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

A cautionary historical tale, examined in the light of logic, sure to offend & evoke hostility, from the lazy, the ignorant and the timid.
1 posted on 03/21/2002 9:58:54 AM PST by TEXICAN II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: TEXICAN II
Bump for Sobran!
2 posted on 03/21/2002 10:01:46 AM PST by Scholastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: sonofliberty
It is not for me to question anything Madison may have said, but IMHO, by the time of Ft.Sumpter, the question was not about a single state, nor was foreign meddling the big issue. The Federal Government could have moved for a settlement, with compensation for federal property seized, &etc.

But then, war is always so popular & competition in the government business is never popular.

4 posted on 03/21/2002 11:11:41 AM PST by TEXICAN II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TEXICAN II
Aw, Shucks!
5 posted on 03/21/2002 11:30:05 AM PST by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TEXICAN II
Very interesting, and certainly frustrating to those of us who wish for a better America. But in the end, I think it's just a bitter screed. We can't go back to the 1850's and change things.

I'd be interested to get opinions on what the world would look like if the South had won. Would we still be separate nations, or would a reunion have been inevitable? I seriously doubt slavery would have continued indefinitely, and the European antics of the 20th century would have placed unique pressures on both a Confederacy and a separate Union....One of many questions: Would two nuclear nations now occupy what is now the U.S.?

6 posted on 03/21/2002 11:40:21 AM PST by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TEXICAN II
Originally there were three safeguards.

Sobran is wrong: there were never three safeguards.

There was and is only one safeguard: that the general population of the U.S. behave in a manner conducive to the existence of a free society.

Only then can the elected leaders be expected to act in the best interests of the country, in accordance with the Constitution.

At the same time, the electorate is expected to hold their representatives accountable, and to protect their own rights, as well as the rights of others.

And finally, all people are expected to recognize and follow through upon their duties to society.

Sobran is engaged in a bit of Constitutional idolatry here. He expects that somehow a scrap of paper can act as a hedge against people who want to get around the constraints it embodies. Without the underlying moral concensus that created it, the Constitution is without meaning.

To understand what's going on, one has got to go back to moral first principles. In fact, one is pretty much required to go back to Christian first principles.

15 posted on 03/21/2002 12:59:18 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TEXICAN II
Whatever they may say, most people assume that might makes right.

As did Stalin. They might be able to do what they like but it will never be right, no matter how many spinmeisters and so on they have. Right and wrong are moral absolutes.

34 posted on 03/21/2002 8:43:58 PM PST by luvzhottea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: TEXICAN II
BUMP
37 posted on 03/22/2002 1:13:45 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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