Posted on 05/09/2006 8:33:28 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
WASHINGTON -- Back in the 2004 presidential primaries, when Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, suggested that Democrats should be competing for the votes of young men with Confederate flags on their pickups, politicians from both parties rushed to accuse him of repeating a vile Southern stereotype: the redneck with antiquated views on race. < SNIP >
''Howard Dean knows about as much about the South as a hog knows about Sunday," quipped Georgia Senator Zell Miller, the conservative Democrat who supported President Bush. ''Sure, we drive pickups, but on the back of those pickups, you see a lot of American flags. It's the most patriotic region in the country. And you see hard-working individuals that want to instill values in their children, and you see a very, very strong work ethic in the South. He doesn't understand the South." < SNIP >
Many Southerners express outrage at Northern depictions of Confederate-loving Southerners, even as they accede to the idea that the flag has a place in their regional heritage. Only those inside the Southern family circle can truly understand the region's complicated relationship with its own history.< SNIP >
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Washington led the federal troops (consisting of the militia from other States) into Pennsylvania at the request of the Governor, Thomas Miffin.
http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/washington/gw_1794_1119.html
George Washington Speeches "Sixth Annual Message to Congress" (November 19, 1794)
Quotas had been assigned to the states of New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia; the governor of Pennsylvania having declared on this occasion, an opinion which justified a requisition to the other states
(snip)
Thirty days from the commencement of this session, being the legal limitation of the employment of the militia, Congress cannot be too early occupied with this subject.
http://www.greencastlemuseum.org/Governors/constitutional.htm
Mifflin set two early Federal-state relations precedents
. First, Western Pennsylvania rebelled against the Federal excise tax on whiskey in 1794. Never having fully trusted George Washington, Mifflin refused, when asked by President Washington to call out the Pennsylvania militia to enforce this Federal law. Mifflin asserted that a United States president had no authority to order a state governor to use state militia for any purpose during peacetime and in the absence of any local request for assistance. Mifflin's point was established, setting a precedent that is still honored.
The second conflict occurred when under a Pennsylvania law of 1794, Mifflin ordered state militia sent to Presqu'isle to protect the surveyors of the Erie Triangle from Indian attacks. President Washington was afraid that the appearance of state troops in this region would provoke the Senecas to join the war already underway between the western Indians and the Federal troops. Mifflin challenged Washington's request on the grounds that the president could not "suspend the operation of a positive law of Pennsylvania" that conformed to all Federal statutes. Although the 1794 law that was deemed objectionable was eventually repealed by the Pennsylvania Legislature, Mifflin refused to acknowledge that a United States president could suspend the operation of a state law which might run against national policy.
***
Jackson also made arrangement to invade South Carolina, in response to their ordinance of Nullification.
As he never did, your statement is of no consequence.
***
Jefferson enforced an embargo of US bottoms on the high seas.
As the ports are under federal control , he was within his authority.
In retrospect, it didn’t appear to have been a smart more:
http://www.americanpresident.org/history/thomasjefferson/biography/printable.html
Jefferson banned all British ships from U.S. ports, ordered state governors to prepare to call up 100,000 militiamen, and suspended trade with all of Europe. He reasoned that U.S. farm products were crucial to France and England and that a complete embargo would bring them to respect U.S. neutrality. By spring 1808, however, the Embargo Act that was passed by Congress in December 1807 had devastated the American economy. American exports plummeted from $108 million to $22 million. Economic desperation settled upon the mercantile Northeast. Finally, Jefferson backed off in the last months of his administration, and Congress replaced the Embargo Act with the Non-Intercourse Act, which banned trade with England and France but allowed it with all other countries
***
Lincoln and Grant acted under that precedent.
ROFLMAO!
1) Miffin established A State didn’t have to get permission to handle anything within its borders and had to formally request assistance from other States through the federal government.
2)Jackson was full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
and
3)Jefferson stayed within federal jurisdiction.
So I ask again...WHAT ‘precedent’?
***
So, you have attacked the Presidents on the 1 dollar bill, the 5 dollar bill, the 20 dollar bill and the 50 dollar bill.
I have ‘attacked’ no one. Please keep your slanderous remarks to yourself.
***
The Southern states had control over their state laws, until they rebelled.
States do not have the capacity to ‘rebel’. People ‘rebel’.
Again, Miffin had already set the precedent of a state’s right to conduct its own business unmolested.
Unless requested by the State ITSELF, the federal government had no business entering its territory.
***
That was why, in response to the Taney written "Dred Scott Decision", the Republicans sought to limit slavery to the states where it existed. Legally, by constitutional amendment.
I have asked you repeatedly to show me WHERE the federal government gets the authority to tell the People what type of property they may or may not own. You have YET to do so.
***
That was the precedent that Chief Justice Taney overrulled with Dred Scott.
Sigh I really do wish people would READ these decisions instead of taking someone else’s word for it. The decision of Dred Scott didn’t ‘overrule’ anything-
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Scott/
Chief Justice Taney’s conclusion;
Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Taney said neither the State NOR the federal court had the ability to decide this case because Dred Scott could not, by law, be a ‘citizen’ because of his race, whether he was free or not.
No citizenship equals no *legal standing* in a court of civil or statutory law.
No. It was a DEBATE in which they both took part. The words posted belonged to Lincoln HIMSELF-
Lincoln said:
I defy anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educated to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of difference between the Constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive, and the Constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred Scott decision is correct.
Again...along with the EXPRESS right to have a slave returned comes the IMPLIED right to have legitimate, legal ownership in the first place.
Lincoln spoke quite plainly....why are his words so difficult to understand?
BTW- Taney was correct in Dred Scott. He goes into great detail on the unconstitutionality of declaring a current OR freed slave a 'citizen' by law.
Douglas' part of the speech was given to illustrate that if the Founders couldn't legally tell the one free state that it MUST become a slave-holding state, or tell all the slave-holding states that they MUST become free states, Lincoln had NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY TO DO SO EITHER!
------
As I have pointed out so did Lincoln that The founding fathers believe that all men are equal and have the same basic rights
The Founders thought slavery 'odious', but did not consider the races 'equal'. If they had, there would be no Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 in the Constitution.
Lincoln said:
So, too, when he assumes that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and political equality between the white and black races.
------
nobody expected that the institution of slavery would last until this day.
So all the deaths of the Civil War were justified because the eradication of slavery wasn't happening fast enough to suit those in power?
Gee. I can't seem to find that Constituional authority anywhere!
You are correct.
Was it not the sore losers of the 1860 election, those Dixie politicians, on the payroll of the vast cotton interests who were the most vocal in plunging this nation into the abyss of bloody civil war?
Every time a president is elected (Carter & Clinton)and that president is viewed as a clear danger to national security should the nation be dragged into total civil war?
The Civil War is over. This is 2006, the US has far bigger problems internationally and domestically which are and must be confronted.
free dixie,sw
True.
While I firmly believe executive action during the Civil War was unconstitutional, my primary reason for being here is not to vilify Lincoln or to justify the actions of my ancestors.
I'm trying to get people to STOP taking all the 'facts' they're spoon-fed about history at face value. Read the historical documents for yourself! Although the language is different, it CAN be understood with a bit of effort.
The actions of government then is WHY we have the mess called government today!
Yes. Now why can't you suck it up and admit that at best Robert Lee, Thomas Jackson and Jefferson Davis were no better than Lincoln in that department? And were, in fact, much worse?
On the other hand if you were the elected president, confronted by politicians you knew from Washington, instigating insurrection throughout one section of the country, would you not defend United States military installations which were in effect being attacked & taken over by mobs of people who wanted their guy elected president.
As I stated before just because we may not like the elected president it does not give Americans the right to destroy the nation. We have enough domestic leftist traitors and Islamic fanatics attempting the very same as we type here.
Excellent point. Nobody in here is calling Old Abe some sort of high and mighty saint, but neither were those representing the interests of Slavery Inc, ticked off they lost the election of 1860.
Sir:
Pardon me for saying so, but you are a few cards short of a full deck. Where did you learn your history? Louis Farrakhan, no doubt.
A Congressional commission thought otherwise.
More speculation on your part.
No.
As the military installations were given to the federal government BY the States, the States have every right to ask for them back by a declaration of intent.
The Constitution was never intended to be a suicide pact.
------
As I stated before just because we may not like the elected president
It has nothing to do with like or dislike. Either the Constitution and the principals for which it stands is the law, or its not. The Constitution isn't Burger King, nobody gets to have it 'their way'....not even a President!
------
it does not give Americans the right to destroy the nation.
LOL! How is a discussion of history equated with destroying the Nation?
------
We have enough domestic leftist traitors and Islamic fanatics attempting the very same as we type here.
America has always had enemies, some more easily recognized than others.
You are to be pitied.
I believe you actually believe this propaganda you are spouting.
Get a degree in American History, (Somewhere other than Berkeley, etc.) then maybe you will be qualified to debate me.
I had the same thought....he is off the deep end for sure.
(Another example of the Public School System that failed.)
The South's triggered Civil War was intended to destroy this nation. The South was destroyed thanks to the Dixie political crowd working to maintain and expand slavery westward.
Instead of blaming those which defended America you should be looking at those in the South which ignited the nation to chaos and civil war.
"It has nothing to do with like or dislike. Either the Constitution and the principals for which it stands is the law, or its not."
Old Abe was elected in a legal Presidential Election. Some economic interests in the South decided on civil insurrection in place of law, and were defeated, after massive loss of American lives on both sides of the Civil War.
| Presidential Candidate | Electoral Vote | Popular Vote | Pct | Party | Running Mate (Electoral Votes) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abraham Lincoln of Illinois (W) | 180 | 1,866,452 | Republican | Hannibal Hamlin of Maine (180) | |
| John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky | 72 | 847,953 | Democrat (southern states) | Joseph Lane of Oregon (72) | |
| John Bell of Tennessee | 39 | Constitutional Union (Whig) | Edward Everett of Massachusetts (39) | ||
| Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois | 12 | Democrat (northern states) | Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia (12) | ||
| Other | |||||
| Total | 100.0% | ||||
LOL!
And instead of blindly believing what you've been told, why don't you start with Montague, Locke, Blackstone....you know, all those pesky legal treatise that the Constitution is based on.
Then you can read the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, the ratification debates...then the Constitution.
If you have room for more, you can read George Tucker's View of the Constitution and James Madison's Report on the Virginia Resolutions that he wrote because of the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Act.
THEN you may have room to lecture me about my statements toward someone who 'saved' the country while destroying the original intent of the Founders!
It was those which you support which instigated the Civil War and recall - lost. It would be wise really recall that little historical fact. Losers always attempt to rewrite history as today's tiny wacko cult of die-hard neo-confederate malcontents repeated display on these threads.
I saved you the trouble of typing it :)
Children and fools can't differentiate between a LEGAL and a MORAL point.
Nor can the more literate ones resist using catch phrases and hyphens.
-----
Good day.
It is so much easier to condemn others than it is to defend their own.
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.