He chose a White Woman

[TheScout]

I doubt you know how many books any of us have read so I don't know why you would even mention that.

 

What part of the constitution did the South violate? Didn't the colonies withdraw from the British empire, didn't they throw off their own Articles of Confderation. There was a dream of the American Revolution that when a government did not best suit the needs of the people it was their right and duty to withdraw from it. Does this legacy of the Revolution mean nothing to you? Are we hypocritical enough to say that these, as the Declaration of Independence calls them, "self-evident" truths do not apply to us.

 

The Northern 22 states of the union faced no threat whatsoever if Lincoln would have left the South in peace. There would have been no war and no threat of European involvement anyway. And 700,000 more Americans would still be alive.

 

The British threat was very minimal. The United Kingdom made very little action on the side of the Confederacy. It did not need American cotton as the Southernors thought, it had other sources by this time. Along with France, which was prepared to intervene, if Britain did, the blockade could have easily been crushed. However Britian possessed virtually no army besides a tiny colonial force of a more police nature.

 

"Your critique of Lincoln is unwarranted, innaccurate, and outright UnAmerican."

 

I don't know what America you are talking of.

 

They called Patrick Henry a traitor for denouncing King George III as well.

 

700,000 Americans died under Lincoln, at that time the country had about 40 million people. That would be like over 5 million Americans dying today. An absurd death toll.

 

[BadenP]

Scout I take it you are a dyed in the wool southern boy. You are incorrect about European involvement, the British and French wanted to see America split for more reasons than just cotton, if you want to deny it go right ahead but you are historically WRONG. As far as Lincoln leaving the south alone, what about that southern abomnination of slavery that institution sir was a crime against all humanity and had no place in the land of the free. How many slaves were killed or maimed in order to make their southern masters rich Scout?

 

Your sense of history and injustice is not only innaccurate it presents a very disturbing mindset to hold in todays world. When I was in Richmond, VA and visited the Museum of the Confederacy I was amazed when the curator told our tour group that the south really did not lose the Civil War. A history professor in the group quickly corrected him, relating the details of how the south's infrastructure agricultural, societal, and industrial were totally destroyed by the war, to which the curator replied, "I suppose it all depends on how you look at it sir."

 

So you see Scout you can deny any and all the historical evidence you like but it still does not change the truth of what actually happened.

[TheScout]

Actually I lived in New York all my life. But I think everyone everywhere can appreciate an underdog people fighting for its liberty.

 

Of course Britain and France would have liked to see America split, but they could not do anything about it. Britain had a tiny colonial Army and the North could have quickly seized Canada after a British intervention. Emperor Napoleon was prepared to act but would not without Britain.

 

Slavery existed throughout all of human history. It played an important part in the greatest civilizations of the West from Greece to Rome to America. Even the Bible condones slavery. Every other country in the Western world abolished slavery peacefully in the 19th Century. Only Lincoln did it with blood.

 

"How many slaves were killed or maimed in order to make their southern masters rich Scout?"

 

An absurd argument. While not denying some abuses of slaves, why would an owner kill or maime valuable property? Have you been reading too much Uncle Tom's Cabin and other abolitionist propoganda.

 

So I ask again.

 

What part of the constitution did the South violate? Didn't the colonies withdraw from the British empire, didn't they throw off their own Articles of Confderation. There was a dream of the American Revolution that when a government did not best suit the needs of the people it was their right and duty to withdraw from it. Does this legacy of the Revolution mean nothing to you? Are we hypocritical enough to say that these, as the Declaration of Independence calls them, "self-evident" truths do not apply to us.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Are you guys having fun re-fighting the Civil War?

[TheScout]

Until the right side wins.

[talen333]

"Are you guys having fun re-fighting the Civil War?"

You mean the war of northern aggression?

I often wonder why people call it a civil war. A civil war is a war fought between two or more factions for the control of one government.

The south had already left and formed its own government it didn't want to control the United States only the Confederate States.

Pet peeve.

[TheScout]

I prefer War Between the States

[CalicoPenn]

The framers of the Constitution did not write into the Constitution a mechanism for secession - at least from the United States. There is a mechanism for secession from a State (or states) but only as it relates to forming new States, such as West Virginia - which was formed from within the borders of Virginia, as a free state, during the Civil War. Other states formed by seceeding from States are Kentucky (once part of Virginia) and Maine (once part of Massachusets). In two of those instances, both the State and the US Congress agreed to the secession. In the other, Congress accepted the State as it was an offshoot of a state in rebellion against the US. In no instance, does that mechanism allow an area of a state or states to secede and form a new country - only a new state.

 

The framers did, however, forsee attempts by malcontents and traitors to take over state governments and attempt to secede from the United States itself, and they wrote the Constitution in a way that obligates the United States to defend the States and the People from insurrection and rebellion, and even more importantly, clearly wrote that States cannot enter into any treaties, alliances or confederations on their own. In other words, the Confederate States if America was an unconstitutional alliance and confederation of States in insurrection and rebellion.

 

Under the US Constitution, States can be formed and admitted into the Union but cannot be dissolved and released from the Union. Is this counter to the Declaration of Independence? Sure - but this is the way the Framers wrote, deliberately, the Constitution - and the Framers were well aware of what the Declaration of Independence said. Call them hypocrites if you'd like, but the reality is that is is the Constitution, and not the Declaration of Independence that governs the United States.

 

When the Declaration of Independence was written, the revolutionaries took a big risk against a government that said "you are our colonies and will always be our colonies" and won. The Confederate States of American took the same risk against a government that said "you are States of the United States of America and you will always be part of the Union" - and they lost. Had England won the Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence would be viewed today as the most infamous piece of treasonous writing in the world but because England lost, it's viewed as a beacon of hope and courage instead.

 

Let's not forget that most of the Confederate States "seceded" from the Union while James Buchanan was President, not while Lincoln was President. Let's also not forget that the first shots in the US Civil War were fired by the Confederates at Fort Sumter - a United States military fort in South Carolina, in response to the imminent arrival of needed supplies to a US fort by the US government on US land in a US state (had Lincoln not sent the supplies, he would have been acknowledging that South Carolina had a right to secede which it did not - Lincoln's actions were not military in nature - he was not ordering anyone to fire on the Confederates or to take territory by force, he was only sending supplies, mostly foods and medicines, to a US Military outpost).

 

The South, emboldened by foreign powers, attempted to force their will against a more powerful opponent. The foreign powers failed to back the South up. Sounds rather like a recent conflict between Russia and Georgia - Georgia, emboldened by a foreign power, attempted to force their will only to be turned back by a more powerful opponent when the foreign power failed to back Georgia up as expected.

 

Despite the loss of life, and the question on the constitutionality of the suspension of habeas corpus by the President rather than the Congress, it still holds that Lincoln preserved the United States of America and the Constitution. To have capitulated to the Confederates would have been the same as ignoring his oath to preserve and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

Calico

 

[BadenP]

Thank you Calico for your excellent legal summation. Scout and talen you two should move to Richmond, VA I think you both would feel quite at home among your own kind of thinkers. It has been over 140 years ago and you two still think the way you do, tsk, tsk, tsk.

 

As far as slavery I was talking about what was going on in our country that we had control over, not debating slavery over time in the rest of the world. You know Scout if this was the 1860's you would be branded a traitor and shot for your comments, lucky for you most of us are much more enlightened than yourself.

[TheScout]

The Articles of Confederation didn't have a secession mechanism either did they it? Maybe we should still consider them in existence? There is a list of powers denied to the states in the Constitution. Secession is not mentioned as being prohibited. The 10th Amendment leaves all powers not delegated to the United States or prohbited to the states to the people or the states.

 

After secession they should they not be allowed to make alliances.

 

Seems to be quite a casual rejection of the aspirations of the Declaration of Independence. Many, including the Confederates thought the dream was worth keeping around. It is well reasoned document. You say its a beacon of hope, and then seem to ignore its main promise?

 

They seceed when Lincoln was President-elect. A sectional canidate who had no appeal at all to the South and whos platform threatened their most fundamental interests. They would also say that the United States committed the first hostile act by maintaining a fort in the harbor of one of their chief ports and insisting on resupplying it. They would consider it no longer US land after the secession.

 

Lincoln did preserve the union. But i don't think it was worth saving at the price. The rapid expansion of federal government. Destruction across the US. Huge debt. Loss of civil liberties.

 

And 700,000 dead AMERICAN people that did not hae to die.

 

The original union was founded on mutual affection and interests. The union is not worth it if it has to be cemented in blood.

[talen333]

Move to Richmond, I was born there.

[TheScout]

Branded as a traitor and shot?

 

For what? A discussion of constitional issues, or the domestic institutions of some states, political dissent?

 

And I'm called un-American?

 

The base of American liberty was once formed on opposition to bad government.

[BrentAllen]

Well, you know what we say here in the South.

 

If at first you don't secede, try, try again. :-)

 

Brent

Prayer - is it your steering wheel or your spare tire?

 

[NJCubScouter]

Brent, as a lifelong Northerner, I personally think secession by the Southern states sounds like a pretty good idea. Have a nice country.

[NJCubScouter]

Back to Sarah Palin.

 

I do love the Internet. I was just reading another web site (sorry about that) and learned of a rumor that apparently is flying all over the web about Sarah Palin and, um, certain other members of her family. I don't want to be accused of "starting something" so I won't say exactly what it is. Anyone interested in reading about it can see a long article about it here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223. (Edited in: From there, there are links to at least one follow-up article.)

 

Added in by edit: It occurs to me that if this is true, it might (possibly) negate the criticisms that have been made of Sarah Palin by a couple of posters in this thread. On the other hand, it would not enhance her reputation for telling the truth.

 

Disclaimers: I do not pretend to know, one way or the other, whether the conclusion reached in this article is true. I do know that this web site (DailyKos) is well-known as a liberal web site that usually promotes the Democratic Party, and has been accused in the past of having certain information that is, at best, speculative. On the other hand, the evidence produced here (especially some of the photos -- don't worry, everybody has their clothes on) is kind of intriguing. I figure that anyone here who spends any time browsing around the Internet will learn about this anyway over the next few weeks, so you might as well know about it now. I see on Wikipedia that it has already bounced in and out of Sarah Palin's article a few times.(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)