Posted on 08/20/2004 5:43:21 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
Secession was political in nature. If it was a crime, it was for the legislature to say so... before the act. They did not. Even if they had, it's validity would be in question; the only proper way to stop it was through a Constitutional amendment. Could an amendment have made it? Well, I would question even that, since 3/4 of the states would be binding in permanence a previously voluntary act by the remainder. Note the language in the Constitution regarding ratification: the Constitution did not take effect between all 13 on the ratification of the 9th; rather it took effect only between those 9.
You neo-rebs are not unlike the insurrectionists in Iraq.
And yet it is El Capitan calling for an ideological cleansing through mass murder. As I said before, you disgust me.
You venerate the Ayatollah (Davis),
Make that comparison.
try to pull down the lawful government,
The lawful government is dictated by the sovereign People in convention. It was thier will that was thwarted, and any attempt to call the government during war and reconstruction lawful deserves a laugh.
misrepresent yourselves,
Provide an example. You cannot.
play to sectional prejudices,
It is El Capitan who continues to push a political discussion onto the topic of slavery.
use lies and deceit to further your propaganda.
It is El Capitan who has been caught lying. Not once. Not twice. Three times. His response?
[El Capitan, #1462] Big deal.
Once might be an honest mistake. Twice? Maybe I could believe that. Thrice, and response of 'big deal' - outrageous and dishonest.
The Iraqi insurgents have taken a page right out of the southern playbook, by hoping to unsettle an upcoming, lawful election by the loyal people, and change administrations.
The only documented election tampering (courtesy of Spoons) sounds more like that of the previous Iraqi regime. I would not have made the comparison; you invite it, in fact you force it. So where are your facts, El Capitan?
I am sure when all is said an done, there will still remain a few insurrectionists Iraqi pigs to squeal about the big bad Yankees.
In the absence of #3fan, I guess it truly is up to you to be the leader of insult, bigotry, and truly base argument and commentary. It's getting out of hand now.
Until then:
It was a good thing that another attempt to overthrow the government has not been attempted.
It was a good thing the inhumane institution of human slavery was, in this country, snuffed out.
It was a good thing the vital principle of constitutional rule was upheld, restored by later patriots.
It was a good thing that a "balkanized" North America never came into being.
It is an especially good thing the founding principles of "all men are created equal," and that they have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" actually continued were made to mean something.
The United States, today, is the greatest nation in the history of mankind, a beacon of liberty and freedom to the rest of the world.
He opened it with an admission that during the 'wicked Rebellion' the temper of the country precluded a calmness vital to judicial resolution.
Oh, that's what's going on! The Constitution is a document for rulers in times of war and peace, unless the temper of the country precludes a calmness vital to judicial resolution. Then do whatever the heck you want.
For slaughtering thousands, for raping our women, for killing 623,000 of our finest men, for destroying our homes, our crops, our churches, our families? You genocidal bast*rd, you advocate the policies of Hitler, Stalin and Sadaam Hussein. Is there a school you go to to learn to be a dictator in the making?
The People always have that power and right. The Constitution is theirs to do with.
And the People is the People of a State. There is no lumpen, consolidated "people of the United States". The United States is not, and never has been, a mass national entity. It is a federal union of the States and the People who are the States.
John Ross & his faction were over 1,000 MILES away from our family farm on that grim day.
the FILTH IN BLUE were IL & WI cavalry.
nice try, no cigar.
free dixie,sw
otoh, the US CONGRESS passed a JOINT RESOLUTION which OPENLY encouraged the abuse,torture,denial of food & shelter,denial of medical attention & other "abuses of the physical bodies of rebel prisoners in our hands".
BIG DIFFERENCE in those 2 situations. one is INDIVIDUAL crimes;the other is OFFICIAL US POLICY!
free dixie,sw
i can't decide if heyworth is IGNORANT and/or a TROLL. (he certainly doesn't KNOW many "generally accepted" facts about the WBTS.)
free dixie,sw
are you one of those unionist loonies who doesn't believe ANYTHING that the damnyankees did was WRONG & IMMORAL?
i hope that is NOT the case FOR YOU, though heyworth certainly fits that description.
free dixie,sw
whether he could have gotten such a measure "passed" by 3/4 of the states is beside the point. he was a stone RACIST, who hated & FEARED all "persons of colour", catholics,jews, asians, latinos & "muddy-coloured people" (mixedbloods like ME, for instance!).
you and the other unionists are defending a "cheap politician", who was not at all UNlike "wee willie klintoon".
lincoln would have done/said/done ANYTHING to stay in power. ANYTHING!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Well, the exact number of battlefield casualties is not known but it's estimated somewhere in the 7 to 8 hundred thousand range. Add another hundred thousand or so for civilians who died directly (e.g. murder, battlefield casualties etc) or indirectly from the war (e.g. starvation) and you're at "almost a million," as I stated.
Nope. I'm simply commenting on what you have done to yourself in this debate. Your position right now is comparable to the abortionist who expressed "moral outrage" over the treatment of death row inmates.
Your premise is utterly without substantiation
Nope. It's fully substantiated. Slavery is a sin against human liberty, itself depriving that function. Murder is a sin against human life, which it also deprives. Liberty may be impeded but may never cease entirely and always stands a chance of being restored. Life, once taken, is absolute in the deprivation and can never be restored. Thus the _effect_ of the sin of murder is substantially more severe than the _effect_ of the sin of slavery.
may i gently suggest that you go look up the "memoranda to all serving commissioned officers", realative to the commision of WAR CRIMES, by GEN Winfield Scott, dated 1848. his comments are more "literary" than mine.
btw, under the Law of War, any POWER "having knowledge of any crime in wartime, which is committed by ANY nation's military forces MAY be adjudicated by that power."
free dixie,sw
...says the fabricator who attaches foreign material to court decisions when they don't give him what he likes and removes passages from the very same decisions by arbitrarily labelling them "dicta" when they get in his way. Yeah, capitan. Your judgment is real credible on this one...
There's no misrepresentation at all, capitan. Lincoln was, as you like to say, unequivocal: "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
He was thought ratification was a sure thing and gave a very strong endorsement, "express and irrevocable." Lice with it.
The phrase "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable," can easily be recast as "If this amendment is ratified, I won't oppose it or try to undo it."
Now you're simply twisting his words since you do not like them. Lincoln did not say "If this amendment is ratified, I won't oppose it or try to undo it." He said "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Broken down:
"holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law"
...meaning, the thing is passed and only awaits a simple ratification process, so we should go ahead and treat it as constitutional law.
I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable
...meaning I PERSONALLY, as in Lincoln himself, endorse the thing. So go ahead and make it "express and irrevocable."
the TRUTH is that MORE than 90% of dixie's forces has GROSS ASSETS of LESS than twenty-five dollars($ 25.00).most didn't own more than 2 shirts;they could NOT have afforded slaves. that comment makes me LOL AT you! (YOU ARE smarter THAN THAT.)
the PACSA was a PEASANT ARMY, led by a handful of intellectuals & professional military officers like REL. (that's ONE of the major reasons that they didn't WIN the WBTS. no money/not enough THINGS. the ONLY thing the southland's forces had in abundance was GRIT!)
free dixie,sw
The writ of habeas corpus
The first amendment via suppressing dissenting newspapers
The second amendment via widespread gun confiscation
The doctrine of the separation of powers via harassment of the judiciary
Splitting a state, Virginia, without its consent
Instituting an income tax
Amendments 4, 5, and 6 through the suspension of the civil authority
...and those are just a few of them.
Two problems with that assertion. First, it does not matter _why_ the executions were ordered in establishing the irrefutable fact that they were done without the proper procedures even under military justice.
Second, we do know "why" they were ordered - Milroy was seeking a loot and found the person of Moses Pittman to provide him a means to one. He asked Pittman (who was apparently very disliked by the locals as an illiterate ne'er do well and scam artist) to draft up an "enemies list" of all the people in the area he didn't like, which then served as a basis for Milroy's death lists. Pittman was "rewarded," of course, by being given a few extras to torture to death.
There are legitimate reasons, such as those I mentioned, for all of his actions, as defined in the Articles of War.
There is NEVER a legitimate reason in the United States Military to execute by torture and all official executions must occur through some form of adjudication procedure within the military system. Tortures do sometimes slip by with men on the field and low level soldiers like at Abu-Gharib, but death by torture is always illegal and especially so when fully authorized by a commanding general. What Milroy did would be akin to a document surfacing that showed Tommy Franks ordering Lynddie England to not only defile her prisoners but then chop their heads off and dispose of the bodies once she got her "entertainment" out of the way.
Many of the charges of "atrocities" are without a firm foundation, and we usually find when some sort of "documentation" is posted, it's from somebody's granddaddy's journal written 40 years after the fact (or conversely, in some obscure archive that nobody can easily access).
Well, fortunately for you neither is the case with Milroy. The documents are all in the official records of the US Government written by his hand on army stationary. They are also easily obtained from the largest and most accessible document repository in the United States: the national archives.
Makes me wish we had the damned Communists back.
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.