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 ...
So is your point the insurance companies were wrong in issuing policies on slaves, same as they would cattle or any other property? Or is it that the slave owners were wrong for insuring their slaves, same as they would cattle or any other property?
N-S: I've read them all, sport. And my statement still stands.
Congratulations - because your Post #298 is blatantly wrong, as I have observed repeatedly. But (because you seem to be posting in a somewhat impaired condition), allow me to quote for you (once again) your own idiotic words:
N-S: ...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.
The Eleventh Amendment (which you apparently have never read) restricts the jurisdiction of the high court, with regard to certain cases "where a state may be a party:"
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.
In other words, the Constitution says you are wrong (as usual, I might add)...
;>)
We can't hold elections. Haven't you heard? Eric Holder has the nod on whether we get to hold elections. You may have heard, he and his boss don't like white people voting.
I think all of Port Arthur, Texas's, commissioners died in office. They couldn't hold elections and they couldn't quit.
Lose your right to hold elections and then come back and talk to me about how fine you're doing.
That's what the Civil War did. The winners -- the real winners -- just haven't got 'round to applying it to you yet. Divide et impera.
;>)
[You] In the context that you present them they usually are.
Liar. Your turn for homework: Post up or link a single example of my posting an out-of-context cite-and-quote of The Federalist anytime in the last five years. Go on, do it. Post it up and explain how my quote was out of context. Explain how what Madison or Hamilton wrote was "nonsense", and why my quoting them was "nonsense". The board will be your judge.
I'm calling you a liar and a smartass. Go on, refute me. Post up or shut up and take it.
No idea what you're talking about. If anyone's buttons are being pushed they're obviously yours.
I'm a smartass. You're a dumbass. Looks like I'm one up on you.
I'm calling you a liar and a smartass. Go on, refute me. Post up or shut up and take it.
N-S won't do it (because he can't). But it never hurts to call a liar a liar...
;>)
I believe the phrase "...and levying war against them" figures in that article, no?
Yes, it does. Your problem is that Robert E. Lee was not a citizen, but an officer in opposing service and therefore not chargeable with treason.
He resigned his commission on April 20 and took command of Virginia's state forces three days later. Confederate army troops were already flooding into Virginia, federal arsenals had been seized, and there were plans to move the confederate capital to Richmond before Virginia got around to the formality of actually ratifying its secession on May 23.
As I've already posted, some of those political communications and collaborations might be chargeable to Gov. Letcher of Virginia as failure to observe his obligations under the Supremacy Clause and his oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States. The war preparations of which you speak had been undertaken before Lee offered his sword to the State, and you would have to dissect quite a bit of ant shit to determine whether he had committed, during the interval April 23-May 23, an "overt act" against a United States embroiled in war.
Mind you, Lincoln never recognized the Confederacy in any way, but claimed that it did not exist. Therefore, no foreign invader, no recognized combatant power being involved in any way, how could anyone serving against Lincoln and his faction be said to have committed "treason" under Article III?
Do you see how squirrely this is going to get?
In any case, Lee was available for five years after the war, and Jefferson Davis for many more after that, and USG never, ever, under Johnson or Grant, brought a charge against either man.
If I'd been Lee, I'd have demanded charges be brought and a prosecution mounted.
Bingo - demand that charges be brought, or that an official determination be issued by the Attorney General, in writing, that there was no evidence at that time that any crime had been committed.
Put up or shut up.
(Something these 'Blue Avenger' types seem to be mighty short on, IMHO... ;>)
In 1790, "United States" was a plural construction. And the federal government didn't bulldoze States' citizenship requirements until the Warren Court did it to achieve a political end, viz., the enabling and empowerment of transients and drifters to register and vote Democratic.
My point is that slavery was expensive.
Ok, they had him for many months and didn’t try him. No balls....
OK I was wrong - appealing to rational thought and common sense won’t make it go away, but it is amusing to see it wet its Depends...
See my Post #409 - drooler...
;>)
;>)
Sorry, but this is just plain wrong. The states' rules of citizenship applied only to those matters that were the state's concern. From St. George Tucker, "the rights intended to be conferred by this uniform rule of naturalization, should be, in general, confined to such as might be derived from the federal government, without infringing those rights which peculiarly appertain to the states. Thus a person naturalized pursuant to the laws of the United States, would undoubtedly acquire every right that any other citizen possesses, as a citizen of the United States."
US citizenship has always been a matter for the United States government to ascertain, and people have been naturalized as US citizens since the founding of the Republic, and not as an incidental to their obtaining citizenship in a state.
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.