Posted on 06/10/2006 6:20:18 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
Thanks!
Thanks... I'll take a look.
The article said that the numbers of the Crane district had changed during his career. It did not give a demographic breakdown.
Also, assuming a treason conviction, this stands for the proposition that the rogue Union regime had the disposition to bully Captain Nobody to seize his ship but lacked the intestinal fortitude to indict far better men than the Union cabinet and generals like Robert E. Lee and Longstreet and Hood and Stephens and Breckinridge and....
I suppose you will also defend Sherman's March to the Sea which deserved to be treated to a Nuremburg trial of its own but for the fact that the Union bullies won. Like many Conferederate sympathizers, I have zero ancestry in the Confederacy but every sympathy for it.
Finally, unless Greathouse was serving a hostile FOREIGN power in time of war, Lincoln's agents had no legal business interfering with his ship under maritime law. The blockade was an illegal exercise and the incident you reference seems likely to have been an act of piracy by federal revenue agents. The Union argument was that the Confederacy was in rebellion. The Union never conceded the sovereignty of the south until the south had been conquered and the Union acted opportunistically in massacring international law.
I haven't heard your answer as to how Congress's approval was necessary to the "re-admission" of eleven states which, according to Union mythology, never left in the first place, much less with constitution-changing state legislative acts required as a precondition.
I am also waiting your response to the specific language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which prohibited Lincoln's actions.
The Court upheld the Treason convictions, yes.
Theft (of the vessel) seems perfectly consistent with the left.
How so? And you are aware the South "liberated" an awful lot of stuff they never paid for either. Trains. Ships. States... so... Pot, Meet Kettle.
Bump. And that is only the start of the list. Their notion of wholesale catering to the left in a brazen triangulation scheme has backfired time after time, after time.
It went so far as to debase consensus on how...or even whether... to maintain party unity...
The Base put up with it only so long, and now the crowd in the White House is reaping what they have sown. The whirlwind is sucking them down. And they don't get it.
There is no such thing as "Political Center"...as Rush Limbaugh has long said. This a massive rejection of their obvious liberal world view....and the resultant policies and defamations they spew out.
Robert Novak caught sight of this, and advised the White House basically to wake up way back in 2002. What most of us never expected, and Novak himself never counted on, was that the current crowd in the White House truly are more hard-core Rockefellerian idealogues than they are pragmatists. As W has shown definitively...he would rather undermine the party than represent its values. He is at war with the base, as even Mark Steyn has hinted when he openly observed that Bush "wonders if he really does like the Base at all."
2. Admiration for Confederate generals will always outstrip admiration for just about anything Union. Lee and Jackson were among the very best men in American history. Sherman and Sheridan were not. Grant's best moment was his graciousness toward Lee at Appomattox. A lot more was necessary to put him in Lee's class as a man.
The states themselves belonged to their citizens' respectively (See Amendments IX and X) before and after secession. The trains, ships, guns, forts, real estate, etc. were given by the Buchanan administration to Confederate state militias and/or state governments not stolen by southern tax collectors. The family property of southerners of any and all persuasions burned and destroyed by Sherman were not freely given and not morally taken.
I am not going to waste my time discussing anything whatsoever with Whiskey Papa whom you have already pinged. Pinging him will be your way of informing me that your conversation with me is at an end.
2. Admiration for Confederate generals will always outstrip admiration for just about anything Union. Lee and Jackson were among the very best men in American history. Sherman and Sheridan were not. Grant's best moment was his graciousness toward Lee at Appomattox. A lot more was necessary to put him in Lee's class as a man.
The states themselves belonged to their citizens' respectively (See Amendments IX and X) before and after secession. The trains, ships, guns, forts, real estate, etc. were given by the Buchanan administration to Confederate state militias and/or state governments not stolen by southern tax collectors. The family property of southerners of any and all persuasions burned and destroyed by Sherman were not freely given and not morally taken.
I am not going to waste my time discussing anything whatsoever with Whiskey Papa whom you have already pinged. Pinging him will be your way of informing me that your conversation with me is at an end.
she is paleo too!
I disagree.
It is the distinction between murdering one's spouse and abandoning one's spouse for cause.
No. The distinction drawn is inapt. Rebellion doesn't require reciprocal invasion. Merely an attack on federal authority. Which was massively evident. And Lee invaded twice anyways.
I am also waiting your response to the specific language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which prohibited Lincoln's actions.
Perhaps no possible reading could bootstrap secession as a "right" into their meanings.
Amendment IXNote the highlighted text. Rebellions, which equal Secession, are expressly prohibited to the States and the People.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
T'sk. I am always finding new information from his posts, and keen insight.
True only under your ridiculously broad definition of that term.
Paleos object to the use of the armed forces.
Paleos object to the use of the armed forces for nation building.
To them the question doesn't turn on whether doing something is in the vital interest of the US
No, to them nation building is seldom if ever so vital to the interest of the US as to justify the expense in dollars and blood of military force.
As examples.
Reagan was working towards a total change of the government of Nicaragua.
He changed by force the government of Grenada.
That is Nation building, whether or not you like the definition.
You can get a lot of "information" on US foreign policy from Dennis Kucinich or from Weepy Walter Jones (alleged R-North Carolina). There are those who think that Dennis the Menace or Weepy Walter have "keen insight." Of course, they are wrong on that too.
You're right. It was the Dallas School system PTA that invaded Grenada.
The CIA(and US military advisors) involvement in Nicaragua was cost free.
And of course Lebanon doesn't count because it was an exception.
How about the first Gulf War? According to the Paleo King, Pat Buchanan, that was a nation building project of the Amen Corner. Is restoring a previous legally legitimate Government OK by you?
Oops, make that two exceptions ... but Grenada was easily foreseen to be a quick operation not costing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.
The CIA(and US military advisors) involvement in Nicaragua was cost free.
Straw man ... I didn't say paleos thought nation building was never worth ANY cost.
And of course Lebanon doesn't count because it was an exception.
Reagan once signed a tax hike ... was he therefore not a tax-cutter?
How about the first Gulf War? According to the Paleo King, Pat Buchanan, that was a nation building project of the Amen Corner. Is restoring a previous legally legitimate Government OK by you?
Yes; if Buchanan thought Gulf War I was objectionable nation-building, I disagree.
So you agree with me. It's not a question of whether Nation Building is the American way, it's a question of whether we are trying to rebuild a large or tiny country as to whether you would agree.
The only legitimate criteria is whether it is in the reasonable American interest. Was Nation Building in Germany and Japan and.....Grenada legitimate. Why? where is it not legitimate? Why
What ever reason for either answer you give the conclusion is that Nation Building is as American as Apple Pie since the US became a world superpower. Where it should be attempted is the only issue.
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.