Posted on 09/06/2003 9:14:08 AM PDT by quidnunc
Abraham Lincoln is thought of by many as not only the greatest American statesman but as a great conservative. He was neither. Understanding this is a necessary condition for any genuinely American conservatism. When Lincoln took office, the American polity was regarded as a compact between sovereign states which had created a central government as their agent, hedging it in by a doctrine of enumerated powers. Since the compact between the states was voluntary, secession was considered an option by public leaders in every section of the Union during the antebellum period. Given this tradition — deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence — a great statesman in 1860 would have negotiated a settlement with the disaffected states, even if it meant the withdrawal of some from the Union. But Lincoln refused even to accept Confederate commissioners, much less negotiate with them. Most of the Union could have been kept together. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas voted to remain in the Union even after the Confederacy was formed; they reversed themselves only when Lincoln decided on a war of coercion. A great statesman does not seduce his people into a needless war; he keeps them out of it.
When the Soviet Union dissolved by peaceful secession, it was only 70 years old — the same age as the United States when it dissolved in 1860. Did Gorbachev fail as a statesman because he negotiated a peaceful dissolution of the U.S.S.R.? Likewise, if all states west of the Mississippi were to secede tomorrow, would we praise, as a great statesman, a president who refused to negotiate and launched total war against the civilian population merely to preserve the Union? The number of Southerners who died as a result of Lincoln’s invasion was greater than the total of all Americans killed by Hitler and Tojo. By the end of the war, nearly one half of the white male population of military age was either dead or mutilated. No country in World War II suffered casualties of that magnitude.
Not only would Lincoln not receive Confederate commissioners, he refused, for three crucial months, to call Congress. Alone, he illegally raised money, illegally raised troops, and started the war. To crush Northern opposition, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of the war and rounded up some 20,000 political prisoners. (Mussolini arrested some 12,000 but convicted only 1,624.) When the chief justice of the Supreme Court declared the suspension blatantly unconstitutional and ordered the prisoners released, Lincoln ordered his arrest. This American Caesar shut down over 300 newspapers, arrested editors, and smashed presses. He broke up state legislatures; arrested Democratic candidates who urged an armistice; and used the military to elect Republicans (including himself, in 1864, by a margin of around 38,000 popular votes). He illegally created a “state” in West Virginia and imported a large army of foreign mercenaries. B.H. Liddell Hart traces the origin of modern total war to Lincoln’s decision to direct war against the civilian population. Sherman acknowledged that, by the rules of war taught at West Point, he was guilty of war crimes punishable by death. But who was to enforce those rules?
These actions are justified by nationalist historians as the energetic and extraordinary efforts of a great helmsman rising to the painful duty of preserving an indivisible Union. But Lincoln had inherited no such Union from the Framers. Rather, like Bismarck, he created one with a policy of blood and iron. What we call the “Civil War” was in fact America’s French Revolution, and Lincoln was the first Jacobin president. He claimed legitimacy for his actions with a “conservative” rhetoric, rooted in an historically false theory of the Constitution which held that the states had never been sovereign. The Union created the states, he said, not the states the Union. In time, this corrupt and corrupting doctrine would suck nearly every reserved power of the states into the central government. Lincoln seared into the American mind an ideological style of politics which, through a sort of alchemy, transmuted a federative “union” of states into a French revolutionary “nation” launched on an unending global mission of achieving equality. Lincoln’s corrupt constitutionalism and his ideological style of politics have, over time, led to the hollowing out of traditional American society and the obscene concentration of power in the central government that the Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent.
A genuinely American conservatism, then, must adopt the project of preserving and restoring the decentralized federative polity of the Framers rooted in state and local sovereignty. The central government has no constitutional authority to do most of what it does today. The first question posed by an authentic American conservative politics is not whether a policy is good or bad, but what agency (the states or the central government — if either) has the authority to enact it. This is the principle of subsidiarity: that as much as possible should be done by the smallest political unit.
The Democratic and Republican parties are Lincolnian parties. Neither honestly questions the limits of federal authority to do this or that. In 1861, the central government broke free from what Jefferson called “the chains of the Constitution,” and we have, consequently, inherited a fractured historical memory. There are now two Americanisms: pre-Lincolnian and post-Lincolnian. The latter is Jacobinism by other means. Only the former can lay claim to being the primordial American conservatism.
David W. Livingston is a professor of philosophy at Emory University and the author of Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium (University of Chicago Press).
There has never been any legal question that no state can get out of the Union on its own resolve. The acts of the so-called seceded states were acts of revolution, and you cannot legislate revolution.
There is no need for additional statutes or documents to outlaw secession; the wording of the Constitution is adequate to do that.
Walt
You need to mention that you made that up
There a tons of off the wall constitutional amendments offered inside and outside of Congress every year. It's quite possibly true. It seems to me though that someone offered such an amendment in the Confederate Convention.
The SC General Assembly, on 10 Nov 1860, called for a convention - comprised of the people of SC. On 17 Dec 1860, the convention convened in the Baptist Church in Columbia SC. From their convention:
We, the People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained,North Carolina put the matter to the people, who voted against it, and then the legislature seceded anyway.That the Ordinance adopted by us in Convention, on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all Acts and parts of Acts of the General Assembly of this State, ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the Union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of "The United States of America," is hereby dissolved.
No. In March 1861 the people of the state voted against calling a convention 46,672 to 47,269. After Sumter was attacked the state did call a convention of the people, which on 20 May 1861, passed the following:
We, the people of the State of North Carolina, in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by the State of North Carolina in the Convention of 1789, whereby the Constitution of the United States was ratified and adopted, and also, all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly, ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded and abrogated.The Texas legislature and the Virginia legislature voted to secede, claiming that the action was pending the approval of a popular referendum...
When did the people reject that recission? The Confederate States of America admitted Texas as a state on 2 Mar 1861, which the Texas convention accepted on 5 March AFTER secession was approved by the people of the state:
The People of Texas, in Convention assembled, Have ordained and declared, and do hereby ordain and declare, that the delegation aforesaid, to the Congress aforesaid, be, and they are hereby instructed, and we do accordingly instruct them, in behalf of the State, and as representing its sovereign authority, to apply for the admission of this State into said Confederacy; and to that end and for that purpose, to give in the adhesion of Texas to the provisional Constitution of said Confederate States; and which said Constitution, this Convention hereby approves, ratifies and accepts.Regarding Virginia, the legislature called for the election of 152 delegates to a convention which convened in Richmond on 13 Feb 1861. On 17 Apr 1861, these delegates, not the legislature, passed an Ordinance of Secession by a vote of 88 to 55.
You need to mention that you made that up.
I did not make it up. I believe it can be found in the Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36. If not, I stand corrected.
In fact, President Lincoln said just the opposite.
"I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another."
Lincoln also stated, "The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself." Does that sound like someone intent on enforcing the law? No. It was rather a declaration that he had no intention of enforcing the law, any more so than our current illegal immigration laws are "enforced".
Lincoln also stated that secession was unlawful (or, rather, was "anarchy"), and that states had no "right" to secede, completely ignoring the 10th Amendment which gives the states all powers not specifically given to the general government, and the 9th which gives unenumerated rights to the states and people. That was also a declaration that he had no intention of enforcing the law (except for laws he made up out of thin air).
BTW, As early as 1854 Lincoln opposed slavery's spread to new states. There was no such constitutional power given to the general government, but Lincoln declared that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was wrong, anyway.
I have seen some neo-rebs who were misinformed, and I have seen neo-rebs that would tell any kind of lie, but I have never seen one who was ignorant, would tell any kind of lie, and was as persistent as you are.
Typical Lincoln-cultist babble.
free dixie,sw
Neither amendment comes into play.
President Lincoln called out volunteers under the Militia Act. The Supreme Court cites the Act in the Prize Cases ruling.
Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean much.
Walt
Actually Lincoln opposed the spread of slavery into territories that by compromise were to remain free. A fairly moderate and most Republican position at the time. Good for him.
There was no such constitutional power given to the general government, but Lincoln declared that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was wrong, anyway.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 forbade slavery in the territories north of the Ohio river and east of the Mississippi river. By 1848 the sixth and final portion of this territory, ceded by Virginia to the United States, had come into the Union as the free state of Wisconsin.
In opposing southern slave power's attempt at expansion into newly purchased territories, it seems that Mr. Lincoln was echoing the same sentiment as the founders themselves. Jefferson notably.
-btw The repeal of the Missouri Compromise in 1854 was wrong, as was the Dred Scott decision.
In his special message of July 4, 1861 to Congress, seeking to justify his illegal actions and to obtain Congressional forgiveness, Lincoln lied repeatedly. He gave false information and he withheld information. His lies and omissions were relevant and material. Below is one documented example of a Lincoln Lie.
The first return news from the order was received just one week before the fall of Fort Sumter. The news itself was, that the officer commanding the Sabine, to which vessel the troops had been transferred from the Brooklyn, acting upon some quasi armistice of the late administration, (and of the existence of which, the present administration, up to the time the order was despatched, had only too vague and uncertain rumors, to fix attention) had refused to land the troops.
Lincoln told Congress the administration only had uncertain rumors of some quasi armistice. Let us review some official records.
O.R. Series 1, Vol. 1, Part 1, p. 355-6
WASHINGTON, January 29, 1861.
TO JAMES GLYNN, commanding the Macedonian; Captain W. S. WALKER, commanding the Brooklyn, and other naval officers in command; and Lieutenant ADAM J. SLEMMER, First Regiment Artillery, U. S. Army, commanding Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.:
In consequence of the assurance received from Mr. Mallory in a telegram of yesterday to Messrs. Slidell, Hunter, and Bigler, with a request it should be laid before the President, that Fort Pickens would not be assaulted, and an offer of such an assurance to the same effect from Colonel Chase, for the purpose of avoiding a hostile collision, upon receiving satisfactory assurances from Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase that Fort Pickens will not be attacked, you are instructed not to land the company on board the Brooklyn unless said fort shall be attacked or preparations shall be made for its attack. The provisions necessary for the supply of the fort you will land. The Brooklyn and other vessels of war on the station will remain, and you will exercise the utmost vigilance and be prepared at a moment's warning to land the company at Fort Pickens, and you and they will instantly repel an attack on the fort.
The President yesterday sent a special message to Congress commending the Virginia resolutions of compromise. The commissioners of different States are to meet here on Monday, the 4th February, and it is important that during their session a collision of arms should be avoided, unless an attack should be made or there should be preparation for such an attack. In either event the Brooklyn and the other vessels will act promptly.
Your right, and that of the other officers in command at Pensacola, freely to communicate with the Government by special messenger, and its right in the same manner to communicate with yourself and them, will remain intact as the basis on which the present instruction is given.
J. HOLT,
Secretary of War.
ISAAC TOUCEY,
Secretary of the Navy.
O.R. Series 1, Vol 1, Part 1, page 357-8
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FLA., February 7, 1861.
Colonel L. THOMAS, Assistant Adjutant-General, U. S. Army:
SIR: I have the honor to report that I arrived on this station yesterday in the U. S. steamer Brooklyn, with Company A, First Artillery. I met orders here which prevent the landing of my company or the reenforcement of the garrison of Fort Pickens at present. Yesterday I landed at Fort Pickens, assumed command of the forces on the station, inspected the defenses, and had a consultation with Lieutenant Sleemer. I am compelled to remain on board the Brooklyn for the present, and can, of course, only give general instructions to Lieutenant Slemmer. I am sorry to inform the Department that I found Fort Pickens in a very inefficient state of defense. At the time Lieutenant Slemmer removed his command to Fort Pickens there were only forty guns mounted in the fort. At present there are fifty-four in position. The accompanying sketch indicates the position and class of guns now in position; total, fifty-four of all kinds.
Lieutenant Slemmer has with him only forty-six enlisted men for duty, and thirty ordinary seamen from the yard at this station, and the latter are entirely untrained, insubordinate, and of but little use in case of attack. There are fifty-seven embrasures that are unprovided with cannon, and are only about seven feet from the bottom of the ditch, and at present but few of them have only the common wooden shutter, presenting only a slight obstacle to an enemy. There are only very imperfect means of barricading them. Such as they are, however, I have given orders to be immediately employed.
Lieutenant Slemmer has been obliged to employ his command in getting guns into position and in barricading the embrasures. He is obliged to keep one-half of his men under arms every night, and they are nearly all exhausted with fatigue. The guns and carriages and implements are all old, and nearly unserviceable. I have made a requisition direct on the Department for the necessary supply of guns, carriages, and ammunition. The supply of this last is very inadequate. There is no ammunition for the columbiads, no cartridge bags for them, nor flannel to make any. In fact, had it been the intention of the government to place the fort in the state to render its defense impossible, it could not have been done more efficiently that it has been done. The post is without any medical officer, and if it is intended to defend it there should be an Engineer officer sent at once to the station. I trust that the Department will immediately order that the supplies requested be sent. There are no bunks either for the hospital or for the troops, and but little bedding for the sick. I request a supply may be sent. There are plenty of provisions for the present, although I should like some desiccated vegetables and supplies for the officers. I would mention that all of the troops will be compelled to live in open casemages, and many of them will soon be on the sick-list.
The seceders have a considerable force in and about Pensacola; what number I am unable to say positively, but they are estimated at about 1,700 men. They are disorderly, and very unwilling to be controlled. Their leaders, from what I can learn, I believe are sincere in their intention to observe the armistice, but their ability to control the men under their command is very doubtful. They are engaged in erecting batteries, are making sand bags, &c. They have plenty of means of transportation their troops to Saint Rosa Island, and can attack the fort on all sides at once. At present there is not one trained man to a gun within the fort. Should the enemy decide to attack, it is exceedingly probable that he might succeed in penetrating into the fort before my company could be landed or any succor could arrive from the fleet. I should therefore urge upon the Department the necessity of the fleet taking up a position such as to prevent the landing of any forces within one and a half miles of the fort; this would give time to provide for the defense of the work and the landing of the troops from the fleet; otherwise we may have the mortification and disgrace of seeing the fort taken by a body of untrained troops under our very noses.
Should the armistice be broken, my company, all the marines, and as many sailors as may raise the garrison to four hundred men should be immediately landed. All of the advantages of the present armistice are entirely on the side of the seceders. I would therefore urge upon the Department the necessity of immediately re-enforcing the garrison. The two additional companies ordered to Forts Taylor and Jefferson are not immediately required for the defense of those works. In fact, in their present state, and with the forces now in them, they would be stronger than Fort Pickens will be when garrisoned with four hundred men. Captain Meigs kindly offered his services, if necessary, to assist in the defense of this place, and I request the Department that he may be ordered to repair to this place.
Lieutenant Slemmer has done all that it has been possible to do with the small force under his command. His resolution to defend his post at all hazards evinces the highest moral courage on his part, but at the same time I must state that with any amount of vigor on the part of the assaulters his defense would have been hopeless. His resolution has probably been the means of preserving Fort Pickens from the seceders.
Yours, &c.,
I. VOGDES,
Captain, First Artillery.
P. S.-I must not be understood as recommending any violation of the existing armistice, but the collection of an amount of troops on the station as may be necessary for the defense should anything occur to rupture the present armistice.
FORT PICKENS, FLA., February --, 1861.
O.R. Series 1, Vol. 1, Part 1, Page 440-1
Message of the President of the United States, in answer to a resolution of the Senate requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in his message of the 4th instant.
JULY 31, 1861.- Read, ordered to lie on the table and be printed.
To the Senate of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in my message of the 4th instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary of War.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
JULY 30, 1861.
NAVY DEPARTMENT,
July 29, 1861.
The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting the President of the United States to "communicate to the Senate (if not incompatible with the public interest) the character of the quasi armistice to which he refers in his message of the 4th instant, be reason of which the commander of the frigate Sabine refused to transfer the United States troops into Fort Pickens in obedience to his orders; by whom and when such armistice was entered into; and if any, and what, action has been taken by the Government in view of the disobedience of the order of the President aforesaid," has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not, at this time, comport with the public interest.
Respectfully submitted.
GIDEON WELLES.
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
You have not offered one scintilla of proof to support your assertion that Buell placed his memo "into the official record upon his return to Washington."
You have not offered one scintilla of proof that the memo is IN any official record.
You have provided no source or citation to anything to support your claim.
Your inability to provide a link to any such record is persuasive evidence that you performed your cut-and-paste from the letter of President Buchanan to the representatives of South Carolina.
While you are busy citing #812, you should try reading it. It is my post to you.
[three_wheeled_yugo] then got the official record shoved down your throat
You have yet to cite any official record.
Identify the authority you relied upon to make your claim or admit it does not exist.
Provide a link to what you cut-and-pasted, or admit it was the Buchanan letter.
Come on, step up to the plate, you little ankle biting chihuahua. Show me you can say something intelligent besides Yo quiero Taco Bell.
I have. Major Anderson had all the authorization he needed to move to Fort Sumter.
Put your very dog-eared "registered pedant" card back in your wallet.
Walt
But you are legally prevented from interfering with the institution (as it were) of abortion, even should you consider the practice to be infanticide. Even so-called partial birth abortion is protected, including the vacuuming of a human brain.
If one assumes the position that abortion is infanticide, then there is little that can be said about the evils of slavery that cannot be said about the evils of abortion.
People were free not to own slaves then. But the Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, enjoined them from preventing others from doing so.
Such issues should be resolved by the legislature, not the courts. We do not have courts of justice, we have courts of law. Our courts are supposed to render rulings based on what the law actually is, not what they or the public think it ought to be. If the law is wrong, the legislature should fix it. To fix the Constitution, there should be an amendment.
[donmeaker] It should be noted that the Dred Scott decision was reversed by a the War of the Rebellion, followed by the 13th and 14th amendments. To me that would be pretty clear evidence that the decision was wrong.
That the 13th amendment was necessary only confirms the correctness of the decision of Judge Taney. The problem was not Taney's ruling, but the Constitution itself. When the war of Northern Aggression was over, the problem still existed in the Constitution. The Constitution was amended and the problem was solved.
Which side won a war could not determine the correctness of the decision in Dred Scott. Had the South won, slavery would still have been just as wrong. Judge Taney only interpreted what the Constitution said, not whether it was right or wrong.
[donmeaker] It was in response to the D.S. decision that the Republicans platform hoped to limit slavery to the states where it was already existing. That decison should have able to be put into practice by a simple majority vote on such a law, as occured with the Northwest Ordinance.
No, it required a Constitutional amendment.
More accurately, the anti-slavery faction sought to add non-slave states until they had a 3/4ths majority.
[donmeaker] Because of Dred Scott, which abandoned such precedent, the Republicans were faced with a requirement to put through a 3/4s vote for a constitutional amendment.
It is not because of Dred Scott, but because of the Constitution. On passage of the 13th Amendment, and the cessation of holding out human beings to be property, the problem became nonexistent.
The problem is the deal made at the time of the Constitution itself. We wanted Virginia. Virginia possessed great wealth. To Virginia belonged possessions from which the states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota were formed.
To get Virginia and other southern states, we made a deal to allow slavery. It has been termed a deal with the devil. At the time, every state was a slave state except for Massachusetts. The attitude of the North changed, the attitude of the South did not. The constitution had not changed. The 13th amendment was the required legal change.
Not according to President Buchanan or Secretary of War Floyd.
an officer of the United States, acting, as we (you) are assured not only without but against your (my) orders, has dismantled one fort and occupied another, thus altering to a most important extent the condition of affairs under which we (you) came.
the officer in command of the forts has received orders to act strictly on the defensive.
It is well known that it was my determination, and this I freely expressed, not to re-enforce the forts in the harbor, and thus produce a collision, until they had been actually attacked, or until I had certain evidence that they were about to be attacked.
The world knows that I have never sent any re-enforcements to the forts in Charleston Harbor and I have certainly never authorized any change to be made "in their relative military status."
You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend to provoke aggression; and for that reason you are not, without evident and imminent necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude. But you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and if attacked you are to defend yourself to the last extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or attempt to take possession of either one of them will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you may deem most proper to increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar defensive steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act.
D. C. BUELL,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
FORT MOULTRIE, S. C., December 11, 1860.
Under these circumstances it is clear that Major Anderson acted upon his own responsibility, and without authority, unless, indeed, he had "tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act" on the part of the authorities of South Carolina, which as not yet been alleged. Still, he is a brave and honorable officer, and justice requires that he should not be condemned without a fair hearing.
Be this as it may, when I learned that Major Anderson had left Fort Moultrie, and proceeded to Fort Sumter, my first prompting were to command him to return to his former position, and there await the contingencies presented in his instructions.
the officer there in command of all the forts thought proper, without instructions, to change his position from one of them to another
With the facts we have stated, and in the face of the crowning and conclusive fact that your Secretary of War had resigned his seat in the Cabinet upon the publicly-avowed ground that the action of Major Anderson had violated the pledged faith of the Government, and that unless the pledge was instantly redeemed he was dishonored, denial was impossible. You did not deny it; you do not deny it now
- South Carolina Reps to Buchanan
The news of Major Anderson's coup produced a sudden and unexpected change in the President's policy. While declaring that his withdrawal from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter was "without orders, and contrary to orders," he yet refused for twelve hours to take any action in the matter. For twelve hours, therefore, without any excuse, he refused to redeem his plighted word.
- South Carolina Reps to Buchanan
|Page 3|
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 1, part 1, page 3
[Telegram.]
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Adjutant-General's Office, December 27, 1860.
Major ANDERSON, Fort Moultrie:
Intelligence has reached here this morning that you have abandoned Fort Moultrie, spiked your guns, burned the carriages, and gone to Fort Sumter. It is not believed, because there is no order for any such movement. Explain the meaning of this report.
J. B. FLOYD,
Secretary of War.
- Secretary of War Floyd to Anderson: You did WHAT!!???
Springfield, Ills. Dec. 24, 1860
Hon. Lyman Trumbull
My dear Sir
I expect to be able to offer Mr. Blain a place in the cabinet; but I cannot, as yet, be committed on the matter, to any extent whatever.
Dispatches have come here two days in succession, that the forts in South Carolina, will be surrendered by the order, or consent at least, of the President.
I can scarcely believe this; but if it prove true, I will, if our friends at Washington concur, announce publicly at once that they are to be retaken after the inauguration. This will give the Union men a rallying cry, and preparation will proceed somewhat on their side, as well as on the other. Yours as ever
A. Lincoln
- The Living Lincoln,Angle and Miers, p. 369.
[nc] The words of a maniac or someone who desperately seeks to provoke war.
We're in deep trouble if we have to depend on George Bush's leadership to the extent we depended on President Lincoln. Bush ... is a creature of his staff."
-- WhiskeyPapa, 10/07/01
All these deaths of U.S. citizens --the death of EVERY U.S. citizen killed by Arab terror in the United States, can be laid directly at the feet of George Bush I."
-- WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
I'll say again that based on what I knew in 1992, I would vote for Bill Clinton ten times out of ten before I would vote for George Bush Sr."
-- WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
I feel that admiration for Reagan has rightly diminished over time, and rightly so."
- - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
I don't retract any of that."
-- WhiskeyPapa, in reference to the liberal statements found above, 11/26/02
-- Walt, aka WhiskeyPapa, explaining the electoral college to Europeans, 11/12/00
- If you non-U.S. citizens are wondering what the electoral college is and what bunch of ninnies thought it up:
- The US Constitution was written by rich white men like Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Randolph, and others.
- They wrote it for the benefit of rich white men like themselves.
- They didn't trust the common man --at all--, hence the college of electors, who didn't (and don't) necessarily have to vote for the candidate that carries their state.
- Here in Georgia, I didn't vote for Al Gore.
I voted for nine Democratic Party hacks that promise to vote for Al when the college meets in December.
- Yeah, I know its crazy, but it works.
Sherman in a June 21 letter to Secretary of War Stanton: 'There is a class of people [Southerners] men, women, and children, who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order.'
Stanton reply: 'Your letter of the the 21st of June has just reached me and meets my approval.'
And mine."
-- WhiskeyPapa, 2/14/03
What the Reagan adminstration did was worse than Watergate. But he was a nicer guy than Nixon, so he skated. Also, despite all the Reagan worship, I don't think he ever made a tough decision."
-WhiskeyPapa, 3/10/03
I think the Bushes both to (sic) incompetent clowns."
-- WhiskeyPapa, 3/10/03
I did say, and say again, that based on what I knew in 1992 I would vote for Clinton over Bush Sr. ten times out of ten."
-- WhiskeyPapa, 4/7/03
I do firmly believe that Bush Jr. is nothing but a figurehead. Bush Sr. is running things; he and Cheney and Rumsfeld.I mean, really listen to the president. He sounds like an idiot."
-- WhiskeyPapa, 4/7/03
George Bush Jr. sounds like a retard to me. Listen to his sentence structure and his word choice. Sophomoric. You don't think so, fine."
-- WhiskeyPapa, 5/4/03
GW [George Washington] and the rest -were- traitors. What else is new?
-- WhiskeyPapa, 05/13/03
I disagree, Hitler had every intention of first ruling Europe and then the rest of the world.
You won't show that by anything he ever said.
-- WhiskeyPapa, 05/13/03
The guy [George HW Bush] was a lousy president and he'll be remembered as a lousy president. -- WhiskeyPapa, 05/14/03
His words. My emphasis.
WhiskeyPapa -is- a liberal troll.
Thanks to GOPcapitalist, who originally compiled this.
67 posted on 05/23/2003 8:44 AM CDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
"The action of Secretary of War Floyd speaks volumes more than your rubbish - he resigned because the administration would not undo what had been done without permission. "
[donmeaker 870] Floyd resigned to take part in the so called "Confederate government. Nice try."
[nc] Nice try, yourself. Now explain why Secretary of War John Floyd would have ordered Major Anderson to reinforce Fort Sumter, then respond as he did to Major Anderson's report of having done so, and then resign. You may also feel free to explain why President Buchanan said his first prompting was to command Anderson to return to his former position, and why the President wrote that it is clear that Major Anderson acted upon his own responsibility, and without authority.
Further, as the Commander-in-Chief was on record as being against any such movement, neither the Secretary or War nor any other subordinate had any legal authority to "authorize" Anderson to make any such move.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 1, part 1, page 3[Telegram.]
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Adjutant-General's Office, December 27, 1860.
Major ANDERSON, Fort Moultrie:
Intelligence has reached here this morning that you have abandoned Fort Moultrie, spiked your guns, burned the carriages, and gone to Fort Sumter. It is not believed, because there is no order for any such movement. Explain the meaning of this report.
J. B. FLOYD,
Secretary of War.
Put your dog-eared "registered flaming liberal Clinton lover" card back in your own pocket.
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.