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...
All of them. Seriously. If the children of modern illegal immigrants even try to pull crap, I would have no problem killing them all to save the country.
I just got rid of a house. It was mine to begin with but I gave up all claims to the property to the new owners. And in December 1831, the legislature of South Carolina passed an act in which it said that South Carolina "...do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory..." In doing so it gave up all claims to Sumter. Sumter was the property of the federal government and nobody else. South Carolina was in no position to demand its return.
That made Sumner the State's property illegally occupied.
I've run this question past the other southron supporters on this site so I might as well try you too. The U.S. holds Guantanamo Bay. Shortly after taking power Castro began demanding the U.S. leave Gitmo. It's been his position for 40-odd years. Considering that Gitmo lies within Cuba, a sovereign nation, then would Castro be in within his rights to shell Gitmo into surrender. And wouldn't you support him if he did, since his actions would be justified in your eyes?
Were you and the new owners equal under the law?
Of course you are.
The question isn't about you, it's about the civil States and the federal 'State' that they created.
They are not equal under the law.
Why?
Because the States get their power directly from the people, and the People hold the highest from of sovereignty. This makes the State inherently SUPERIOR to anything it could create, just like the People are superior to anything THEY create....like a State.
-------------------
The U.S. holds Guantanamo Bay. Shortly after taking power Castro began demanding the U.S. leave Gitmo. It's been his position for 40-odd years. Considering that Gitmo lies within Cuba, a sovereign nation, then would Castro be in within his rights to shell Gitmo into surrender. And wouldn't you support him if he did, since his actions would be justified in your eyes?
If one abides by the letter and the laws of the Constitution, the US should not have been there in the first place, because the States never created the Amendment to give the federal government global powers. It only possess national ones.
Even if applicable under 'common defense and general welfare', once asked to leave by the acknowledged ruler of a sovereign country, and no treaty or other legal obligation to prove their right to be there in perpetuity, yes, they should leave.
Castro has the right to force them out if they do not.
No, the Constitution is superior.
In certain enumerated areas, yes.
In ALL areas, NO!
"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."
You read that part, right?
Follow the Constitution
-------
>>and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States,
Again, follow the Constitution.
-------
>> shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
For all Constitutional objects
-------
>> and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
Any laws covering the areas where the federal government and/or has Constitutional authority to become a national one.
-------
..any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Oh.. you mean like this?
The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority.
Guess what? The federal government is a military authority, and the State of Texas is a CIVIL one!
-------
You read that part, right?
Look, I'm more than willing to have a civil discussion, but if you're going to act like yet another condescending ass, I'd really rather not waste my time
-------
That may be what YOU believe, but that's not what Calhoun believed, it wasn't what the Confederacy believed, and it certainly wasn't at the core of beliefs on which the Confederacy stood.
That core of beliefs was at complete odds with every ideal that this nation was founded on, and against everythig that the Constitution stood for.
The Confederacy did not embrace the Constitution, they did not believe in the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence, they unilaterally rejected everything the nation was founded on.
"Our new government is founded…upon the great truth that the Negro is not the equal to the white man. That slavery—the subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." -- Alexander Stephens
"They (Founders) rested upon the assumption of the equality of the races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of government built upon it." -- Alexander Stephens
"There is not a word of truth in it (Declaration of Independence). All men are not created. According to the Bible, only two, a man and a woman, ever were, and of these, one was pronounced subordinate to the other." -- John C. Calhoun
"It is a great and dangerous error to suppose that all people are equally entitled to liberty." -- John C. Calhoun
From the Confederate Constitution:
"If the Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not who shall be President, it is not which party shall rule -- it is a question of political and social existence." -- Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator
"I want Cuba . . . I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason -- for the planting and spreading of slavery." -- Albert Gallatin Brown, U.S. Senator from Mississippi.
"Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery." -- Richmond Enquirer, 1856
"The triumphs of Christianity rest this very hour upon slavery; and slavery depends on the triumphs of the South . . . This war is the servant of slavery." -- Methodist Rev. John T. Wightman, preaching at Yorkville, South Carolina
Once the contract was dissolved, the terms of the contract were no longer in force.
Curious. If Mr. MamaTexan ever decides to bolt for the perky young blond, will you be so accommodating?
Kind of like the new Barbie Doll, Divorced Barbi --- come with all of Ken's stuff. ;~))
You can't both defend the notion of the natural rights of man, and defend the Confederacy.
But that is the point where the endless compromising with slavery began which eventually devoured all of the compromisers.
In reality, it was a compromise with evil and the hell was paid by the children and grandchildren.
Like a said before, your talking an agreement between two legally equal persons.
The States and the federal/national government were NOT equal.
The national government was superior to the State ONLY as long as it adhered to the Constitutionally enumerated areas, and the State was superior to the federal government in EVERYTHING else.
Depending on the situation one was always superior to the other.
Your trying to apply the law of apples (people) to the law of oranges (artificially created 'states').
--------
And I refer to him as PapaTexan, not Mr. MamaTexan....LOL!
True, very true.
The fact is that the other states choose to compromise. I wonder if it was primarily in the notion of brotherhood to keep all the states together, or if they realized that all the States would have taken an economic loss in order to change such a long-established institution?
From the very start, the southern States rejected the Constitution, and rejected those laws enacted via the Constitutionally prescribed method, by the Constitutionally prescribed body of legislature.
"In 1833, the minority threatened secession over the tariff. The majority gave in. In 1835, it threatened secession if Congress did not prohibit discussions of slavery during its own proceedings. The majority gave in and passed a "Gag Rule." In 1850, the minority threatened secession unless Congress forced the return of fugitive slaves without a prior jury trial. The majority agreed to pass a Fugitive Slave Act. In 1854 the minority threatened secession unless the Missouri Compromise was repealed, opening Kansas to slavery. Again, the majority acquiesced rather than see the Union smashed.""But the majority could only go so far in permitting minority blackmail to override the constitutional will of the majority. At the Democratic Convention in Charleston, held in April 1860, the majority finally refused the blackmailers' demand — for a federal guarantee of slave property in all US territories. The delegates from the deep South walked out, splitting the Democratic Party and ensuring that Lincoln would be elected by a plurality."
To argue that the States that made up that minority, and eventually seceded from the Union, stood for the Constitution is laughable.
They rejected the Constitution, rejected the Constitutional process, rejected the outcome of a Constitutional election and refused to live under a Constitutionally elected President that they themselves helped elect by walking away from the Democratic party.
These States agreed to live under a Constitution, proceeded to reject the basic principles of the Constitution, then claimed rights under the Constitution to reject the Constitution.
"Natural law is SUPREME"
The Confederacy unilaterally rejected the notion of natural rights.
"Secession constitutes a repudiation of republican government as understood by the Founders. For Calhoun, sovereignty was not a characteristic of individuals, but of collective political bodies. Individual rights, such as they were, were prescriptive, not natural. If Calhoun was right, then the Founders were wrong.""For the Founders, the purpose of government was to protect the equal natural rights of all. They understood these rights to be antecedent to the creation of political society and government. The just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed who possess the equal natural rights that republican government is supposed to protect. While the people never relinquish their right to revolution, in practice, this natural right is replaced by free elections, the outcome of which are determined by majority rule."
"When the States ratified the Constitution of 1787, they pledged that they would accept the results of elections conducted according to its rules. In violation of this pledge, the Southern States seceded because they did not like the outcome of the election of 1860. Thus secession is the interruption of the constitutional operation of republican government, substituting the rule of the minority for that of the majority."
Please see the bottom of post #298
According to your theories, I can leave this conversation whenever I want to, but you can't throw me out when you wish to.
Please see the bottom of post #298
With all due respect, the people of Dixie included millions of slaves who had no freedom or voice in what happened in Dixie. Had they been given a voice, the support for emancipation in the South would have been overwhelming, and liberty for Dixie and ALL her people would have consisted of remaining in a Union that believed in the natural rights of individuals.
To argue about the sovereignty of States is to support a government by the people, and defending the Confederacy's freedom to secede in order to be allowed to keep others enslaved is unbelievably hypocritical, insofar as the Confederacy refused to acknowledge the sovereign right of the individual to be free, and for every individual to chose his or her government.
I saw it.
I don't accept it.
A full one third of the population of Dixie were denied the right to define what freedom was for them, denied the right to self-determination, and denied sovereignty over their own person.
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.