Davis' bicentennial eclipsed by Lincoln

The Kentucky Kernel ^ | 3/28/08 | Jill Laster

[cowboyway]

evict Federal troops and take over Federal installations you must also be defending the 'rights' of 21st century moonbats in San Francisco to shut down Federal recruting stations.

Your analogy is not remotely comparable on many points.

So what's your real question?

Do states have rights? Not anymore. Thanks Abe. Thanks damnyankees.

[Non-Sequitur]

Why don't you explain to us how, out of all of written history, you, singularly, can demonstrate that the South never seceded and there never was a Confederacy.

Right here.

"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."

That's from the Texas v White decision. So if the Southern acts of unilateral secession were illegal and states did not cease to be states or their people citizens of the United States then it would follow that they did not secede and the so-called confederate states was a title adopted by a rebellious part of the United States and certainly not a sovereign nation in any respects.

Did you follow that?

Notice that I searched for "jefferson davis confederate president" to eliminate all the jefferson davis' that weren't the Confederate president. I was actually more lenient with disHonest Abe.

Maybe you shouldn't have been. Because when I apply the same standard and search on "Abraham Lincoln United States President" I get 1,820,000 hits. When I search on "Abe Lincoln President" I get 1,280,000 hits. Perhaps Abe isn't the dishonest one around here?

Just for fun, let's Google "dishonest abe lincoln".................Results 1 - 10 of about 176,000 for dishonest abe lincoln

Shazam!!!!

You know what's even more fun? Google "Jeff Davis's War". 2,050,000 hits.

[Non-Sequitur]

And I post sites like this to ensure that your revised history is challenged and confronted by the truth.

And when are you going to start confronting us with the truth? Just curious.

[Ditto]

Your analogy is not remotely comparable on many points.

It wasn't an analogy. It was a statement. Freely elected politicians acting in the name of the people in San Fransisco are interfering with a lawful Federal function. Since you support the South Carolina nullifiers and secessionists, I can only assume you also support the San Francisco commies.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Do states have rights?

They never did. As you refused to believe last week, governments have powers. People have rights. Anything to the contrary is mere sloppiness.

You never did come up with a court decision using the phrase, did you? I came up with two USSC decisions using "State's powers" in response to your challenge.

[cowboyway]

They never did. As you refused to believe last week, governments have powers. People have rights. Anything to the contrary is mere sloppiness.

Very interesting.

Bob Barr was just on Hannity and they were discussing a possible run for POTUS on the libertarian ticket.

Hannity asked Barr what his position was on legalizing drugs.

Barr said that it was a "states rights" issue.

Bob Barr: "B.A., University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif., 1970; M.A., George Washington University, Washington, D.C., 1972; J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C., 1977; Central Intelligence Agency, 1970-1978; United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, 1986-1990; anti-drug coordinator for Department of Justice, Southeastern United States, 1986-1990; head, Public Corruption Subcommittee for United States Attorney General, 1987-1988; president, Southeastern Legal Foundation, 1990-1991"

What are your credentials?

[cowboyway]

It wasn't an analogy.

Sure it is!

You're trying to draw an analogy between South Carolina in 1861 and San Francisco in 2008 with the intent on associating me with the people of San Francisco.

It is totally lame and another one of your pathetic attempts to spin the debate and reduce it to ad hominem attacks.

[Sherman Logan]

NS and I may be fellow travelers, to some extent, but that doesn't mean he's my leader. I don't really have a leader. I'm more of a loose 12-pounder Napoleon.

They had the right. They simply didn't have the ambition.

So any southerners who fought to put down a slave rebellion would have been in the wrong? After all, it's certainly wrong to fight to take away other people's rights.

And old John Brown was in the right? Then why did the rights-respecting state of Virginia hang him?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

No one's denying that "states' rights" isn't a common phrase, even among goverment types. It's a shorthand for federalism issues. The issue is whether it is, strictly, correct. Like I said, find a single court decision that uses the term. That Bob Barr uses it in an interview doesn't mean anything.

Seriously, this is basic political theory from Hobbes and Locke. Your inability to recognize it is bizarre.

[Ditto]

You're trying to draw an analogy between South Carolina in 1861 and San Francisco in 2008 with the intent on associating me with the people of San Francisco.

I wasn't 'trying' to associate you with them. I did associate you with them because your philosophies are identical. Neither of you give a damn about the rule of law, you just want what you want.

[x]

You don't have a clue, do you?

When you type Jefferson Davis confederate president, you get a lot of pages at the end of your search that have "confederate" and "president" in them but not "Jefferson" or "Davis."

Ditto if I typed Abraham Lincoln united states president.

That gets me 1,930,000 pages, and the last of them probably have "United States" and "President" but not "Abraham" and "Lincoln" on them.

The fair search is between "Jefferson Davis" and "Abraham Lincoln."

If you want you can compare "Jefferson Davis Confederate President" and "Abraham Lincoln United States President."

For whatever it's worth, Lincoln beats Davis in both competitions.

You end a lot of these exchanges telling people to go away.

Looking over your own dismal contributions to the discussion that sounds like good advice.

If you want to take it, now would be a good time for it.

[cowboyway]

So any southerners who fought to put down a slave rebellion would have been in the wrong? After all, it's certainly wrong to fight to take away other people's rights.

You're mixing up legal vs moral issues.

Is abortion wrong? Yes.

Is it legal? Yes.

So any southerners who fought to put down a slave rebellion would have been in the wrong? After all, it's certainly wrong to fight to take away other people's rights.

You're all mixed up. Again.

The slaves had a moral right to revolt. Slave owners had a legal right to squash a slave revolt. (As you know, slavery was legal in the Confederate States per the Confederate Constitution and it was legal in the United States until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in 1865.)

And old John Brown was in the right? Then why did the rights-respecting state of Virginia hang him?

Can one legally blow up an abortion clinic? No.

If you do, pro-lifers will write songs about you but the gubmint is still gonna hang your ass.

[Sherman Logan]

A legal right that is not based on a moral right is nothing but an exercise of tyranny.

I agree that the slaveowners had set up a legal system they used to squash the moral human rights of blacks that continued well up into the 1960s.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

While there is no question that the slave and Jim Crow societies had power and legal standing, they were not just powers because they were based on institutionalized violation of human rights.

[cowboyway]

That Bob Barr uses it in an interview doesn't mean anything.

Sure it does. What are your credentials?

Seriously, this is basic political theory from Hobbes and Locke. Your inability to recognize it is bizarre.

Hobbes: Man is not by nature a social animal, society could not exist except by the power of the state.

Hobbes: You conceded your rights to the government, in return for your life.

I'm assuming that you are a Hobbes disciple, being a Lincoln guy and all..............

[cowboyway]

I did associate you with them because your philosophies are identical.

That's almost a clever tactic. Almost.

Please be specific concerning 'philosophies'.

Neither of you give a damn about the rule of law, you just want what you want.

Exactly what are the folks in SF doing to break the law? They voted on a non-binding measure to ban military recruiters from public high schools. (Once again, please be specific.)

In addition, list what law I've broken and what law, specifically, was broken by the South.

FWIW, I wouldn't give a damn if SF fell off into the Bay with no survivors. Furthermore, I don't believe they deserve military protection.

But, I think that if SF and all of California wanted to leave the union and go it on their own, they should be allowed to do so. Otherwise, they're simply hostages.

[Ditto]

But, I think that if SF and all of California wanted to leave the union and go it on their own, they should be allowed to do so. Otherwise, they're simply hostages.

Before I start, let me ask; Do you really want to go there.

The parallels to the asshats who run California now and the asshats who ran South Carolina 160 years ago are eerily similar.

If you really want this discussion, let me know, but you will not like the outcome.

[cowboyway]

A legal right that is not based on a moral right is nothing but an exercise of tyranny.

As you have probably heard a million times, you cannot legislate morality.

I agree that the slaveowners had set up a legal system they used to squash the moral human rights of blacks that continued well up into the 1960s.

By 'slaveowners' you mean both north and South. Right?

While there is no question that the slave and Jim Crow societies had power and legal standing, they were not just powers because they were based on institutionalized violation of human rights.

Which is another good reason to keep this debate going. A man should not have the legal right to enslave another man. A government should not have the legal right to deny those 'self evident truths'.

There's no doubt that slavery was the albatross around the neck of state's rights. By wars end, the slaves had gained a measure of freedom but all the citizens of the newly reunited states had lost a great deal of freedom.

[cowboyway]

Let's get back to square one (1). One of your cohorts stated that Davis was resigned to obscurity after the war.

The fact is that he wasn't resigned to obscurity and is still the subject of debate both pro and con.

Refute that, x-girl.

Now, go away.

[cowboyway]

Before I start, let me ask; Do you really want to go there.

I'm already there.

The parallels to the asshats who run California now and the asshats who ran South Carolina 160 years ago are eerily similar.

Besides being carbon based life forms there's not much similarity at all.

If you really want this discussion, let me know, but you will not like the outcome.

I think that it's you that will not like the outcome, if you're intellectually honest throughout the discussion.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So let's see. You can't find it in a court decision, you can't find it in the constitution, but Bob Barr said it in an interview, so it must be strictly, technically and legally true and not just a figure of speech for federalism issues.

Here's a basic question: Where do rights come from?