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 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 941-946 next last
To: TexConfederate1861

The duplicitous evil slaver leadership manuevered the South into secession after a long series of conspiratorial actions. It used the excuse of Lincoln's election to attack the United STates. Fortunately we had just elected (also as a result of the Secessionist conspiracy) Lincoln who exemplified all that was good of our traditions and goals following in footsteps of Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jackson, and Marshall to maintain the Constitutional government of the US.

The Slaver Insurrection, RAT Revolt, War Against the United States, War of Southern Madness etc. was put down. The only incomplete aspect was that the slaver leadership was not jailed for treason and its evil regained its power to torment, terrorize and murder blacks. Hence the Democrat Party survived what should have destroyed it.


641 posted on 02/27/2006 9:51:37 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Anyone assuring Badray on the clarity of his thinking calls into question their own.

Particularly egregious is the idea that military attacks upon US military installations are not "risings against a political authority." Of course, such brainless assertions are par for the course to those justifying attacks upon the Union and Constitution.


642 posted on 02/27/2006 9:55:17 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

Oh, they "served" alright. There were lots of ditches to be digged. Plus the aristocrats HAD to have their "body servants". A few might even have fired a gun a time or two.


643 posted on 02/27/2006 9:57:21 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: voreddy

Don't expect ole stand to change to such a complex argument. It might actually cause his head to explode. You can see how close that prospect is.


644 posted on 02/27/2006 9:59:11 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
justshutupandtakeit,

You've forced me to realize one very painful thing -

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with an irrational person

Good day

645 posted on 02/27/2006 10:00:03 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am NOT a ~legal entity~, nor am I a *person* as created by law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

It is easy to agree with fools though.


646 posted on 02/27/2006 10:01:20 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: Dawgreg

Perhaps, but so was Jimmy Carter a decent human being AND perhaps the worst President.

Not that being good and decent necessarily makes bad ones.


647 posted on 02/27/2006 10:42:04 AM PST by Badray ("Senator," like "Dog Catcher" is just a job title, not a rank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

You took my gut instincts and translated them into coherent thoughts.

Much obliged, ma'am.


648 posted on 02/27/2006 10:46:14 AM PST by Badray ("Senator," like "Dog Catcher" is just a job title, not a rank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Thanks for the clarification.


649 posted on 02/27/2006 10:50:05 AM PST by Badray ("Senator," like "Dog Catcher" is just a job title, not a rank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
My mistake. You're right that the Constitution doesn't contain an explicit ban on unilateral secession. Neither side would put an explicit prohibition or permission for secession into the Constitution because each believed that the Constitution implicitly allowed or forbade such an action. So there was judged to be no need to put such a ban into the Constitution

What I should have said is that the court decisions after the war addressed the question and explicitly disallowed secession. It's not simply a case of "might makes right," though. It was pretty clear from how the rebels proceeded that secession was a messy business and bound to bring about war.

To say as some do, that the "right" to secession at will was a correct idea suppressed by force is to ignore the facts that 1) most people didn't accept it as true at the time, 2) that there were so many problems involved in implementing the idea that it can be judged a "failure" or a mistake even apart from the military defeat of the rebels.

It looks to me like, whatever its other problems, the EU has learned something from our troubles in the 1860s. By contrast, today's lil' rebels haven't. Like Jefferson Davis, some people have trouble admitting mistakes or missteps. But if you think about it, Davis's mistakes weren't yours or mine or the mistakes of anyone alive today, so there shouldn't be that much of an obstacle to recognizing them as wrong-headed.

650 posted on 02/27/2006 10:53:06 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: voreddy
LOL

Lincoln is cited by most Americans as the greatest president of this country and no amount of whining on your part will change that.

And almost half of the country think that Bill Clinton was. That sure says a lot for the itelligence of the American people, doesn't it?

If I were you, I'd consider dropping that part of the argument. it doesn't advance your cause.

651 posted on 02/27/2006 10:55:35 AM PST by Badray ("Senator," like "Dog Catcher" is just a job title, not a rank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

The entire document tells the Feds what it can do as allowed by the powers delegated to it by the people's representatives.

You are worse than the 'living Constitution' people. You are the first person that I know of who has ever claimed that the Constitution was a constraint on the States.

Delegation of certain limited and defined powers does not equate to a constraint on the States. To claim otherwise shows your immense lack of understanding.

But keep blathering. The more that you do, the more you reveal your foolishness.


652 posted on 02/27/2006 11:07:12 AM PST by Badray ("Senator," like "Dog Catcher" is just a job title, not a rank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Black Confederate military units, both as freemen and slaves, fought federal troops. Louisiana free blacks gave their reason for fighting in a letter written to New Orleans' Daily Delta: "The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana. They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-15."

The Louisiana Native Guards again? That doesn't exactly weigh favorably on your side, since they were disbanded after a couple of parades and never saw action as Confederates, but were reorganized by Benjamin Butler and did see action as Union troops.

653 posted on 02/27/2006 11:35:33 AM PST by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

You lost.

We won.

Get over it.


654 posted on 02/27/2006 11:37:06 AM PST by tkathy (Ban the headscarf (http://bloodlesslinchpinsofislamicterrorism.blogspot.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
Lastly, there is absolutely nothing you can do about southern pride. We were here before you, and we'll be around for a long time - better get used to it.

What do you mean "we were here before you"?

Sault Ste. Marie Michigan was founded in 1623 (2nd oldest city in the US - after St. Augustine) - we Northerns have been around for almost 400 years!

655 posted on 02/27/2006 12:34:36 PM PST by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
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.....

I just posted the articles of the Treaty.

No where does it state any 'right' to secession.

It stated that Texas came into the Union with the status of a Territory, not a nation.

That was the terms of the Treaty.

Thus, the people of Texas were willing to give up their national sovereignty to become one of the States of the Union.

Now, those are the facts stated very clearly in the Treaty.

Ordinance of the Convention of Texas, July 4, 1845

An Ordinance. Whereas the Congress of the United States of America has passed resolutions providing for the Annexation of Texas to that Union, which resolutions were approved by the President of the United States on the first day of March One thousand eight hundred and forty five; and Whereas the President of the United States has submitted to Texas, the first and second Sections of the said Resolution, as the basis upon which Texas may be admitted as one of the States of the said Union; and Whereas the existing Government of the Republic of Texas has assented to the proposals thus made, the terms and conditions of which are as follow,

Joint Resolution For annexing Texas to the United States. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled That Congress cloth consent, that the territory, properly included within and rightly belonging to the Republic of Texas may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a republican form of Government, to be adopted by the people of said Republic, by Deputies in Convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union.

2nd And be it further Resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees, to wit: 1st Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this Government of all questions of boundary, that may arise with other Governments, and the Constitution thereof with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress, for its final action, on or before the first day of January, One thousand eight hundred and forty six.

Second. Said State when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edeficies, fortifications, barracks, ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines, arms and armaments and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to or be due & owing to the said Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct, but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States.

Third. New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter' by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said Territory lung South of thirty six degrees thirty minutes North latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union' with or without Slavery' as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said Territory, North of said Missouri Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

Now, in order to manifest the assent of the people of this Republic as required in the above recited portions of the said Resolutions; We the Deputies of the people of Texas in Convention assembled, in their name and by their Authority, do ordain and declare' that we assent to and accept the proposals, conditions and guarantees contained in the first and second Sections of the Resolution of the Congress of the United States aforesaid.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/texan03.htm

Texas was viewed as a new Territory, (from which another four States may of been formed), not a Nation when she entered into the Union.

Not a word said about any right to secession.

Texas gave up her sovereignty when she joined the Union and she did not join the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, but as a State in the Union.

The fact that she retained her public lands which could have been formed into other States and joined with a Treaty, has nothing to do with her right to secede from the Union after she gave up her national sovereignty.

But what a noble cause the Texans fought for, the preservation of slavery.

Yea, that was what the men at the Alamo died for, so men could own other men.

656 posted on 02/27/2006 1:23:00 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (Gal. 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
Better do some reading up.....

Still waiting for the proof that Texas was given the right of secession when she came into the Union.

657 posted on 02/27/2006 1:25:21 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (Gal. 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: voreddy

My suggestion to you is that you can make obesiance to our Southron backsides.....:)


658 posted on 02/27/2006 1:30:53 PM PST by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

None from the Yankee "Brigade" for sure.....


659 posted on 02/27/2006 1:32:37 PM PST by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 637 | View Replies]

To: voreddy

I knew you guys were practicing human sacrifice....now it comes out...(SARCASM)


660 posted on 02/27/2006 1:34:35 PM PST by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 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