 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | Old Forge, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 71 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Indy wrote:
If anyone can show me that states could unilaterally secede from the union and also that a confederation of states in rebellion could seize gov't property and smuggle federal munitions into states in rebellion and fire shots in anger at federal installations, I might consider changing my view as well.
I guess you are about to change your view
. You have been shown that the States could secede, even if you will not admit it. Since the Confederate States were not in rebellion they were acting in self-defense.
Ok I have had my fun.What is your point on O'Connor? She gives an opinion on Lincoln after he had the power to suspend but, on the MUDDY WATERS OF THAT DEBATE she remains silent. I think Taney had more impact on American history then O'Connor ever remotely had. He also was Chief Justice of the court, she was not, so I think he would have a little more standing then she does.
A RECENT HISTORICAL STUDY, ENTITLED THE FATE OF LIBERTY, SAYS "NO." THE AUTHOR, MARK NEELY, COMBED THROUGH THE 15 NEELY CONCLUDES THAT, THROUGHOUT THE WAR, LINCOLN WAS GUIDED BY A "STEADY DESIRE TO AVOID POLITICAL ABUSE UNDER THE HABEAS-CORPUS POLICY.
Who is Mark Neely? What was his purpose for doing the study? What side does he think is right as to the war? A book of interest is Lincoln's Wrath by Jeffery Manber and Neil Dahlstrom.
Respectfully,
Shadowrebel