Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
You need not bother. It's just more fringist prattle.
"Half of the country was denied suffrage" because they supported insurrection against the lawful government. The Amendment was designed, in part, to make sure they didn't try it again.
By running roughshod over both? I tell you, that Lincoln! With all those arrests, political persecutions, harassment of judges, deportation of opposition congressmen, shutting down newspapers, rigging of elections, overthrow of state governments, and imposition of massive tax hikes he must've been quite the libertarian! /sarcasm
The Embargo was not a "war-time" policy but rather a policy to avoid war. And it was more successful than protection because it was the ultimate in protection.
Jefferson's action was not well though out which is why it was condemned. It destroyed the livelihood of whole sections without having any idea of how to ameliorate its damage. But he was a terrible president in almost every area so it is hardly a shock to see such brainlessness.
An astounding case of philosophical blindness!
Shortages are not the same as famines.
Apparently you are unaware of the meaning of slothful since you useage is inappropriate.
Territory of the United States was just that and at the disposal of the United States Congress. Thus, it would be entirely constitutional to form another nation from it but not to allow states to leave once entering the Union.
Certainly Jefferson's nonsense encouraged the enemies of the Union but he never suggested that states could leave constitutionally contrary to his implications.
"The one omission concerned the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Here was an act that clearly reflected the difference in the nation's experience with foreign and domestic war. Congress had agreed to Lincoln's warmaking - his marshaling of men and materials of war, his power to kill the nation;s enemies. Yet they refused to endorse his authority to jail those enemies. Accounting for the irony was the contrast between the clear dangers of Confederate soldiers shooting Union officials and the ambiguous and more covert dangers of civilian opponents attacking with words and less obvious weapons. Still, congress did nothing to stop Lincoln from carrying out his plan. Politics was important here: Americans were sensitive about their liberties; better to stay quiet on the subject and let Lincoln take the heat. Most important, however, their inaction showed that congressmen agreed with Lincoln. They were willing to let him do whatever it was that the Constitution allowed him to do."
Seriously capitan - you cannot make stuff up that's goofier that this! It comes straight from that same realm of ideas that votes for the $87 billion before voting against it and debates what the meaning of "is" is.
Really? Let's see what the dictionary says about that...
fam·ine ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fmn) n. 1. A drastic, wide-reaching food shortage. 2. A drastic shortage; a dearth.
It was war-time in the sense that it occured in direct response to offenses committed against American commerce by the participants in a huge war involving a little guy named Napoleon on the other side of the Atlantic.
Jefferson's action was not well though out which is why it was condemned.
Thank you for agreeing. On that note I will once again point out that being compared unfavorably to the Embargo Act of all things makes your tariffs just about the worst policy attempt in American history.
Having recognized and defensible borders is a common-sense (you might want to look that term up in a dictionary) attribute. One need only look at the European territorial disputes of conflicting French and German claims, or the history of Poland, to understand the idea.
With repect to ftD's comments regarding the Fourth of July as our date of independence, and the founding of the Country - he is absolutely correct. Because we were able to sustain our quest of independence and eventually conclude a treaty with our former sovereign, we can justly celebrate that key date as when we declared our intentions. Had we lost, as did the confederacy, there would be nothing to discuss.
Slothful Induction Definition: The proper conclusion of an inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary.
...which just about sums up everything you've posted around here lately.
Taney and the Keys (Taney's in-laws) ran in the same social circles. (If I'm not mistaken, wasn't it Taney's nephew who Dan Sickles offed in a lover's triangle?) The Baltimore elites hung together. We aren't talking about 169,000 people.
The "New England states" were not involved in the slave trade after 1808 - it was not a state-sponsored criminal enterprise. Individual criminals certainly were involved and some were from New England - and some were from the slaver states too (as in the illegal slave trader from Baltimore in the article you took the clipper ship picture from).
From the time of the Declaration of Independence, based on the natural law rights of "all men are created equal" and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," the Northern states began a steady decrease in its slave population and tolerance for the barbaric practice.
Slavery in the south, despite the hopes of the southern Founders and Framers, continued to grow at an exponential rate.
I think you missed the fact that the picture had nothing to do with the article he lifted it from. Follow the link and discover that for yourself.
You're delving into speculation and innuendo, capitan. If you want to prove your contention you'll need sterner stuff than that.
May I make a suggestion to anybody with access to a US census database? If you can get ahold of the Baltimore County census from 1860 you should be able to figure out exactly where Taney lived and where Merryman lived. If they're on the same census block then they were indeed neighbors. If they're not then the NY Times and capitan are, as usual, lying.
You have been using just the word slothful. Must be your lack of sleep.
DRASTIC is the key word here NOT shortage. But this is typical.
Lord, lord will there be no end of your grasping at straws to find something to argue about?
The unfavorable comparision was because the tariff was not as drastic and therefore not as protective as the embargo. That would not have changed had the latter been well planned and properly thought out. It is not a rational argument against tariffs because the embargo stimulated domestic production more than a tariff could. Nor were they complaining because the embargo stimulated domestic manufactures of import substitutes. They were complaining because it destroyed our shipping industry and crippled our export industries something the tariffs did NOT do.
The ONLY aspect of the tariffs properly compared to the Embargo involved the degree of protection offered by each. Only a fool would believe the former could be as effective as the latter in that regard.
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.