Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]
For years I have admired Congressman Ron Paul’s principled stance on spending and the Constitution. That said, he really damaged himself when he blamed President Lincoln for the Civil War, saying, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war… [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”
This is historical revisionism of the worst order, and it must be addressed.
For Congressman Paul’s benefit – and for his supporters who may not know – seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President. After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
Most of the neo-Confederate loons who post on Free Republic are really Democrat provocateurs, trolling to discredit conservatives.
There is a distinction to be made here between actions of a State and actions of the state legislature. arrogantsob at #126 is correct, it required an action of the State to ratify the Constitution, and the secession ordinances were similarly ratified, except where a plebiscite was called for as well.
The difference is that the State is the People and the People are the State, whereas the legislature is, well, the legislature in that State, and its enactments take place at a lower pay grade than the People who, sitting in convention as the People in full regalia, are the equals of emperors and answer to no mortal man, indeed to no Entity that does not call Himself "Who Am".
The confusion comes in, I think, where the Framers allowed for amendments to the Constitution (which are sovereign acts, like the original ratification conventions) to be ratified by votes of the States' legislatures, as well as by conventions of the People.
Slavery was about money and selfishness, not racism. Yup. And let us not forget about those Confederate Soldiers that happened to be a "darker shade of grey."
We've allowed the revisionists to destroy both white and black history. Thankfully, there are those that will not let their heritage be forgotten.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqNacoW4dCE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GVIAypsnh8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSA64yKezx4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hPo6mYnks
In April 1861, a Petersburg, Virginia newspaper proposed, "Three cheers for the patriotic free Negroes of Lynchburg." after 70 blacks offered "to act in whatever capacity may be assigned to them" in defense of Virginia. Erwin L. Jordan cites one case where a captured group of white slave owners and blacks were offered freedom if they would take an oath of allegiance to the United States. One free black indignantly replied, "I can't take no such oaf as dat. I'm a secesh nigger." A slave in the group upon learning that his master refused to take the oath said, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take." A second slave said, "I ain't going out here on no dishonorable terms." One of the slave owners took the oath but his slave, who didn't take the oath, returning to Virginia under a flag of truce, expressed disgust at his master's disloyalty saying, "Massa had no principles." [emphasis mine]
http://www.theburginfamily.org/blackman.html
So true! Now the revisionists no longer control our history:)
“The USC is silent on the issue of secession.”
The Articles of Confederation explicitly created perpetual union. The Constitution was silent on the issue because it was no longer an issue.
“It would not have been ratified had that provision been in the original USC in 1787.”
Nonsense. Every state that ratified the USC, had ratified the AOC, with included an explicit surrender of their right to unilaterally secede.
There is only one universal in world history.
The strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must.
That is reality.
You want theology? No government serves but by the will of God. So if you win, God wanted you to reign, if you didn't.... well?
You want law? Victors make the law.
You want history? Victors write the history.
“History will be kind to me.” Winston Churchill said “For I intend to write it.” and he did. After he won.
People tend to forget that the founders were not a monolithic voice of consistency behind a single ideal. They were politicians, and just like the politicians of today they were perfectly capable of reneging on their own word. Madison was pretty notorious for it in his day. Look up the 1794 supreme court case of Hylton v. United States if you want to see just how bad he could be. It was an open and shut ruling on the constitutionality of an excise tax (which is expressly granted as a power to Congress) and the court easily upheld the law on solid constitutional grounds. Well guess what - Madison was the one pushing the challenge of the case and claiming the tax was unconstitutional. And one of his lawyers making that same losing argument was none other than John Marshall.
You sound awfully conspiratorial. Have you ever considered that at least some of your interlocutors simply have little patience for history peddled as cheap “us vs. them” soundbytes?
and why is what he said wrong? I can assure you I’m no Paulbot but Lincoln was no better than any other tyrannical dictator. I despise him, 2nd worst president ever, Odungo the Muslim gets first place.
The victor writes the history books.
____________________
Bingo but there are plenty of books about the real Lincoln. He was a bastard son of a b%tch.
BINGO!
Arguing with Yankees about the Civil War is a waste of time. They lie, twist the facts and worship their idol Lincoln the crazy tyrant SOB.
I understand your Lincoln fetish. Your town is laden with Lincoln lovers due to the demographics.
"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government."
"But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If therefore the loud clamours against the plan of the convention on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this state. But the truth is, that both of them contain all, which in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired."
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. [ed. see 2nd Amendment debates!] This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." Hamilton, Federalist 84.
I can find no fault in these arguments and would contend that what Hamilton predicted has indeed come to pass! We refer to "Constitutional Rights" as if the Constitution granted us any, and the Federal Behemoth - based on it's contention that IT is the arbiter of our rights - has amassed such power that it will be nigh on impossible to reign it in.
And you assume I support the south because of what I posted? WOW! I guess not all Yankess lie, twist facts or worship idols, eh?
Understood, and thanks..... From the day that the Constitution was formed - One party, the agent has been trying to reverse the rules that were intended....
------------------------------------------------------
Are not the people...and their States the only real Sovereigns ?
BTW, neo-cons [like you] are not Conservative. I wouldn't doubt if you're forming a militarized wing of the ACLU. In your efforts in striping Dixie of the 10 Commandments, of course.
Your claims that New England was Conservative at some time ( Before Christ, would be your only prayer ) is laughable !No Sir, liberal then, liberal now......
That is the way it started out anyway ....
Kansas City? Not overly Lincoln territory but how would you know?
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.