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 ...
Uh huh. Go issue a document that says your house is now a separate country and see what happens. We became a nation by winning a war, by imposing our rule and ousting the British by force of arms, not by putting out a piece of paper.
LOL! Yet another "pot meet kettle" moment. You have an endless supply of them.
...and I am factually correct.
Fatuously opinionate would be more accurate.
Little different from me saying a "transgender woman" is actually a man, and you claiming this is an "opinion."
You don't want to apply the Founders principles to the Confederates. You make up every excuse under the sun to try to sneak some daylight between the two events, but in every significant scope, they are exactly alike.
You'll have to point out the section that concerns the legal conveyance of property ownership.
Hey, if I declare my house to be a separate country, does that mean I don't have to pay my mortgage?
This is the sort of parsing crap your side constantly engages in. The United States would never have tolerated the British continuing to occupy Fort Stirling or Fort Richmond.
Sure. Right after you signify acceptance of the Founder's position that Independence is a natural law right.
You use that quote of Lincoln's to support you opinions and I'm the one parsing crap? If not for parsed crap you would have nothing to post.
The United States would never have tolerated the British continuing to occupy Fort Stirling or Fort Richmond.
Hence the Treaty of Paris. What treaty transferred ownership of all the federal property to the Confederacy?
Sure. Since Natural Law Rights seem to mean whatever anyone wants them to mean at that moment, okay.
You need to read some Locke or some Rutherford, or something.
You may be unfamiliar with this but there was also an armed rebellion going on during that period.
I know that Lincoln lives, rent free, inside your head. But why is it that you never get to my favorite part of Civil War history: Alexander Stephens and the Cornerstone Speech? If, as you maintain, Lincoln was a “white suprematist” what do you call Al Stephens? How do you reconcile Al’s speech with your point of view? Do you stand behind The CornerStone speech?
Asserting that right is not "rebellion."
Fighting against that right is rebellion.
Why should I care about him or one of his speeches? Does it figure materially into why Northern states sent armies into Southern states to kill them?
If, as you maintain, Lincoln was a “white suprematist” what do you call Al Stephens?
Who cares? So far as I know he wasn't trying to pretend to be anything else. Lincoln's predilections have been massaged and covered up by his subsequent apologists. Almost all the white people on both sides were "white supremacists", and there is no real difference between either side in that regard.
How do you reconcile Al’s speech with your point of view?
Why do you expect me to pay any attention to someone's speech? Especially someone that so far as I can tell, played no great or significant role in starting the war.
Do you stand behind The CornerStone speech?
I have no interest in hearing about the "Cornerstone speech." I'm sure it plays into one of your side tracks, or else you wouldn't be bringing it up.
To me, the only things that matters are the right to independence, and consistency in applying the law. All else is just noise.
As I said, "Natural Law," at least on FR, tends to mean whatever people think it should be at that particular moment in the argument.
Or others.
The point is that you are such an expert on (mis)interpreting Lincoln and his motives it would seem that you must also be an expert on the motives of the Confederacy, as implicitly expressed by the “Vice President of the Confederate States” in The Cornerstone Speech. It gets funnier every time I read it. Read it again, for the first time.
I need to get all y’all some adderol to make it to 1000
On second thought, I think I would rather read something more relevant to the reason why multiple states were conned into sending armies to invade people who were no real threat to them.
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.