Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Could Use the Whiskey the Tea Party Drinks
Townhall.com ^ | January 7, 2013 | John Ransom

Posted on 01/07/2013 4:01:08 AM PST by Kaslin

While many of our heroes have lost their gloss, Abraham Lincoln still shines brightly for many Americans because there is so much to learn from his life.

For example, in 1858 Abraham Lincoln was defeated in his race for the United States Senate by Stephen Douglas, making it Lincoln’s third electoral defeat in a row. As Lincoln emerged from the telegraph office into the rain-soaked street in Springfield, Illinois he lost his balance when his foot slipped on the slick boardwalk. Catching himself before he tumbled into the mud Lincoln muttered to under his breath, “A slip, but not a fall.”

He then smiled brightly.

Recognizing the symbolic importance for his political life of catching himself before he fell, Lincoln understood that his political career was not over despite his string of defeats. He started for home reenergized. In two years he was elected President of the United States.

“I claim not to have controlled event,” Lincoln candidly wrote in 1864, “but confess plainly that events have controlled me.”

Lincoln’s critics (both contemporary and posthumous) have often pointed to this confession as a sign that while Lincoln successfully rode the whirlwind of Civil War, he was not the builder of the nation that others have claimed- a kind of second founding father after Washington.

But it was this essentially negative trait (negative in the sense that it was passive and did not require action) that allowed Lincoln to remake US society on the basis of the words of the Declaration of Independence that declared “all men are created equal,” to include African Americans. He was able to accomplish this revolutionary object through passive management of the Civil War without turning it in to a “remorseless revolutionary struggle,” which might have irreparably divided the nation during Reconstruction.

Nowhere was Lincoln’s task more arduous than in managing and massaging the personalities of his generals (and to a lesser extent, members of Congress). Many of Lincoln’s strongest critics were generals who felt that Lincoln wasn’t taking their advice on how to conduct the war. In this chapter we will explore how Lincoln ignored personality (and public opinion) in supporting his generals and stuck to the principle of rewarding those that fought and won battles.

The most striking examples of this were the cases of General George McClellan and US Grant.

McClellan was the commander of the Army of the Potomac and later general-in-chief of all Federal forces. Mostly on the strength of a strong personality, McClellan dazzled soldiers and politicians despite the fact that he squandered several opportunities to beat the Confederates in battle. He was glamorous, good looking and just credible enough to be plausible. Lincoln however was not fooled.

Instead, Lincoln found himself drawn to the unpopular and often shy US Grant. Grant won battles even though he was publicly ridiculed for being a drunkard, slovenly and lacking in refinement. When a group protested Lincoln keeping Grant in command despite hearsay that Grant was a drunkard, Lincoln only reply was asking them what brand whiskey Grant drank so he could get some for his other generals who hadn’t yet won a battle.

Lincoln once famously observed, “I have endured a great deal of ridicule without much malice; and have received a great deal of kindness, not quite free from ridicule. I am used to it."

Indeed, during Lincoln’s life he was ridiculed over his origins, (from a log-cabin); his looks (he described himself as “homely”); his lack of formal education (he was mostly self-taught); his wife (who could be quite arrogant and aggressive, not to say crazy); and a great deal besides. Probably no President dealt with as much abuse as Lincoln. Yet throughout his life Lincoln rarely struck back at his critics. He maintained, instead, a firm confidence about who he was which helped him turn critics into supporters.

In 1855, for example, Lincoln was hired to represent Cyrus McCormick who was claiming patent infringement against a defendant. In addition, McCormick retained a number of better established lawyers from the eastern US, including Edwin M. Stanton. As the trial commenced in Cincinnati, the other attorneys ignored Lincoln, shutting him out of the case with Stanton going so far as to call Lincoln “that damned long armed Ape,” within his hearing. Lincoln swallowed his pride and watched the trial from the courtroom with other spectators.

When McCormick later sent Lincoln a check for his services on the case, Lincoln returned the check explaining that he really hadn’t done anything to earn it.

When the client returned the check to Lincoln and insisted that he cash the check, Lincoln again swallowed his pride and cashed the check despite his grumbling about the “rough” treatment he got from Stanton.

What’s most amazing is that Lincoln later picked Stanton to become his War Secretary after the resignation of Simon Cameron. At the time of his selection Stanton was still an avowed critic of Lincoln. Lincoln was willing to overlook this because of Stanton’s superb managerial skills. As their relationship matured Stanton became one of Lincoln’s warmest admirers. Standing at the foot of Lincoln’s bed as the latter died of a gunshot wound to the head, Stanton proclaimed of Lincoln: “Now he be belongs to the ages.”

The GOP right now could use a backward glance at Father Abraham and the lessons he bring with the ages.

Defeat in one election doesn’t always mean defeat forever. It helps, however, if you know what you where you are and whither you are tending; if you have high ideals and stick to them, as Lincoln did.

Too, we mustn’t always be so ready to excoriate our foes- foes inside our own party who are often arrogant, unreliable and closed minded, these people we call RINOs. We will later need these valuable allies to get elected and run the party.

But to those who are quick to criticize the Tea Party trend inside the GOP as unrefined and often perhaps extreme, I would remind them that just like in the case of Grant, the whiskey we drink more often leads to victory than defeat. And really, you can’t say that much about your other generals.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

1 posted on 01/07/2013 4:01:14 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’ll drink to that!

LLS


2 posted on 01/07/2013 4:06:03 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The GOP is not “man” enough to drink the Tea Party’s whiskey! It takes courage and there is non in the GOP anymore.


3 posted on 01/07/2013 4:06:52 AM PST by vet7279
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Whiskey? Bone head? He’s there! Maybe he would be better if he were drunk than he is when he’s straight. Looking at all the options? grasping for straws? get ready for this! “looking for hope and change”?! We are in a deep hole in the ground with no ladder.


4 posted on 01/07/2013 4:10:33 AM PST by ronnie raygun (Being Breitbart, Lexington / Concord, America's first gun grab attempt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

this is gonna be a good thread...

my whiskey is crown royal...


5 posted on 01/07/2013 4:12:30 AM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

I don’t think you can get it in the US, but if you see any “Forty Creek”, buy it. Beats them all.


6 posted on 01/07/2013 4:19:25 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, we'll just grow algae.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"... Stanton proclaimed of Lincoln: “Now he be belongs to the ages.”

A minor quibble, Stanton may have said this but there was no report of it until nearly thirty years after Lincoln died. It sounds more poetic than accurate.

7 posted on 01/07/2013 4:23:00 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

is this a straight or blended whiskey???


8 posted on 01/07/2013 4:30:16 AM PST by joe fonebone (The clueless... they walk among us, and they vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

We need our own UKIP. The original went from being a mocked 5th party to potentially picking up tons of seats in the next national election in the UK.


9 posted on 01/07/2013 4:42:05 AM PST by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
For example, in 1858 Abraham Lincoln was defeated in his race for the United States Senate by Stephen Douglas, making it Lincoln’s third electoral defeat in a row.

I believe this is inaccurate.

Lincoln ran for IL Senator in 1854 and 1858, though these weren't exactly elections where he was a candidate.

The state legislature, not the people, elected the Senator, so the race was between whether the nominated candidate for Senate could get more of his guys elected to the legislature.

Anyway, that's only two defeats.

10 posted on 01/07/2013 4:43:36 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
“I claim not to have controlled event,” Lincoln candidly wrote in 1864, “but confess plainly that events have controlled me.” ... he was not the builder of the nation that others have claimed- a kind of second founding father after Washington.

I doubt Washington would have claimed that he was able to "control events." He waited for an opportunity and counter-punched, with Yorktown the classic example.

11 posted on 01/07/2013 4:48:16 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
But it was this essentially negative trait (negative in the sense that it was passive and did not require action) that allowed Lincoln to remake US society on the basis of the words of the Declaration of Independence that declared “all men are created equal,” to include African Americans.

OMG, people...wake UP!

Lincoln didn't 'remake US society on the basis of the words of the Declaration of Independence', the Founders had already done that!

Lincoln repeatedly shat on the Constitution and our entire system of Law by making the federal government the final arbitrator of ALL Rights.

----------

He IGNORED the historical, documented fact the States had seceded from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

He IGNORED legal precedent set by the USSC Court of Appeals.

He IGNORED the Constitutional provision of waiting for a Declaration of War before mustering troops.

He IGNORED the 10th Amendment.

He IGNORED the Constitutional provision concerning a Republican form of government.

He gave us the first executive orders

He gave us the first tax on wages.

He gave us 'reconstruction'... the precursor to affirmative action.

-----------

IMHO, admiring Lincoln while hating Obama is the vilest form of hypocrisy, because Obama DOES ACT just like Lincoln!

12 posted on 01/07/2013 4:50:21 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

High ideals? That’s not what comes to mind when I think of the GOP lately.


13 posted on 01/07/2013 5:02:49 AM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Too bad the rebels were on the wrong side of history, otherwise he wouldn't have had to do those things.

The Founding Fathers never thought that rebellious states would be the oppressors and fighting against liberty.

14 posted on 01/07/2013 5:05:24 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Yep.


15 posted on 01/07/2013 5:10:34 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Courtesy of The Doors:

Well, show me the way
To the next whisky bar
Oh, don’t ask why
Oh, don’t ask why

Show me the way
To the next whisky bar
Oh, don’t ask why
Oh, don’t ask why

For if we don’t find
The next whisky bar
I tell you we must die
I tell you we must die
I tell you, I tell you
I tell you we must die

Oh, moon of Alabama
We now must say goodbye
We’ve lost our good old mama
And must have whisky, oh, you know why

Oh, moon of Alabama
We now must say goodbye
We’ve lost our good old mama
And must have whisky, oh, you know why

Well, show me the way
To the next little girl
Oh, don’t ask why
Oh, don’t ask why

Show me the way
To the next little girl
Oh, don’t ask why
Oh, don’t ask why

For if we don’t find
The next little girl
I tell you we must die
I tell you we must die
I tell you, I tell you
I tell you we must die

Oh, moon of Alabama
We now must say goodbye
We’ve lost our good old mama
And must have whisky, oh, you know why


16 posted on 01/07/2013 5:17:53 AM PST by NRA1995 (I'd rather be a living "gun culture" member than a dead anti-gun candy-ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Too bad the rebels were on the wrong side of history, otherwise he wouldn't have had to do those things.

Constitutionally, the South was right. Do you believe the government is only held to Constitutional provisions until some elected official decides they're on the 'wrong side of history'?

-----

The Founding Fathers never thought that rebellious states would be the oppressors and fighting against liberty.

LOLOLOLOL! You DO realize the Founders are the ones who PUT slavery in the Constitution, don't you?

17 posted on 01/07/2013 5:31:53 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

Templeton Rye.

Best Rye I have ever tasted.


18 posted on 01/07/2013 5:33:39 AM PST by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The GOP and the Tea Party both could stand to sober up and realize what they're really up against.
The hard core that these people worship grew up bombing ROTC centers, robbing banks, murdering cops, and inciting violent riots. Until they're confronted by the same sort of dedication, in spades, they won't take anyone who isn't on their side seriously. They got where they are by playing an inside game pushed along with violence their "outside: comrades incited which kept the threat of massive violence driving their agenda. The same sort of game backed by the same sort of open violence is all they understand.

That's exactly why they're so rabid about gun control. When I was still in High School the bastards were running a letter writing campaign at the State level objecting to the sale of .22 caliber, .38 caliber, and 30-06 caliber, ammunition in nearly every 7-11 type store in the state. One of their main concerns then was, "will hicks start shooting protesters".

To Hell with just protecting "Assault Weapons". When Congress critters are as inscrure as the poorest folks in a bad neighborhood, you can buy ammunition at every little market like you could in the fifties, and carrying a firearm openly or concealed doesn't require any sort of permit, then things will be back to the sort of freedom the authors of the Constitution envisioned.

19 posted on 01/07/2013 5:34:21 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The South fired the first shot and confiscated Federal property.

The South, unhappy with the status quo, wanted to spread slavery and force it upon people who were for freedom.

If bad consequences came from the Civil War it was because the South didn't have a just cause for rebellion.

20 posted on 01/07/2013 5:48:49 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

If you’re going to drink whiskey like a man, then why not drink the whiskey named after where Lincoln was born, Knob Creek (KY).


21 posted on 01/07/2013 5:59:57 AM PST by NY Cajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
The South fired the first shot and confiscated Federal property.

The federal government can 'own' nothing. Everything it has, it holds in delegated trust for the States.

The forts were surety...basically any property in that federal trust that was built in one State was forfeited should the State show the other States failed to up hold the terms of the Constitutional Compact.

-----

The South, unhappy with the status quo, wanted to spread slavery and force it upon people who were for freedom.

In 1835, the USSC Court's Court of Appeals in Jack v. Martin stated:

I regard this as but the entering wedge to other doctrines which are designed to extirpate slavery; and we may find when it is too late, that the patience of the south, however well founded upon principle, from repeated aggression will become exhausted. These considerations would have no influence with me if I could satisfy myself of the unconstitutionality of the law of congress; but I can never contribute in any manner, either directly or indirectly, to the abolition of slavery, however great an evil it may be, in violation of the constitution and laws of the country, and in violation of the solemn compact which was made by our forefathers at the adoption of the constitution, and which their posterity are bound to preserve inviolate. I am sustained in this view of the case by the whole current of authority, in all the states where the question has been decided.

The Northern States continued to pass laws to prevent what was legally established as Constitutional procedure concerning the return of fugitive slaves...... so the South left the Compact. Just as they did from the previous compact known as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

-------

If bad consequences came from the Civil War it was because the South didn't have a just cause for rebellion.

LOL! You mean against an unconstitutional government?

22 posted on 01/07/2013 6:11:44 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NY Cajun

Is it non bonded?

LLS


23 posted on 01/07/2013 6:33:35 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I agree. Wholeheartedly.

FMCDH(BITS)

24 posted on 01/07/2013 6:39:17 AM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I don't know where people got the idea that Tea Partiers drink tea. We dump it in bays and afterward go have a drink of coffee,,,or whiskey...or good ol' American bourbon.

I remember when we first started gathering for Tea Party events in the park and the state house and the stupid libs would come up and yell things like "Real Americans drink coffee!" And I would say "Exactly", and you could see the confused look on the lib's face.

Do schools still teach history?

25 posted on 01/07/2013 6:41:31 AM PST by Sirius Lee (Get your hair clippers, Patriots! The Vichy Republicans asked for it. 2014!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
The South, unhappy with the status quo, wanted to spread slavery and force it upon people who were for freedom.

If bad consequences came from the Civil War it was because the South didn't have a just cause for rebellion.

BS

The south was well on its way to get rid of slavery. This whole thing was about states rights VS the federal government taking more control OVER the states.FMCDH(BITS)

26 posted on 01/07/2013 6:44:02 AM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew
The south was well on its way to get rid of slavery.

Then why was the South trying to spread slavery to new territories?

This whole thing was about states rights VS the federal government taking more control OVER the states.

States didn't have the right to secede or to form their own sovereign nation. And as far as rebellion goes, they didn't have a just cause.

27 posted on 01/07/2013 6:49:04 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The federal government can 'own' nothing. Everything it has, it holds in delegated trust for the States. The forts were surety...basically any property in that federal trust that was built in one State was forfeited should the State show the other States failed to up hold the terms of the Constitutional Compact.

The South had no right to claim the property as a sovereign nation. They had no right to fire upon resupply ships either.

The Northern States continued to pass laws to prevent what was legally established as Constitutional procedure concerning the return of fugitive slaves

I guess you are going to ignore the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision. I guess you are all for state's rights except when those states respected freedom for all men.

LOL! You mean against an unconstitutional government?

This subject isn't funny. The South had no right to form a sovereign nation and the expansion of slavery and forcing it upon those who respected freedom for all men was an unjust cause.

28 posted on 01/07/2013 6:56:04 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ronnie raygun
We are in a deep hole in the ground with no ladder.

Can someone in the GOP please stop digging?

29 posted on 01/07/2013 7:00:34 AM PST by showme_the_Glory (ILLEGAL: prohibited by law. ALIEN: Owing political allegiance to another country or government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
States didn't have the right to secede or to form their own sovereign nation.

Your right! The Constitution was suspended during those years.

FMCDH(BITS)

30 posted on 01/07/2013 7:12:22 AM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The Northern States continued to pass laws to prevent what was legally established as Constitutional procedure concerning the return of fugitive slaves...... so the South left the Compact.

This is accurate. Northern personal liberty laws were intended to put extreme roadblocks in the way of the constitutional provision requiring one state to allow extradition of fugitive slaves to a state requesting their return.

However, this wasn't really an issue to southerners in 1860, other than as an example of northern antagonism. In 1854 the Fugitive Slave Act had made the return of fugitives a federal responsibility implemented by federal marshals and commissioners, and if necessary federal troops.

Northern personal liberty laws were irrelevant in 1860, and had been for six years, since the cases bypassed northern state courts.

Exactly how the FSA, greatly expanding federal power at the expense of states, is an example of defending states' rights, is quite beyond me.

The actual precipitating factor in the splintering of the Democratic Party, the last national institution other than the federal government itself, was a southern demand for a federal slave code in the territories, enforced if necessary by federal troops against the wishes of the inhabitants.

Another demand for new federal powers to protect and expand slavery. Not exactly a great example of states' rights.

31 posted on 01/07/2013 7:32:39 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
I guess you are all for state's rights except when those states respected freedom for all men.

The northern states agreed to the terms of the compact when they signed it. Just because they decided to move FORWARD with their own ideals instead of using constitutional measures to change it is what gave birth to our current [gag] democracy.

The South had no right to form a sovereign nation and the expansion of slavery and forcing it upon those who respected freedom for all men was an unjust cause.

The South was forcing slavery on no one, they were merely insisting the other States live up to their agreement to adhere to the compact.

The Founders put the slavery clause NOT under the powers of Congress, but under Article V .... the States. They then passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which gave the procedure for the return of fugitive slaves.

THIS IS WHAT THE NORTHERN STATES agreed to do, then turned around and refused to do so.

Trying to justify the act of perjury of the Northern States by claiming some type of moral high ground is blatant hypocrisy.

32 posted on 01/07/2013 7:43:33 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
In 1854 the Fugitive Slave Act had made the return of fugitives a federal responsibility implemented by federal marshals and commissioners, and if necessary federal troops.

Which was unconstitutional. The federal government had no authority FORCING any State to fulfill their part of the Constitutional agreement. THAT was the responsibility of the State itself.

---------

Another demand for new federal powers to protect and expand slavery.

I can think of several instances of the federal government being told they had no authority over the issue, which is true.

Your repeated insitstance that 'demands' of some kid were made, however, lack any supporting evidence on your part.

33 posted on 01/07/2013 7:57:35 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

kid = kind


34 posted on 01/07/2013 7:59:17 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

Pick a better country.


35 posted on 01/07/2013 8:12:49 AM PST by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew
The south was well on its way to get rid of slavery.

Probably the biggest lie the Lost Causers ever conjured up. Slavery had never been as profitable and vital to the Southern economy as it was in 1860. No one in the South at that time had any inclination to end slavery. In fact, even advocating for the end of slavery was illegal in the South.

This whole thing was about states rights VS the federal government taking more control OVER the states.

Please cite even one example of the Federal Government trying to take more control over the states in 1860. Just one.

36 posted on 01/07/2013 8:15:35 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The South was forcing slavery on no one...

They surely enforced it on 4 million slaves in the 15 Slave states.

The Fugitive Slave Act was the first time the Federal Government had the power to act directly upon citizens by forcing them, even against their will, to capture and detain fugitive slaves.

The Dred Scott decision forced Federal territories and their citizens far away from the South to accept slavery. And a close reading of Scott would even allow slave owners to bring their slaves into Free States against the laws of those states, yet be protected under Federal law.

The South was indeed forcing slavery upon the entire nation by using Federal Power, yet those who would long after the war cite 'States Rights' as their cause applauded those Federal violations of States Rights during the 1850s.

37 posted on 01/07/2013 8:43:42 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The federal government can 'own' nothing. Everything it has, it holds in delegated trust for the States.

Then, by that logic neither can the state own anything which doubles the offense by South Carolina when it illegally seized property it had no claim to.

38 posted on 01/07/2013 8:48:46 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
LOL! You mean against an unconstitutional government?

What an odd comment. You mean like when taney held that negroes weren't really people? Or like when SCOTUS held against Pennsylvania in the Prigg case? Or Congress via the Fugitive Slave Act which sought to placate the idiotic slavers? Or perhaps the Compromise of 1860 which attempted the same? That "unconstitutional government"?

39 posted on 01/07/2013 9:11:44 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
"The South was forcing slavery on no one..."

"They surely enforced it on 4 million slaves in the 15 Slave states."

I'll admit that first sentence was the biggest facepalm comment of the day.

40 posted on 01/07/2013 9:27:39 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
You mean like when taney held that negroes weren't really people? Or like when SCOTUS held against Pennsylvania in the Prigg case? Or Congress via the Fugitive Slave Act which sought to placate the idiotic slavers? Or perhaps the Compromise of 1860 which attempted the same? That "unconstitutional government"?

Since that is precisely what the Constitution said, that's exactly what I meant.

In the Priggs case, the finding is one of the biggest federal power grabs ever. From the finding itself:

Nor does it matter that the rule to which I have adverted as being exclusive of the right of the States to legislate upon the provision does not appear in it. It is exactly to such cases that the rule applies, and it must be so applied unless the contrary has been expressly provided.

Not only does this run directly counter to the legal precedent in Jack vs Martin, it perverts the entire process of enumeration AND the guarantee of the 10th Amendment by saying unless the Constitution says otherwise, the federal government can do whatever it wants!

How's that for an "unconstitutional government"?

41 posted on 01/07/2013 11:19:27 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew
Your right! The Constitution was suspended during those years.

Seven states left the Union before Lincoln even took office.

42 posted on 01/07/2013 11:22:02 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
The Fugitive Slave Act

Which one? The one in 1793 was constitutional.

The Dred Scott decision forced Federal territories and their citizens far away from the South to accept slavery.

Yes, because the northern States accepted it as well when they signed the compact.

The South was indeed forcing slavery upon the entire nation by using Federal Power,

Again, I don't feel the federal laws forcing anything were constitutional. The obligation was on the States who entered into the agreement. When they didn't the South had every right to leave the compact.

43 posted on 01/07/2013 11:32:17 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Seven states left the Union before Lincoln even took office.

I thought you earlier said that States couldn't secede under the Constitution. Which way is it?

FMCDH(BITS)

44 posted on 01/07/2013 11:50:47 AM PST by nothingnew (I fear for my Republic due to marxist influence in our government. Open eyes/see)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
When they didn't the South had every right to leave the compact.

Not really, but thanks for sharing.

45 posted on 01/07/2013 11:58:26 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: nothingnew; Moonman62

They seceded extra-legally.


46 posted on 01/07/2013 12:00:17 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Or Congress via the Fugitive Slave Act which sought to placate the idiotic slavers? Or perhaps the Compromise of 1860 which attempted the same? That "unconstitutional government"?

meant to delete the last part before posting.

47 posted on 01/07/2013 12:00:36 PM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

That pales in comparison to the embarrassment that was the Dred Scott ruling.


48 posted on 01/07/2013 12:03:20 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Not really, but thanks for sharing.

I believe I'll take the word of the man that Madison saw fit to appoint to the federal court of Virgina over the opinion of some anonymous Internet poster.....but thanks for sharing!

But the seceding states were certainly justified upon that principle; and from the duty which every state is acknowledged to owe to itself, and its own citizens by doing whatsoever may best contribute to advance its own happiness and prosperity; and much more, what may be necessary to the preservation of its existence as a state.30 Nor must we forget that solemn declaration to which every one of the confederate states assented . … that whenever any form of government is destructive of the ends of its institution, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. Consequently whenever the people of any state, or number of states, discovered the inadequacy of the first form of federal government to promote or preserve their independence, happiness, and union, they only exerted that natural right in rejecting it, and adopting another, which all had unanimously assented to, and of which no force or compact can deprive the people of any state, whenever they see the necessity, and possess the power to do it. And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.

Of the Several Forms of Government, St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, Section XIII

49 posted on 01/07/2013 12:05:45 PM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

And I’ll take the word of SCOTUS over Tucker.


50 posted on 01/07/2013 12:07:30 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson