No propaganda here bozo, self-determination WAS the bottom line. But then with you damnYankee knobheads, the truth was always the first casualty of war.
Posted on 01/23/2003 6:06:25 PM PST by one2many
No propaganda here bozo, self-determination WAS the bottom line. But then with you damnYankee knobheads, the truth was always the first casualty of war.
There was already a mechanism in place to withdraw from the Union ... the supreme authority of the people through the auspices of the 10th Amendment! Your argument means that we have always been in a Government-over-Man society. WRONG! The Framers set it up as Man-over-Government and the People are the ultimate authority ... not the Supreme Court ... not Congress ... not the President, which is why the 9th and 10th Amendments were crucial. The three branches of power were the servants of the People! If you throw in Natural Law, and the Inalienable right of "Pursuit of Happiness" your argument holds no merit.
"BTW Samuel Colt was a Connecticut Yankee, so does that make you a Yankee lover...? "
My ancestors came from Missouri, you might recall another couple of famous War of Northern Aggression irregulars that came from there ... Jesse James, and William Quantrill whom also favored the Colt Revolver. I can assure you that they were NOT Yankee lovers. I like the gun, but not the damnYankee stupidity that fostered the Aggression of the Northern States. I am a proud Southerner, not a slavery advocate, but an advocate of Individual Liberty and Freedom of Self-Determination.
Thats Pure-D Bullshit. Right from the can.
How many neo-rebs voted Republican in New Hampshire, or Minnisota, or North Carolina for that matter?
Of course Dixie did us proud in the Louisiana runoff didn't she?
"That wasn't tripe, was it?"
It is now! Just as everything Midas touched turned to gold, everything you touch turns to tripe.
If Colin Powell is having conversations with the Iraqis, Saudi Arabia, the Israelis etc is he acting on his own, or is he a representative of the President?
Whoop ti doo. Chew, "a War Department clerk", versus an associate Justice of THE US Supreme Court. Who would any rational person believe over the other? Justice Campbell (and Justice Nelson), and the peace commisioners were told by an official of the US government that THEY would be informed. They weren't. Lincoln lied.
What clause in the Constitution attests to it's perpetuity?
If the framers contemplated states coming and going from the union, they would have provided structure for it.
They did - read the Tenth Amendmenment.
The confederacy was formed to protect and expand slavery, which is tyranny in its purest form.
You wield a wide brush - I disagree with your premise. The several states - from their Declaration of Independence from Britain, into the Articles of Confederation, and into the Constitution all supported slavery, as did much of the known world (still practiced today in Africa).
In typical fashion for you, your conclusion is a...non-sequitur! Your premise, that Toombs advised against attacking based on his own personal prediction, does not necessitate your conclusion that Davis "knew" and invasion "would happen." Rather, it only indicates that in the mind of one of the participants in his government, an invasion was predicted at a time prior to that invasion occurring. Predictions sometimes come true, but they do not necessitate their own actualization. Try again.
We are making a lot more headway than you and WhiskeyPapa are making in your attempt to impose your distorted wordview on the rest of the world.
Oh that is such bull. If it was "perpetual", then why did some states specifically declare they could withdraw and reassume the rights they ceded to the union in the very documents that created the union? I have already pointed this out to you and yet you keep repeating your patently false bilge that it was understood to be "perpetual". A State's right to reassume the powers it ceded to the Union were very clearly stated when the union was created. Since the framers were aware of the issue, why didn't they prohibit it, or correct those states that declared the right existed in their ratifications? It is very obvious that it was not considered "perpetual", and that the right of withdrawal existed and was recognized. If it wasn't, then the agreement was fraudulent, and void. Read the ratification declarations of Virginia, New York, and Vermont. They very clearly prove that this "perpetual" nonsense is just that, nonsense. You have been misled by revisionists.
Again, where is anything indicating perpetuity? It seems the obvious escapes you - the founders just seceded from a union that was declared to be perpetual, and that union only lasted a few years.
They did say in Article I Section 10 that "No State shall enter into a Treaty, Alliance or Confederation;"
A state still within the union cannot perform as indicated. A state that has seceded is no longer bound by us laws or the Constitution
and Article III Section 2 vests the Supreme court as the judicial power " to all cases in law and equity, arising under this constitution"
See above. The Confederate states had left, their allegaince to the Constitution revoked.
But what gives any confederate the right to invoke the United States constitution? Perhaps you could explain why instead of pursuing their so-called claims in the United States Supreme Court, the slave powers chose instead to fire on its flag.
Easy. While they were still members, they exercised their rights under the 10th to legally secede from the union. Once seceded, the federal courts have no authority over them. The Confederates fired on US forces invading their territory - just as the states fired on the British invading after seceding.
We certainly came close. If you take out New Orleans Parish we would have won the state. But New Orleans Parish's population is majority black and they vote 95% Democrat for any Democrat under any circumstances even if his name is Hitler. It's the same thing that happened there in '96 - Republicans in the rest of the state voted Jenkins, but New Orleans Parish's one sided voting (not to mention vote fraud) made up for the Landrieu deficit.
And for the record, Landrieu's support was NOT a confederate friendly crowd. I drove over there for a weekend to campaign for Terrell. The Landrieu campaign "volunteers" that were opposite of us consisted of two groups.
The first were NAACP activists being paid $20 an hour to wave Landrieu signs on street corners - they want to ban all things confederate.
The second group consisted of college aged womens studies major lesbo vegan goth types from northeastern universities that the Dems bussed down south for Landrieu. Every last one of them thought they were on another freedom ride to save the south from "evil confederate republicans."
In short, I suggest you get your facts straight before bashing Dixie for the left wing politics of yankeeland and their race hustlers. You might do yourself good to look at Bill Clinton's election numbers as well. He may have come from a southern state, but yankeeland elected him unanimously. Twice. And they did so both times in opposition to the majority in the old CSA states.
Ellsworth's motion to refer the plan to the legislatures of the states for ratification was defeated 3-7. The plan that was submitted by committe "to refer the Constitution, after the approbation of Congress, to assemblies chosen by the people" was accepted 9-1 [notice the plural].
The convention did consider the option of submitting the Constitution to the people of the states en masse for ratification: "Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved, that the reference of the plan be made to one general convention, chosen and authorized by the people, to consider, amend, and establish the same."
The result: "Not seconded." See Eliott's Debates Vol. V., p. 356.
No it's not. There are hundreds of monuments all over the South that use those exact words.
"How many neo-rebs voted Republican in New Hampshire, or Minnisota, or North Carolina for that matter?"
I don't know and you don't either. What IS a neo-reb? Is it anything like a yankee redneck?
"Of course Dixie did us proud in the Louisiana runoff didn't she?"
What an ignorant statement. You indicate by that nonsense that we are some sort of "group" that you are loathe to recognize and loathe to appreciate because we didn't vote the way you wanted us to. What a pantload! ROTFLMAO!
Of course, but it must do so without "Prejudice", or favoring a state, or group of states, over another. The properties in quiestion are held in trust - for the benefit of all states, not just a select few.
It may impact the ability of a resident of a state to emigrate to a territory with their chattel in tow, but the Constitution doesn't require that they be able to do that.
No, just the opposite. See Amendment V, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." And Amendment IX as well, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, the federal government cannot enact legislation that deprives an individual of their property without due process and/or compensation.
Ever read the DISENTING opinion in the Prize Cases?
Probably not. As far as Walt is concerned, if it does not support, nay, adore The Lincoln, it simply does not exist.
I don't think he's even read the majority decision, based on what he thinks the Court decided in that case.
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.