Posted on 04/16/2003 5:44:44 AM PDT by Lady Eileen
Washington, DC-area Freepers interested in Lincoln and/or the War Between the States should take note of a seminar held later today on the Fairfax campus of George Mason University:
The conventional wisdom in America is that Abraham Lincoln was a great emancipator who preserved American liberties. In recent years, new research has portrayed a less-flattering Lincoln that often behaved as a self-seeking politician who catered to special interest groups. So which is the real Lincoln?
On Wednesday, April 16, Thomas DiLorenzo, a former George Mason University professor of Economics, will host a seminar on that very topic. It will highlight his controversial but influential new book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. In the Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo exposes the conventional wisdom of Lincoln as based on fallacies and myths propagated by our political leaders and public education system.
The seminar, which will be held in Rooms 3&4 of the GMU Student Union II, will start at 5:00 PM. Copies of the book will be available for sale during a brief autograph session after the seminar.
And since secession was not illegal up through 1861, any subsequent ruling to the contrary is ex post facto, so this point is moot. Seems to be just another attempt at prolonging the battle since N-S's staunchest ally in the debate has already admitted that secession was not prohibited (WhiskeyPapa, Reply No. 164).
Secession is not prohibited, as long as U.S. law operates in the "seceded" state.
Walt
What separates you from Non-Sequitur is the fact that he displays the characteristic known as intellectual honesty. You stated quite plainly in the thread "Bob Graham: Fold up Rebel Flag" - Reply No. 164 that you know of no prohibition against secession. Then you come up with the garbage that I quoted from you above. Not only is it non-sensical, but it also shows that you don't really have a grasp on what you espouse on these threads.
No explicit prohibition.
Who's being dishonest now?
Walt
I don't know of an explicit prohibition against uniateral secession.
I do know that U.S. law requires that U.S. law operate in all the states.
Walt
Did you really mean to say Lincoln was playing games?
My goodness; where's all that research you've spent so much time on?
Still trying to find President Lincoln's declaration of war on the CSA?
Don't go away mad. Just go away.
Walt
Ignorance. Yours.
If you had anything of value to say, you would stop calling names.
The desperate act of a desperate man with a losing argument.
The desperate act of a desperate man with a losing argument.
Well now. It didn't take long for you to start calling me "Wlat" did it?
You have made a lot of nonsense statements. I hope you are not stoked up on coffee or anything. You might stroke out.
Walt
Heck, I thought you must be a New Yorker. Consider your rudeness, a valued and cherished NY quality. And when Hilary ran for office, you must have moved there to vote for her.
Southerner. Must mean South Bronx.
There are two alternatives for posting this: ignorance or malevolence. Which applies to you?
I'll ask again? How did you happen to suggest that "Lincoln freed the slaves where he had no authority and left them alone where he did."
Hmmmmm?
Walt
Nope. Chatta-ban-oogie, Tennessee.
Walt
But kind sir, you go too far. Walt has trouble reading and understanding.
Now, now. Where is all this --research-- you like to post?
Is this the best you can do? Run up some more of your facts so I can disk 'em.
Walt
Ask Non-Sequitur how I like to use the word explicit. Its very important in this debate for the following reason: The citizens of the sovereign nation-states elected representatives to attend a convention to fix the Articles of Confederation. The state representatives took it upon themselves to draft a new constitution and then present it to the citizens of each state for debate and approval. The U.S. Constitution, Article VII, required nine states' approval for ratification. Upon ratification, the states transferred enumerated powers to the new Federal government with the understanding that all powers not enumerated were to be reserved to themselves. A few years later that concept was codified in the Tenth Amendment.
No delegate presented an argument that once a state approves of the Constitution and enters the Union there is no withdrawal possible. To the contrary, the two largest and most powerful states, Virginia and New York, explicitly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union if they feel such an action to be in their better interest. No disapproval of this reservation was offered by any Federal official or delegate.
The delegation of certain enumerated powers to the Federal government does not mean all powers, or those explicitly delegated plus others it wants to assume, but specifically those that are written explicitly in the Constitution. Your national bank argument that you like to use is irrelevent to this point because it is not taking a power away from a state, but is rather the logical extension of two or more delegated powers. This is the meaning of the "necessary and proper clause" in Article I Section 8.
And once a state has withdrawn from the Union, U.S. law no longer applies. Are you familiar with Georgetown, D.C.? Its a good analogy. I'll explain it to you if you need help.
I know the Militia Act was written in 1792.
U.S. law must operate in all the states.
The act further places the judgment of when to call out the militia to suppress insurrection at the sold discretion of the president.
And you know what-- that is a prohibition on unilateral state secession.
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.