Posted on 04/24/2002 9:33:49 AM PDT by wasp69
;>)
Walt
780 posted on 2/28/02 10:49 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa
Clinton AND Gore?
ROTFLMAO!
;>)
Had to have been Dave Marcus....
What would he have been driving that year?
;>)
Bowtie appaloosa of course...
; ^ )>
Where do you think he'll 'find a home' in '04 - Lieberman?
Or maybe Feinstein?
;>)
Now, I hate to admit it, but I would have to leave that kind of horsepower to guys like Dave - way to hot for me...
;>)
*Don't answer that.
*Don't answer that.
Sorry Arnie, I can't resist...
Old Mule Hockey??? C'mon man work with me here.
I'm havin' crown and sprite...Cheers back at ya...
Or maybe Feinstein?
If I were a gamblin man, and I am, I'd bet he's a Mckinney man...
; ^{/>
Left off that /I>...sorry...
My ancestors were slave owners in Cuba. Slavery was a cancer in Cuba and it was a cancer in America.
It would have been much better if Southern Americans had picked their own cotton and Cubans had cut their own sugar cane. It would have been much better if we had not grown either cotton or sugar cane. The North's blessing was the fact that it had poor agricultural land that forced it into manufacturing as the road to wealth.
Slavery undermined free labor and created a perpetually embittered underclass that later contributed to a Communist Cuba and to blighted American inner cities. Over a century later, we are still paying the price.
That being said, it must be pointed out that neither Lincoln nor the North initially saw the Civil War as a war to end slavery. The initial war aim was to preserve the Union. Only later was the Civil War portrayed as a war to end slavery.
And I have never said that it was. What I have said is that it is was by far the single, most important reason why the south launched their rebellion.
And, as usual, having never been able to prove secession unconstitutional, you revert to your foundational assumption: that the withdrawal of the Southern States from the union was "rebellion."
To which I will respond as I have in the past:
* If secession was in fact unconstitutional (something you have been perennially unable to prove ;>), then it didn't matter a whit whether the Southern States seceded over slavery, or because they wanted to donate their entire economic output to the support of charities: the action was illegal.
* And if secession was constitutional (as suggested by the ratification documents, the Tenth Amendment, etc., etc., etc.), it also would not matter whether the seceding States were motivated by the slavery issue, or even a desire to re-institute the Aztec religion and mandate human sacrifice: their departure from the union would have been completely legal.
In other words, motivation is entirely irrelevant to the issue of constitutionality and the actions of the federal government must be based upon the Constitution, or they are entirely illegal. If you can quote the constitutional clause that specifically 'delegates or prohibits' the right of secession, you're 'home free.' If not - well, your arguments and assurances won't amount to a hill of beans.
In fact, the advocates of 'union-at-any-cost' tend to focus on slavery for one reason: they can find no justification in the Constitution for the federal invasion of the seceded States, so they must necessarily look elsewhere. And morality provides wonderful window dressing: just ask the D*mocrats about their unceasing efforts "for the children"...
;>)
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.