Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $19,571
23%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 23% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by 4CJ

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Targeting Lost Causers

    07/01/2009 10:04:07 PM PDT · 1,080 of 2,255
    4CJ to PeaRidge
    Kudos to you sir. The Panic of 1857 affected the NORTHERN states, but lightly affected Southern states, due to the demand for Southern exports. Losses in the North and West were estimated at 142 MILLION (back when a million was an immense sum), while Southern losses were only 17 million. The world was not beating down the doors to import Northern manufactures, especially when they could purchase superior products from Great Britain. But the world needed Southern products badly, with cotton exports single-handedly rescuing the economy.

    In 1857 bitterness arose between the sections increased, as millions of Southerners - including slaves - remained prosperous and well-fed, but in the North some 200,000 had lost their jobs, and "Bread" riots occurred in the North, not the South. Parson Brownlow of Tennessee stated that Northen industrialists should refrain from attacking slavery, and instead find means to feed the starving Northern poor.

    The net result of the Panic of 1857 [the worst up to that point in time] was a massive shift in fortunes, as money vanished from Northern pockets and found it's way South.

    Anyone wanting to understand the economic motivations of Lincoln and the North should study the Panic of 1857 and it's aftermath, and understand the increased bitterness and hatred of Southerners and slavery.

    Their resistance became labeled rebellion ...

    Of course it must, otherwise the secessionists were morally and legally correct, and Lincoln and his cadre were the despots and dictators.

    Again, during the convention, one James Madison, motioned for the power of the militia to PREVENT SECESSION, and force the secessionists to rejoin the union. Giving credit where it is due, the framers REJECTED his insane motion overwhelmingly.

    Those framers knew that they had seceded from Great Britain, and were about to secede from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

  • Targeting Lost Causers

    06/30/2009 8:00:55 PM PDT · 1,046 of 2,255
    4CJ to lentulusgracchus
    That sounds like the beginnings of legend-building and the Memory Hole right there.

    Lincoln's son destroyed much of Lincoln's unfavourable papers according to Herndon IIRC.

  • Targeting Lost Causers

    06/29/2009 8:53:18 PM PDT · 993 of 2,255
    4CJ to BroJoeK; lentulusgracchus
    From its founding, the Republican Party was the party of anti-slavery.

    Michigan 6 July 1854: the "republican" party was against the EXTENSION of slavery (e.g., in favour of a lily white west). The 1856 platform called for, 'who are opposed ... to the extension of slavery into free territory.'

    FYI, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that was unconstitutional.

    So our Founders never intended to let everyone just "do their own thing.".

    Wrong. The framers specifically rejected motions that would have allowed the federal government the power to "prevent" secession, one motion made by Madison was defeated by a vote of 9-2. Secession is not rebellion.

  • Targeting Lost Causers

    06/25/2009 9:42:13 PM PDT · 803 of 2,255
    4CJ to Ditto
    That was one of Lincoln's few conditions for re-admittance.

    Of course, they were out of the union.

    BTW. Do you know who the Governor of Tennessee was when the legislature there ratified the 13th?

    "Parson" William G. Brownlow had been in office two whole days.

    Both those states, as well as Arkansas were operating under Lincoln's 10% plan ...

    The magazine's assertion was that APPOINTED governments ratified for Southern States. Unfortunately for their claims, the states in question had held elections for the state offices. Naturally, with the military occupying 4 of the states, secessionists would be denied suffrage [where in the Constitution is that legal?]. Yet in 4 other Southern states, free elections were held, and almost all elected were former Confederates. In the elections for federal office the majority were ex-confederates. They were also denied their seats in the federal congress.

  • Targeting Lost Causers

    06/23/2009 9:55:29 PM PDT · 671 of 2,255
    4CJ to Ditto
    All I presented is what happened.

    You claimed, 'The "Southern" states that reatified were either pro-Union rump legislatures such as the Virginia Legislature (located in Alexandria) or provisional governments appointed by the President.

    Tennessee ratified 7 Apr 1865 AD. The legislature that ratified was elected 4 Mar 1865 AD.

    Louisiana ratified 17 Feb 1865 AD. The legislature that ratified was elected 5 Sep 1864 AD.

  • Targeting Lost Causers

    06/23/2009 6:12:56 PM PDT · 667 of 2,255
    4CJ to Ditto
    Before you start calling people names, you ought to read the history.

    History? Bwahahahaha! A magazine, like Newsweek or Time? According to the constitution and laws of Virginia, the "rump" legislature with 38 members lacked the numbers to form a quorum (79 in the House and 26 in the Senate), rendering any legislation illegal.

  • Targeting Lost Causers

    06/22/2009 9:12:16 PM PDT · 612 of 2,255
    4CJ to Ditto
    The "Southern" states that reatified [sic] were either pro-Union rump legislatures such as the Virginia Legislature (located in Alexandria) or provisional governments appointed by the President.

    Are you daft or simply uneducated? Virginia “rump” legislature? From what, 1860? And ratified for both West Virginia and Virginia? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahaha!

    As you can see, four of the Confederate states ratified even before the war ended and there were no 'former confederates' involved in those governments.

    I vote for uneducated. The war ended in APRIL 1865, not December.

    South Carolina held elections 18 Oct 1865 AD, placing native son James Orr into office. Orr had been a member of the Confederate Congress 18 Feb 1862 AD through 10 May 1865 AD. Regardless, The newly elected legislature ratified the 13th amendment.

    In North Carolina, William Woods Holden had been appointed by President Johnson, but was defeated by NC State Senator Jonathan Worth on 9 Nov 1865 along with a new legislature. Worth was state Treasurer during the Confederacy. That legislature ratified the 13th amendment.

    In Georgia, James Johnson had been appointed by President Johnson, but on 15 Nov 1865 AD Georgian Charles J. Jenkins was elected along with a new legislature. That Georgia legislature ratified the 13th amendment 6 Dec 1865 AD.

    'The Vice-President of the Confederacy [Alexander Stephens], four Confederate generals, five Confederate colonels, six Confederate cabinet officers, and fifty-eight Confederate congressmen were elected to the Thirty-ninth Congress, which met in December 1865. At the state level former Confederate military and civilian officers dominated the governments. [4CJ note: the same governments that ratified the 13th; see John Hope Franklin, Reconstruction after the Civil War, p. 43] .

  • Targeting Lost Causers

    06/15/2009 5:40:43 PM PDT · 280 of 2,255
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur
    Because legally they did not exist. Marriage between slaves was not recognized by law because slaves were not people. They were property.

    Utter BS. Marriages were sanctioned by their masters, with Justices of the Peace performing the ceremonies. There are several cases recognizing their legal status, and several wills and trusts ajudicated after the war upheld the validity of the marriages.

  • Targeting Lost Causers

    06/15/2009 5:34:14 PM PDT · 279 of 2,255
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur
    Had all 15 slave states held together opposing the amendment, it would have taken 46 states to ratify it. Care to do the math?

    I love math! But unfortunately, you can't even get 15 states to vote as a block then or today. But you can get the Northeast to legalize homosexual marriages, and force them on the rest of the republic.

  • Targeting Lost Causers

    06/15/2009 5:30:06 PM PDT · 278 of 2,255
    4CJ to Ditto
    Doing time travel again? Those states only “ratified” after the war under Reconstruction governments — you know, the Carpet Baggers and Scallywags you love to hate.

    Time travel? The fall 1865 elections returned many confederates and Southerners to political office - including former Whigs and Unionists - even Alexander Stephens was elected to the Senate. Those men PASSED the 13th ending slavery.

  • Targeting Lost Causers

    06/15/2009 5:14:54 AM PDT · 242 of 2,255
    4CJ to Ditto
    Nonsense. Even with 50 states today, 15 slave states could block any amendment to end slavery.

    Nonsense - those states ratified an amendment to end slavery.

  • You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

    06/14/2009 8:34:14 PM PDT · 442 of 557
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur
    He [Taney] was the worst kind of liberal jurist, finding all sorts of meaning in the Constitution to support he pre-conceived opinions.

    Ya think?:

    I think the authors of that notable instrument [the Declaration of Independence] intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal with "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon.
    Even Abraham Lincoln shared the view.
  • Targeting Lost Causers

    06/14/2009 3:25:47 PM PDT · 223 of 2,255
    4CJ to RaceBannon
    wow, the way you glossed over how MOREE Black men fought against slavery than fought fo slavery...that is telling,t oo

    wow, and three times as many WHITES fought FOR slavery and the union as it was ...

  • Targeting Lost Causers

    06/14/2009 3:23:57 PM PDT · 221 of 2,255
    4CJ to lentulusgracchus
    The implication here is that, from the beginning, the Republican Party was a political crusade undertaken on a platform that included a secret war plank.

    LG, you nailed it. The big government socialists, aka Whigs then Republicans, had to divest the federal congress of the true conservatives, aka Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans. True, given another 20-30 years with an ever increasing majority the northeast would have political controul of the Union, but Lincoln and his ilk were too impatient to wait, and too eager to despoil and plunder the country.

    In that regard, Obama is most definitely following in Lincoln's political and socialist footsteps.

  • You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

    06/12/2009 5:08:28 AM PDT · 410 of 557
    4CJ to 4CJ
    SC Justice Johnson, sitting on the 6th Circuit court...

    US Supreme Court Justice Johnson, not South Carolina, my abbreviation might be confusing to some.

  • You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

    06/11/2009 9:37:27 PM PDT · 409 of 557
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur
    South Carolina's law that allowed them to seize British Subjects and sell them into slavery was a violation of agreements made with the Great Britain. That should trump state law, and would to any lawyer who's agenda didn't override their understanding of the Constitution.

    The South Carolina law allowed for the blacks to be held while foreign vessels were in port - they knew beforehand. The law was in response the alarm caused the prior year by a failed slave revolt in Charleston led by former slave Denmark Vesey.

    When the vessel left the ship's captain had to pay the costs of detainment. New York had laws similar allowing them to "quarantine" entire ships, just as other northern states prohibited the entry of free blacks. A little biased in your position?

    SC Justice Johnson, sitting on the 6th Circuit court, did rule against the state in a habeas corpus petition, be refused to issue the writ [Elkison v. Deliesseline, 8 Fed. Cas. 493, 494 (1823)].

    In his 1832 opinion Taney wrote,

    The Constitution it is true has declared that a Treaty shall be the supreme law. But in order to make it so the stipulations must be within the Treaty making power. A Treaty would be void which interfered with the powers expressly delegated to Congress. So it would be void if it came in conflict with rights reserved to the states. ...

    It may be said however that the law of S. Carolina is more severe and oppressive than is necessary for its own protection. Upon examining its provisions I am ready to admit that milder measures would I think have secured the object and would have created less dissatisfaction.

  • You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

    06/10/2009 9:46:22 PM PDT · 406 of 557
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur
    Article VI of the Constitution be damned.

    Debts? Supremacy? Oaths? To what do you refer? If supremacy, what clause in the Constitution grants it in this case?

    Taney believed in twisting the Constitution six ways from Sunday.

    You want a living Constitution? He was a strict constructionist.

    Where in the document can you find support for his asinine interpretation?

    Asinine? 7-2 is hardly asinine. Again, there was no federal citizenship. The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited it to whites, and 'on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein lie shall have resided for the term of one year at least.' A state could also prevent an alien from being naturalized, 'no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.'

    The Militia Act of 1795 cited above limited service to 'able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States.

    If the Constitution supported federal citizenship for blacks, we wouldn't have needed the 14th Amendment. Where in the document can you find support for any other asinine interpretation?

  • You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

    06/09/2009 9:28:01 PM PDT · 398 of 557
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur
    Taney replied that the U.S. could not interfere with the state law.

    Kudos, federalism and separation of powers epitomized. By extension, a slave disembarking in a non-slave state would automatically be freed. Cool.

    He wrote that blacks "...were not looked upon as citizens by the contracting parties who ...

    No state granted blacks full citizenship, and the federal Congress limited naturalization to whites only.

    The first federal Militia Act (1795) limited service to 'each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States ...'

    Taney certainly didn't believe in a living Constitution.

  • Targeting Lost Causers

    06/09/2009 8:57:15 PM PDT · 25 of 2,255
    4CJ to Tublecane
    His ilk have that whole slavery stigma to overcome, which is a losing prospect.

    The US had legalized slavery for over 200 years, north and south. Lincoln advocated an amendment that would have made slavery permanent and irrevocable. Almost 80% of the changes made by the Confederate Constitution were for less taxes, less big government, and the elimination of pork and government subsidies.

  • You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

    06/07/2009 1:03:14 PM PDT · 289 of 557
    4CJ to SeminoleSoldier
    I simply cannot believe that on a discussion board committed to individual liberty the complete violation of liberty is justified as a missionary effort.

    Not that I agree, but for much of the world circa 1800 blacks were seen as savages and sub-human. Heck, most Tarzan movies, Shaka Zulu, "Tears of the Sun", "Blood Diamonds" or their companions continue to demonize blacks as cannibals, sub-human etc.

    Given the alternative, I laud their Davis, Lee, Jackson et al and their efforts.

  • You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

    06/07/2009 12:22:51 PM PDT · 285 of 557
    4CJ to Vanders9; Dan Middleton
    OK not specifically in the constitution

    Slavery was protected by the federal Constitution, with slaves being persons held to service, legalized importation until 1808, by taxes levied on them, and by the fugitive clause.

    ... but slavery was still perfectly legal in the US until the emancipation proclamation.

    Until the 13th Amendment. Despite the EP, slavery was still legal in the North.

  • You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

    06/07/2009 12:17:19 PM PDT · 284 of 557
    4CJ to SeminoleSoldier
    I don’t doubt that business sense, and very often Christian decency influenced the way slaveowners treated their human property.

    Many Southerners, Davis and Lee included, believed that Christianity would lift the slaves out of the pagan beliefs and into civilization.

    Nonetheless, the had negligible legal protection and what I have read (including a fair number of source documents fwiw) indicate that the laws against harming slaves were enforced in the same manner as laws protecting Christians in modern Pakistan.

    Nonsense. This was discussed in the past two months, citing numerous state decisions upholding the legal protections of slaves ante bellum.

  • You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

    06/07/2009 12:11:45 PM PDT · 283 of 557
    4CJ to SeminoleSoldier
    I doubt that the CSA would have dealt the native Americans a fairer hand than the USA.

    That explains why 25 Indian nations had treaties with the Confederacy and why many fought with them. </sarcasm>

  • You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

    06/07/2009 12:03:24 PM PDT · 282 of 557
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur
    Tariffs hit consumers in both the North and the South. How could they be unjust?

    Assuming that both the Northern and Southern consumers purchased foreign goods the impact would be the same. But protectionist tariffs protected Northern JOBS at the expense of Southern ones. Norther consumers would purchase Northern goods (priced lower than imports, but at inflated protectionist prices) to guarantee their own jobs.

    Protectionist tariffs REDUCED the amount of income received by foreigners exporting products to the US. The South, producers of some 80% of American exports received far LESS revenue under a protective tariff system than otherwise.

    It's a simple concept.

    And to correct another poster who alleged that the tariff impact was only $10, that $10 was a month's wages for many. And it ignores the reduction in revenues for Southern farmers, exporters and the multiplier effects of the same.

  • You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

    06/07/2009 11:53:41 AM PDT · 280 of 557
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur
    A Southerner who 30 years before had been saying that blacks were not and could never be citizens.

    Citations please.

  • Hands Off Thomas (Defense of Clarence Thomas' Intelligence)

    06/02/2009 8:42:38 PM PDT · 2 of 10
    4CJ to nickcarraway

    Justice Thomas didn’t claim that his race elevated him above whites as Sotomayor did. That’s the racism.

  • Local Confederate Veterans' Group Canít March in Ohio Parade

    05/26/2009 8:53:49 PM PDT · 104 of 114
    4CJ to rustbucket
    I think they sometimes referred to rape in veiled terms, perhaps to protect the ladies involved.

    Bump. Many on the other side are of the opinion that the account must use the word "rape", or else it must have been tiddly-winks they were playing.

    When "Beast" Butler ordered that the ladies of New Orleans showed contempt for yankees that she was to be 'treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation', he meant to treat them as prostitutes, without recourse to legal remedies for their rape.

  • Local Confederate Veterans' Group Canít March in Ohio Parade

    05/26/2009 4:38:17 PM PDT · 101 of 114
    4CJ to rustbucket
    This incident did not occur to my immediate ancestor's family, but it did happen to their neighbor: the wife was raped repeatedly by yankees, after which she went 'insane' and killed herself. Another neighbor's farm was utterly destroyed, so much so that the mother starved to death in the ensuing months, and the children were taken in by neighbors.

    I know that this was much more common than one would surmise, as the census data immediately thereafter (tax rolls and other documents) listed numerous children unrelated to the HoH living with them.

    My ancestor's wife and three small children left the devastation and the state to middle Florida to escape the yankees and Reconstruction.

    And yankees think that they were the epitome of nobility during the war and Reconstruction.

  • Local Confederate Veterans' Group Canít March in Ohio Parade

    05/25/2009 8:59:36 PM PDT · 97 of 114
    4CJ to Owl558; nathanbedford
    nathanbedford, you’ve taken screen name of the founder of the Ku-Klux Klan.

    NBF did NOT found the klan. It was founded in 1866 in Pulaski, TN by James R. Crowe, Richard R. Reed, Calvin E. Jones, John C. Lester, Frank O. McCord and John B. Kennedy. Forrest DID issue Order No. 1 in early 1869, disbanding the group: 'It is therefore ordered and decreed, that the masks and costumes of this Order be entirely abolished and destroyed.'

  • the 14th Amendment

    05/22/2009 4:52:00 PM PDT · 8 of 8
    4CJ to Condor51
    And both Northern AND Southern states immediately enacted segregated schools after the alleged ratification.

    Basically the 14th granted civil liberties to former slaves, it was not intended to grant future generations of 'anchor' babies citizenship.

  • the 14th Amendment

    05/22/2009 4:48:33 PM PDT · 7 of 8
    4CJ to MamaTexan
    The 14th is the only Amendment that was not LEGALLY submitted by Congress, nor LEGALLY ratified by the states.

    Southern states that ratified the 13th months before were prohibited by yankees to seat their Congressmen. More than enough states rejected the amendment for it to fail, and yet it was "proclaimed" to have passed.

  • Lincolnís War

    05/18/2009 8:45:16 PM PDT · 470 of 497
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur
    Who had seceded in the Penhallow case? What state?

    Doesn't matter, 3 of the 4 justices held that a state could unilaterally secede.

  • Lincolnís War

    05/18/2009 5:16:44 PM PDT · 451 of 497
    4CJ to cowboyway
    ... the legality of secession had never been argued in the courts until the White vs Texas case in 1869 ...

    Try 1795.

    As long as she [the state of New Hampshire] continued to be one of the federal states, it must have been on equal terms. If she would not submit to the exercise of the act of sovereignty contended for by Congress, and the other states, she should have withdrawn herself from the confederacy.
    Justice William Paterson, Penhallow, et al. v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 82 (1795).

    Two principles appear to me to be clear. 1. The authority was not possessed by Congress, unless given by all the states. 2. If once given, no state could, by any act of its own, disavow and recall the authority previously given, without withdrawing from the confederation.
    Justice James Iredell, Ibid., at 95.
    [I]t was said that New Hampshire had a right to revoke any authority she may have consented to give to Congress, and that by her acts of assembly she did in fact revoke it, if it were ever given. To this a very satisfactory answer was made: if she had such a right, there was but one way of exercising it, that is, by withdrawing herself from the confederacy.
    Justice John Blair, Ibid., at 112-113.

    3 of the 4 justices held that unilateral secession was legal.

  • My Alternate History Has Been Published

    05/17/2009 10:11:00 AM PDT · 128 of 132
    4CJ to carton253
    I’ll split them 99% to 1%. How about that?

    We're rich, rich I tell ya!

    I'm looking forward to reading it.

  • My Alternate History Has Been Published

    05/15/2009 1:44:07 PM PDT · 121 of 132
    4CJ to carton253
    Kudos!!!

    It belongs to you as well.

    Royalties may be sent to .... ;o)

  • Lincolnís War

    05/09/2009 3:10:47 PM PDT · 308 of 497
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur; Rustabout; cowboyway; usmcobra
    For some that seems to be anti-Klan, you sure can find a lot of pictures of them.

    As far as the flag they choose to claim, be it the American of Confederate, I wish they'd abandon both - their positions are not those of either government nor their soldiers. Personally I think those that wear the pointed hats do so because they have pointed heads.

    They also claim the Cross of Christ, but I'll never abandon my Christianity nor Bible because some insane lunatics claim it as well. Many people claim positions and objects as a shield / barrier to their true beliefs.

    Just as courts and politicians can wield barriers, and by twisting words distort the meanings of their words, and the words of our ancestors, even those that framed our government and demanded that our Constitution be written to prevent such distortions.

    I believe the vast majority of soldiers - Union, Southern and Native American - were and are honourable men, and deserve our gratitude and praise. Whether we believe in their cause, many gave the ultimate sacrifice. Long should we remember their sacrifice.

    Just as we should remember those that serve and sacrifice today, or did so in Vietnam, Korea or countless other shores. Politicians can lie and ameliorate their positions, historians can whitewash the truths, courts can mitigate their culpability, but it for the people to honour their dead and their memories.

  • Lincolnís War

    05/06/2009 9:19:21 PM PDT · 132 of 497
    4CJ to laconic
    “It was about slavery, period”. General James Longstreet, CSA.

    Citation please.

  • Some Think Secession Is Un-American

    04/25/2009 8:28:15 PM PDT · 373 of 464
    4CJ to Idabilly
    Tucker and Rawle are both well reasoned men, as is Abel P. Upshur [A Brief Enquiry into the Nature and Character of our Federal Government], and Lysander Spooner [No Treason].

    Tell me sir, could your father enter into a contract that required you to make payments to another party without your consent or approval? No court would entertain the validity of such a contract. Could your grandfather enter such a contract? Again no.

    But the sheeple earnestly believe that an agreement entered into by generations long deceased are perpetually binding on all subsequent generations. And that a body of people need permission to form a government of their choosing, failing to understand that the people are sovereign, not their government.

    Or as Jefferson wrote, that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

  • the 11th Amendment

    04/25/2009 7:56:58 PM PDT · 6 of 7
    4CJ to SunkenCiv
    The eleventh was a direct response to the Supreme Court's egregious decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793), a conflict between federal jurisdiction and state sovereignty. The plaintiff - Alexander Chisholm, a citizen of South Carolina and the executor of the estate of Robert Farquar, sued the state of Georgia for $769,613.33 [$169,613.33, the value of clothing provided by Farquar during the Revolutionary War, and $500,000 in damages].

    The court (4-1) held that Chisholm could sue Georgia under Article 3§2 of the Constitution, which extends federal judicial power to cases “between a State and Citizens of another State.” During the constitutional debates it was argued that the literal order of the clause was correct, a state may sue citizens of another state, but not vice versa.

    Georgia refused to appear in federal court, in that it had already paid the agents, who were to pay Farquar, and claimed sovereign immunity.

    After the court ruled against Georgia, the House voted 81–9 in favor of the proposed amendment, the Senate 23–2.

  • Some Think Secession Is Un-American

    04/22/2009 6:34:08 PM PDT · 304 of 464
    4CJ to DangerZone
    Nothing is more un-American than secession..

    Tell that to the my ancestors when they seceded from Great Britain.

    Tell that to the framers when 9 states seceded from 13 without consent.

    Tell that to 9 million Americans that met in convention and seceded in 1861.

    Tell that to 300,000,000 million Americans who never delegated their sovereignty away.

  • The seal is broken on seceding from the Union and is now mainstream discussion.

    04/21/2009 8:57:10 PM PDT · 440 of 660
    4CJ to Bubba Ho-Tep
    Both overwhelmingly Democrat states.

    McClellan barely won Delaware by 3.6%, New Jersey by 6.7%. Of course, McClellan was from New Jersey.

    But the Southern voices had been absent since 1861. Amazing that it took almost 5 years to pass an amendment by the federal congress.

    Lincoln gave a speech to the Congress on December 6, 1864, appealing them to be bipartisan and pass the amendment.

    And on 11 Apr 1865 Lincoln was talking with Gen. Benjamin Butler about his plans to give black Union soldiers a free trip to Panama as a reward for their service.

  • The seal is broken on seceding from the Union and is now mainstream discussion.

    04/21/2009 5:21:12 PM PDT · 417 of 660
    4CJ to Bubba Ho-Tep
    When the 1864 election gave Lincoln the votes in the legislature to send the amendment to the states, it happened pretty quickly

    After Senate passage, it took 9 months for the US House (almost devoid of evil Southerers) to pass the amendment. The 13th Amendment was submitted 31 Jan 1865 AD. Delaware and New Jersey both rejected it.

  • The seal is broken on seceding from the Union and is now mainstream discussion.

    04/19/2009 12:45:00 PM PDT · 327 of 660
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur
    If Obama ever sinks to that level then you have my permission to rebel.

    We will NEVER need anyone's permission!

  • The seal is broken on seceding from the Union and is now mainstream discussion.

    04/17/2009 9:46:20 PM PDT · 255 of 660
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur; savedbygrace
    Because if you read the Reconstruction Acts, Congress did not readmit the states. There was no need to.

    Ya think?

    More impressive than the mere existence of the state constitutional provisions disenfranchising felons at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment is the congressional treatment of States readmitted to the Union following the Civil War. For every State thus readmitted, affirmative congressional action in the form of an enabling act was taken, and as a part of the readmission process the State seeking readmission was required to submit for the approval of the Congress its proposed state constitution. In March 1867, before any State was readmitted, Congress passed "An act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States," the so-called Reconstruction Act.
    Chief Justice Rehnquist, Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 US 24, 48-49 (1974)
  • What happened to the OLD Freep?

    04/17/2009 9:28:58 PM PDT · 38 of 99
    4CJ to TRUDGE

    All your base are belong to us.

  • The seal is broken on seceding from the Union and is now mainstream discussion.

    04/17/2009 8:54:08 PM PDT · 246 of 660
    4CJ to Rustabout
    After all my Rights are GOD given and I don't need a “Government” to tell me what if any Rights I may have!!

    Amen!! The purpose of government is to protect our rights, secure our liberties, defend those that cannot defend themselves, and ensure our freedom. Other than that, it should keep out of our lives.

  • The seal is broken on seceding from the Union and is now mainstream discussion.

    04/17/2009 5:29:13 PM PDT · 224 of 660
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur
    Nolu Chan hasn't been seen or heard from for a number of years. Playing Glendower and calling him forth from the vasty deep probably isn't going to work.

    It's a courtesy ping, something a pompous yankee might not understand. Regarding his location, just because YOU haven't conversed with him doesn't mean I haven't. I count myself blessed to have a friend like Nolu Chan.

    For the lurkers and uninformed, Nolu Chan was banished because he had the temerity to quote St. Lincoln's use of the "N" would.

  • The seal is broken on seceding from the Union and is now mainstream discussion.

    04/17/2009 5:23:04 PM PDT · 222 of 660
    4CJ to awake-n-angry
    Secession is treason.

    Are you smoking dope? Treason is defined as 'levying War against them [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort'. Secession is withdrawing from the compact.

  • The seal is broken on seceding from the Union and is now mainstream discussion.

    04/17/2009 5:20:44 PM PDT · 221 of 660
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur
    It's no stretch to conclude that by implication Congressional approval is needed to leave as well.

    It is to me and millions of others. I believe in the WRITTEN Constitution, not a living one. Nowhere is the federal government granted the power to prohibit secession.

  • The seal is broken on seceding from the Union and is now mainstream discussion.

    04/17/2009 5:18:17 PM PDT · 220 of 660
    4CJ to Non-Sequitur
    And an 1869 case that said they could not.

    Dude, 1795 precedes 1861. 1869 is 8 years after the fact.