Posted on 03/03/2006 11:37:56 AM PST by Rebeleye
The removal of the Confederate flag from Amherst County's official seal has upset Southern heritage groups, who contend residents weren't told of the change. County officials acknowledge the image was quietly removed in August 2004 to avoid an uproar.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypress.com ...
Can you point to any constitutional action ever taken by the people en massee? Who did they vote for? Who ratified for another state? Can the "people" decide who are the electors for Florida? Can the "people" declare that queers can be legally married in Idaho, or vote on their representatives?
The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies,'' or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.If the people were one mass, the states would have been abolished. They weren't.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 9, "The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection"
P.S. Can you name/describe the great war/revolution that occurred to overthrow the Articles - if one occurred. I've seen numerous posters allege that the right of revolution means that the state could raise up military force to alter it's form of government.
You clearly don' know what happened at the NY Convention whose ratification of the Constitution was a stunning achievement by Hamilton in converting the Clinton hacks from two thirds opposed to voting yes. AND the proposal to ratify conditionally was voted DOWN.
He was "defeated" as badly as the Union armies in 1865.
"the image was quietly removed in August 2004 to avoid an uproar."
Of course, the American flag is offensive to many, seen as the symbol of oppression and genocide of American Indians, the banner of privileged males of European descent, oppressor of women, etc. Obviously, the stars and stripes will have to go, too, in favor of some new flag that celebrates diversity and multiculturalism so as not to offend anyone. It really shouldn't be displayed even for historic purposes since it might be found to be hurtful to some. [sarc./off]
South Carolina had no constitutional authority to unilaterally change the Union.
The rest of your post is senseless.
Hamilton was the MOST conservative Founder and has been roundly slandered and abused because of it for two hundred + years. His view of the Constitution is the one which has helped lead this nation to strength and greatness. His economic and financial policies were instrumental in making the North strong enough to defeat the Traitors assaulting the Union.
Hamilton is the greatest statesman we ever produced with the possible exception of Washington. Any question of the Constitution is best answered by consulting Hamilton. Washington depended upon his judgment in ALL matters and Marshall went to Hamilton first in all judicial matters. Comparing himself to Hamilton in legal understanding and knowledge was "like a taper to the sun" he readily admitted.
Washington's Farewell Address (written by Hamilton) was a WARNING about the nefarious and deceitful men who would attempt to destroy the Union through their self-seeking willingness to undo the work of the Founders.
BTW Hamilton refers to how the Constitution "...leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power." This means that states were NOT fully sovereign.
that is the OPINION of virtually all the folks on these threads about your posts/brains/knowledge/etc.
perhaps you post DUMBER than you are. one hopes so.
free dixie,sw
You need a little more hysterical vitriol to make my conversion to Insanity complete. Keep trying.
SOME also like sending out OBSCENE & THREATENING e-mails, too.
at least, you don't seem to be one of those benighted creatures.
free dixie,sw
You are veering to close to Sanity to be persuasive. Remember convincing requires MORE insults and lies.
Feel free to present some of these (edited naturally). I'd especially be interested in seeing the racist ones that you've claimed I sent you.
for starters, stop reading the hysterical,south-HATING rants of the CSA-hating REVISIONIST, elitist, LEFT & see what the original documents say about dixie's war for FREEDOM. (you'll find that 90% of what they write is KNOWINGLY FALSE,deceptive,evasive and/or disingenuous.)
perhaps then, nobody will think you a fool. (at this time/date, you are rated for brains just ABOVE "m.eSPINola," the HATER & class cretin.)
free dixie,sw
[thee] You tell me.
No, you tell me -- you guys used the word "betrayal". I want you to explain to me how General Lee's letter supports the notion of "betrayal," as in, "Benedict Arnold" or "Vidkun Quisling" or maybe "Anthony Blount".
Demarche, I'd believe. "Bad idea," I'd believe. "Poor policy," or any number of synonyms -- after all, that's what Madison, Washington, Franklin, and others thought of disunion, and even federal union. They wanted a centralized state. They didn't get it, and the actions of Lincoln's faction in 1859-60 in using the wedge issue of slavery to unite the North for a permanent factional takeover of the national government showed how prescient the old Patriots had been, in their misgivings about so-called "federalism" done Hamilton and Madison's way.
Ein Volk ein Reich! hasn't been America's style, ever. It's the burden of statists and corporofascists like you, to explain why it's good for us, even when we're just policy objects anymore, and seldom listened to.
Explicit? Where? It's just the opposite - 'The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same'. The Constitution is established bewteen STATES. The conventions represent the sovereigns of the state - the people. They are they state. And it took 9 states to create the new union, not 9 people. States.
Every federal election is, in fact, an action taken by the American people en masse it just is not reflected as a direct democratic vote but filtered through the representative process. But it represents the voice of the American people. Georgia does not refuse to vote or Illinois decide it will vote before the rest.
No. Georgians do not vote for anyone in South Carolina. The people or America do not vote en masse for anyone!
Still no reply about mulattos, nor any reply about the revolution that created the federal union. To hear the yankees, all every southern white boy wanted was to have sex with their slaves - certainly the predominance of such would be ample evidence of the lust and rapine that ALLEGEDLY occurred. Just as the yankees claim that "revolution" means military force, and not revolutionary as in 'a novel concept, or new method'. I wonder why they refuse to address such.
But the Northern States elected Lincoln anyway, didn't they?
Duckspeaker.
I'm not seeing much of a reply about anything. Non-Sequitur seems to be the only one dealing in actual thoughts of some kind.
......nor any reply about the revolution that created the federal union.
But they'll drag in the word "perpetual" when it suits them, without bothering even to pretend to understands what it really means (which no, does not mean "permanent" or refer to an irrevocable consent). And they won't stick around to discuss the significance of the disconnect between the requirements of the Articles of Confederation for their amendment, and what actually happened when the Constitution was ratified.
To hear the yankees, all every southern white boy wanted was to have sex with their slaves......
Oh, wait, I thought we wanted to whip them and kill them and hang them from trees, on fire. Or something like that. Which is it? I'm confused.
..... - certainly the predominance of such would be ample evidence of the lust and rapine that ALLEGEDLY occurred.
Perhaps that would suit the South-bashers, too, since then they could join racial contempt to their list of regional and cultural ones.
Wonder how many of them are unacknowledged subscribers to the "one drop" doctrine so integral to the ideology of the Klan?
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.