Some "preserved" Rebs at Antietam. Interesting preservation techique the Yankees had. 
Posted on 02/15/2010 3:29:27 PM PST by central_va
It's a dirty rotten job but somebody's got to do it. Otherwise some poor naieve soul may wander along and may come to the mistaken conclusion that you know what you're talking about.
"Non-Sequitur: Fighting Lost Causer Ignorance since 2001 (It's taking longer than I thought!" I'm thinking of making that my tagline.
Put up or shut your pie hole, gomer.
Ah if someone could only shut yours. But then what would we have to laugh about?
Except that William of Orange landed 21,000 troops in England, fought the Battle of Reading, and marched on London. James was so unpopular that he could barely muster any support and ended up fleeing to France.
Most of what made James unpopular was his Catholicism and his support for other Catholics, who were largely oppressed throughout the British Isles. After he was deposed, the Highland Scots and the Irish rose up against William and were suppressed in a series of wars.
Calling the Glorious Revolution bloodless or likening it to secession is simply wrong.
In other words, the only thing that you've ever written are the lies and personal attacks that you submit here. It figures.
Non-Sequitur: Fighting Lost Causer Ignorance since 2001
Non-Sequitur: Fighting Lost Causer Ignorance Getting his ass kicked by Rebs since 2001
There. Fixed it for ya.
Ah if someone could only shut yours.
It won't be you and I see that you're not going to shut up OR PUT UP. Once again, it figures.....troll.....
Pot, meet kettle.
There. Fixed it for ya.
Yes, so I saw. More Southron mythology.
It won't be you and I see that you're not going to shut up OR PUT UP. Once again, it figures.....troll.....
Kettle, meet pot.
N-S: Surely you're not going to deny the world a more in depth explanation of your brilliant political theory? Maybe volume one can be on the similarities between the Constitution and Publishers Clearing House and in volume two you can link the Constitution and the Lotto?
As I noted previously: "Rules of admission are just that - rules of admission. Only an idiot (or 'Non-Sequitur') would suggest that rules of admission necessarily imply similar rules and authority with regard to departure."
But surely you're not going to deny the world a more in depth explanation of your brilliant political theory:
"I will state for the record that in my opinion the Constitution makes it clear that the need for permission [from non-seceding States] is implied... To put it bluntly, I say permission is needed [for a State to secede]..."
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2446232/posts?q=1&;page=501#536)
Just because there are rules regarding admission? And not even a single written rule regarding departure? Implied? By penumbras, emanations, and permutations? By all means, please enlighten us! Those who believe in 'The Rule of (Written) Law' need to know!!!
'Maybe volume one can be on the similarities between the Constitution and the Peoples Republic of China, and in volume two you can link the Constitution and the Soviet Union?'
;>)
Article 1, Section 10 DOES prohibits necessary expressions of sovereignty to the states
Tell me if you associated revolution with that of the Deceleration of independents tell me how it is that theses Decelerations and/or Ordinances are any different?
That's simple. The Founders won, the secessionists lost.
There is nothing in the Constitution enabling Lincoln to recognize secession or coddle rebellion. Lincoln, to remain true to his oath, had to limit himself to what the Constitution mandated him to do. That is the Supreme Law, not secession ordinances often obtained through political dishonesty and not reflecting the overwhelming will of the people needed to sustain a revolution.
Lincoln's entire political premise for the war revolved around evading responsibility for his.
Sure it was.
“According to Douglas Southall Freeman, Lee was offered command of all of Virginia’s military forces by Governor Letcher on April 19, 1861 and he accepted.”
Really? He was the personal military advisor to Jefferson Davis prior to being given command of the Army of Northern Virginia. If he was given command of ALL of Virginia’s forces prior to that it must have been a paper army, because he commanded pretty much nothing, as there was pretty much nothing to command (but, as stated, he became the personal military advisor to Jefferson Davis; THEN he was given command of the ANV).
Beauregard was the first commander of the ANV, which was the principal military force of the Confederacy in the east (and he held that position for only a few weeks), and he was followed by Johnston (who commanded for about a year, until Lee replaced him). Hence, Lee’s first field command was on June 1, 1862.
Oh - so you're a man of principle? Bravo!
;>)
There is nothing in the Constitution enabling Lincoln to recognize secession or coddle rebellion. Lincoln, to remain true to his oath, had to limit himself to what the Constitution mandated him to do.
Actually, there was nothing in the Constitution prohibiting State secession. Read it again, and tell me otherwise. Mr. Lincoln's actions represent nothing more than the imposition of one person's passions on an entire nation. Nearly three quarters of a million Americans died as a direct result...
Article 1, Section 10 prohibits certain specific actions by the States. No where does it proclaim any blanket prohibition of "expressions of [State] sovereignty." If it had in fact done so, the Constitution would never have been ratified...
;>)
You kind of wonder why the whole fandango was started to 'preserve the Union' (presumably in formaldehyde, given the fact that they were willing to kill to preserve it), but then evolved into 'free the slaves down there (but not up here)'.
Triangulation! Pivot and adjust! A professional politician of the first rank...
Some "preserved" Rebs at Antietam. Interesting preservation techique the Yankees had.
"We're from the government - and we're here to help (even if it means killing your sorry @ss)!"
;>)
It wasn't the States that created the Federal government, it was the people.
It was ratified only because the Tenth Amendment was offered for ratification as well. The Tenth was the "deal breaker", the sine qua non of ratification by nine States, which was the magic number.
That the Tenth is ignored today by Hamiltonian aggrandizers and Commerce-Clause imperialists is something the late Chief Justice Rehnquist was trying to bring to an end as his life drew to a close. And he wasn't exactly Roger Taney.
Didn't Lee command the Virginia Militia force that tried unsuccessfully to keep Lincoln from prying loose West Virginia?
Lee was given command of Virginia forces (pretty much existed only on paper at that time; just a few militia companies) by the governer (Lechter, I think his name was). Almost immediately afterward he became Jefferson Davis’ personal military advisor, and remained in that role until he was given command of the ANV on June 1, 1862, after Johnston had been wounded.
So you're saying that Lee really didn't 'take up arms' against the U.S. because since he wasn't actually shooting at anyone? Would you say that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs isn't in the military as well? Lee was given command of all Virginia's military forces. He was a general in a military that first planned hostile actions against the U.S. before it even voted for secession. Lee first took up arms in April 1861 by any possible definition of the term.
I doubt it...
;>)
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.