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 ...
No. Thank you. Putting words in my mouth and then making stupid comments about them ALWAYS makes me the winner.
I’ll play against you anytime!
Of course, A. and B. themselves are worthy of grievance because they were/are impossible limitations to overcome.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, “It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw.” A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, “The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State.”
Well into the 19th century, the United States was still viewed by many as an experimental confederation from which states could secede just as they had earlier acceded to it. It took a bloody war to prove them wrong.
Fascinating Fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle.
Post unpleasantness, Jefferson Davis demanded a trial and was not granted one.
It is my opinion that the Free Republic Lincoln Coven thinks that was a historical mistake, and nothing would please them more than President Jefferson Davis and Gen. Robt. E. Lee swinging form a rope. It is a personal fantasy of theirs that they share.
I have no doubts.
No, that's a lie; the "force you to pay a tax" if you don't is a threat against your freedom, if not your life*.
To claim that it is not forcing you to buy a product is to claim that someone mugging you saying "if you don't give my your wallet, I'll kill you" (assuming you comply) is not theft because you're giving it to them.
* Can the government kill you for failure to pay a taxes? Yes, there is precedent; the Waco incident was started because the ATF claimed that they possessed untaxed firearms -- what makes that more outrageous was that the ATF's claim was arguable because they did have licenses and the taxation requirement is only for firearms that are [to be] sold.
Any such people are, quite literally ignorant idiots. General Lee quite likely saved the United States, telling his army to be "as good citizens as they were soldiers" (paraphrase)... imagine what the reaction would be if he said something like "it's only a piece of paper."
That is to say, if Lee had suggested guerrilla-warfare and/or less-than-peaceful-civil-resistance, the Southern states could easily have become the Afghanistan of the Americas.
ping
Income tax on wages was not unconstitutional direct taxes. Only taxes on people on a per head basis or on property were considered direct.
Actually, the northern states did acknowledge the persons of African heritage as fully human, which is why they and the people of the United States passed the 14th Amendment- and forced the conquered southern territories to agree to it as the price of resuming position as states in the Union.
I try to read lost cause loser posts, but I am often overcome with laughter, which cuts my ability to concentrate.
Of course the cost of Lee encouraging guerrilla war would have been the rapid death of many southern people. He lost, and he knew it. Any southern soldier who violated his parole would be subject to summary execution. Any pretended officer of the rebel army who gave such an order would have become subject to summary execution.
We are all glad that he had too much sense to do such a thing.
Any tax is a threat against your freedom if you don’t pay the tax. That is the nature of taxes. Government legitimacy is required to make a tax legitimate.
I hold that the Obamacare tax is bad policy, perhaps worse policy than the legal enslavement of emergency workers that requires them to provide services even if the client can not pay. I think it may be worse policy because it taxes poor people, but doesn’t offer any service. If you pay the tax, the government has no duty, nor even any pretended duty to pay for your medical care. It is just designed to put insurance companies out of business by passing to them the costs of the uninsured, and denying them funding.
Guess we just have to crawl over broken glass to vote and throw the bums out. Self government doesn’t guarantee good results.
A trial was held on the legality of the pretended secession. Texas v. White. The rebels lost that too.
Sigh.... once again, there were no rebels by that time and the bogus SCOTUS of the day was completely filled with Lincoln appointees and a couple of Confederate haters. Or are you one of those liberals who believe SCOTUS is always right no matter what...like on abortion and eminent domain?
NO ONE associated with the Confederate States or representing the Founding Fathers beliefs sat on the court. It was a Kangaroo SCOTUS.
Talisker to donmeaker, post #30: "Any reference to Dred Scott was merely part of the cover story to push the 14th Amendment, and the supportive 13th and 15th.
You're trying to explain an ocean by citing a need for a water faucet - it's ludicrous."
Talisker to B4Ranch, post #32: "Unfortunately, while the 16th Amendment actualized pretty much Jeffersons idea of slavery incorporation, the 14th Amendment extended that incorporation to free people - and for the most part, they STILL haven't figured it out."
Talisker to JerseyanExile, post #38: "And I'll tell you the final nail in the Northern Righteousness coffin - you know how the North could have made the Civil War CLEARLY and ONLY a slavery issue?
Simple - by acknowledging Blacks as full human beings, and therefore innately part of The People of the Constitution, and endowed with all Rights by their Creator.
But did the North do that?
No way!
Instead they were hypocrites, wanting to "free" a people they refused to acknowledge were fully human.
And as a result, we got the 16th, and then the 14th Amendments, imposing corporate slave law upon us all by presumption.
"And people STILL don't understand it."
Just guessing, that despite Talisker's heroic efforts to explain his beef against the 14th Amendment, his last comment is the correct one -- people STILL don't understand it.
Since I've never seen such an assault on the 14th Amendment before, am wondering now, does anyone else understand what Talisker is talking about?
For example, can someone quote those words in the 14th Amendment which seem to be causing Talisker such heartburn?
;-)
And in over 100 years since then their decision has not been challenged except for occasional cranks who believe that, no matter what, the Slave Power is always right.
Slavery? The Slave Power is always right.
Rape of slaves? The Slave Power is always right.
Torture of slaves? The Slave Power is always right.
Kidnapping children? The Slave Power is always right.
Money loaned to support insurrection? The Slave Power is always right.
He is upset that the Slave Power is no longer permitted to use state governments to deny the protections of citizenship to persons of African heritage. He seems to think that was the essential nature of the United States antebellum, despite North Carolina permitting free citizens of African heritage the vote, and numerous cases brought by persons of African Heritage against slave owners and their agents.
After all his right to enslave is hindered by the constitution being so amended.
The Articles of Confederation were perpetual. The Union of the current constitution was to make a more perfect Union. A perpetual union made more perfect.... That is where we are.
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.