Posted on 05/10/2010 3:17:06 PM PDT by Davy Buck
"If Lee was a traitor (and I don't believe he was), he would be the only traitor for which a ship in the United States Navy was ever named. He would be the only traitor in Statuary Hall at the U.S. Capitol. He would be the only traitor whose image was used in a positive way to recruit military personnel to fight and win WWII. Quite an accomplishment for a "traitor", wouldn't you say. . ."
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
And the speeches of the various political leaders at the time of the rebellion supports me.
Absent the slavery issue, if Lincoln and his Party of the North had continued to push Morill forward in the language and "diplomacy" Lincoln and the GOP used up to Sumter, you'd have got the same result.
Nonsense. The Morill Tariff had passed out of the house in spring of 1860 without a hint of rebellion. It didn't pass again until after the Southern states had announced their secession. It was what they saw as the threat to the expansion of slavery that caused their actions, not the tariff.
Wrong (as usual):
AMENDMENT XI
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Of course, I have no doubt that you could rationalize some sort of 'implied' power that would negate the clear, written words of the Eleventh Amendment - just as you've done for the Ninth & Tenth Amendments...
;>)
I think what you meant to say was that you wanted to get a room with your butt buddies on here. FYI Manc is married and has kids, same as me. He lives in my state. So you go round up your “girls” on here and get a room. Have fun, I’m sure it’s an everyday thing with you.
Oh and GFYS while you’re at it.
Yep, another Freeper just FReepmailed me and said add ‘hates whites’ to the list. I told them I already did. :P
Not true. Lee said himself, before the war, that
The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution.The reason that he chose to resign his commission and side with the confederates was that he simply couldn't bring himself to fight against his home state. He wrote to his sister, "With all my devotion to the Union, and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relative, my children, my home."
They didn't have the balls to do it. Even they (Scumsucking Yankees)weren't THAT hypocritical. Everyone then knew secession was legal, to bad that lesson has to be re-learnt.
He despises the South and Southerners. Haven’t you seen his past posts?
He hates:
Baptists
Texas
The South
Southerners
Florida(snakes)
the Army
Palin
Beck
Limbaugh
George Bush
Bush Sr.
Cheney
whites
Robert E Lee
Jefferson Davis
Fox news
He believes Noah didn’t need an ark because the flood was impossible.
will get the rest of the list later
He loves:
Lincoln
Kansas
pro-choice
pro-gay marriage
Jon Stewart
Chicago
Well, that's a new one. Usually the Lost Causer position is that Stephens was speaking purely for himself and that the speech had nothing to do with the actual views of the confederacy, most of whom, to hear it told around here, had never even heard of this whole "slavery" thing.
South-hater now?
__________
Deny it. I double dog dare you. DO IT! Deny it.
Or I can be like you and entirely ignore Article III, Section 2.
Consider it denied.
Hmmm.....looks like as recently as 1995 we still had Justices who understand States rights. Since the Constitution didn't withhold secession to begin with, it couldn't be withheld. In other words it was an implied right, wouldn't you agree?
N-S: Or I can be like you and entirely ignore Article III, Section 2.
Sorry, sport: you may be more than just little bit unclear on the concept, but the Eleventh Amendment modified Article III, Section 2 - not the reverse. Your claim that "once a state has been allowed to join then the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all cases in where a state may be a party" is complete bull crap.
As I noted in my previous post, you're wrong - as usual.
;>)
Ahem, yourself. Williams says that current hostility to Lee is based on "presentism" or revisionism or modern relativism or whatever.
Pointing out that thousands of soldiers who fought against him and millions of civilians thought of him as a traitor disposes of his argument.
Whether they were right or wrong, that view isn't "presentist" or "revisionist."
Revisionism set in when people started to make some kind of national hero out of Lee after the war.
It's admirable that we're secure enough as a nation even to embrace people who want to split us up and weaken us, but that kind of magnanimity doesn't always provide us with the clearest or the most exact or the right judgments.
“As for wanting a regular army commission, I cannot fault Washington for being ambitious”
I was not finding fault with him. Merely pointing out he was very much a British subject.
George is the greatest human in history, IMHO. Much greater than a certain other overrated president.
Davis?
Actually, given that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (among others), in their public writings, suggested or implied that State secession was in no way prohibited by the Constitution, it becomes apparent that folks like you are the 'revisionists.'
It's admirable that we're secure enough as a nation even to embrace people who want to split us up and weaken us, but that kind of magnanimity doesn't always provide us with the clearest or the most exact or the right judgments.
You sound like a Tory, arguing against the American Revolution. Unfortunately for you, a Tory would have had a better legal foundation for such an argument than you have...
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.