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 ...
Georgia, isn't that the "New Country" McCain during his campaign said "We are all Georgians now". Interesting!
Kosovo pretty recently declared its Independence.
Note: With the blessing of the United States as with Georgia
There seems to be some Hypocrisy amongst your coven. You'll invade and hold people hostage under the web of this Government, but you'll support Independence else where.
Vladimir Putin is awaiting your justifications....
Funny, ain't it. I guess Putin is no Lincoln...
He let the republics have their independence if most of them would remain in a voluntary Commonwealth of Independent States.
But they weren't shooting at Russian troops, demanding independence through force.
As for Putin, he'd back you up if you wanted to secede. Divide and conquer.
"South Carolina tried in good faith to purchase Federal forts and lands. Lincoln refused."
The letter in full:
Letter From the "Commissioners" of South Carolina to President Buchanan
Note the date: December 26, 1860. Who was President? James Buchanan.
"South Carolina tried in good faith to purchase Federal forts and lands. Lincoln refused. President Buchanan responded."
Fixed it.
But actually not.
You provided a carefully edited copy of the letter, the entire letter actually said that the “Commissioners” would not negotiate, with a blatantly ridiculous excuse that Major Anderson moved his troops from United States property to United States property. So they weren't going to negotiate.
So much for South Carolina's “good faith”.
You of course did not include the date, which makes it obvious it was not sent to Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had no official capacity in December, 1860, and of course did not receive the letter. You also supplied an edited copy of the letter.
There are two possible explanations for the fact that you did not include the date, the correct addressee, and the full letter.
1) You were given this by someone else in its edited form, used it with out verifying it, but otherwise in good faith, and were not aware of the editing/deception. Now you are.
2) You knew of the editing and deception and didn't care.
In 1) someone else is a liar. In 2) you are a..., well, I see no reason to actually write it, but you know what the next word would be if 2) were in fact true.
I prefer to believe 1). Wisdom on your part would be to write nothing to shake that belief.
Secession is nothing but revolution. 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.But what did he know, huh?
--January 23, 1861, Robert E. Lee, in a letter to his son Rooney
Their offer was directed at your throne palace, Washington D.C. You know, the place depriving it’s citizenry of their 2nd Amendment Rights.
Read Lincoln’s second inaugural speech, 2nd paragraph real closely. IMHO It’s actually an admission of war crimes.
I guess he changed his mind when he saw what the “Goon” was doing in Charleston Harbor. I think that might have something to do with it. Action speak louder than words.
unmcobra account locked, speculation it is over the private's privates photo incident on the tattoo thread...
If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. . . .
If they [the founding fathers] had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers. (The Personal Memoirs Of Ulysses S. Grant, Old Saybrook, Connecticut: Konecky & Konecky, 1992, reprint of original edition, pp. 130-131)
I love it when people like you can't find anything better to quote, than the words of people they adamantly disagree with. (If they were really traitors, why would you suggest that their words are authoritative? Hmm? Like to have your cake, and eat it, too? ;>)
I will admit, I've resorted to that kind of 'pseudo-debate' when I referenced quotes from George Lincoln Rockwell and Martin Luther King - both of whom suggested that the North was more racist than the South. But that simple fact is not very politically correct, is it?
Lee repeatedly said that his decision to go to the Confederate cause was purely because he couldn’t see himself taking up arms against Virginia. In fact a full week after the south attacked US forces at Ft. Sumter, 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. I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State (with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed) I hope I may never be called upon to draw my sword. “
"Rebellion?" Prove it for us, sport - cite the constitutional clause that prohibits State secession. If you can't, feel free to defend your point of view, that the Constitution prohibits actions, by States or individuals, that are not even mentioned (and then run back over to DU or the Humpington site, where you usually spend your time)...
Ante up, dipsh!t...
Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the Nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the Southerners themselves. The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.
But what did he know, huh?
Did you read it?
I mostly find Lee to be a tragic figure in the classical sense. But I will say that if any modern military officer resigned his commission to join the side fighting against the army he'd recently served, no one would think twice about calling him a traitor.
You and I both know that there is no constitutional clause prohibiting secession. Nor is there one sanctioning it. Therefore it’s a constitutional question to be adjudicated by the courts, and the court says there’s no right to secession as practiced by the south. And there it stands until the constitution is amended or the court overturns its earlier decision. Or you guys stop blustering and launch another rebellion with more successful results.
I. W. Hayne to President Buchanan:
You say that the fort was garrisoned for our protection, and is held for the same purposes for which it has ever been held since its construction. Are you not aware, that to hold, in the territory of a foreign power, a fortress against her will, avowedly for the purpose of protecting her citizens, is perhaps the highest insult which one government can offer to another? But Fort Sumter was never garrisoned at all until South Carolina had dissolved her connection with your government. This garrison entered it in the night, with every circumstance of secrecy, after spiking the guns and burning the gun-carriages and cutting down the flag-staff of an adjacent fort, which was then abandoned. South Carolina had not taken Fort Sumter into her own possession, only because of her misplaced confidence in a government which deceived her.
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.