The Truth Not The Myth

[SoonerBorn68]

Lincoln might not have welcomed Obama's election

On Tuesday, Barack Obama will stand on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and take an oath making him the nation's first president of African heritage.
The statue of Abraham Lincoln, which sits facing the Capitol in a temple two miles away, will not give two thumbs up. Neither will it weep, commune with the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. or dance a Macarena of joy.
The point is obvious, yes, but also necessary given that when Obama was elected in November, every third political cartoonist seemed to use an image of a celebrating Lincoln to comment upon the milestone that had occurred. Lincoln, they told us, would have been overjoyed.
Actually, Lincoln likely would have been appalled. How could he not? He was a 19th century white man who famously said in 1858 that "there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which . . . will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality.''
How do you reconcile that with all those cartoons of Lincoln congratulating Obama? You don't. You simply recognize it for what it is: yet another illustration of how shallow our comprehension of history is, yet another instance where myth supersedes reality.
Not that this is anything new -- or that political cartoonists are the only ones susceptible. Indeed, African Americans once tended to regard Lincoln with an almost religious reverence. Consider another Lincoln statue, this one in a park east of the Capitol: It depicts Lincoln towering over a newly freed black man who kneels at his feet. While modern eyes might find the image unbearably paternalistic, it represented the heartfelt sentiment of the black men and women who gave it to the city in 1876 in gratitude, they said, for Lincoln freeing the slaves.
Of course, Lincoln freed no slaves. That's the myth. His Emancipation Proclamation was a military measure to demoralize and destabilize the rebellious South; it covered states he did not govern but did not apply in slaveholding states that remained under his jurisdiction.
None of which is to deny or diminish the greatness of the 16th president. His greatness stands unquestioned, unquestionable. We would be a very different nation, a lesser nation, without his political genius, his dogged faith in the unsundered Union, his refusal to accept less than Union, even when haunted by reversals and setbacks that would have broken anyone else.
No, the argument is not about Lincoln's greatness. Rather, it is about our tendency to cherish untextured myths that affirm our preferred narratives. George Washington confessing that he chopped down the cherry tree is one, a parable of honesty that has survived for generations despite the minor inconvenience of not being true. Lincoln the Great Emancipator is yet another.
Abraham Lincoln did not believe in the equality of black people. He did, however -- and this was no minor distinction in his era -- believe in their humanity. He also abhorred slavery. But he was willing to countenance it if doing so would have vindicated his primary goal: to save the Union.
For him, nothing mattered more. Lincoln held with an indefatigable fervor to the belief that there was something unique, something necessary to preserve, in the union of American states, this government of, by and for the people. He held to this even when common sense, casualty reports and political reality demanded otherwise.
So, remarkable as it is that America has elected a black man its 44th president, Lincoln might find it more remarkable simply that the country has elected a 44th president at all. That was not always a certainty. He would be glad to know that, 144 years after his death, America continues to surprise itself.
The Union endures.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/338/story/59958.html

While I don't fully agree with his views of Lincoln, he's dead on about history vs. myth.

[OklahomaTuba]

Race aside, Lincoln at least stood up for the union against her enemies and defeated them.

Will "The One" stand up and defend this nation while he is sitting down listening to our enemies??

Hope so, but I doubt it.

[yermom]

i haven't quite figured out how it's supposed to be a good idea to not even talk to someone that is doing **** that we don't like


"um, we are just going to stay over here until you do something we want to bomb you for"

[Whet]

I'm sure the One will run his foreign policy with the same fervor and rationale as the 39th President ran his.

[JohnnyMack]

The next 4 years sure are gonna be fun around here.

[yermom]

Rush covered it pretty well, i think

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

[JohnnyMack]

Rush covered it pretty well, i think

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

Dear Rush,

It's called population density you fat assed tweaker.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg

[SoonerBorn68]

The next 4 years sure are gonna be fun around here.

Practice your wax on/wax off. It's great for blocking & deflecting blame. ;)

[SoonerBorn68]

Dear Rush,

It's called population density...

Yes. The bigger the city, the denser you are. :)

[SicEmBaylor]

Race aside, Lincoln at least stood up for the union against her enemies and defeated them.

Will "The One" stand up and defend this nation while he is sitting down listening to our enemies??

Hope so, but I doubt it.

The south was as much an enemy to the union and as big a threat as Canada is today. It wasn't the South that invaded the north. They left the union and only wanted to be left in peace.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm going to say this: The ridiculous amount of Lincoln loving going on aside, I think Obama will prove himself to be a responsible President. I think he's pragmatic and rational enough to not veer too far to the left and go completely off the reservation. Sure he'll do a lot of things that I disagree with, but I'm actually pretty hopeful about the Obama Presidency.

Also, I haven't read the article yet but I'm reasonably certain that Lincoln wouldn't have a tear in his eye over the first black President. Lincoln, as was much of the north, was as racist as they accused the south of being. Lincoln himself spoke of the superiority of the white race over the black race many many times. People too often mistake a northern contempt for slavery with a modern and enlightened view of race. Those people most certainly did not view blacks in the way we do today.

[JohnnyMack]

The south was as much an enemy to the union and as big a threat as Canada is today. It wasn't the South that invaded the north. They left the union and only wanted to be left in peace.

Why do you hate Fort Sumter?

[SicEmBaylor]

Why do you hate Fort Sumter?

Because it was a US military installation on sovereign South Carolina soil that refused after many warnings to evacuate and remove themselves from the state. Their refusal to do so was an act of war. What sovereign nation or state should be expected to tolerate a foreign military installation on their soil without permission from the state to be there?

[I Am Right]

Dear Rush,

It's called population density you fat assed tweaker.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg


Is that anger or fear I smell.

[Curly Bill]

The next 4 years sure are gonna be fun around here.

I think it's gonna be great fun. :D

[A Sooner in Texas]

Is that anger or fear I smell.

It's just you.

[A Sooner in Texas]

Because it was a US military installation on sovereign South Carolina soil that refused after many warnings to evacuate and remove themselves from the state. Their refusal to do so was an act of war. What sovereign nation or state should be expected to tolerate a foreign military installation on their soil without permission from the state to be there?

If I didn't know better, SicEm, I'd picture you with a big ol' Confederate flag hangin' below your big ol' gun rack in the back windshield of your big ol' F-250 while you're wearin' a big ol' cowboy hat and drinkin' a big ol' Bud.

But I know better. ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

If I didn't know better, SicEm, I'd picture you with a big ol' Confederate flag hangin' below your big ol' gun rack in the back windshield of your big ol' F-250 while you're wearin' a big ol' cowboy hat and drinkin' a big ol' Bud.

But I know better. ;)
I do have the stars and bars on my car (not the battle flag), but I drive a miata; wear a baylor baseball cap; and I drink Shiner not Bud. ;)

[A Sooner in Texas]

I do have the stars and bars on my car (not the battle flag), but I drive a miata; wear a baylor baseball cap; and I drink Shiner not Bud. ;)

Talk about your mixed messages. :D

[Okla-homey]

Dear Rush,

It's called population density you fat assed tweaker.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg

Well, there's that, and concentrations of African Americans. Look at that crescent across the southeastern states. Guess what? That's where the black folks make up a high enough percentage of the populations in the "blue" counties to carry them for BHO. In fact, If you overlay a 19th century map depicting cotton cultivation in those states, it would be virtually identical. We should'nt delude ourselves into thinking this phenomenon is not rooted in race. It most certainly is. Afterall, that's why its so danged Historic and stuff.

Then, switch over to Latino concentrations. He got those too.

Add in urban folk and college towns...game, set, match.

Why no Oklahoma counties in his column? Because black folks don't exceed 13% of the general pop in any Oklahoma county.

[Okla-homey]

I do have the stars and bars on my car (not the battle flag), but I drive a miata; wear a baylor baseball cap; and I drink Shiner not Bud. ;)


Just wondering, are your texass neo-confederate buds conflicted over the fact that the Father of the Republic Texas and its greatest military leader, none other than Sam Houston hisself, was run out of the tex Governors Mansion while folks threw rotten vegetables at him as he traveled to his home in Hunstville, all because he refused to acknowledge texass's illegal secession and told all the tex reb fire-eaters to go hang themselves.

I guess ol Sam got the last laugh didn't he?

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't see anything at all wrong with the fact that blacks showed up in large numbers to support the first viable black candidate. I really don't think race was the deciding factor in any case. No Republican was going to win this election, and McCain was an especially horrible candidate who ran a horrible campaign.

The stars were aligned for a Democrat win, and Obama ran a brilliant transcendent campaign. I'm pretty excited about his Presidency.

[SicEmBaylor]

Just wondering, are your texass neo-confederate buds conflicted over the fact that the Father of the Republic Texas and its greatest military leader, none other than Sam Houston hisself, was run out of the tex Governors Mansion while folks threw rotten vegetables at him as he traveled to his home in Hunstville, all because he refused to acknowledge texass's illegal secession and told all the tex reb fire-eaters to go hang themselves.

I guess ol Sam got the last laugh didn't he?

It frankly has not been discussed, but I believe everyone admires Sam Houston regardless of his position on secession. I've never heard a critical word about the man from any right minded Texan. His position doesn't bother me in the least, since I maintain that secession was a hot-headed and possibly very unnecessary action.

[A Sooner in Texas]

I'm in agreement with both of SicEm's two posts above. Why wouldn't blacks support Obama? (Along with plenty of whites)

And Big Sam (what Sam Houston is affectionately known as here, 30 miles south of a giant white marble statue of him along I-45) is most definitely a hero in Texas, as well he should be since he was able to lure Santa Anna into a swamp and defeat his army there...hence bringing the independence of Tejas from Mexico.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm in agreement with both of SicEm's two posts above. Why wouldn't blacks support Obama? (Along with plenty of whites)

And Big Sam (what Sam Houston is affectionately known as here, 30 miles south of a giant white marble statue of him along I-45) is most definitely a hero in Texas, as well he should be since he was able to lure Santa Anna into a swamp and defeat his army there...hence bringing the independence of Tejas from Mexico.

He also spent some time in Oklahoma where he married his injun wife not far from my front porch in the FTG.

[A Sooner in Texas]

He also spent some time in Oklahoma where he married his injun wife not far from my front porch in the FTG.

Another reason to like Sam! Plus, my son is going to Sam Houston State University, so Sam's pretty popular in my house. :D

[AlbqSooner]

Because it was a US military installation on sovereign South Carolina soil that refused after many warnings to evacuate and remove themselves from the state. Their refusal to do so was an act of war. What sovereign nation or state should be expected to tolerate a foreign military installation on their soil without permission from the state to be there?

See also Pine Ridge. Ponder that one for a moment.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Lincoln was our greatest president. He saved the Union from balkinization. Who knows if we would have survived two world wars without a united states.

Pitts' claim about Lincoln being appalled is ridiculous. Lincoln could just as easily be ecstatic. Great men are not appalled when proven wrong about something.

[SicEmBaylor]

Lincoln was our greatest president. He saved the Union from balkinization. Who knows if we would have survived two world wars without a united states.

Pitts' claim about Lincoln being appalled is ridiculous. Lincoln could just as easily be ecstatic. Great men are not appalled when proven wrong about something.

So, Bush's quasi-unconstitutional acts are okay but Lincoln's blatant destruction and disregard of the constitution makes him a great president? Got it.

[JohnnyMack]

Homey, BHO only pulled a few percentage points higher among blacks than Kerry did. The Hispanic shift is noteworthy I will agree. However I think most of that has to do with the overall failures of the Republican party more than it does the man the Democrats put forth.

[SicEmBaylor]

Homey, BHO only pulled a few percentage points higher among blacks than Kerry did. The Hispanic shift is noteworthy I will agree. However I think most of that has to do with the overall failures of the Republican party more than it does the man the Democrats put forth.

Yep.

[Okla-homey]

Homey, BHO only pulled a few percentage points higher among blacks than Kerry did. The Hispanic shift is noteworthy I will agree. However I think most of that has to do with the overall failures of the Republican party more than it does the man the Democrats put forth.

You are forgetting the unusually high number of black first-time voters and overall record black turnout. I understand black folks vote democrat. That's pretty consistently been true since the the mid 20th c. when they were restored the ability to vote to go along with their right to vote granted a hundred years earlier.

But the sheer volume of black voters inspired to vote by the BHO candidacy is what makes his victory more about race than anyone is likely to publicly admit.

The simple fact is, black folks turned out to vote for BHO in record numbers. Far more turned out to vote for BHO than bothered to vote for Kerry or Gore. And in a many precincts, that record black turnout made the difference. A substantial number of black folks voted for the first time in their lives when they voted for BHO. And that had an effect down the ballot that benefitted democrat candidates and hurt Pubs.

[SicEmBaylor]

You are forgetting the unusually high number of black first-time voters and overall record black turnout. I understand black folks vote democrat. That's pretty consistently been true since the the mid 20th c. when they were restored the ability to vote to go along with their right to vote granted a hundred years earlier.

But the sheer volume of black voters inspired to vote by the BHO candidacy is what makes his victory more about race than anyone is likely to publicly admit.

The simple fact is, black folks turned out to vote for BHO in record numbers. Far more turned out to vote for BHO than bothered to vote for Kerry or Gore. And in a many precincts, that record black turnout made the difference. A substantial number of black folks voted for the first time in their lives when they voted for BHO. And that had an effect down the ballot that benefitted democrat candidates and hurt Pubs.

Even so, what's your point? Is his Presidency less legitimate because a particular interest group (whether it be ethnic, socio-economic, or other) is largely responsible for his election? The last time I checked, black Americans were no less American than anyone else and their vote is just as legitimate as yours. I really fail to see any point to the discussion.

[soonerhubs]

Even so, what's your point? Is his Presidency less legitimate because a particular interest group (whether it be ethnic, socio-economic, or other) is largely responsible for his election? The last time I checked, black Americans were no less American than anyone else and their vote is just as legitimate as yours. I really fail to see any point to the discussion.

I personally think he makes a good point that the pubs better pay attention to regarding race. Oh, and would Martin Luther King support people voting for someone just because he is a certain race?

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

[JohnnyMack]

Even so, what's your point? Is his Presidency less legitimate because a particular interest group (whether it be ethnic, socio-economic, or other) is largely responsible for his election? The last time I checked, black Americans were no less American than anyone else and their vote is just as legitimate as yours. I really fail to see any point to the discussion.

It's like saying W's pandering to the religious right makes his victories less meaningful or something equally as ridiculous.

[85Sooner]

I personally think he makes a good point that the pubs better pay attention to regarding race. Oh, and would Martin Luther King support people voting for someone just because he is a certain race?

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.and if their character sucks give em props because their black"--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr edited to what people want it to mean.

.

[Doyen]

Dear Rush,

It's called population density you fat assed tweaker.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg

you can also call it "where educated and worldly folk live

[85Sooner]

you can also call it "where educated and worldly folk who are on the government tit live

fixed

[OklahomaTuba]

Because it was a US military installation on sovereign South Carolina...

Oh dear lord, what the hell are they teaching at Baylor these days??????

Do you even actually know any Civil war history, or did you get all your "facts" from watching re-runs of the Dukes of Hazard???

[I Am Right]

It's just you.

I took a shower!

[def_lazer_fc]

and if their character sucks give em props because their black.

i know you don't need help looking stupid, but come on. at least check your grammar. my nine year old knows when to use their and when to use they're.

[SicEmBaylor]

Oh dear lord, what the hell are they teaching at Baylor these days??????

Do you even actually know any Civil war history, or did you get all your "facts" from watching re-runs of the Dukes of Hazard???

I'm willing to bet that I forget more in a day on this subject than you'll come close to knowing in a life time.

[OklahomaTuba]

Your comments on this thread suggest otherwise.

[soonerhubs]

Sicem,
I can appreciate your thesis, but as with any well written or thought out posit of truth, citations to back it up are vital and helpful.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sicem,
I can appreciate your thesis, but as with any well written or thought out posit of truth, citations to back it up are vital and helpful.

I'm not sure exactly what I would cite. I'm not sure what part of what I said is even in dispute.

[soonerhubs]

So, Bush's quasi-unconstitutional acts are okay but Lincoln's blatant destruction and disregard of the constitution makes him a great president? Got it.
Just that area right there is what I'd like to read more about. I'm not doubting your knowledge and reading. I'd just like to see what was written to convince you to make this statement.

[olevetonahill]

If I didn't know better, SicEm, I'd picture you with a big ol' Confederate flag hangin' below your big ol' gun rack in the back windshield of your big ol' F-250 while you're wearin' a big ol' cowboy hat and drinkin' a big ol' Bud.

But I know better. ;)

Plus ya would think he had a big Old set Of ball to .
But you would be wrong .

[Okla-homey]

I personally think he makes a good point that the pubs better pay attention to regarding race. Oh, and would Martin Luther King support people voting for someone just because he is a certain race?

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

You are correct. The point is, a substantial number of Americans didn't vote for BHO because of what he stood for, or his polices. They voted for him because; 1) he wasn't a Pub, and/or, 2) his ethnicity.

That doesn't equal a mandate to do anything in particular. The thing is, I think he's a smart enough pol to know it. I hope he does well. He's my president and commander-in-chief.

[SoonerBorn68]

Wow Homey, I didn't figure you'd roll over so easy. We might disagree on the whole Civil War thingy, but wow. He's my president but he'll only get my support on things he gets right, & right now that's very few.

[Okla-homey]

Just that area right there is what I'd like to read more about. I'm not doubting your knowledge and reading. I'd just like to see what was written to convince you to make this statement.

You know what bro? I've had to listen to this Neo-Confederate clap-trap most of my life. They can't cite the square root of dogdoo to support their contentions because the courts upheld, including the final arbitor of what it constitutional, The Supreme Court of the United States, President Lincoln's actions to save the Union.

And you know what else, that same slave-ocracy that fomented and prosecuted the illegal and treasonous rebellion in order to save their sick and twisted "rats" to own human beings, ratified the very Constitution that is silent on their so-called right to secede.

I ask you, if you were a signed and sealed party to a written contract that contained no "escape clause," would you expect to be able to blithely breach or otherwise disavow said contract and get away with it?

[SoonerBorn68]

I ask you, if you were a signed and sealed party to a written contract that contained no "escape clause," would you expect to be able to blithely breach or otherwise disavow said contract and get away with it?

Pffft. They're fixin' to do this very thing wif the mortgages.

[SicEmBaylor]

Just that area right there is what I'd like to read more about. I'm not doubting your knowledge and reading. I'd just like to see what was written to convince you to make this statement.

I'm going to answer your question by responding to Homey, so I don't have to say the same stuff twice.

[SicEmBaylor]

You know what bro? I've had to listen to this Neo-Confederate clap-trap most of my life. They can't cite the square root of dogdoo to support their contentions because the courts upheld, including the final arbitor of what it constitutional, The Supreme Court of the United States, President Lincoln's actions to save the Union.

Actually, the Supreme Court at the time was very close to ruling that the war was totally unconstitutional and Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice at the time to stop the courts from ruling in that way. Have you ever wondered why Southern leader were not dragged before the Federal courts on charges of treason? The courts, especially the Supreme Court, gave strong indication after the war that they would have found them innocent. It wasn't until the Chief Justice was replaced by Lincoln that the court stopped considering the constitutionality of the war...surprise surprise a Lincoln appointee sided with Lincoln.


And you know what else, that same slave-ocracy that fomented and prosecuted the illegal and treasonous rebellion
How is it treasonous or rebellious? Was the south attempting to destroy the entire government of the United States or merely separate from it? How is the South's actions any more treasonous or illegal than our separation from Great Britain? How is what the South did inconsistent with the view of the Founding Fathers that the citizens of these United States should be free to revolt and replace the government with one of their choosing? Either you're a Tory or a hypocrite...I'm guessing you're latter.


ratified the very Constitution that is silent on their so-called right to secede.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa...so what you're saying is that unless the Constitution explicitly mentions a state power than the state's exercise of a power not listed is unconstitutional? Seriously? That's the claim you're making? How exactly does that jive with the 10th Amendment (or the 9th for that matter), the debates at the Constitutional convention in which the delegates themselves said the states reserved any and all rights not granted the Federal government, or with the clear spirit of the Constitution which was meant as governing document for the Federal government and was never designed to address specific state powers? Are you seriously making that claim? I don't know what they teach at TU law, but you need to get a refund.


I ask you, if you were a signed and sealed party to a written contract that contained no "escape clause," would you expect to be able to blithely breach or otherwise disavow said contract and get away with it?

Where on God's green Earth, aside from pulling out of your ***, did you get the concept that the Constitution was intended to be a "escape clauseless" document that bound all parties together forevermore. Do you honestly think that any of the colonies would have ratified the Constitution if they had known that they were bound to the agreement forevermore even when that agreement no longer served the interests of their state and the citizens no longer supported its government? The idea that they would is just laughably absurd.

The Constitution was the result of a convention called by the states themselves and the document was freely agreed and entered into by each sovereign state. The Constitution clearly enumerates the powers of the Federal government and explicitly states that any power not enumerated is reserved to the states themselves or (in the case of state inaction) to the people directly. No where in the Constitution do you find the right of Secession making it a right clearly reserved to the people of each state. The people of the southern states decided to freely leave the Union, just as they freely entered into it, and enter a new union that secured their interests. Now, slavery was wrong but the justification for leaving the Union isn't the determinate factor on whether or not a state can legally do so. As abhorrent as slavery was, the states were free to make the choice regardless of how bad or good their reasons were for doing so.

Lincoln destroyed the essence of the Constitution that was a Union of sovereign states that collectively created a national government to govern on those issues that no one state could reasonably govern on themselves leaving everything else in their charge. Lincoln first destroyed this foundational principle by making the absurd claim, at his inauguration, that the states were created by an already existing Federal Union which justified Federal rule over the states themselves which is clearly historically and legally wrong. He unilaterally suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus and threw thousands of citizens in jail who opposed his administration. He shut down and censored the free press, and most egregious of all is his invasion of what he maintained was his own country. He was a tyrant..nothing more and nothing less.

[Okla-homey]

see below.


Actually, the Supreme Court at the time was very close to ruling that the war was totally unconstitutional and Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice at the time to stop the courts from ruling in that way. This ain't horseshoes. "close" doesn't count. Have you ever wondered why Southern leader were not dragged before the Federal courts on charges of treason? Lincoln's legacy is what prevented that. His VP Andrew Johnson, a southern democrat, was impeached because he endeavored to stick with Lincoln's avowed policy of "letting the defeated states up easy." The courts, especially the Supreme Court, gave strong indication after the war that they would have found them innocent. Stop making stuff up. It wasn't until the Chief Justice was replaced by Lincoln that the court stopped considering the constitutionality of the war...surprise surprise a Lincoln appointee sided with Lincoln. Even if true, that's the way it works

How is it treasonous or rebellious? read on skippy :D Was the south attempting to destroy the entire government of the United States or merely separate from it? yes to both of course. How is the South's actions any more treasonous or illegal than our separation from Great Britain? Well, for one thing, the slaveocrats willfully and deliberately chose to become part of the US. Other than that, not much difference. However, the revolutionary patriots won their war, unlike the slavocrats who lost theirs. The lesson being, if you choose to lead a rebellion, you better damn well win. Because otherwise, you're a criminal. How is what the South did inconsistent with the view of the Founding Fathers that the citizens of these United States should be free to revolt and replace the government with one of their choosing? Oh, you can break the law. People do it all the time. I've seen 'em do it. Unfortunately, because its illegal to do so, if you get busted, you may have some problems with the government. Either you're a Tory or a hypocrite...I'm guessing you're latter.



Whoa whoa whoa whoa...so what you're saying is that unless the Constitution explicitly mentions a state power than the state's exercise of a power not listed is unconstitutional? Seriously? That's the claim you're making? How exactly does that jive with the 10th Amendment (or the 9th for that matter), the debates at the Constitutional convention in which the delegates themselves said the states reserved any and all rights not granted the Federal government, or with the clear spirit of the Constitution which was meant as governing document for the Federal government and was never designed to address specific state powers? Are you seriously making that claim? I don't know what they teach at TU law, but you need to get a refund. That's rich coming from a feller who doesn't even have a bachelors degree after spending over six years in a failed campaign to earn one. ;) You really are out of your depth discussing constitutional law here. The IXth and/or Xth have never been held by any court, let alone the Supreme Court, to include a states' right to secede from and tear asunder the Constitution and federal union. Trying to make such an argument is silly. The states retain the power to pass and enforce their own laws, particularly in the areas of domestic relations (a/k/a marriage, divorce, adoption), wills, estates and probate, corporate governance, state taxation, torts and criminal law. That's a great deal, but about it really.

Where on God's green Earth, aside from pulling out of your ***, did you get the concept that the Constitution was intended to be a "escape clauseless" document that bound all parties together forevermore. Do you honestly think that any of the colonies would have ratified the Constitution if they had known that they were bound to the agreement forevermore even when that agreement no longer served the interests of their state and the citizens no longer supported its government? The idea that they would is just laughably absurd. No, what's laughable is the fact you seem to sincerely beleive that once they ratified it, and accepted the blessings of the union, they could decide they wanted out later, and simply peacefully abandon it. Rather like an indignant business partner who one day decides to take his share of the partnership and head for the hills leaving his remaining partners holding the bag. You need to understand, the US Constitution is literally the world's first attempt at establishing a binding economic common market. More than anything else, it is a business contract. A bunch of Ivy League-educated law professors taught me that BTW.

The Constitution was the result of a convention called by the states themselves and the document was freely agreed and entered into by each sovereign state. The Constitution clearly enumerates the powers of the Federal government and explicitly states that any power not enumerated is reserved to the states themselves or (in the case of state inaction) to the people directly. No where in the Constitution do you find the right of Secession making it a right clearly reserved to the people of each state. The people of the southern states decided to freely leave the Union, just as they freely entered into it, and enter a new union that secured their interests. Now, slavery was wrong but the justification for leaving the Union isn't the determinate factor on whether or not a state can legally do so. As abhorrent as slavery was, the states were free to make the choice regardless of how bad or good their reasons were for doing so. Making that tired old and frankly intellectually crippled argument is akin to arguing states retain the right to officially discriminate and segregate because the Constitution doesn't expressly make them illegal and/or because those things were the norm under the Articles of Confederation. Confederate flag waving folks tried that in the 1950's and 60's and that didn't work out too well then either.

Lincoln destroyed the essence of the Constitution that was a Union of sovereign states that collectively created a national government to govern on those issues that no one state could reasonably govern on themselves leaving everything else in their charge. Lincoln first destroyed this foundational principle by making the absurd claim, at his inauguration, that the states were created by an already existing Federal Union which justified Federal rule over the states themselves which is clearly historically and legally wrong. He unilaterally suspended the writ of Habeus Corpus and threw thousands of citizens in jail who opposed his administration. He shut down and censored the free press, and most egregious of all is his invasion of what he maintained was his own country. He was a tyrant..nothing more and nothing less. Have you ever actually read the Constitution? I believe it clearly states habeas may be suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion. I could be wrong though, I'm just a rookie lawyer. Would you agree that armed attacks on federal property within the seceding states might be considered by some folks to be "rebellion" and also "invasion?" Do you think the federal government might take offense if the Oklahoma National Guard acting on order of Governor Henry attacked Ft. Sill or Tinker AFB? Might the president consider that rebellion? That is precisely what happened when SC rebs fired on Ft. Sumter in April of 1861. How about the rebels' movements into states that did not purport to "secede?" e.g. the ANV invasions of Maryland in 1862 and Pennsylvania in 1863 and the 1862 AoT invasion of Kentucky. Might those acts be considered rebellion and/or invasion? Assaults on D.C.? Heck, for most of the war, the ANV had capture of DC as its goal. Even as late as the summer of 1864. Hello. Is this thing on? Have you ever actually read the acts of secession put forth by the seceding states' secession conventions? They don't cite any legal basis for doing so, which is odd because for the most part, lawyers drafted them. They simply say "its time to go because we'll lose our slaves otherwise" couched in a lot of arcane and flowery slaveocrat dogma. Again, you try that in court, and you'll get your arse handed to you. Just like the seceding states did in 1865.

Look Sic, its fine to be proud of the courage and patriotism of Confederate soldiers. I am. But don't for one minute try to justify the actions of the fat cat slaveholders who sent those boys off to fight a war they couldn't win to defend an inherently evil way of life by citing some bizarre interpretation of the Constitution.

You are obviously a smart kid who is interested in politics. Don't poison your political viability by publicly articulating this doggeral and associating with neo-confederates, even if you actually beleive it and them.

[olevetonahill]

Dayum Yankees
I just like saying that:D

[JohnnyMack]

I love Homey/SicEm Civil War slap fights.

[texas bandman]

Me. I'm a musician...I don't even understand their slap fights and since it happened almost 150 years ago, I'm not sure of the relevance. (Of course. I'm a duma@@) :D

[SicEmBaylor]

Me. I'm a musician...I don't even understand their slap fights and since it happened almost 150 years ago, I'm not sure of the relevance. (Of course. I'm a duma@@) :D

It's very very relevant to today. The point is that if you're a conservative, as I am who gets upset with the ever increasing size of the Federal government, then you have to understand how and why that's allowed to happen. Prior to the Civil War, it would have been unheard of and impossible for the Federal government to act in the way that it does today.

It's my personal belief that the local and state governments should have virtually all control over the nation's domestic policy except in those limited and specific powers that are granted to the Federal government. If a more progressive state wants to allow late term abortions, for example, they should be totally free to do so without it affecting the policy of a more conservative state that limits abortion. The major hot-button issues of today could be easily remedied if liberals and conservatives could at least agree to a return of basic constitutional principles that were present at our Founding and destroyed by the Civil War. Even the governor of New York (if I remember correctly it was New York), tried to make the case after the war that the war's result shouldn't be seen as the permanent destruction of the rights of the states. The northern states have every bit as much claim to their rights as the southern states, and that governor recognized that fact.

Let me put it another way, I wouldn't sit around arguing over this all the time if the war hadn't destroyed states' rights and permanently destroyed the balance of state/Federal power. In facts, states rights' were kept largely intact after the war until FDR's New Deal but the New Deal wouldn't have been possible if the foundation for an increase in Federal power hadn't already been established by the war.

[SicEmBaylor]

I want to respond to all of Homey's points one-by-one, but he put his rebuttal inside of my own quote box which I can't quote again without copying-pasting each line individually and I'm way the hell too lazy to do that, so I'll just reiterate a few points.

First, the claim that the south was attempting to destroy the entire government of the United States is patently false and illogical. How on Earth was the Federal government going to suddenly collapse without the south? Did the United States government continue to exist between 1861-1865? Of course it did, and not only that but it was stronger than at any time since its creation. The idea that the South would have totally destroyed the entire nation by leaving is just absurd -- it would have reduced its size but certainly not destroyed it.

Second, the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus is NOT a constitutional power of the Presidency -- it is a Congressional right found in Article 1, Section 9. The Executive was usurping a right of Congress that they had not been delegated. You do understand that Article 1 deals with the powers of Congress, not the Executive, and that a power given to one branch doesn't automatically grant that power to any of the other branches, correct? Have you read the Constitution??

Next, I'd like you to show me when a single delegate to the Constitutional Convention ever said that the document was binding to all of the states until the end of time. You have absolutely NO basis whatsoever for making that claim. The Constitution is certainly a binding economic contract, but it's binding so long as the partners remain a party to the contract. If you leave the contract you're obviously no longer bound by its tenants. I'd really like to know if you can honestly tell me that the states and their state legislatures would honestly have ratified the Constitution if they knew they'd be held in the union at the point of the bayonet.

Finally, you put ALL the faith in your arguments solely on what the US Supreme Court has ruled as if they are the directed in their task by God almighty and are never wrong. You do realize that the Supreme Court is often wrong and that even the Constitutional Framers didn't imagine them to be the only authority on the US constitution? By your logic, Jim Crow would have been perfectly acceptable, legal, and Constitutional merely because at one time the Supreme Court upheld its use. Here's what you ought to try doing -- read a book giving an account of the blow by blow debates at the Constitutional Convention, read James Madison's personal daily records (his are the only ones that have survived), read the Federalist papers, and then read the Constitution as it existed. It is not a hard document to understand and the debates that took place are not that difficult to follow -- make up your own mind about what the Framers' intended and stop hiding behind judicial precedent that can and has changed.

The rest of your arguments are hardly worth rebutting, the Maryland example is laughable since Lincoln sent Federal troops to the capital and essentially arrested the state legislature before they could have the chance to secede. I wouldn't say they "chose" not to.

If Oklahoma were still a state within the Union when it attacked Tinker then of course the Federal government would have every right to crush insurgency. If any group rebels against the government when they are a part of that government then of course it's a rebellion and the government has the right to crush it, but these are arguments of apples v. oranges since the southern states were no longer part of the National government and had reverted back to their pre-constitutional status of a sovereign entity.

[OklahomaTuba]

Heh.