Posted on 12/20/2001 4:02:40 PM PST by t-shirt
Court Backs Confederate Banner Ban At Cemetery U.S. Judge's Ruling Reversed on Appeal By Brooke A. Masters Washington Post
Thursday, December 20, 2001
The Department of Veterans Affairs can ban the daily display of the Confederate battle flag at a Maryland cemetery where more than 3,000 Southern prisoners are buried, a federal appeals court has ruled, reversing a lower court decision that said the ban violated the First Amendment....
See Entire Washington Post Story by clicking here
Actually, Mr. Lincoln's legal arguments were "as dead as Kelsey's nuts." Perhaps you should review James Ostrowski's "AN ANALYSIS OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S LEGAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SECESSION," located here:
http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html
Enjoy!
;>)
More to the point, the Constitution nowhere 'delegates...nor prohibits' secession, and all of your "bleating" will never erase the troublesome Tenth Amendment...
59 posted on 12/21/01 4:59 PM Pacific by Who is John Galt?
;>)
1. The Federals attacked the Southern States with 75,000 troops after Ft. Sumter was fired on because it was being resupplied, which Lincoln promised not to do. Who is the aggressor here? The Federals. Lincoln.
2.Applying present-day turmoil on 140 year old history is utter bullsh*t....leftwing NAACP post-9/11 claptrap labelling Confederates as "terrorists". More anti-Southern propaganda that I take strong exception to......
3.What you are totally, blissfully ignorant of is the fact that the Confederates were and ARE AMERICANS. How many Southerners do you suppose died in WTC? Where the hell do you get off comparing Confederates to the goddamned Taliban? I would begin calling names at this point had I no restraint. Your ignorance is showing. Don't let it happen again
Nor will Your bleating make it "outside the law", old man. Why don't you go back to the AOL board with McTee so you can sucker the newbies?
Actually, Mr. Lincoln's legal arguments were "as dead as Kelsey's nuts." Perhaps you should review James Ostrowski's "AN ANALYSIS OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S LEGAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SECESSION," located here:
Ho hum.
The Militia Act of 1792 gave clear power to the president to act in states where the federal courts were not functioning. All your blather won't change the fact that Lincoln was completely justified and completely within the law.
Walt
More to the point, the Constitution nowhere 'delegates...nor prohibits' secession, and all of your "bleating" will never erase the troublesome Tenth Amendment...
Ho hum.
By any reading of the tenth amendment whereby the states retain a right to secession (they don't, but just for argument), then the people retain the right to maintain the Union in perpetuity. And that is just what they have done.
One thing about all this secession crap. It ignores the rights of the people who wanted to remain loyal to the old flag. I mean the white people of course. The blacks were to be kept "where it is all dark forever."
One good thing we can all agree on about the civil war is that it started a long and painful journey towards civil rights for all, right?
Another thing with which I am sure you will agree is that Jefferson Davis bears exactly the same type of blame as President Lincoln. I mean the CSA constitution contains exactly the same '10th amendment' language, and yet Davis definitely maintained the right to coerce the states. To whit:
"Conscription dramatized a fundamental paradox in the Confederate war effort: the need for Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. Pure Jeffersonians could not accept this. The most outspoken of them, [Governor] Joseph Brown of Georgia, denounced the draft as a "dangerous usurpation by Congress of the reserved rights of the states...at war with all the principles for which Georgia entered into the revolution."
In reply Jefferson Davis donned the mantle of Hamilton. The Confederate Constitution, he pointed out to Brown, gave Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and to "provide for the common defense." It also contained another clause (likewise copied from the U.S. Constitution) empowering Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Brown had denied the constitutionality of conscription because the Constitution did not specifically authorize it. This was good Jeffersonian doctrine, sanctified by generations of southern strict constructionists. But in Hamiltonian language, Davis insisted that the "necessary and proper" clause legitimized conscription. No one could doubt the necessity "when our very existence is threatened by armies vastly superior in numbers." Therefore "the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object...if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional."
--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson P.433
Notice that governor Brown calls all this "revolution". Revolutions, by definition are outside the law. But it is clear from Davis' own words that he thought he had the power to coerce the states in regard to conscript soldiers.
Now, was he wrong, or right?
Now, consider the words of Chief JusticeMarshall:
"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or of creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people," thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair reading of the whole instrument."
--Chief Justice John Marshall, majority opinion, McCullogh v. Maryland, 1819.
And that is exactly what Davis did 43 years later. He might have had 'McCullogh' in his back pocket. Guess he lost it after the war.
Where's that Rawle crap you ususally spout?
The concept of legal secession under our system was unknown to the framers. It was a construct by Calhoun and others made from whole cloth. And it won't stand the light of the whole record.
I'll give you credit for one thing; persistance. I hada couple of morons I used to rant and rave with over all this on AOL, and when I found this Davis quote from "Battle Cry of Freedom", they pretty much faded away. And if you won't condemn Davis with exactly the same language you use for Lincoln-them undertaking the same position and all, well, you'll just be showing your butt, won't you? Your next response to me needs to condemn Davis. But I bet it won't.
Walt
The so-called confederate states called for an army of 100,000 men when the US Army was 18,000. And I know it galls you neo-confederate persons, but the CSA stumbled into the war by being unclever enough to fire the first shot.
Lincoln did a masterful job playing the secessionists for the fools they were, and he did a masterful job generally.
Oh, Lincoln never agreed not to resupply Fort Sumter. That's just a lie.
Walt
The concept of legal secession under our system was unknown to the framers. It was a construct by Calhoun and others made from whole cloth. And it won't stand the light of the whole record.
"Unknown to the framers?" And Calhoun's "construct?" Are you trying to tell us that you once again refuse to discuss the secession of the States that ratified the Constitution, from the previous union formed under the Articles of Confederation? It is quite obvious to everyone that it is your position, my friend, that "won't stand the light of the whole record," else why would you so studiously ignore the ratification process by which the Constitution itself was adopted?
(Merry Christmas, Walt! ;>)
But you agree that Jefferson Davis took pretty much the same tack on national power as Lincoln; silence is consent.
Walt
The gentlemen of the south were tutored on Bible stories and the chivalry of Sir Walter Scott. And even if they were illiterate backwoodsmen, they knew the stories by wrote.
In the furtherance of illumination and edification for Northerners, I offer this fragment from "Sir Walter Scott and the South" By Hamilton James Eckenrode:
[... The mediaeval revival was largely confined to the South. In the rough West, there was little scope for romanticism in any form, and the West grew to be the bulwark of American democracy, which had lost so much in losing the planters. In the North mediaevalism did not revive for another reason. The Northern people, seeing their opportunity, were engaged in the epic economic development which resulted in the rise of the great American industries. The hard-headed, practical, unimaginative North had decided on reality, leaving romance to the South.
So uninformed are our historians in social phenomena that they have attributed the peculiar trend of Southern life from 1815 to 1860 to the influence of slavery. Slavery is, in fact, the devil of American history; all the sins of our past may be comfortably laid at its door. But a more careful study of American life -- not documents -- would almost certainly show that slavery has played a far smaller part in determining the fate of the country than Northerners and Southerners alike have supposed.
Negro slavery, like most other institutions, had its vices and its virtues. The historians have fallen into the natural error of investing it with a positive quality it never possessed. Slavery indeed resembled the actuating principle in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: "The drug had no discriminating action; it was neither diabolical nor divine; it but shook the doors of the prison house of the disposition, and like the captives of Philippi, that which stood within ran forth."
In the eighteenth century slavery was the cradle of democracy. It gave the Revolutionary generation the leisure to read French philosophers and English political theorists, and on a slave-worked farm George Mason made the first written constitution. Slavery, too, did something more than give leisure. It fostered the generosity and desire for human improvement which distinguished the Southern revolutionists. It did this because it spared them the need of struggling for a living, a necessity which is only too apt to kill in us the noble desire to help humanity at large. Washington, Jefferson, Madison -- all that broad-minded breed -- grew up in a land of slavery, and from the soil of slavery sprang the fiery democrat, Patrick Henry, and many another of his kind.
It may further be believed that if the democratic movement had not been checked by disillusion and the revival of mediaevalism, slavery would have continued to aid the progress of the world. If Jefferson had left any disciples other than States' rights debaters, they might have led mankind onward along the right road. In this development slavery itself must have disappeared, but it would have lasted long enough to allow priceless leisure to a race of political and economic thinkers which might have richly blessed mankind.
It was not to be. In the nineteenth century we find slavery playing a different part. Democracy had fallen in Europe and the planters had ceased to believe in it. The ideals of the slave country were no longer those of republican Rome or democratic Athens but of Richard Coeur de Lion and the Crusades. Slavery now formed the basis of a feudalistic way of living that could hardly have existed without it. The South, through slavery, was able to realize Sir Walter's mediaevalism to no small extent. This romanticism, fastened on a rural, warm-climate community, produced one of the most picturesque societies in history. The South was not nineteenth century, nor was it eighteenth century; it belonged to no known century but to a kingdom of the imagination which had no time.
Beyond doubt Scott gave the South its social ideal, and the South of 1860 might be not inaptly nicknamed Sir Walter Scottland. He did not create the state of feeling which held sway in the South so long, but he gave it expression. Many things show this. The term "Southern chivalry," unknown in the colonial period, came into use through his influence. The somewhat exaggerated respect for women which once distinguished the South is another indication of the knightly ideal. Similarly, the South largely put by its ancient and beloved amusements of horse-racing and cockfighting in order to take up the tournament...]
Gunnrmike
Actually, I have never made such a statement: it is you, my friend, who seem fixated upon Mr. Davis. An amusing thing, given your apparent inability to decide whether the President of the Confederate States of America was a criminal and a "traitor," or a statesman worth quoting.
...silence is consent.
Utter hogwash - but if you believe it, by all means please apply your own standard to Post 59, 64, and 74 of this thread, wherein I repeatedly inquire:
Shall we discuss the secession of the States that ratified the United States Constitution, from the so-called "perpetual union" formed under the Articles of Confederation?
;>)
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.