Posted on 01/27/2006 6:59:00 AM PST by wagglebee
My mother and her sister married my dad and his brother. The children from the union of my uncle and aunt produced children (6) with Marfan who (all except one) died in their early twenties. They looked like Abe Lincoln. None of us on the other were affected.
I just noticed that you were from NC. My dad's roots go back to NC, the name is Lamb.
Interesting. I have a friend whose name is Mike Lamb. He's a good, strong conservative. I'm located in the Central Piedmont, near Winston-Salem.
When certain states joined the union they did so only with the understanding that they could leave the union if things didn't work out. The ratification documents of the states of Virginia and New York specifically state that those States reserved the right to secede. Virginia chose to exercise this right, and Lincoln subsequently stormed the Virgina State House with Federal Jackboots and arrested the legislature.
Abe's actions certainly fit the definition of 'tyrannical'. The war was about States Rights and international commerce, and had little or nothing to do with slavery.
That "Gay Abe" theory didn't fly. Even most liberals have respect and admiration for the man.
Think it would have been an occupational hazard for a rail splitter to have been that clumsy.
Have also heard that he was a pretty good wrestler. That would call for strength, coordination and speed. These "clumsy" accounts are something new but the wrestling and rail splitting are not.
Link to 288,000 mentions of his wrestling skills:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22abraham+lincoln%22+wrestler&btnG=Google+Search
I'm thinking that someone is just trying to get some attention for their obscure research.
Cute. Go sip the FedGuv koolaid...hell, drink a bunch. Someone else is paying for it.
Excellent analysis of the facts related to the legality and correctness of secession as it relates to the beginning of the Civil War. Keep up the good work.
bump
Sandburg's The Prarie Years did mention that Abe dropped one of the two 50 cent pieces he received as "tips" for ferry work along the river.
Prairie, sorry.
You skipped right past the fact that Virginia had a legal right to secede, so why bother with facts?
Except, I didn't.
Except that Virginia didn't have the right to unilaterally secede.
Along with Virginia, the States of Vermont, Rhode Island, and New York incorporated similar language in their respective ratifications.
It's not taught in the government indoctrination centers commonly referred to as public schools, but this nation was formed as a union of Sovereign States, with a very limited Federal government (Commerce Clause be damned!). Lincoln and his war of Federal assertion changed all that forever.
"We the said Delegates, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, do by these presents assent to, and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Foederal Convention for the Government of the United States; hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern, that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People..."
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the ratification documents. The people of Virginia agreed to abide by the Constitution. And there is nothing in the Constitution which expressly allows states to unilaterally withdraw from the union. The Supreme Court ruled that such a power does not exist. The fact that Virginia mistakenly assumed such powers existed don't make a bit of difference, their acts of secession were illegal and were, in fact, acts of rebellion. And all the southron myths cannot change that.
The US tacitly agreed to Virginia's right to secede when it accepted Virgina's ratification documents as they were written.
And there is nothing in the Constitution which expressly allows states to unilaterally withdraw from the union.
And there is nothing in the Constitution which expressly states that they can't.
The Supreme Court ruled that such a power does not exist.
Shazzam...really? The top Federal court ruled in favor of the Federal government? Whodathunkit. Let's move along now, no conflict of interest here.
The U.S. accepted nothing, it was Virginia that was doing the accepting. They accepted the powers and restrictions as outlined in the Constitution, and agreed to abide by them. The fact that they stuck extraneous wording in their ratification outlining assumptions which proved to be wrong is meaningless.
And there is nothing in the Constitution which expressly states that they can't.
No. So one looks at implied powers. If the states have the sole authority to admit new states through a vote by their members in Congress, and Congressional approval is needed for states to combine or divide or change their borders by a fraction of an inch then it stands to reason that the approval of the other states should be required for leaving the Union as well.
Shazzam...really? The top Federal court ruled in favor of the Federal government? Whodathunkit. Let's move along now, no conflict of interest here.
Haven't read the Constitution, have you?
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.