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

To: TheDon
"It is rather offensive."

And you are rather prissy - & that is especially ridiculous in a man.

I'll bet your idea of 'conflict resolution' had you on the receiving end quite a bit as a kid, right? I wonder who decides when the train of abuses is long enough? Left up to people like you, it becomes infinite. And there were plenty like you around AFTER the declaration - they were called tories.

'Insurrection.' More slop. The states were not subordinate to DC - & would not have joined the compact if that had been the price of entrance. The south did not march on DC, did not try to wrest control of the DC govt - no insurrection (again, consult a dictionary...).

I am beginning to think a man that can continue to cling as you do,a man who can conclude that the men who refused to bend over for the british empire would then turn around & bend over for despotism & tyranny out of DC, is a man for whom being bent over is normal posture.
181 posted on 06/26/2002 12:53:24 AM PDT by budo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies ]


To: budo
The states were not subordinate to DC - & would not have joined the compact if that had been the price of entrance. The south did not march on DC, did not try to wrest control of the DC govt - no insurrection

From earlier posts of mine:

The Constitution is the law of the land. States rights are circumscribed by Constitutional bounds, and subordinate to the Constitution in the powers over which the Constitution enumerates as in the federal government's sphere.

Article VI, Clause 2
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

Insurrection
The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.

Again, from an earlier post of mine:
Abraham Lincoln
FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861

...

"I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.

... All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them."

You see, from the definition, the Southern state governments were in "open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government." The President is bound by oath to uphold the Constitution, which the South was revolting against. Under these circumstances, war was inevitable.

...the men who refused to bend over for the british empire would then turn around & bend over for despotism & tyranny out of DC...

Care to attempt to list a comparison of the abuses suffered by the colonists at the hands of the British government versus those suffered by the Southern states at the hands of the federal government? Also, pay attention to the long suffering attempts by the colonists to simply have the British government recognize the colonists rights as British citizens before resorting to the sword, after all other avenues yielded no success. I'll give you some help, for the colonists, start with the Declaration of Independence. I'll let you come up with the list of abuses for the Southern states, if you can.

You will not be able to make such a comparison, because there is none to be made. That is what I find offensive about such an argument. To compare the two situations is what is offensive.

184 posted on 06/26/2002 7:56:55 AM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]

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