Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
How can you advocate for the federal government having the right to violate the Constitution of the United States and in the same breath say the People do not?
How can any red blooded American advocate such nonsense?
The PEOPLE are Soverign here, moreso than anywhere else in the world, neigh the history of the world. The Constitution of the United States sets limits on the federal government NOT the People. The PEOPLE are Soverign; They have the Right!
Lincoln was a Tyrannt and his agents of oppression walked all over the Constitution and in so doing violated their sacred trust. It was the Son's of Liberty's duty to resist, their duty to Rebel.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Last edited by Ozark Iron John; 09-12-2007 at 03:58 PM.
How can you advocate for the federal government having the right to violate the Constitution of the United States and in the same breath say the People do not?
We're discussing the tactical/strategic situation in MO on this thread and ultimately NOT the legality of secession.
So when we're analyzing Lyons actions, its pointless, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS THREAD, to argue secession, we have to stress that the War, as a matter of fact, is a GIVEN ASSUMPTION. Pro-Union supporters already understand that it is the Southern position that Federal suppression of the secession is illegal, ab initio (from the outset)
The same could be said, in reverse, for analyzing Lee's actions in MD and PA, ie. he doesn't have the right to enter MD and PA. From a Federal perspective, the secession is illegal and Lee possesses no 'right' to invade.
I prefer to put the apostrophe before the "s." As in 'state's rights. Let's open a thread about positioning apostrophes.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Think I'm right on that one, typically its referred to in the plural. I mentioned the 'previous' because Ozark, in a previous post, noted that I could not imagine a scenario where 'my precious Union' [would not persist]
Ok, thanks. I did get a little testy, didn't I. I apologise for that.
Rejected, Doug, as a totally unnecessary gesture. I do appreciate the thought, but if I got hacked off every time I thought someone was testy, I'd have to kick the aged dog to relieve my frustration. (And then, I'd have to contend with Dear One and the ramifications of my snit. It ain't worth it.) A good friend once said, "save the fighting for important stuff."
No harm. No foul.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
How can you advocate for the federal government having the right to violate the Constitution of the United States and in the same breath say the People do not?
Which part of the Constitution would you not violate if, in not violating it, the whole becomes meaningless?
"Violating" the Constitution does not make a good argument. It is not certain that the Constitution was violated. It is not certain that any of us are qualified to make that judgement. (Or did I miss your disclosure that you are, in fact, a constitutional lawyer at the federal level?)
But, I must excuse myself. "They're coming to take me away, ha ha."
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Think I'm right on that one, typically its referred to in the plural. I mentioned the 'previous' because Ozark, in a previous post, noted that I could not imagine a scenario where 'my precious Union' [would not persist]
Plural is one thing, but the whole thing is about each individual state's rights. Therefore, and so on.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
We're discussing the tactical/strategic situation in MO on this thread and ultimately NOT the legality of secession.
You are right. I regret that I let myself get distracted by the unconstitutionality of the actions of that monster Lyons who got what he so Rightly deserved at the Battle of Oak Hill.
Ole on the other hand is just being petty and arguementative. I don't pay him no nevermind a'tall.
I regret that I let myself get distracted by the unconstitutionality of the actions of that monster Lyons who got what he so Rightly deserved at the Battle of Oak Hill.
Sorry! But that is just a run on sentence if you ask me
I know some of you all are college professors trying to write term papers and get published and all. English is my second language. I growed up speakin' Red Neck.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
