Posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by cowboyway
One of the greatest misconceptions of American history is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Those who subscribe to this belief see President Abraham Lincoln as the benevolent leader who made unimaginable sacrifices in human blood to wipe out America’s greatest sin. While the human sacrifice is indisputable and the sin was monumental, the war’s purpose was not to free blacks from the shackles of bondage. Rather, the Civil War was fought with one purpose in mind: To preserve the Union at all costs. And, to put it in Lincoln’s terms, with no ifs, ands, or buts. You’d better agree with the president, or else.
(Excerpt) Read more at tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
Slavery was an issue, noob, not the cause.
By that time he was well known to be a scalawag.
Is there a nice way to say somebody that holds the position you stated is a fascist? That's what you are if you think that way. I'm trying to be nice but there is nothing to debate. Any state has the right to leave this F-ing Union anytime they want for any reason they want, to think other wise is to be in favor of dictatorial rule. Nothing to debate here. I think you have been clear. No joking.
There you go again throwing out insults because you cannot debate.
Now I am a fascist because it is my opinion that the secession of the southern states was poorly and illegally done.
As I have stated secession is like divorce, and the way the south did it is like going home and finding your wife at the door with a shotgun pointed at your head and listening to her tell you she is going to kill you if you try to enter your own home to get your things.
There is something to debate and it is timely, how do we secede without looking like a bunch of morons with guns?
The lives of millions are at stake here and the best you can do is clinch up like a straight guy in a gay bar.
Can any state or states leave the United States at any time for any reason?
Yes or No.
Yes, so long as it is done with the consent of the other states.
What do I win?
All this spinning must be getting you dizzy. Do you dispute that Lincoln "received only 39 percent of the popular vote" in the 1860 election?
Would that cause you to lose any sleep?
Not me, but you're different. Every time I post something Confederate you're in at the first and stay till the last with the most replies. You're the Nathan Bedford Forrest of Free Republic! You're on this board day and night wielding your mighty pen, ready to vanquish any and all foes who dare to speak out against your beloved Lincoln and big government.
If you really were the great scholar that you often profess to be, I would think that you would be spending your time on more productive pursuits instead of chronically idling in anonymity on an the interweb, posting ad nauseam.
Now, would you agree that his election was a resounding beat-down for Jimmy Carter or that he squeaked into office by the skin of his teeth?
By using electoral college numbers and ignoring popular vote numbers, both Bill Clinton (in 1992) and Barack Obama were landslide victories, also. But you just keep spinning it, NS. You're spinning yourself into a hole.
Show me where I'm wrong first.
See above.
To put any conditions on that question's answer is to join the ranks of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Caesar. You want to go there? Since you like to "imply" things all the time, if a state doesn't secure "permission" to your satisfaction, they deserve "Shermination".
Why make a habit of watching or reading liberal gibberish?
**Do you claim a supernatural power to have read Lincoln’s mind, and somehow know he didn’t mean what he said?**
King Lincoln was just a Big Government lib.....Just like Zero! He destroyed the Republic and replaced it with an Empire..
Mr. Chairman, on the third position of...the constitutional question, I have not much to say...It is not to be denied that many great and good men [including Thomas Jefferson] have been against the power [of the federal government to undertake internal improvements not specifically authorized by the Constitution]; but it is insisted that quite as many, as great and as good, have been for it; and it is shown that, on a full survey of the whole, Chancellor Kent was of the opinion that the arguments of the latter were vastly superior...He was one of the ablest and most learned lawyers of his age, or of any age...Can the party opinion of a party president [Thomas Jefferson or James Madison], on a law question, as this purely is, be at all compared, or set in opposition to that of such a man, in such an attitude, as Chancellor Kent?”
Abraham Lincoln, June 20, 1848
***recklessly started by the South.***
Really? Your Hero wouldn’t talk to piece commissioners sent BEFORE Sumter
***South had been led by a statesman of the caliber of***
Lincoln
King Lincoln was for every thing the Founders wrote against!Statesman? More like Butcher
You should lighten up on the donuts, NS junior.
I have already answered that....of course the answer is yes, it is the question of the mechanics of secession that needs to be addressed.
The south was wrong in it’s methods.
For one thing there was never a vote by the populace of the south on the issue, and I use the term populace to include those that were slaves, especially since the south wanted them counted as full citizens when determining the number of vote and seats they got in the congress.
Secondly there was never any real attempt by the south to reach an agreement on the issues that lead to secession.
Thirdly Can any sovereign nation or state join the United States?
The answer is of course yes but there a specific process by which they can join for one the citizens of that nation or state must vote on joining the United States and secondly the congress of the United States must vote to admit them into the United States.
You refuse to admit that the same sort of process applies to secession.
To believe anything else is to join the ranks of Moe, Larry, and Curly. You want us to believe that states can walk out of the Union, repudiate responsibility for obligations the nation entered into as a whole while they were a part, take with them every bit of federal property they can get their hands on, take any steps that they want regardless of how they might harm the interest of the remaining states, and those states are powerless. They have no choice but to sit back and take it. That, my friend, is absolute insanity.
Like Rush says about liberals, 'don't listen to their words, watch what they do.'
It's nothing compared to the spin you're putting on it.
Do you dispute that Lincoln "received only 39 percent of the popular vote" in the 1860 election?
No. Do you dispute that Lincoln received 59.4% of the electoral votes and would have won the election even if there had only been two candidates?
Not me, but you're different.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Cowboyway, you give a whole new meaning to the term 'different'.
If you really were the great scholar that you often profess to be, I would think that you would be spending your time on more productive pursuits instead of chronically idling in anonymity on an the interweb, posting ad nauseam.
OK, let's use your tactic. Point out where I ever claimed to be a great scholar. Show me the exact quote from me claiming that. Do it or STFU.
How's that? Pretty good imitation of you, wasn't it?
By using electoral college numbers and ignoring popular vote numbers, both Bill Clinton (in 1992) and Barack Obama were landslide victories, also.
You use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination. George Bush took 50.73% of the popular vote in 2004, Ronald Reagan took 50.75% in 1980. By your standards the two victories were equivilent. Statistically speaking, however, there is no comparison considering the margin of victory in the only count that mattered - the Electoral College.
In this regard, you leave me little options, you hold the position of a fascist. This is why we cannot debate this, and why your position is of the belligerent. I cannot debate a fascist, the only solution, historically speaking, is to decide this question on a battlefield if the belligerent decides the state didn’t “do it right”.
Thank you for helping me understand the psychology of a wife beater, I see little difference here.
Seeing how you twist the meaning of other words, I'm not overly concerned about your attempted insult.
This is why we cannot debate this, and why your position is of the belligerent.
You cannot debate this because you cannot come up with a coherent answer. You do believe that the remaining states have no choice. That the Constitution is a tool that the seceding states can use to beat them bloody and there is nothing that protects them. You leave me little option but to make some less than flattering conclusions about your basic sanity.
Thank you for helping me understand the psychology of a wife beater, I see little difference here.
Of course you don't see the difference because in the immortal words of Jerry Garcia, "You have two good eyes but you still don't see." The abused party in your scenario are the remaining states because they have to take on all the additional obligations that you walk away from, suffer the theft of all the federal property you can grab on your way out, and endure any and all actions you might take that could harm them in other ways. And in your odd world there is nothing they can do about it, and no protections are offered them by the Constitution. Truly bizarre.
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano BUMP.
That we had more clear-headed jurists like him . . . .
The only insanity is to argue and each of us trying to understand the others position. I contend your position is that of the belligerent, nothing can make me "come to my senses" in that regard. Their is NOTHING any leaving state(s) could "steal" that would make me take arms against them, NOTHING.
And what could be more belligerant than taking actions that you know will have negative impact on the other states, expect them to do nothing about it, and call it legal? Again, you view the Constitution, if you view it at all, as something that protects only your side, provides rights only for your side, and can be used as a weapon only by your side. You are, in your own way, every bit as bad as the government you profess you're trying to break away.
Clear-headed jurists sometimes make muddle-headed historians.
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.