Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: MacDorcha
"It was to form a more perfect union, " The preamble is NOT law. It is a general statement. "Pretty words" if you will.

No, words that mean something.

Ofcourse for the Confederates words do mean nothing, only power does.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Lincoln came into office after some of the Southern states had seceded and joined together. " And this has WHAT to do with the laws regarding secession?

It has to do with the fact that the states had already formed a compact by the time Lincoln had become President, so were in violation of the Constitution.

If anything, this blasts the opinion that the South left "so it can spread slavery" out of the water.

?

do you retract this statement? Or leave it as testament to your (incomplete) thoughts on the subject?

What statement?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Firing on a U.S. fort made it an Insurrection. " Leaving an active fort in a soverign power is seen as an agressive act.

SC was not, had never been and never will be a sovereign power.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Well, secession isn't legal, SC isn't another country and the fort had every right to be there. " You are yet to prove this assertion.

No, SC had no legal right to leave the Union and hence, was a state in rebellion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "That wasn't their land, that was American land" Oh, so the Government owns the land, eh? Not the people on it, but the Fed. The Almighty Fed!

Since I assume you are in America, thus the state you are in is considered America.

Let me tell you something: it is THAT kind of thought that keeps me proud of my home, and that it isn't Yankee.

and hereing you makes me proud to be an American

Bigger government is what we fight. It's why we're conservative. Stating that the Fed has say over a state in a matter between the State and the Fed (as opposed to the federation of the states) Is stripping the ability of our States to make their own decisions.

The States limit the federal government in their roles of Congress and the Senate.

The idea of State rights is anti-freedom since Calhoun (its founder) was against the Declaration of Independence, which is the key document of this nation.

There was nothing noble or freedom loving about the Confederacy.

That whole "10th Amendment" seems to elude you.

No, I do not see anywhere it states that a state can secede, nor that a state can be ejected.

If they had wanted to say that they would have.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It is not there against anyone's will, it has a right and duty to be there. " Funny, I don't recall "rights" being something guaranteed to the Federal Government.

Sure they are, that was what the Constitution was about, giving certain powers to the Federal government which the states could not take away.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "No, Federal property is US property, which means all the States own it, not just the state it is in." It is owned by the several States (that was left by South Carolina) and not within the bounds of US soil (Quartering) Thus making it (the fort) an agressive act.

LOL!

Yea, with it's guns pointed out to sea!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "That transition occured after the South lost the war, not in 1860." Funny, I thought a cornerstone of your arguement was that the South was under immediate threat of losing it's slaves. Now that we know they weren't I guess that means your arguement is abandoned.

No, the South was never in immediate threat of losing it's slaves.

It was going to lose the right of expanding the cancer of slavery.

Good to hear!

Good to hear what?

It is good to hear that Lincoln was elected and ended the power of the slave states once and for all.

I know you long for the good old days, but they are gone-get over it!

417 posted on 04/28/2005 6:05:56 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Gal. 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies ]


To: fortheDeclaration

"[Of] course for the Confederates words do mean nothing, only power does."

This isn't the UN. Power to protect yourself is a God-given right! Words DO nothing except communicate your will to others.

My rights exist whether the Constitution does or not. Thus says the Constitution!



"It has to do with the fact that the states had already formed a compact by the time Lincoln had become President, so were in violation of the Constitution. "

Huh? So now there's a window for when one can seceed? Now you're just talking.


"No, SC had no legal right to leave the Union and hence, was a state in rebellion."

You are STILL YET to prove your assertion.


"and hereing you makes me proud to be an American"

You are an American, but you are subject to your state's laws. If you were ONLY subject to federal laws, it would be a *strict democracy.* You know the one. It failed in Athens Greece.

As it stands, you are in a Constitutional Republic. You are a subject of your state AND your country. (IOW, you CAN fly a state flag. It IS legal and even patriotic)


"Yea, with it's guns pointed out to sea! "

Funny how you think "guns" (read: cannons) are what makes a fort a threat.

There were also PEOPLE in that fort. Complete with small arms, and training in ways to kill in a battle-field. And not to forget, it was a FORT. A large four-sided wall, with a company trained to kill inside.


"Good to hear what? "

The wind blowing through your weak arguement.

You went from stating that the South had nothing to fear from what happend up north. Then you proceeded to note that they were going to lose something that formed their very economy.

Make up your mind!


"I know you long for the good old days, but they are gone-get over it!"

Are you implying that I support slavery? Or that I have any reason to hate the current way of life in the South?

My entire arguement (as stated AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN) is that the North acted out of step with the Constitution.

Are we better off for it? I don't know. Would I go back and change how the South acted? Possibly, if I could.

I don't see where you get the idea that I'm some un-educated yahoo trying to brng back the South. I simply argue for the interpretation of the Constitution they took.

Now, if you Yankees keep messing with Suthern boys, I wouldn't be suprised if you one day DID get another secession.


432 posted on 04/28/2005 6:26:13 AM PDT by MacDorcha (Where Rush dares not tread, there are the Freepers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson