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

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 ]


To: cowboyway
Biased semantics.

Completely true.

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

I wasn't asked. And that still doesn't give her the right to take what she wants and leave the obligations without compensation.

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

If that is indeed true then how can you use it as an excuse for the rebellion? Clairvoyance?

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

Nonsense. It's what you've been saying all along. States can leave and the remaining states have no rights or say in the matter. They can take what they want and the remaining states have no right to compensation. They can repudiate debt and the remaining states have no protections, just the obligation to pick up what the seceding state left behind. The remaining states are nothing. They have no protections, no rights, no say in the matter. So sayeth you.

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

So you contradict yourself when you said you didn't think both sides had rights. Regardless, the Southern states did not have the right to leave unilaterally. The Supreme Court decided that in 1869.

196 posted on 01/18/2007 2:52:04 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | 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