Posted on 02/12/2003 12:07:03 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
and ATTACK the United States.
Them rebel sumbucks didn't even wait to secede:
1861:
January 4 Alabama militia sieze the U.S. arsenal at Mt. Vernon, AL. Alabama has not yet seceded.
January 5 Alabama militia sieze Ft. Morgan and Ft. Gaines in Mobile Bay.
January 7 Florida militia sieze the Federal fort at St. Augustine. Florida has not yet seceded.
January 8 Florida militia attempting to sieze Ft. Barrancas are driven off by Federal troops.
January 9 South Carolina militia fire on US merchant vessel Star of the West, preventing reinforcement and resupply of Ft. Sumter garrison.
Mississippi secedes.
January 10 Louisiana militia sieze all Federal forts and arsenals in the state. Louisiana has not yet seceded.
Florida (belatedly) secedes. Federal troops abandon Ft. Barrancas.
North Carolina militia capture Ft. Johnson and Ft. Caswell. North Carolina has not yet seceded.
January 11 Alabama (belatedly) secedes.
January 12 Florida militia demands the surrender of Federal troops in Ft. Pickens. The demand is refused.
Mississippi fortifies Vicksburg and closes the Mississippi River to all traffic. Mississippi is the only state on the river, at this point, which has seceded.
January 19 Georgia secedes.
January 21 Mississippi militia sieze Ft. Massachussetts and Ship Island.
January 25 Georgia militia sieze the federal arsenal at Augusta. North Carolina calls for a referendum on secession.
January 26 Georgia militia sieze Ft. Jackson and Oglethorpe Barracks.
Louisiana (belatedly) secedes.
January 31 The U.S. Mint in New Orleans is siezed by Louisiana militia.
February 1 Texas submits an article of secession to popular referendum for February 23.
February 4 Delegates from the six seceded states meet in Montgomery to form the Confederate States of America.
February 9 Tennessee rejects secession in popular referendum by a large margin.
February 16 Texas militia sieze the federal arsenal at San Antonio. Texas has not yet seceded.
February 18 Texas militia besiege Federal army headquarters for Texas in San Antonio and force the surrender of over 3,000 troops. Texas has -still- not seceded.
Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.
February 21 The Confederate Provisional Congress orders Mississippi to end the blockade at Vicksburg.
February 23 Texas voters approve secession by a 75% majority, secession to take effect March 2 (Texas Independence Day).
February 28 North Carolina voters narrowly reject secession (by fewer than 1,000 votes).
March 2 Texas's secession takes effect; that same day, Texas is admitted into the Confederacy.
March 3 The militia units in Charleston Harbor are taken under Confederate authority.
March 20 Harbor authorities in Mobile sieze the U.S. merchant supply ship Isabella, loaded with supplies for Ft. Pickens, Florida.
April 3 Confederate batteries in Charleston harbor fire on US schooner Rhoda H. Shannon.
April 4 Virginia's State Convention rejects secession 2 to 1.
April 12 Confederate troops open fire on Ft. Sumter; Federal troops reinforcing Ft. Pickens, FL from sea are fired upon by more Confederate troops. The Civil War 'officially' begins.
April 15 Lincoln calls for 75,000 militiamen to serve for three months to put down the insurrection in the South.
April 16 Isham Harris, governor of Tennessee, requests military alliance with the Confederacy. Tennessee has NOT seceded and is making treaty or confederation with another power, violating the Constitution.
April 17 Virginia secedes.
And so forth.
Bunch of bums was all they were.
Walt
War does those things. As far as 'abuse', I'd would say the worst was the Confederate side extending enlistments of volunteers was a bit over the top. The North did not get to that point, but with a larger manpower pool to pick from, they didn't need to.
Then again, we have the same thing today with "stop-loss" orders in all the branches. In a high-tech military where it can take years to train people, I'm sure it's necessary, but it feels like an abuse none the less.
BTW. I have looked but can't find any data on wether or not draftees were used in the 'regulary' army. I would tend to think not since the vast majority of troops served their entire time in units organized by states. The 18th Century model of the army in wartime being made up of state militias, each of those organized from local units, may have an appeal to you, but consider what happened during the civil war with the advent of modern firepower. Many towns, both North and South, lost most or even all of their young men in a single bloody afternoon.
If that is what you recall, then your memory is failing to the point where your children should start researching some assisted living places for you. The election was "thrown to Junior" by the pluralities of popular votes in 30 of the 50 states. Justice O'Connor simply joined six other justices in preventing the criminal-dominated SCOFLA from stealing the election in a manner even more unconstitutional than the secession.
What's there to say? Wilson was a left wing globalist racist nut. Practically every freeper knows and admits that (except, possibly, Walt who seems to like big government liberal presidents like Lincoln, FDR, and Clinton). Though Lincoln falls into the same category as those other three, there are many freepers out there who live in denial of the evidence and some who practically worship at the feet of the guy, both figuratively and literally. That is why you see many threads exposing his big government tendencies, whereas Wilson's are universally known and admitted.
"The privileges and benefit of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall be enjoyed in this Government, in the most expeditious and ample manner; and shall not be suspended by the Legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding months." - Proposal of Charles Pickney on habeas corpus, Constitutional Convention of 1787, submitted to committee for consideration and later adopted in its current language as Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, pertaining to the legislature
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." - United States Constitution, Article I
"In the same section it is provided, that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may require it." This clause limits the power of the legislature to deprive a citizen of the right of habeas corpus, to particular cases viz. those of rebellion and invasion; the reason is plain, because in no other cases can this power be exercised for the general good." - Robert Yates, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Anti-Federalist #9 "Brutus"
"The people by adopting the federal constitution, give congress general powers to institute a distinct and new judiciary, new courts, and to regulate all proceedings in them, under the eight limitations mentioned in a former letter; and the further one, that the benefits of the habeas corpus act shall be enjoyed by individuals." - Federal Farmer (believed to be Richard Henry Lee), Anti-Federalist #16
"The safest and best restriction, therefore, arises from the nature of the cases in which Congress are authorized to exercise that power [of suspending habeas corpus] at all, namely, in those of rebellion or invasion. These are clear and certain terms, facts of public notoriety, and whenever these shall cease to exist, the suspension of the writ must necessarily cease also." - Francis Dana, presenter of the Constitution to the Massachussetts ratification convention
"The decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the purpose of revising that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature. But this point also is decided in Hamilton's case and in Burford's case. If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide." - United States Supreme Court, Ex Parte Bollman & Swartwout, authored by Justice John Marshall, 1807
"Those respecting the press, religion, & juries, with several others, of great value, were accordingly made; but the Habeas corpus was left to the discretion of Congress, and the amendment against the reeligibility of the President was not proposed by that body." - Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821
"The Constitution seems to have secured this benefit [habeas corpus] to the citizen by the description of the writ, and in an unqualified manner admitting its efficacy, while it declares that it shall not he suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety shall require it. This writ is believed to be known only in countries governed by the common law, as it is established in England; but in that country the benefit of it may at any time be withheld by the authority of parliament, whereas we see that in this country it cannot be suspended even in cases of rebellion or invasion, unless the public safety shall require it. Of this necessity the Constitution probably intends, that the legislature of the United States shall be the judges. Charged as they are with the preservation of the United States from both those evils, and superseding the powers of the several states in the prosecution of the measures they may find it expedient to adopt, it seems not unreasonable that this control over the writ of habeas corpus, which ought only to be exercised on extraordinary occasions, should rest with them. It is at any rate certain, that congress, which has authorized the courts and judges of the United States to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases within their jurisdiction, can alone suspend their power" - William Rawl, A View of the Constitution of the United States, Chapter 10, 1826
"It would seem, as the power is given to congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, that the right to judge, whether exigency had arisen, must exclusively belong to that body." - Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Book 3, Chapter XXXII, § 1336, 1833
"With such provisions in the constitution, expressed in language too clear to be misunderstood by any one, I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the president, in any emergency, or in any state of things, can authorize the suspension of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or the arrest of a citizen, except in aid of the judicial power. He certainly does not faithfully execute the laws, if he takes upon himself legislative power, by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and the judicial power also, by arresting and imprisoning a person without due process of law." - Chief Justice Roger Taney, Ex Parte Merryman, United States Circuit Court, 1861
"There has been much discussion concerning the question whether the power to suspend the "privilege of the writ of habeas corpus," is conferred by the Constitution on Congress, or on the President. The only judicial decisions which have been made upon this question have been adverse to the power of the President." - Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, Executive Power, 1862
No. He trampled on that one too. I've got a copy of the execution order that one of his generals in the infamous army of Sherman issued for one of my ancestors. It instructs the yankee troops to go to his farm in Tennessee and specifically says to confiscate the firearms. It also tells them loot the place of anything of value and burn the house to the ground. He was one of several civilians on the same list. My best guess is they specified firearms seizures in the order to ensure that their victims had no chance of self defense when they learned they were going to be shot.
Oh, and their "crime" - refusing to reveal the location of local confederate troops to a division patrolling Sherman's supply lines. In other words, refusing to rat out their friends, family members, and neighbors for a certain execution.
Yeah, Walt. And over your candidate of choice, Al Gore.
"If you non-U.S. citizens are wondering what the electoral college is and what bunch of ninnies thought it up: The US Constitution was written by rich white men like Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Randolph, and others. They wrote it for the benefit of rich white men like themselves. They didn't trust the common man --at all--, hence the college of electors, who didn't (and don't) necessarily have to vote for the candidate that carries their state. Here in Georgia, I didn't vote for Al Gore. I voted for nine Democratic Party hacks that promise to vote for Al when the college meets in December. Yeah, I know its crazy, but it works." - Walt, aka WhiskeyPapa, 11/12/00, soc.history.war.world-war-ii newsgroup
Here's how they stated as much in an exchange the congressional record back in 1860 (12/12/1860, CG 36-2 pp. 75) --
WIGFALL: Then I say the non-slaveholding States have nominated and elected their candidate. Tell me not that we have got the legislative department of this Government, for I say we have not. As to this body, where do we stand? Why, sir, there are now eighteen non-slaveholding States. In a few weeks we shall have the nineteenth, for Kansas will be brought in. Then arithmetic which settles our position is simple and easy. Thirty-eight northern Senators you will have upon this floor. We shall have thirty to your thirty-eight. After the 4th of March, the Senator from California, the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from New Jersey, and the Senator from Minnesota will be here. That reduces the northern phalanx to thirty-four.
BINGHAM: Douglas.
WIGFALL? What?
BINGHAM: Douglas.
WIGFALL: Non tali auxilio nec defensoribus istis, tempus eget. There are four of the northern Senators upon whom we can rely, whom we know to be friends, whom we have trusted in our days of trial heretofore, and in whom, as Constitution-loving men, we will trust. Then we stand thirty-four to thirty-four, and your Black Republican Vice President to give the casting vote. Mr. Lincoln can make his own nominations with perfect security that they will be confirmed by this body, even if every slaveholding State should remain in the Union, which, thank God, they will not do. You have elected your President, and you can inaugurate him; and we will have neither lot nor parcel in this matter.
Walt has also admitted on this forum to having a perfect Democrat voting record going back for the last five presidential elections. He voted for Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, and even Walter Mondale. More recently I got into a debate with him over the 9/11 attacks in which he repeatedly blamed them on George Bush Sr. The guy is an intellectually dishonest liberal Democrat and why they've let him stay here and post on FR for so long is simply beyond me. But considering how quickly disruptors with FEWER democrat credentials than he has are booted on a daily basis around here, I definately would call it a double standard.
A day or two elapsed, the ratification of a treaty of peace was regularly announced and the judge and the others were fully liberated. A few days more and the judge called Gen. Jackson into court and fined him $1,000. The general paid the fine, and there the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when Congress refunded principal and interest. The late Senator Douglas then in the House of Representatives, took a leading part in the debates, in which the constitutional question was much discussed. I am not prepared to say whom the journals would show to have voted for the measure.
It may be remarked: First, that we had the same Constitution then as now; secondly, that we then had a case of invasion, and now a case of rebellion; and thirdly, that the permanenet right of of the people to Public Discussion, the liberty of speech and the Press, the trial by jury, the law of evidence, and the Habeus Corpus, suffered no detriment whatever by that conduct of Gen. Jackson, or its subsequent approval by the American Congress."
A. Lincoln, 6/12/63
"Lincoln, with his usual incisiveness, put his finger on the debate that inevitably surrounds issues of civil liberties in wartime. If the country itself is in mortal danger, must we enforce every provision safeguarding individual liberties even though to do so will endanger the very government which is created by the Constitution? The question of whether only Congress may suspend it has never been authoritatively answered to this day, but the Lincoln administration proceeded to arrest and detain persons suspected of disloyal activities, including the mayor of Baltimore and the chief of police."
- Chief Justice William Rehnquist, November 17, 1999
Merryman was a citizen of Maryland who committed treasonous acts against the United States. He could easily have been hung, but even in 1861, Lincoln held malice toward none and had charity for all.
Trying to smear President Lincoln only makes you look a fool.
Walt
Thanks for bumping the thread.
Walt
Where can we see this order?
The 2nd amendment does not protect open rebellion against the lawful government in any case.
Walt
Really? Maybe you could explain this to all the freepers who INSIST "prior to FDR, the Democrat Party was the CONSERVATIVE party" and insist the south was "voting for true conservatives" when it gave overwhelmingly support to Woody and his clones on the state level.
>> Practically every freeper knows and admits that <<
Again, see above. Do you really NEED me to post the dozens of delusional freeper quotes that FDR "made the Democrat party liberal, before him it was conservative" stuff? I'm guessing I'll be wasting my time because a so-called "Republican" like yourself will apologize for the pro-Democrat rhetoric and claim they didn't "really" mean that. You'll be telling they really "meant" the whooping 10% of the DemocRAT party who happened to cross party lines. Right.
>> (except, possibly, Walt who seems to like big government liberal presidents <<
You know what? Since you insist on your double standards, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and move to North Carolina to meet as the "conservative" Democrats that your "third party conservative" buddy Billbears PROMOTES on here? You keep INSISTING your neo-confederate buddies are stauch conservatives. I'm sure you're enjoy the leadership of NC Speaker Jim Black (who just blackmailed the state into keeping him as speaker, and whom "less government" billbears wants to give MORE power too). How about Senate President Marc Basnight, and, of course, Governor Earley. And you can enjoy lots of taxpayer funded abortion and gay rights that Governor Warner of Virginia (he was the "true conservative", according to the yellow-dog Democrats here). How about it, "GOP capitalist"? We all know whoever the neo-confederate PROMOTE must be a great conservative, right?
>> Though Lincoln falls into the same category as those other three, there are many freepers out there who live in denial of the evidence and some who practically worship at the feet of the guy, both figuratively and literally. <<
You should see the freepers here who practically worship at the feet of Zell Miller, both figuratively and literally (who has a lifetime "conservative" rating IDENTICAL to Olympia Snowe). Nobody EVER mentions that FDR is his role model, that he was the number one Clinton supporter in the 1992 Democrat primary, that he promotes abortion on demand, that he is a HUGE supporter of McCain-Feingold, etc. A Republican like yourself doesn't seem bothered by all the worship of southern Democrats, does he?
>> That is why you see many threads exposing his big government tendencies <<
Lots of Presidents have "big government tendencies" that are rarely mentioned. Did you see President Bush's state of the union address? 2.2 trillion dollars? $500 mil to reward NASA? Zillions of dollars to Africa. Not really a lot of threads "exposing" it, but clearly Big-government tendencies if you ask me. A lot of people deny it hear and some even "worship" the President, but that doesn't make them Marxists. I'm disappointed, but I don't think President Bush is evil incarnate either.
The Lincoln threads aren't there to promote his "big government", since the figures will show you that by 1860s standards, even Ronald Reagan's government would be a huge buecracy. Yes, the 1860 congress and administration could have never DREAMED of the type of spending we had even under conservative governments in the late 20th century. We had about 20 threads pointing out that Lincoln came up with a income tax (that bore almost no resemblance to today's income tax and which 99% of us wouldn't have to pay) and only ONE thread pointing out that it was the 90th anniversary of the REAL income tax (Wilson's) that we are CURRENTLY paying. ("A mass tax, not a class tax") VERY FEW freepers were aware they are paying income DUE solely to Wilson's actions in 1913. Which one do you think had more of an impact on big government modern society?
More likely, the Lincoln threads MAIN purpose is to attack Lincoln BECAUSE he was pro-union, and anti-secession (and therefore, he must be a "Marxist"). In the minds of the neo-confederate, ANYONE who is pro-union and anti-secession is a "Marxist", and anyone who is pro-confederacy must be a inclusive conservative patriot.
That is why you will see DOZENS of threads that mention Lincoln's position on that, but not ONE thread that says this:
"Joseph Wilson" [Woodrow's father was] a stauch supporter of the South during the Civil War, he helped organize the Presbyterian church of the Confederate States of America. He had a profound influence in the development of Woodrow Wilson's character and development."
"My first memory" said Wilson "was hearing someone pass and say that Lincoln was elected and there would be war" He saw General Robert E. Lee pass under the Union guard is Augusta, GA, in 1865. His earliest impressions, were of the civil war, the devastation of the South, and humiliation of Reconstruction. Though he left the region as a young adult, he regarded himself as a southerner his entire life. He always believed the South was full justified in seceding from the Union; he also believed in white supremacy ... His ambition was for a career in politics. In college he had cards printed to read "Thomas Woodrow Wilson, Senator from Virginia" "
"In the 1912 campaign, Wilson came out in favor of the nationalization of the railroads. BOTH [Teddy] Roosevelt [frequently attacked by neo-confederate on this forum as example how "liberal" the GOP was back then] and Taft ATTACKED Wilson's proposal as "rank socialism", so he backpedaled on the issue... [in 1916], Roosevelt rejoined the Republican Party to unite against a second Wilson term. ... calling Wilson a "damned Presbyterian hypocrite" and a "dangerous radical" .
"UNDERWOOD TARIFF, 1913-- Wilson pushed the bill through congress, sponsored by DEMOCRAT representative Oscar W. Underwood of ALABAMA, to provide for a new income tax in accordance with the 16th amendment"
"FEDERAL RESERVE ACT, 1913-- "Sponsored by DEMOCRAT Representative Carter Glass of VIRGINIA, and DEMOCRAT Senator Robert L. Owen of OKLAHOMA, this law was pushed by Wilson to create the modern federal reserve system..."
CLAYTON ANTI-TRUST ACT, 1914 "sponsored by DEMOCRAT Representative Henry DeLemar Clayton of ALABAMA, Wilson's urged it's creation "to compete with big business..."
ADAMSON ACT, 1916-- "President Wilson persuading congress to enact this bill, sponsored by DEMOCRAT Representative William C. Adamson of GEORGIA, to regulate the eight-hour work day..."
"President [Wilson] is the most prejudiced man I ever knew and likes but few people"
--Colonel E.M. House, Wilson advisor, 1919
"He thinks he is another Jesus Christ come upon the earth to reform men"
--George Clemenceau, 1918
And that's only a brief account of his pro-confederate views and legislation from his first term (the one that even you said is ONLY remembered for "he kept us out of war"). Now, let's see. Is it clear NOW where Wilson was from, what he stood for, and who supported and promoted his agenda? Hint: it wasn't those evil "Marxist" Lincoln Republicans was the midwest.
>> whereas Wilson's are universally known and admitted. <<
Bull----. NOBODY pays attention to what legislation was passed in 1914. Wilson is remembered as that tall guy with glasses from Princeton who got us into World War I. Even you admitted this. Most people think "Teddy Roosevelt" when they think "Progressive era" (Much to the delight of the TR haters and "Democrats are true conservatives" crowd here). Wilson was clearly to the left of even Teddy. And Also to the delight of the neo-confederate, very few people, especially freepers are aware that Wilson's election was considered "an avenge of the south" (I wasn't even aware of this until I read an account of his swearing-in and his worship in the south at the time) and that Woody was a LIFELONG neo-confederate who only lived in New Jersey so he keep his ivy-league university career and lecture "foolish" people on much of a devout Christian man and self-appointed expert on the "true" knowledge of history and politics he was (arrogant neo-confederate model if I ever saw one). The guy was always a hardcore Dixiecrat "rebel" and southern transplant, which nobody knows. People associate FDR as the one responsible for WILSON's agenda and falsely picture Wilson as a nice scholarly Yankee from New Jersey.
Which is exactly what the neo-confederate want. They want the truth? They can't handle the truth.
Here's what he said.
"Then we stand thirty-four to thirty-four, and your Black Republican Vice President to give the casting vote. Mr. Lincoln can make his own nominations with perfect security that they will be confirmed by this body, even if every slaveholding State should remain in the Union, which, thank God, they will not do. You have elected your President, and you can inaugurate him; and we will have neither lot nor parcel in this matter.
Notice he didn't say anything about the "High Tariff" Republicans. He didn't say that Lincoln was going to do anything to his state or had even considered doing anything to his state. He simply complains that "Slave States" were losing their ability to control the federal government. Now tell the class again how the Civil War was not about slavery.
Not under the rule of law, he couldn't have! You see, Walt, that would have required that he first be charged with the said crime and then convicted by a jury of his peers for that said crime and be sentenced by that same jury in a court of law to execution by hanging. You see, Walt, a little document called the Constitution of the United States of America requires all of that to take place. Sadly, The Lincoln, much like you, had little concern for that document and ignored its plain meaning, even when its defenders tried to enforce it. He falsely professed his desire to save it then went about tearing it down in the process.
I've posted it in full many times before, Walt. The gun confiscation portion of the order directs the troops to "seach this house for arms before shooting him."
They do? Cause my own studies of history have led me to conclude that from Bryan to FDR, the Democrat party was in a transitional shift between its conservative and liberal elements, just as during the same period of McKinley to Coolidge, the Republican Party was undergoing a similar but opposite transition.
Again, see above. Do you really NEED me to post the dozens of delusional freeper quotes that FDR "made the Democrat party liberal, before him it was conservative" stuff?
I have an even better idea. Why don't you post some showing one of these same individuals praising Woodrow Wilson instead of simply assuming it to be so like you do so often.
You know what? Since you insist on your double standards
How so? You have insisted for quite some time that the southern freepers here love and adore, among others, Woodrow Wilson yet I don't recall you ever posting evidence where he is specified by name. I have shown, by contrast, evidence that Walt openly praises and supports Lincoln, FDR, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore - all of which you could seemingly care less about. In fact, it would seem that you are practicing the true double standard on this issue. You whine incessantly about supposed non-existant quotes of support for Wilsonian globalism by southerners, yet could care less when one on your own side regularly brags about voting for Clinton, blames George Bush Sr. for the 9/11 attacks, trashes the legacy of Ronald Reagan, questions the legitimacy of George W. Bush's election in 2000, and denounces the Constitution as a "pact with the devil" by "rich white men." If that is not a double standard, I do not know what else is.
why don't you put your money where your mouth is and move to North Carolina to meet as the "conservative" Democrats
I have no need to pack up and move across several states to satisfy the requests of a fool.
You keep INSISTING your neo-confederate buddies are stauch conservatives.
I've yet to see one of them espouse the greatness of the New Deal, sing praises for Al Gore and Bill Clinton, or attempt to blame 9/11 on George Bush and the Republican party. Your friend Walt has done all of these things though, with not so much as a peep in response from yourself.
You should see the freepers here who practically worship at the feet of Zell Miller, both figuratively and literally (who has a lifetime "conservative" rating IDENTICAL to Olympia Snowe).
Hey, as far as Democrats go, I wish they ALL were like Zell Miller or maybe John Breaux. Ralph Hall would not be bad either, considering he has a conservative rating that is higher than many Republicans in Congress. But that is not the norm of the party of the left, even though it would make life a whole lot easier for us. We should nevertheless be thankful for those few who are when they give us support, and work to replace them with conservative Republicans when they are up for election or retire.
Nobody EVER mentions that FDR is his role model
Why don't you ask Walt about that one? He speaks very highly of Uncle Joe's highest ranking agent in America.
that he was the number one Clinton supporter in the 1992 Democrat primary
Why don't you ask Walt who he voted for in that primary then. It very well could have been Clinton. Or better yet, ask him who he supported in '88. Was it Dukakis? Or maybe Gephardt? Or Algore? He may have even voted for Jesse! Then you can ask him who he backs for '04 - Kerry? Edwards? Lieberman? Moseley-Braun? Hilsama bin Rodham? Al Sharpton!
Lots of Presidents have "big government tendencies" that are rarely mentioned. Did you see President Bush's state of the union address? 2.2 trillion dollars?
Yeah, and it is apalling. So what's your point? That "they all do it," and that it is therefore somehow right? Sounds awfully like a statement somebody famous made back around 1998 involving a female companion of his.
The Lincoln threads aren't there to promote his "big government", since the figures will show you that by 1860s standards, even Ronald Reagan's government would be a huge buecracy.
Bureaucracy yes, but the use of widespread military coercion to extract obediance from its citizens, no. In that latter category of tyranny, The Lincoln stands alone.
We had about 20 threads pointing out that Lincoln came up with a income tax (that bore almost no resemblance to today's income tax and which 99% of us wouldn't have to pay)
The first modern income tax applied to only 1% as well. The issue is its use as a type of taxation though - getting the foot in the door.
and only ONE thread pointing out that it was the 90th anniversary of the REAL income tax (Wilson's) that we are CURRENTLY paying.
Actually, the 16th amendment was adopted in 1909 and ratified(??) in February 1913. Taft was president at this time. Wilson and FDR raised it to high levels (with a tax cut in between by Coolidge).
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.