Posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by cowboyway
One of the greatest misconceptions of American history is that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Those who subscribe to this belief see President Abraham Lincoln as the benevolent leader who made unimaginable sacrifices in human blood to wipe out America’s greatest sin. While the human sacrifice is indisputable and the sin was monumental, the war’s purpose was not to free blacks from the shackles of bondage. Rather, the Civil War was fought with one purpose in mind: To preserve the Union at all costs. And, to put it in Lincoln’s terms, with no ifs, ands, or buts. You’d better agree with the president, or else.
(Excerpt) Read more at tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
It's amazingly easy. I just look at you...and do a 180.
Well Kill Us y'all can but.. conquer Us y'all will never do,That's my motto!
“If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one.”
Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, July 1867 (Foote, The Civil War, Vol. 3, p. 765)
Way too late on that one, Rustabout.
“If you bring these [Confederate] leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one.”
That would be the very same Chief Justice Salmon Chase who ruled the Southern acts of unilateral secession to be illegal not 2 years later in the Texas v White case? Must have changed his mind, huh? </sarcasm>
Did I strike a nerve or just tug on your robes?
How many of those rainbow ringees do you have?
It’s a Gadsden flag and the black stripe is a tree branch.
Do y'all think a Yankee will fit in a small cage? For training,of course?Non-Sequitur,Will you volunteer?
Always have...............
For one, you better quit rolling around on the floor or the white coats are going to be coming into your room with the straight jacket again.
And second, for yankees to deny their racist heritage is just, well, tradition.
No nerves struck here.
Like I said, those photos have more of chance of being in yours or NS's family photo albums than in mine.
Tucking tail and running again, I see................
You guys have no idea how many lies NS has been caught in over the years. But he can never admit it. Instead, he uses spin, dodge or run tactics.
His pomposity and arrogance are only exceeded by his cowardice.
Like I said, those photos have more of chance of being in yours or NS's family photo albums than in mine.</blockquote>I doubt it, the Klu Klux Klan has always been notoriously anti catholic.
When you post something worth responding to. I have little faith in that happening any time soon.
I can't help it. Every time I read one of your posts, the sheer idiocy sends me roaring with laughter again. And if the guys in the white coats were to read your crap then they'd most likely hunt you down rather than me.
And second, for yankees to deny their racist heritage is just, well, tradition.
Must be something we learned from all y'all, huh?
Absurd. You'll respond to any post by anybody, UNLESS YOU'RE CAUGHT IN A LIE!
In that event, you scurry away like the lying coward that you are.
Again, there is nothing that prohibits secession, and Lincoln implicitly supported it himself with the admission of West Virginia (which was clarly unconstitutional.)
Several states expressly reserved the right to secede. New England talked about doing it before the South did it. It was simply assumed that it was allowable until Mr. Lincoln arbitrarily decided that he would not allow it.
When the Federal government unilaterally overrides the Constitution, what do you suggest that states do? Secession is the states’ “ultiate weapon” to regain their rights under the Tenth Amendment.
No he did not. And no it was not.
Several states expressly reserved the right to secede. New England talked about doing it before the South did it. It was simply assumed that it was allowable until Mr. Lincoln arbitrarily decided that he would not allow it.
Completely false. Madison, Jackson, Webster, Clay, and Buchanan are just a few of the leaders who had denied that the right to secede, or in Madison's case to unilaterally secede, existed.
When the Federal government unilaterally overrides the Constitution, what do you suggest that states do?
And how did the federal government unilaterally override the Constitution, forcing the Southern secession?
Ahhh at it again? What a laugh!
Mr. Buchanan
‘The question fairly stated is: Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a state into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a state. After much serious reflection, I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the federal government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not “necessary and proper for carrying into execution” any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution.
It appears from the proceedings of that body that on the 31st of May, 1787, the clause “authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a delinquent state” came up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed it in a brief but powerful speech, from which I shall extract but a single sentence. He observed:
“The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed and was never, I believe, again presented. Soon afterward, on the 8th of June, 1787, when incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: “Any government for the United States formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the states would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress,” evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the old Confederation.
Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a state is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. . . .
The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force. (Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1860, Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1860-1861, pp. 19-20)
LOL!
NS;
You want to stop licking the boot long enough to take a look around? It's happening again in spades. We are taking a Constitutional enema right now.
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.