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

Skip to comments.

Perspective: Die-hard Confederates should be reconstructed
St. Augustine Record ^ | 09/27/2003 | Peter Guinta

Posted on 09/30/2003 12:19:22 PM PDT by sheltonmac

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 1,901-1,915 next last
To: TexConfederate1861
Better Yet, YOU SHOW US where Lincoln said or thought that.

"I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man." -- Abraham Lincoln, August 21, 1851

So where did Jefferson Davis ever say that the black man had any rights a white man was bound to respect? Where did Jefferson Davis, or any other southern leader, say that the black man was his equal in any sense whatsoever?

461 posted on 10/02/2003 8:36:06 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The leaving state walks away from the duties and obligations that the country as a whole entered into while that state was a member. That can have a negative impact on the interests of the remaining states and such fairness alone would require that those issues be addressed and settled by mutual consent before the seceding state leaves.

Why before? Is that because the state would be at the mercy of a federal court, which we both know would be the ultimate arbiter? Why not after, when the state can negotiate on a more equal footing? And realistically, the seceded state(s) would still need a harmonious relationship with the U.S., so an equitable arrangement would have to be worked out in the view of the state, so as to keep trade and other activities going.

462 posted on 10/02/2003 8:37:55 AM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
But we are talking about the powers given to the states, more so than powers granted to the government. It isn't the government which permits new states to be formed, it is the other states through their representatives in Congress. The president plays no part in the process. He can't arbitrarily admit a state, only the other states can. So why shouldn't the other states have a say in the leaving as well?
463 posted on 10/02/2003 8:39:00 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
It seems illogical to me to assume that when the Constitution reqires the approval of other states for a state to be admitted, and the approval of the other states for any change in status while in the Union, that it would not require the approval of the other states in order to leave.

But is it not logical to assume that, if the Founders had wanted such a requirement, then it would have been included explicitly, and not left to chance (i.e. someone's interpretation years down the road)?

464 posted on 10/02/2003 8:39:50 AM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Again...then why list all the particulars concerning stateship if this is the case?

It is not an obvious inferral and smacks of usurpation of power because unlike all other restrictions on the alteration of the makeup of the United States, the secession of a state from it is absent, but not undiscussed.
465 posted on 10/02/2003 8:41:51 AM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
Why not after, when the state can negotiate on a more equal footing?

Negotiate after the fact? That makes no sense at all. Why not turn your house over to the buyer and then negotiate the price after they take posession? Where is the incentive to negotiate a settlement agreeable to both parties? The southern states would have had what they wanted, secession, and why should they care about the interests and the impacts and the affects their actions have on the remaining states?

And realistically, the seceded state(s) would still need a harmonious relationship with the U.S., so an equitable arrangement would have to be worked out in the view of the state, so as to keep trade and other activities going.

Why so? After all, conditions under the U.S. was so onerous that they couldn't wait to get away. Why should they care one way or the other about harmonious relationships with the U.S.? They had Europe to counter with.

466 posted on 10/02/2003 8:47:56 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Robert E. Lee said, "I surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as I did to Grant's armies."

I had not read this quotation before. Lincoln must have been a very, very good man then, because Grant pounded Lee into submission.

467 posted on 10/02/2003 8:50:48 AM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
But is it not logical to assume that, if the Founders had wanted such a requirement, then it would have been included explicitly, and not left to chance (i.e. someone's interpretation years down the road)?

It would seem to me, at least, that one would expect exceptions would be listed. If congressional approval is needed for all cases except one then one would expect that that one exception should be identified in the document.

468 posted on 10/02/2003 8:51:20 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: PhilipFreneau
While it is true that Article I does not prohibit secession, Articles IV, VI and VII have several clauses that seem incompatible with secession. They read (emphasis mine):

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.


469 posted on 10/02/2003 8:52:47 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; TexConfederate1861
Non -why twist the debate to include Jeff Davis? We were discussing Lincoln and his comments. Davis' views, beliefs, etc are irrelevant.

Further Lincoln flip-flops on his position - great politician. He clearly states "not my equal" but then secures the liberties under the DoI.

470 posted on 10/02/2003 8:53:32 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac; republicanwizard
Read the text of Texas v White (1867). This US Supreme Court decision lays out the Constitutional illegality of secession.
471 posted on 10/02/2003 8:55:47 AM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Non -why twist the debate to include Jeff Davis? We were discussing Lincoln and his comments. Davis' views, beliefs, etc are irrelevant.

Actually the discussion began when I refuted the preposterous claim that President Lincoln wanted to send all blacks back to Africa. Why aren't you upset at that? And why are Lincoln's comments relevant and Davis's comments aren't? Why hold Lincoln up to modern standards of racism and not southern leaders?

At best, the view of blacks held by virtually every southerners were no worse than those held by Lincoln. But for the most part, southerners believed like Davis did, that blacks were fit for slavery and nothing else. They did not agree that blacks were their equal in any way. Why is that so hard for you to discuss, and why do you condemn Lincoln for his view and not condemn Davis for his?

472 posted on 10/02/2003 9:03:07 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
This US Supreme Court decision lays out the Constitutional illegality of secession.

Sorry, but the SCOTUS is not above the Constitution, and nothing can be read into it to nullify the option of secession. And that is exactly why Davis, Lee, et al, were never tried for treason.

473 posted on 10/02/2003 9:09:47 AM PDT by sheltonmac (If having the U.S. enforce U.N. resolutions is not world government, what is?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: Maelstrom
If there's nothing in the Constitution about a topic, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to act upon it.

Article III, Section 2 grants the Supreme Court the authority "--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." In Article IV, quoted in full above, grants Congress the power to regulate the territory and other property belonging to the United States. Article VI says that, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

How can a state secede if it is bound to uphold all treaties made under the Authority of the United States as the supreme "Law of the Land", even above the Constitution and the laws of taht state?

474 posted on 10/02/2003 9:13:47 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: Maelstrom
If there's nothing in the Constitution about a topic, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to act upon it.

Article III, Section 2 grants the Supreme Court the authority "--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." In Article IV, quoted in full above, grants Congress the power to regulate the territory and other property belonging to the United States. Article VI says that, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

How can a state secede if it is bound to uphold all treaties made under the Authority of the United States as the supreme "Law of the Land", even above the Constitution and the laws of taht state?

475 posted on 10/02/2003 9:14:07 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
it's not that i don't care about being polite-it's that i suffer fools & liars poorly & tend to call a spade a spade.

for more than a century, what has passed for facts about the dixie LIBERTY cause has been INTENTIONAL lies & spin, which was designed to devide the southland's folk and to cover-up the ATROCITIES of the damnyankee army & political leaders.

to quote the reknowned British professor Arnold Toynbee,

"history is fiction, popularly agreed on by tyrants & conquerers."

free dixie,sw

476 posted on 10/02/2003 9:14:10 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
it's not that i don't care about being polite-it's that i suffer fools & liars poorly & tend to call a spade a spade.

for more than a century, what has passed for facts about the dixie LIBERTY cause has been INTENTIONAL lies & spin, which was designed to devide the southland's folk and to cover-up the ATROCITIES of the damnyankee army & political leaders.

to quote the reknowned British professor Arnold Toynbee,

"history is fiction, popularly agreed on by tyrants & conquerers."

free dixie,sw

477 posted on 10/02/2003 9:14:14 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
did you REALLY expect the BEAST to tell the truth about what happened to the LA Native Guards?

ben butler got RICH off selling free black men INTO slavery until well into 1863 AND looting southern civilian homes for everything that was of value.

he was FILTH of the worst sort.

free dixie,sw

478 posted on 10/02/2003 9:20:16 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
did you REALLY expect the BEAST to tell the truth about what happened to the LA Native Guards?

ben butler got RICH off selling free black men INTO slavery until well into 1863 AND looting southern civilian homes for everything that was of value.

he was FILTH of the worst sort.

free dixie,sw

479 posted on 10/02/2003 9:20:49 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
did you REALLY expect the BEAST to tell the truth about what happened to the LA Native Guards?

ben butler got RICH off selling free black men INTO slavery until well into 1863 AND looting southern civilian homes for everything that was of value.

he was FILTH of the worst sort.

free dixie,sw

480 posted on 10/02/2003 9:21:23 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 1,901-1,915 next last

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.

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