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 ...
It is a damn shame that a state(s) has to fight their way out of this stupid Union.
So you do not forsee a peaceful secession but another rebellion leading to bitter division like in 1776 and 1861?
Obama is less mature, less experienced and more egotistical than Lincoln (if that's possible). Any state(s) that decide to secede will have to repel an invasion by the feds, aka yankees. (Ovomit and the yankee dems and even some so called repubs, such as non-sequitur, would have no qualms about suspending the Constitution in the name of 'preserving the union')
But this time the seceding states would be successful because they wouldn't have the albatross of slavery hanging around their necks. Also, most of the real producers will gladly join with the seceding states, leaving the 'union' populated with the entitlement class, or moochers, and cowards like non-sequitur, rockrr, mac-truck, et al.
I think that we would be the real "union", because we would be the only states forcing our federal government to honor the Constitution as it was written.
Better yet, maybe rather than secede, we could force out the states who want to use the federal government to illegally fund their social programs. ;)
... nah, we'd have to clean up their mess...
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part; be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” -James Madison, father of the Constitution
There you go again. Cite and quote, don't "interpret". I don't trust you as far as I can throw you -- you've pulled that stunt so many times!
It doesn't say what you just said it says.
Yes it does.
We, the Southern red states, are all that's left of constitutional adhering United States of America.
The yankee states, including those west coast creeps, are trying their damnedest to chuck the Constitution and turn us into the United Socialist State of America.
nah, we'd have to clean up their mess...
That is precisely the reason why secession is the proper way to proceed.
Establishment of a central government sufficient to protect the Union was the first order of business and this was resisted by the antis/Jeffersonians/Democrats with all the means and rhetoric capable of working on the gullible and ignorant. All the while playing footsie with the French Revolutionaries.
Ex-Continental soldiers overwhelmingly supported the President and the Federalists while the professional hatchet-men in the press associated with Jefferson used any convenient lie or slander against his integrity and patriotism. Little wonder Washington refused to hear the near “Jefferson” spoken in his presence towards the end of his life.
The alleged concern with “Liberty” claimed by the antis didn't go so far as to have their own state constitutions have Bills of Rights. Nor did it extend so far as to build up a strong military to protect the cradle of Liberty surrounded as it was by the wolves of three empires ready to rip the Union apart.
What is ridiculous is elevating the mediocrity of thought represented by “anti-federal” to the level of that which created and strengthened the Union and made it capable of lasting. Ignoring their mendacity and perverse foreign policy also ignores the needs of and dangers facing the new nation.
Madison was not speaking of secession at all but of a pact which fell apart and was incapable of performing its intended function. States paid little attention to the laws Congress passed and violated or ignored them at will with impunity. What we had was “ ...a system of imbecility...” not a government. It had died.
Nor had the United States voided the “pact” in 1860 by electing Lincoln. It was a perfectly constitutional act which happened because the Democrat Party split into factions each of which ran its own candidate. Once again demonstrating the colossal stupidity of the Slaverocracy.
Your “money quote” is worth less than Confederate money in 1866. The Union subsisted throughout the process of amending the Articles as established by the authority, Congress. And the Articles were amended with North Carolina and Rhode Island coming into the new government leisurely and with no doubt that they eventually would when the peculiar circumstances preventing ratification in each were overcome by reason.
None of this has nothing to do with the RAT Rebellion and its attacks on the United States.
Your “point” was as clear as your other thinking hence virtually incomprehensible. The crown considered the colonies as UNITS within the empire and co-ordinated policies within them as such. They were in no way “autonomous”.
Even those historians who do not admire Hamilton all that much don’t argue that he did not shoot at Burr. However, it is true that he intended to make Burr believe he would shoot. He did not want to give Burr a chance to also throw his shot away, as was fairly common in such events. Burr was determined to kill him as the challenge had shown.
H was a man beaten down and depressed by events personal and political forced to elevate his great enemy over Burr to the presidency; having had his eldest son killed by a Burr flunky and his beloved daughter driven insane by the death. His physicians said he was a very sick man not likely to live much longer in any event. He had had several extremely close brushes with death in the past. So I think he took a chance to die for the Union by removing the greatest threat of secession once and for all.
The hair trigger on Church’s pistol was not set and he was not speaking of any “second” gun. He explicitly referred to the dueling pistol in his conversation with Pendleton.
Jefferson dredged the backwoods and taverns for testimony against Burr even going so far as having a questionaire printed and distributed. Of course, not one shred of credible testimony from disinterested sources could be found to show he considered attacking the US much less Wilkinson’s lurid fantasies of murder and mayhem. Even Jefferson knew it was all ludicrous and admitted that he had no real evidence to support the charges. But his persecution was not swayed by considerations of justice.
None of those compare. Adams tried to legally murder no one and pardoned people condemned to death.
Lincoln was facing REAL insurrection and war not fantasies.
Johnson was also dealing with REAL killers not pretenses.
Roosevelt was facing REAL war on a worldwide scale not hysterical crap.
None of this involved people the president KNEW were innocent.
Nothing Clintonian about H’s reaction to the revelation of the affair which went on for two years.
Monroe, Muhlenberg and Venerable all agree H’s affair had nothing to do with his job and that it would be dropped.
Your view of the nature of the political mores of the time are apparently only yours.
Aberdeen?
I am not the origin of the incest thing.
Any balanced view of Hamilton would be “hagiographic” in your mind.
FROM EACH OTHER! dipstick.
None of this has nothing to do with the RAT Rebellion and its attacks on the United States.
Well stated, bump.
I am not the origin of the incest thing.
No. That would be, in all likelihood, Alexander Hamilton.
Any balanced view of Hamilton would be “hagiographic” in your mind.
The terms "balanced" and "hagiography" are one in the same to you. I say that because you literally attempted to excuse away Hamilton's salacious extramarital affair in which he literally BRIBED the husband to be able to sleep with his wife (you know, in most places that's known by another name in addition to adultery) by blaming it on a giant conspiracy by his political enemies. That's not just glossing over the warts, arrogant. That's borderline idolatry of the guy.
One need not tear down Hamilton to know that he was a very flawed though also highly capable man. Yet you seem incapable of conceding even the most obvious of those flaws, though you see nothing but the same in Jefferson.
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.