Posted on 03/28/2019 8:50:21 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York University was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is intended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy undertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representative American scholars in different callings. They are mostly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
Then you concede that the southern states engaged in rebellion.
Liberals now. Liberals then. Changing the rules so that they win.
You have very curious beliefs regarding property rights.
Exactly the kind of crap one expects from someone who is brainwashed. It's 1984 in your mind. Nope, lies are not truth. Power is not weakness. Hot is not cold.
Wait, all this time you’ve been peering down your snoot and sniffing about the so-called tyranny of “might makes right”. And now you’re tacitly acknowledging the principle?! How confusing - for you!
The vast bulk of which led back to Southern produced exports. Sure, 28% of the Northern states populations were producing goods to be sold in Europe. All other European goods purchased by the Northern populations had to be exchanged for Southern produced goods in some manner. The tariffs were rigged to raise the prices of domestic produced goods, so if Southerners bought Northern goods, they payed higher prices than free market would have cost. If Southerners bought European goods, they paid the artificially inflated prices caused by the protectionist policies of Washington DC.
The whole point was to force Southerners to buy the artificially inflated products made by the Industrialists in the North. Also to gouge them on shipping, insurance, warehousing, and any other "service" that could be used to separate them from the money their goods produced.
New York was getting 40% of the production, with Washington getting whatever percentage the tariff required, and so the two cities were making more off of Southern production than the actual producers in the South.
Just out of curiosity, given that cotton was no longer being shipped in the same quantities that it was before the war, how did the United States pay for the things they imported during and immediately after the war?
Who cares? It has nothing to do with the financial reasons behind the launch of the war. Had Southern states kept independence, the financial situations would have been quite different than they turned out to be on our existing timeline. I think it's safe to say, Northern imports would have been drastically less, and Southern state wealth would have been drastically more.
When a state becomes independent, all it's inhabited territory belongs to it.
Quoting Lincoln is putting forth Lincoln's opinion. My opinion is that the Declaration of Independence made Independence an accepted natural law right, and therefore the exercise of that right is not "rebellion" any more than using freedom of speech to criticize the government is "sedition."
Prior to 1776, "Independence" was equal to treason. After 1776, and from a nation founded on the premise that Independence is a right, it is not treason, it is the exercise of the right which founded our own nation.
I merely state that which the founders regarded as "natural law" when it comes to real estate and independence. These concepts only apply to states. They do not apply to individuals within a recognized system of property rights.
Transgenderism is just another form of our elites telling us what we shall be forced to accept, whether it is objectively real or not.
Objectivity? Do you speak it?
Here's the thing I've noticed about when people cite "natural law" on these threads. It seems to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean to the point that it's utterly meaningless when it comes to actual things like chains of property ownership. Same thing with the beliefs of the founders. People tend to make up their own version of what they believed, with little evidence to support it.
Of course, if you can actually point to the founders' recorded beliefs in regards to natural law, property ownership and independence instead of what your feelings say they should have been, go for it.
But just saying that you're now a separate country doesn't make it so.
I know for a fact that this has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion, but the land Sumter was built on was deeded to the federal government free and clear by act of the South Carolina legislature. It was the property of the federal government and only an act of Congress could transfer ownership.
Let me have Abraham Lincoln explain this simple natural law concept to you.
Asinine interpretations of Lincoln's quote do not change legal facts, no matter how often and how badly you want to twist them. But if you insist then two can play at that game and let me simply point out that South Carolina did not "inhabit" Fort Sumter so then I guess Lincoln's quote does not apply. Wouldn't you agree?
A "true pot calling the kettle black" moment if ever there was one.
Well here's the founders clearly articulated position on the subject of "Independence." As representatives of their individual states, it represents the positions of those states as well.
We became a nation on July 4, 1776 as a consequence of the "Declaration of Independence." What is a "Declaration"?
It means "statement." So in other words, we became a nation by saying so.
And yes, the entrance to their primary seaport is "inhabited" in the historically understood meaning of the term.
We are not both equally incorrect. He is incorrect, and I am factually correct.
A right to independence was the default position of Constitutional law unless it is specifically stipulated otherwise. Since the ratifying statements of three ratifying states specifically assert a right to reassume the powers given up, your side has to come up with better evidence than that to refute it.
You do not and you cannot. No official document of that era, puts forth a position that Independence is illegal. It would in fact be ridiculous if such a thing existed because it would absolutely contradict the very claim they made 11 years previously.
You people fabricated this "Independence is Illegal!!!!" bullshit decades subsequent to the Constitutional convention, because it was far enough away from it that the original ratifiers could not gainsay this silly claim.
Most of this claim is subsequent to Lincoln who simply declared it so, and ironically after he had already twice declared Independence to be a right.
But they didn't occupy Sumter. Not until they started a war and took it. And yes, the entrance to their primary seaport is "inhabited" in the historically understood meaning of the term.
The entrance perhaps, what with it being water and all. But they didn't "inhabit" Sumter. The fort's owners did.
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.