Posted on 10/31/2012 9:08:23 PM PDT by EveningStar
The Abraham Lincoln of popular perception is a mythological figure. He has little to do with the actual 16th president.
(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...
I should have addressed you in post #159.
Seriously; are yo on meds? Why do keep describing things that not only do not apply to me, but do not apply to anybody?
Oh...because if you stuck to the facts you’d have nothing. Still, better take your meds.
LOL! If this is perfection — or anything close to it — we’re in big trouble.
Not really. Winner is pretty much the opposite of you.
And that would be me. Smart, good looking, modest, informed, rational, logical and articulate. See...not you.
'The validity of the public debt of the United States [...] shall not be questioned.' "And your problem with that is what, exactly?
Well, if it can't be questioned then there's nothing at all to stop the Congress from borrowing billions for foreign aid, that is for things that do not directly benefit the citizens of the states, moreover it can do so to directly fund people who are enemies of the states and the debt itself would be considered valid, even if the act of giving it to them were Treason.
LOL! Better re-read that. What it’s saying is that the country was moving away from its original beginnings and beliefs into a powerful central government. The southern states saw that and sought a return to our founding roots.
Thanks for providing material to support my position, though.
A variation of my logic. Unionists/socialists want us to believe there is a moral high ground to “freeing the slaves” while at the same time denying southern peoples the right to FREELY determine their own political structure.
It is telling that they cannot or will not see the hypocrisy.
No. Their are stupider people. Your comments prove that.
You know you’ve won when the person you are arguing with resorts to name-calling. Thanks.
Mommy, mommy... pwease help me. I twied to bully the bad man and he now he hwurt my fweelings.
LOL.
It's amazing what hypocrisy people will ignore, or worse justify. Let's take a current political example:
Mitt Romney -- The the man who introduced mandatory socialized medicine will save us from mandatory socialized medicine! The man who appoints liberal-activist judges will magically appoint conservative Justices to the Supreme Court. The man who waffles so much you can get quotes arguing both sides of any major political subject is suddenly going to become a bastion of principal, and the Congress will hold his feet to the fire when they won't even challenge the President they're 'against.'
Apparently electing a socialist statist to office is our only hope to getting rid of a socialist statist in office. [/sarc]
Another amazing example comes from our Justice system. It is apparently impossible to challenge the constitutionality of a law that is plainly contra-constitutional without violating the law and thereby forcing you to argue from a point of weakness (as the accused).
Look at any state that has "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms" or similar in its Constitution, and then look at the state's weapons laws. NM has the cited portion, and a bit more, but also has statutes barring carrying on universities or in schools, such are plainly contrary the state constitution... but there is no way to challenge them in court without becoming lawbreaker.
Well said.
The stupid one is you supporting a lost cause. The stupid one is you who claims to be a conservative and venerates Dixiecrats. And just how is it one loses an argument on the internet?
Of course the blacks that fought with the confederacy were not responsible for starting the war, nor were they responsible for their state’s acts.
The poor saps conscripted by the rebels knew the truth: For the south it was always “A rich man’s war, but a poor man’s fight.” That the insurrection had to early resort to conscription showed their weakness. Slave owners had conscripted non-slave owners to patrol for run away slaves, and had thus coopted the militia system for their private ends. The confederate conscription system thus enslaved free whites as well as blacks.
Rather, is is you guys that have the depictions of mail genitalia waiting on your hard drive. You are the guys that drool on the keyboard over such garbage.
Shame on you.
Of course there is a constitutional way to contest adding to the public debt.
Vote. Contribute to conservative candidates. Win a few elections.
“No state shall make anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts” merely moved the monetary authority to the federal government.
Congress has authority to coin money.
Private parties have the ability to make demand notes, as you do when ever you write a check.
The case I cited strongly criticized congress for changing the value of money, while admitting they had the legal right to do so.
Over and over we see people hoping that others will do the heavy lifting of government for them. Wouldn’t it be nice if the ___________ Department was held to be unconstitutional? But the courts hardly ever do that. Rather, they give self government a chance to fail. If self government fails, it will be because we didn’t win elections, and didn’t convince our fellow citizens.
That's for debts not already incurred; there is nothing whereby I can contest debts already incurred.
In New Mexico you are welcome to bear arms, but not to go while bearing arms into certain places, such as their university, or perhaps a kindergarten.
Just as you are permitted to bear arms, but not to enter my hunting camp in New Mexico unless I invite you, and I grant you permission.
Glad I could help you with that.
Rather, I have standards, and don’t care to sully a thread with images of male genitalia.
I know you like looking at images of male genitalia. You drool over them. You long to share them with your friends.
I am not your friend. Don’t share them with me.
1) That quote was taken as implying that there was universal support for unilateral secession when the Constitution was adopted, but that's not necessarily the case. In those early days of the republic there was a feeling that the union might fail. The Constitution of 1789 might not work, and that failure would leave the states divided and independent. There was also the possibility that citizens might be forced to overthrow a tyrannical central government, and this would leave state governments intact and independent. Neither of these possibilities is the same as the idea that a state could leave the union at its own will for any reason or for none.
2) However he got there, Henry Cabot Lodge wasn't a supporter of secession. You can find him saying over and over again, in speeches and memoirs that secession was revolution, not a right under the Constitution. I don't know how he reconciled different ideas in his own mind. Perhaps, like his enemy Woodrow Wilson he was inspired by Hegelian or Darwinian ideas of evolution. In any case, we should recognize that Lodge may not have been right in his assessment of the mood of 1789, and that what he wrote about it doesn't fit in well with his statements about secession on other occasions.
So was secession part of some original, authentic reading of the Constitution? I don't know. There was a feeling that the whole experiment might fail, the Constitution would prove unworkable, the union would fall apart. It might prove oppressive and have to be destroyed. But if the Constitution did endure and freedom flourished, states and people would grow closer together, legal ties would develop, and it would be hard to simply overthrow the whole structure just because somebody wanted to get out of it. That would also count as the Founders' intention.
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.