Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federalist Patriot bashes Abe Linclon
2/17/06 | Mobile Vulgus

Posted on 02/17/2006 5:47:19 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus

I don't know how many of you get the Federalist Patriot report via email, but it is a great source of conservative news and opinion that all of you should get.

You can find their site at:

http://patriotpost.us/

Anyway, even though I support them, they sent out an email today that bashed Abe Lincoln fiercely. I was so moved to annoyance by their biased and ill thought out email that I had to write them and say how disappointed I was.

You can go to their site and see the anti-Lincoln screed that they put out to know exactly what I am replying to if you desire to do so.

Now, I know some of you freepers are primo confederate apologists so I thought this would stir debate on freerepublic!!

Now, let the fur fly as we KNOW it must...


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: abelincoln; civilwar; federalistpatriot; lincoln
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 941-946 next last
To: Mobile Vulgus
Well said. There are people who look at the Civil War from a great distance and conclude that because they don't like government or war and do like the South, that the Confederacy had the right notion, and the Unionists the wrong idea. A lot of us thought that in high school (it irritated the teachers).

The older I get, though, and the more I look into the history of the country, the clearer it is to me that what the rebels did necessarily produced a war. They assumed that they were wholly in command and could lay down an ultimatum to the government which no legitimate government could accept and retain its authority.

Imagine California or Texas, Florida or New England "seceding" today based on spotty or dubious election results, seizing federal property, suppressing loyal citizens, repudiating debts, getting an army together, subverting neighboring state governments, and forming an alliance or new nation against the rest of the country. Can anyone believe that there wouldn't be war?

Where Alexander and others go wrong is in assuming that ordinary political conditions prevailed with secessionists petitioning Congress with their request, rather than seizing the initiative and presenting their demands to the country. They neglect the mania which prevailed in South Carolina and the other rebel areas and the panic that this produced in Northerners.

Unilateral secession wasn't generally accepted as constitutional in 1860, and it's not a very good idea. It encourages people to think that the answer to all their problems is to break away from the larger nation. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. Elections may be disputed, as is the fate of those who want to remain with the rest of the country when their neighbors want to leave. Unilateral secession isn't a workable idea, not that that stops some people who are looking for a cure-all or magic bullet that will resolve all the problems in government.

Maybe the secessionists didn't know what they were doing. We don't have that excuse now. We can see exactly how things developed. And maybe not all of the rebels were primarily concerned with the defense or expansion of slavery. But some were very much preoccupied with that, enough to give their rebellion a bad taste for us now. Whether people want to apply some stigma to the cause as a whole is up to them, and it's not the most useful argument to have. For today's Americans, secession is and was a bad idea.

301 posted on 02/23/2006 4:12:19 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The preamble is not. It is a statement by the People who function under common/civil law giving their approbation (meaning 'to ordain and establish') to the creation of a federal state of limited national powers.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So where does it say "except for the Preamble"?

302 posted on 02/23/2006 5:12:01 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus

Whiskey Papa, is that you?


303 posted on 02/23/2006 5:27:52 PM PST by Old Professer (Fix the problem, not the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth

Careful, one reading of what you just said amounts to, "We won, you lost, now sit down and shut up!"


304 posted on 02/23/2006 5:38:50 PM PST by Old Professer (Fix the problem, not the blame!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: billbears

I thought it was a great article, and even posted it here.


305 posted on 02/23/2006 5:39:07 PM PST by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te fortuna sinet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
...you must also assume that the Federal government had a unilateral right to expel any state, even against its wishes, since that is also not explicitly forbidden.

Wrong. Article V states, 'no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.'

The federal goverment can't evict a state, but a state may - provided it chooses to do so, remove it's members from the Senate and secede.

306 posted on 02/23/2006 5:53:00 PM PST by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te fortuna sinet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So where does it say "except for the Preamble"?

I've already answered that question by explaining the system of laws that create our *Republic* on this thread.

I will not do so again.

307 posted on 02/23/2006 6:02:59 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am NOT a ~legal entity~, nor am I a *person* as created by law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Mobile Vulgus

Good for them!

It's about time somebody told the truth about the biggest tyrant in US History....


308 posted on 02/23/2006 6:06:03 PM PST by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ...

Please point to a law pursuant to a delegated power to prevent secession. Please point to a clause in the federal Constitution prohibiting secession.

309 posted on 02/23/2006 6:07:30 PM PST by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito, qua tua te fortuna sinet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
In order to understand it, you have to know several points of law...

Mama, it's cool to play Constitutional Lawyer on the internet, but as a FRiend, I'd advise that you never try this in a courtroom.

Human beings are natural persons, and are subject to natural law. You can't murder, lie, cheat, steal or conspire to do so. This was also called common law.

Natural Law is a philosophy that among other things says that humans are born with certain rights (from nature or God as you chose to believe) and give every individual as Jefferson said the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Common law is a body of precedent that began in England under Henry II in the 12th Century, (only after he had Beckett murdered for insisting on Natural Law as defined by Rome) that "harmonized" English law to give some predictability, be it equitable or not, of outcome between various jurisdiction within the realm. It was not based on written laws but on decision by Judges and juries. Once decided, rightly or wrongly, other judgments were obliged to apply the "law" consistently. It was only intended to provide predictability.

Common Law also could only provide remedies for acts -- (your cow ate my corn) --- not injunctions (keep your cow out of my corn field.) Common law was based on judgment, not statute and not philosophy. Once a judgment was made in one jurisdiction, it was obliged to be respected in other jurisdictions. It was all about establishing precedence. But over the centuries, common law became the basis for settling on damages or punishment for offenses and all in all, it was an acceptable standard.

The United States inherited the common law tradition from England, as did Canada (except Quebec) and many other former British colonies, and while it has been largely replaced by statute over the centuries, it is still active in 49 of the 50 states. Louisiana does not and never has relied on Common Law. State Courts in Louisiana are still based on European/Napoleonic Law, not Common Law.

The Judicial power of the Constitution was intended as a court for the federal enclave and a mediator between the states. It never was intended to make *law* for the People, only for the States within enumerated areas)

IF that's the case, you must then totally condemn the Texan Secession Convention for insisting that the Federal Government do a better job of punishing those citizens who were smuggling their property out of slave states to free states and absolutely abhor the fact that Federal Marshals under the Fugitive Slave Act were empowered to enter any state, in fact any property in any state, and compel under Federal law, any private citizen of that state to assist them in capturing, detaining and returning those escaped slaves, even if those slaves were no where with hundreds of miles of any Federal "enclave."

You could also condemn George Washington for compelling citizen farmers on private land to pay excise on their distilled spirits being sold to other citizens far from any Federal enclave.

Take you pick. Was the FSA which was demanded by the Slave States unconstitutional, or do you admit that the Federal Government had the power to enforce laws, Constitutionally enacted, directly on the People and well outside any Federal enclave?

The federal government was created by statutory (state..get it?) law

The root of the word statutory is in the Latin --- it means "erected or built" as in Statue not State. (get it?).

Madison clearly stated that the Constitution was created by the people as embodied by the States. To say that the Constitution could not act on the people is to among other things make the Bill of Rights absolutely meaningless outside Federal enclaves.

Another point. Your contention that there were no citizens of the "United States" but only citizens of "States" at their discretion. If the Federal government had no decision on who or who could not be a citizen, where did the Taney Supreme Court find the power to declare that members of the African race could not be citizens of any state regardless of the desires of that state?

As to the Alien and Sedition Acts, they were clearly unconstitutional, (slam dunk) but nothing Madison said in the Virginia report, (or even Jefferson who was far more radical in the Kentucky Resolution) can on fair reading give comfort to those who think unilateral secession is somehow Constitutional.

310 posted on 02/23/2006 7:39:12 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ; Non-Sequitur
"Please point to a law pursuant to a delegated power to prevent secession. Please point to a clause in the federal Constitution prohibiting secession."

Yours is one of the many disingenuous arguments made by the neo-Confederates.

Secession was not the only thing that those eleven States did, TWO things happened, they seceded AND formed a Confederacy.

Article I, Section 10 US Constitution

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;


311 posted on 02/23/2006 8:21:09 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ

The Article I, Section 10 response is a red herring. 6 states seceeded prior to the Montgomery Convention on 4 Feb, 1861. These states were independent entities, verification can be found in state documents debating the course of events leading up to each state's decision. They were free to join the CSA or remain independent - reading some of the transcripts from state politics at that time can be revealing.


312 posted on 02/23/2006 8:57:41 PM PST by stainlessbanner (Downhome Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith
Lincoln's job was to abide by the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1788 , not the Articles of Confederation which preceeded it.

If one was to use the Articles of Confederation in the context of Lincoln and secession, it would not be applicable to Confederate states such as Florida and Alabama, since they had no delegates to sign the AofC. Both states ratified the Constitution which was in effect when they entered the United States of America.

313 posted on 02/23/2006 9:28:55 PM PST by stainlessbanner (Downhome Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
I interpret the Constitution as it is written, not as I would personally like it to be.

Excellent point. We can use other sources as reference, but we should explictly read the Constitution and not make inferences to suit our desires.

314 posted on 02/23/2006 9:45:18 PM PST by stainlessbanner (Downhome Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ

I did find that thread - thanks for posting. I suspect many folks did not bother to read the actual article, but went straight to posting whatever suits their agenda on this thread.


315 posted on 02/23/2006 9:47:57 PM PST by stainlessbanner (Downhome Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861

About time you got here, TC1861. We got folks citing the Articles of Confederation instead of Constitution and pictures of ol' Eddie Ruffin, we're just getting started!


316 posted on 02/23/2006 9:56:34 PM PST by stainlessbanner (Downhome Dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I've already answered that question by explaining the system of laws that create our *Republic* on this thread.

No you've tossed out a lot of your opinion masquerading as fact. Can you point to a constitutional scholar who says that the Preamble cannot be used to determine the constitutionality of an issue?

317 posted on 02/24/2006 2:10:35 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
Please point to a law pursuant to a delegated power to prevent secession. Please point to a clause in the federal Constitution prohibiting secession.

Sure. If you can point to a clause that prohibits a state from being expelled from the Union against its will.

318 posted on 02/24/2006 2:11:37 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Both states ratified the Constitution which was in effect when they entered the United States of America.

Both state did nothing of the sort. The Constitution was in effect long before Florida and Alabama were created, they agreed to abide by it which is a long way from saying that they "ratified" it. And they didn't "enter" anything. They were admitted. They were allowed to join only with the permission of the other states. They were, in effect, created by the other states through a vote in Congress.

319 posted on 02/24/2006 3:45:31 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
It's about time somebody told the truth about the biggest tyrant in US History....

When did this become a discussion on Jefferson Davis?

320 posted on 02/24/2006 3:54:13 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 941-946 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson