Replies

You waste time with empty verbiage. The only thing that's important to you is to work some kind of put down into every post, as you appear to be incapable of argument. And incapable of reading as well:

You use the term “true liberty” which implies that your thinking process produces some abstract other than liberty.

First of all that's not exactly written in English and it's not exactly logical.

If you have a false conception of liberty, other people may have a true one. My "thinking process" doesn't need to "produce" some other abstract.

But secondly, I used the expression, "true friend of liberty" -- check it out -- so your jab is pointless.

You also are failing to recognize the difference between liberty and egalitarianism, which you continue to use interchangeably in order to advance your arguments.

I made no reference to egalitarianism. What I said was:

Or do you really think that denying some whole class of people basic civil and human rights somehow furthers the cause of freedom? Because that's what's at stake here.

The ball is still in your court. Is denying a whole class of adults basic civil and human rights based on something other than their own wrongdoing something that advances the cause of liberty?

Yes or no?

If you don't give an answer to that question, I certainly won't bother with your juvenile blather.

You continue to misrepresent the issue with Calhoun and his speech in 1848.

He was discussing the political upheaval if his fellow representatives voted on issues while ignoring the guarantees of the constitution.

Your argument rests on the premise of stating that liberty was not universal in the states or territories, and therefore Calhoun's warnings were without merit.

He was aware, as most of the time, that inconsistencies existed and should be addressed. But he was stating that arguments on territorial limitations should not be made at the expense of liberty.

He was attempting to save the union with his speech. Unfortunately his peers would not listen.