Posted on 06/23/2016 2:04:08 PM PDT by ColdOne
A measure to bar confederate flags from cemeteries run by the Department of Veterans Affairs was removed from legislation passed by the House early Thursday.
The flag ban was added to the VA funding bill in May by a vote of 265-159, with most Republicans voting against the ban. But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both supported the measure. Ryan was commended for allowing a vote on the controversial measure, but has since limited what amendments can be offered on the floor.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Good post HD.
DegenerateLamp is the only person I’ve ever encountered that holds the asinine assertion that anyone can quit at any time and for any reason and not call that anarchistic rebellion. His is an outlier opinion among outliers.
When the Colonialists finally rebelled they did so honestly stating that what they undertook was openly illegal. They chose the divine right of rebellion and self-defense. And they were frank about their chances - they knew that, should they fail, they would all hang. They accepted the risks with eyes open and hearts steeled.
Likewise, the southern slavocracy knew the writing on the wall. They knew that the civilized world was turning away from the insidious practice of slavery. They knew that sentiment against slavery in America was mounting. Of course they also knew that it was sentiment not expressed by action. Beyond limiting expansion of slavery into the west northerners were more or less content to cluck-cluck about their southern neighbors and otherwise maintain the status quo.
So southern leaders had a couple of choices they could make. They could have responded to the writing and worked on mitigation plans so that they could minimize their eventual losses of “property”. They could continue to ignore the 500 gorilla and do nothing to plan for the future. They could orchestrate a PR campaign to try to increase the favorables on the Peculiar Institution.
Or they could mount a rebellion of their own and couch it in rhetoric flourishes about “secession” in order to assuage their guilt. That’s the long & short of it. They had a hissy fit over an election and set on a ruinous course that resulted in the terrible loss of American lives.
The whole carefully orchestrated and built, block upon block, big picture for the Slave Powers was seriously threatened. Lincoln exposed that whole giant conspiracy in his House Divided Speech. He named names, condemned the lot of them from Chief Justice Taney down to Stephen Douglas. It's all right there for those who have ears to hear. He details the long pathway that had been steering the country towards being "all slave". Taney had just made the decision that a black man was not, could not and never would be a "citizen" of the USA.
Of course the narrative of the noble south defending its "lost cause" was later laid on heavily. But there is no way possible to separate the noble and romanticized "Confederacy" from the systematic institution of slavery.
My question to DL would be: Did any free State attempt to independently join the Confederacy? ....... And if so, would they have been independently allowed to join?
But you are correct and I should heed your advice. The man is an outlier and should be cut loose.
Because apparently you can't read.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
You can lie to yourself, but you aren't fooling anyone with objectivity.
It was the loss of that money that caused the Invasion of the South. The intent was to get that money back, not free the slaves.
That "free the slaves" stuff was just the "after the fact" cover story for the love of money that motivated the war.
It's always about money. Always.
Just skip the House Divided Speech. See if I care. Your loss.
I will not dispute that Abraham Lincoln was a very intelligent and very articulate man. His writing is some of the finest I have ever read, and his reasoning seems quite clear and relevant.
But you can't prove something that isn't true no matter how flowery are your words or how lofty is your rhetoric.
The man deliberately started a war in which 750,000 people were killed and much subsequent destruction of both society and fundamental rights occurred.
Lincoln put the Federal Government on the course towards total dominance and that is why it has become the gargantuan monstrosity with which we are attempting to deal with today.
New York (Media and Finance) and Washington DC, currently have an outsized role in our lives because their power was consolidated by Lincoln's actions in that war.
Most lost cause losers recognize the foolishness of your “argument” and at least attempt to proffer some sort of hackneyed justification for rebelling. It’s common to hear them bleating about enduring “tyranny” - even though the south dominated the government for most of the United States’ 70 years.
The Founders recognized the difference between natural law and codified law. None of them accepted the notion of unilateral secession or dissolution “at pleasure”.
The "cause" which was lost by that war was that of a nation founded on the principles of natural law. Abraham Lincoln was the man who rebelled against a nation that was "four score and seven years" old, and created by the very same act as the Confederacy. The confederates were the ones keeping true to the founding principles, it was the Union which had rebelled.
What was Greeley saying April 15, 1861?
I have to admit that your delusion is utter and complete ;’}
What time was it? Greeley was always all over the map.
Once the Confederacy started the war then Greeley was supportive of the war effort, if not always supportive of Lincoln's actions in pursuing it. In may ways Greeley was far more blood-thirsty than the Southern supporters paint Lincoln as being.
Oh for God's sake, your claims are growing crazier by the hour.
Hey Peabody, are you and the Lampster related?
That is completely wrong. If you go back to the 1787-88 debates in the New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, and North Carolina legislatures, you will see many examples of secession discussions. There were several efforts to codify, modify, and place limits on states involved in seceding.
All of these efforts prove the opposite of the statement you made. State legislatures would not make secession illegal, and thus neither did the Constitution.
We do know that 74 years later, that the United States Congress judged secession to be legal....unilateral or not.
12/12/1860 On this date the United States House of Representatives proposed the following Constitutional Amendment:
”Whenever a convention of delegates, chosen in any State by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, shall rescind and annul its ratification of this Constitution, the President shall nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint commissioners, not exceeding three, to confer with the duly appointed agents of such State, and agree upon the disposition of the public property and territory belonging to the United States lying within such State, and upon the proportion of the public debt to be assumed and paid by such State; and if the President shall approve the settlement agreed upon by the commissioners, he shall thereupon transmit the same to the Senate; and upon the ratification thereof by two-thirds of the senators present, he shall forthwith issue his proclamation declaring the assent of the United States to the withdrawal of such State from the Union.”.
Since secession was not specifically prohibited by the Constitution, Congress attempted to pass an amendment requiring approval.
It passed the House 154-14. It soon failed as well as at least two more efforts to legislate rules regarding secession.
Efforts were made but unilateral secession was never prohibited by law.
Oh for God's sake, your claims are growing crazier by the hour.
You are welcome to produce your source of the value and origin of the cargo carried by the New York shipping industry. Here is mine.
BroJoeK has already admitted that the 1/4th of the population living in the South contributed 50% of the total export value. The sources I have say it was 72% in 1860.
Put your source on the table and let us examine it.
You mean after the Lincoln "heavies" had paid him a visit? He was saying stuff like "The South is Evil! They have no right to leave! Up with the Union!" and so forth.
Pretty much whatever words he needed to articulate to stay out of prison.
He became a fire breathing "damn them all to hell" Republican.
But Lincoln had that effect on people, particularly the Maryland Legislature.
I find it interesting that Lincoln's method of doing business was quite similar to that which became known as "The Chicago Way." I wonder if Springfield is the source from which this methodology originated?
Like I said. Crazier by the hour.
You should take the "red" pill.
Reality is not that bad.
Before he was threatened, he was solidly in favor of States rights to independence. After he was threatened, he was solidly against states rights to independence.
This is "The Chicago Way."
People just suddenly change their minds without any obvious reason why they did so.
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.