Replies

You, sir, are stuck in Argentina in your mind. Thank God, I am not, nor are the majority of freedom loving Americans. That's what obsession with a slave south will do to ya, though.

To defend stand watie, I would say that, rather than being stuck in Argentina in his mind, he's actually quite earnest in trying to recover and guard our civil liberties. Technically, he is absolutely correct in his supposition that the Federal executive has not the authority to arrest members of the press - A limited construction of the Constitution shows no such right. While the Congress can, in theory, grant additional powers to the President via legislation, they are also restricted from doing so with respect to the Press, via the first amendment.

(I would say, Stand, that defeating our enemies, foreign and domestic, is something that the Government should have the right to do - It sounds like you and LS are disagreeing over the level which defines a domestic entity as "the enemy.")

I still think that treason is a serious crime which OUGHT to be punished by the Federal government [but isn't]. But to arrest editors for merely asking whether the South had a point in seceeding - particularly so soon after the Northeast had threatened to do so - does not rise to the level of "treason."

Regards,
~dt~

actually, i'm CONCERNED that a future LEFTIST (read DIMocRAT!) POTUS might decide that ANYTHING printed or spoken, which he/she disagrees with, is TREASONOUS & therefore, like lincoln, might well start locking people away.

fwiw, the 1st Amendment was to protect UNPOPULAR speech. popular speech needs NO protection!

free dixie,sw