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

Skip to comments.

Kentucky Sheriff to Feds: 'You Are Never Going to Pull Guns Out of Jackson County'
http://www.breitbart.com/ ^ | 01/13/2013 | AWR Hawkins

Posted on 01/14/2013 4:15:55 AM PST by BO Stinkss

As I wrote on Jan. 11, Jackson County Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman has made it clear that gun laws which violate the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution will not be enforced in his county. On Jan. 12, he followed this up with a press conference in which he explained that a Sheriff's powers are predominant over the powers of federal and state agents. When he says these things he drives gun-grabbers batty because he says them with the conviction that rests on knowledge, and he has no intention of backing down. During the press conference, he took time to explain his powers as sheriff: I am responsible for the people inside this county. I am the highest elected official in this county, and this is the only opportunity the people have to speak for themselves and say 'this is what we want.' I can ask federal people to leave, they have to leave. I can ask state people to leave, they have to leave. ...[And] it doesn't matter what [new laws] Obama passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people. He said that if federal gun-grabbers don't understand this, then "they need to go back and study it," because Kentucky "is a commonwealth." Peyman says he has been approached by liberals within the gun-grabbing world since he made his original promise of no gun control in his county, and he told them plainly: "You are never going to pull guns out of Jackson County." Sheriff Denny Peyman represents everything good and brave about America, and about the great state of Kentucky. He is a patriot, first class.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: dennypeyman; guncontrol; secondamendment; sheriff
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101 next last
To: Biggirl

Lincoln’s string was being pulled by the northern governors who wanted to stifle the south’s industrial growth. Slavery was a doomed institution and was only used as an after-thought to justify raping the south. Lincoln was weak for submitting. It can be noted that toward the end of the war when it became clear Lincoln was not going to punish the south with the evils of reconstruction the way the northern governors want it he was assassinated so a weaker puppet (Johnson) could implement the plan.


51 posted on 01/14/2013 6:58:23 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss; IMissPresidentReagan; CourtneyLeigh; Just Kimberly; Knuckrider; MBohman; ...
thanks, for the post.
A Kentucky Ping.

...for those interested. :D


52 posted on 01/14/2013 7:05:40 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income,tax it all away..0'Bozo man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss

What we’ll see on TV, of course, will be the sheriff in handcuffs being led out of his office by US Marshals. Opposition will then collapse.


53 posted on 01/14/2013 7:07:03 AM PST by pabianice (washington, dc ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kentuckycatholiceye; KentuckyGOP; kimmie7; kiss_of_angel_20; kupolitiki; KY Dittohead; ...
A Kentucky Ping.

...for those interested. :D


54 posted on 01/14/2013 7:07:18 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income,tax it all away..0'Bozo man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recon by Fire; Dscott_FR; Hawk_n_Ky; MrCraig; stoneface; hihozo; KJCarlock; freedombrigade; ...
A Kentucky Ping.

...for those interested. :D


55 posted on 01/14/2013 7:09:51 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income,tax it all away..0'Bozo man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
the biggest potential disputes I could see would be over:

The liberal western coalitions access to the Colorado river

The status of nuclear facilities mostly located in the conservative coalitions territories.

The massive amount of federally owned land in the western part of the conservative coalition.

which side the rust belt states join and possibly Virginia.

the status of Hawaii, Alaska, and other various territories (I assume Alaska might want to join the conservative coalition, but who knows.. maybe they might just want to go it alone like I suspect Hawaii would)

The 2 liberal coalitions would be left with nearly no energy or agriculture resources, and the western one would be in dire need of water that it is fighting constantly over with the conservative nation.

56 posted on 01/14/2013 7:10:21 AM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Recon by Fire; Dscott_FR; Hawk_n_Ky; MrCraig; stoneface; hihozo; KJCarlock; freedombrigade; ...
A Kentucky Ping.

...for those interested. :D


57 posted on 01/14/2013 7:10:35 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income,tax it all away..0'Bozo man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

Plus you have to considered that Lincoln had a wife who was let’s just say she was certifield crazy, plus of the four sons he had, only one lived to see adulthood. Also had the mess which would be the civil war.


58 posted on 01/14/2013 7:10:57 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss
Kentucky Sheriff to Feds: 'You Are Never Going to Pull Guns Out of Jackson County'

Think of Prohibition and what a resounding failure that was. Now think of the Feds trying to seize all the guns in the Country - an even worse failure and much, much bloodier!

59 posted on 01/14/2013 7:11:23 AM PST by The Sons of Liberty (It's not "gun control"! It's "people control"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

I suspect the biggest battles would occur in Arizona.

If the liberal western coalition was able to take Arizona by force (and it would be bloody), they could secure the Colorado river and link New Mexico and Colorado to their coalition along with Nevada and their liberal core of California, Oregon and Washington state.


60 posted on 01/14/2013 7:20:37 AM PST by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied .. the economy died.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

Pretty much agree but WTF do we do with Illinois?


61 posted on 01/14/2013 7:41:25 AM PST by technically right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Followed by a transfer of counties in ‘border’ blue states to the nearest red states, leaving the big cities as enclaves of poor Democrats.


62 posted on 01/14/2013 7:48:41 AM PST by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

That’s why they are setting up the DHS as their enforcement arm. “As large and as well-equipped as the military”.


63 posted on 01/14/2013 7:50:16 AM PST by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

And the Chinese control the Panama Canal.....


64 posted on 01/14/2013 7:51:51 AM PST by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

The earlier War of independence against their British compatriots was mostly about the desire of the colonies to expand westward. The Brits back in England didn’t want to have to pay for the defense of the new larger border that would result.


65 posted on 01/14/2013 7:55:52 AM PST by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

i’m from calyfornia but if it tried to fight arizona i’d be on arizona’s side in a heartbeat..


66 posted on 01/14/2013 8:02:37 AM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
No idea what would happen with Hawaii and Alaska.

Alaska - Independent

Hawaii - China

Chicago - Crips, Bloods

Detroit - Hell

67 posted on 01/14/2013 8:03:32 AM PST by Gritty (The 2nd Amendment protects the right to shoot tyrants effectively, not deer-Judge Andrew Napolitano)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
What did he illegally take by force?

Consider Reconstruction where the states had military governors forced upon them.

68 posted on 01/14/2013 8:37:09 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
"What gun grabbers don’t understand is that there are many millions of non-elite Dem gun owners who love guns just as much as those hated Republican/conservative gun owners."

Indeed. My wife just yesterday told me about a conversation she heard between two men who work with her. The gist was "I don't care what Obama says, I'm NOT giving up my guns". These are liberals she has argued with about other conservative/liberal issues (she as conservative, of course) who she says are "very liberal".

69 posted on 01/14/2013 8:47:06 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009
the status of Hawaii, Alaska, and other various territories (I assume Alaska might want to join the conservative coalition, but who knows.. maybe they might just want to go it alone like I suspect Hawaii would)

If Hawaii were truly to go it alone, I would suspect half their population to be starved to death with 3 years.

70 posted on 01/14/2013 9:14:35 AM PST by Getsmart64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
"forced on them"

Of course the southern states didn't do anything to initiate those actions, right? And what's your feelings towards those southerners, chiefly in the Appalachian regions of west Virginia and east Tennessee, who remained loyal to the union? Why do you think they remained loyal?

71 posted on 01/14/2013 9:29:34 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss

Sheriffs have the interesting power of deputization. A Sheriff could, unilaterally, declare that “all able bodied, adult persons” in their county are hearby deputized as members of the county militia, of which the Sheriff is the commander.

“Posse comitatus is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff or other law officer to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon.”

As such, the Sheriff could do the equivalent of Kennesaw, Georgia, and declare that all adults, and thus posse members, must be armed, though there would be no penalty for not being armed.

And as agents of the Sheriff, the federals could not legally disarm them, any more than they could demand that a state or local LEO surrender their gun.

Importantly, not all states have a posse comitatus statute which authorizes this, and the law varies considerably in those states that do. But I think the principle is sound.


72 posted on 01/14/2013 9:37:47 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

“I have been trying to picture for years what the map of the new countries would look like.”

I have described what I think -could happen- in this post, put up some time ago:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2959153/posts?page=51#51


73 posted on 01/14/2013 10:06:58 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: expat2

“That’s why they are setting up the DHS as their enforcement arm. “As large and as well-equipped as the military”.”

If you stop to think of the implications, possibilities, and consequences, DHS may be the governmental agency that most threatens the future of freedom in America. Right down to its Orwellian name.

Thanks, G.W.


74 posted on 01/14/2013 10:14:52 AM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

Meaning the southern states, he wanted centralized control from dc.


75 posted on 01/14/2013 10:19:49 AM PST by Bulwyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Lincoln set the stage for what we have today, centralized control.


76 posted on 01/14/2013 10:23:00 AM PST by Bulwyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide

During the Chiniese cultural revolution, the local police were told to not interfere with the Red Guard.

I applaud this sherrif but lets acknowledge there is a BIG difference between not getting your guns and standing up to the federal agents.


77 posted on 01/14/2013 10:24:18 AM PST by PeterPrinciple ( Lord save me from some conservatives, they don't understand human nature any better than liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Bulwyf

No, it really started under FDR.


78 posted on 01/14/2013 10:26:46 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Bulwyf

Answer my question: why did the mountain people of Virginia and Tennessee remain loyal to the union?


79 posted on 01/14/2013 10:43:05 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

Will have to look that up later, I am headed back into work now.


80 posted on 01/14/2013 10:56:56 AM PST by Bulwyf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

The feds could get in a snit for the defiance of a county sheriff and cause him problems but the local sheriff could make life a living hell on any federal employee regardless of agency or department if the feds got in a snit about their authority being questioned by some lowly sheriff who is actually elected by the people.

No back up for any fed raids and actually being present to represent the citizens.

Any fed employee for any agency could get pulled over and ticketed for traffic infractions, they could have their cars torn apart continually if the sheriffs drug dog “hits” on the fed car.

Depends on how far the sheriff wants to push the issue but they could make life miserable on federal employees and their families.


81 posted on 01/14/2013 11:10:59 AM PST by sarge83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
Of course the southern states didn't do anything to initiate those actions, right?

The problem is the guarantees given by the Constitution to the States; like the Republican form of government -- is the power of assigning governorship a power delegated the FedGove by the Constitution? That they 'rebelled' is immaterial in that argument; much like prison-rape is not a-ok because the inmates are in prison; this because being convicted, even of the most heinous crimes, does not invalidate unalienable rights [else they are not unalienable].

In short: does another's wrongdoing absolve us of abiding by [the 'right' of] a right/wrong ethos?

And what's your feelings towards those southerners, chiefly in the Appalachian regions of west Virginia and east Tennessee, who remained loyal to the union?

I have little opinion on them, either way.

Why do you think they remained loyal?

For this discussion, I actually don't care; the problems I present are discretely separate from such questions, and therefore those questions are irrelevant distractions.

82 posted on 01/14/2013 11:36:47 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
"I know quite a few hardcore Dem gun owners and hunters who would not take kindly to some petty-fascist gun grabber trying to take their guns away from them."

I seriously question that assumption...After all, they are, and have been, demoncrats who voted the last two decades of marxist/socialists into the WH.

in addition, why would serfs who allow the rape of every other aspect of freedom and liberty protected und the former Constitution do anything different about protecting this formerly guaranteed freedom?

These serfs have voted for our current rulers and they will obey all tyrnnical orders from above...That is their genetic political nature...

83 posted on 01/14/2013 12:04:36 PM PST by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Okay, but how did Lincoln unite the country? Through radical expansion of federal power and waging war on the states. Obama hasn’t alienated enough of the country to cause the Civil War, Part II some Freepers expect, as Lincoln did merely by being elected. But he has expanded federal power, most famously over the healthcare industry, so that should we ever have the strength to resist whoever’s in power will have more with which to beat us down.

This is also true should the Welfare/National Security State face financial and monetary ruin. For I assume the free market will be blamed, and a more intrusive state will rise in its place. Which undoubtedly will be a poorer state, but the people will be poorer still.


84 posted on 01/14/2013 4:03:07 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

“slavery was an issue that was NOT going to go away and was going to have to take a civil war to resolve it once and for all.”

That’s convenient, as it excuses us from having to justify hundreds of thousands dead, untold Mullins maybe billions in damage, the end of federalism, etc. I believe it’s total bunk. Even Lincoln’s party, the Republicans, were “free soil,” thought slavery was doomed to die where it was, and therefore sought to contain it. If it required a war I’d rather we had gone the John Brown route: arming slaves and helping them revolt. Certainly there’s have been less bloodshed and no fatal wound to our constitutional system.


85 posted on 01/14/2013 4:10:07 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

“slavery was an issue that was NOT going to go away and was going to have to take a civil war to resolve it once and for all.”

That’s convenient, as it excuses us from having to justify hundreds of thousands dead, untold millions maybe billions in damage, the end of federalism, etc. I believe it’s total bunk. Even Lincoln’s party was “free soil,” thought slavery was doomed to die where it was, and therefore sought to contain it. If it required a war I’d rather we had gone the John Brown route: arming slaves and helping them revolt. Certainly there’d have been less bloodshed and no fatal wound to our constitutional system.


86 posted on 01/14/2013 4:11:16 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

From what I was taught in school and I am well past the half-century mark in age, meaning many years ago. I am from southern New England, CT.

The whole slavery issue if I am not mistaken, dogged even the founding fathers. I remember watching the musical “1776” and I do believe there was a song sung about the slave trade Thomas Jefferson wanting to put something in about freeing the slaves, but again I am dealing with a middle age brain here.

I was wondering if the founding wanted to end slavery then and there and not let it fester the way it did until it had to take a huge civil war to end it.

From what I have read, there are many different interpitations of Lincoln, FWIW.


87 posted on 01/15/2013 2:44:38 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: SuperLuminal

Most average Dems I know don’t know diddly squat about ideological issues. Like my three lib sisters, they think the Dems “care” about them and the nasty Republicans don’t. Of course, like many female Dems, my sisters think the idea that a teenage girl might not be able to get an abortion and homosexual marriage are the nation’s most important issues trumping Islamism or the economy. In short, most Dems are bone ignorant and highly susceptible to demagoguery.


88 posted on 01/15/2013 3:08:46 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
As we've never had a situation other than the Civil War where states illegally "seceded" from the union, I don't care much about the southern states so-called constitutional rights when they unconstitutionally acted/rebelled in the first place.

Whatever "unconstitutional" actions Lincoln foisted on the southern states, they brought it all on themselves. Ditto for northern Copperheads who found themselves jailed or removed for seditious actions during the war. I find it risable that you're outraged about Lincoln appointing governors (oh, the horror!!! ) more than some states retaining the institution of slavery.

89 posted on 01/15/2013 3:18:15 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
"...there are many different interpitations of Lincoln..."

Indeed there are however, with historians like Eric Foner who writes with a biased bent, the War of Northern Aggression will remain forever lying in a fog of uncertainty. Freeing slaves became a cause célèbre as a reason for that war as it droned on. Lincoln ended slavery but said, "those people must never be allowed to vote". Lincoln was anything but a saint; his abuse of the United States Constitution is legend.

90 posted on 01/15/2013 3:51:33 AM PST by yoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: yoe

“Lincoln was anything but a saint; his abuse of the United States Constitution is legend.”

.....But then again, the first five Presidents, including Washington were slave holders also. They all were very much human just like the rest of us.


91 posted on 01/15/2013 3:56:54 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

>Surprsed that Mr. Gore even got to the position of being sheriff.

As the “establishment” candidate, he won in a landslide. We had a pro-shall issue CCW candidate running who barely got any votes.

The dopey, uniformed citizens here vote for who they are told to vote for.


92 posted on 01/15/2013 7:01:55 AM PST by barefoot_hiker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Gritty

‘Alaska - Independent ‘

Alaska - Russia


93 posted on 01/15/2013 7:45:55 AM PST by Delta Dawn (at)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
As we've never had a situation other than the Civil War where states illegally "seceded" from the union, I don't care much about the southern states so-called constitutional rights when they unconstitutionally acted/rebelled in the first place.

Here you are ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments -- these are as follows:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.
Clearly, the 9th says that just because it [a right] is not enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist: a good example is travel. Would a government that required you get its permission for every movement be considered free or the embodiment of liberty? What if that restriction was only to the place of residence: would that be free? Thus it is entirely possible that there is a right of secession that is retained by the people.

In contrast, the 10th says that the powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are retained by either the States or the people. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a reference to the "perpetual union" -- therefore, constitutionally it cannot be said that the States (or people) do not have the power to secede.

In short, you are using the assertion that secession was illegal as the basis from which to reject any argument for [the legitimacy of] secession. Indeed, in your view the federal government can utterly ignore the Constitution's requirements and restraints and there is utterly no recourse the people or States can take. This is likely compounded by a popular, though incorrect, idea that "the constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is." (If the Constitution is what the USSC says, then it is not the Court under the Constitution's authority, but the Constitution under the Court's.)

Whatever "unconstitutional" actions Lincoln foisted on the southern states, they brought it all on themselves. Ditto for northern Copperheads who found themselves jailed or removed for seditious actions during the war.

So then the perpetration of some injustice is grounds for ignoring injustices committed in pursuing [punishments] so long as you agree? Government agents can legitimately commit felonies in perusing misdemeanors? Any transgression of the law frees agents of that law from following it themselves?

I find it risable that you're outraged about Lincoln appointing governors (oh, the horror!!! ) more than some states retaining the institution of slavery.

Slavery was already starting to go; it is notable that many Western powers abolished slavery without a civil war -- what, then, was the difference between them and the States? Jesus said that a good tree does not produce bad fruit (nor a bad tree good fruit), but things like appointing governors were certainly the fruit of the Civil War: others were the bullying of States to [ensure] adoption of Constitutional amendments. -- If then, the fruits of the Civil War was more central control [and, arguably, more tyranny], what does that say of the [real] causes of that war?

94 posted on 01/15/2013 1:34:37 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

Secession is “illegal”? Please tell me what law it breaks? Why were never any Confederate officials tried for secession? What part of the Constitution told the states the union would be permanent so they could know before they ratified it?


95 posted on 01/15/2013 3:02:45 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

“More than some states retaining the institution of slavery”

Wow, that is a real brick wall nonsequitur, there.


96 posted on 01/15/2013 3:04:30 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Slavery was going? When? If that’s true, why did Alexander Stephens say slavery was the “cornerstone of the confederacy”?


97 posted on 01/17/2013 4:22:05 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
"secession"

If any state can leave any time it feels like, what is the point of the union? There can be no such thing if every state is supposedly sovereign. The idea of any binding federal constitution is likewise rendered superfluous. In short, there can be no United States of America because there would be no United States.

But all the southern states agreed to sign the constitution therefore binding them to a united country. It would be no different than dissatisfed people in my state of Wisconsin deciding to secede and firing on federal institutions similar to the firing on Fort Sumter. I'd favor the federal government to apprehend and hang those people. There are no forms for legal secession as set forth by the constitution. The only way to separate is with an illegal rebellion. Like what the southern states did.

98 posted on 01/17/2013 4:31:46 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
Slavery was going? When?

August 1834 would be a good date toward the abolition of slavery -- note also that they didn't have a bloody civil war.

If that’s true, why did Alexander Stephens say slavery was the “cornerstone of the confederacy”?

I don't know. I don't know who Stephens is, or why his opinion should matter.

99 posted on 01/20/2013 5:52:06 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

He was the vice-president of the confederacy.


100 posted on 01/20/2013 8:11:20 PM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101 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