown the King just dismissed them and called for new ones or just refused to allow them to sit. If they passed laws the Crown did not like they were voided.
I would think that conservatives would be interested in secession as a viable solution to out political problems. If a Hugo Chavez type thug is elected and congress abdicates what then? Will you continue to genuflect at the alter of federalism, continue to lick the boot of the Federal govt as you do now? Or will that comfortable pocket of Federalism feel like a prison and your intolerance for states rights suddenly change and become a bosom for your retribution?
You are not that stupid, my point was clear; the crown considered the colonies autonomous FROM EACH OTHER.
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.