Skip to comments.PARTY OF LINCOLN AND THE WAR ON TERROR
Posted on 02/19/2006 10:13:06 PM PST by Mia T
the democrats are gonna get us killed (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) series5
by Mia T, 8.28.05
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
Excellent, Mia T. The contrasting of the Gettysburg address to Cindy Sheehan's insane rants is hard-hitting.
One sick woman.
<< Abraham Lincoln
November 19, 1863 >>
Perhaps America's earliest recorded example of effective political spin.
And most certainly, totally misrepresenting, as it does, the rational that drove Lincoln's prosecution of his United States of America's Constitution and States' sovereignty-bemanuring war and his positions on just about everything, the ownership of slaves included, to this day, still political spin's most efficacious-ever example!
PS: Happy President Washington's Birthday!
Just to note, the Republicans are now the Party of Reagan, not Lincoln.
Mia T. bump.
Thanks Mia T.
Did that software help?
Thanks Mia. Selfish Cindy...why fight for freedom, I have mine!
Cindy has a MSM camera stuck on her butt.
.. in her own mind, anyway. ;)
presidents' day ping
"...and that the Union shall be perpetual."
I guess some people should have looked up the word "perpetual" before signing the Articles of Confederation and transferring sovereignty away from the individual State to the new nation.
The Declaration of Independence trumps all other Founding Law and it and the Federalist Papers and every learned, objective and/or commonsensical reading of that Law and/or adjudication based in that Law, rather than in the wishful thinking and/or creative parsing and/or fiat-rationalizing "interpretations" reveals its every word's singleness of meaning and the Law's absolute meaning.
The feral gummint was intended to be nothing more than the equivilent of a corporate board of directors, subordinate to the Sovereign States and subsequently strictly limited in its powers by the Constitution and Bill of Rights and by the Sovereign States' appointed United States Senate.
The traitor, Lincoln, not only took a blowtorch to our nation's founding Law but also set in motion the rot whose putridness was precipitously made a hundred times more malodorous by the un-and-anti Americanism abrogations and other crimes perpetrated upon it by the ghastly F D Roosevelt and by such of his every-bit-as loathesome and fearsome successors as the execrable Georgia-Jimmy Cartah and its latest flotsam, the recidivist, rank, fetid and stinking B-J Blythe Crime Family.
And then there are the feral court benches created by all of the above.
Thank you, Mr Lincoln.
Clue to the "proper 'interpretation'" of the following: READ the BLACK WORDS on the white ground - and ignore the rest!
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, [Note the lower case "u" - BA] in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Another excellent post/ bttt
What a desperate reach, the Declaration is not Law, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution are.
If in fact, and as you claim, the Declaration was the Supreme Law, then why wasn't slavery made illegal by the Declaration?
Yours is a desperate reach from a desperate man.
Article XIII. 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 afterwords confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.
Now, go huff and puff all you want, it won't change the facts.
The Supreme Law of the Law is The Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation established a perpetual Union, removing the right to secede.
The articles of Confederation transferred sovereignty from the individual States to the United States, and when the Confederacy broke their covenant, they got their asses handed to them for trying to do so.
<< Yours is a desperate reach from a desperate man. >>
And here was I believing I had been engaged by a man who though Absolutely wrong in his interpretation of our nation's Founding Law, might at least have been rational.
And not, as it turns out, to have come huffing, puffing and but half-armed to this battle of wits he initiated.
Thank you for having shared.
Cordially - Brian
Is the Constitution, not the list of grievances that were the reason why we separated from the Crown.
Calling The Declaration "law" is laughable.
Let's see what Jefferson called the Declaration:
"On the 24th, a committee which had been appointed to prepare a declaration of the causes of taking up arms, brought in their report (drawn I believe by J. Rutledge) which not being liked they recommitted it on the 26th, and added Mr. Dickinson and myself to the committee. On the rising of the house, the committee having not yet met, I happened to find myself near Govr W. Livingston, and proposed to him to draw the paper. He excused himself and proposed that I should draw it. On my pressing him with urgency, "we are as yet but new acquaintances, sir, said he, why are you so earnest for my doing it?" "Because, said I, I have been informed that you drew the Address to the people of Gr. Britain, a production certainly of the finest pen in America."
The man who wrote it called it "a declaration of the causes of taking up arms", you'd think that if he was writing the Supreme Law of the Land, he's call it such.
Don't you think?
Sorry, that was a silly question.
Let's go on.
The Articles of Confederation cleared the way for the Constitution; which created a stronger, Federal government. The Articles of Confederation created "a perpetual union", and those who signed it could hardly make the argument that having signed agreement to a perpetual union, secession would be retained as a right of the individual States; you can't have a union that's both perpetual, and dissoluble.
George Washington himself called the United States under the Articles of Confederation "little more than the shadow without the substance", and agitated for a stronger Federal government, this agitation by Washington and others resulted in the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
You'd think that if the Declaration of Independence was in fact "the Supreme Law of the land" as you claim that it is, the people responsible for drafting it would not continue drafting more documents to govern that new nation, including one that clearly states:
"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."
The States did become free and independent of the Crown, just as they stated they would be in the Declaration, and as free and independent States, they then formed a "perpetual union", and eventually consented to become a nation.
Again, you can't agree to become something perpetual, and retain the right to dissolve the agreement.
Noted is the fact that in this "battle of wits" as you call it, you called retreat.
One last thing...what did the man who wrote the Constitution have to say about the principles behind the Constitution?
We can read his letter to Thomas Jefferson and find out:
James Madison Explains the Constitution to Thomas Jefferson.
You will herewith receive the result of the Convention, which continued its session till the 17th of September. I take the liberty of making some observations on the subject, which will help to make up a letter, if they should answer no other purpose.
It appeared to be the sincere and unanimous wish of the Convention to cherish and preserve the Union of the States. No proposition was made, no suggestion was thrown out, in favor of a partition of the Empire into two or more Confederacies.
It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of Sovereign States. A voluntary observance of the federal law by all the members could never be hoped for. A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice, and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent and guilty, the necessity of a military force, both obnoxious and dangerous, and, in general, a scene resembling much more a civil war than the administration of a regular Government.
Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government which, instead of operating on the States, should operate without their intervention on the individuals composing them; and hence the change in the principle and proportion of representation.
There...now you've learned more from me in a few hours, than you did on all seven years you spent in High School.
From another angle:
Notwithstanding the 200-plus years of union since the ratification of The Articles of Confederation, it seems to me creating "a perpetual union" by edict was an extravagant, fanciful and arrogant 18th-century conceit, not unlike decreeing into existence a perpetual motion machine. Sooner or later, it seems to me, the laws of nature must prevail.
<< .... creating "a perpetual union" by edict was an extravagant, fanciful and arrogant 18th-century conceit, not unlike decreeing into existence a perpetual motion machine. Sooner or later, it seems to me, [G-d's and] the laws of nature must prevail. >>
Calling the Founding Fathers arrogant is quite a concept.
Nevertheless, a perpetual union was formed, and thus far, nothing has been able to dissolve it.
In proper perspective, this "extravagant, fanciful and arrogant 18th-century conceit" of the Founders, was far less of each category than the notion of the Divine Rights of Kings.
And lastly, the attempt at dissolving the perpetual union was crushed.
Better luck next time.
1-If you are arguing that the union decreed perpetual is in fact perpetual because "thus far, nothing has been able to dissolve it," then you miss my point entirely.
2-I don't quite see the point of your relativistic argument. Why replace a flawed constuct with another flawed one?
3-I would argue that argument turns on the attempt/desire to dissolve the union, rather than the outcome.