Above is depicted the National Flag of a country whose written Constitution and national statues permitted and protected chattel slavery.
Posted on 11/29/2002 7:57:37 AM PST by End The Hypocrisy
Three MAJOR civil war cinema epics are due in 2003. 1) Robert Duvall plays Robert E. Lee in Gods & Generals, out Feb. 21; 2) Jude Law portrays a jaded confederate in Cold Mountain, due Dec. 25, 2003; and 3) Tom Cruise plays a Civil War veteran who witnesses the end of a Japanese culture in The Last Samurai, due Dec. 12, 2003. Gods & Generals is replete with special effects, although director Maxwell still used more than 10,000 extras to re-create battle scenes.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Above is depicted the National Flag of a country whose written Constitution and national statues permitted and protected chattel slavery.
Well, Peeshwank, back again I see. I'll take this and file it with the rest of your opinions that I don't give a damn about.
Same with this one.
You're right, I shouldn't cast pearls before swine.
Matthew 7:6
Now go away.
I will take that advice.
Yeah, well I like that passage from Proverbs but I went and added that next line and it didn't quite come out the way I wanted. Still, since your taking my advice today how about not replying to anything else I say ever again and I will do you the same favor? Deal?
Simple. An import received at New York and sent to Ohio pays one tariff, the one imposed by the United States. An import received at Savannah pays the confederate tariff and then the Northern tariff. That's why it would be more expensive.
Had the South stayed on for another 30 years, slavery would have dissipated and something else would have had become said lightning rod.
Like what?
All States entered into the Constitutional compact with the knowledge that the States could withdraw upon breach or otherwise by the other States.
I'm not sure what you base this on but what breach of the Constitution was there?
Thanks to Abraham Clinton that option does not exist.
Sure, Jefferson Davis and his ilk had nothing to do with it, is that right?
You see, I've always tried to obey the biblical injunctions, but with respect to you two I've been conflicted. Should I obey Proverbs 26: 4, or Proverbs 26: 5. Well, henceforth I will obey 26: 4, simply because it is easier. Can you possibly think that I enjoyed responding to your posts? I did it only out of a sense of Christian duty, thinking maybe that I could push you over the edge into enlightenment, possibly saving you from an eternity in hell. Now that I have at least suceeded in bringinging you, Non-Sequitur, to recognize yourself as
"a foolish man, [in whom] thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge."
I think I have accomplished as much as I could possibly hope, so henceforth I will answer you not. Best wishes to you both. I will be thinking of you, particularly if it ever gets chilly where I am.
I've heard that line before, Peeshwank.
There is not a nickel's worth of difference in how Washington, Madison, Jackson and Lincoln viewed the Constitution..
Even President Taylor threatened a hanging party for would be secessionists.
President Lincoln used the document the way in which the framers intended.
Under law, we are stuck with each other, and have been, since the Constitution went into operation in 1790.
Walt
Ratifying the Constitution brought on a voluntary, but irrevocable (except through the amendment process) connection with the Union. That is what the framers clearly wanted, if we can believe them. The Articles had failed. No one had any illusion as to what was needed.
In any case Joe, we can discount what you say, because you won't quote the framers.
But I will.
"Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt & carry into execution, measures the best calculated for their own good without a coercive power. I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."
Washington to John Jay, August 19, 1786
"The nullifiers it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality are effectually transferred by it, and the dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hands of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all."
James Madison, March, 1833
Well, there are two framers who opined that they wanted a Union with a coercive power -- that was the federal government.
If you can't quote the framers to support your position -- then shut up.
Definition of terms:
Founder: A person involved in birthing the USA 1776-1783.
Framer: One of the delegates to the Constitutional convention.
Walt
You cannot support that statement in the record. And yet you must for credibility.
To establish credibility you must use the words of the people who were involved in these events. But you'll not find any to support your bald statements.
Hmmmm......I need some adjectives for your statements...ignorant... misguided...propagandistic?
Take your pick.
Use the words of the people of the day.
Ask whathsiname about Federalist 41. He used to quote it quite a bit.
Walt
The federal government was always the master. George Washington suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion with 13,000 militia men. Two of the ring leaders were convicted of treason against the United States. That was 1794.
Your statements are not supported by the record.
I mentioned this the other day. Under the Articles, the last navy ship was sold in 1785. The Marine Corps was disbanded, the army was near mutiny; the government was flat broke. Yet in 1794,(the fourth year of the operation of the Constitution) the government was able to fund six fine warships, including the U.S.S. Constitution, United States and President. They were finished in the late 1790's. The Marine Corps was re-established in 1798 (whew!). Are you getting the picture? The Constitution, even from the earliest days, has provided us with safety and security.
You are ignorant of the record, or would hide the "immense value" of the national Union, to use Washington's words.
Sorry, Joe. We have free speech in this country. The disinformation techniques you used so successfully back in the USSR won't work here.
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.