Posted on 04/12/2007 9:34:54 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
That’s what they are supposed to be interested in, you get zero done without power
Oh they are getting plenty done. They are taking away your freedom faster than you can snap your fingers.
Exactly. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the two any more today. Both have moved to socialism, big spending and PC nonsense.
There was no Constitutional Unionist party. It was just a presidential ticket.
In what way did President Lincoln suspend the Constitution?
You’re asking him to prove a negative, impossible. It’s easy for you to do. Just find one Confederate who was a Republican. Then his whole argument falls apart.
That’s suspending the Constitution? Not returning escaped slaves to their insurrectionist masters?
Ben Franklin in “1776”: A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as “our rebellion.” It is only in the third person - “their rebellion” - that it becomes illegal.
Yep, I certainly can. It’s also interesting to note the Confederate gunners cheering when the Union garrison in Sumter returned fire, and allowing the Sumter garrison a hundred-gun salute (and to re-raise their flag) before being rowed out to the supply ships for a return back “up North.”
That’s an era of warfare that is long, long gone.
I did the Sumter tour a few years ago, and I think a good bit of the old 1861 fort got built over when the 20th-century guns got placed on the island. It’s kind of jarring to see the old fort, and then these huge bulbous black armored World War-era casemates right next to them. It surely wouldn’t be a nice place to be under fire, it’s very exposed and a LONG way from dry land.
}:-)4
Suspending habeas corpus in Maryland?
}:-)4
The fix here is for your side to gain power, platitudes get you zilch. I’m well aware what they are doing, most freepers are, but they are able to do it because of the mental midgets that voted them in, and gave them power.
See Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.
The questions are irrelevant.
I believe that is what I said, different words.
Undoubtedly, the vast majority of Southerners were in fact Democrats until recent years. However, that bears little resemblance to today’s RAT party. In fact, the typical Southern Democrat was if anything perhaps even more conservative than some of today’s Republicans (think Zell Miller).
I would have to say he took away The Bill of Rights, which is unconstitutional. So, he suspended the Constitution to revoke the Bill of Rights, which was beyond his powers.
Here's another take on it by me.
On March 5, 1861, the day after his inauguration as president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln received a message from Maj. Robert Anderson, commander of the U.S. troops holding Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. The message stated that there was less than a six week supply of food left in the fort.
Attempts by the Union government to reason with the Cotton states were spurned by the Fire-eating radicals who felt they could no longer tolerate the results of free and fair elections that did not go as they wanted. Believing a collapse of his confederacy to be inevitable as post-elections passions cooled, Jefferson Davis ingeniously devised a plan that would cause the all important Upper South States of North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia to reverse their decisions to remain loyal to the Union, while at the same time avoiding the inevitable second thoughts as to the wisdom of secession among the non-slaveholding population of the seven Deep South states.
Against the strong advice of Senior members of his cabinet, Davis ordered Confederate troops in Charleston to open fire on the vastly out manned Union troops stationed at Fort Sumter. Davis fully understood that firing on the American flag would force the Northern states to respond, but saw that action as the only way to prevent his untenable little slave republic from slowly dissolving as the people of the South came to realize that contrary to the never ending radical propaganda of the fire-eating wealthy slave-owning aristocrats, Lincoln did not present a threat to the "institutions" of the South.
That doesn’t even begin to make sense.
That's what happened. Here's a good summary by David Dieteman.
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.