Posted on 09/27/2010 1:27:31 PM PDT by RandysRight
Note that they referred to the states with the same verbiage they did Great Britain...using the word "state" as a synonym for "nation." Each "state" considered itself a separate "nation" and they forged an alliance for their benefit--not for their detriment. That others have changed the original intent is no surprise--after all, there are those who say there is no right to bear arms, when it is plainly stated exactly that way...there are others who have interjected a "separation of church and state" when it most decidedly is NOT there...
You're right. It wasn't the Constitution.
...why would they accept a lesser status to ratify the Constitution? That makes no sense and gives them no benefit.
Because the Articles of Confederation didn't work and they needed something that did.
See: Dual Sovereignty
REALLY???????????????? He’s the lib’s darling, darling.
No problem with dual sovereignty—just the appropriate proportions.
Even in what you quote from the Articles it recoginizes that powers given to the United States are it own. In the case of rebellion and acts of war against the United States the President is Commander-in-Chief and was goven the power and sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States.
No where is any process for seccession written out beyond possibly an act of agreement by all of the States. The President has a sworn duty to protect every United States citizen from an act of war or rebellion against them.
He didn’t have a choice after what happened in Fort Sumter,read Harry Turtledove if you want to know what would have been done if the South had won.
I would also point out you could accuse modern Presidents of being terrorists under the same guidelines.
You can proportion it all you like as long as you realize that the individual states were subordinate to the union of the combined states, also known as the federal government.
As designed.
2)Name another war where it's happened on this scale in the US
3)Sorry, was placed under martial law
4)and 5)John Merryman, for one--although, I agree, can't find much that supports Lincoln having Taney arrested.
6)Of course--ex parte Milligan was during Reconstruction....but it was the closest the Supreme Court came to directly ruling on Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus...except for ex parte Merryman.
Very well. You have persuaded me. Well done. ;-)
Let me ask you why it is that in all the years since the Civil War it is that all of you libertarians who are suffering from Lincoln Derangement Syndrome have not made any Amendments to the Constitution at all in order to sure up your right to secession?
Personally I believe it is because you really have no interest in it at all but instead have been too busy getting cozy with the progressive Marxists in bashing Bush just as you still like to bash Lincoln.
And if I am being too strong with my opinions about Libertarians and Marxists and the connections against them then this thread surely did nothing to help me not be.
Calling Lincoln a terrorist. Praising the man who assassinated Lincoln and wanting monuments built for him. On and on it reads like a leftist rant against Bush or anyother conservative or republican that they (libertarians and liberals) disagree with.
Over the top garbage.
I had kin on the Confederate side(one of them was killed at Kennesaw Mountain defending my home state from Sherman)and I too say that slavery was wrong, wrong, wrong. I had at least one kin on the Union side(an East Tennessee Unionist at that)but nevertheless ever since Lincoln’s war the government has grown bigger and meaner. The more I read about the Late Unpleasantness of 1861-1865,the more it seems to me that to say that the war was about any one thing
is too simplistic, whether it be slavery or states’ rights.But if you could have asked the average soldier of either side why they were fighting, you’d probably get simple reasons. The average Confederate would probably say he was defending his home from an invading army. The average Northerner would probably say he was fighting to preserve the Union. Funny thing—when you bring folks together at the point of a bayonet,you have union all right,but not necessarily unity. It took a while after the war for unity to be a reality.
As I recall, the subject of this thread was Abraham Lincoln, not Jefferson Davis. While I don’t agree he was a “terrorist”, I do think he expanded the role of the federal government beyond its intended limits, and his successors have built wildly on his foundation.
“The average Confederate would probably say he was defending his home...”
So I guess that is why they formed terorist groups like the KKK?
The rebels were not interested in defending their homes but in defeating the Constitution and burning the homes of those who disagreed. All to uphold slavery, their right to secession from the Constitution, and their right to wage war against the citizens and laws of the United States.
It is ironic that you argue in favor of the southern rebel democrats but then use the words of Franklin in your tagline...
(”A republic, if you can keep it.......”)
Franklin despised the ‘mob rules’ outlaw type of mentality of democracy whereas a majority mob could rise up and destroy the rights of all. Yet that is exactly what the rebels stood for. They waged war even in order to destroy the Republic and to denounce the Constitution. They held an Outlaw mentality that disregarded the rule of law, human rights and human nature under God. Thanks to Lincoln though we kept the Republic and defended the Constitution.
There is no irony in the fact that Lincoln was a Republican. He defended and preserved the Republic that Franklin was nervous as to whether we could keep in his famous statement. He was a great President during a very trying time in American history.
“The rebels were not interested in defending their homes”.
That’s news to me. I guess the average Confederate soldier(a non-slave owner), just *loved* the idea of his home being torched and his family threatened so his neighbors could keep their slaves. Yeah,right.
It is not news to me though. The average Confederate soldier stood against the Constitution in their desire to to leave the rule of law of the Constitution. The KKK was formed by these same average confederate soldiers. Libertarian type Outlaws went into Union states and burned Union homes and terrorized United States citizens. Slavery was always a big issue for these scumbags as well.
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.