I couldn't think of a better caption for this photograph.
Posted on 05/24/2007 6:03:30 AM PDT by Rebeleye
Ban private firearms ownership and you'll find out really quick
Yes, the federal government gets to make the rule, but nowhere does it get the authority to grant citizenship.
Citizenship was an issue 'among the several States', so the general government got to make the rules of naturalization in order for all the States to grant citizenship to any inhabitants in a uniform manner.
-----
BTW- You snipped out the most explanatory part:
Federalist #42
There is a confusion of language here, which is remarkable. Why the terms free inhabitants are used in one part of the article, free citizens in another, and people in another; or what was meant by superadding to "all privileges and immunities of free citizens," "all the privileges of trade and commerce," cannot easily be determined. It seems to be a construction scarcely avoidable, however, that those who come under the denomination of free inhabitants of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of free citizens of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State: so that it may be in the power of a particular State, or rather every State is laid under a necessity, not only to confer the rights of citizenship in other States upon any whom it may admit to such rights within itself, but upon any whom it may allow to become inhabitants within its jurisdiction. But were an exposition of the term "inhabitants" to be admitted which would confine the stipulated privileges to citizens alone, the difficulty is diminished only, not removed.
ROFLMAO! NS, nowhere did Washington use the phrase 'citizens of the United States' as you claimed he did.
He was talking about our nation, which we should remain loyal too.
But our country is one thing and our government is another.
I feel very sorry for you since you obviously can't make the distinction.
No, he used the term 'citizens of a common country' and I think we both know he wasn't referring to France.
But our country is one thing and our government is another. I feel very sorry for you since you obviously can't make the distinction.
Please don't waste any pity on me as I'm not wasting any on you. But can we at least agree that Washington, too, was talking about country rather than government in his farewell address? And that clearly he believed that pride and devotion to country should exceed that of state or locality? That country had the first demand on your loyalty over any other? Regardless of what you would have us believe?
And how does an inability to make the rule as to citizenship leave the power to grant citizenship in state hands? It makes no sense. If the state can't make any rule concerning citizenship, what authority does it have in that area beyond the merely administrative? The first naturalization act, from 1790, stated, "...any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."
BTW- You snipped out the most explanatory part:
And this aids your argument how? It's a "parade of horribles" that illustrates the messy situation of states being given the leeway to determine who shall or shall not be allowed citizenship on their own.
Ok...I concede the point. :)
I couldn't think of a better caption for this photograph.
More like something manufactured by TRW.
“Where is thar?”
Up war yew folks are, of course.
That’s also the conservative, “song and dance”, I guess.
Let me guess - the argument in Roe v. Wade is valid to you, right? Anything the USSC does is valid and correct to you, right?
Let me guess, an English major incapable of original work?
You aren’t very good at that little task, if the below is any example.
Let’s deconstruct your little screed, shall we?
“I am going to keep making the same arguments even if they are disproved our otherwise removed from contention”
You do not prove an argument by fiat.
“For example, even after you post text where Lincoln talks about the judgment of God being visited on the nation for the sin of slavery, I will continue to pretend that you were saying that Abe Lincoln supported radical abolitionists, thereby ‘disproving’ a point you never made.”
You rather seriously misrepresent my argument here. It’s almost as if you can’t read. The claim was made that the definition for the “grapes of wrath” line in the Battle Hymn of the Republic, written by the wife of one of John Brown’s friends in 1861, may be found in the address given by Lincoln in 1865. I pointed out that that doesn’t logically follow. In short, you’re doing to me what you claim I was doing to you. Par for the course for the ignorant liberal arts crowd, I guess.
“Plus, I’ll be sure to play the usual, stupid, bigoted, anti-intellectual ‘you disagree with me therefore you hate the South’ card.”
Actually, it’s the insults from your side in this argument that show your side to be the usual “, bigoted, anti-intellectual “.
“If you think I hate the South you’re blind and deaf. We’re done here.”
Good, sonny.
Here's Davis on the Senate floor, January 10, 1861:
If you will but allow us to separate from you peaceably, since we cannot live peaceably together, to leave with the rights that we had before we were united, since we cannot enjoy them in the Union, then there are many relations which may still subsist between us, drawn from the associations of our struggles from the revolutionary era to the present day, which may be beneficial to you as well as to us.
I think, but am not sure, that Davis went back to Alabama for a period shortly before that speech and tried to talk Alabama politicians out of secession. If true, he was unsuccessful.
The South held out hope and were working for a peaceful separation until early April 1861 when news of northern warship preparations and sailings to unknown Southern destinations became known. The Southern Commissioners in Washington were mislead by words of cabinet member Seward in late March that Fort Sumter would be evacuated. Governor Pickens of South Carolina was similarly misled about the same time by Ward Hill Lamon, Lincoln's personal messenger to the Governor. Once the fleet sailed, the Commissioners called the words of the Lincoln Administration about evacuating Sumter "gross perfidy."
Before the attack on Sumter, the New York Times wondered why Davis and Beauregard had not already attacked Sumter before the fleet sailed south. The following was published by the NYT on April 12. I guess they couldn't or wouldn't see that the South had been holding out for peace until it was clear that a northern fleet was coming.
Why the Southern Commander, be he JEFFERSON DAVIS or Gen. BEAUREGARD, [their caps] has delayed pouring on Sumpter [sic -- tisk, tisk, NYT] his full force, and crushing it beneath an iron hail, if he could; why he has waited until, instead of concentrating his fire in security on one small point, he now has to defend a long straggling line [ten miles of shoreline], from a powerful fleet, it is impossible to tell. The reason may have been political; it may have been that there was not the vaunted readiness; it may have been incompetency; and it is not impossible that when the yawning abyss opened before them with all its horror, they may have lacked the insane courage required for the final leap.
Lincoln had to know that fighting would break out if he sent the fleet. I wonder what would have occurred if Davis had kept the fort supplied with food and instead let Lincoln keep his promise of collecting tariffs on goods intended for Southern ports, an act of war if Lincoln were interdicting foreign ships.
Sir, I suggest immediate speech therapy.
Check your Yellow Pages for assistance.
So, somebody finally met Billy?
Check your Yellow Pages for assistance.”
Speech therapy for typing? That’s a new one.
You, sir, have no sense of humor. It's unfortunate that there is no treatment for that particular illness.
I’ve been to Lake Superior. We drove the North Shore from Duluth, Minnesota to Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, then crossed back over the border at International Falls, Minnesota. It was spectacular!
Yes. Nothing in the Constitution says I have to agree with their decision in order for it to be valid. Same with you.
Lamon was accompanied by Stephen Hurlbut. He sent a report to Lincoln on his findings in Charleston. Hurlbut had been born in South Carolina and knew the people very well. His report to Lincoln noted that there was nothing he could do regarding Sumter, short of abandoning it to the rebel forces, that would satisfy the rebellion leaders. He also noted that if Lincoln gave in on that then there would certainly be similar demands made to turn over Pickens and Fort Jefferson. Doing so would cost the government all credibility and most likely would be futile because Hurlbut pointed out, "Nor do I believe that any policy which may be adopted by this Government will prevent the possibility of armed collision." It's pretty clear that Hurlbut was convinced that the South wanted war sooner rather than later, either in Charleston or some other point.
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.