Posted on 09/10/2005 4:46:12 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
Yes I do. Because the shoe definitely fits.
Without the ratification of Virginia, the Constitution was not binding on her people.
No shit, Sherlock?
There would be no delegated powers to resume. So the only question is, did Virginia, by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution?
Yes it did, or haven't you read the ratification document?
When today's 'neo-confederates' claim slavery had nothing to do with the origins of the Civil War the claim is nothing but a brazen lie, and they bloody well know it.
There's a reprint of an 1866 book History of the Rebellion in Bradley County, East Tennessee that supports what you've said. In this case history of a loyal county, the Unionist majority was abused at the hands of a Confederate regime that resembled an organized crime syndicate as much as an American government. The Rebel cutthroats were so noxious, even many former Confederate supporters helped the Union army bring the bushwhackers to justice.
In perusing the Tennessee secession vote returns, it's clear that slavery was the motivator in this state. Lowland Middle and West Tennessee counties supported disunion. The highland counties of the East voted to remain loyal. One of the few East Tennessee counties to vote for secession was Monroe County which had a more Deep South character and slavery presence than most counties. But even in lowland counties there still were many loyal Unionists. As the North Carolina governer admitted, the revolution belonged to the politicans and not the people. Nowhere in the South, did the rebellion enjoy the staying power to sustain itself in the face of reverses. When Grant and Sherman made the going tough, the Confederacy folded up quickly.
But the myth of the Solid South stuck and sadly many Southerners react to any negative comments about the CSA like it was an attack on the whole region, motherhood and apple pie.
Being the work was published one year after the Civil War concluded the details should be extremely fresh, unlike the rehashed neo-history being peddled today.
"Lowland Middle and West Tennessee counties supported disunion. The highland counties of the East voted to remain loyal."
It's really sickening so-called Americans would be willing to tare their own country to shreds for the sake of keeping men as slaves for profit.
"As the North Carolina governor admitted, the revolution belonged to the politicians and not the people. Nowhere in the South, did the rebellion enjoy the staying power to sustain itself in the face of reverses. When Grant and Sherman made the going tough, the Confederacy folded up quickly." Here is an elected Governor of a Southern state which as a state reluctantly joined in the rebellion, but the man is stating the truth, yet so many years later the pro-confederates of our era refuse to address the real facts and their real motives, which are un-American.
Like our nation is not confronted with enough major problems, some people are cemented to the failures of the distant past.
"But the myth of the Solid South stuck and sadly many Southerners react to any negative comments about the CSA like it was an attack on the whole region, motherhood and apple pie.
I realize more than ever before there was never a solid South when it came to breaking away from the Union.
Henderson County, Tennessee - Lost Tranquility: 1861-1865
Maybe the 'neo-confederates' should at least attempt to exist in the real world, not the forever 'lost cause'. .
...and yet YOU managed to make about NINE posts on THIS thread before making your pathetic, non-responsive, poorly drawn answer to the original question. ISN'T that right professor?
But that's par for the course for you gray diaper babies, isn't it? When you're cornered or getting you butt whipped in a debate, you hunker down and post the Tenth amendment over and over emphasizing different parts of it, or you disappear in the ether for a few days until the conversation has moved on, then make these type of pathetic responses.
Fare il grande from Professor Cacasodo...
Oy, lolol
rotflmRao AT you.
free dixie,sw
That certainly hasn't happened, you are the ones who can't cite a clause granting the federal government the powers to force a state to remain in the union by military force.
... you hunker down and post the Tenth amendment over and over emphasizing different parts of it ...
It's a really simple clause, even a child can understand it. Sorry for your lack of comprehension.
... or you disappear in the ether for a few days until the conversation has moved on ...
It's called having a job and/or a life. Some of us are not on welfare, so our time is somewhat limited.
... then make these type of pathetic responses.
YOU are the one with the "potty" mouth. KJV Luke 6:45 'A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.'
Please refrain from using profanity sir.
Bahaha! That's a straw-man of your own making, have fun knocking him down. When you get done maybe you can show us the clause in the USC that permits the seceding states to commit fraud, steal Federal property, and attack Federal installations on their way out. The Confederacy was a criminal operation from its inception until it's last feeble breath.
It's a really simple clause, even a child can understand it.
Which helps explain why you neo-secessionists worship it so completely and rely on it so thoroughly, while ignoring most of the rest of the document. Yet it[amendment X] does nothing to explain the fraud, crimes, and treason committed by your secessionist fore-bearers on their way out the door does it?
Some of us are not on welfare, so our time is somewhat limited.
...and yet YOU seem to have plenty of time to reread posts I've made to other members, translate the phrases, and post the translations back up for your fellow cultists, like a good little Ruffiano huh?
'A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.'
Well I certainly wouldn't question the Christian Identity of anyone who would use Holy Scripture to justify holding another man in bondage, so I won't question yours.
Arrivederci Rompicogliotti!
Time and again, you prove you've got nothing.
We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People
--Virginia Ratification of the Constitution of the United States
At least you never tire of losing, meaning I can always come back here for a source of endless entertainment.
Were there simply too many occurrances of Grant retiring to his tent and sobbing uncontrollably to pick one out?
Or, more likely, you're just out looking for further excuses to toss out your little Sopranoisms. Non, are you impressed? I always assume that's why little mac does it.
So, then, you're saying that you don't understand the phrase, "by these presents?"
Not as sickening as, say, someone who would see every man, woman, and child in the state murdered prior to placing a single limit on their political power.
Rather than concede to the State of Missouri the right to demand that my government shall not enlist troops within her limits, or bring troops into the State whenever it pleases, or move troops at its own will into, out of, or through the State; rather than concede to the State of Missouri for one single instant the right to dictate to my government in any matter, however unimportant, I would [pointing at the three state officials] see you, and you, and you, and you and every man, woman and child in the State, dead and buried.
Psycho.
Didn't I say, "It got lost?"
Meaning, "I didn't see it."
You and non should get together, you can help him with the phrase, "by these presents," and he can help explain what "lost" means. Then you two can dress up in shawls and play Lincoln & Speed to your heart's desire.
Until then, Heyworth seems to be holding his own without your help, Norman Bates.
What the hell are you talking about, psycho?
It has occured to me, on several occasions, that prior generations of Northerners had much more respect for their own war dead.
You must mean the vicious attacks on loyal American citizens throughout state Missouri from the likes of crazed confederate animals such as Bloody Bill Anderson & Quantrill collection of rabid, renegade killers.
What you can't seem to fathom is the majority of Americans could care less about your little “Lost Cause”.
Maybe it's also time for you to upgrade your attire a tad and not look so crabby stuck in that confederate time warp.
Of course there's always been a few Southerners who consider the "Yankee" to be every bit the foreigner than Europeans are. Those with such an attitude might not see how reprehensible the Confederate foreign policy would have been to a George Washington. One such notable "Southern nationalist" was that hothead fire eater who before his postwar suicide proclaimed "I hate the Yankee race".
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.
