Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?
The Patriotist ^ | 2003 | Al Benson, Jr.

Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by Aurelius

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 2,101-2,114 next last
To: justshutupandtakeit; JohnGalt
My opinion regarding the future role of a stronger federal union and its future effects on our world was meant to provide a different perspective as to what our country has really meant to the world historically. I have no knowlege or secret insights as to the final working out of our Creator's plans.
I don't know why some wars were fought and why these or those died. But one can fairly surmise what might have happened had America not remained united, with all other factors and trends remaining the same in the world.

We would have been a nuclear pile of ash long before now or enslaved under the most diabolical ISM's known to man!
151 posted on 06/12/2003 6:58:57 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: All

Unspun with AnnaZ
June 12th, 2003 -- 7pmP/10pmE

with Special Guest Hostess
Diotima

Hilliaryious!
(and continued Schadenfest*)

We'll be catching up with the DC Chapter of Free Republic and Hilliary!'s "book" tour.

* The Unspun Schadenfest continues due to this!

Plus as always

Boneheaded Lie-beral Quotes and this week's CRB

Click HERE to LISTEN LIVE while you FReep!

Click HERE for the RadioFR Chat Room!

Miss a show? Click HERE for the RadioFR Archives!


152 posted on 06/12/2003 6:59:16 PM PDT by RadioFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
...His statement is wrong, the Supreme Court did declare secession illegal. And the fact that you disagree with their decision is meaningless. The Supreme Court decision is valid and secession is illegal.

I agree. The Constitution is pretty much whatever the majority of any given US Supreme Court determines it to be based on their ideology. That's the way it is.

153 posted on 06/12/2003 7:10:58 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
You must be joking.
154 posted on 06/12/2003 7:31:04 PM PDT by conservativemusician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: conservativemusician
"You must be joking."

Do you know when the Civil War (erroneously so-called) ended or not?

155 posted on 06/12/2003 7:54:40 PM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Capriole
That's a horror that nobody should have to endure. Every family that has sent it's own to war or has been in the path of battle has suffered. Needlessly, often enough.


"In addition, you know, we feel our culture under attack from the centralization of the federal government as well as from left-wing influences."

It ain't just your culture that is under attack. It's the American culture. The ever-growing blob in Washington is a problem for all of us. The left is relentless, as we must be.

BTW. The Southerners I know are the proudest people I have ever met.


156 posted on 06/12/2003 8:02:51 PM PDT by conservativemusician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Lee surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse April 9, 1865.

Do you have another answer?
157 posted on 06/12/2003 8:08:12 PM PDT by conservativemusician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: vaudine
A real irony is that Davis was Secretary of War seven years before the War and completely updated the Union Army with the latest guns and equipment.

Not quite. Acually the South had newer and longer-ranged guns at the start of the war than did the North, due to the stupidity of a Union supply officer.

158 posted on 06/12/2003 8:12:26 PM PDT by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Melas
Not belittle the suffering of anyone who was gang raped, but could you please explain to me how this act has implications [sic] that last until the present day?

There are a couple of ways in which the Federal presence on our land has had lasting import for us.

1. I often have cause to reflect on what our lives would have been like if we hadn't experienced the economic devastation of having this large and fine house destroyed and its barns, dependencies, and outbuildings burned as well so that the family never recovered financially. We lost that property, and right now the land is a cow pasture, soon to be turned into a townhouse development south of Winchester, VA.

2. The child who was born nine months after this episode always had his paternity questioned. You see, his father was on site at the time of the episode--the Yankees had come looking for him, as a colonel of cavalry. In an age before DNA proofs of paternity, there would always be some doubt about whether the boy was really his father's son. There were resulting family disputes and eventual lawsuits, with financial and inheritance consequences.

3. The lady who experienced this attack was seriously injured and never recovered. She was never able to bear another child and died two years later. I don't know if her internal injuries gradually led to her death or not but they certainly prevented other children from being born.

4. "Implications" is correct in this application.

159 posted on 06/12/2003 8:22:37 PM PDT by Capriole (Foi vainquera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
If I'm smart, educate myself and then work my ass off to earn $1,000,000, then the government takes $500,000 of it from me under penalty of imprisonment...does that make me half-slave?

If there are half-slaves, is there not slavery?

160 posted on 06/12/2003 8:25:01 PM PDT by Positive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I take it, then, that you support slavery reparations to African-Americans.

No, I am not asking to be compensated for the loss of a family home. I would not have inherited it anyway. What I'm asking for is that some Northerners who are obsessed with hatred for the South, even after all these years, should understand how Southerners might feel saddened by not only the fact of the War itself, but by the loss of our heritage. This is particularly true when we come from families that did not own slaves or manumitted their slaves long before the War. I ask them to understand that hundreds of thousands of ordinary Southerners fought not because they passionately longed to keep black men in chains but because their homeland was being invaded and their economy throttled.

161 posted on 06/12/2003 8:30:15 PM PDT by Capriole (Foi vainquera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: conservativemusician
"Do you have another answer?"

Yes I do.

"A question settled by violence, or in disregard of law, must remain unsettled forever."
Jefferson Davis

"Governor, if I had foreseen the use these people desired to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox, no, sir, not by me. Had I seen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand."
Robert E. Lee
— as told to Texas ex-governor F. W. Stockdale

"I would have never surrendered the army if I had known how the South would have been treated."
"Well, General, you have only to blow the bugle."
"It is too late now."
— exchange between Lee and Colonel T. M. R. Talcott Robert E. Lee

162 posted on 06/12/2003 8:47:54 PM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
More perfect is not perpetual. More perfect insinuates that the holding bonds of perpetualness are broken and that the states would want to remain together voluntarily. However it does not insinuate that if the union between the states ever came to a point that they could no longer be together, that force would be used in making them remain
163 posted on 06/12/2003 8:57:57 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
I am posting this late tonight, in the hope born of Christian charity that you are already passed out and will not see it until early morning when your mental powers will perhaps have a brief respite from your Alzheimers. Presumably you have a care-taker who can read and who has a sixth grade education (as hard as it may be for you to imagine someone reaching that level of education). Have them read a post of the article: If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?" and have them try to explain it to you. If that fails, please get back to me and I will try to formulate the main thesis, at least, in terms which might be conprehensible even to you. Best Wishes.

Incomprehensible.

164 posted on 06/12/2003 9:18:09 PM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
I am posting this late tonight, in the hope born of Christian charity that you are already passed out and will not see it until early morning when your mental powers will perhaps have a brief respite from your Alzheimers. Presumably you have a care-taker who can read and who has a sixth grade education (as hard as it may be for you to imagine someone reaching that level of education). Have them read a post of the article: If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?" and have them try to explain it to you. If that fails, please get back to me and I will try to formulate the main thesis, at least, in terms which might be conprehensible even to you. Best Wishes.

Incomprehensible.

165 posted on 06/12/2003 9:18:32 PM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit; rcofdayton
That is false. There was no secession from the Union when the government was changed. The Articles stated in many places that the Union was PERPETUAL. It never claimed the government was perpetual.

Those attempting to deceive the unaware conveniently forget there is a difference between a nation and a government. Wonder why?

The Articles of Confederation, at Article 13, states:

"Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State....".

Representatives of 12 of the 13 members of said perpetual union got together in Philadelphia (Rhode Island refused to send a representative), proposed an entirely new government, and The Constitution, at Article 7 states:

"The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."

June 21, 1788: New Hampshire (57-46) was the ninth state to ratify
June 26, 1788: Virginia (89-79) ratified.
July 26, 1788: New York (30-27) ratified.
Eleven states had ratified.

March 1788: Rhode Island (232-2,708) rejected the Constitution.
August 1, 1788: North Carolina (88-188) rejected the Constitution.

30 Apr 1789 - George Washington inaugurated

After 30 Apr 1789, 11 states had formed a new nation. George Washington was the first president of that new nation. Clearly, North Carolina and Rhode Island could not then have been states under the Constitution. They voted to reject it. It was some considerable time after Washington's inauguration before those two states ratified.

21 Nov 1789 - North Carolina (193-75) ratified
29 May 1790 - Rhode Island (34-32) ratified

The Articles of Confederation establish that they could not be changed except upon approval of the legislatures of all 13 states. Clearly, that had not happened.

While the Constitution asserts that it is effective upon the ratification of 9 states, it does not assert that the Articles of Confederation are abolished by that action.

If the union formed by the Articles of Confederation was perpetual and unbreakable, what union existed immediately after Washington was inaugurated?

Rhode Island and North Carolina had already voted not to accept the Constitution.

If the 11 states lawfully seceded, (subsequently followed by the last 2), then certainly they could lawfully form any new government they desired, in any manner desired.

However, if they did not secede, how did they lawfully change so much as one word of the Articles of Confederation while two states had voted to reject the change?

166 posted on 06/12/2003 11:51:48 PM PDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Consort
The Constitution is pretty much whatever the majority of any given US Supreme Court determines it to be based on their ideology.

I'll take that as a left-handed agreement that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over issue like this.

167 posted on 06/13/2003 4:00:10 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Why am I not surprised.

Unsettled forever? So, all violent conflict should be maintained in perpetuity? I guess the British, Mexicans, Spanish, Germans, Japanese, Taliban, and Saddam should all feel the same way. Man, we got an awful lot wars to continue fighting.

Lee supposedly said " if I had foreseen " , "if I had known ". Alot of ifs do not change the fact that he SURRENDERED, thereby ENDING the war.


Nice try, though.
168 posted on 06/13/2003 4:06:46 AM PDT by conservativemusician
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: billbears
More perfect is not perpetual

Uh, billbears...that was NOT the question asked. I can understand your reluctance to answer it.

The Constitution was ordained and established to form a "more perfect union." What union was it supposed to be more perfect than?

169 posted on 06/13/2003 5:07:03 AM PDT by Poohbah (I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
A better analogy in this particular case would be that the husband's primary motive in forcing his wife back was to retain control over her paycheck.

We have a winner. It all boils down to tariff laws. Seems like the South were free traders way before the idea got popular in the North.
170 posted on 06/13/2003 5:13:22 AM PDT by steve50 (I don't know about being with "us", but I'm with the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
"We would have been a nuclear pile of ash long before now or enslaved under the most diabolical ISM's known to man!"


Again, you rely on clairvoyance to justify mass slaughter. Nuclear weapons were the result of a government program that sprung from a Red-Brown administration of FDR. The secrets to the bomb were then delivered to Stalin.

If the states had separated, there would have been no Spanish American War, which left the United States with obligations in the Pacific. There would have been no American entry into the First World War, thus the French and British would have sued for peace and the Hapsburg Empire and Kaiser Whilhelm would still have been in power.

With peace, the Germans would not have sent Lenin from Berlin to cause trouble and there would have been no Soviet revolution, and no Stalin. The 20th Century was the most brutal century in the history of man and your thought process, used to justify the state that unleashed the slaughter comes up with the simple explanation that 'things would have been much worse.'

I am not sure how anyone can look at the 100s of millions dead and make such a claim other than to rely on clairvoyance.
171 posted on 06/13/2003 5:45:40 AM PDT by JohnGalt (They're All Lying)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"NONE of the founders agreed with those contentions. Not Washington, not Jefferson, not Madison, not Adams, not Hamilton, not Jackson. ALL abhorred the idea of splitting the Union. EVERY SINGLE ONE."

Absolutely NOT true! While the Founders were all for a strong union, they also recognized that there might come a time when that union was no longer supportable or useful. Good grief, the Declaration of Independence itself was testimony to how they felt about unions and when such unions should be dissolved. Jefferson, particularly, said on many occasions that people (and states) had the right to disassociate from a union if that union no longer served the purposes for which it was created.

172 posted on 06/13/2003 6:00:20 AM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I'll take that as a left-handed agreement that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over issue like this.

Try to take my statement for what it says; not for what it doesn't say. Try to read what I wrote; not what I didn't write. What I said was a fact as I see it whether or not I (or you) agree with it and whether or not the Constitution gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over such issues.

173 posted on 06/13/2003 6:15:40 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: NovemberCharlie
Interesting. Elaborate.

vaudine
174 posted on 06/13/2003 6:19:22 AM PDT by vaudine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
More perfect than the one under the Articles, one that was voluntary instead of mandatory. Sheesh Poohbah how more perfect will a union be when members of the union know they have the right to leave when their concerns aren't being met? At least that's how northerners saw it in 1814. Or are we not supposed to compare Southerners to the all but out in the open northern secessionist states of 1814?
175 posted on 06/13/2003 6:39:56 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Secession is clearly outside U.S. Law.

The Militia Act of 1792 as amended in 1795 gives the president sole discretion as to when insurrection or rebellion exists. The Act further allows him to call out the militia of the several states to suppress such rebellion or insurrection.

Walt

176 posted on 06/13/2003 7:39:18 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
That is false. There was no secession from the Union when the government was changed. The Articles stated in many places that the Union was PERPETUAL. It never claimed the government was perpetual.

Good point.

E PLURIBUS UNUM was adopted in 1782, and so it has remained unbroken since that time.

Walt

177 posted on 06/13/2003 7:50:17 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"Secession is clearly outside U.S. Law."

That is correct in the sense that the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of secession. Thus, under the Anglo-Saxon legal principle that "all is permitted which is not explicitely prohibited", secession is permitted under the Constitution.

I and others on numerous occasions have carefully and patiently explained to you why the Militia Act of 1792 or its amended version of 1795 does not apply in the case of states that have seceded from the Union. It would apppear to be pointless to go through that again.

178 posted on 06/13/2003 7:54:30 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
I and others on numerous occasions have carefully and patiently explained to you why the Militia Act of 1792 or its amended version of 1795 does not apply in the case of states that have seceded from the Union.

Laws are enforced by power, in this case military power. No state can get out of the Union unless it can fight its way out. No state has been able to do that.

No state has ever been out of the Union for single second.

You should be glad that President Lincoln always took this as a starting point. As soon as the so-called seceded states published their secession documents, many in the north (including Frederick Douglass) lobbied to have them branded as traitors who had forfeited their rights as citizens; further, according to this reasoning, their property could be seized.

Later in the war, it was proposed in Congress that the insurgent area be broken up into military districts. President Lincoln also resisted this initiative.

Walt

179 posted on 06/13/2003 8:01:12 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Force was used to reverse secession; no law was being enforced.
180 posted on 06/13/2003 8:05:22 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Force was used to reverse secession; no law was being enforced.

The Supreme Court said otherwise.

"By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare was against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, [this is the Militia Act] and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."

-- from the Prize Cases ruling in the December 1862 term.

Walt

181 posted on 06/13/2003 8:15:00 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
This is pointless. You keep harping on the Militia Act and the Prize Cases decision although you have been shown again and again why they do not apply in the case of secession. The matter has been settled.
182 posted on 06/13/2003 8:18:59 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Or are we not supposed to compare Southerners to the all but out in the open northern secessionist states of 1814?

And how did the Southron states answer the calls for secession? Calhoun and company made it quite clear that any attempt at secession would be put down by force.

Oops. Looks like I let the cat out of the bag.

183 posted on 06/13/2003 8:42:39 AM PDT by Poohbah (I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
And did I say I agreed with them? The north should have been allowed to leave in 1814.
184 posted on 06/13/2003 8:47:48 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
As early as before the first Continental Congress the enlightened colonists considered themselves Americans, a distinct people.

Washington's horror of disUnion caused him to write the Farewell Address. Typically it is presented (falsely) as a plea for isolationism. It is nothing of the sort and the main reason it calls for standing aside from Europe's quarrels is the fear that becoming involved on France's side would bring about the destruction of the Union through Civil War.

This is also a big factor in his turning away from Jefferson who forfeited the Great Man's friendship through duplicity, malice and lies about him and his administration.
185 posted on 06/13/2003 9:21:50 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
You are spreading falsehoods. None of the founders supported disUnion. Not one and you can't show one comment which means that they did. Jefferson started to flirt with the idea of secession in the 1820s and after a pack of brainless baying yahoos who supported him started howling about actually leaving the Union, Madison wrote him and warned him about the use of such language. Jefferson then backtracked and re-affirmed his opposition to such an idea.

Washington's Farewell address is primarily directed against the idea of disunion. Hamilton abhorred the idea with every fiber of his being and was one of the reasons he was opposed to Burr becoming governor of NY in 1804. His fear of disunion was a factor in his death at the hands of Burr a few months later.

The Declaration of Independence was a rhetorical device to justify what had ALREADY happened and had no application to a Free and Independent government. It was addressed to ENGLAND and has no relevence to 1860 or the constitution. There was NO Union until 1788 just a Confederation and prior to that colonies controlled by the King.

You have to make proper distinctions. Painting everything with the same brush merely obscures and does not illuminate.
It leads to great confusion.
186 posted on 06/13/2003 9:35:38 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
So that slice of crap was worth posting twice?

No matter how many times you post it the ridiculous article which started this thread will not be less ridiculous. Nor will it automatically become worth reading or attain any greater accuracy.

It is drivel filled with error and contradiction. Truly a post not worthy of any school of thought. I have seen better written and more sensible articles in Lyndon LaRouche's paper. However, junk like this is the best that the D.S.s can come up with to support their intellectually, morally and factually bankrupt contentions. That, at least, is a pleasant thought.

Lies about the meaning of the constitution, lies about the founding fathers beliefs, lies about the start of the War, lies about the intentions of Lincolns, lies about the intentions of the Slavers makes for tiresome reading. Lies about me in comparision are inconsequential. Weak attempts to insult me merely shows the other readers the lack of ability you have. Keep it up.
187 posted on 06/13/2003 9:48:49 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan
By the time the constitution was written the government of the Articles was moribund and without power. There was no secession from a dead body. Any more than there is a secession when a butterfly emerges from the chrysalis. America emerged from its dead cocoon of the Articles and flew away on its unparalleled flight into the light of Freedom.

In point of fact, the TRUE Union prior to the Constitution was the the Army of George Washington. Its survival allowed the Union to survive. Its destruction would have meant the end of the Union. Those who served in that Army understood that the Confederation was weak to the point of contempt and utterly incapable of doing anything effectual.

No changes were made in the Articles and for good reason. Hamilton and Madison understood that the veto power of each state made any changes impossible. Therefore, it was necessary for the survival of the nation that the ARticles be scrapped entirely and a fresh start begun. Their wisdom blessed the world with this great nation.

There was no violation of the Articles and the Union was made more perfect. All was done legally and consistent with the concept of republicanism.

Needs of the nation had outgrown the Articles and to keep them would have meant national suicide just as a butterfly which cannot get out of the chrysalis dies. Washington, Hamilton and Madison would have none of that. All the great patriots would have none of that.

Who dares oppose himself to such men and expects to be taken seriously?
188 posted on 06/13/2003 10:07:43 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Bump
189 posted on 06/13/2003 10:13:20 AM PDT by Fiddlstix (~~~ http://www.ourgangnet.net ~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Thank you for your opinion. Everyone has a right to his opinion, even an ignorant jackass like you.
190 posted on 06/13/2003 10:22:53 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"No state has ever been out of the Union for single second."

Are you sure about that? Each of the former Confederate states had to be readmitted into the Union during the 1866 - 1870 timeframe...well after the war had ended.
How and why would you readmit someone who hasn't left?
191 posted on 06/13/2003 10:32:27 AM PDT by RenegadeNC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Since the Union had already been declared to be perpetual and the Constitution explicitly stated that it was adopted to make the Union MORE PERFECT it does not take a lot of brain power to understand that it could not be less than perpetual and be more perfect.

Jackson certainly doesn't agree with your belief. Nor does ANY other founder. Not one. Hmmmm....

Secession could have been perfectly legal had the Constitution been amended to allow it.

Our Union is not the political equivalent of an Islamic divorce. Saying "I secede" three times or a hundred times doesn't do it.
192 posted on 06/13/2003 10:36:00 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"...it could not be less than perpetual and be more perfect."

An obvious non sequitur.

193 posted on 06/13/2003 10:40:23 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Being called an ignorant jackass by a pompous fool is high praise. Seeing the evidence of brain-rot instituted through slavish devotion to the lying tyrants of the Slaverocracy is a sobering thing.

Posting your comments is a great service to the medical community and a clear warning of the biological degradation caused by historical error. Hopefully your tragedy will turn future generations away from the Dark side and back to the light of Patriotism.
194 posted on 06/13/2003 10:40:59 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Don't understand the phrase? Others can help.
195 posted on 06/13/2003 10:41:52 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Capriole
I never said YOU were a liar. Just that the mythology/propaganda you inherited was most likely a lie. The probability of that story of the gang-rape being true is as close to zero as anything can be.

People who knowingly spread untruths are liars. People who spread lies not knowing they are lies are not liars. Since there is no way you can verify that this tall tale is true I don't call you a liar.

I am specific in the use of words and don't confuse the definitions of lie and liar.
196 posted on 06/13/2003 10:47:01 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Keep it up, jackass, the more you post your lame insults and totally unsubstantiated allegations, the more of a fool you look.
197 posted on 06/13/2003 10:47:18 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Since the Union had already been declared to be perpetual and the Constitution explicitly stated that it was adopted to make the Union MORE PERFECT it does not take a lot of brain power to understand that it could not be less than perpetual and be more perfect.

Sorry not going to fly. The Constitution replaced the Articles, it didn't amend the Articles. If this all blasted perpetual union was doing so well under the old document, why didn't the Founders just amend what they had instead of tossing it out?

Jackson certainly doesn't agree with your belief. Nor does ANY other founder. Not one. Hmmmm

Well that's a lie and you know it. Jefferson's Inaugural Address comes to mind just in itself. And surely you're not suggesting that none of the Founders or their peers were in Hartford in 1814? They got the idea of secession from someone. Hmmmm.....

Secession could have been perfectly legal had the Constitution been amended to allow it.

It was amended.

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

Do you see secession explicitly covered in the Constitution, either through outlawing or condoning? No? Then it is a right reserved to the states

198 posted on 06/13/2003 10:50:26 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Sorry doofuss but you are the one who started with the insults. As you always do when unable to dispute civilly or rationally.

Clean up your own act before blatthering on about others.
199 posted on 06/13/2003 10:56:40 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: RenegadeNC
"No state has ever been out of the Union for single second."

Are you sure about that? Each of the former Confederate states had to be readmitted into the Union during the 1866 - 1870 timeframe...well after the war had ended. How and why would you readmit someone who hasn't left?

What was involved was allowing congressmen and senators to take their seats, not readmitting the states themselves.

Walt

200 posted on 06/13/2003 11:01:23 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 2,101-2,114 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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