Posted on 02/09/2011 3:42:15 PM PST by central_va
Davis was informed the next day.
Very true.
And people always like to say the south fired the first shot, which is true, but they did it because Lincoln lied and didn't keep his word. He promised to withdraw the Forst Sumpter garrison, but then didn't and started to send them ships full of arms and reinforments under the guise of food and etc. The South knew what he was up to. The garrison didn't need food, the city of Charleston had been providing them with fresh food daily so that food could not be used as an excuse. When they found out what he was really doing they fired on the ships and the fort because Lincoln broke his promise.
The day after William T. Sherman’s Birthday :-)
The zotting of the miscreant known as Non-Sequitur happened within the thread titled, If you support the homosexual agenda you are anti-Constitution and you'll get the zot from FR! back just prior to Christmas 2010. His last screed before the plug was righteously pulled went like this:
I don't like the way DADT has been repealed but I spent most of my adult life in the military and I think I know a thing or two about it. You gloom and doomers who say this will destroy the military are giving little credit to the hundreds of thousands of men and women in uniform who will not let it. The true professionals in uniform will remain true professionals.
The end of N-S merited but a terse "zot" from the boss. Then the celebration began and even Yankees rejoiced. :-)
Conservatives should think that it was both illegal and immoral because it was precisely that. I know of no one, northerner or southerner, who "don’t seem to think people have a right to leave anything".
There was little peaceful about the southern rebellion. They ignored the rule of law, they seized federal assets and accosted federal troops, they ratcheted up hostilities between the union and neutral states, and declared war against their northern neighbors.
Yes, the end of non sequitur the poster and the beginning of Non Sequitur the mythological boogieman.
BOO!
Huh? What’s your problem? Miss N-S? Sheesh.
OMG! LOL! So conservatives should think that people asserting their right to self government (government of the people, by the people, and for the people) is illegal and immoral? ROFL!!!! You sound like a liberal to me, pal.
The fundamental God given right to self government.
oh but you forget that the CSA was a government by, for and of the people - because clever politicing got the CSA a vast majority of the slave vote.
Obviously not as much as you do. Y’all are the ones that keep disinterring his corpse so you can drag it around and pretend that you ever got the better of him.
All his zotting proves is that no one is infallible.
Huck, I understand that you wish to make such comments then trot off and avoid conflict. But, will you show me the common decency of an honest debate, since my family was involved.
Your references to the Declaration of Independence are somewhat enraging, since Jefferson thought the right of self government was everlasting. I for one would rather our General Government just reside within the scope of authority that was delegated to it, ( there is that powerful word, "delegate"). Every war has it's own cost, was that one worth it? Will the next one be? Figure it depends on which side of the fence your on.
There are some points of fact that should allow the lurkers to draw their own opinion (if not already brainwashed by the Saint Abraham fan club and of course, public school..)
The States were and are the people. When America won her Freedom, the States were referred to as such. Because the word "State" meant an Independent Sovereign entity. Sovereignty was never given away with the ratification of the Constitution. They, the States, delegated certain limited authority to their agent the General Government. The Federal Government is subordinate to the people and their States. Just as John Taylor Of Caroline said many moons ago:
Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power, and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could not have reserved any rights by the articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation. But the union possesses no innate sovereignty, like the states; it was not self-constituted; it is conventional, and of course subordinate to the sovereignties by which it was formed. Could the states have imagined, when they entered into a union, and retained the power of diminishing, extending, or destroying the powers of the federal government, that they who "created and could destroy," might have this maxim turned upon themselves, by their own creature; and that this misapplication of words was able both to deprive them of sovereignty, and bestow it upon a union subordinate to their will, even for existence. I have no idea of a sovereignty constituted upon better ground than that of each state, nor of one which can be pretended to on worse, than that claimed for the federal government, or some portion of it. Conquest or force would give a much better title to sovereignty, than a limited deputation or delegation of authority. The deputations by sovereignties, far from being considered as killing the sovereignties from which they have derived limited powers, are evidences of their existence; and leagues between states demonstrate their vitality. The sovereignties which imposed the limitations upon the federal government, far from supposing that they perished by the exercise of a part of their faculties, were vindicated, by reserving powers in which their deputy, the federal government, could not participate; and the usual right of sovereigns to alter or revoke its commissions.
Or as St. George Tucker also correctly said:
But the seceding states were certainly justified upon that principle; and from the duty which every state is acknowledged to owe to itself, and its own citizens by doing whatsoever may best contribute to advance its own happiness and prosperity; and much more, what may be necessary to the preservation of its existence as a state.30 Nor must we forget that solemn declaration to which every one of the confederate states assented . … that whenever any form of government is destructive of the ends of its institution, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. Consequently whenever the people of any state, or number of states, discovered the inadequacy of the first form of federal government to promote or preserve their independence, happiness, and union, they only exerted that natural right in rejecting it, and adopting another, which all had unanimously assented to, and of which no force or compact can deprive the people of any state, whenever they see the necessity, and possess the power to do it. And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.
Yes. God given.
All his zotting proves is that no one is infallible.
ROFL! It was generally agreed by many on the zot thread that N-S had been a liberal troll for years.
Jefferson asserted the right to revolution, and I don’t disagree with him on that at all. In a way it’s a collective version of the right to self-defense. It’s definitely collective. Individuals cannot secede.
The declaration says that the necessity for a change in FORM is what justifies revolution, and only upon certain conditions, and for certain reasons. The CSA fails on all counts.
"...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..."
It does not say a new FORM of government, only new government. The point was, it doesn't matter what kind of governmnet infringes on the people's rights, the people have a right to create a new government, either by abolishing the old one, or breaking away from it.
You're twisting words. The only collective part of this is the States are the collection of Individuals. Individuals can't secede.. but the collection of Individuals forming their State.......can
Thomas Jefferson to To John C. Breckinridge Monticello
The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.
Thomas Jefferson to governor William Giles 1825:
If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation
Thomas Jefferson letter to Madison in August 1799:
[We should be] determined... to sever ourselves from the union we so much value rather than give up the rights of self-government...in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness.
Have you been watching the scene in Egypt? How crazy is this? So if you have a huge crowd of people protesting long enough, you can topple your government? I never realized it was so easy.
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
What are you talking about? How does that relate to my post about Fort Sumter?
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.