Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cowboyway
Nonsense.

Fact. The South had initiated hostilities when they chose to bombard Sumter into surrender. Having attacked the United States and started a war against them the South left itself open for the U.S. fighting back.

Your entire argument along these lines is based on your insane theory that once bonds are formed, they can't be dissolved.

In the first place they weren't dissolved. They were broken, walked out on, deserted. In the second place I have never once said that secession is not allowed. What I have disputed is the insane theory that the Constitution allows one side can walk out at will and shaft the other side. If the bonds are to be dissolved then it takes two sides to dissolve them.

Example: your wife decides to take a walk (she's finally done with your illogical rantings). Are you going to forbid her to leave because her name is on the mortgage and you want her to hang around just to contribute towards the servicing of that dept?

Your example falls apart immediately when you ask if I'm going to forbid her to leave. If we want to apply your lame analogy to the southern actions, then I don't have a say in the matter. The wife walked out. She deserted. It's not a matter of her taking her paycheck with her, it's the fact that she's leaving me with the credit card bills that she had run up. I'm not worried about selling the house because she took part of that with her, along with whatever community property she could get her hands on. And then there's the little matter of her firing a shotgun at me on the way out the door. Now, do you want to be the husband in that situation?

So, in your pie-in-the-sky world, what happens when no consensus is reached?

Why wouldn't it? There was no great hue and cry about forcing the southern states to remain. Compromise could have been reached and a settlement satisfactory to both sides could have been arrived at. But in your gloom-and-doom world the North was out to ravage the South anyway they could. Jeez.

Southern leaders understood the central government leanings of the yankees and the inherent dangers of a central government on states rights and fought to prevent it from happening.

That is such a crock of manure, especially in light of the actions of the Davis administration. The South owned the federal government for most of our existence prior to 1860. Presidents, House and Senate leaders, judges, cabinet members, government employees, the South had had a disproportionate level of influence over all of them. If the federal government had become dangerously centralized during that time it was Southern politicians who did it.

Of course, I understand that you have a problem with states rights, as well as other sections of the Constitution, particularly anything dealing with freedom of the people.

More nonsense. I'm a big believer in states rights, always have been. It is the Southron concept of "State's Rights for me, but not for thee" that I object to. Your idea that only Southern states had rights and the Northern states could be trampled on merely by announcing that you were leaving is what I find so amusing.

193 posted on 01/18/2007 12:33:25 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
In the first place they weren't dissolved. They were broken, walked out on, deserted.

Biased semantics.

Your example falls apart immediately when you ask if I'm going to forbid her to leave.

Wrong. That is the crux of the matter. You can't forbid her to leave.

And then there's the little matter of her firing a shotgun at me on the way out the door.

She fired the shotgun when you insisted on dumping some of your junk off on her new doorstep.

If the federal government had become dangerously centralized during that time it was Southern politicians who did it.

Cracker, please.! You know, I know and everybody else knows that the government began the road towards irreversible centralization at Appomattox.

Your idea that only Southern states had rights and the Northern states could be trampled on merely by announcing that you were leaving is what I find so amusing.

What a crock. First of all, I'm assuming that you're ingesting large quantities of cheese as you post this gruel.

Second, Southern states had the right to leave and northern states had the right to protest.

194 posted on 01/18/2007 2:03:57 PM PST by cowboyway (My heroes have always been Cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson