Posted on 02/15/2010 3:29:27 PM PST by central_va
Did anyone here see tonight's Glenn Beck TV show segment with the author (Lehrman?) of Lincoln at Peoria?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Why should they have given it up?
They had an enemy base located in its state which was an unsustainable situation.
So if Cuba decided that having that base in Gitmo is an 'unsustainable situation' then would you support their bombarding it into surrender?
What an idiotic analogy. Good night.
Go back and read what you said about Sumter, compare it to the circumstances of Guantanamo Bay, and tell me again how idiotic it is.
Why should they have done any such thing. Sumter was clearly Federal property, the location of which was ceded free and clear in 1836, IIRC. At that time, it was an underwater reef, upon which Charlestonians desperately wanted a fort to defend their harbor.
The Federal Govt. owned the site, built the fort, and manned it out of Federal funds, per Article I, Sec. 8.:
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,... over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;..."
South Carolina had no legal or moral claim to it, nor to blockade its re-provisioning, nor to attempt to murder by bombardment the men lawfully stationed within it.
The base was in the middle of a state that seceeded. The feds essentially started the war by not giving up the base as would have been the morally right thing to do
Perhaps the morally correct thing for South Carolina to do was to negotiate for its purchase from the federal government.
The Deceleration of Independents”? is that when people who don’t belong to either party take longer to vote? Oh, you mean the Declaration of Independence. So tell me, if the right to revolutionize is protected, how come the Constitution allows for putting down insurrections? Did John Brown have the Constiutional right to seize Harpers Ferry and start a slave rebellion? Did slaves have a Constitutional right to rise up against their masters.
Yes, but only if you win.
Did half of SC fall into the Atlantic?
Lincoln could not, legally, surrender the fort to the rebels.
What is morally right about bombarding a fort into rubble just because it's owners refused to give in to your demands to turn it over?
States, like the Federal govt., have Powers vested in them by the People. Those Powers vested in the Fed in the Constitution are supreme over the States. All other Powers, except those specifically denied the States in the Constitution, are reserved to the States EXCEPT those retained by the People. Since the BoR are a list of Rights specifically retained by the People, then yes, they supersede State's Powers to deny them.”
Even more so, since the 14th Amendment makes that clear:
“...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
You have some things reversed.
People speak as a State: Federalist, No. 39
“This assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing an entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. * * * Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.”
“Be assured that if this new provision [the 14th Amendment] be engrafted in the Constitution, it will, in time, change the entire structure and texture of our government, and sweep away all the guarantees of safety devised and provided by our patriotic Sires of the Revolution.”
~Orville Browning, Senator for Illinois (1867)
“In the first place, we ask that they will agree to certain changes in the Constitution of the United States; and, to begin with, we want them to unite with us in broadening the citizenship of the Republic. The slaves recently emancipated by proclamation, and subsequently by Constitutional Amendment, have no civil status. They should be made citizens. We do not, by making them citizens, make them voters,—we do not, in this Constitutional Amendment, attempt to force them upon Southern white men as equals at the ballot-box; but we do intend that they shall be admitted to citizenship, that they shall have the protection of the laws, that they shall not, any more than the rebels shall, be deprived of life, of liberty, of property, without due process of law, and that “they shall not be denied the equal protection of the law.” And in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some-one of the States: now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship—and our Amendment declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” This Amendment will prove a great beneficence to this generation, and to all who shall succeed us in the rights of American citizenship; and we ask the people of the revolted States to consent to this condition as an antecedent step to their re-admission to Congress with Senators and Representatives.”
~ The Reconstruction Problem, speech by Rep. James Blaine (R-Maine), Skowhegan, Maine (August 29, 1866)
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html
http://www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/sup/Congressional_Record_14th_Amend_1967.pdf
Hi Lex! My question was in response to #53, a post by plain talk. That individual was defending slavery as being a state’s right and not governed by the constitution.
And yes, I know about people having rights.
Amendment X - “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Don’t you feel like a Nazi? Sound like one!
http://rexcurry.net/pledgeofallegiance-abraham-lincoln-nazism.html
States have every right to LEAVE! Piss on Lincoln!
People speak as a State: Federalist, No. 39 “This assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing an entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. * * * Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.”
That speaks to the process of ratification of the Constitution, not anything else. The People empowered the States to act as their proxy for that purpose. Review Article VII, and Amendment 10, both of which are the Law. The Federalist Papers are not; they are background information.
Leaving aside your continued insistence on States having a "right" to do anything, yes, they do have a way to leave the Union. Just not unilaterally. See Texas v White.
There is a legal way to leave, and an illegal way to try to do so. The South chose. . . poorly.
Yes - the hypocrisy on this thread is incredible. The same wazoos whining about Obama then turn around and defend Lincoln and the feds not allowing a state to seceed by in effect forcing a State to act and route out an enemy base from within its new territory as a state / nation.
Thanks for the link. I really needed the laugh. A book by a homosexual revisionist (probably on LSD). ;-)
Judge Chase served as Secretary of the Treasury in President Lincoln’s cabinet.
What a Joke!
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.