What a ridiculous lie. George Washington hated a Republic? O.K. Almost all the staff officers fighting and dieing for the republic were federalists. They hated a Republic? Sure, buzzy, sure.
Hamilton had little faith in the people but that was from observing the Slaveocrats fighting against the best interests of the nation. He saw the nation he had spent the majority of his life fighting for being led by liars down the path to dissolution and anarchy like that the Slaveocrats led them down in 1861. But no man ever did more for this nation than Alexander Hamilton. This was one of the reasons G. Washington loved him like a son. I would not expect the uneducated to know much about such a truly great man since they prefer the Jeffersonian inspired lies which the leftwingers in the universities have fostered for 200 years. Most of the things you post are indicative of a lack of education in the field of history so I can't take them too seriously. I have seen those errors repeatedly posted here generally by the same crew. They are nonsense and have no validity particularly things posted about Hamilton. Your third quote is exactly what a sensible man would believe knowing as he would that the country was surrounded by the territories of three powerful European empires all scheming for its downfall and absorption. Hamilton's program was the program of the Washington administration. You should read about this truly great man. Forrest MacDonald, professor of history at Alabama, has written a magnificent biography of Hamilton though it may be too difficult for you.
Habeas corpus can and should be suspended during periods of insurrection and rebellion.
You are correct I did say that it took less than three years. The "mighty" federal army which was composed of farm boys from Neb, Minn, Wis, Ill, Ind, Mich, Ohio etc was nonexistent before the war for all practical purposes. Most of the leadership went with their States rather than the nation. So even though it had to rebuild completely and obtain new leadership it still managed to beat what the Slaveocracy could put into the field. When Lee surrendered the war was over. Just as WWII was over when the bomb was dropped in spite of holdouts on various pacific islands for a few years.
Oh, sure I have heard about all those thousands, hundreds, scores, dozens of non-whites fighting for the Slaveocracy. Only problem is there is no proof of any significant numbers of non-laborers, non-valets, non-cooks serving the Slaveocracy. Giving blacks guns, bwaahahaha. Sure they did.
None of those quotes illustrate either conditional ratifications nor rights to secede.
The States were not sovereign, never had been and, in fact, did not even exist until the NATION AS A WHOLE declared independence. They all realized they would cease to exist should the nation fall since they would be easy pickings for the Europeans. You could note that no State declared its independence by itself but all were working together to obtain the NATION'S independence from the earliest beginnings of the movement for independence.
There was nothing at the Constitutional Convention which indicates any belief in the right to secession. It was never brought up indicating the universal assumption was the union was perpetual.
BTW the discussion of secession by NE under Madison was the second time that idiocy had arisen in NE and Hamilton was very much alive when he assisted in its discrediting at its initial proclamation. Also, the Revolution did not occur because a new King was put on the throne whom we did not approve of unlike the Slaveocracy's insurrection due to the election of a president which it did not like. You think the election of a president not to your liking gives you a right to secede from the Union?
I have no idea what the nonsensical crack about "trading with the enemy (England) while southerners were spilling their blood..." could possibly refer to but it is more than likely another of your manifold misunderstandings or bizarre lies.
How many did Walter refer to? Brigades, companies, platoons, a couple of guys? How many? Answer very few, if any. BTW Walter is not a historian but an economist who enjoys being an iconoclast so I take any of his pronouncements on history with appropriate grains of salt.
No I did not say the CSA was a super race. I said that its ideology was almost identical to that of the Nazis which posited a super race. That is true and only deliberate ignorance would dispute it. That concept, in other words, is throughout the writings of the apologists of the Slaveocracy. There were Jews serving as generals in the U.S. army and in other government positions. Benjamin was more visible without doubt but he was a total anomaly compared to his compatriots.
Lincoln never said he was fighting the war to end slavery. Besides slavery had been ended in the North before the war without federal action only the border states still allowed it. So his actions have nothing to do with the indisputeable fact that the Slaveocrats were fighting ONLY to maintain slavery. Yes, the Slaveocrats ONLY seceded to preserve slavery the reasons thrumped up later were mere excuses. Their leaders clearly maintained the reason and only reason was to preserve the Slaveocracy. You want to fight with Jefferson Davis about that?
I would never instigate Blacks to do anything to anyone merely suggested your ideas would not receive a welcome in some circles of our citizenry. Who do you think they would be more receptive to one who is pushing for the celebration of the Jubilation T. Cornpones or one making fun of him?
If you could read and understand the Constitution of the United States you would understand that it is the supreme law of the land and overrules any State law in conflict with it. All laws can be challenged by States or individuals and the Supreme Court rules on those challenges. Sometimes the challengers are even upheld and the U.S. laws thrown out. I know you won't believe that but it has happened.
The reason no Slaveocrats were tried for treason, as you probably know, was because Lincoln's humanity called for reconciliation. There had been enough suffering and his was magnaminous enough not to rub the Slaveocrats noses in it. His "malice toward none" attitude survived even after his death since Johnson was not convicted and remained president. Had the Radical Republicans removed him there most certainly would have been trial for treason. Lincoln allowed the rebels to merely give their word and swear to be loyal citizens and he forgave them. The insurrection forced the federal government to grow to defend the nation and freedom. It was not growing before the war thus the Slaveocrats are responsible for the burst of federal power required to repress the insurrection. Slaveocracy is incompatible with freedom since it is based on the concept of one class of men losing their freedom and being forced to serve another.
You don't even understand the constitution you claim to support so your claimed allegiance means nothing to me. How one can support clear treason against the constitution and nation and claim to support both is beyond my comprehension. Had the insurrection succeeded both the CSA and the United States would have suffered greatly and the power of each would be much less than that of the two combined. Plus, war would have erupted between them periodically since the controversy over slavery would have led to armed conflicts. And freedom would have suffered all down the line.
You know, justshutupandtakeit, I have answered you with quotes and substance and you provide me nothing but venom, conjecture, insult, and opinion.
Your admiration of Hamilton is very telling. Hamilton hated the idea of a compact Union (not Republic as you contend), wanted a strong centralized government, gave us our first centralized bank that gave us our first bout of inflation, and gave us our first "rebellion". If you don't want to believe Hamilton and his ideas are screwed up, don't. It is no skin off of my nose and it only shows how much you will ignore to scoff at anyone else who poses a different opinion. I provided quotes, what did you give? But, of course, I am not nearly as educated as you since you say so. No, I have never read the words of those that were there < /sarcasm >. I, unlike you, don't prefer to read someone elses analysis instead choosing to read their own words. Is that too difficult for you? Uneducated? Hardly.
Habeaus Corpus cannot be suspended by an executive; ever. That is why it is in the first article of the Constitution; you know, the one set aside for the Legislature? If you wish to believe that then maybe you should read up on Ex Parte Milligan where Lincoln's own ex-Secretary of the Treasury ruled it was illegal along with the 1863 ex post facto law passed by the Congress and Senate. Maybe you should also read up on the comments of Lincoln's Attorney General regarding executive suspension of Habeaus Corpus. Apparently Lincoln didn't like it since he fired him. If you can provide me with proof positive that the founding fathers meant absolutely no separation of powers in the Constitution, I will gladly change my view and denounce Chief Justice Salmon Chase, Chief Justice John Marshall, and Judge Blackstone as heretics. It is something that others who believe the same thing have failed to do. But alas, since I am not as educated as you, I must be wrong. Is that the case here, also?
Do you deny it took the "mighty" Federal Army over 4 years to beat a relative handful of farmers with the industrial and personnel capacity of the North? Not only did the "slaveocracy" kill many of your new heroes but they did it without the benefit of shipping, mass manufacturing and a larger number of men to deploy. Do you also deny the Federal Army taking out their frustrations on non combattants and their property? The Federal Army did not come from just the states you mention. They were not all "farmers" as you would like to believe. As I said before, they must have spent more time dating their horses than gaining proficiency riding them since they couldn't get that cavalry concept down for a while. Here is a maddening couple of little facts that I thought you might enjoy: My Confederate ancestors did not own slaves; my Union ones did. My Confederate Ancestors volunteered while my Union ones were drafted. One of my ancestors fought in integrated companies while the other did not. I'll leave it up to you to figure it out which was which.
Well, if you had "heard" about all of the non-white members fighting for the CSA you apparently were not paying attention. Try looking
here for Jewish Confederates. For Hispanics, look up the 37 Texas.org site. For blacks, maybe an April 1861 Frederick Douglas qoute will help:
There are at this date tens of thousands of Negro Soldiers, wearing the Rebel uniform and armed with rifles on their shoulders. They are defending their country.
Laugh all you wish. If you have tried to find any reference material you have not looked very hard. It is readily available and still in print. As for Dr. Williams' article, he made reference to Blacks serving the CSA but he concentrated on 3,000 free Black slave owners in Louisiana that enlisted. All in all, it would seem historical fact outweighs your opinion and whatever hindsight analysis you swallowed as truth.
The quotes I gave you were the conditions that those states put forth for ratifying the Constitution. They made it very clear that whenever they felt the compact was broken, they reserved the right to return the government back to the people of their states. What part those quotes did you not understand? Not only that, it was implied that the Sovereign (State) could fire it's agent (Federal Government) whenever it chose. Don't believe me? The thirteen colonies seceded from the Crown and, eventually, the thirteen colonies seceded from the Articles of Confederation. That is why 5 NE states attempted to exercise their rights to secede from the Union. The traitors trading with the enemy remark comes from these same NE states that were openly trading with England while Southerners were spilling their blood fighting the enemy. What part of that did you not understand? On the other hand, if it is one of my "monumental misunderstandings or bizzare lies" why not refute it. Surely someone as educated as you studied the war of 1812. Or maybe you didn't and choose to slander me in an attempt to cover up your own ignorance. Hmmmm....
The states did in fact exist before the Union. If you don't believe me, why not try reading the Treaty of Paris of 1783? We were recognized as thirteen independent nations. The Constitution was a compact and was never
ass-u-med to be perpetual. That is why we were a Union and not a Nation; that is why we have a Federal Government, not a National Government. Try looking up the definitions of both sometime, you may be suprised. Another source you may try reading, if you deem it worthy, is Rawles Commentaries on the Constitution and see what he had to say about secession. Since he was Washington's Attorney General, he would have more first hand knowledge than either you or I. Incidentally, that book was the text that was taught at West Point when Jefferson Davis was a student. Of course this was before Justice Story and his Federalist theory of "people in the aggregate", the same one you espouse, came into print.
You didn't say the CSA was a "Super Race"? Let's see:
The representatives of the Super Race had every right to hold the Sub humans in captivity and developed a Tyranny to deprive them of their rights.
85 Posted on 09/15/2001 23:51:27 PDT by justshutupandtakeit
It would seem that you are mistaken. Damn, but I love it when a bigoted elitist forgets their own words. If you still want to deny it, fine; it would fit in well with your pattern of denying many things in order for you opinion to be right. But let us take a look at your comparison and shoot it full of holes, shall we? Hitler would never have aligned himself with what he would have considered to be an inferior race (Indians) nor would he have had Jews serving in his ranks as well as in his cabinet. That swiss cheese your almighty opinion enough for you? I'm sure you will try to pull another technicality out of your hat. I assure you that I wait with baited breath. If Jews served all over the Federal Army and in the Government, maybe you could name a few. You know, like I did. Also, you must not be acquainted with General Grant's
General Order #11.
If I can read and understand the Constitution? Coming from someone who cannot even see the separation of powers that does not mean much.
Nice backpedal on the Confederates convicted of treason. Why not give me something other than your opinion? Can you?
And finally you call my allegiance into question; again. How someone who is supposedly so educated and at the same time so ignorant of the fact that our Founding Fathers seceded from a large centralized government with a large standing army is astounding. How someone so educated can claim Southern secession was "only" about slavery when Lincoln himself admitted it was a problem that had been brewing for over thirty years (that was over tariffs) is beyond comprehension. You want to question my allegiance because I choose not to swallow lies? Okay, you are the same age as my parents. That would mean that you would have had the same oppurtunity to volunteer for the armed forces and serve your country as my father did. That would also mean that you would have had the oppurtunity to go to Viet Nam like my father did. He was lucky; he came back. It would appear you didn't bother to consider it. Maybe you could have had the chance to volunteer after Viet Nam was over and serve your country during a declared war like I did. Instead you did not. Question my loyalties and allegiance? You, sir, haven't moral authority to do so.