Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
Dred Scott was a complex case with a long history. What transpired throughout those years is all part of the history of the case. What is pathetic is that you are unable to argue the substance and resort to personal attacks. But that is what we have come to expect from you.
Using the passive voice to try to lie about Lincoln's unconstitutional acts doesn't work around here, stuffed shirt. You've already been called on that one so often, you deserve your own cell down at FReeper Jail.
That is an amusing scenario of Yates, Clinton's handpuppet, protesting an assault upon his "integrity." He was sent by the Old Man as a keeper of Hamilton to the CC. Prior to that Hamilton attempted to assure his loyalty and fidelity to the Union's interest. That, of course, failed and when H refused to hire him became infuriated. The word of Yates, a second or third rater, against a Titan is of no interest except as chaff trown in the eyes of History.
What this episode shows is that H was not going to put antagonistic forces in power and rightly so. Washington found out the problems with such appointments after appointing Jefferson as SecState and watching sabotage from the very center of his Administration.
Hamilton's huge role in our history was a testimony to his talent and willingness to sacrifice all for his country. Since Adams retained those cabinet members who had served under Washington he unknowingly retained their tendency to consult H on everything as they had since the beginning of the federal government. Adams tendency to leave the Capital for long stretches at Braintree did not mean the work of the government could be suspended.
As for being elected president, that was the likely result of the situation in the 90s until Jefferson's henchmen torpedoed his chances by revealing the Reynolds affair, apparently a badger game run by Burr, through the detestable Callender. Him not being President was one of America's greatest tragedies along with the Lincoln assassination.
As for the silly idea that he was a manipulator that completely is at odds with his ability to make friends who stayed friends for life utterly devoted to the Little Lion.
They certainly did not object to his "manipulation." There was no man more upfront than Alexander Hamilton.
It was precisely his devotion to principle which caused most of his political trouble rather than resort to fraud, sneakiness and deception, like Jefferson, he stated what he believed and forced people to deal with it. He was truly the pivot around which politics of the 1790s revolved as Jefferson was forced to admit- a Colossus.
His role in conversion of enough of the majority antis to a federalist vote for the Constitution at the NY Ratification Convention was one of the most widely praised achievements in the history of politics and was matched by the role in explaining the Constitution to the masses in The Federalist.
This rapidly produced work is the most important work in Western political theory since Aristotle and Plato. Such works at these makes Hamilton's fame and glory permanent. They and his other huge achievements places him in the Triumverate with Washington, and Lincoln as the greatest fighters for the Union and the greatest Americans. Without him the Union would not have survived.
There was no rebellion. But then, you knew that.
But be that as it may, wouldn't the proper time to discuss payment have been before seizing the property? Once you've appropriated it from the legal owner then later offers to pay for it lack credibility.
Nonsense yourself. The United States Government does it all the time. So does any governmental entity that, say, commandeers a truck or a boat in an emergency, or moves a disaster-management team onto private property and begins stringing phone lines.
It is a tenet of the neo-confederate culture that Lincoln violated the Constitution. The fact of the matter is that the Congress supported his actions, and you rebs are simply left to whine about how long it took.
One doesn't use a club when a feather will suffice. Your rationale on the subject is a house of cards that collapses with the slightest provocation.
Irrelevant. The incident, as I pointed out clearly, occurred in 1782, five years before the Constitutional Convention (which convened in May, 1787), when nobody had any Federal/Antifederal irons in the fire yet, and the guns of Yorktown were barely cool.
The word of Yates, a second or third rater, against a Titan is of no interest except as chaff trown in the eyes of History.
Blatant and abusive prejudice and intellectual arrogance of the first water. Thanks for showing it off. Now lurkers will be better able to weigh your shamelessly partisan representations and mischaracterizations.
The incident clearly shows who said what, and Hamilton's intentions are crystal-clear, as is his mode of operation. The tale itself vindicates my and Yates's measure of Hamilton's character, and I'll be happy to let you roll that boulder uphill for as long as you can stand it. Readers will know, as I say, what to make of your "efforts".
Like Hamilton, "you are known".
That is your claim not theirs. Trying to claim that his policies were a failure is not a viable theory though at times the general theory that tariffs don't work as planned surfaces from time to time. Neither side can be proved empirically and theoretic claims are just that.
This is unarguable though- Hamiltonism was designed to transform the new nation into a capitalist economy and spur the growth of domestic industry; the new nation's industrial sectors began to grow rapidly after it was passed and continued to do so until the 1830s when Jackson spiked it by destroying one of H's major institutions a major factor in that growth. Those sectors he had stimulated resumed their growth after the Jackson Depression was worked through. Is this a Liberty Valence situation were something else caused this growth? Not that I can see. And the fact remains that by the end of the 1800s America was the greatest capitalist power in the world with an industrial capacity second to none.
Yeah, all it took was two million bayonets and several billion dollars in gold.
He broke the law and didn't even bother to ask his Republican Congress for a Bill of Indemnity for two years.
Congress acted two years after the fact. You can't legalize or criminalize actions ex post facto, as nolu chan and GOPcapitalist have pointed out and documented for you with infinitely more patience than your utterly recalcitrant lying and pettifogging deserve.
I was just being silly. Your mom is probably as wonderful as mine and deserves similiar praise and respect.
You posted the entire letter and my distillation of its meaning is exactly correct.
capitan still hasn't responded to my query.
Nolu coward is the master of bombast. In the last month I have called him out twice on his slander, in matters that are easily provable, and using a neutral third party to hold a wager. He had twice run away. "Coward" aptly describes his behavior.
Several of the cabal enjoy throwing around epithets such as "liar," "marxist," etc. One of you does it and the others ape him. You have formed one big confederate circle jerk at FR. That's fine with me. I will treat you all with the same level of consideration. You act like jackbooted thugs, and you will be treated like jackbooted thugs.
You will notice that there are posters who support the confederate positions who receive a polite level of respect from me. I appreciate their input, even though I may not agree with some or all of their conclusions. That is how the level of debate should proceed, in my opinion.
"Just how many federal judges does it take for you to recognize contempt of court?"
How many judges held the President in contempt of court?
Apparently they do not understand what federalism means and reject the authority of those who do: Hamilton and Madison.
Whoop! There it is!
The purest, drossiest, scum-fluffiest Hamiltonian power-junkie madness, and ends justifying means to the nth degree.
How very David Rockefeller of you, O Master of the Universe!
Just goes to show you, GOP, just how pallid and unwinsome that old, honest republicanism starts to look, when you're mainlining raw power.
Chase, sitting as a Justice of the Supreme Court, is ultimately the final authority on his impartiality in any given case. I believe your characterization ("the United State's conquest of the South") is incorrect. The Adminstration restored the rule of law to the insurrectionist states. I also recall that you prefer to use the term "United State" (singular).
Onward and upward.
Can you quote the New York Times article for us?
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus had been constitutionally suspended for the purposes outlined in the Suspension Clause. Once Taney had been apprised of its suspension, his ability to issue the writ was terminated.
BZZZT! Wrong. You are affirming the consequent of a false and circular argument. The underlying premise - that the writ had been constitutionally suspended - is unsupported. Rather, a president who was not authorized by the constitution to suspend it purported to do so. The court, when faced with that claim, evaluated the standing of its jurisdiction under the law and, finding the Judicial Act of 1789 still in place, discovered its jurisdiction intact.
You continually mis-state the case and have been unable to prove otherwise.
Wrong again. I simply state what his own website at Claremont claims - that he's got a degree in English. Since you are citing him as an authority the burden is also upon you to establish his credentials. Yet you have done nothing of the sort, nor do you seem to dispute the fact that he is trained in English rather than the law.
Prof. Jaffa is a recognized authority on the subject and has been for more that 40 years.
No. Professor Jaffa wrote a single notable book on the subject of Lincoln 40 years ago and has been riding its fame ever since without contributing anything more of note or distinction to the record (though he has provided no deficit of low-quality panegyrics and historically incorrect garbage)
However, please state your credentials in the legal field, or the legal authorities you reference.
Happily. Though I am not a lawyer nor do I profess to be one, my credentials in the field include formal academic training in American constitutional law, authorship of academic case briefs on a dozen or more supreme court rulings, and employment at a law firm during college. The authorities a cite for my position are John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Robbin Curtis, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, St. George Tucker, Joseph Story, William Rawle, and Antonin Scalia. And yes, I'll pit those guys against the Cult of Harry any day.
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.