Posted on 08/27/2007 1:37:39 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
The Voting Rights Act contains some pretty appalling provisions. It requires states to provide bilingual ballots. That’s a sure way to help balkanize the country. If someone’s been here five years and can’t read English they shouldn’t be voting. The act also bans literacy tests. We should have literacy tests for voting. Voting is a privilege, not a right. The act bans all poll taxes, even in state and local elections. I’m against poll taxes, but Congress has no authority to ban them except in federal elections (24th Amendment).
You’re correct that the VRA isn’t as pernicious as slavery, segregation, and lynching. However, current crime rates, in which black-on-white crime is many times worse than white-on-black, are as pernicious as lynching. And unlike lynching, it’s going on right now (not 70 years ago), but we’re not allowed to talk about it.
As for segregation, it’s making a comeback. Go to any major college campus and check out the black-only organizations, meeting places, and even dorms. We had a post here at FR a few months ago on Hispanic-only graduation ceremonies, which are becoming popular in certain regions. Look forward to Muslims getting their own turf as well. All this will be courtesy of the same PC nitwits who want to suppress memories of the Confederacy. And wait’ll California wants to secede. Talk about the left and the PC Cons facing a crisis!
We’ve been over the slavery thing before. Yes, it was bad, but American blacks today are beneficiaries of it. They have the highest standard of living of any blacks on earth thanks to those nasty southern slave owners who brought their ancestors over here. You don’t hear Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Terry Anderson, or Michael Steele moaning about slavery, because they’d rather appreciate what our Founders gave us than whine. Leave the whining to Jesse & Al & the other race hustlers.
No. Just tired of your nonsense.
Damn, you’re at it early this morning! Or are you a night owl like me?
No, it was addressed and rejected. The clause under consideration was 'reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed'. Madison moved to amend it to 'reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, under the rank of General officers.' In other words, the federal government would appoint State militia generals, AND federalize the 'authority of training the militia' by removing it from the states.
The federal government would control the top echelon of officers and the entire training process, ensuring that sufficient brainwashing occurred to put federal interests above that of each state. Not a bad deal, the states would foot the bill, but the feds would ensure allegiance. Roger Sherman (CN) blew this insane idea out of the water. Elbridge Gerry (MA) notes 'as the States are not to be abolished, he wondered at the attempts that were made to give powers inconsistent with their existence.' In other words, allowing the federal government to control the militias could (or would) be seen as an effort to eradicate state sovereignty and control. The state militias were to owe allegiance to the state, and be used when necessary to aid another state in the union.
To drum up support for his motion Madison then addresses 'the greatest danger' - the 'disunion of the States'.
We interrupt this message for the following: Obviously if it required state or federal consent to leave the disunion would be a moot point. Thus Madison's desire to prevent disunion is to prevent unilateral secession of a state or states. We now return to the regularly scheduled reply.And to guard against this insidious evil, Madison adverts that the appointments of generals and federal control of the militias would prevent secession, and by granting other 'sufficient powers to the Common Govt.'
Obviously the convention refused to do so. The record indicates that the states immediately voted down Madison's motion. I can only surmise that the other delegates sat in shocked disbelief, as Madison of all people, argued for military and legal power to prevent secession. 11 years earlier the states seceded from Britain, now 12 states were discussing their own pending secession from the existing union.
it has been my experience that you have a "reading comprehension problem".
free dixie,sw
care to try something different???
free dixie,sw
only the ARROGANT REVISIONISTS, the pitifully IGNORANT or the terminally STUPID could miss that the founders of this republic had NO intention of prohibiting secession!
secession was/IS an option to prevent TYRANNY by the central government.
free dixie,sw
Mr. Lincoln jumped up from his chair, as Mr. Rives was standing, advanced one step towards him, and said, "Mr. Rives! Mr. Rives! if Virginia will stay in, I will withdraw the troops from Fort Sumter."Virginia remained in the union. Lincoln did not remove the troops. Lincoln LIED. Lincoln KNEW that resupply attempts would cause war:
Hiram Fuller, North and South, Londen: Chapman and Hall, 1863, p.261
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;rgn=div1;view=text;idno=lincoln4;node=lincoln4%3A432Lincoln wanted WAR. Despite his acknowledgement that such was invasion and cooercion (documented by PeaRidge in #349) . And Lincoln was ALLEGEDLY against coercion:Page 289
1st. The Fort cannot be permanently held without reinforcement.This point is too apparent too [sic] need proof
The cutting off supplies and consequent starvation, not to mention disease, would compel surrender in a few months at farthest, without firing a gun
2 The Fort cannot now be re-inforced without a large armament, involving of course a bloody conflict and great exasperation on both sides, and when re-inforced can only be held by sufficient number to garrison the post and to keep open communication with it by means of the harbor.
I have said that I did not believe that this Union could be cemented by blood. It is the sincere conviction of my heart still. Mr. Seward has said the same thing, in effect, in as many as two speeches, at least, and in his foreign dispatches he says, "The President willingly accepts the doctrine as true, that the Federal government cannot reduce the seceding States to obedience by conquest;" and he adds, "Only an imperial or despotic government could subjugate thoroughly disaffected and insurrectionary members of the state."
Letter of Kentucky Governor C. S. Morehead to Senator John J. Crittendon (23 Feb. 1861), The Life Of John. J. Crittendon: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Mrs. Chapman Coleman ed., Philadelphia: J. B. Lippicott & Co. (1873), Vol. 1 pp. 338-339.
No, work. I was stuck on a boring conference call with people in the UK, New Zealand, and India which I don't think that I really needed to be on in the first place. My mind wandered.
Everybody I know is just tired of you, period.
you're "losing it", N-S.
free dixie,sw
my suggestion is: if you don't want to be made fun of and ridiculed for STUPIDITY, DISHONESTY & being a "general all-around creep", LEAVE the FR forum.
free dixie,sw
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT, MORE AMERICANS TO GET KILLED OVER THIS ISSUE ? STFU !!!
my suggestion is that you LEAVE FR, as this site is for INTELLIGENT people, rather than for:
DUMB-bunnies,
VULGAR-talking nitwits (LADIES & impressionable CHILDREN read these posts!) and
HATE-filled FOOLS. (fyi, you seem to be ALL of those PITIFUL creatures.)
in point of FACT, it was the hate-FILLED, arrogant, RADICALS/fascists out of the northeast who WANTED to fight a WAR to keep the south subservient to their LUST for evermore MONEY & POWER.
had lincoln (the TYRANT & cheap,scheming, shyster lawyer) accepted dixie FREEDOM, there would have been NO WAR & a MILLION Americans would NOT died for NOTHING of VALUE.
"buzz off", DUMB-bunny.
free dixie,sw free dixie,sw
Hiram Fuller, North and South, Londen: Chapman and Hall, 1863, p.261
An interesting story, except that Fuller wasn't there and the participants who were there varied in their accounts of what happened, the two versions being either Lincoln never said any such thing, or that the recipients didn't think it worth mentioning to the Virginia convention.
COL BALDWIN: When we arrived at the house of Mr. Botts, we were shown into the parlor, and, after the ordinary salutations, Mr. Botts opened the conversation by asking me if I had reported to the Convention what had passed between Mr. Lincoln and myself on my recent visit to Washington. I replied that I had not. He asked, why not? And I told him the Convention had nothing to do with the matter, and that I had gone to see the President at the instance of some of the Union men of the Convention, to whom I had reported fully all that occurred. Taking hold of my remark, that the Convention had nothing to do with the matter, he became somewhat excited, and told me that I had taken upon myself a very grave responsibility in withholding the knowledge of such an interview from the Convention. He did not, according to my recollection, undertake to give me any account of the interview as derived from Mr. Lincoln, but pressed questions upon me as to whether the Convention had nothing to do with the question of its own adjournment; nothing to do with the evacuation of Fort Sumter. I remember telling him that both of those subjects had been discussed between Mr. Lincoln and myself, and he again inquired how I could withhold such a conversation from the Convention, to which I again replied, that I had reported to those who sent me, and that it was not reported to the Convention, for the reason that there was nothing in the conversation upon which the Convention could act, or upon which I, as a member of the Convention, would have been willing to act. I soon found that I was willing to undergo a species of reproof to which I was not accustomed, and that the conversation was likely to be a long and not a very pleasant one; so I put an end to it by telling him that if he desired to know all that had passed between Mr. Lincoln and myself I had no objection to tell him, or to discuss the matter fully with him, but that I could not do so then, as the Convention was about to meet, and I felt bound to be present at an important vote expected that morning.
Unless, of course, South Carolina simply allowed the fort to be resupplied instead of opening fire on it.
Your continual insults, bombast, bluster, and liberal use of ALL CAPS are fun to watch ... but it’s apparent that you don’t realize the consequence, which that it’s enormously difficult to take your posts seriously.
Wow, what a stretch - I never claimed Baldwin was present. Attending the meeting were William Cabell Rives [former minister to France, US Senator], Judge Somers of Virginia, Gen. Donovan of Missouri, James Gutherie [former Secretary of the Treasury), and Gov. Charles S. Morehead of Kentucky.
Neither Col. Baldwin, nor John Minor Botts attended this meeting.
Apparently they met separately with Lincoln. Botts reports on his separate meeting with President Lincoln where the subject of recalling the fleet and Baldwin's earlier rejection of Lincoln's proposition were discussed.
Botts' account can be found in: "The great rebellion: its secret history, rise, progress, and disastrous failure." By John Minor Botts. Pages 194-196. Source
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.