Posted on 12/24/2001 4:25:26 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
;>)
You guys drive me nuts. In this and other threads when I or non-sequitor or Whiskey Papa post quotes from source documents, we’re called 'cut 'n paste artists' with no argument or rebuttal to our arguments. Now you come up with a quote, and that somehow makes every thing I say 'unsupported opinion.' Above I posted Article V of the Constitution to ask one of you where it implies a right to secede, as he had stated. I never got a reply to that post. It seems when you see the source you won't reply, and when we don't post source, you call us uninformed!
Araghhhhh. Lincoln should have let you guys have your little Banana Republic. It would have served you right when the slaves finally had their uprising. ;~))
Good night.
What did John Hancock do that is of historical importance ? (Note: fancy handwriting does not count)
Hamilton's tactics (and antics) in the Washington administration caused Madison to leave the Federalist Party and team up with Jefferson to form the first Republican Party. While Hamilton does not deserve all the "credit", his Federalist Party was doomed to fail. Even John Adams blamed his defeat (for a second term) on the (his) Federalist Party.
"Honest" Abe, huh? You forgot to mention that a few years earlier Massachusetts threatened to seceed, and there was no great debate (that I am aware of) regarding the "legality". Double-standards have always been the halmarks of liberalism.
Southerners knew well that George Washington never desired the horrible excesses of liberalism to be the rule rather than the exception. His Farewell Address ranks among the most powerful statements against liberalism.
Emotions are fine at football games, but this is history. Could you be more specific?
And disunion.
Walt
Just for curiosity, what events led up to the formation of the KKK? Also, did you know that Black Muslims have a philosophy even more hateful than the KKK? Black Muslims want all white people dead, period. I heard this fact from a Black Muslim.
And disunion.
And against usurpation, centralization of government, immorality, foreign influence into political affairs, . . . , and most ever trademark associated with modern liberalism. On the same note he was strongly in favor of a common language and a common religion (with minor shades of differences, of course).
Do you have a source for that?
Here is a paragraph from the letter from George Washington to the Touro Congregation in Newport, RI, 1790.
"May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig-tree and there shall be none to make him afraid..."
Walt
Well, you need to be more aware.
Here is what Andrew Jackson said when S. Carolina first rumbled with treason.
"So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifices of interests and opinions. can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the states, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the west, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland states agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one state, and onerous duties in another. No one believes that any right exists in a single state to involve the other in these and countless other evils, contrary to the engagements solemnly made.
Every one must see that the other states, in self-defence, must oppose it at all hazards.
These are the alternatives that are presented by the convention--a repeal of all the acts for raising revenue, leaving the government without the means of support; or an acquiescence in the dissolution of our Union by the secession of one of its members, When the first was proposed, it was known that it could not be listened, to for a moment. It was [Page 592] known, if force was applied to oppose the execution of the laws, that it must be repelled by force; that Congress could not, without involving itself in disgrace, and the country in ruin, accede to the proposition; and yet, if this is not done on a given day, or if any attempt is made to execute the laws, the state is, by the ordinance, declared to be out of the Union. The majority of a convention assembled for the purpose have dictated these terms, or rather this rejection of all terms, in the name of the people of South Carolina. It is true that the government of the state speaks of the submission of their grievances to a convention of all the states, which, he says, they "sincerely and anxiously seek and desire." Yet this obvious and constitutional mode of obtaining the sense of the other states on the construction of the federal compact, and amending it, if necessary, has never been attempted by those who have urged the state on to this destructive measure. The state might have proposed the call for a general convention to the other states, and Congress, if a sufficient number of them concurred, must have called it.
But the first magistrate of South Carolina, when he expressed a hope that, "on a review, by Congress and the functionaries of the general government, of the merits of the controversy," such a convention will be accorded to them, must have known that neither Congress, nor any functionary of the general government, has authority to call such a convention, unless it may be demanded by two thirds of the states. This suggestion, then, is another instance of the reckless inattention to the provisions of the Constitution with which this crisis has been madly hurried on; or of the attempt to persuade the people that a constitutional remedy had been sought and refused. If the legislature of South Carolina "anxiously desire" a general convention to consider their complaints, why have they not made application for it in the way the Constitution points out? The assertion that they "earnestly seek it" is completely negatived by the omission.
Elliot, Jonathan, 1784-1846.; United States. Constitutional Convention (1787) , The Debates in the several state conventions on the adoption of the federal Constitution, as recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. "Elliot's Debates." Philadelphia : J. B. Lippincott & co., 1836-59. 5 v., vol IV, pp 582-592
Secession is treason.
Walt
The...position involved in this branch of the resolution, namely, "that the states are parties to the Constitution," or compact, is, in the judgment of the committee, equally free from objection...It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions, 1800
You can't dragoon Madison into your false and unsupported interpretation.
"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, then the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of --98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created...."
--James Madison.
"This advice, if it ever see the light will not do it till I am no more, it may be considered as issuing from the tomb, where truth alone can be respected, and the happiness of man alone consulted. It will be entitled therefore to whatever weight can be derived from good intentions, and from the experience of one who has served his county in various stations through a period of forty years, who espoused in his youth and adhered through his life to the cause of its liberty, and who has borne a part in most of the great transactions which will constitute epochs of its destiny.
The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated. Let the open enemy to it be regarded as a Pandora with her box opened; and the disguised one, as the Serpent creeping with his deadly wiles into Paradise."
-James Madison, Advice to my Country, 1834
He means you.
Walt
Mr. Madison's words invariably bear out the genius of his mind. If Europe, India, the Middle East, had such a mind, the world would be a more stable place. Too bad the 39th Congress didn't listen to him, and went on to create a different Union from "THE Union of the States" that Madison referred to at the dusk of his life. But, that's what Yankees do - reconstruct. They even reconstruct posterity's (like Walt's) minds. The South was on to them and their ways. The more it is bashed, the further down the road we will have to go away from the original Union, suffering under the illegitimate and loved-by-liberals, 14th Amendment.
The 14th amendment as written would have never existed if the slave holders hadn't so determined to hold on to their property.
Walt
Are you for One Big Legislature (OBL)?
The 13th was the one that abolished slavery. The 14th wouldn't have been written if the Federal Union full of Yankees hadn't been so eager to bankrupt the south. Just like modern day Federal mandates and income and estate taxes that take property without just compensation, the 14th got the Union out of having to compensate Southern property owners for their legally held property. This was just another deft end run around the last clause in the 5th Amendment that the Yankees made, while they held absolute power in Congress, and "saved the Union".
The 13th was ratified voluntarily by the Southern states in 1865, while most of their legislatures were reasonably intact, three years before the 14th. When the South pitched in voluntarily to ratify the 13th Amendment, they expanded the jurisdiction of the Emancipation Proclamation to the Northern States. It's quite conceivable that Georgia's legislature helped free U.S. Grant's and Mary Todd's slave(s).
The 13th was the one that abolished slavery.
My point still holds; without so-called secession, and treason, the 14th amendment, as written, would never have existed.
Walt
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.