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...
hehehe.....Good one :)
And you need a suppository of the Truth to straighten YOU out!
Really?
When she came in, she came in just like a Terrority not a sovereign nation. ARTICLE I. The Republic of Texas, acting in conformity with the wishes of the people and every department of its government, cedes to the United States all its territories, to be held by them in full property and sovereignty, and to be annexed to the said United States as one of their Territories, subject to the same constitutional provisions with their other Territories. This cession includes all public lots and squares, vacant lands, mines, minerals, salt lakes and springs, public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbours, navy and navy-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments and accoutrements, archives and public documents, public funds debts, taxes and dues unpaid at the time of the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/texan05.htm
I stated very clearly that Texas was the exception, being a sovereign nation.
Saying that, the exception proves the rule, Texas did have foreign recognition as a nation, none of the original Colonies did.
Much like the islamofascists blaming the zionists for all their self created problems, the neoconfederates are blaming Lincoln for all their self created problems.
If Lincoln had never happened, if he had stayed in his log cabin, the south would have descended into darkness, disaster and chaos anyway.
Possibly far worse.
The Constitution, agreed upon by all parties involved, provided for a venue to settle disputes, and it was agreed upon by all signatories, that:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; —to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; —to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; —to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party."
The CSA rejected the clearly stated Constitutional means to settle a dispute to which the United States was a Party to, and instead, acted on what was NOT said in the Constitution.
The body of the Constitution preceded the Tenth Amendment, so, if you are going to stand on the Constitution, and claim that the CSA stood on the Constitution, why wasn't the dispute that led to nullification settled via the Constitutionally prescribed method of settling a dispute to which the United States was a party to?
The answer of course was that the CSA rejected the Constitution.
"Did Virginia fire on Fort Sumter?"
Friday April 12, 1861 ..........4:30 A.M. The "First Shot"
A signal mortar shell was fired from Fort Johnson over Fort Sumter. Firing from surrounding batteries soon followed, starting the battle. A Virginia secessionist, Edmund Ruffin, claimed to have fired the "first shot" of the battle and the Civil War.At about 7 a.m., some two and a half hours after the general bombardment of the fort had commenced, Anderson gave the order for Sumter's guns to begin their reply. The first shot was fired by his second-in-command, Captain Abner Doubleday.
Yes.
"If South Carolina was considered a sovereign state at the time..."
"It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of Sovereign States." -- James Madison
4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth.
5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves. But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy.
6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority.
7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty,was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them.
8. That the tree was made known by its fruits. That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution.
9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE. - John Quincy Adams
The people most instrumental on crafting the Constitution disagree with the Calhounian interpretation of it.
The Constitution transferred sovereignty from the political entities known as States, to the Federal government acting as the voice of the ONE PEOPLE of the ONE NATION, and provided for a means to resolve controversies.
The Union could no more be dissolved by the actions of States alone, than it was created by the actions of States alone.
You think so?
Texas retained ALL of it's public lands, and the option to divide into 5 states, and the right of secession. The Federal Government owns NO public lands in Texas excepting what was sold or given to them. And you are wrong. Texas is the only state in the Union to join thru a TREATY.
Better do some reading up.....
Wrong again.
Lincoln was a tyrant. Southern States seceding just gave him an excuse to be more of one.
How exactly would YOU know?
I can assure you, the South can and could survive without the USA.
Zimbabwe and South Africa have survived without the USA also.
I'm sure Mr. Lincoln was a good human being at heart and endured more than one could possibly stand in one's life, like losing 2 sons, an unstable wife, etc., but he blew it big time in the War of Northern Aggression, imho. I can count on one hand "great" Presidents, and Lincoln was NOT one of them.
Yes. 'Overthrow' implies the forced changing of a legitimate authority.
The the king's rule became 'illegitimate' once it became oppressive, so the colonies 'threw off' England's control over them.
(Nice catch on the distinction, BTW :-)
-------------
what the Confederacy did was 'throw off' the concept of a Central Government that was to them as egregious as the King's, then Federal force was indeed misused.
The Constitution is a contract. That contract was breached once by the States that refused to return escaped slaves, because the right to own slaves was one of the 'terms' of the contract.
That contact was breached again by the federal government when it didn't enforce the contact by making the non-slaveholding States adhere to it.
This made the contract an illegitimate one. Once that happened, the legal constraints that bound the southern states to the contract became null and void.
-------------
Since there was no insurrection in a secession, the Federal government had no authority to act with force to 'put down an insurrection'.
Exactly.
I've found modern definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias to be rather deceptive to their original meanings.
To find the meaning of words as they were used over a hundred years ago, you need to find a source closer to the time period.
INSURREC'TION
n. [L. insurgo; in and surgo, to rise.]
1. A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. Insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.
-------------
A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state.
Southerners did not;
1) 'rise against a civil (state) authority'
2) 'rise against a political (federal)authority
3) oppose the execution of a law in a city or State.
4) attempt to overthrow a government (rebel)
It was the legitimate CIVIL authority of the State against an illegitimate action of a federal authority.
Only 'persons' can rebel or form an insurrections, States cannot. If the Founders thought the States should be bound to the contract in perpetuity, there would be no 9th or 10th Amendments.
-------------
As I understand the Constitutional contract, rebellion or insurrection can be suppressed by the federal/national government ONLY upon the request of the State in which the action is occurring.
This would stand to reason since the State legislature had to give the federal/national government explicit permission to enter the State and establish a fort or arsenal.
The southern States did not 'rebel', nor was there an 'insurrection', because the People were not trying to overthrow THIER civil government, they were trying to throw off the remnants of what had become an illegitimate contract.
-------------
Am I thinking clearly on this?
Yes!
Much clearer than those who seem to think the Founders created one, big, fat national government to ensure our Freedoms.
A process that would have taken all of five minutes.
as they never represented more than 5-6% of residents of BOTH north & south, that is DUMB in the 1st degree.
free dixie,sw
you quote only the MOST EXTREME, DAMNyankee REVISIONIST sources, when you have ANY source whatever.
and that makes you look DUMB.
perhaps you belong over on DU with the other ANTI-dixie lunatics, weirdos & fools.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
he/she has NONE to damage.
free dixie,sw
the 618,000 figure is COMBAT deaths only.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
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.