Posted on 04/02/2002 9:45:23 PM PST by VinnyTex
Just kidding. Since you have shown that you have a strong stomach by just skimming the book, you owe it to us to read it and report on the funny parts. Wait. That would be the whole book, wouldn't it? Just give us selected highlights.
If you protect me from bad people who yell at me I will post amusing paragraphs . . . let's see . . .
Oh yes, here's one:
As he stated over and over (references mysteriously omitted, DQ), his concern with the issue of slavery was motivated by a desire to use the issue to "save the Union," which was a euphemistic way of saying that he wanted to consolidate governmental power in Washington, D.C. In this regard Lincoln's motivations were identical to those of the Central American revolutionaries who invoked violence in the fight against slavery as a tool to gain or expand state power." Page 48
"The Eastern states must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government." --Senator James Hillhouse, Connecticut
"Throughout this struggle, the right of a state to withdraw from the Union was not disputed." --Historian Edward Powell, Nullification and Secession in the United States, when speaking of the secession movement in the New England states
Could you please tell us where you found them, and give the date of Sen. Hillhouse's remark and of the Powell book? Who was Powell, and what was his background? Is he well regarded? Can one see his book somewhere? Publisher, political background, etc.?
Thanks in advance,
Richard F.
If you can cite which laws were broken then I would like to hear them.
Are we back to this again? That there must be a law prohibiting something or else it's legal? In that case - please cite the Federal law prohibiting secession.
And what is the ex post facto law in question?
That there must be a law prohibiting something or else it's legal?
Well, yes. That's the generally accepted definintion. And as for the law prohibiting secession, there's this document called the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it? Anyway, laws written must not violate the Constitution. And the Supreme Court determined that a Texas law called the Texas Article of Secession did, in fact, violate the Constitution. That is why the Texas actions were illegal.
Let me ask you this. Why would people like Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, Jay and the others spend a torturously hot summer sitting in Philadelphia in the middle of a Yellow Fever epidemic crafting a document that allowed the member states to simply ignore it at will? That was their complaint with the Articles. There was nothing in the Articles of Confederation that compelled the states to respect the wishes of congress or assume their responsibility to their fellow states. The Framers intended to change that defect, not to replace a defective document with another defective document. They created a stronger central government but also included significant protections against that government growing too powerful against either the states or the people. But they did give the government the power to compel states, and to compel people to the wishes of the majority. That was their intention. They did not say you are compelled only when you agree. You are equally compelled when you disagree.
Again, go to Madison for the answer. These were not foolish or naive men. It is amazing the depth of issues they considered and addressed and if they had in any way intended for the Constitution to be anything less than perpetual, they would have provided an orderly process to reach that end, just as they provided an orderly process for amending their document.
They did not expend so much effort nor stake their reputations so decisively on the Constitution only to see the Government that they created be torn apart by shrill and ambitious politicians appealing to partisan passions or local interests.
You must think the Framers were fools if you think secession at will was their intention.
True, but that amendment meant so much to Lincoln that he actually went to congress and signed the document along with the members which was legally meaningless since the President has no imput in the amendment process. But he felt that strongly about it.
Puzzling ... I wonder what this Powell actually was, or did, or wrote.
Glad to see more, if anyone can find it. And do be sure to read all of DiLorezo's columns ... they are the source of much here.
Cheers,
Richard F.
Has anyone else ever suggested that these threads bear a lot of striking similarities to the litigation by which some are seeking reparations for slavery?
PINKO ALERT
Do these people know how you and your fellow travelers vote?
I believe you and your neocon buddies are on a convergence course.
You and these RINOs are all going pink, Pink, PINK.
Here is you revealing yourself on another thread;
I suspect your voting pattern is indicative of that of your statist buds:
==================================
Leesylvanian:
Keep in mind when dealing with WP that you're dealing with a man who favors the government's rights/authority over those of the people. He voted for Clinton twice. 'Nuff said!
Wlat (WhiskeyPapa):
Well, I've never said I voted for Clinton twice, so I am glad you will be glad to post a retraction.What I said was that I had never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I voted for John Anderson in 1980. In '84 I voted Democratic. Same in '88. In '92 I DID vote for Clinton, although I was for Perot until he went batty. In'96 I didn't vote. In '00, I did vote for Al Gore. --Walt
780 posted on 2/28/02 10:49 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Are you going to agree?
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.