Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My argument may not be "logical" by your 'standard' (which prefers circular reasoning, biased personal opinions, and convoluted, self-contradictory rationalizations) - but it is in agreement with the public writings and comments of Jefferson and Madison, the ratification documents of the States, the most respected legal references of the time, and the Constitution itself (including the Bill of Rights). My view is consistent with the history of the period; yours amounts to historical revisionism.
Obviously, you're welcome to it...
;>)
There, fixed it. ;-)
Wrong again, Squat-to-Post. As previously noted, my view is consistent with the published views of Madison & Jefferson, the most respected legal references of the era, and with the Constitution. Yours is not - in fact, yours is nothing but a personal opinion, based on pseudo-logic & rationalizations. Therefore, yours is the "highly biased reinterpretation."
(As I noted previously, you sound exactly like a liberal politician - you even accuse conservatives of doing what you, yourself are doing [pushing a "highly biased reinterpretation"], just like the D@mocrats. ;>)
...intending to justify the indefensible history of the period...
What, precisely, was "indefensible?" State secession? You have yet to come anywhere near proving that secession was unconstitutional - and your other views (which you for some reason apparently felt compelled to offer here) are irrelevant with regard to that issue.
"...yours amounts to historical revisionism accuracy."
Oh, you betcha, Squat-to-Post - you've got a view of history that's about as accurate as the one espoused by Karl Marx. You're an historical revisionist (and a constitutional ignoramus), plain & simple...
"There, fixed it."
;-)
"yours is nothing but a personal opinion, based on pseudo-logic & rationalizations"
"you sound exactly like a liberal politician - you even accuse conservatives of doing what you, yourself are doing "
"Oh, you betcha, Squat-to-Post - you've got a view of history that's about as accurate as the one espoused by Karl Marx"
"an historical revisionist (and a constitutional ignoramus), plain & simple..."
Like I said: the old Rebel Yell battle cry. Delivered all the more ferociously when Southern troops ran out of ammunition -- which was frequent. ;-)
I've never been anywhere near running out of "ammunition," Squat-to-Post:
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1791
No wonder you have such a difficult time 'defining' your position...
;>)
translation: "Yeeeeee Haaaaaw !!!"
;-)
This one was obviously intended for someone just like you:
"That man must be a deplorable idiot who does not see that there is no earthly difference between an unlimited grant of power, and a grant limited in its [ends], but accompanied with unlimited means of carrying it into execution."
- Spencer Roane, 1819
I noted earlier that you're an idiot - but "deplorable idiot" fits you even better...
;>)
This one was obviously intended for someone just like you:
"That man must be a deplorable idiot who does not see that there is no earthly difference between an unlimited grant of power, and a grant limited in its [ends], but accompanied with unlimited means of carrying it into execution."
- Spencer Roane, 1819
I noted earlier that you're an idiot - but "deplorable idiot" fits you even better...
;>)
translation: "Yeeeeee Haaaaaw !!!"
;-)
BJ: translation: "Yeeeeee Haaaaaw !!!" ;-)
Thank's for proving my point.
;>)
Here's another one for you, Squat-to-Post:
"As ends may be made to beget means, so means may be made to beget ends, until the cohabitation shall rear a progeny of unconstitutional bastards, which were not begotten by the people..."
- John Taylor, 1820
;>)
translation: "Yeeeeee Haaaaaw !!!"
;-)
BJ: translation: "Yeeeeee Haaaaaw !!!" ;-)
Thank's for proving my point, again.
;>)
Because I never tire of casting pearls before swine:
"If a line can be drawn between the powers granted [to the federal government] and the rights retained [by the people and their States], it would seem to be the same thing whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended."
- James Madison, 1789
;>)
1) "If a line can be drawn between the powers granted [to the federal government] and the rights retained [by the people and their States], it would seem to be the same thing whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended." - James Madison, 1789
2) "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." - Thomas Jefferson, 1791"
3) "That man must be a deplorable idiot who does not see that there is no earthly difference between an unlimited grant of power, and a grant limited in its [ends], but accompanied with unlimited means of carrying it into execution." - Spencer Roane, 1819
4) "As ends may be made to beget means, so means may be made to beget ends, until the cohabitation shall rear a progeny of unconstitutional bastards, which were not begotten by the people..." - John Taylor, 1820
Sorry pal, but all you're doing here is "firing blanks" or worse, misfiring "spent cartridges," because NONE of these quotes refer to a right of "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union."
Furthermore, any quotes from the period AFTER ratification in 1788 are likely just then-current political statements, and not necessarily the Founders' "original intent."
So you are missing your targets, pal, and all the "Yeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaws" in the world can't turn nonsense into a valid argument.
'Fess up buddy: you lost the argument, you lost the Civil War, and you are not going to win anything by trying to re-fight it all.
:-)
OMG, are you guys still fighting the Lost Cause?!
Sorry BroJoeK, but you’ll never win over the perpetually obdurate and intransigent nature of the Lost Cause Loser.
I’ve often heard the “Marriage Metaphor” used as a justification (of sorts) of the souths conduct in the Civil War. It attempts to analogize north and south like squabbling spouses. Its derivations and permutations include neglectful, abusive, and varying degrees of malevolent attributions applied to the various parties in a feeble attempt to “flavor” and influence the analogy. I always had trouble with the analogy. Now I think I know why.
When I married my first wife I considered marriage sacred and perpetual. I knew that we would have trials and challenges but always viewed it as a sincere commitment for the rest of our lives. I thought my wife did too. It turned out that her notion of marriage was more like “until the next bright and shiny opportunity comes along”. The absence of trust, honesty, and mutuality on such a fundamental and foundational element of our relationship ensured its demise.
I never realized until very recently that there are people who actually held the founding of our country in the same regard - that there were elements of our founders who, while signing the sacred documents that formed our great union, secretly held crossed fingers. I never considered it because it is too ridiculous and nonsensical to believe, but there it is and You Ain’t John Galt appears to be amongst its practitioners.
Reasonable people recognize the exceptional circumstances that existed between the colonies and the crown and paved the way for the formation of our country. Those circumstances have never existed between the United States of America and its citizens from the south. Many posters have attempted to paint a picture of hardship and exploitation of the south but all fail for one crucial reason - representation. Unlike our colonial ancestors who were literally at the mercy of the crown, the citizens of the south had representatives who spoke for them in Congress.
So, is there room for an interpretation of the founding of our country that treats the founding documents (and their signatures on those documents) like a magazine subscription that can be dismissed at will? Yea, I guess so. But only if I also recognize that some people are innate scoundrels that need to be stomped on from time to time to keep them “honest” and out of the silverware drawer.
Does that preclude a recognition of a federal government that is out of control? Not at all. The folks who look at Obamination and his Express Train to Oblivion and see grave danger for our Union are legion. Have we passed the Rubicon? Not at all. Did we pass the Rubicon in the events preceding the Civil War? Not until the south took the law into their own hands. Theirs was the precipitating event that caused the war with all of its bloodshed and damage and misery.
Honorable people who find themselves at a crossroads prevail upon the law to seek common ground and justice. They don’t slink around in the dead of might and drain the bank accounts. Honorable people don’t act unilaterally. Had the southern states gone to Congress for a redress of their grievances or sued for secession I might have some sympathy for their perspective. But they didn’t. And the consequences for their actions rest squarely upon their shoulders.
Back to your infantile "if it isn't mentioned, it's unconstitutional" argument - no surprise there.
Furthermore, any quotes from the period AFTER ratification in 1788 are likely just then-current political statements, and not necessarily the Founders' "original intent."
Not to mention your infantile "anything after 1788 is irrelevant" argument - again, no surprise (I particularly love how you discard the Bill of Rights ;>).
So you are missing your targets, pal, and all the "Yeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaws" in the world can't turn nonsense into a valid argument.
LMAO!!! Your comment most certainly applies to YOUR posts (with all of your idiotic "Yeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaws"), not mine! Keep it up, Squat-to-Post, you're nothing if not entertaining!
'Fess up buddy: you lost the argument, you lost the Civil War, and you are not going to win anything by trying to re-fight it all.
LOL! You have yet to present a rational argument (so I could hardly have "lost" one); I was not involved in the Civil War (and am not even a Southerner - so I could not have "lost" the war, even by proxy); and you are the only one here trying to "re-fight it all" (while others debate the constitutionality of State secession). In other words, you're clueless, as usual.
But allow me to throw you another 'pearl:'
Mr. MADISON, observed that the more he reflected on the use of [federal military] force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. — A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of [federal military] force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.
- Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
In the interests of encouraging you to actually look at the historical record, I'll let you figure out the precise date. If that's beyond your capabilities, ask politely, and I'll provide a link...
;>)
You're still firing blanks, pal. This quote has nothing to do with "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union." Nor does it reflect actual history -- the South firing on and forcing surrender of Fort Sumter.
Face it, you have no real ammunition. You're just jabbering for the sake of it. Knock it off... ;-)
Great post! I only disagree to the extent that I can't find evidence of "bad faith" or "crossed fingers" amongst any of the Founders at that time. Everything I've seen which might be called "bad faith" came many years later.
To use your analogy -- I think the Founders were totally sincere, and "married" with every intention of a long term union -- to be ammended or abolished only through using the same peaceful and democratic procedures under which it was established.
Sadly, not all the Founders' "brat children" lived up to their high standards. ;-)
Still pushing your idiotic "if it isn't mentioned, it's unconstitutional" argument - and it still doesn't make a d@mn bit of sense. "Face it, you have no real ammunition."
Nor does it reflect actual history -- the South firing on and forcing surrender of Fort Sumter.
Actually, it does reflect history - half the Southern States went out AFTER Mr. Lincoln's call for troops. Obviously, Mr. Lincoln was just as unfamiliar with the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 as you are. "You're still firing blanks, pal."
Of course, maybe you could post some historical documentation that meets your own idiotic standards (specifically declares "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union" unconstitutional, before or during "ratification in 1788"). Unfortunately (for you), such documentation does not exist - because your opinions are not based on the historical record. "You're just jabbering for the sake of it." But feel free to keep it up - you come across as a complete idiot, which I find quite entertaining...
;-)
There, fixed it. Pal, you're still firing blanks, still mixed with "Yeeeeeee Haaaaaaaw!!!"
The 10th Amendment refers to "powers" reserved to the states. The question is whether the word "powers" includes the "power" to unilaterally break the contract. I think that would be an illegitamate "power" and illegitamate "power" is approved nowhere in any 1787 era document I've seen.
WIJG: "half the Southern States went out AFTER Mr. Lincoln's call for troops."
Not exactly true. During six weeks, from December 20, 1860 through early February 1861, the seven Deep South states seceded, beginning with South Carolina, ending with Texas. By March, the eight other slave-states had decided against secession.
At that point, the Confederacy consisted of less than half the slave states, with just 2.5 million whites, and more slaves than free people.
So the problem is Jefferson Davis'. How does he get those eight slave-states which were deciding against secession to change their minds?
Answer: Davis fires on and forces the surrender of Fort Sumter. It is the first major use of military force, Lincoln labels it an "insurrection" and calls for troops to supress it.
As a result, four of the eight still-Union slave-states changed their minds (there's your "half") and joined the Confederacy: the Upper South of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas. This more than doubled the Confederacy's white population.
So we have to count Davis' firing on Fort Sumter as a huge success in his War of Aggression against the United States. But four slave-states still did not join up: Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. What does Davis do?
Well, first he declared war on the United States (if you want to debate the words "declared war," it's the same language Franklin Roosevelt used in declaring war on Japan). Then he sent Confederate armies into those states, presumably hoping to "win over" their "hearts & minds." It didn't work.
Even into 1862 most of the Civil War was being fought in the Union border-states. So it was then still a War of Southern Aggression against the United States.
"Face it, you have no real ammunition."
;>)
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.