'Gods and Generals' ... and an angry Mayor Dow

Mobile Register ^ | 10/13/03 | Jim Van Anglen

[carton253]

I called you an idiot... and I stand by it... more convinced now than I was an hour ago...

But enough of this tiring game...

[laotzu]

"there was NOTHING just..."

That is not for you to decide.

"there is no legal way..." "Justice seems to be a government monopoly"

Some are just born to, and militantly demand to be slaves.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Standard sophistry from 4ConservativeJustices will not change history.

Wilson's quote is actually setting up "artificial systems of states" against the "rights of man" not urging secession.

Marshall is referring to the people taking back power NOT States seceding.

Madison's prerequisite that the Union become "inconsistent" with public happiness was not met merely because the Slavers decided in a hissy fit to try and illegally remove their States from the Union.

The authority Paterson was referring to was the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES not a group of States.

Washington, like he did in the Farewell Address, was warning against any who might have had insane thoughts of secession. Too bad the Slavers wouldn't listen. They were EXACTLY the types of connivers and conmen he warned about.

There was no "secession" from the Articles, the constitution even included some of the same language. Changing a government is NOT secession from the UNION. It is a LIE to claim that was secession.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Good go insult someone else.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Of course it is for me to decide that the Slaver's Revolt was not just. Certainly I would not want you to decide for me.

And slavery has exactly what to do with justice under governments? Freemen created our wonderful constitution designed to "establish justice" too bad you do not support their efforts.

[laotzu]

"And slavery has exactly what to do with justice under governments? Freemen created our wonderful constitution designed to "establish justice"

Freemen that wrote our wonderful Constitution. Freemen that established justice. Freemen that established the Union. Freemen that were slavers, in that Union, before the Confederacy ever existed. Freemen.

[4CJ]

Wilson's quote is actually setting up "artificial systems of states" against the "rights of man" not urging secession.

What Wilson wrote was that some of the states would 'withdraw themselves from the Union' - secession.

Marshall is referring to the people taking back power NOT States seceding.

Justice Marshall in stating, 'It is the people that give power, and can take it back" was referring to a secession by the state of Virginia if the new government abused the powers delegated.

Madison's prerequisite that the Union become "inconsistent" with public happiness was not met merely because the Slavers decided in a hissy fit to try and illegally remove their States from the Union.

Madison stated that if the new union were unsatifactory, because the yankees refused to abide by it or any other reason, then he would 'Abolish the Union'.

The authority Paterson was referring to was the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES not a group of States.

No, Paterson was referring to the state Constitutions and the federal, 'In America, the case is widely different: every state in the Union has its constitution reduced to written exactitude and precision.' The case properly recognizes that the people of the state are sovereign over their legislatures. 'The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand' - the several states independently ratified the Constitution and independently secede.

There was no "secession" from the Articles, the constitution even included some of the same language. Changing a government is NOT secession from the UNION. It is a LIE to claim that was secession.

Madison in Federalist No. 43 disagrees,

'Should it unhappily be necessary to appeal to these delicate truths for a justification for dispensing with the consent of particular States to a dissolution of the federal pact, will not the complaining parties find it a difficult task to answer the MULTIPLIED and IMPORTANT infractions with which they may be confronted? The time has been when it was incumbent on us all to veil the ideas which this paragraph exhibits. The scene is now changed, and with it the part which the same motives dictate.'

They were discussing the withdrawal of the states from the existing union, which formerly consisted of 13 members, but now could consist of only 9. The idea which had "been" veiled was that of secession, which "scene is now changed" so that secession may be exercised.

Standard sophistry from justshutupandtakeit will not change the facts.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Only SOME of those men were Slavers and almost ALL of them detested the system and expected it to wither away. NONE defended it as did the Slavers of 1860 who transformed that detestation into a defense that it was an absolute good.

The Rulers of the South in 1860 weren't fit to wash the underwear of the Southerners of 1787.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The Wilson quote does not say what you claim.

Marshall NEVER supported secession.

Madison stated explicitly in a letter to Hamilton that once the constitution was ratified a state HAD NO RIGHT TO SECEDE. You already know this having been hammered over the head with it by me in earlier posts.

States did not ratify but merely the American people gathered in conventions in the states. Had Congress wished it could have easily (even more easily actually) had state conventions ratify. It did NOT want this precisely because then the ratification as a legislative act could have been undone by another legislative act. But it wanted to make sure no secession could occur.

Madison recognized that the Union of 1776 had de facto already been dissolved, Congress was powerless and few Congressmen attended. However, a majority changing the form of government is not the same as a minority seceding illegally. Congress had the power to call a convention and send the results out for ratification. No state had such power legally in 1860.

[laotzu]

"Only SOME of those (Union)men were Slavers..."

Your gall in speaking for other men, and countries, does not alter the facts you so desperately refuse to face:

1) The Union was heavily invested in, and enjoying the profits from, slavery before the Confederacy even existed.
2) The Union kept slaves after those in the Confederacy were freed.
3) The Union has deeper roots in slavery than did the Confederacy.

Your sophistry & dancing betrays the shame you so frantically scamper around.

[laotzu]

"weren't fit to wash the underwear"

What is it with you & men's underwear analogies?

[justshutupandtakeit]

My brief question is where else did I use an underwear analogy or even reference?

[archy]

I'd be curious to know where the movie reviewers right to free speech went in all of this.

Where have you been? His right to free speech is now limited to ten words, following a 14-day waiting period, after he's bought a license. It only applies, of course, if he's a member of the National Guard.

[archy]

I will admit that it is very difficult to make a truly good movie which consists mainly of battles.

But not impossible. Thus, Das Boot.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Haven't seen it but I believe it is about life on a submarine. This makes it easier to make a movie about since, while without the sweep of a great battle, it conforms more to Aristotlean principles as put forth within the "Poetics." And I have heard it is a very good movie which I will probably see someday.

[Publius6961]

He has them and exercised them. He's not in jail, which is more than can be said for newspaper editors who did not agree with Lincoln's effort to conquer the Confederacy.

Which raises an interesting "what if"...

If Dubya shut down newspapers and threw publishers editors and reporters in jail for lying about the Iraq war and aiding and comforting the enemy, would he be praised by the left for emulating the great emancipator?

Or would he be chased out of town for gross human rights violations?

The PC morons of today are still unaware that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave north of the Mason Dixon line.

[Gunslingr3]

If Dubya shut down newspapers and threw publishers editors and reporters in jail for lying about the Iraq war and aiding and comforting the enemy, would he be praised by the left for emulating the great emancipator?

No, but I'm sure he'd find some sycophants on this board to celebrate the act. They could pile on historical precendents of tyrannical presidential overreach for cover and call anyone that questioned the course 'traitors', etc.