View single post by ThomasWashington
 Posted: Sat Nov 21st, 2009 02:54 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark wrote: TW, may I suggest that perhaps President Lincoln actually took his oath of office seriously--"to preserve and protect the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC."


And sovereign states are not enemies while neutral. International Law 101.

Accordingly, the Constitution provided NO federal authority to coerce a state militarily; and in fact expressly precluded this in Convention-- by none other than James Madison himself in fact.

As someone mentioned here earlier, the constitution is NOT a suicide pact.

He (meaning me) also said it's not a "For Dummies" book-- i.e. a layman's document.
He meant that the states did not give up their sovereignty by ratifying it, but that they didn't take pains to put that fact in layman's terms in the actual four corners of the Constitution itself;  it was perfectly-well sufficient that they didn't expressly relinquish their sovereignty-- in addition to ratifying only in response to express assurances of such retention in the Federalist papers. 
 

A lesser president (like J. Buchanan) would have allowed the nation to fall apart.

The Union was never a nation, and a greater man like Buchanan simply recognized this.
Lincoln, meanwhile, was perhaps the most deranged lunatic in world history, and mounted a federal coup d'etat with his party-- taking the power of God and country into his own hands, in order to usurp national authority where none existed-- at a human cost beyond the known measure of the era... not only in actual blood and treasure, but in raw unprecedented atrocity, which is only now beginning to emerge from the bonds of historical censorship.


May I suggest you carefully read "Tried by Fire" by James McPherson. Cheers!



You may not; citation is not argument, and I know McPherson too well to respect his  objectivity.

If you have a claim that the states were not individually sovereign, you must present your actual evidence to back up that claim. I wish you better luck than I've had in trying to find such, but at this point I'm quite certain that it simply doesn't exist.

Last edited on Sat Nov 21st, 2009 04:21 pm by ThomasWashington

 Close Window