This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Locked on 04/13/2005 10:44:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Endless complaints. |
Posted on 12/31/2004 2:21:30 PM PST by Caipirabob
I wish someone was paying by the word! LOL...mmm, more, oil, more oil :)
You need serious medical attention after those cracks, rum pot.
It will never happen. Ever.
"SECESSION is one of the POWERS RESERVED to the STATES or to the PEOPLE."
Not according to the United States Supreme Court and at least four pre-ACW Presidents of the United States.
"had the RIGHT to secession been CEDED to the central government, the document would have said so."
There are no "rights" reserved or created in the 10th Amendment. The "right" of unilateral secession did not exist in the "perpetual Union" under the Articles. No such "right" was created, or even contemplated, in the constitutional convention. No amendment has ever added such a "right."
"NO FREE STATE would have entered a contract, from which i[t] could NOT have just as FREELY departed."
Thirteen states did exactly that - twice - once in ratifying the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and again in ratifying the Constitution of 1787.
What makes you think I'm drunk, you rude little troll?
Has anyone ever denied that abuses occured?
The argument centers around Lincoln's motives and goals.
The pro-Southern view is that Lincoln was out to get the South and create some sought of economic new world order.
We hold that Lincoln was forced to take acts due to his own commitment to his oath the Constitution to take actions he did not like to take.
Thus, your constant reference to abuses is irrelevant unless you can prove Lincoln was himself was directly responsible for some crime.
Farber's view is that Lincoln did take extra legal actions but they were justified due to the responsibilties he had assumed as President (unlike Buchanan who let the South get away with illegal activities)
Moreover, Farber states that this is a classical liberal view, held by Jefferson.
Lincoln was not impeached and he was supported by Congress.
This is libel. Who's sponsoring you?
This is libel. Who's sponsoring you?
It's something to intensely grieve over, day and night, like you & you puppy do ;)
Or, are you his puppy?
More libel. You're getting a free ride, aren't you?
So, who's your daddy? Who is holding his hand over you, while you indulge in conduct that would get any newby banned in a heartbeat, and even old veterans run off?
Show your cards, Ace. Who gave you a hall pass to smear people? What's the job here?
Many acts are not considered so when the context is found out, like the Marine who shot those terrorists in the Mosque.
They may have been unarmed, but since others had gotten up and shot at our troops before the common sense approach was not take any chances.
See the Marines making sure the Japanese are dead after a battle by shooting them.
Okay commandant, wherever. Talk about paranoid Peter here, you are a fruitcake loaded with nuts! LOLOL
The point was, when you quoted that statement, you left that part out, which does make a difference in how the statement is read.
Farber wrote a work for the public, not a scholary one for the professors.
By the way, the two other reviews by the scholars did like the work, so much for your view on the 'scholary community' rejecting his work.
It is your side that does all the ranting!
Do you think the South could have pulled something like that off even with Jeb Stuart?
The poster probably refers to the the Claremont Review of Books, which is exactly as advertised - a book review. Otherwise, his thinking seems to be muddled.
After the examples of his 'non-war crimes' I wonder what would constitute an actual war crime, if even the the worst slaughters of World War II do not even qualify, in his overview. It's sad and frightening as the same time.
In terms of Iraq our men deal with the daily threats of jihadic metal cases, sold out to to a death culture, yet the safety of our men is even questioned.
A scholar tore it to bits (and frankly, I do not read the review that way).
So one scholar did not like it.
I gave you a link to two other scolars who did, both professors.
Moreover, how well received were Mise's works received by the scholars?
You cited one pro-Southern reviewer as evidence. You keep alleging and impugning Gutzman as pro-southern yet have offered no evidence to that, nor any evidence that anything Gutzman ever said about Farber was wrong. Why is that?
His constant harping on Farber's errors on nullification, referring to a five year old journal article he wrote for Southern History Journal as proof, that Farber was not up to date on the 'original sources'
Farber was not writing a scholarly work per se, but a popular one, for the average person.
So, I did not know that Farber's work is considered in low esteem by scholars nor do I know that now. And you'll never know as long as you invent phony reasons to dismiss and neglect every critical review out of convenience for Farber.
Well, since I have found scholars who approved of his work, your view of it being rejected by the 'scholarly community' proves to be an incorrect one (what a shock!)
Here is a favoritable review of the work, The Claremont Institute is not a scholarly peer reviewed journal. It is a Lincolnite hack machine that agrees with Farber because they share in his extreme partisan disposition toward Lincoln.
And what about the other two works that I gave you as proof?
I know you could not have missed them, they are only two posts away from the Claremont review.
Post #4412: "A disproportionate number of them do happen to be commies and socialists though. McPherson, Foner, and your buddy Wlat are prime examples.
Post #4428: As I said, McPherson, Foner, and Wlat are all commies. That much is documented.
Post #4497 : "1. James McPherson, historian - known affiliate and contributer to the World Socialist Web Site, an official propaganda outlet of a communist political party.
2. Eric Foner, historian - self described neo-marxist
3. WhiskeyPapa, aka Wlat, banned freeper from your side of the argument and close associate of many of your allies here - avowed Bush-hater and known idolizer of Michael Moore.
He cant keep his story straight. Notice the creep.
These are by professors.
Here is part of what they had to say,
famous historian visited my undergraduate university half a century ago and announced that, except for a minor item or two such as a history of the quartermaster corps, the major work on the Civil War was completed. Since then several significant books have been published. Daniel Farber's Lincoln's Constitution is one of them. Reviewed by: Donald K. Pickens, Department of History, University of North Texas. Published by: H-USA (December, 2003) http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=103401078008870
Farber's Lincoln's Constitution deserves a place in this roster of important legal-constitutional history titles. Farber both restates the complex issues facing the bifurcating Union, 186165, and connects some, including federalism, judicial review, and presidents' crisis powers, to their prewar evolutions, wartime uses, and post-9/11 reappearances, thereby offering readers many useful insights. For example, he concludes correctly that "In practical terms ... the key issue [in the southern states' decisions for secession] was not sovereignty but power" (44). Harold M. Hyman Rice University http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/22.3/br_10.html
(emphasis added)
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.