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

The South's unconditional surrender in 1865 apparently was unacceptable to today's Neo-Confederates.

They'd like to rewrite history, demonizing Abraham Lincoln and the federal government that forced them to remain in the awful United States against their will.

On top of that, now they are opposing the U.S. Navy's plan to bury the crew of the CSS H.L. Hunley under the American flag next year.

The Hunley was the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. In 1863, it rammed and fatally damaged the Union warship USS Housatonic with a fixed torpedo, but then the manually driven sub sank on its way home, killing its eight-man crew.

It might have been a lucky shot from the Housatonic, leaks caused by the torpedo explosion, an accidental strike by another Union ship, malfunction of its snorkel valves, damage to its steering planes or getting stuck in the mud.

In any case, the Navy found and raised its remains and plans a full-dress military funeral and burial service on April 17, 2004, in Charleston, S.C. The four-mile funeral procession is expected to draw 10,000 to 20,000 people, many in period costume or Confederate battle dress.

But the Sons of Confederate Veterans, generally a moderate group that works diligently to preserve Southern history and heritage, has a radical wing that is salivating with anger.

One Texas Confederate has drawn 1,600 signatures on a petition saying "the flag of their eternal enemy, the United States of America," must not fly over the Hunley crew's funeral.

To their credit, the funeral's organizers will leave the U.S. flag flying.

After all, the search and preservation of the Hunley artifacts, as well as the funeral itself, were paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

Also, the Hunley crew was born under the Stars and Stripes. The Confederacy was never an internationally recognized nation, so the crewmen also died as citizens of the United States.

They were in rebellion, but they were still Americans.

This whole issue is an insult to all Southerners who fought under the U.S. flag before and since the Civil War.

But it isn't the only outrage by rabid secessionists.

They are also opposing the placement of a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Richmond, Va., the Confederate capital.

According to an article by Bob Moser and published in the Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine "Intelligence Report," which monitors right-wing and hate groups, the U.S. Historical Society announced it was donating a statue of Lincoln to Richmond.

Lincoln visited that city in April 1865 to begin healing the wounds caused by the war.

The proposed life-sized statue has Lincoln resting on a bench, looking sad, his arm around his 12-year-old son, Tad. The base of the statue has a quote from his second inaugural address.

However, the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans raised a stink, calling Lincoln a tyrant and war criminal. Neo-Confederates are trying to make Lincoln "a figure few history students would recognize: a racist dictator who trashed the Constitution and turned the USA into an imperialist welfare state," Moser's article says.

White supremacist groups have jumped onto the bandwagon. Their motto is "Taking America back starts with taking Lincoln down."

Actually, if it weren't for the forgiving nature of Lincoln, Richmond would be a smoking hole in the ground and hundreds of Confederate leaders -- including Jefferson Davis -- would be hanging from trees from Fredericksburg, Va., to Atlanta.

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

Revisionist history to suit a political agenda is as intellectually abhorrent as whitewashing slavery itself. It's racism under a different flag. While it's not a criminal offense, it is a crime against truth and history.

I'm not talking about re-enactors here. These folks just want to live history. But the Neo-Confederate movement is a disguised attempt to change history.

In the end, the Confederacy was out-fought, out-lasted, eventually out-generaled and totally over-matched. It was a criminal idea to start with, and its success would have changed the course of modern history for the worse.

Coming to that realization cost this nation half a million lives.

So I hope that all Neo-Confederates -- 140 years after the fact -- can finally get out of their racist, twisted, angry time machine and join us here in 2003.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: crackers; csshlhunley; dixie; dixielist; fergithell; guintamafiarag; hillbillies; hlhunley; losers; neanderthals; oltimesrnotfogotten; oltimesrnotforgotten; pinheads; putthescareinthem; rednecks; scv; submarine; traitors; yankeeangst
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900 ... 1,901-1,915 next last
To: WhiskeyPapa
what a STUPID post, scalawag!

you've now outdone your own most stupid previous comment.

i'm therefore awarding you a 2d PINK POPSICLE for the "most arrogantly ignorant & stupid post of the day".

as scalawags are the lowest form of life, nobody should be surprised that one would get the first "second-time award".

free dixie,sw

861 posted on 10/08/2003 9:22:04 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 827 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
GOOD ANSWER!

free dixie,sw

862 posted on 10/08/2003 9:23:42 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
yet another STUPID post from our resident fool!

free dixie,sw

863 posted on 10/08/2003 9:24:41 AM PDT by stand watie (Resistence to tyrants is obedience to God. -Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
After 1862, President Lincoln abandoned the idea of colonization.

Prove it then. Quote Lincoln saying so much as one single word in repudiation of colonization.

Mitchell's position became a sinecure.

That's not what the documents say. AG Edward Bates very specifically says in his letter that Mitchell is to be retained to continue implementing colonization.

864 posted on 10/08/2003 10:30:12 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
That's Butler quoting Lincoln.

Yep. And to date you have offered absolutely no credible reason to doubt Butler's testimony.

865 posted on 10/08/2003 10:30:57 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 848 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
After 1862 President Lincoln is amply on the record as supporting voting rights for blacks

...but never repudiating colonization.

866 posted on 10/08/2003 10:31:51 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
When did he do this?

The day after he met with Lincoln. He mentions in his autobiography that he started doing some calculations on how many ships it would take etc. and also came up with a plan to colonize them in Panama and give them jobs digging a canal.

867 posted on 10/08/2003 10:33:57 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 850 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
[Wlat lying] After 1862, President Lincoln abandoned the idea of colonization.

A few days before Lincoln died, he was consulting with Benjamin Butler yet again about colonization. On the day Lincoln died, he had Dan Sickles in Colombia pursuing colonization in South America. Lincoln was a documented White-separatist until the day he died.

Official records of the Interior Department:

|LINK|

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

RECORDS OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR (RECORD GROUP 48)

Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Interior Relating to the Suppression of the African Slave Trade and Negro Colonization, 1854-1872. M160. 10 rolls. DP.

[3] (2) Communications from the Department of State, Nov. 6, 1860-Nov. 7, 1870, including letters referred by that department to the Secretary of the Interior; correspondence relating to the slave ships Delicia and William L. Cogswell; letters relating to colonization on the island of Fernando Po near Kingston, Jamaica, and at Quito, Ecuador; and information concerning the activities and termination of the Mixed Courts of Justice

[3] (5) Communications from the Treasury Department, July 18, 1860-Feb. 3, 1872, relating mainly to salary drafts of personnel of the Mixed Courts of Justice and of special agents outside the United States, accounts of U.S. marshals, and payment of prize money. Included are a copy of a contract between the United States and the American Colonization Society and a statement of the expenses and disbursements of the U.S. marshal at New York, Dec. 18, 1862-Sept. 18, 1864

[6] (2) Communications relating to T. I. Moreno, U.S. marshal for the Southern District of Florida, May 4, 1860-Apr. 3, 1862, including reports on various slave ships; correspondence relating to drafts drawn by Moreno; reports concerning recaptured Africans transported to Liberia on ships of the American Colonization Society; a statistical report showing the number of births and deaths among the Africans at Key West, FL, and the number transported to Liberia; and correspondence and testimonials pertaining to Moreno's loyalty to the Union

[8] (1) Communications relating to Rev. James Mitchell, emigration agent of the Department of the Interior, Apr. 8, 1862-June 6, 1865, including correspondence promoting colonization in Haiti, a draft of a letter from the Secretary of the Interior to President Lincoln recommending the discontinuance of Mitchell's services, correspondence between Mitchell and the Secretary relating to the former's position and authority, letters concerning Mitchell's claim for compensation, and a copy of a report from Mitchell to President Lincoln concerning colonization

[8] (2) Miscellaneous letters pertaining to colonization, May 23, 1860-oct. 10, 1868, including communications to the Secretary of State concerning offers to transport recaptured blacks to Liberia; requests for appointment as agents, reports from agents; a copy of a note from the Spanish Minister to the Secretary of State concerning colonization on the island of Fernando Po; communications relating to proposed colonization on the islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique and in Mexico; and colonization accounts

[8] (3) Communications relating to colonization in British Honduras, Mar. 7, 1861-May 20, 1863, including several of the James Grant papers, copies of original land grants in British Honduras, letters from John Hodge, an agent of the British Honduras Company, and pamphlets concerning the advantages of colonization in British Honduras

[8] (4) Communications relating to S. C. Pomeroy, U.S. colonization agent, Sept. 12, 1862-Jan. 30, 1872, including a copy of his instructions, a contract between the United States and Ambrose Thompson pertaining to colonization on the Isthmus of Chiriqui, and correspondence regarding the settlement of accounts

[8] (5) Records relating to negotiations with Denmark concerning colonization, Apr. 23, 1862-Oct. 3, 1865. Included are an agreement dated July 19, 1862, as to the receiving of recaptured blacks in St. Croix, Danish West Indies; printed and manuscript copies of the provisional act to regulate the relations between the proprietors of landed estates and the rural population of free laborers of the Danish West Indies; and a communication from the Danish Legation to the State Department regarding the agreement of 1861

[8] (6) Miscellaneous contracts and agreements pertaining to colonization, 1860-65, including proposals for furnishing ships to transport blacks from Key West, FL; copies of contracts with the American Colonization Society for transporting blacks from Key West to Liberia and for the support of liberated Africans; a copy of an agreement between the Republic of Liberia and the American Colonization Society regarding recaptured Africans landed in Liberia by the society under its contract with the United States; several drafts of contracts; the charter of the ship Ocean Ranger; a printed statement relating to the colonization of free blacks at Ile a Vache; and a draft of a Haitian proclamation relating to colonization

[8] (7) Requisitions and letters, 1861-66, mainly letters from G. C. Whiting to the Secretary of the Interior or to the disbursing agent requesting requisitions for the U.S. marshals and attorneys or for Rev. James Mitchell

[9] (4) Communications, Feb. 9, 1863-Jan. 18, 1869, relating to the claim of James De Long, U.S. consul at Aux Cayes, Haiti, for money expended assisting the colonists at Ile a Vache

[10] (1) Communications from Rev. John Seys, U.S. agent for liberated Africans at Monrovia, 1860-65, consisting of accounts and receipts for expenditures; reports concerning the arrival of American Colonization Society vessels and the condition of liberated Africans; and a report to the Secretary of the Interior concerning the contract between the American Colonization Society and the Liberian government and the number of recaptured Africans delivered to the society's agent

[10] (2) Accounts and financial correspondence of the American Colonization Society, Jan. 1861-May 1863, including communications from the Treasury Department to the Department of the Interior concerning accounts of the society

[10] (3) Communications pertaining to Rev. William McLain, financial secretary of the American Colonization Society, May 23, 1860-Dec. 2, 1868, including proposals for transporting Africans to Liberia, letters from McLain relating to the sailing schedules of the society's ships, letters transmitting reports to the department from agents; and correspondence concerning the claim of the American Colonization Society for the support of recaptured Africans

868 posted on 10/08/2003 11:29:21 AM PDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
[Non-Seq] Yada, yada, yada indeed.

"We protest that Mr Edwards is not, or ought not to be permitted to make such contracts, and we respectfully ask that he be assigned to duty, elsewhere, and be required to contract directly with honest men, and not indirectly with thieves and scoundrels."

I think I forgot to mention that Mr. Edwards was married to Crazy Mary's sister and was Abe's relative by marriage.

869 posted on 10/08/2003 11:34:34 AM PDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
[Non-Seq] Where in there was the forced deportation of anyone mentioned?

Lincoln was an attorney talking to a group of law-makers. Everybody knew what the word meant.

DEPORTATION, civil law. Among the Romans a perpetual banishment, depriving the banished of his rights as a citizen; it differed from relegation (q. v.) and exile. (q. v.). 1 Bro. Civ. Law, 125 note; Inst. 1, 12, 1 and 2; -Dig. 48, 22, 14, 1.

Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 edition

From a more modern law dictionary:

Deportation
Banishment to a foreign country, attended with confiscation of property and deprivation of civil rights. A punishment derived from the deportatio (q.v.) of the roman Law.

The transfer of an alien, excluded or expelled, from the United States to a foreign country. Petition for Milanovic, D.C.N.Y., 162 F.Supp. 890, 892. The removal or sending back of an alien to the country from which he came because his presence is deemed inconsistent with the public welfare, and without any punishment being imposed or contemplated. The list of grounds for deporation are set forth at 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252-1254. See also Banishment. Compare Extradition.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6 Ed.

870 posted on 10/08/2003 11:50:40 AM PDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
[Wlat] He is on the record thanking the governor of Massachusetts for taking blacks as permanent residents.

You can lie like a Clinton.

871 posted on 10/08/2003 11:59:15 AM PDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
[Non-Seq] A long term scheme to accomplish the forced removal of over 4 million people? Where is that brought out in the memo?

We earnestly pray that a perpetual barrier may be reared between us and that land of the mixed races of this continent - Mexico. That, so far as this nation is concerned, we shall forever guarantee the integrity of her country, and so adjust our policy, that she might gradually receive our colored people, which when added to her already large body of five and a half or six millions of people of mixed race, would give her a population of near 12,000,000 persons of mixed caste, and, in the course of half a century, she will have a strong and compact community of near twenty million persons of color. It is the conviction of millions that this should be the line of policy towards Mexico and Central America. As Abraham and Lot agreed to separate their conflicting retainer and dependents, the one going to the right and the other to the left, so let those two governments agree to divide this continent between the Anglo-American and mixed races, the latter taking that which nature, in her wisdom, has prepared for them, and which for beauty, fertility, and grandeur of scenery, cannot be equaled on the globe - a country once the seat of empire and home of ancient civilization, he monuments of which abound in Central America.

If we would retain our republicanism, it must become a fixed principle with us not to add territory to our country on the south, unless that territory is uninhabited; for every square mile added which is encumbered with a mixed race of local and fixed habits, (unused to migration like the Mexican and Central American Indian, and Negro races,) adds danger, trouble, and sure decay to republicanism. Statesmen may boast that "it is our manifest destiny to annex all the adjoining country and cover it with our institutions." With all due respect to them, we say they speak without reflection. Our republican institutions are not adapted to mixed races and classified people. Our institutions require a homogeneous population to rest on as a basis; without this basis, the continuance of republicanism, for any great length of time, is impossible.


872 posted on 10/08/2003 12:01:53 PM PDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 853 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist; WhiskeyPapa
Benjamin Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler (Boston: 1892), pp. 903-908.; Quoted in: Charles H. Wesley, "Lincoln's Plan for Colonizing the Emancipated Negroes," The Journal of Negro History, Vol. IV, No. 1 (January 1919), p. 20.; Earnest S. Cox, Lincoln's Negro Policy (Torrance, Calif.: 1968), pp. 62-64.; Paul J. Scheips, "Lincoln and the Chiriqui Colonization Project," The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 37, No. 4 (October 1952), pp. 448-449. In the view of historian H. Belz, the essence of what Butler reports that Lincoln said to him here is "in accord with views ... [he] expressed elsewhere concerning reconstruction." See: Herman Belz, Reconstructing the Union: Theory and Policy During the Civil War (Ithaca: 1969), pp. 282-283. Cited in: N. Weyl and W. Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro (1971), p. 233 (n. 44).

873 posted on 10/08/2003 12:11:46 PM PDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 865 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist; WhiskeyPapa
[Wlat] After 1862 President Lincoln is amply on the record as supporting voting rights for blacks

What he said was that he would not mind if some intelligent Blacks or Black ex-servicemen were allowed to vote.

What he did was approve of the Louisiana constitution which did not allow any Black person to vote.

Talk is cheap. That is especially so when Lincoln the Liar is talking.

874 posted on 10/08/2003 12:16:14 PM PDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies]

To: x
Good to hear from you again (although, as always, we find ourselves in disagreement ;>)!

Thomas's was the dissenting opinion, so his view doesn't have the status of law.

Congratulations! I have been citing the subject opinion to judicial cultists for years, and have even gone so far as to provide a link to the opinion on my homepage, and you are the first person to note that it was a minority opinion. You might have mentioned, however, that Mr. Justice Thomas was joined in dissent by the Chief Justice, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Scalia. In other words, the entire conservative side of the court. And the fact that “his view doesn't have the status of law” in no way alters the simple fact that Mr. Justice Thomas was absolutely correct in his assertions - but does indeed say something about the sorry state of 'constitutional law' in America.

…there most assuredly are other "mechanisms" or institutions of self-government on the national level: Congress, the Electoral College, the Presidency. Justice Thomas's argument does not affect the legitimacy of these institutions or elevate "state's rights" above them.

As Mr. Justice Thomas noted, “[W]here the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.” Quite obviously, the Constitution is not “silent” regarding “Congress, the Electoral College, [and] the Presidency” (although mere mention in the Constitution does not magically endow federal institutions with unlimited powers). It is equally obvious that the Constitution is “silent” with regard to secession.

The supremacy clause of the Constitution makes unilateral secession an impossibility.

I wonder if anyone who cites “the supremacy clause” as a bar to secession has ever bothered to read it. Allow me to quote the language in question:

”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”

“The supremacy clause” can be said to make “unilateral secession an impossibility” only if some other clause of “this Constitution” prohibits State secession; or if a federal law “made in Pursuance” of some other clause of “this Constitution” prohibits State secession; or if a “Treaty” prohibits State secession. The language is quite clear - those are the only possibilities. Please explain to us precisely which other clause prohibits secession; or which specific federal law prohibited secession in 1860 (quoting the constitutional clause it was “made in pursuance” of ;>); or which “treaty” banned secession. If you can refrain from circular reasoning (the standard “secession is unconstitutional – therefore secession is equivalent to rebellion – therefore secession is unconstitutional” argument ;>) you will save time.

By virtue of calling a national convention and having its resolutions ratified by popular conventions in 3/4 of the states, the process has become a national one, and reflects a national consensus.

“A national consensus?” The 38 least-populous States have only about 40% of the nation’s population, and yet they can amend the Constitution at will. In fact, it is possible that the legislatures of ¾ of the States could amend the Constitution, without the people of the States being involved in any way (other than by means of having previously elected their State legislators). The States amend the Constitution – if a “consensus” is required, it is clearly a “consensus” of the States.

The founders did not simply allow states to opt out of the union.

Really? Perhaps you could quote “the founders”…

Nor did they allow state legislatures the option of dissolving the confederation on their own.

Citation please…

They required that Constitutional changes reflect something approaching a national consensus.

And which specific clause of the Constitution would ‘require’ a ‘change’ in order to permit State secession? Which clause prohibits it?

;>)

875 posted on 10/08/2003 5:22:00 PM PDT by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
No state has been out of the Union for an instant.

Which “Union?” The old “Union” formed under the terms of the Articles of Confederation, which required the unanimous agreement of 13 States for amendment? Or the new “Union” which was initially formed between only 9 ratifying States, lacking the 4 others, and which did not include the State of Rhode Island for nearly 2 years?

To which “Union” are you referring?

;>)

A state would have to fight its way out, and no state or group of states has been able to muster the power for that.
Ever.

Actually, the 9 ratifying States of the new “Union” left the old “Union” without ‘fighting their way out’ – nor did the non-ratifying States have to resort to arms to maintain their independence. But let’s not let historical fact detract from your appeal to brute force! Bravo!

;>)

Why you seem to think you are so clever is beyond me.

"Clever?" I've never claimed I was "clever." I have admitted to being the son of a Minnesota farmer, and I learned "the 3 R's" (one of which is 'reading' ;>) in school. Using what I learned, I actually read the Constitution. When it SAYS, "Congress shall make no law," I suggest that it MEANS "Congress shall make no law." When it SAYS, "shall not be infringed," I suggest that it MEANS "shall not be infringed." And when it says "not delegated...nor prohibited...are reserved," I insist that it MEANS exactly that. The fact that you are a Clinton-Gore voter does not change the meaning of the English language.

The Tenth amendment says not a word about secession. The Constitution says not a word about secession one way of the other.

Congratulations! You have been telling us literally for years that secession was unconstitutional. I'm glad to see that the truth has finally 'sunk in' - the Constitution nowhere prohibits secession.

The Supreme Court said the secessionists were traitors. None of the quotes you use can gainsay that.

The high court says many things. In a few years, I suspect the court will declare civilian ownership of firearms - all firearms - 'unconstitutional.' A court opinion is not equivalent to the specific, written words of the United States Constitution: if it were, Article V would describe how the court, rather than the States, could amend the contract.

Unilateral state secession ...it is outside the laws...

So, you are admitting that "the supremacy clause" doesn't apply, because no law prohibited secession in 1861?

;>)

...or anything the framers contemplated.

As we know, you do not consider Thomas Jefferson to be "a framer." (Fancy that! ;>) Nevertheless, allow me to quote Mr. Jefferson's Declaration of 1825 (for the benefit of those who have a greater interest in historical fact than you appear to possess ;>):

"...[T]he federal branch has assumed in some cases, and claimed in others, a right of enlarging its own powers by constructions, inferences, and indefinite deductions from those directly given, which this assembly does declare to be usurpations of the powers retained to the independent branches, mere interpolations into the compact, and direct infractions of it...

"Whilst the General Assembly thus declares the rights retained by the States, rights which they have never yielded, and which this State will never voluntarily yield, they do not mean to raise the banner of disaffection, or of separation from their sister States, co-parties with themselves to this compact. They know and value too highly the blessings of their Union as to foreign nations and questions arising among themselves, to consider every infraction as to be met by actual resistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the same rights under the same instrument, to make every difference of construction a ground of immediate rupture. They would, indeed, consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them; but not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a government of unlimited powers. It is only when the hope of avoiding this shall become absolutely desperate, that further forebearance could not be indulged.

"...In the meanwhile, we will breast with them, rather than separate from them, every misfortune, save that only of living under a government of unlimited powers."

Funny thing - "a government of unlimited powers" is precisely how you describe the federal government. Looks like Mr. Jefferson would not have agreed with you.

;>)

876 posted on 10/08/2003 5:55:40 PM PDT by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: Held_to_Ransom
Secession contained no right to steal and welch on contractual arrangements.

What was supposedly ‘stolen?’ Which “contractual arrangements” were ‘welched on?’ Please be specific.

;>)

877 posted on 10/08/2003 6:01:35 PM PDT by Who is John Galt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 716 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
WIJG: Are suggesting that the Constitution 'delegates' to the federal government the power to expel a State?

N-S: There is nothing that prevents it.

Apparently you believe ‘the powers not delegated to the States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the federal government, belong to the federal government.’ How nice!

;>)

878 posted on 10/08/2003 6:05:08 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." --Paul Begala, 1997)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 718 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
...he looked at the documents which preceded it and the intent of those who both founded the country and established the type of government. There is where he found the rationale for the judgment of the US Supreme Court in Texas vs White.

"There is where he found the rationale" for "perpetual union," while turning a blind eye to the fact that "[e]ach state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence..." (Article II, The Articles of Confederation). In short, he found what he wished to find, by ignoring a vast body of documented historical fact, and thereby produced the political decision he wished to produce.

If the high court decides tomorrow that it is unconstitutional for you to own your firearms, will you suggest here that the court must have "found the rationale" for it's decision outside the Constitution, but that the decision is nevertheless constitutional? Read the Second Amendment, and the First and Tenth as well. The language is clear. You can not claim that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," without also acknowledging that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and also insisting that "[t]he powers not delegated ...nor prohibited ...are reserved..." To surrender one is to surrender all.

;>)

879 posted on 10/08/2003 6:53:31 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." --Paul Begala, 1997)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
The poster who in his latest form goes by held_to_ransom is also quite fond of claiming that the confederates "stole" the forts in Charleston from the federal government and implies that these forts were constructed with northern tax dollars. This is a falsehood.

It is false in more ways than one. The fortifications were not constructed from wads of dollar bills, or armed with cannon made from rolls of currency. The tax dollars in question were spent to purchase masonry, and armor plate, and iron guns. And much of the money was spent in Northern States, even though equivalent materials were available from Southern sources. Bricks for the construction of at least one Southern fort, for example, were shipped all the way from New England (probably using Yankee ships). If authorized today, the construction program might be called 'pork barrel spending,' or 'corporate welfare' for Northern industries. In essence, the Northern States were paid for the fortifications before the Southern States ever seceded...

;>)

880 posted on 10/08/2003 7:32:49 PM PDT by Who is John Galt? ("Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool." --Paul Begala, 1997)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 728 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900 ... 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