Posted on 08/27/2007 1:37:39 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
In the same year he was also put on the $5 bill. In 1909 he was put on the penny, and I believe he was the first real person to appear on US coinage.
Grant???
From the Wikipedia entry on "historical revisionism":
It is sometimes hard for a non-historian to distinguish between a book published by a historian doing peer-reviewed academic work, and a bestselling "amateur writer of history". For example, until David Irving lost his British libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and was found to be a "falsifier of history", the general public did not realize that his books were outside the canon of acceptable academic histories[3].
The distinction rests on the techniques used to write such histories. Accuracy and revision are central to historical scholarship. As in any scientific discipline, historians' papers are submitted to peer review. Instead of submitting their work to the challenges of peer review, revisionists rewrite history to support an agenda, often political, using any number of techniques and logical fallacies to obtain their results. Because of this, they are considered by the historian community to be writing flawed History. Some of their most common rhetorical and other techniques include the following[citation needed]:
Conspiracy theories
The selective use of facts
The denial or derision of known facts
Argument from ignorance (hence the historian community's emphasis on the importance of historical memory and historical studies)
The assumption of unproven facts
The fabrication of facts
The obfuscation of facts
Claims of "counter-genocide", leading to a confusion between victims and executioners (for example, the Bombing of Dresden in World War II has been said by Holocaust deniers to be a "counter-genocide", thus transforming the German people into victims and henceforth exempting them from any kind of moral responsibility; the term has also been used concerning the Rwandan genocide and the Armenian Genocide)
Fallacy of equivocation
Appeal to consequences
Irrelevant conclusions
Burden of proof (due to the complex nature of what can be considered a historical "proof" - which differs from a logical proof - revisionists sometime ask historians to further prove an event which has been reasonably proved by historic standards, hence accepted as a fact by the historian community)
Appeal to fear
Appeal to spite
Association fallacy
Hasty generalization
The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions
The use of unpleasant euphemisms to describe opposing facts
The two wrongs make a right fallacy
Wishful thinking
Constant attack against those disputing their views (Ad hominem) (close to slander and libel)
Meaningless statements
Reversal of blame (example: accusing Jews of provoking the Holocaust, or Armenians the genocide of 1915)
Nice bit of legalese in that circular logic which made Marshall famous.
The 10th Amendment didn’t need the word “expressly” to retain meaning and force anymore than it needed the phrase, “this means you”.
It declares that the powers ‘not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people’, without equivocation, or condition.
Marshall was a traitor for imagining that one was needed.
No, we can’t leave 1860’s politics behind.
The wrong side won the war and the issues that were the primary cause of the war have never been addressed. These causes have been swept under the black cloak of slavery and dismissed.
Thus, 1860’s politics will continue to cut away at the unity of this nation.
Judging just by how you use the term 'traitor' I'd have to say that Chief Justice Marshall's understanding of the Constitution beats the hell out of your understanding of it.
Not “implied”, the word that describes it is “imagined”.
It wasn’t mentioned because it didn’t exist. There was no implication, only imagination by greedy collectivists following a philosophy which continues to be a problem today.
So, I take it you can't refute the changing of the numbers of Supreme Court members by Lincoln and the Republicans. From the Congressional Globe:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall hereafter consist of a chief justice and nine associate justices ...
Some dredge. Are you having fun yet?
OK.
Around you guys? Always. Nobody disputes the increase in the size of the court. But as I pointed out, Lincoln's "court packing" is no worse than Jefferson's "court packing" and not as bad as Van Buren's "court packing". You need to keep these things in perspective.
Since they didn’t have representation as a state, they were not, in fact, a state.
Chief Justice Chase’s whining actually means Texas was never a state.
Their joining the Union was predicated upon the right to secede.
Actually, they were. Since their acts of unilateral secession were illegal then they never were out of the Union to begin with. And the fact that Congress refused to seat their delegations after their rebellion had been put down doesn't change that.
Still, feel free to post from any clause in the Constitution that you feel supports your claim.
The firing on Ft. Sumter was a response to a bad thing.
Nonsense.
Actually...we can easily go deeper than that.
The North very well could have liberalized itself bankrupt as the former USSR and most liberal-sytled nations, and begged to join the South.
At which point both nations would have been much better off.
Every liberal vs. conservative battle in this nation is because the war of Northern Aggression didn’t settle any questions except one:
The South could be beaten, militarily, by the corrupt in the North.
This nation would have surrendered to the muslims but for those of us still willing to rhetorically re-fight the War Between the States today.
Who cares what they believe?
Economic realities tend to drive these things and they are best determined in retrospect.
And that was the act of war that began the War of Northern Aggression.
Firing on Ft. Sumter was prompted by that act, and was, in this light, defensive.
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.