Non-Sequigrinch & friend.
Posted on 12/24/2003 10:30:18 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan
Abraham Lincoln, with his son Tad in tow, walked around Richmond, Virginia, one day 138 years ago, and if you try to retrace their steps today you won't see much that they saw, which shouldn't be a surprise, of course. The street grid is the same, though, and if you're in the right mood and know what to look for, the lineaments of the earlier city begin to surface, like the outline of a scuttled old scow rising through the shallows of a pond. Among the tangle of freeway interchanges and office buildings you'll come across an overgrown park or a line of red-brick townhouses, an unlikely old belltower or a few churches scattered from block to block, dating to the decades before the Civil War and still giving off vibrations from long ago.
Interesting that the union went on without them. Whatever would they have done without their Southern taxes um, membership?
Correct me if I'm wrong there, billbears, but the Texas declaration of the causes of secession did not give as one of the reasons for the rebellion the fact that the government was too soft on the Indians. Instead, they complained that they weren't hard enough. And during the war it wasn't Sherman or Sheridan who called for killing all the male Indians that they found and selling the women and children to defray the cost of extermination. That was John Baylor, confederate governor of Arizona. And the Trail of Tears didn't start in New Jersey, if started in Georgia and the Carolinas. So please save your pious complaints about the treatment of the Native Americans. Southern hands were bloodier.
”Resolved_, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their [Federal] Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a [Federal] Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the [Federal] Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolutions, 1798
;>)
I most certainly do not "rank above the Constitution." But since you have raised the subject (thank you! ;>): which article, section and clause of the Constitution do you believe prohibits State secession? Please be precise.
;>)
May God bless everyone.
Even Mr. Scrroge Dr. DiLusional ;~))
BTW. Spend a moment today saying a prayer for the men and women of our armed forces and those of our allies who are now engaged in the second most difficult and dangerous war in our history. God save this Republic --- the last great hope of mankind.
Merry Christmas from Non-Sequigrinch.
Non-Sequigrinch & friend.
Hey! You're not trying to make this into a Michael Jackson kind of thing, are you?
You are not as stupid and delusional as I thought. You are much more so.
Tu quoque boy strikes again and his logic, as usual, is faulty.
Despite Sherman's protests otherwise, not all Indians and not all Indian tribes are the same. Just like the nations of any given region on earth, some are peaceful and civilized while others are warlike and savage. Among the American Indians there were many different types of tribes. Some were nomadic hunters. Some were agrarians who settled in fixed communities. Some were peaceful. Some were warlike. Some were thoroughly cultured. Some were ignorant savages. To group them all together under the heading of "indians" and to subsequently consider all acts of force used against that vague heading as inherently good or inherently bad is idiocy.
The Trail of Tears' and other similar migrations victimized a group of Indians typically known as the five civilized nations. They employed social structures that resembled those of western societies, adhered to sophisticated cultures and languages, and engaged in warfare through organized means not unlike the average nation in the world (i.e. formal declarations, treaties, alliances etc.). These tribes formally aligned themselves with the confederacy during the war.
A contrasting form of tribes existed further west on the north american continent. Among the most violently cultured of these tribes were the Comanches. The Comanches of west Texas had a warlike culture developed around the use of raiding parties on horseback to wage what we would know today as guerilla warfare upon their enemies. They waged war upon not only neighboring tribes but also frontier settlements near the lands where they roamed, which meant the towns of central texas. In complaining about the lack of border defenses provided to the Texas frontier the ordinance made a perfectly sound and legitimate grievance. Comanche raiding parties were literally brutalizing civilians without justification and it was the duty of the government to defend against that sort of stuff. Stating that you are in favor of fighting back against Comanche raiders does not make one anti-Indian, non-seq. It is a simple and common sense act of self defense against a war-driven culture.
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.