Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever Video
Freedom's Lighthouse ^ | December 22, 2011 | Brian

Posted on 12/22/2011 3:04:51 PM PST by Federalist Patriot

Now this is a great ad from American Crossroads! Let’s hope we see a 30-second or 1-minute version of this playing in 2012 during the General Election Campaign.

It uses Obama’s own words against him, where he recently decreed himself to be essentially the fourth best President in the history of the United States in terms of his accomplishments! There’s nothing like the ego of “The One.”

(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.net ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: ad; arrogance; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-269 next last
To: Idabilly
Napolitano is clueless about Vermont. They're all socialists up there. The State hasn't gone Republican in a Presidential Election since 1988.

ML/NJ

201 posted on 01/03/2012 1:29:25 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
They wanted to further and extend slavery,

Do you know why Lincoln and most Republicans wanted to stop that expansion of slavery into the new territories? Hint: It wasn't for noble reasons like everyone has been brainwashed into believing....

202 posted on 01/03/2012 3:25:12 PM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
Hard to believe there are NH people with that much smarts about history.

You know, I can't get to upset about Lincoln. He was their President and the USA was their country. For those 4 glorious years, most of real America i.e. the South and the CSA had a real President, Jefferson Davis. For a brief time our ancestors were free from the North East power structure and the unending usurpation of the pretend Union. What that stupid goon did to those people is of little importance to me, it's just that jerk set a precedent we ALL have to live with.

203 posted on 01/03/2012 3:41:11 PM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: central_va

More mind reading?


204 posted on 01/03/2012 10:38:35 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

State sovereignty was shared between the states and the federal government after the constitution was ratified. Accordingly the states did not maintain ambassadors, rather they were appointed by the President and ratified by the Senate.

And controversies between the states were not to be settled by armies, but by law, with the supreme court as original jurisdiction. Any state raising an army for use against another state, or against the US government would be engaging in insurrection.


205 posted on 01/03/2012 10:45:13 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Dishonest Cowboyway, making false charges again.

Secession without legal authority is nothing but rebellion. To support rebellion with violence is insurrection and treason.

There was treason, but it was not on the part of the legitimately elected government, but rather on the part of those who had not been elected, who presumed to form a government in opposition to that elected.


206 posted on 01/03/2012 10:48:41 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: central_va
You know, I can't get to upset about Lincoln. He was their President and the USA was their country.

That's a fact, however, since the occupation all the little school kids, north and South, have been fed the lies from the yankee propoganda machine and have grown up believing them and personally I'm glad that there are a growing number of people willing to challenge the yankee propoganda and politically correct revisionism. Perhaps one day the history books will print the truth about disHonest Abe and that stinking memorial will be replaced with something more appropriate.

207 posted on 01/04/2012 4:39:43 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Secession without legal authority is nothing but rebellion.

Gonna cite that pathetic T-v-W dicta from the dishonorable Chase again? Weak.

But, consent of the governed doesn't mean much to the statist or the tyrant.........

To support rebellion with violence is insurrection and treason.

On the other hand, to defend your home against oppression, tyranny and invasion from thugs and criminals is quite noble.

There was treason

You betcha there was and it was in the form of disHonest Abe Lincoln and his gang of thugs.

Like your pretend marriages and your pretend gods, your pretend neo-yank False Cause Loser history and statism doesn't cut it here, perv.

208 posted on 01/04/2012 4:51:36 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway; rockrr; donmeaker; Impy
cowboyway: "The power delegated to the federal government was significantly expanded by amendments to the Constitution following lincoln's illegal war and the states became legally subject to the final dictates of the federal government; hence the de facto repeal of the Tenth Amendment."

Rubbish.
First of all, the Tenth Amendment never abrogated Article VI:

"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."

Second, the Tenth Amendment has been upheld by the US Supreme Court on occasion:

  1. "In 1992, in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment."

  2. "In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)).
    The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns.
    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment.
    Since the act "forced participation of the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal program", it was unconstitutional."

  3. "In United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a "gun-free zone" on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it.
    This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government's power under the Commerce Clause.
    The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment..., "

  4. "The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government, as held in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). "

But the Supreme Court will only go so far:

Point is: the Tenth Amendment is alive and well, and the issue is, in what cases does it apply?
So the real State Sovereignty problem is that States are unwilling to turn down Federal funds which come with strings attached.
They would rather take the money and comply with Federal rules.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with Honest Abe Lincoln.

cowboyway: "Lincoln did not fight the bloodiest war of the nineteenth century, against his own people and at a cost of 620,000 American lives, to free the slaves.
He fought it to set a precedent of federal supremacy over the states.
And in the process turned his apparent belief that the ends justify the means into federal dogma."

That is such rubbish, only a devoted propagandist would believe a word of it.

The Constitution itself established Federal supremacy, and gave the Government powers necessary to repel invasions, suppress rebellions, defeat insurrections, etc.

Lincoln simply enforced the Constitution.
His new Constitutional amendments simply corrected some of the wickedness which led to the slave-holders' rebellion.

209 posted on 01/04/2012 7:37:51 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; Idabilly; central_va; mojitojoe; southernsunshine
All the points of your riduculous post are rebutted HERE.

(You need to take that Kool Aid IV out of your arm, pal. Seriously.)

210 posted on 01/04/2012 9:45:32 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; cowboyway; Idabilly; phi11yguy19; central_va; mojitojoe
Lincoln simply enforced trashed the Constitution.

Fixed.

His new Constitutional amendments simply corrected some of the wickedness which led to the slave-holders' rebellion.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

9th Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10the Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

211 posted on 01/04/2012 10:59:03 AM PST by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine

The disHonest Abe/yankee version of ‘consent of the governed’ is that we consent and they govern. brojoke is a dyed in the wool big government statist that worships lincoln. He’s done more than drank the Kool Aid; he’s doing the backstroke in it.


212 posted on 01/04/2012 12:20:31 PM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway; BroJoeK
The disHonest Abe/yankee version of ‘consent of the governed’ is that we consent and they govern.

Yep, consent or else we'll murder, rape, pillage and plunder till ya do consent at the point of a bayonet!

disHonest Abe had no respect for the Constitution and it appears the Coven can't grasp the intent of the Constitution:

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.--Jefferson

The chains of the Constitution were to bind the government, not the People (of their respective States). I mean really, how hard is that to understand?!

213 posted on 01/04/2012 2:11:09 PM PST by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Consent of the governed.

Using your reasoning, the US should not have sent the Marines in to save Virginia from John Brown. But they did. With Colonel Lee in charge. Such an act would be treason on the part of Colonel Lee. Since Colonel Lee committed such treason, I blame him for all the ills committed by the Democrats after that.

Further, I figure the retention of slavery in the states was unconstitutional ‘corruption of the blood’, and should have been ended before. Every slave holder should have been locked up for kidnapping.


214 posted on 01/04/2012 10:09:31 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Using your reasoning,

Your reasoning is what has led you to commit incest, practice paganism and claim that Christianity is a pagan religion. Enough said.

Every slave holder should have been locked up for kidnapping.

Every slave holder yankee slave trader should have been locked up hanged for kidnapping.

Fixed it for ya.

215 posted on 01/05/2012 4:52:07 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine
The chains of the Constitution were to bind the government, not the People (of their respective States). I mean really, how hard is that to understand?!

That's an impossible concept for the coven to comprehend, mainly due to their statist state of mind.

216 posted on 01/05/2012 4:55:26 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

You lie. That you have to lie shows you know you are wrong.

Let that burn you just a moment.

Yes, I practice a pagan religion, as you do, for Christianity is a pagan religion. As opposed to a religion of a court sycophant. And that is a good thing.


217 posted on 01/05/2012 7:56:47 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway; rockrr; donmeaker; Impy
cowboyway: "All the points of your riduculous post are rebutted HERE."

No they are not, and DiLorenzo is Kool-Aid Central for pro-Confederate propaganda lies.

But first of all, Napolitano himself is a good and decent man, who is right in most everything he says -- most everything.
In that regard, we might note the following quote from your link:

"So what can be done?
Among Judge Napolitano's common sense recommendations are abolition of the income tax ("the Sixteenth Amendment . . . should be abolished outright"); same for the Seventeenth Amendment which called for the direct election of U.S. senators and a return to the system of appointing them by state legislatures; and the recognition that the federal government will never check its own power.

" 'Thus, I would clarify the right of the states to secede from the Union,' writes the judge from New Jersey, 'losing all the benefits that come from membership [in the union], but regaining all the freedom membership has taken away.' "

Imho, those are entirely sensible recommendations, necessary to restore the balance between Federal and State powers.
And a constitutional amendment to define lawful secession seems to me long overdue.

But we should also note that none of this has anything to do with Honest Abe Lincoln -- since the 16th and 17th amendments came 50 years after Lincoln's death.

Second important point to note: from the beginning, my argument here can be summarized as: "Founders' Original Intent" -- what did those Federalists who wrote and ratified the new Constitution intend for it to mean?

I say: if you oppose Original Intent, then you oppose the Constitution itself.
Well, the good Judge Napolitano argues, in effect, against the Founders' Original Intent, saying the document was flawed from the beginning in allowing the Founders to increase Federal power beyond what anti-Federalists approved of.

I say that's nonsense: the Constitution means what the Founders said it means, not what anti-Federalists wish it would have meant if they had written or voted to ratify it.

And bringing this all back to our discussion of Deep-South slave-holders declarations of secession, beginning in 1860, the Founders' Original Intent on secession is clear: constitutional secession is by mutual consent, or due to a material breach of contract having that same effect.

None of these conditions existed on November 6, 1860, when Deep-South slave-holders first began the process to declare their secession, simultaneously began committing many acts of increasing rebellion or war against the United States, before formally declaring war on May 6, 1861.

And the slave-holders' declaration of war on the United States invalidates all claims to the constitutional legitimacy of their "right of secession."

The US Constitution says nothing directly about "secession".
It says a lot about people who make war on the United States, or provide them with aid and comfort, committing rebellion, insurrection, invasion and domestic violence.

Those are the constitutional provisions Lincoln used to defeat the slave-holders' rebellion.

218 posted on 01/06/2012 3:04:46 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
donmeaker: "Christianity is a pagan religion."

See my post #192 above.

219 posted on 01/06/2012 3:22:13 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker; Jim Robinson
You lie. That you have to lie shows you know you are wrong.

Show the lie, pagan.

Yes, I practice a pagan religion, as you do, for Christianity is a pagan religion.

It's hard for me to believe that JR lets you continue to post that garbage on his website.

220 posted on 01/06/2012 6:06:50 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
No they are not,

Well, other than your personal attacks on me they were.

and DiLorenzo is Kool-Aid Central for pro-Confederate propaganda lies.

And you are Kool Aid Central for the neo-yank False Cause Losers propaganda team. Touche!

who is right in most everything he says -- most everything.

Except when he disagrees with you, perhaps?

But we should also note that none of this has anything to do with Honest Abe Lincoln

Unbelievable! Why do you continue to defend the defenseless? Historians from every spectrum are beginning to show lincoln for the tyrant that he was. Numerous examples have been hyperlinked to you but you continue to poke your head in the sand/Kool Aid jug and deny, deny, deny.

I remember a few months back when you were in complete denial about the yankee involvement in slavery but you finally capitulated under the barrage of undeniable facts presented to you. Is the lincoln myth too strong for you to let go?

I say: if you oppose Original Intent, then you oppose the Constitution itself.

Then you'll agree that lincoln was opposed to the Constitution. I think we're making progress.

Well, the good Judge Napolitano argues, in effect, against the Founders' Original Intent, saying the document was flawed from the beginning in allowing the Founders to increase Federal power beyond what anti-Federalists approved of.

First of all, the fact that amendments and a process to add amendments are part of the constitution shows that the Founders understood that they or the constitution wasn't perfect, e.g. the protection of slavery.

Second, the Constitution is only as strong as the elected and those that elect them. In the case of lincoln, the South knew that he was going to trample all over the Constitution and they seceded. In the case of 0bama, we conservatives also knew that he was going to trample all over the Constitution, however, our only recourse, thanks to lincoln, is to hope that we can have a fair and free election and replace him with a patriot.

the Founders' Original Intent on secession is clear: constitutional secession is by mutual consent

Please provide evidence of that from the Founders own words.

Your 'mutual consent' argument comes from the T v W Chase dicta. Not a shred of evidence to back it up. Zero, zilch, nada. In addition, how can you maintain that I'm free if I have to have your consent to exercise my freedom?

And the slave-holders' declaration of war

I'm gonna type this slowly so that maybe you'll get it this time: a declaration of war simple means that a state of war exists, not that you've started one. You've been shown who started the war and why. The Judge and others painted that picture quite clearly.

The US Constitution says nothing directly about "secession".

What a tick. You stated above that "constitutional secession is by mutual consent". Which is it? Does it say nothing or does it define the terms?

I'm anxious to see how you try to weasel out of this one.

It says a lot about people who make war on the United States, or provide them with aid and comfort, committing rebellion, insurrection, invasion and domestic violence.

You've show time and again that you're fast and loose with the facts and a staunch defender of the neo-yank False Cause Loser mythology. The above sentence is simply more evidence of that.

Those are the constitutional provisions Lincoln used to defeat the slave-holders' rebellion.

Actually, lincoln used unconstitutional acts to wage a slave traders invasion to collect back taxes.

221 posted on 01/06/2012 6:47:52 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

What bothers you so much about the assertion that Christianity is a religion of the people, rather than the religion of the politically powerful?

Incest is sexual relations between people who are forbidden to marry. Since I was legally married, that is just not a correct description of my situation. When you assert that it was my situation you bear fast witness. And your Christ bears the pain of your sin of bearing false witness.

Yet I forgive you.


222 posted on 01/06/2012 4:30:06 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

All wrong.

The Federal government did not collect the back tariff not paid while the pretended confederacy did not pay legally obligated tariff to the US. Nor did the US government attempt to collect back tariff.

Thus, when you assert that the US government, or its head of state, Lincoln, made war to collect back taxes, you bear false witness. The punishment for your sin of false witness is paid by your Christ. If you love your Christ, you will stop bearing false witness.


223 posted on 01/06/2012 4:34:16 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

What the Constitution says is that controversies that involve the states and the federal government are to be resolved in court, and by implication, shooting is not considered proper etiquette, so when South Carolina started shooting, it was unconstitutional insurrection.


224 posted on 01/06/2012 9:46:02 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The term pagan is from the Latin paganus, an adjective originally meaning “rural”, “rustic” or “of the country.” As a noun, paganus was used to mean “country dweller, villager, and contrasted with the religion in favor in the imperial court.

In that sense, Christianity is now a pagan religion. Christianity is, to my way of thinking, not in favor in our government. It is in favor in ‘flyover country’ which would be rural, rustic places, or in small villages.

Some (Muslims and Jews, and perhaps the occasional Roman Pagan) see the doctrine of the Trinity as approaching polytheism.

The Buddha said “The things of G-d are unknown, and unknowable, so why argue?”


225 posted on 01/06/2012 10:00:57 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
donmeaker: "In that sense, Christianity is now a pagan religion."

In no dictionary definition does "pagan" apply to Christianity -- indeed, the dictionary tells us the word was first used in the 14th Century, meaning it was coined by educated Christians to describe rural heathens.

So, if you wish to tell us that Christianity today is stronger amongst independent rural folks than among our more educated urban elites, then just say that.

Don't be calling people "pagans" when all you really mean is rural.
And don't be insulting us rural folks, pal.

226 posted on 01/06/2012 11:45:46 PM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Incest is sexual intercourse between close relatives that is usually illegal in the jurisdiction where it takes place and/or is conventionally considered a taboo. My statement stands and I do not bear false witness just because you found a avenue to practice your perversion legally. The fact that you shopped for a state that would allow you to marry your first cousin is no different than the stinking homosexuals getting married in states that allow such doings in order to practice their brand of perversion ‘legally’. Abortion is legal too, pal, but it’s a perversion and an abomination.

I think that you have caused more pain for Christ than I ever will.


227 posted on 01/07/2012 6:54:21 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Federal government did not collect the back tariff

Look up the Morrill Tariff Act, the highest import tax in U.S. history, which raised import taxes on Southerners from 20% to 40%.

The Permanent Slavery Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress and endorsed by Lincoln was a political maneuver by the North to bring the Southern States back into the Union to pay this new higher 40% tax to finance the U.S. Government and subsidize Northern business monopolies. When that didn't work, lincoln started a war. The South was eventually forced back into the union and feds began collecting taxes from those that had anything left to pay it with.

The punishment for your sin of false witness is paid by your Christ. If you love your Christ, you will stop bearing false witness.

We know where you stand on Christianity. You statement above is dripping with sarcasm and is an insult to all Christians. You're using statements like that as a joke to entertain your arrogant demeanor or simply to troll for entertaining replies. There doesn't seem to be any limit to your baseness. I'm sure that you and your liberal friends get a kick out of poking fun at Christians but I'm not going to engage in your sick, libtard game.

228 posted on 01/07/2012 7:21:21 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
In no dictionary definition does "pagan" apply to Christianity -- indeed, the dictionary tells us the word was first used in the 14th Century, meaning it was coined by educated Christians to describe rural heathens. So, if you wish to tell us that Christianity today is stronger amongst independent rural folks than among our more educated urban elites, then just say that. Don't be calling people "pagans" when all you really mean is rural. And don't be insulting us rural folks, pal.

Despite our differences on another subject, my hat is off to you for the above.


229 posted on 01/07/2012 7:26:59 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
cowboyway: "Despite our differences on another subject..."

You are possibly familiar with the Progressive era 16th and 17th Amendments, both ratified in 1913?
16th Amendment = Income tax.
17th Amendment = Direct election of Senators.

These are critical constitutional changes which helped cause the explosion of Federal Government, from 2% of GDP in 1913 to around 25% today.
Napolitano says that's where we should start to restore the Free Republic, as it was originally designed.

And where did the allegedly "conservative" South stand on these two amendments, in 1913?

Here is a listing of the Old Confederacy, and how eager they were to pass the Progressive era amendments.
Note that Alabama was the nation's first state to ratify the 16th Amendment, and that Texas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana all ratified both amendments:

Secession # 16th Amendment 17th Amendment
#1 = South Carolina: 16th = #3 17th = rejected
#2 = Mississippi: 16th = #5, 17th = rejected
#3 = Florida: 16th = rejected, 17th = rejected
#4 =Alabama: 16th = #1 17th = rejected
#5 = Georgia: 16th = #8, 17th = rejected
#6 = Louisiana: 16th = #34, 17th = #37
#7 = Texas: 16th = #9, 17th = #16
#8 = Virginia: 16th = rejected, 17th = rejected
#9 = Arkansas: 16th = #29, 17th = #19
#10 = North Carolina: 16th = #20, 17th = #7
#11 = Tennessee: 16th = #28, 17th = #34

Only Virginia & Florida rejected both Progressive amendments.
Pennsylvania rejected income tax, but ratified direct election of Senators.

230 posted on 01/07/2012 4:32:43 PM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Christianity is your religion, not mine, so your failures to live up to your religion are your failures, not mine.

You asserted that the war was made for back taxes. That was a lie. A fine lie from one who pretends to be a Christian. The Morrill tax was passed before Lincoln took office, and after the pretended secession of South Carolina, so you can not blame the tax on Lincoln, not can you blame the rebellion on the tax. Rather, the tax was, and could only be passed after the representatives of the south withdrew. So that is another lie. Please stop the lies. By your faith, please stop the lies.


231 posted on 01/07/2012 6:23:49 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Since I am a pagan, I didn’t think it was an insult. Rather, I looked at it as a complement. If you think the complement is not justified, I will withdraw it for your case.


232 posted on 01/07/2012 6:26:55 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

You assert that the Morrill tariff raised import taxes on southerners. Rather, it raised them on all imports. Most tariffs were paid by northern ports. Northern industries would import goods, add value to them by manufacture, and sell them all over the country.

The tax was then 40% *or what ever it was on the particular good, they had a list with different rates on different goods* on the base good, with the tax on the US work as zero. For example, cloth was imported, cut to measure, stitched, and sold as clothes. The value of the cloth would be a fraction (say 1/4th for an example) of the finished good, so the 40% tax would be (again, for an example) only 10% of the finished product. Tariffs tended to be paid on luxury goods, and few slaves or small holders bought much in the way of luxury goods.

If the south was opposed to the Morrill tariff, they could have shown up and voted against it.

If the south didn’t want to start a war they could have not opened fire.

The sad fact is, they wanted a war to bring in Viginia and perhaps Kentucky/Maryland/Delaware, so they opened fire. They wanted to drive a wedge between US manufacturers and southern small holders, so they abstained from the vote on the Tariff. That was their strategy. It failed just as their strategy of fielding 3 candidates for President. The southern partisans have complained of the results ever since, and blamed others for their foolishness.

Again, support for the Morrill tariff helped Lincoln get elected. One feature of the Morrill tariff was to have specific duties on items, rather than have a percentage of the value: That percentage feature had been an opportunity for corrupt importers to defraud the government and gain and advantage over honest importers. Opposition got the Democratic party defeated, and support for the Morrill tariff was a vote for fair taxation and good government. The US kept that in place with modifications until 1913, and the US economy grew rapidly, paid off the war, repaired the war damage. After Wilson’s election, the tariff was lowered.

Taxes must be collected somewhere. A tax on luxury goods was politically possible. Taxes that prevent, as far as possible corruption, are preferred by me over taxes which encourage corrupt deals. Of course wars are expensive, and if the rebels had not opened fire, the cost of the war could have been averted. Yet they opened fire.


233 posted on 01/08/2012 1:03:10 AM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
donmeaker: "Since I am a pagan, I didn’t think it was an insult."

Sounds like you are playing word games which are neither understood nor appreciated, nor appropriate to this (or most any) Free Republic thread.

If you wish to discuss or debate your religious ideas, including your opinions about the definition of the word "pagan", then start your own thread, and invite people to comment.

This is not the thread for it.

234 posted on 01/08/2012 5:24:20 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I didn’t raise it.

Do a search to find out who did.

Argue with him.


235 posted on 01/08/2012 8:08:17 AM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway; donmeaker; rockrr
cowboyway: "Historians from every spectrum are beginning to show lincoln for the tyrant that he was."

There are several answers to that allegation:

  1. The Constitution authorizes Government to take on extraordinary powers during times of war, rebellion, insurrection, etc.

  2. Such powers as Lincoln assumed while Congress was out of session were soon approved by Congress when it came back.

  3. The Constitution's definition of "treason" is simple and clear: to make war on the United States, or provide aid and comfort to our enemies.
    Congress declares punishment for Treason.

  4. Lincoln's alleged "tyrannies" during the Civil War were in no ways worse than Wilson's during the First World War, or Franklin Roosevelt's during the Second World War, or, for that matter, no worse than the Revolutionary War generation treated British Loyalists.
    Lesson: war is h*ll, so don't even think about starting one.

  5. Lincoln's alleged "tyrannies" are matched or exceeded by those of Jefferson Davis in the Confederacy.
    Lesson: what's good enough for the goose should be enough for the gander.

cowboyway: "I remember a few months back when you were in complete denial about the yankee involvement in slavery but you finally capitulated under the barrage of undeniable facts presented to you."

There were few to zero "Yankees" involved in:

  1. Southern intra-state slave sales.
  2. Southern inter-state slave trade.
  3. International deliveries of slaves to the US after 1808.
  4. Clotilde, the last known slave ship to arrive in Mobile Bay, Alabama in 1859, was owned by Timothy Meaher, a wealthy Mobile shipyard owner and shipper, who had built the Clotilde in 1856.
  5. The last fully documented slave ship, Wanderer, arrived in Georgia in 1858, was primarily owned by wealthy businessman and cotton planter Charles Augustus Lafayette Lamar from Savannah, Georgia.

The historical fact that slavery was legal in all American colonies in 1776 is nowhere disputed.
Nor is the fact that northern states only gradually abolished their own slavery.
Nor is the fact that the United States did not vigorously enforce the 1808 ban on International shipments of slaves until 1858 -- thus allowing pirates to operate with more-or-less impunity.

But any suggestions that "yankees" were primarily responsible for Southern slavery is just ludicrous denial of historical reality.

cowboyway: "In the case of lincoln, the South knew that he was going to trample all over the Constitution and they seceded."

Correct: in November of 1860 there was no mutual consent to secession, and no "usurpations or abuses of power" having that same effect.
Those are the Founders' Original Intent for constitutional secession, and no such conditions then existed.
So, in effect, the Deep-South slave-holders seceded "at pleasure", an act which is not authorized by the Constitution.

In 1860 the Deep-South slave-holders began to secede "at pleasure" out of fear for what a newly elected President Lincoln might do against slavery, at some time in the future -- not from any existing "usurpations or abuses of power."

cowboyway: "Please provide evidence of that from the Founders own words."

Numerous quotes to that effect have been cited here on past threads.
One of the clearest expressions comes from James Madison, in 1830:

"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.

"The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

cowboyway: "a declaration of war simple means that a state of war exists, not that you've started one."

But simultaneously with, indeed often before their unconstitutional declarations of secession, Deep-South slave-holders began to commit many acts of increasing rebellion or war, culminating in their violent attack and seizure of Fort Sumter in April 1861 -- soon followed by their formal declaration of war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

No Confederate soldier was killed by Union action until after the Confederacy declared war on the United States.

cowboyway: "You stated above that 'constitutional secession is by mutual consent'. Which is it?"

The Constitution says nothing about secession, period.
Founders' expressions of Original Intent regarding secession all reflected Madison's view expressed above -- that it must be by mutual consent or "usurpations or abuses of power" having that same effect.
No such condition existed in November 1860.

cowboyway: "Actually, lincoln used unconstitutional acts to wage a slave traders invasion to collect back taxes."

Sorry, pal, but I'd say: when you've reached that level of insanity, you are probably well beyond the reach of reason or facts.

236 posted on 01/10/2012 5:59:27 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; cowboyway; phi11yguy19
BJK said: Numerous quotes to that effect have been cited here on past threads. One of the clearest expressions comes from James Madison, in 1830:...

Please provide source documentation for where this expression was adopted by the Founders and incorporated in their work.

BJK said: Founders' expressions of Original Intent regarding secession all reflected Madison's view expressed above...

Please provide said expressions from the Philadelphia Convention.

BJK said: ...their unconstitutional declarations of secession...

Please provide source documentation proving the declarations of secession were unconstitutional at the time of their adoption.

237 posted on 01/10/2012 10:16:54 AM PST by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The old Soviet propaganda technique was “poisoning the well”. They would accuse their opponent of what they did. That tended to disarm truth tellers.

When southern partisans assert that Lincoln was a tyrant (illegitimate ruler, usurper, one who rules by force) we should recognize that as what Jeff Davis and his ilk were. The southern rebellion was illegitimate, Jeff Davis pretended to the legitimate powers of the elected president, the southern states pretended to ‘at pleasure’ usurpation by individual states of powers secured to the states and people as a whole.

When southern partisans assert that the northern states were responsible for slavery in the south in 1860, we should recognize that the southern states were responsible for the existence of their domestic institutions, and in fact wanted to interfere with local government in the north, to inflict on them the domestic institutions of the southern states.

“Poisoning the well” is a dishonest debate tactic, and says more about those who use it than it does about reality.


238 posted on 01/11/2012 5:29:34 AM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

I got a chuckle from at your comment. I’ve always known the technique by a different name - Liberal Projection. But that can’t be the case here since we’re all conservatives on this forum....right? ;-)


239 posted on 01/11/2012 7:10:17 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

By some definitions of conservative...

A friend was arguing that slavery was justified for people who couldn’t take care of themselves. He had scriptural references. He asserted that it was the South that sought to see if persons of African ancestry could be trained to the point of independence, while the Northern states forbade that.

I pointed out that as practiced in the American South, it was not justified, because people who could not take care of themselves didn’t come neatly identified as children of others who couldn’t take care of themselves. Further, it was northern states which permitted persons of African ancestry to be free, while Southern states had slave codes, black codes which forbade the experimentation that he asserted. Further, I mentioned Banneker who wrote an almanac, made a wooden clock, and helped with the survey what became the District of Columbia. He was free, but his accomplishments should have called into question the racial issues on which the justification of slavery was based.

The Europeans tried to enslave everyone. Whites could slip away, and would be presumed free wherever they went. Native Americans could slip away to the nearest Indian village, and return with a raiding party. Africans were ‘color coded’ and so were presumed to be slaves, unless they had appropriate documentation, and were presumed to be slaves, and thus kept disarmed as a general rule.

He hadn’t


240 posted on 01/11/2012 7:37:42 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine; donmeaker; rockrr
southernsunshine: "Please provide source documentation for where this expression was adopted by the Founders and incorporated in their work."

Contract law was as well (indeed better) understood in those days as today, and so the obvious did not need to be frequently restated.
But any statements you do find from the Founders -- meaning those who wrote and voted to ratify the Constitution -- fall within the limits set by Madison in my post #236 above:

"...the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.
"The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.

"It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

Virginia's ratification statement says the same thing, in so many words:

"...powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..."
In other words, in today's language, there must be a material breach of contract for a constitutional secession.

Even the New York ratification statement, that most generalized of all, clearly implies breach of contract in using the word "necessary":

"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness... "
The word "necessary" is the opposite of "at pleasure".

So let me invite you to re-examine your entire lengthy file of Founders' quotes, and find even one which expresses the understanding that a State could secede from the compact "at pleasure".

Yes, I understand your 10th Amendment argument, but the 10th Amendment refers to normal and lawful powers of government, it does not authorize anyone to commit unlawful acts, such as secession "at pleasure."

So here are the bottom lines:

  1. Deep-South slave-holders' declarations of secession, "at pleasure", were unconstitutional.

  2. Numerous unlawful actions -- i.e., seizures of Federal properties -- committed by secessionists amounted to rebellion or war against the United States.

  3. The Confederacy's declaration of war on the United States, on May 6, 1861, ended the possibility of a negotiated resolution.

  4. No Confederate soldiers were killed by Union forces until after the Confederacy declared war.

241 posted on 01/12/2012 3:33:22 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
southernsunshine: Please provide source documentation for where this expression was adopted by the Founders and incorporated in their work.

BJK: Contract law was as well (indeed better) understood in those days as today, and so the obvious did not need to be frequently restated. And so forth and so on.

You sidestepped my question. Please try again.

242 posted on 01/12/2012 9:19:31 AM PST by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
sunshine: You sidestepped my question. Please try again.

Correction. Should read: You sidestepped my request. Please try again. I'm asking for documentation from the Philadelphia convention.

243 posted on 01/12/2012 1:13:34 PM PST by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine
southernsunshine: "You sidestepped my request.
Please try again.
I'm asking for documentation from the Philadelphia convention."

In fact, I fully answered your original question, even if you don't like that answer.

Remember, the word "secession" does not appear in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers or in any other document I know of from that time.
Nor is there explicit discussion of other words which mean "secession", except in the context I've quoted from Madison:

In other words, not just some generalized breach of contract, but specifically, as the Virginia ratification statement says, when Federal powers are:

Again, I would invite you to review all of your vast collection of quotes from Founders -- meaning those who wrote and voted to ratify the Constitution -- to see if any of them answered the secession question as something to be allowed, in Madison's term: "at pleasure".

244 posted on 01/12/2012 2:19:55 PM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
In fact, I fully answered your original question, even if you don't like that answer.

No, you sidestepped my request. Documentation of Madison's "expression" from the Philadelphia convention, please.

Remember, the word "secession" does not appear in the Constitution...

Nor does Madison's "expression", however, the 10th Amendment does appear in the Bill of Rights.

245 posted on 01/12/2012 3:51:55 PM PST by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine
southernsunshine: "the 10th Amendment does appear in the Bill of Rights."

The 10th Amendment does not authorize secession "at pleasure."
Nor, so far as I can find, did any actual Founder speak in favor of secession "at pleasure."

Again, I invite you to review your vast collection of Founders' quotes to see which ones spoke out specifically for a "right of secession at pleasure."

246 posted on 01/13/2012 4:07:57 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; phi11yguy19
BJK: The 10th Amendment does not authorize secession "at pleasure."

The crux of the matter is sovereignty. Who are the sovereign?

Excerpt of letter from Shuyler Colfax to Lincoln 02/01/1861(emphasis mine):

...”For myself, I can say that while willing to vote for a Constitutional provision against interfering with Slavery in the States, which is merely declaratory of what I regard as the Constitution now, & to restore the Mo. Compromise by law, (but not to put any lines in the Constitution) I have an insuperable repugnance to making New Mexico a State, when,with this sovereignty, she may secede the next month as she cannot now And I look upon the Convention here next week with great distrust.”

IOW - “with this sovereignty,” (as a state) “...she may secede the next month” (or “at will”) “...as she cannot now” (as a territory).

Indiana Congressman Colfax (1855 - 1869), speaker of the house (1863 - 1869), and 17th VP, unequivocally acknowledges that the states had the right to secede whenever they wanted.

Hat tip, PA:)

247 posted on 01/13/2012 7:53:12 AM PST by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine; BroJoeK

A third party interpretation of an offhand comment. Nice, but that and a dollar won’t buy you a cup of coffee.


248 posted on 01/13/2012 9:32:13 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
A third party interpretation...

Who is the third party?

...of an offhand comment.

Schuyler Colfax speaking for himself, in writing, an "offhand comment"? LOL!

249 posted on 01/13/2012 10:45:33 AM PST by southernsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: southernsunshine; rockrr
southernsunshine: "Indiana Congressman Colfax (1855 - 1869), speaker of the house (1863 - 1869), and 17th VP, unequivocally acknowledges that the states had the right to secede whenever they wanted. "

First of all, Congressman Schuyler Colfax was not a Founding Father, and did not express their Original Intent.

Second and importantly, note the date: February 1, 1861.
That was the same date Texas, the seventh and last Deep-South state, declared its secession (the last four Confederate states came from the Upper South).
So Schuyler's opinion to Lincoln -- who was not yet President -- merely expresses the reality then happening under President Buchanan, not necessarily Colfax's views on what should happen.

And though he did nothing to stop it, President Buchanan himself did not agree that unilateral secession "at pleasure" was constitutional.

So again I request that you review your extensive file of Founders' quotes, to see if any of them suggest that unilateral secession "at pleasure" is authorized by the new Constitution.

250 posted on 01/14/2012 6:12:41 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-269 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson