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

Skip to comments.

Lincoln holiday on its way out (West Virginia)
West Virginia Gazette Mail ^ | 9-8-2005 | Phil Kabler

Posted on 09/10/2005 4:46:12 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo

Lincoln holiday on its way out

By Phil Kabler Staff writer

A bill to combine state holidays for Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays into a single Presidents’ Day holiday cleared its first legislative committee Wednesday, over objections from Senate Republicans who said it besmirches Abraham Lincoln’s role in helping establish West Virginia as a state.

Senate Government Organization Committee members rejected several attempts to retain Lincoln’s birthday as a state holiday.

State Sen. Russ Weeks, R-Raleigh, introduced an amendment to instead eliminate Columbus Day as a paid state holiday. “Columbus didn’t have anything to do with making West Virginia a state,” he said. “If we have to cut one, let’s cut Christopher Columbus.”

Jim Pitrolo, legislative director for Gov. Joe Manchin, said the proposed merger of the two holidays would bring West Virginia in line with federal holidays, and would effectively save $4.6 million a year — the cost of one day’s pay to state workers.

Government Organization Chairman Ed Bowman, D-Hancock, said the overall savings would be even greater, since by law, county and municipal governments must give their employees the same paid holidays as state government.

“To the taxpayers, the savings will be even larger,” he said.

The bill technically trades the February holiday for a new holiday on the Friday after Thanksgiving. For years, though, governors have given state employees that day off with pay by proclamation.

Sen. Sarah Minear, R-Tucker, who also objected to eliminating Lincoln’s birthday as a holiday, argued that it was misleading to suggest that eliminating the holiday will save the state money.

“It’s not going to save the state a dime,” said Minear, who said she isn’t giving up on retaining the Lincoln holiday.

Committee members also rejected an amendment by Sen. Steve Harrison, R-Kanawha, to recognize the Friday after Thanksgiving as “Lincoln Day.”

“I do believe President Lincoln has a special place in the history of West Virginia,” he said.

Sen. Randy White, D-Webster, said he believed that would create confusion.

“It’s confusing to me,” he said.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Jeff Kessler, D-Marshall, suggested that the state could recognize Lincoln’s proclamation creating West Virginia as part of the June 20 state holiday observance for the state’s birthday.

Proponents of the measure to eliminate a state holiday contend that the numerous paid holidays - as many as 14 in election years — contribute to inefficiencies in state government.

To contact staff writer Phil Kabler, use e-mail or call 348-1220.


TOPICS: Government; US: West Virginia
KEYWORDS: abelincoln; lincoln; sorrydemocrats; westvirginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 1,401-1,437 next last
To: Gianni
4CJ, ping for appreciation.

I guess the French were considered Americans ;o)

451 posted on 09/22/2005 5:59:22 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

So let me get this straight, if you were attacked, your position is one of non-defense?


452 posted on 09/22/2005 6:27:19 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
There was a group of men who were willing to tear up the greatest government known to man so they could hold slaves for profit.

Wrong. The government continued to exist even after secession. The union of states continued, just with fewer members. The states already had slavery, it was protected, there wouldn't be enough votes to sustain an amendment ending it, Lincoln supported making it permanent, and did not wage war to end it:

'We didn't go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back, and to act differ at this moment, would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause but smack of bad faith; for I never should have had votes enough to send me here if the people had supposed I should try to use my power to upset slavery. Why, the first thing you'd see, would be a mutiny in the [UNION] army.'

453 posted on 09/22/2005 7:19:50 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
[mac] Oh, I see. You believe no crimes were committed because...Congress refused to act [lol].

[4CJ] No. Yes. I point out that Congress itself saw no illegal act, they refused to act because secession was legal.

Their inaction was meaningless with regard to the ultimate question of the legality of those actions taken by the secessionists in 1860. That's probably why you continue to bring it up.

Please document thsi alleged Constitutional responsibility to preserve the union.

The US Constitution delineates the responsibilities of three separate but co-equal branches of government, and the concept of secession was a Constitutional matter. The second section of Article 3 states that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" . If Secession were legal and equitable under the Constitution as you presume, where is the petition to the court whose power extends to ALL cases?

Conventions were assembled, a vote was taken. The sovereign power of each state - a power higher than the legislature and Constitution - met, and voted to change their form of government.

Fraud. There is no Fourth branch of government. The State has NO power to invalidate the citizenship of Americans living within their borders who are guaranteed equal treatment/protection under the US Constitution, or to decide the disposition of Federal land and property. This is just one of a myriad of examples of how the secessionists trampled on the US Constitution on their way out the door.

They did not wage war on the federal government nor attempt to overthrow it..

Nonsense. Of course they did, from the attack on Ft. Sumner... to Gov. Pickins memo to Davis offering to send troops to DC.

...they exercised their God given imagined right to self-government hold other men in chains.

Only citizens could be charged with treason - non citizens cannot.

One of the most annoying aspects of dealing with you neo-secesionists is the dishonest way you bob and weave around the US Constitution. You commit treason then claim it doesn't apply because you held a sham election, then claim you were acting in the same manner as Geo. Washington.

At least Washington [et al] didn't pretend that their Revolution was legal under existing law, or that the consequences of their action wasn't the gallows rope. Why don't you gray diaper babies man up for a change and admit what happened in 1860 was a failed attempt at revolution, not some Constitutionally protected legality?

When YOU can't win a debate this is your retort, to accuse someone of racism, of being a vile and despicible?

Bwahaha! Like so many thin skinned neo-rebs, you can dish it out but you can't take it. You accuse me of racism against native indians on a regular basis and it rolls off my back, yet when I obliquely raise the issue you have a hissy fit. A simple disavowal would be sufficient.

454 posted on 09/22/2005 9:16:31 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
The states seceded - renounced their allegience to the union - defending themselves from invasion from President Dictator Lincoln.

Amazing, considering that six states seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated, much less mounting any kind of "invasion." And what are we to make of the states seizing federal facilities and weapons before they announced their secession?

455 posted on 09/22/2005 9:40:25 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
So let me get this straight, if you were attacked, your position is one of non-defense?

So let me get this straight, if one POW dies at Point Lookout because he doesn't have a blanket, it's cold-blooded murder, but if Bloody Bill Anderson marches down a line of kneeling prisoners shooting them in the head, it's self-defense?

456 posted on 09/22/2005 9:43:34 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
Nice, posting stuff from one of your own 'confederates' in perpetual rebellion.

The subject was Bloody Bill Anderson being an animal.

 
The quoted post contained one introductory sentence of less than 20 words by Nolu Chan.  The rest was a quote of Lonnie Speer.
 
Let's see... one sister was killed, one was crippled for life, and the 10-year old sister received two broken legs.  It was widely believed that the building did not collapse on its own. Nobody but prisoners were injured.
 
Finding themselves unable to defeat the men, YOUR heroes made war against women and girls as young as 10.
 
No wonder you had to change the subject.
 
Thanks for posting.

457 posted on 09/22/2005 9:43:39 AM PDT by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Their inaction was meaningless with regard to the ultimate question of the legality of those actions taken by the secessionists in 1860.

Nope. There has to be a law making their actions illegal. Congress, the President and every judge knew what had transpired - no suit was filed, nor did congress declare war. Chief Justice Chase later said, 'by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion.'

The US Constitution delineates the responsibilities of three separate but co-equal branches of government, and the concept of secession was a Constitutional matter.

The Constitution created the federal government - the federal legislature, executive and judicial branches. As Justice Patterson wrote, they are "creatures of the Constitution." The servant does not have the delegated power to judge the relationships between the parties - the states are the arbiters. In 1789, neither the President, congress, nor judiciary could decide whether or not a state ratified - it was totally up to each state for themselves to decide.

The second section of Article 3 states that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" . If Secession were legal and equitable under the Constitution as you presume, where is the petition to the court whose power extends to ALL cases?

Cases are filed by the injured party, not one seeking permission. The Constitution specifically limits federal powers (Article I §1: 'All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States'; Article I §8 'The Congress shall have the power to ...make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution'; Amendments IX and X). Secession is not a delegated power 'arising under this Constitution.'

Fraud. There is no Fourth branch of government.

Fraud - the Constitution cannot be amended by the President, congress or the courts. Only the 'Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof' can amend it. Their power is sovereign over the Constitution.

The State has NO power to invalidate the citizenship of Americans living within their borders who are guaranteed equal treatment/protection under the US Constitution.

The 14th does not apply (post bellum). By your reasoning the states could not deprive Tories of their British citizenship but they did.

Nonsense. Of course they did, from the attack on Ft. Sumner... to Gov. Pickins memo to Davis offering to send troops to DC.

Nonsense. Sumter et al were hundreds of miles from any union states - the states simply reclaimed property on their sovereign soil, just as the US would reclaim the UN building if Koffi refuses to leave when the US secedes from the UN.

Why don't you gray diaper babies man up for a change and admit what happened in 1860 was a failed attempt at revolution, not some Constitutionally protected legality?

Until you can point to a clause prohibiting secession, it's you that must must admit to waging a war of northern aggression.

Bwahaha! Like so many thin skinned neo-rebs, you can dish it out but you can't take it.

I have my opinion as to your mental state, but it's not me dishing out the insults - it's YOU.

You accuse me of racism against native indians on a regular basis and it rolls off my back, yet when I obliquely raise the issue you have a hissy fit.

Obliquely? Bwaahahahahaha!

A simple disavowal would be sufficient.

I did reply - 'we all all of one blood, descendants of Adam and Eve - all brothers and sisters in the eyes of God and myself.' I have never, and will never judge or hate anyone based on he color of their skin. I moved next to several black families, I have black friends, they eat at our table, and swim in our pool with us and my children. As I wrote before, you're 'attempting to pass off YOUR beliefs as mine.'

458 posted on 09/22/2005 2:27:31 PM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
So let me get this straight, if you were attacked, your position is one of non-defense?

And just who did the citizens of Lawrence attack?

459 posted on 09/22/2005 3:40:15 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
can you NAME even ONE INNOCENT man or boy who was on the kill lists & was in fact killed????

NOPE, because they were ALL jayhawkers, redlegs or common criminals, who had committed arson,rape,robbery or other serious crimes against civilians in MO & KS.

FACT!

free dixie,sw

460 posted on 09/22/2005 5:51:17 PM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
see # 460 & give me a LIST by NAME of those "poor innocents".

face it, N-S they were EXECUTED for CRIMES during the most successful PUNITIVE RAID of the WBTS.

your propaganda & LIES are UNpersuasive to ANYBODY here who has a brain.

free dixie,sw

461 posted on 09/22/2005 5:55:11 PM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
"As opposed to people obsessed with like our own "B.M." Espinola."

It's always nice hearing from other prominent members of the confederate class act club..

462 posted on 09/22/2005 6:58:20 PM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
FACT!

Lie.

463 posted on 09/22/2005 7:06:20 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
face it, N-S they were EXECUTED for CRIMES during the most successful PUNITIVE RAID of the WBTS.

You're insane ramblings know no limits.

464 posted on 09/22/2005 7:06:54 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
In 1789, neither the President, congress, nor judiciary could decide whether or not a state ratified - it was totally up to each state for themselves to decide.

That is incorrect. As was pointed out here previously, Vermont was denied admission to the Union until it settled a land dispute with New York. Try again.

Chief Justice Chase later said, 'by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion.'

Meaningless and out of context.

Cases are filed by the injured party, not one seeking permission.

More meaningless drivel. It is actually quite easy to establish a precedent for the court to decide [Roe v. Wade is one example]. Prior to seceding Federal representatives of the Southern states acting on behalf of the nation as a whole could have petitioned the courts for approval of the project. Secession (imo) would have probably would have met with the courts approval and proceeded amicably and fairly without the bloodshed brought on by the South.

The 14th does not apply (post bellum).

No one said anything about the 14th amendment, so stop bringing it up. Article IV Section 2 clearly states: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States". How does Secession proceed [legally] without trampling on the rights of the citizens who do not wish to depart from the Union?

By your reasoning the states could not deprive Tories of their British citizenship but they did.

Once again you confuse the concept of legal Secession with Revolution. I've already asked you to 'man up' about the realities of what happened in 1860. Are you prepared to do so now?

Until you can point to a clause prohibiting secession, it's you that must must admit to waging a war of northern aggression.

I have already considered the possibility that the US Constitution would allow legal secession to take place. I am couching my position that Secession in 1860 was illegal on the way the South left. They trampled over the rights of citizens, the courts, and the remaining States. Had they proceeded at a normal pace for such an endevour, I also have no doubt the Southern people would have rejected the Confederacy. The Secessionists knew they needed a war to rally the South, which is why they acted in the callous manner they did.

I moved next to several black families, I have black friends, they eat at our table, and swim in our pool with us and my children.

If I owned five acres I probably wouldn't have any trouble living next store to you either. Perhaps a more relevant question and one that gets to the core of the matter regarding the true nature of your relationship would be, do you pray together in church?

465 posted on 09/22/2005 7:46:35 PM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
"Wrong. Until the 14th, there were no American citizens, there were on state citizens."

Is that the best excuse you can dream up for justifying treason?

"We live in under Constitutionally mandated republican form of government, and as such, the wishes of the majority via delegates or votes is supreme (using your logic Lincoln had to accomodate Northern Copperheads)."

I those such as yourself had had their way America would have remained have free and half slave.

"You assert that I 'cherish' treason which is a lie -

Very good to hear you agree with crushing the sedition created by the 'Confederates' in 1860-61.

"I cherish the God given right of self government."

Good line, however if you guys had won just whom would have "the God given right of self government."?

"The states seceded - renounced their allegience to the union - defending themselves from invasion from President Dictator Lincoln."

You are aware lines like that make you look like a frigging nut?

"What clause in the Constitution allows the President to invade a state in the union without request by the state? None. Per the Constitution (Article IV §4) the legislature or Executive of a state must petition for assistance, or else be invaded. No legislature or governor requested aid, thus leaving the only Constitutional grounds for invasion by King Lincoln was the invasion of the states - WHO were these unknown invaders?"

The slavocracy torn up any rights to the provisions of the Constitution when they viciously conspired and then attacked U.S. military installations and naval vessels to deliberately incite civil war with the sick hope of overthrowing the U.S. government. This is called sedition - treason!

Cracks like 'King Lincoln' once more prove you favour traitors in relation to an American President. In terms of 'invaders', your type started the problem and were justifiably crushed. You need to somehow always validate sedition of the slave empire, so have a party in your own backward mind. The plantation era is over sonny.

"Not being members of the American union, they were not traitors - just as George Washington was not a traitor (see my #434)."

You know I noticed at the end of that thread you once again accused yet another FReeper Mac_Truck who was also not in agreement with your neo-confederate are stated that cap again ""You post like you're a member of the Taliban."

Taliban? You expect credibility with slander thrown at a fellow conservative?

"Sedition was not breaking out everywhere.."

That's right, even loyal Southern Americans were assisting in crushing the rebellion of the criminal confederate politicians.

"Per Amendment I, the people of each state have the God given right to assemble. The people were attempting to banish a foreign invader from their soil."

That is warped despicable overview of the United States Armed Froces as "a foreign invader"?

What nerve, pure gaul calling others 'Taliban' with that disgusting crack. You should be deported since you hate this nation to such a degree, but who the hell would want you?

466 posted on 09/22/2005 8:28:48 PM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Do you know what "hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People" means?

You and your partial quotes.

We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed...

Translated: "If it doesn't mean what we just said, deal's off."

467 posted on 09/23/2005 3:39:27 AM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
[CK] The British were from across the sea, foreigners, not Americans.

Hell, many, many Americans were from across the sea, foreigners, not Americans.

468 posted on 09/23/2005 3:41:41 AM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
That is incorrect. As was pointed out here previously, Vermont was denied admission to the Union until it settled a land dispute with New York. Try again.

Read my sentence again, ' In 1789, neither the President, congress, nor judiciary could decide whether or not a state ratified ...' The original states did not seek approval of anyone.

It is actually quite easy to establish a precedent for the court to decide [Roe v. Wade is one example]. Prior to seceding Federal representatives of the Southern states acting on behalf of the nation as a whole could have petitioned the courts for approval of the project.

RvW was a court case - filed by a petitioner with a respondent. If any state was harmed by the secession of a state, it was that state's responsibility to file suit. The court does not deliver advisory opinions!

Meaningless and out of context.

Nonsense, if Chief Justice Chase believed that secession was not rebellion, then there goes Lincoln's pretext for war, and that President Davis and the Confederacy had NOT commited treason. Meaning that Union had waged a war of aggression against innocents. Hardly meaningless and out of context.

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States". How does Secession proceed [legally] without trampling on the rights of the citizens who do not wish to depart from the Union?

The clause means that a state cannot discriminate against citizens of another state while said "foreign" citizen is domiciled there. It does NOT mean that the laws written in Massachussets are incorporated into Georgia law. Again, in a Constitutionally MANDATED republican form of government, the minority must acquiesce to the will of the majority (via representative rule).

Once again you confuse the concept of legal Secession with Revolution. I've already asked you to 'man up' about the realities of what happened in 1860. Are you prepared to do so now?

Above you state that IF the states begged for permission to leave, and IF the court assents, then secession would be legal. Those same people that you claim would be harmed by the alleged illegal secessions would again be disaffected by your alleged legal secession. As it was, Tories not wishing to join the union under the Articles were dragged in against their will, as were those against ratification in 1789. Ted "The Swimmer' Kennedy can't can't prevent passage of a bill by a 1-99 vote, nor can 1 state prevent an amendment, nor can 1 "unionist" in a state prevent secession. If the unionist doesn't want to stay then they can move. It's not a difficult concept.

They trampled over the rights of citizens, the courts, and the remaining States.

The people of New York do not vote in South Carolina. A citizen of New York could not sue South Carolina in court. The people of New York could not ratify for South Carolina. The Constitution mandates a republican (representative) form of government which all states possessed. New Yorkers do not vote on SC representatives or delegates, nor amend or abolish their form of government.

Had they proceeded at a normal pace for such an endevour ...

Where exactly does the Constitution enumerate the 'normal' pace for said event?

'I also have no doubt the Southern people would have rejected the Confederacy.'

That certainly explains those overwhelming votes FOR secession </sarcasm>

Perhaps a more relevant question and one that gets to the core of the matter regarding the true nature of your relationship would be, do you pray together in church?

Yep. In church, at work, and at home. A very good friend of ours was injured in a wreck, and hospitalized, we saw her often, took food to her, helped her and her kids. She is black. I changed tires for a lady at 1AM on my way home one night - she was black. I've given money to strangers and the homeless - black. We grew up with a man we called our brother then and still do, he's black.

469 posted on 09/23/2005 6:13:10 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
The majority of your rant I'll simply ignore, no matter how many times I refute you, by Lincoln's own words and deeds, by the powers DELEGATED to the federal government you refuse to believe, so continue to crouch down lick the hand that feeds you. The states already possesed slavery, if that was all the Confederacy desired, all they had to do was rejoin and ratify Lincoln's 13th Amendment guaranteeing PERMANT slavery.

Secondly, Lincoln did not wage war to end slavery [#453 above]

We didn't go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back, and to act differ at this moment, would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause but smack of bad faith; for I never should have had votes enough to send me here if the people had supposed I should try to use my power to upset slavery. Why, the first thing you'd see, would be a mutiny in the [UNION] army.'
By his own admission, no ending of slavery. By his own admission he was not elected to end slavery.

The slavocracy torn up any rights to the provisions of the Constitution when they viciously conspired and then attacked U.S. military installations and naval vessels to deliberately incite civil war with the sick hope of overthrowing the U.S. government. This is called sedition - treason!

Once again the Confederate states were not attempting to overthrow the government in Washington and make slaves out of yankees. How many people were killed in said attacks? When did Congress declare war on the states doing so? These "attacks" occurred while Congress was in session, why did they not declare war? How can a fort 1000 miles away from a union state defend the union?

When the US secedes from the UN, and Koffi refuse to depart, does China and France have the right to prevent the US from taking it back?

If UN troops seize US property would you consider that illegal?

Do you think that the US government can legislate against free speech and firearms ownership, despite the plain reading of the 1st and 2nd amendments?

Do you think that the US government can seize YOUR property and give it to private enterprise?

Do you think that the US government can legislate God out of the public domaion?

Do you think that the US government can do anything it wants, as that as long as the courts find some international law (say Cuban) to justify their decision, that the court is right and YOU must abide by that decision?

Do you think that the federal government can legally dole out billions and billions of dollars of 'pork', aid to foreign countries, or even give monies to individuals affected by disaster?

If Congress enacted a law that all handicapped, the elderly and infirm must be euthanized, and the courts agreed, would that said law would be legal?

If no, would it be treason to fire on US forces attempting to seize your grandparents?

I don't know about you, but I agree with the founders, prefer not to give in to evil, and as Patrick Henry stated, 'give me liberty or give me death'. If your government can do the above with impunity, that's not government, that's tyranny.

470 posted on 09/23/2005 6:49:00 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 466 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
Translated: "If it doesn't mean what we just said, deal's off."

Bump. It's not a difficult concept.

471 posted on 09/23/2005 6:52:12 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; All
in other words, you can name NOBODY who was NOT a common criminal or WAR CRIMINAL, who was executed for their crimes!

that too is FACT.

free dixie,sw

472 posted on 09/23/2005 7:48:45 AM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
The original states did not seek approval of anyone.

Vermont did.

If any state was harmed by the secession of a state, it was that state's responsibility to file suit.

The Constitution says otherwise. Secession is not legal if it violates the laws of the United States.

..if Chief Justice Chase believed that secession was not rebellion, then there goes Lincoln's pretext for war..

Your quote from Chase is unsourced, out of context, and meaningless. Since when does a Chief Justice by himself decide the law? Besides Justice Taney that is [lol].

The clause means that a state cannot discriminate against citizens of another state while said "foreign" citizen is domiciled there.

The State has NO power to revoke the citizenship the people living within its boundaries. "Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States", including the privilege to remain in the Union, and immunity from those who don't.

If the unionist doesn't want to stay then they can move. It's not a difficult concept.

There is no evidence that Southern Unionists were given any such option, and plenty of evidence of the contrary. try again.

Where exactly does the Constitution enumerate the 'normal' pace for said event?

The Constitution is silent about said event, which in itself casts grave doubt on it's legality in the first place. Up to now I have been generous toward your position by supposing that the 'concept' of Secession 'might' be legal. I see no similar flexibility in yours. Reflective of your underlying distain for the United States perhaps.

That certainly explains those overwhelming votes FOR secession

It explains the fraudulant manner in which the vote was taken, nothing more. Perhaps you could point us to an original source or research paper that would support your [overwhelming votes] position.

473 posted on 09/23/2005 8:53:41 AM PDT by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Thank you for speaking for George Washington. Are you channeling him or is he speaking in your ear?


474 posted on 09/23/2005 9:02:37 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

"Lincoln did arrest, I think, several Maryland state legislators on other occasions, but for specific pro-rebels acts.
President George W. Bush would have done the same."

He also had several newspaper editors arrested by the military and their presses destroyed after he suspended Habeus Corpus. I'm sure GWB would love to do that also.


475 posted on 09/23/2005 9:05:19 AM PDT by dljordan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
lincoln, the TYRANT & WAR CRIMINAL, had NUMEROUS press personnel & MD legislators arrested W/O warrant OR charges & placed in a dungeon at Ft McHenry. they were NEVER CHARGED with ANY crime OR TRIED.

fwiw, i have been INSIDE that underground dungeon & it is NOT a NICE PLACE to visit.

476 posted on 09/23/2005 9:09:33 AM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; All
to all,

you will note that N-S, the DAMNyankee Minister of Propaganda ONLY attacks me, as he KNOWS that what he generally posts is nothing but PROPAGANDA, which is designed to attempt to COVER-UP the WAR CRIMES of the lincoln pack of thieves & criminals.

for example, when i posted EVIDENCE of the 15,000+ helpless CSA POWs that were tortured, starved, denied medical attention/blankets/warm clothing & MURDERED ( because it was cheaper to kill them than to feed them!) at Point Lookout DEATH CAMP (think DACHAU in America!), all he did was:

1. try to change the subject &

2. attack me personally.

N-S is the ONLY one of the DAMNyankee coven who has BOTH a sound education & a functional BRAIN.

free dixie,sw

477 posted on 09/23/2005 9:18:29 AM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 464 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
Innocent until proven guilty, Watie, you stark raving loon. Why don't you tell us the crimes committed by Benjamin Stonestreet, a 60 year old black Baptist preacher? Or Anthony Oldham, another black preacher?

Here, here's the whole list:

Citizens of Lawrence: George J. Albach, George Albrecht, Clay Allen, Duncan C. Allison, George Alwes, John Anderson, James Argel, Capt. George W. Bell, George Bent, Samuel Bower, R. Brant, James Brechtlesbauer, Joseph Brechtlesbauer, "One Armed" Brown, Dennis Burnes, Michael Burns, George Burt, Judge Louis Carpenter, Charles Clona, Charles Cloud, G. Coal (Coat or Coates), Dwight L. Coleman, Mayor George Callamore, James Cooper, John A. Cornell, P. Cornell, John Lewis Crane, John Dagle, Ralph C. Dix, Stephen H. Dix, Sylvester Dulinsky, William Dulinsky, "Uncle" Frank Dyre, George Early, Carl Eckman, John Edwards, August Eheles (Ethels), James Eldridge, Frank Ellis, Carl Engler (Enzler), John Engler, Phillip Englesman, John Z. Evans, Lemuel Fillmore, James B. Finley, Joe Finley, Edward P. Fitch, Joseph Frank, "Old Uncle" Frank, John Frawley (Fromley), Levi Gates, Levy Gebtry, George Gerrard, Anthony Giebal (Girbal), A. Giffler (Gufler), John B. Gill, Mr. Goldman, John B. Green, Fortune Gregg, Abner W. Griswald, Dr. Jerome F. Griswold, Watt Griswold, Mr. Hanson, Chester D. Hay, (first name unknown) Hendrix, "Uncle" Charles Henry, Calvin Hoge, Nathan Holmes, Ben Johnson, M. Johnson, unnamed baby of Peter Jones, Samuel Jones, George Kallmer, Patrick Keefe, Frederick Kimball, William Klares, Frederick Klaus, William Klaus Jr., W.M.R. Kleffer (Kliffler), Harwick Lambert, O.O. Lambert, John W. Laurie (Lawrie), William Laurie (Lawrie), Christian Leener (Laner), Christopher Leonard, Henry Limbach, John Little, Otis Longley, Richard R. Loomis, Capt. Joseph G. Lowe, Amos McClellen, Daniel McClelland, Jacob McFadden, Michael Mackin (McClaine), (first name unknown) McFarland, Daniel Markle, Thomas Martha (Murtha), Michael Martin, Robert Martin, Michael Meeky (McKee), R. Meeky (McKee), Dennis Murphy, James Murphy, Thomas Murphy, W. Nathan, Mr. Nichols, George Oehrle, James O'Neil, Anthony Oldham, George Page, Charles Palmer, Daniel W. Palmer, James Perine (Perrine), Jacob Pollock (Pollok), George Pope, David N. Purington, George Range, Samuel Range, Peter Reed Sr., A. Reedmiller, Samuel Jeremiah Reel, Samuel Reynolds, James Roach, George N. Sanger, George H. Sargeant, Charles Schmidt, John Schwab, Charles Smith, Rev. Samuel S. Snyder, John M. Speer Jr., Henry Stewart, Joseph Stone, Capt. Nathan Stone, Benjamin Stonestreet, Louis Swan, Simeon M. Thorp, Josiah C. Trask, E.P. Tritch, David Turk, James E. Watson, John Watson, Addison Waugh, (First name unknown) West, Mr. White, (First name unknown) Williams, William T. Williamson, Louis Wise, James Wood and John K. Zimmerman.

478 posted on 09/23/2005 9:51:37 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ

So let me see if I've got this straight. The south seceded to protect themselves from being invaded by Lincoln, but Lincoln only invaded to keep them in the Union. Is that right?


479 posted on 09/23/2005 9:53:59 AM PDT by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
"The majority of your rant I'll simply ignore..."

I thought you would since you are locked into the neo-confederate invented version of history.

The states already possesed slavery.." (Which states?)

.."if that was all the Confederacy desired, all they had to do was rejoin and ratify Lincoln's 13th Amendment guaranteeing PERMANT slavery."

One can not 'rejoin' what one was never allowed to overthrow .

"Secondly, Lincoln did not wage war to end slavery"

First off Old Abe did not "wage war" but correctly reacted to a provoked insurrections triggered by political hacks for Slavery Inc.

The issue of Slavery was the paramount issue of the day in 1860, and the sole reason the Southern Slavocracy committed horrible acts of broad-based treason - for $$$$$ & additional power, never mind leaving this nation divided & potentially vulnerale to aggressive acts via European powers.

Lincoln was initially was driven to swiftly crush the so-called 'Confederate' rebellion. Many Northern and some numbers of Southern citizens wanted slavery ended as well, but not the traitors you back to this day. Starting a full scale civil war for the sake of keeping men in chains is our evil. Are you going to attempt to justify slavery as somehow being Biblically correct?

How does it feel knowing everyone in here, regardless of side, are fully cognizant you wanted men, women and even little kids to remain in a state of slavery. If you think Lincoln was a problem for your 'side' you would quickly believe him to be a saint, in relation to myself in his place, dealing with the treasonous promoters of the worst domestic slaughter in United States history. The instigators of the horror this nation was dragged into got off very lightly.

"Once again the Confederate states were not attempting to overthrow the government in Washington and make slaves out of yankees.}

Right, I forgot they only want to have little Southern picnics on the plantation porches and watch their own slaves bake in that rotten heat down there....

"How many people were killed in said attacks?"

At least you admit there were attacks on United States military installations and naval vessels, not to mention anybody living in the South was ruthlessly abused and many times gunned down if not in total accord with the 'Confederate' line.

"When did Congress declare war on the states doing so?" Why would the U.S. Congress declare war on U.S. states? That is insane.

"These "attacks" occurred while Congress was in session, why did they not declare war?"

Answered already. Furthermore the rebellion was addressed with the full military might of the American armed forces wherever acts of terrorism and subversion broke out during 1861 through 1865 and afterwards with the origins of the criminal Klan terrorism against Americans of all types.

"How can a fort 1000 miles away from a union state defend the union?"

The Union 'fort' or ships you speak of were part of the United States of America, no matter the location inside this nation, regardless of what a pack of traitors demanded.

Anyone who attempted or attempts today to destroy that Union, no matter the distance, will pay a heavy total, whether the criminal or terrorist element lurks in South Carolina, Berlin or Baghdad.

"When the US secedes from the UN, and Koffi refuse to depart, does China and France have the right to prevent the US from taking it back?"

First off, we should have withdrawn from the UN a long time ago. Secondly, if or when, in the future, American elected officials wake up and do indeed withdraw, Koffi, the Red Chinese and the Frogs better not even think about preventing anything on American soil.

"If UN troops seize US property would you consider that illegal?"

Naturally. You would not? We have UN troops already in portions of this country.

"Do you think that the US government can legislate against free speech and firearms ownership, despite the plain reading of the 1st and 2nd amendments?"

Of course, when confronting Islamic or other terrorists cells operating anywhere in America and determined to butcher millions of our citizens?

"Do you think that the US government can seize YOUR property and give it to private enterprise?"

You can thank the current men in black robes for that one. Hopefully with two new justices, soon to be on the bench, that incredible ruling will be overturned.

"Do you think that the US government can legislate God out of the public domaion?"

When there is blatant communist infiltration of all aspects of government they will attempt to legislate all kinds of immoral acts against the public good.

"Do you think that the US government can do anything it wants, as that as long as the courts find some international law (say Cuban) to justify their decision, that the court is right and YOU must abide by that decision?"

Why should the US government abide by international rulings promoted by our enemies?

"Do you think that the federal government can legally dole out billions and billions of dollars of 'pork', aid to foreign countries, or even give monies to individuals affected by disaster?"

Combating global terrorism should never be considered 'pork' unless the funds are being abused or stolen and in that case the funding should stop or administered by American or faith based groups contingent on types of aid. In terms of tax monies given to individuals affected by disaster, each individual cases needs to be reviewed - likes the potential hundreds of thousands of Hurricane Rita's wrath. Are you implying if your home was totally blown away by a hurricane, flood, earthquake, etc, you would refuse federal, state or city assistance to begin again?

"If Congress enacted a law that all handicapped, the elderly and infirm must be euthanized, and the courts agreed, would that said law would be legal?"

The Nazi bastards already sunk to that barbaric level. Don't think it can't happen again in the future, and in terms of being 'legal' it's like defending slave labour as somehow being 'legal', which the Nazis and the Southern Slaveocracy already attempted to pull.

"If no, would it be treason to fire on US forces attempting to seize your grandparents?"

It sounds like these grandparents are off their rockers LOL

Once again you have sickeningly demonstrated your total lack of respect for this nation in this "I don't know about you, but I agree with the founders, prefer not to give in to evil, and as Patrick Henry stated, 'give me liberty or give me death'. If your government can do the above with impunity, that's not government, that's tyranny."

Maybe now you know why slaves fought to be free men.


480 posted on 09/23/2005 11:17:30 AM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
in other words, you can name NOBODY who was NOT a common criminal or WAR CRIMINAL, who was executed for their crimes!

OK, if it'll shut you up.

Addison Waugh - clerk in the pharmacy in the Eldridge House Hotel.

Joe Eldridge - porter in the hotel and brother of the hotel owner. By all accounts he was mildly retarded and Quantrill's scum shot him anyway.

Major F. B. Bancroft, 8th Kansas. Recovering from illness contracted outside Vicksburg he was dragged outside his home and shot.

Every man in the Johnson House Hotel was ordered out and shot. Twelve died.

Dr. Jerome Griswold, local physician. Shot in front of his wife.

Josiah Trask, editor of the "Lawrence State Journal", shot with Griswold. The man who shot him then robbed his widow of her wedding ring.

Edward Fitch, school teacher.

George Holt and John Crane, owners of a shoe store. One of Quantrill's scum robbed them and then shot them.

Dennis Murphey, a 60 year old resident. One of Quantrill's scum asked him for a glass of water. When Murphey handed it to him, he took it with his left hand and then shot Murphey with the pistol he held in his right.

George Burt was handing over his wallet to one of Quantrill's scum who told it to hand it over. The man then shot Burt in the head. There were numerous examples of this happening.

August Ehles, a blacksmith, ran to hide in a corn patch carrying his infant child. One of Quantrill's scum took careful aim and shot him, and left the child crying in his arms.

George Albach was sick in bed when Quantrill's scum ordered the house evacuated. His family carried him out of the house on a mattress. Quantrill's scum fired the house and then once it was burning they shot Albach.

Charley Palmer, a printer's assistant, shot with George H. Sargent.

Those are just some of the named victims. Now, please show your evidence that they were all common criminals and/or war criminals. Put up or shut up.

481 posted on 09/23/2005 2:22:22 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
SOORY, but your argument is UNpersuasive.

ALL of the persons on the kill lists were wanted for COMMON CRIMES in at least one IT, AR or MO jurisdiction. their crimes were arson, robbery,burglary,torture,rapes & coldblooded murders.

you & i have talked about this more than once & you still cling to the FICTION that the KS jayhawkers, "volunteer KS cavalry", redlegs & other border-FILTH were angelic.

UNfortunately, YOU know BETTER than that, though you protest otherwise.

free dixie,sw

482 posted on 09/23/2005 2:36:34 PM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
you're in one word, PITIFUL.

and you aren't intelligent enough to be a FReeper. otoh, you'll make a GREAT DU-dummy. be GONE to DU!

free dixie,sw

483 posted on 09/23/2005 2:38:27 PM PDT by stand watie (being a damnyankee is no better than being a racist. it is a LEARNED prejudice against dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
ALL of the persons on the kill lists were wanted for COMMON CRIMES in at least one IT, AR or MO jurisdiction. their crimes were arson, robbery,burglary,torture,rapes & coldblooded murders.

Absolute, utter bullshit, and I'm honestly don't care if my use of that word upsets you because I cannot think of anything that describes your claim more accurately. Another word that describes any of your claims more accurately, for that matter. You cannot produce a single, solitary shred of evidence to back your claim up. Not one. All those men I named, and over 100 men and boys slaughtered by Quantrill's scum, were all innocent victims. And your asinine babbling to the contrary doesn't change it.

484 posted on 09/23/2005 2:43:34 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
for example, when i posted EVIDENCE of the 15,000+ helpless CSA POWs that were tortured, starved, denied medical attention/blankets/warm clothing & MURDERED ( because it was cheaper to kill them than to feed them!) at Point Lookout DEATH CAMP (think DACHAU in America!), all he did was:

1. try to change the subject &

2. attack me personally.

Wrong. First thing I did was laugh unroariously at the latest stane watie BS. If memory serves at one time you were claiming that all those prisoners where drowned. Have you backed off that bit of insanity?

485 posted on 09/23/2005 2:46:40 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
He also had several newspaper editors arrested by the military and their presses destroyed after he suspended Habeus Corpus. I'm sure GWB would love to do that also.

Like who?

486 posted on 09/23/2005 2:48:32 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
Thank you for speaking for George Washington. Are you channeling him or is he speaking in your ear?

No need to, Washington left written words that show his beliefs. Read his Farewell Address where he said, "For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes." Washington would not have understood those who rebelled against the United States, or who placed loyalty to state above loyalty to country. And I doubt that he would have supported a rebellion in the defense of slavery.

487 posted on 09/23/2005 2:53:02 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

The only time you unload your verbal rubbish loads is when someone has spoken the truth, countering the cultist propaganda of crackpot confederates ..........like you.


488 posted on 09/23/2005 3:46:41 PM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
Do you think that the US government can seize YOUR property and give it to private enterprise?

Recent court rulings require rewording: Do you think they'd be correct in doing so (there's little doubt left that they can, and will)?

489 posted on 09/23/2005 7:47:11 PM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck; 4CJ
[4CJ] The original states did not seek approval of anyone.

[mac] Vermont did.

4CJ, you gonna tell him, or am I?

490 posted on 09/23/2005 7:50:19 PM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: M. Espinola
Based on your answers to my questions regarding legislative, executive and court powers, you take the Ginsberg/Breyer liberal neocon position of a living Constitution. I, on the other hand, understand that IF the government needs more powers, it is the responsibility of the people of the several states to AMEND the Constitution.

In answer to your question ('if your home was totally blown away ... [would] you would refuse federal, state or city assistance to begin again?'], I would indeed. I have insurance paid for by me. IF I lived in a flood plain I would purchase flood insurance. Nowhere in our state or federal Constitution is the state or federal government authorized to reward stupidity.

I asked you a simple question, '"[i]f Congress enacted a law that all handicapped, the elderly and infirm must be euthanized, and the courts agreed, would that said law be legal?"' to which you refused to answer NO as any rational person would.

In response to my question, '"[i]f no, would it be treason to fire on US forces attempting to seize your grandparents?"', you replied, '[i]t sounds like these grandparents are off their rockers LOL'. Possibly you simply misunderstood the question in your haste to respond, so I'll rephrase the question and posit it again:

Given that Congress passes a law MANDATING euthanasia of the elderly or infirm, and YOUR parents or grandparents fall into the appropriate category, the federal authorities show up at their door to complete the process. Would it be treason to fire on said US forces attempting to seize your grandparents?
Either you have a liberal view of the Constitution and believe that the law must be valid because it was passed by Congress, OR you have a conservative view and believe the law invalid, as the power to do so was not delegated to the federal government.

A simple yes or no would suffice.

Now take that process one step further, the people of your state, including you elect representatives to a state convention, who then vote to secede from the US. Is that legal, or do you assert that the federal government can invade the state to force compliance? Or possibly, as Mac thinks, do you petition the Supreme Court for permission to leave?

491 posted on 09/24/2005 9:16:11 AM PDT by 4CJ (Tu ne cede malis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: dljordan
Not only do I agree with the rebuttal in post 487, I must add that George Washington was free of the vision problem that affected many Confederates. Too many Southerners could see no farther than the slave shack and plantation mansion and realize that there was a big world out there full of malevolent powers who wanted nothing better than a big say in running North America.

With the educational backwardness of much of the South, the ordinary Southern farmer could be excused in thinking that fighting for Southern dismemberment of the Union was patriotism. But the "elite" should have known better to think such presumptuous thoughts such as the notion that Virginia was a "country" that could stand in the world doing what she pleased as an independent entity. Even if the US had lost will and allowed separation, a backward state like the CSA would not last long in the modern world.
492 posted on 09/24/2005 11:23:05 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
Wrong. The government continued to exist even after secession. The union of states continued, just with fewer members. The states already had slavery, it was protected, there wouldn't be enough votes to sustain an amendment ending it, Lincoln supported making it permanent, and did not wage war to end it

It was not Lincoln that made the Union perpetual, but it was the Articles of Confederation which predated the Constitution. I can't fault Lincoln for upholding that which was inherent in the birth of the nation.

493 posted on 09/24/2005 11:27:28 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: 4CJ
"Based on your answers to my questions regarding legislative, executive and court powers, you take the Ginsberg/Breyer liberal neocon position of a living Constitution."

I knew you would dream up another Neo-Redneckery responses to your DiLorenzo style baiting, but this one takes the cake. Ginsberg is a communist, Breyer is a fellow traveler and then you invent yet another term to be lumped into those two rabid Reds as being a "liberal neocon" which is a total contradiction in terms, but then again you neo-confederate sickos live on lies and inventions, so this is not surprising.

"In answer to your question ('if your home was totally blown away ... [would] you would refuse federal, state or city assistance to begin again?'], I would indeed."

What a lot of bullocks! lol.. you are so full of it. Fema's hacks offer you a fat check for the taking and Saint Dixie will tell them "No, I shalt not recover a few federal taxes paid over a lifetime in my time of need, eventhough the insuence only covers 60% of my losses."

"I asked you a simple question, '"[i]f Congress enacted a law that all handicapped, the elderly and infirm must be euthanized, and the courts agreed, would that said law be legal?"' to which you refused to answer NO as any rational person would."

I answer but because it was not a simplistic numb nut "No" somehow I am in favour. Incredible. If Congress passed a law to clean up America by disposing of neo-confeds I would gladly support it and contribute, tax right off or not! lol.

"Either you have a liberal view of the Constitution and believe that the law must be valid because it was passed by Congress, OR you have a conservative view and believe the law invalid, as the power to do so was not delegated to the federal government."

Your definition of qualifying as being a 'Conservative' is only applicable when one firmly fanatically fights to reverse America to the era of the evils of the Old South, which so many Americans fought to destroy forever. In your eyes a liberal is one who does not agree with your neo-reb rantings.

"Now take that process one step further, the people of your state, including you elect representatives to a state convention, who then vote to secede from the US."

Any 'real' American in 2005 would never seek to destroy the Union of the United States. Anyone who would should been seen a doctor or the FBI.

"Or possibly, as Mac thinks, do you petition the Supreme Court for permission to leave?"

First off I have no idea if Mac does indeed agree with that position and in terms of petitioning the Supreme Court for permission to leave - I fully agree you should 'leave' on the next flight -one way.

494 posted on 09/24/2005 12:31:13 PM PDT by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo; dljordan
But the "elite" should have known better to think such presumptuous thoughts such as the notion that Virginia was a "country" that could stand in the world doing what she pleased as an independent entity.

Oddly, the framers of the Constitution saw this as the exact opposite; the Union could not stand as a 'country' or independent entity without New York and Virginia.

I'm curious, as someone who absolutely despised the Constitution and the notion of increased federal power; someone who would gladly have taken Virginia out of the Union at the time of Constitutional ratification, do you consider Patrick Henry a traitor as well?

495 posted on 09/25/2005 4:07:35 AM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: dljordan

Those Maryland state legiskators were arrested for specific pro-rebel activities. If some Maryland state legislators today were working for, say, al-Queda terrorists, you can bet that President George W. Bush would have them arrested.

The Lincoln administration did not destroy any presses, but some editors were arrested for conspiring with the Confederates, appealing for desertions from the U.S. Army and for draft-evasion, and other acts of sedition. President Bush would today deal the same way with traitors.


496 posted on 09/25/2005 4:23:30 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
Oddly...

Odd accurately describes the overwhelming majority of your posts.

497 posted on 09/25/2005 4:33:33 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Odd accurately describes the overwhelming majority of your posts.

I'm always dissapointed when your only resonse is a childish insult, but understand that it's in keeping with your character.

498 posted on 09/25/2005 4:55:45 AM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
WE the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected, in pursuance of a recommendation of the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and fairly investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation will enable us to decide thereon,DO, in the name and on behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby, remains with them, and at their will: That therefore no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by the Congress, by the Senate, or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances where power is given by the Constitution for those purposes:

499 posted on 09/25/2005 5:05:13 AM PDT by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 497 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
By using references to modern day terrorists, your framing of the point is disingenuous. Although some in Maryland were supporters of the South, others supported states rights and resented Lincoln marching troops through their state without their permission.

What pro-secessionist activities were they engaged in?
500 posted on 09/25/2005 6:39:05 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 1,401-1,437 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