Posted on 02/25/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by 4CJ
The "necessities needed" was for the fort and was separated from what was listed just before it. It looks as if the arms were for the ship. Regardless of where what was going where, you can't show me the signed armistice so I'm doubting if it even existed. Looks like it was just a truce between the Buchanan Administration and the rebels. Plus any president has an obligation to give his troops the supplies they need to defend themselves so Buchanan was derelict in not supporting his troops if he did make a verbal agreement with the outlaws.
It's a lengthy and complex argument that, in order to get the full jist of, you should at least skim through the text itself (http://www.lysanderspooner.org/UnconstitutionalityOfSlaveryContents.htm)
That said, the argument in oversimplified summary is as follows:
1. Human liberty is a natural and inalienable right under the the common law.
2. By the universally accepted principles of common law, contracts that violate the common law and rights under it are invalid and void.
3. The constitution is by definition a contract of government.
4. If the constitution therefore permits slavery, it is void under the common law. Only if it does not permit slavery is it valid.
5. On the subject of slavery itself, the plain literal text of the constitution is silent, instead only referring to slaves as "other persons" and in the status of servitude. Therefore it cannot be said to explicitly authorize slavery.
6. Since the constitution does not recognize slavery explicitly it therefore cannot be said to violate the common law and therefore, as a contract, is in theory valid under that law. Slavery, therefore, is not sanctioned under the Constitution.
It is important to note again that this is a great oversimplification of a lengthy and complex argument - one that can only be fully understood by at minimum skimming the text itself. It should also be noted that his case was not without precedent and in fact built upon some of the same principles that were used in the landmark Somersett case of 1772 in England (the first step towards abolishing slavery in England proper). So in a sense, Spooner was simply applying the principles of common law and their previous successful application in Britain to the United States.
2. You attacked the author of that argument based upon factually inaccurate information, to which I responded by noting the facts surrounded him.
3. You responded to those facts by requesting further information about a book he wrote for the abolitionist movement, to which I responded by describing in summary that book's arguments and referring you to an online copy of it.
That said, if you wish to discuss any of these issues further please do so. If you do not desire to discuss them, don't ask that I provide you with information about each and drop the irrelevant side commentary as is contained in your wholly meaningless metaphor about rowboats.
My points of relevance are as follows:
1. You asserted without explanation that the south was treasonous in the war, to which I responded by offering a soundly reasoned argument as to why they were not.
2. You attacked the author of that argument based upon factually inaccurate information, to which I responded by noting the facts surrounded him.
3. You responded to those facts by requesting further information about a book he wrote for the abolitionist movement, to which I responded by describing in summary that book's arguments and referring you to an online copy of it.
That said, if you wish to discuss any of these issues further please do so. If you do not desire to discuss them, don't ask that I provide you with information about each and drop the irrelevant side commentary as is contained in your wholly meaningless metaphor about rowboats.
Main Entry: rev·o·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "re-v&-'lü-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English revolucioun, from Middle French revolution, from Late Latin revolution-, revolutio, from Latin revolvere to revolve
: a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed.
And for the southern actions of 1861 I suggest this is more accurate:
Main Entry: re·bel·lion
Pronunciation: ri-'bel-y&n
Function: noun
a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance
Especially the unsuccessful part.
Even you have to admit we put up one heck of a fight. Lincoln thought he'd have us conquered in a matter of weeks. He paid for his mistake with 4 long years of war that consumed thousands of lives including his own.
Wrong. By its legal definition, the actions of the south did not constitute treason. See the first post I made to you for an explanation of why this is so.
Do I need to translate words into Marklar for you as well?
That they are. Their capacity to understand common english seems to be degrading. It has been supplanted with a simplistic circular device that also seems to lack capabilities for even the most immediate memory retention.
Your mind seems to be the one that is boggled, but I took your advice. Is Roget's International, Third edition OK with you? Because in that it gives revolt, mutiny, mutineering, insurrection, insurgence, riot, Putsch, uprising, outbreak, general outbreak, and revolution as synonyms for rebellion, but not secession. For revolution it gives words like revolt, overthrow, overturn, subversion, and coup d'etat, but not secession. For secede it it lists synonyms such as bolt, pull out, withdraw support for, or sell out, but not revolution or rebellion.
Do I need to translate words into Marklar for you as well?
Perhaps. I don't speak Maklar, I don't speak Iowa either, apparently. Let me know where you got your English-Maklar, Maklar-English dictionary and I'll look it up.
It may have taken the North longer than we at first anticipated, but we never doubted the outcome. Y'all came from the 'one southerner can whip 10 Yankees' school, and y'all still got yer ass kicked. A shock which some of you seem to have never gotten over.
Taking over 4 years to do so, at 3-1 odds, and waging war against innocent women and children ain't an ass-whupping. But if you want to be think so, be my guest.
Only one side was surprised by the outcome of the War of Southern Rebellion, and it wasn't mine.
7. (Politics) A fundamental change in political organization, or in a government or constitution; the overthrow or renunciation of one government, and the substitution of another, by the governed.
Secede
To withdraw from fellowship, communion, or association; to separate one's self by a solemn act; to draw off; to retire; especially, to withdraw from a political or religious body.
Clearly unrelated.
You mean they expected to wage war on women, children, and elderly men?
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.