Posted on 02/18/2012 11:09:23 AM PST by HMS Surprise
There is nothing more irritating to a warrior-poet than an unwillingness to debate. If speech is troubling, or blatantly false, or amateurish, then it will fall of its own weight. I don’t need, and I suspect a majority of truthseekers don’t want, an administrator hovering above the public forum deciding which issues are too controversial for polite company.
The Civil War has become untouchable, unless you agree with the standard arguments. 1. Lincoln was a god among men. 2. The South was evil. 3. Union is the ultimate goal of the American experiment. 4. The Federal government’s design trumps the rights of the People, and the States. 5. Political bands are eternal, and must be preserved at all costs. 6. The ends justify the means.
The arguments for the necessity of the War between the States are considered unassailable, and I have noticed lately that the political-correctness has reached such a high level that even purportedly conservative blogs are beginning to remove threads that stray into pro-rebellion territory.
I understand the temptation to ignore this issue for political expediency, but the goal of individual liberty (personal freedom), as well as State sovereignty (political freedom), can never be accomplished unless we acknowledge and understand that the Civil War planted the seeds of the eventual unconstitutional federal takeover of every aspect of American life.
Some basics that are undeniable, albiet censorable, follows.
(Excerpt) Read more at teapartytribune.com ...
Source, please.
-----
All it could do was invalidate its state government,
LOL! That's a legal impossibility. A State government cannot invalidate itself, nor can it be invalidated by an inferior power. I've already posted legal sources to illustrate that it is up to the State whether or not to abide by the Constitution.
-----
ruin a lot of property, and get a lot of people killed. Unfortunately, some of the wrong people got killed.
Yeah. Too bad the federal government just didn't follow the Constitution and adhere to Law of Nations like it was SUPPOSED to.
Withdrawing from the contested areas and sending an ambassador to the government of the Confederate States to discuss recompense would have kept a LOT of people from dying.
Source, please.
-----
All it could do was invalidate its state government,
LOL! That's a legal impossibility. A State government cannot invalidate itself, nor can it be invalidated by an inferior power. I've already posted legal sources to illustrate that it is up to the State whether or not to abide by the Constitution.
-----
ruin a lot of property, and get a lot of people killed. Unfortunately, some of the wrong people got killed.
Yeah. Too bad the federal government just didn't follow the Constitution and adhere to Law of Nations like it was SUPPOSED to.
Withdrawing from the contested areas and sending an ambassador to the government of the Confederate States to discuss recompense would have kept a LOT of people from dying.
Source, please.
-----
All it could do was invalidate its state government,
LOL! That's a legal impossibility. A State government cannot invalidate itself, nor can it be invalidated by an inferior power. I've already posted legal sources to illustrate that it is up to the State whether or not to abide by the Constitution.
-----
ruin a lot of property, and get a lot of people killed. Unfortunately, some of the wrong people got killed.
Yeah. Too bad the federal government just didn't follow the Constitution and adhere to Law of Nations like it was SUPPOSED to.
Withdrawing from the contested areas and sending an ambassador to the government of the Confederate States to discuss recompense would have kept a LOT of people from dying.
Source, please.
-----
All it could do was invalidate its state government,
LOL! That's a legal impossibility. A State government cannot invalidate itself, nor can it be invalidated by an inferior power. I've already posted legal sources to illustrate that it is up to the State whether or not to abide by the Constitution.
-----
ruin a lot of property, and get a lot of people killed. Unfortunately, some of the wrong people got killed.
Yeah. Too bad the federal government just didn't follow the Constitution and adhere to Law of Nations like it was SUPPOSED to.
Withdrawing from the contested areas and sending an ambassador to the government of the Confederate States to discuss recompense would have kept a LOT of people from dying.
Source, please.
-----
All it could do was invalidate its state government,
LOL! That's a legal impossibility. A State government cannot invalidate itself, nor can it be invalidated by an inferior power. I've already posted legal sources to illustrate that it is up to the State whether or not to abide by the Constitution.
-----
ruin a lot of property, and get a lot of people killed. Unfortunately, some of the wrong people got killed.
Yeah. Too bad the federal government just didn't follow the Constitution and adhere to Law of Nations like it was SUPPOSED to.
Withdrawing from the contested areas and sending an ambassador to the government of the Confederate States to discuss recompense would have kept a LOT of people from dying.
Jim wasn't kidding about multiple posts.
[sorry, guys]
Genealogy is a great hobby. For all I know, you and I are related through Virginia ties.
A direct ancestor of mine came to Virginia in 1617, and a third cousin of mine was the first president of Jamestown in 1607 (he was inept and they deposed him). A first cousin of mine was the chief London financier of the Jamestown expedition.
Of those I mentioned in posts above Chief Justice John Marshall is my second cousin many times removed.
Of course the Confederate Government could have withdrawn from the contested areas.... at least, until some country, any country recognized them... Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
We would be hearing the southern partisans writing their complaints from Antarctica.
But the federal government is not inferior to the state governments. Since state governments were created by the federal, it would be the state governments that were inferior. The federal government, by contrast, was not created by the states, but rather was created by the previous Union to be more perfect.
That is a total falsehood. Please post a third party substantiation of that statement.
-----
The federal government, by contrast, was not created by the states, but rather was created by the previous Union to be more perfect.
LOL!
States unilaterally SECEEDED from the Articles of Confederation because the were and ARE superior to the federal government.
§ 1214. Nor can the cession be justly an object of jealousy to any state; or in the slightest degree impair its sovereignty. The ceded district is of a very narrow extent; and it rests in the option of the state, whether it shall be made or not.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
Even in 1830, legal treatise were saying it was the STATE that determined the FEDERAL capitols' location.
The superior power made the decision, not the inferior power that it created.
You statements are ridiculous.
All states since Vermont were created by the Federal Government. The states did not leave the Confederation, rather the UNION transformed from the form of the Confederation to the form of our current Constitution. States petitioned the US Government from Vermont on for permission to join the Union.
When Washington was inaugurated, the outgoing president of the United States, Cyrus Griffin stood next to him. the Union transformed, the Confederation transferred its powers to the new Union by statute. There was no secession of any state. Rhode Island joined the New transformed union last, not liking the tariff status of being outside the new Union, but still retaining ts status as part of the Confederation, they realized the greater perfection of the new form.
I've posted this before, but in case you missed it;
But the seceding states were certainly justified upon that principle; and from the duty which every state is acknowledged to owe to itself, and its own citizens by doing whatsoever may best contribute to advance its own happiness and prosperity; and much more, what may be necessary to the preservation of its existence as a state.
Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, Section XIII
The States seceded from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
-----
You've yet to answer any question and continually refuse to source anything to substantiate your assertions.
Just blah, blah, blah. This is the way it is because I say so.
Have a nice day.
Donmaeker is a fascist at heart, he hates states rights and the republic. For him it is Union uber alles.
Really, you can Google this stuff. I don’t see why I need to teach you elementary history.
“According to their own terms for modification (Article XIII), the Articles would still have been in effect until 1790, the year in which the last of the 13 states ratified the new Constitution. The Congress under the Articles continued to sit until November 1788, overseeing the adoption of the new Constitution by the states, and setting elections. By that date, 11 of the 13 states had ratified the new Constitution. On September 13, 1788, it published an announcement that the new Constitution had been ratified by the necessary nine states, set the first Wednesday in February 1789 for the presidential electors to meet and select a new president, and set the first Wednesday of March 1789 as the day the new government would take over and the government under the Articles of Confederation would come to an end. On that same September 13, it determined that New York would remain the national capital.
So lets review: The states adopted the new constitution. The Congress of the confederation itself decided on the day that the new government would take over. There was no secession of the various states.
Actually, I am quite amazed as how good the Republic is. Rather than being a collection of sovereign states, or a central national government it is, as Madison wrote in Federalist Papers 39 neither one thing or the other, and a new thing entirely.
Traitors wouldn’t like me, that is true.
Blah, blah, blah.
The right of the majority to bind the minority, results from a due regard to the peace of society; and the little chance of unanimity in large societies or assemblies, which, if obtainable, would certainly be very desirable; but inasmuch as that is not to be expected, whilst the passions, interests, and powers of reason remain upon their present footing among mankind, in all matters relating to the society in general, some mode must be adopted to supply the want of unanimity. The most reasonable and convenient seems to be, that the will of the majority should supply this defect; for if the will of the majority is not permitted to prevail in questions where the whole society is interested, that of the minority necessarily must. The society therefore, in such a case, would be under the influence of a minority of its members, which, generally speaking, can on no principle be justified.
If you like, that is a paragraph from St. George Tucker’s writings that you quoted.
You posts only prove one thing. You have no concept of the original intent of the USC to create a republic. The concept is totally lost on you. Unfortunately you are not alone.
Cherry-picker.
If you read the whole thing, you might actually understand it.
The constitution of the United States, then being that instrument by which the federal government hath been created; its powers defined, and limited; and the duties, and functions of its several departments prescribed; the government, thus established, may be pronounced to be a confederate republic, composed of several independent, and sovereign democratic states, united for their common defence, and security against foreign nations, and for the purposes of harmony, and mutual intercourse between each other; each state retaining an entire liberty of exercising, as it thinks proper, all those parts of its sovereignty, which are not mentioned in the constitution, or act of union, as parts that ought to be exercised in common.
Oh. The emphasis on retaining an entire liberty part.......
was HIS!
I suppose the point is that people differ on their interpretation of the law.
Therefore, persons of good will submit issues to the properly instituted legal authorities, and abide by the result. Of course if they are not persons of good will they may start shooting, as the rebels did at Ft. Sumter.
After the war was over, Mr White asked to have his Confederate bonds issued by repaid. His request was denied, as the authority of Texas to issue bonds had be vacated by their insurrection. Texas v. White.
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.