We don’t support unilateral secessionism, and we’re not ever going to.
SO GET OVER IT!
Unilateral secession was never the issue — the issue was the Constitution — and who was the greatest arbiter of the powers delegated by it to the governments (federal and state), and the rightful heirs of liberty (the people).
While you are correct that we can agree on some issues regarding “smaller government,” the bottom line is still that what passes for “conservative” in Washington, and in most elections are offered up as “conservatives” are not really all that Constitutional or Conservative. And with few exceptions, the remedies they offer are much too little, much too late.
The nation is headed for some sort of catastrophe — or collapse. What then? Will these “RINO’s” or “Union-minded, Big Government ‘conservatives’” THEN offer us REAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, SMALL GOVERNMENT solutions — or will they do the SAME THING the Progressives will do — and grab for EVERY BIT of power and control they can — Constitution, Founders and Liberty be d*mned?
You know the answer. Precious few in Washington, DC would protest. And those who sought to protect their liberties from the threat of a tyrannical and overbearing government in DC — either by action of States resisting Federal actions, or by individuals who refuse to comply with the unconstitutional and illegal Federal regulations.
Now, to be consistent — would you support Barack Obama, or whoever was in command in Washington, D.C., to “preserve the Union?” Can’t have the States threaten to go their own way, can you? Not even for the sake of Liberty, or to preserve the Constitution....
What is your opinion of the Supreme Court decisions McDonald v. City of Chicago and Kelo v. New London? Just curious.
...you'd be better off bypassing the factual arguments, which obviously will not have an impact on these nutjobs, and simply ridicule these people. I mean it. Alinsky had that part right. You could go back and forth with these nutballs until Judgment Day, but they will simply ignore any facts you cite, or lie outright to refute them. It is a waste of time. However, if you denigrate and ridicule them, it gets them where they live. Leftists, above all else, need to feel superior. They need to feel like they are the smartest people in the world. Ridicule is the one thing they cannot tolerate. Debating them only feeds their egos. Ridicule deflates them.What I know for fact - having experienced it first hand far too many times to count - is that that is not exclusively the purvue of liberal moonbatville: it is all too apparent here at FreeRepublic. If not overtly (which is often the case), then through the use of diminutive epithets; as if such augments or strengthens one's argument. What ploy is being implemented through the derogatory or condescending perversion of one's screen-name?The nature of the ridicule that I recommend goes like this: "Wow - I can see from your pathetic post that you don't know a thing about the 20th century, or the world in general. Do you get all of your information from books with big, colored pictures in them? Maybe ones with flying superheroes or talking animals?" Whenever they cite a "fact", simply reply "LOL!! Off your meds again? Not everything the voices tell you is true!" You get the idea. And if you have the stomach for it, keep at it until they stop, but don't waste any time, energy, or frustration on these idiots. Just chuck these insults out there, and enjoy yourself until they self-destruct.
That being said, and nevertheless notwithstanding, I'll acquiesce to the notion that the Union was unethical in its failure to adhere to the extradition clause of the Constitution, i.e., Art. IV, sec. 2 (3rd clause); it however standing upon moral principles that transcend mere legality.
It's been said that that which is legal may not be moral. Moreover, it is an unequivocal Truth that the righteous purpose of government is to do good; for that purpose governments are instituted by God Himself.
It is true that my argument that the dissolution of of the Union - indivisible & with liberty & justice for all - is mere wordsmything (predicated upon untenable religious principles in the eyes of the harsh cold realities of black upon white as set forth in contract law). Therefor, Psa 37:27 has no bearing (nor basis) upon the matter. For the Confederate rebel-States wanted to be left alone in their liberty to perpetuate a depraved, detestable and contemptuous institution. Moreover, I'll acquiesce to the argument that the Conferated rebel-States were wholly within their sovereign rights to unilaterally secede from the Union of the several sovereign and independent States, albeit an absolutely immoral act in and of itself, i.e., the disolution of a more perfect Union - which has its foundations grounded in the grace of God. But pay no nevermind to me, in that what I refer to are a most eloquent hymn (America the Beautiful) and the Pledge of Allegiance, which ultimately are just so many words, not having any real substantive meaning apart from whatever the current and most popular demagogue makes them out to be.
That notwithstanding, whatever ethical basis upon which secession stands is eclipsed by the reprehensible institution upon which the Confederacy stood. Its been well said that one should stand for something or one will fall for anything; for that reason alone I admire the collossal struggle the citizens of Confederacy undertook. The purported objective of of a compact entered amenably between likeminded participants so as to thwart the all to real potential of a central government encroaching upon common, decent and civil liberty through tyranny, oppression and violation of unalienable rights of Man are most commendable, laudible and noble ideals.
But for whom are those ideals attributable? Is the negro to be included in such El Traviata opera? Whom is being oppressed by who? Frankly I see the conflict as being a revolt of libertarian ideals against the rational world; the greatest libertaria ideal is that of property rights - the epitomy of liberty above all others - it is a travesty of justice to argue that people can be property; herein lies the conundrum.
I fail to see any difference to the foregoing and any arbitrary region of the existing Union ruling that polygamist homosexual child-rape necrophiliac cannibalism is the law of the land. Should the Federal government encroach upon the liberty and freedom of a people who have so decided for themselves, then that encroachment is outside the bounds of the legally permissable compact between the States themselves - what after all is the Fed Gov - and seccession and violent as a viable option.
Its been said of diplomats that given an untenable and wholly unwinnable circumstance that they would nevertheless attempt to negotiate and diplomate in the clear faced evidence their evidence would unequivocally fail until the end of time. The reason being: that's what diplomat and negotiators do; a military resolution being merely a violent solution to a political question that is irreconcilable at the polls (or one the powers-that-be are unwilling to have decided at the polls). Its far too maudlin to have political change be decided peacably at the polls.
The North is accused by the Confederate-rebels of being the 'pushers' of the person-as-property drug. The unpalatable truth to the Confederate-rebel South is that Congress outlawed that market within 30 years of the foundation of the 1st American republic; their mandate in doing so was fully within the purvue of their regulatory ability of the commerce clause.
It is very much to my chagrin that within a decade the Marshal court issued several opinions that IMHO was the harbinger of things to come; the 'War of Northern Aggression' merely being the actual burial of the foundational republic. It could be argued that the 2ndnd republic ended w/WWII. The beginning of the end and the end of the beginning are functionally, practically immaterial except for pragmatic issues.
Where are we now? At the beginning of the end of the 3rd republic? Or are we actually witnessing the dawn of the 4th Reich?
Merry Christmas, and now that Santa has departed and hopefully raygun is dunking his head in water, to wash the cr*p out of his brain...
Unilateral secession-ism is the key point of debate in all these threads.
Many posters, and not all of them Lost Causers, agree that the Deep South acted Constitutionally in 1860 and early 1861, in unilaterally seceding without "mutual consent" or from "usurpations" and "abuses" by the Federal Government.
The issue is whether our Founders considered their new Constitution to be a binding contract that could not just be dissolved "at pleasure"?
Quotes from Madison and others clearly show the Constitution was binding and "forever."
Of course, Lost Causers have their own quotes, but who are those?
People like Patrick Henry who did not help write the Constitution, and indeed, voted against it, precisely because they thought it provided the Federal Government with too much power.
So the Constitution was never intended to be some sort of social club that you might join one month and quit the next.
It was more like a marriage, which could only be broken for the most serious of reasons, and then only after all other recourses had failed.
But in 1860, none of these conditions existed, and the Deep South began seceding "at pleasure".
But they didn't just secede.
They also immediately began forcibly seizing dozens of Federal properties -- forts, ships, armories, customs houses, a mint -- and firing on Federal forces and ships.
Fort Sumter was only the most memorable of those incidents.
In Texas for example, Union troops were surrendered and treated as prisoners of war.
And all of this was before the South declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
And it was before a single federal force had crossed a single Confederate border for any military purpose beyond defending Federal forts.
And once the South declared war, there was no alternative and no turning back -- it had to be defeated, unconditionally.
And while they were at it, the reason for the South's secession had to be destroyed -- slavery.
patriot preacher: "the issue was the Constitution — and who was the greatest arbiter of the powers delegated by it to the governments (federal and state), and the rightful heirs of liberty (the people)."
And that, of course, is the Big Lie -- the Lie that all true Southerners tell each other, that mothers tell their babies, that fathers tell their sons -- the Big Lie of Southern Innocence.
And it's totally untrue.
In truth, the Deep South first unlawfully breached the Constitutional contract (beginning in December 1860), then illegally seized Union properties and attacked Union forces (January thru April 1861), and then declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861).
Eventually, the South raised or sent its own forces into every neighboring Union state and territory, beginning in Missouri before even their declaration of war.
patriot preacher: "the bottom line is still that what passes for “conservative” in Washington, and in most elections are offered up as “conservatives” are not really all that Constitutional or Conservative."
True enough -- while only 20% of Americans admit to being "liberal", meaning they want bigger, more expensive and more controlling government;
And over 40% say they are "conservative," meaning they want smaller, less expensive and less controlling government.
And yet, for about 100 years now, bigger government "progressives" and "liberals" have steadily defeated smaller-government conservatives magnifying the Federal Government from less than 3% of the economy in say, 1900, to now headed for 30%.
Government at all levels is well over 40% of GDP.
At the same time the national debt and unfunded but legal obligations are up in the $trillions so high that nobody can really count them all.
In short, the country is being driven into the ground and most Americans understand it, and want it stopped.
How truly "conservative" are most Americans? Impossible to say --
Personally, I think Calvin Coolidge was a great president, and 5% of GDP seems like enough to cover the military.
So I'd be pretty pleased if we ever got that far.
But the total reality is: that's not going to happen, not in our life-times. Instead, the battle-lines today are here: how do we stop the already obese Federal Government from growing beyond today's 25% to over 30% in a few years?
That's practical politics today.
Everything else is grand theory and will have no bearing on our lifetimes.
patriot preacher: "The nation is headed for some sort of catastrophe — or collapse. What then?"
It won't happen if the adults (conservatives, Republicans) can take over government soon enough, and strongly enough, and send the children (liberals, progressives, Democrats) for a "spanking" in the woodshed.
Then our country will soon enough return to doing what it does better than anyone: providing many opportunities for people willing to work and achieve.
patriot pastor: "Now, to be consistent — would you support Barack Obama, or whoever was in command in Washington, D.C., to “preserve the Union?”
Can’t have the States threaten to go their own way, can you?
Not even for the sake of Liberty, or to preserve the Constitution...."
Here's what you don't understand: states today already have far more power than they have been willing to exercise.
How is that?
It's because the states have been bought-off and corrupted by the overwhelming size and wealth of the Federal Government.
When the Federal Government is handing out billions and trillions of dollars, what state can refuse to line up at the Federal trough?
If the states were willing to stand up against the Feds today they could help reign it in.
And a significant example of that could turn out to be Obamacare.
One state acting alone can make a small difference.
Many states acting together could make a big difference -- especially if those states consistently elect Representatives and Senators who share a strongly conservative view of the Federal Government.
And if they wish to secede, then that's a matter for Congress to debate and decide, just as it was in 1860.
;-)