Posted on 06/01/2006 9:07:55 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
You're not beginning your FR career in a very positive way.
You are completely wrong in your assumptions.
like all too many DUMB-bunnies from "the DAMNyankee coven" of REVISIONIST/statist/ignorant lunatics, your mind is made up & you aren't bright enough, evidently, to understand that you've been LIED TO & made a FOOL of by the LEFTISTS out of the northeast. PITY!
free dixie,sw
Definitely not with the "Dixie will rise again" crowd, that's for sure. Of course that's not much of a big deal. Those folks are on the fringe of society glamming onto an illegitimate resentment from over 100 years ago.
You're wrong but I can live with it. The rebellion lost, can you get over it?
Look kid, you 'assume' that anybody that displays Confederate symbols is a racist and white supremacist.
I assume that anybody that engages in hate speech and name calling is a liberal.
You have made no compelling arguments against the Confederacy. You've only resorted to impassioned name calling and the standard issue liberal rhetoric.
If you sincerely want to have intellectual dialog about the War Between the States, then I suggest that you:
1) spend some time studying the non-PC, pre-revisionist history of that period, and
2) give up your membership in the DNC
Sure. Here.
But every one since then. And the first 13 are bound by the same Constitution as the remaining 37.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 5: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
Care to elaborate on that taxation you claim the North was pumping up on Southern exports?
There was. Slavery.
Only a complete and utter imbecile would believe that. Slavery was guaranteed to the states by the federal Constitution, and President Lincoln helped to get the Corwin Amendment passed in Congress, which would guarantee that slavery would be FOREVER. The Supreme Court (those gods you worship) had previously held 7-2 that all of the territories were open to slavery. If ALL the Confederacy wanted was to expand slavery, then they should have remained in the union.
Obviously that was not the case, they wanted to be free from the pestilence that had infected the land - LIBERALS that do not believe in the rule of law.
You've been using this one a lot lately. You really need to freshen up the act.
But what the Corwin Amendment didn't do, and which the confederacy made sure was included in their constitution, was to specifically guarantee the free expansion of slavery into the territories, regardless of the wishes of the people living there. Supreme Court (that institution you don't understand) decisions could be overturned by future courts. There was no guarantee, short of amending the Constitution, ensuring free expansion of slavery. It was a real fear with the southern leadership - why else would the compromise amendment proposals floated by Toombs and Davis and Hindman specifically protect slavery in the territory if they were so all fired sure that Taney's tortured decision would never be overturned? And with Lincoln and the Republicans coming into office with their anti-slavery expansion platform it was pretty certain that another Constitutional test would come before the court. Since that protection was left out of the Corwin Amendment the southern leadership couldn't accept it. And that's why the launched their rebellion. And their constitution pretty much guaranteed slavery would last forever, too. So having provided themselves with their cake and a chance to eat it too, why end their rebellion because of Thomas Corwin and his silly amendment?
Like it or not, the school has a right to set a dress code.
Personally, I think that "free speech" is not relevant to school, either. Students are there to learn, not to make some sort of political point.
That's always been my contention, but the Confederate flag doesn't really bother me unless someone in a pointy hat is waving it.
But when you get into the specifics of what "rule of law" was threatened, it turns out that it overwhelmingly means abolitionists who would not silently go along with the expansion of slavery.
Well, no. Once a state seceeds from the union, the "established government" is the one in their own capital.
So you do admit that it was a political entity before joining the union and that political entity desolved itself voluntarily at that time. I rest my case.
So they had no prior government at all?
Then you rest too soon. I'm not sure what you mean by "desolve", but if you're claiming that "the State of Missouri" existed prior to admission to the union, then you're wrong. It was a territory with arbitrary borders established by Congress out of the Louisiana Purchase. It had few aspects of sovereignty, if any. Although US citizens, the residents had no representation in Congress. It was as a territory that it asked permission to form a state and be admitted to the union. Do you actually claim that US territories are the same thing as states? Guam is US territory. Is it 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.