Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles
Title: Does justice just stop dead with a corrupt FBI and JustUs Dept?
Source:
Me
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 26, 2016
Author: Hank Rearden
Post Date: 2016-10-26 13:04:37 by Hank Rearden
Keywords: None
Views: 4984
Comments: 33
For discussion, I'm hoping people with Federal legal knowledge or experience can chime in...... Since it's obvious the FBI and JustUs departments have been fully corrupted in service to the Odumbass regime, is there another way to bring the Clinton Crime Family and others to justice? Isn't it possible for a United States Attorney in one of Odumbass's 57 states to convene a grand jury and independently begin an investigation and possible indictments without permission from the very top in D.C.? I'm assuming that somewhere there still remains an officer of the court who retains a sense of justice and duty to the oath they've sworn who might consider such a prosecution no matter the harm to his/her career prospects, of course. They'd need some support from GOPussies suddenly growing balls, but I just want to know if there's a mechanism. Is it really possible that just two, or a handful of, corrupt individuals in Washington D.C. can thwart efforts to bring obvious criminals to justice, forever, and maybe even get elected to the presidency - with no recourse?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Hank Rearden (#0)
Yes. When worse comes to really worst, there is always the pardon power. President Nixon was pardoned for any crimes he may have committed, without specification. Whatever there may have been, he was pardoned.
Not the central question I posed, but thanks for playing our game.
Such a saint can file something and be replaced before he can pursue it. And it's dead. Even with Attorneys General, the lieutenants do not get to overrule the general. Congress might remove an AG, but there isn't much probability of this.
Note that I'm asking about US Attorneys, not state or even federal Attorneys General. My understanding is that USAs have a lot of independence and latitude to pursue criminal cases, but I'm hoping to hear from those who know for sure. Ultimately, the decision to indict and try is the grand jury's to make, so I'm hoping it's possible for a USA to bring a case to one without interference. Not whether it's politically feasible, but legally possible for a USA who's brave enough to pursue a criminal prosecution. And yes, presidential pardons can squish anything, but they leave their own sort of legacy stains in their wake, as we saw with Gerald Ford. Odumbass is a pretty gigantic narcissist who might not want to risk that unless he's personally in the crosshairs of a prosecutor. My point is if the US Attorney General, like Toady Lynch, can legally kill any action by a USA seeking to bring a case and evidence to a federal grand jury, our country may very well be fvcked in the long run. We've seen the damage done on the first try the last few years - imagine what our nation will become once they get good at it, if there's nothing to stop them?
No, it is not possible. The government runs on a system of chains of command. The person at the top of the chain of command has ultimate accountability for everything that happens under his/her command, and therefore ultimate authority over it all. A superior can delegate authority, but not responsibility. What this means is that no, a US Attorney cannot "go rogue" and bring charges against a mandate from his/her superiors. He will be immediately stripped of his authority if he tries to do so and, no longer having that authority, will not be able to pursue the case. The Grand Jury, if convened, does not belong to him. And his replacement will simply move for dismissal. Now, I suppose it is possible that a federal judge might insist that proceedings continue, but that would be unprecedented, immediately appealed, and struck down. The checks and balances are political. If a President's administration is corrupt enough, the Congress can remove him through the impeachment process. But if 1/3 +1 Senators - 34 Senators - refuse to vote for removal from office, then there is no further recourse: the President sits and rules, in spite of being corrupt. That is, unless unconstitutional means are used. Yes, the US Attorney General can legally kill any action. Congress can bring a special prosecutor, but the power of that special prosecutor would be limited to what the courts were willing to enforce. Congress can impeach, but a rump of 34 in the Senate can stop it. The check after that is the ballot box, but if that too is corrupted, the final resort is the Second Amendment. But note well: resort was ALREADY MADE to the Second Amendment by half the country in the 1860s, and they got slaughtered. So, in the final analysis, if the government becomes completely corrupt, we are in essentially the same position as the black slaves were in 1790: outnumbered, outgunned, hopelessly outpowered. We will obey and be used for our entire lives, and have no hope whatever of ever gaining our freedom either through political persuasion or through force. Because of Supreme Court control, THIS election will be the last one that matters. If Hillary wins, it is over for good.
Resort was made to warfare by the North, not the South, and they prevailed. As for slaughter, the Union combat deaths exceeded the Confederate combat deaths by about 50%. The total Union casualties also exceeded the total Confederate casualties. For the first 2+ years, the Union army suffered repeated bloodbaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war
Well, that's depressing, but thanks very much for the detailed info. So we have to depend on GOPussies like Ryan-O and McTurtle in the last resort? Nah, that's not going to happen either, or it would have by now.
As for slaughter, the Union combat deaths exceeded the Confederate combat deaths by about 50%. The total Union casualties also exceeded the total Confederate casualties. For the first 2+ years, the Union army suffered repeated bloodbaths. The North resorted to force - the force of governmental authority, like the police kicking down the door. The South decided that they, civilians, had the right to RESIST the government's resort to force, so they resorted to their 2nd Amendment defensive arms, against the armed assertion of authority by the government. The South fired the first shot at the "police", at Fort Sumter. This, then, caused the police to open fire and continuing firing until the South surrendered. There is no doubt that the Northern military casualties were much higher than the South's. In that era of warfare, with those weapons, as in World War I, the defender had the advantage. The South was defending, in its own territory, and the Union was commanded by boobs until 1863. After that, the death toll in the South rose and rose. Of course non-combattants in the South suffered greatly - from disease and starvation resulting from homelessness and the destruction of civil order. The Northern civilian population did not suffer this. And the bottom line is that the police won. There were heavy casualties, but after some initial scares, the outcome was decisive and final. Could the people today, picking up arms, overthrow the government? Almost certainly not. They could do a lot of damage, inflict a lot of casualties, and die in droves as the war machine turned on its power. The resort to the Second Amendment is a desperate measure. More importantly, the government is not intimidated by the thought. Public officials don't think it would really happen, but if it did, they're sure they would win. So am I. So, what we're left with is the need to win elections and keep control of the government. And to keep doing that with the Republican opposition to social welfare is not possible.
Interesting statistics.
Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Teddy Roosevelt, you are an ass. Oh, wait, no - you're just a dead guy who had stupid and unworkable ideas. I am an American and several other things also. You say I am not an American at all. You're a dead ass, and your cause failed. So I get to say what an American is - and I am one. You, Dead Teddy, are OVERRULED. Schmuck. Room for one flag? Well, I count a state flag there too. Also the UN flag we put on various things. And, come to think of it, the leader of my church has a flag, and that's displayed also. I've got my own family coat of arms, and it's centuries older than the USA. So once again Teddy, you've got a nice little strongly stated stupid thought there. Room for one language here? Well, I speak two, and both of them are part of my culture. And lots of people speak others too. Having a common language is nice, it's helpful. English is the majority language now, so that's the rational choice, for now. Given birth rates, in a century Spanish will be the dominant language, so then we should convert over to Spanish and use that. There is nothing inherent in the English language that makes it better than Spanish, or French, or any other language. It's the most spoken, so it's what we use. "American" is not the same thing as "English", and if Americans speak Spanish as the dominant language one day, then we should have no sentimentality about dropping English and taking up Spanish. Or better, just operating with both. After all, some of my people, the Basque, have done a very good job operating in Basque and some other language (Latin, French, Spanish, etc.) over the course of 2200 years. Basque-Americans must be smarter than you Bully-bully- Teddy-Americans, because we have always been capable of functioning happily in two languages. What is it, Teddy, are you suggesting that Americans are retards, and not CAPABLE of using more than English? That's not true. One sole loyalty, Teddy? To the American PEOPLE? No, Teddy. that's just stupid. People also owe loyalty to their God, their families, their parents and wives and children, their close friends. In fact, all of those loyalties are more intense and more important than abstract notions of loyalty to some sort of nationalist ideal. If we all keep our rightful loyalties, we will understand that cooperating with each other as a national ideal, as a people, is in all of our BEST INTERESTS, but that's the thing, Teddy, that you didn't get. YOU think that our loyalty should be to some idol, a country, a Constitution, an imaginary thing. But really people's loyalty should properly be to other people - to God, to family, to friends - and people should be convinced by what the country they live in does that said country is protective of those primary loyalties of the people. It is the COUNTRY which has to EARN the loyalty of its people, whose FIRST loyalties should be - and in any case will be - to other people close to them and to God. Loyalty to the country comes only because the country DESERVES it. If the country turns evil, there is no debt of loyalty at all - other than the loyalty to what counts - family, friends and God - to CHANGE the political structure of the country to make it more amenable to loyalty. Teddy, you thought different. You thought "Country alone and above all". You were an idolator, Teddy, placing your imaginary little nation ahead of God in your hierarchy. In short, Teddy, you were a stupid man with stupid ideas, wrong on everything, and no intelligent person believes any of that. Idolators followed your obsession with nation and created aggressive empires...that are all dead and gone now. Your belief system created a flash-in-the-pan, but it was always a stupid fantasy. Go back to your grave, Teddy, and shut up. You were a fool, and the people knew it too: that is why they didn't elect you and your Progressives. You died a loser, and your ideas have died since then too, because they were bad.
So we have to depend on GOPussies like Ryan-O and McTurtle in the last resort? Nah, that's not going to happen either, or it would have by now. No, you have to rely on silverback gorillas like Trump, who will rip the system to shreds and effect changes in it. They only come along once in a generation. If the Republican Party changes its stance on social welfare and supports it, proposing comprehensive reform that will make it BETTER, and more reliable, and more systematic, less of a rigamarole - and makes a point of thinks like linking tax breaks to hiring the unemployed - really used their business skills to make things BETTER - they would suddenly find themselves with an influx of voters. But truth is that many Republicans essentially exist to RESIST the social safety net, which means that the Republicans can't win over time - so the fraud is rendered moot. All that fraud does is speed up the date of the GOP demise. GOP POLICIES are what render them the minority party.
The South decided that they, civilians, had the right to RESIST the government's resort to force, so they resorted to their 2nd Amendment defensive arms, against the armed assertion of authority by the government. The South fired the first shot at the "police", at Fort Sumter. This, then, caused the police to open fire and continuing firing until the South surrendered. The first act of war, commencing the war, is firmly legally established as having been taken by the Union. It was Lincoln's declaration of a blockade which marks the start of the war. The precise dates, and the precise events, of the start and end of the civil war was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870). A blockade is an international act of war. A domestic action would be a closing of the ports. A party cannot declare a blockade of itself. The Confederacy was thus lawfully recognized as a belligerent power, with all the rights that came with said status. Once the international act was taken, Britain, followed by most of Europe, declared neutrality. It is debatable that the first shot was at Fort Sumter as you allege. You do not consider the USS Supply official ship's log of 11 April 1861 which documented that at 9 p.m. the USS Brooklyn landed troops and marines to reinforce Fort Pickens. Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, Series I - Volume 4: Operations in the Gulf of Mexico, page 210. Abstract log of the U. S. ship Supply, January 9 to June 14, 1861, Commander Henry Walke, commanding. April 11. -- At 9 p. m. the Brooklyn got Underway and stood in toward the harbor, and during the night landed the troops and marines on board, to reenforce Fort Pickens. Shots are claimed to have taken place in Florida at Fort Barrancas in January 1861. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/civilwar/misc/barrancas.aspx by Walter Giersbach The firing on Fort Sumter in Charleston's harbor traditionally marks the opening salvos of the Rebellion. But before this assault on April 14, 1861, there was another battle—the first shots of the Civil War—hundreds of miles to the south in Florida. On Jan. 8, 1861, United States Army guards repelled a group of men intending to take Fort Barrancas in Pensacola Harbor. Historians say that this event could be considered the first shots fired on Union forces in the Civil War. [...] The Union army was the police? Federal marshals? The invasion was started under the authority to put down interference with tax collection by a civil disturbance. Under that authority, they officially went to assist the non-existent marshals of the non-existent Federal courts in the Confederate states. The judges had all resigned. The great problem was that there was no invasion under U.S. Const., Article 4, Section 4, and regarding domestic violence, the Federal government required application of the legislature, or the executive, of the State government. Recall W not sending troops into Louisiana until the State gave an invite. These were not like police executing a search or arrrest warrant. And so Lincoln's proclamation did not go out to States, it went out to combinations of individuals, ordering them to disperse from their civil disturbance. And then we had a war to collect the taxes. And, a peaceful secession does not really describe domestic violence. The law had to be tortured for this one. But Lincoln found a way. The Supreme Court was expanded to 10 justices, and Lincoln appointed half of them (Confederates had resigned from the Court). Owning half the Court outright, he was good to go. And then there was this, also on April 11, 1861: http://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/Civil_War_Strobridge.asp The U.S. Revenue Marine, Its Cutters, and Semper Paratus By Truman Strobridge "You must give us bigger guns than that, boys," shouted John McGowan of the U.S. Revenue Marine, as the U.S. Coast Guard was known, at the Confederate gunners, when their cannon ball fell short, ricocheted off the water, and bounded completely over his vessel, "or you'll never hurt us." As if in reply, a Secessionist battery on Morris Island fired a heavier gun. The seaman taking soundings felt the ball slam into the hull below him and frantically scurried for safety. McGowan called after him: "You're much safer where you were! Lightning never strikes twice in the same place!" McGowan was commanding a lumbering, unarmed side-wheel freighter manned by merchant seamen but carrying Federal soldiers and military supplies. This ship was far different from the swift, armed revenue cutters in which he had pursued slavers, smugglers, and pirates. Now, on January 9, 1861, as skipper of the Federal-chartered merchantman Star of the West, he was attempting to bring supplies and reinforcements to the besieged Union garrison at Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. He expected to use the same sort of trickery as those smugglers whose voyages he had sought to disrupt. Success depended upon secrecy, but this operation was one of the worst-kept secrets of the deepening national crisis. Ample warning and enthusiastic gun crews doomed the venture to failure. Star of the West approached Charleston Harbor at first light. McGowan hoped his vessel would pass for a coastal trader. As soon as the batteries opened fire, he hoisted a second large American flag but, as the ranking Army officer on board observed, "the one was no more respected than the other." The closer McGowan drew to Fort Sumter, the more rapid became the Confederate fire. Realizing the futility of continuing against the well-served shore batteries, McGowan reluctantly ordered his ship out of the harbor. McGowan's rebuff by rebel artillery was the first skirmish of the American Civil War. Just three months later, Abraham Lincoln, new to the presidency but determined to "hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the Government," dispatched warships to relieve Fort Sumter. The angry South Carolinians reacted on April 12, 1861 with a cannon bombardment that forced the fort's surrender two days later and touched off the four-year long, fratricidal struggle. During this action, the U.S. Revenue Marine (USRM) steam cutter Harriet Lane, commanded by Captain John Faunce, USRM, along with the rest of the naval relief squadron, helplessly lay off the bar at the entrance to Charleston Harbor. Not long after her arrival there on April 11th, recalled the famous Civil War correspondent, G. S. Osbon, who had been aboard the cutter at the time: [...] It should be further noted that the Powhatan, the flagship of the mission to Fort Sumter, sailed under British colors and burned British coal. One might say that not only were they not police, they were unlawful combatants, engaged in acts of war, in violation of the law of war. There was no resort whatever to the Second Amendment of the United States by the people in the Confederacy.
In spite of your lengthy diatribe, and I will admit TR had his faults ( who does not, besides Jesus Christ ) I think he was correct on: " There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. " to go in the opposite direction is to embrace multiculturalism. One does not need to be a lawyer, or an intellectual, to look around and come to the rightful conclusion that in that he was correct. Embracing multiculturalism is a large part of why our nation has gone into decline. I am sure socialists will disagree with TR on this point. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Thanks for posting this, and the posting in # 9 !
Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Chan, you seem to be pretty well versed in Civil War history. Have you ever heard of Jack Hinson ? Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Multiculturalism is a wonderful thing, when you bring in the best features of the different cultures. It has always been America's strength. The multicultures of the 19th Century were all white and European, but the country was certainly multicultural. America's first culture was English, and Colonial America was quite English in culture. By the late 1800s, as America boomed, we were most certainly not an English culture. We spoke English, but our culture was not at all English. It was a blend of things, and above all a political culture - very, very different from England, more like France, truth be told, because it was a republic not a monarchy. Monocultures are inbred and weak, as are purebred dogs. Mongrels are stronger and healthier and smarter. America is, as Hitler rightly said, a mongrel nation. That's why we are so strong, so adaptable and so innovative. Multiculturalism is a good thing. Healthy. It means more kinds of food - always a good thing - and different perspectives in art, literature and teaching. These things establish new social norms, all of which skew towards the practical. Americans are a practical people. Expending energy trying to impart fundamental "Englishness" to a fundamentally non-English people would have been an UTTER waste of energy. Keeping the non-English out would have mean that America was weak, limited, and ultimately devoured by other empires. In short, the problem with the illegal alien invasion from Mexico is not that they are Mexican, or that they speak Spanish, or that they are Catholic - the cultural aspect is pretty irrelevant. It's the ECONOMIC impact of all of those people illegally entering and putting low-skilled Americans out of work that is the problem. America is a better place now that we can get tacos and tequila from San Diego to Maine. Tacos and tequila are good. Multiculturalism is good. Immigration from most of the world needs to be controlled for economic reasons having to do with our own labor force, not because we need to fear other people's cultures. There is an asterisk on this: Islam is like Naziism or Communism - a vicious, aggressive ideological system. We don't let Nazis immigrate, and we didn't let Communists immigrate during the Cold War. As long as Islam is shooting at us, we should not permitting that rabid belief system to immigrate here. That is tough for us, though, because our political culture does not let us discriminate against religion.
Ok, so, we're going to resort to legalism. The North did not follow the then-existing law of war. The South may well have had a "right" of secession. But might makes right, and the North won. This same grand principle: might makes right - that God is on the side of the larger battalions - is also why the Democrats have the advantage in American politics, and will eventually run the table unless the Republicans change their views on the social safety net. The claims of the British government in the American Revolution were also legitimate. So what? They lost. And so their writ no longer runs anywhere in the land they once owned.
Our nation became strong because we were united. That is what I was talking about, and that is what I take from TR. Not talking about getting tacos, or Chinese food. Ever hear of the saying " United We stand, Divided We Fall ". It is more than just a saying. It has a lot of important meaning. We would not have won WWII if we had not been united. Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
As far as the Second Amendment and the Confederacy goes, look again. To what unit does the 2nd Am. refer? The militia, well-regulated. What fought the war? Not the "regular Confederate Army". There was none. Rather, the Confederate Army was formed of units by state. These were the state militias, marching with their arms, under military discipline, to war. Likewise, the regular US Army was quite small, mostly cavalry, mostly stationed out in forts looking at the Indians. Most of the fighting was done by the state militias of the Northern States, the First New York, etc. Cavalry was generally regular army, but infantry was not. These units were called forth by the states, well-regulated through state-appointed commanders. They were the well-regulated militia. This was the Army of the Second Amendment, on both sides. The Southern states called forth their militias, as envisioned by the Framers in the 2nd Am. It was a cheap way to keep a large army without making it a standing one. The South relied on its state militias to keep the invading Union out. It was the 2nd Am in action, on both sides. The Union was much stronger, so they won. The 2nd Amendment was front and center in that war.
Are you saying that God favors the demoncrats ? Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907. I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Ever hear of the saying " United We stand, Divided We Fall ". It is more than just a saying. It has a lot of important meaning. We would not have won WWII if we had not been united. That sort of unity has only ever existed in war. From the time of John Adams through the Civil War we were not united. The Alien & Sedition Act was passed to impose a false appearance of unity by silencing the opposition. We were not united in the War of 1812: New England considered secession. We were not united in the long run up to the Civil War. We were not united when Jackson destroyed the first Bank of the US. The Civil War as the final act of our early disunity, At the end of it there was the unity of the prison camp, with half of the nation standing armed guard over the other half, and depriving them of the vote. A unity of sorts appears then on the voting records....but only during the period that Southern rebels were not permitted to vote. There was no unity in the desire to enter World War I - the US had to be dragged in it. During the Depression there was a sort of unity behind FDR, by numbers, but the opposition hated him and spoke of him as if he were a dictator. There was no unity about entering World War II: America was paralyzed by its division. It was only the Zimmerman Telegram and the U-Boat predations that finally convinced a majority of Americans to support war. In World War II, America was disunited. That's why we were outside of it, neutral for the first 2 1/4 years of the war. We only entered it when we did because the enemy powers declared war on us and attacked us. It was the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor that caused us to wake up. And we had a President who took that moment, and walked into Congress and asked for a Declaration of War the very next day. Pearl Harbor united us, and the war effort - it's all consuming nature - kept us united for the duration. That was certainly America's finest hour of unity. But that was not the norm either before the war, or since. We were disunited over Korea. That's why Ike won. We were disunited over Vietnam, which is why Nixon won. We were also disunited over race. None of this was the loss of some traditional American unity. America was always divided and fractious. World War II was the exception. We have only been united once like that in our lifetimes: on September 11, 2001, and for a few weeks afterwards, we were united. But unlike FDR, who seized the moment to ask for a full declaration of war, placing the country under military orders, censoring the papers, effectively outlawing dissent "for the duration", W Bush did not preserve the unity by asking for a Declaration of War. Instead, soon, he was telling the people that the professional military would handle it, and asked them to "go shopping". Without the unity of formal war, opposition to the war became the method of political opposition. This was not opposition to the war from black and Hispanic minorities. The Democrat/Republican divide over the war was among white people of both parties, all of them of the American culture. American unity is very rare. It has only ever been seen after some devastating attack, such as the Maine, or Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. And it only remains viable if the President crystallizes the unity with a declaration of war. President McKinley and President Roosevelt seized the moment. W Bush let it pass. And in none of those cases - Spanish-American, World War II or 9/11 was there any substantial ethnic opposition to the war. The Japanese-Americans fought Germany, in spite of heavy discrimination. The German- Americans fought Japan. After 9/11, there was no ethnic resistance to the war. The resistance to it, as it rose, came from white liberals of English ethnic descent, mostly. The sort of unity needed to win World War II did not come from ethnic unity, it came from unity of purpose in a war, which is to say: the unity of the mob, behind a strong leader. It was effective, but that sort of unity does not exist in peacetime. Other than a few short periods of war, Americans have never been very united. And while the country has been ethnically diverse since the mid-1800s, the divisions have not mostly been along ethnic lines, other than the black-white division, which was imposed and created by the oppression of the blacks by the whites. A mythical idea of a unity that never was other than during declared wars after we were attacked is not a reason to practice discriminatory immigration. But the need to economically protect our own people from being undercut in their wages by illegal labor is.
All victory is granted by God, for his purposes. I would not say, in general, that God favors the Democrats. I would say that the American electorate has generally done so since the Great Depression, and the cardinal reason FOR that ongoing favoritism of one party over the other is that the Democrats support the social welfare safety net, while Republicans hate it and persistently talk about tearing it down. In a country half in poverty, one cannot win over time with a belief like that. If Republicans want to win, they have to change their minds on that.
No, you look again at how ridiculous that claim is, The Confederates did not invoke any part of the U.S. Constitution for anything. That was considered the constitution of a different nation. Not in the Confederate Constitution. There was no Second Amendment. The Confederates sure did not invoke any rights on the basis of the U.S. Constitution. Wrong. They actually had armies. Yes, they were organized by states. Each Confederate State was a sovereign state, stated explicitly so in their constitution as it had been in the Articles of Confederation. The Union armies were organized by state. Nope, in the Civil War, they were the armed forces, not the militia. When it started, Lincoln had about a 15,000 man standing army. Before it was over, about a million had been put into the army. They were recruiting people straight off the boat into the army, not some militia. They were drafted. The draft was ordered by the Federal government. It called out the national Forces. 12 Stat. 731. Whereas there now exist in the United States an insurrection and rebellion against the authority thereof, and it is, under the Constitution of the United States, the duty of the government to suppress insurrection and rebellion, to guarantee to each State a republican form of government, and to preserve the public tranquillity; and whereas, for these high purposes, a military force is indispensable, to raise and support which all persons ought willingly to contribute; and whereas no service can be more praiseworthy and honorable than that which is rendered for the maintenance of the Constitution and Union, and the consequent preservation of free government: Therefore— Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Sates of America in Congress assembled, That all able-bodied male citizens of the United States, and persons of foreign birth who shall have declared on oath their intention to become citizens under and in pursuance of the laws thereof, betwen the ages of twenty and forty-five years, except as hereinafter excepted, are hereby declared to constitute the national forces, and shall be liable to perform military duty in the service of the United States when called out by the President for that purpose. [...] Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That in each of said districts there shall be a board of enrolment, to be composed of the provost marshal, as president, and two other persons, to be appointed by the President of the United States, one of whom shall be a licensed and practising physician and surgeon. [...] SEC. 17. And be it further enacted, That any person enrolled and drafted according to the provisions of this act who shall furnish an acceptable substitute, shall there upon receive from the board of enrolment a certificate of discharge from such draft, which shall exempt him from military duty during the time for which be was drafted; and such substitute shall be entitled to the same pay and allowances provided by law as if he bad been originally drafted into the service of the United States. The militia was every able-bodied white male between 18 and 45. Current law is more inclusive. http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2014/title-10/subtitle-a/part-i/chapter-13/sec.-311/ §311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.) The Militia Act of 1795 provided, The enrollment boards were appointed by the President of the United States, not by the Governors of each state. The was a reason Lincoln converted the militia members to the national armed forces. He could not hold them for more than three months as member of a militia. He had to get an all out war started when he did or he would have lost his militia. Section 17 of the original conscription law was how Lincoln's son avoided the draft. Lincoln obtained a substitute. (He went to a safe staff position at the end and had his ticket punched.) No, the draft came from the Federal government and the selectees were put into national forces, as explicited stated in the law. The 2nd Amendment contains no provision to call out anybody for anything. It was a restraint placed upon the Federal government, explicitly declaring that the people did not delegate any power to the Federal government over the right to keep and bear arms. The conscription act made a massive standing army. We still have one today. The 2nd Amendment did nothing in the Confederate states. It contained no provision for calling anyone to service in the Union States. The Militia Act of 1792, as amended or replaced, provided the authority to call out the militia. The 2nd Amendment gives no authority to do anything. It prohibits the Federal government from infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Mainly, the Union won because the Confederacy eventually ran out of everything.
Well, that was certainly a tour-de-force. So, the 2nd Amendment was irrelevant? The South armed its soldiers with firearms, did they? Only partially. For the most part, particularly early in the war, the Confederates were marching with their own weapons. The South never had a home-grown firearms manufacturing ability able to keep up with the need, and the weapons shipped from Europe only were widely distributed as the war wore on. The Confederate Armies marched into the field in 1861 armed with huge numbers of personal weapons. That's the 2nd Amendment in action. Take away those personal guns, and the South would have been overrun in 6 months. The more general legalistiic arguments are built on sand. Was there a "right" to secede or suppress the secession? It's a trivial concern. There was no right for slavery to exist in the first place, other than as a bald assertion of armed power. Once people have done that, they don't themselves have any more "rights" than those they can keep by force. History records that the Confederates fired first, at Fort Sumter, but even if they didn't, it's an irrelevancy. The Southern States tried to secede. The Northern states dragged them back. Might made right. Nothing more. Some people then, and apparently now, seemed to have a desperate desire to make things "legal", or otherwise. This is piffle. Justice went out the window with slavery, so the notions of some people being "in the right" because of some arbitrary law is silly. With 20/20 hindsight, it is clear that the Southern slave power was not completely broken in the war, for the grandees were still able to assert leadership over the South even after having been broken. The great plantations were not broken up and the wealth of the slave masters confiscated and redistributed. There was, rather, a desire to try to "heal the wounds". This ultimately resulted in the unwillingness to use sufficient force to crush the Klan, and the unwillingness to use force to prevent the imposition of Jim Crow. So, essentially we had to go through another century of segregation and oppression before, in our days, breaking segregation by the threats of federal force. It's a pity that was not broken back in the 1860s. But it wasn't.
And that happened, mainly, because of the Union blockade, and the fact that the Southerners did not have an adequate industrial base to fight a war in the first place. To quote the fictional Rhett Butler, all they had was cotton, and slaves, and arrogance, and it cost hundreds of thousands of them their lives. Hotheaded, certain, violent, and wrong. They lost. And in losing, they set a precedent: you can emigrate individually, but the only way out of the union with LAND is to fight your way out, and that's pretty damned hard because the United States is a very powerful country. Immigrants played a key role in bringind down the South as well. Thanks to slavery, the bulk of immigration went to Northern cities. Many immigrants were Irish, and they did not have a great deal to do. But joining the Union Army gave them a position, a status and a salary. The South, by contrast, was and is the most English part of America, descended from old-line English immigration of the past. English and Scotch-Irish, in the backcountry. The immigrant flocked to the federal government and fought for their new country. The old native English and Scotch-Irish fought for their country also. But the former were better armed by the Union, and joined by swollen ranks of Germans and settled Irish, and French-Canadians, and Dutch, along with the old line English and Scotch-Irish of the North. Oh, and blacks. Substantial numbers of blacks marched in Union ranks. The Union had the advantage in everything, including the moral high ground. And, unsurprisingly, they won. You've made an interesting and entertaining set of legal arguments regarding the Southern position. But war is decided by guns, not law, and God is on the side of the bigger battalions.
Nah, just plowing over old ground. Almost all 10-15 year old stuff on my hard drive. BTDT. So does Russia and ISIS today. Are they exercising their 2nd Amendment rights? The U.S. Constitution, as amended, does not apply to other nations. Nobody was exercising any U.S. 2nd amendment rights in Russia, ISIS, or the CSA. Many people have marched with personal weapons. If they were not marching for the U.S.A., they were not exercising the 2nd Amendment rights of the USA. It was enshrined in the Constitution and ALL parties to the Constitution agreed to it. The Constitution had a means for amendment. It did not come out the end of a gun. Evidently, slavery was not so horrible that the North up and freed their slaves and said welcome to the neighborhood. There were more free blacks in the slave states than in the free states, and their longevity was greater in the slaves states than in the free states. As Lincoln said, couldn't the states choose not to accept them? His goal was an all-white nation, and if he said it once, he said it a thousand times. History is the fable agreed upon. If you mean what actually happened, then it is at issue. If some didn't happen, it's not really history. Yes, but it was not so silly that it moved them to leave the Union and its unbearable laws. After the Whigs declined into extinction, the former Whigs rebranded into the Republicans and used slavery as a wedge issue to regain power. No, they still did not believe in socialism, with the confiscation and redistribution of wealth. You mean they didn't stop the South from adopting the Black laws originated in the trailblazing North. As they had power, blacks were no longer necessary to their ambitions. Getting elected was. And that explains the scandal of the Rutherford B. Hayes election giving four more years to the GOP in exchange for removing the troops from the South. It was a gross power deal, selling out the Blacks for four more years. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/oration-in-memory-of-abraham-lincoln/ Frederick Douglass [excerpt] Fellow-citizens, in what we have said and done today, and in what we may say and do hereafter, we disclaim everything like arrogance and assumption. We claim for ourselves no superior devotion to the character, history, and memory of the illustrious name whose monument we have here dedicated today. We fully comprehend the relation of Abraham Lincoln both to ourselves and to the white people of the United States. Truth is proper and beautiful at all times and in all places, and it is never more proper and beautiful in any case than when speaking of a great public man whose example is likely to be commended for honor and imitation long after his departure to the solemn shades, the silent continents of eternity. It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. The Civil War, as with other wars, was about power and money. Frederick Douglass knew Lincoln well.
Actually, it would be more feasible now if a section of the armed forces with nukes goes with a seceding group. And they got drafted and couldn't afford a substitute. Immigrants contributed to the start of the war itself. Enough were taken in by the north to change the balalce of power in the congress. Just as hordes of immigrants entering California have turned it bright blue and are changing the political landscape in Texas. When they turn Texas into a liberal paradise, that will be a sight to behold. Whether aliens are citizens or not, they count in the census, so they can increase the representation of the state, county or district where they reside. If my time in Scotland taught me anything, it is that the people are Scots, and Scotch is a golden nectar of the gods given to the people. The Confederates had black soldiers as well. They are on the pension rolls of Confederate servicemen. And the last general fighting was Brig. Gen. Stand Watie. History would suggest he was the last to surrender. A look and the documented history demonstrates proof that he never surrendered. He was the only Indian on either side to achieve the rank of Brig. Gen. Yeah, my southron friends proved their legal point long ago. War is decided by power. God does not waste His time picking sides in wars and ball games. I am sure that when He looks down and see His children killing each other, He does not favor anyone He sees. Law can determine who started the mess in violation of law.
You Replied: It was enshrined in the Constitution and ALL parties to the Constitution agreed to it. The Constitution had a means for amendment. It did not come out the end of a gun. Evidently, slavery was not so horrible that the North up and freed their slaves and said welcome to the neighborhood. There were more free blacks in the slave states than in the free states, and their longevity was greater in the slaves states than in the free states. As Lincoln said, couldn't the states choose not to accept them? His goal was an all-white nation, and if he said it once, he said it a thousand times. Yes, the whites wrote it into their Constitution. Which rendered the Constitution immoral. It is well that the Constitution and the political processes failed, and that the issue was not settled through the process of law, but at the point of a gun. It is well that the country suffered nearly a million dead ending slavery. The hand of God can be seen in it, dispensing the divine wrath upon an evil and insolent nation. Abraham Lincoln was a racist, as were most people then. Almost a million of them died for that pretension, Lincoln himself included. Good. Both sides were bad guys going into the war. Both sides had to die and die and die while the sin of slavery was cleansed from the nation through the shedding of blood. Is this not how God has always required sins to be cleansed, through blood? The American Constitution failed in 1860. The country was changed through the sword and the rifle. Then a political order was reinstituted. It is good that it happened this way, lest Americans be overly proud of their system. The first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, failed due to disunity. It was replaced by the second Constitution, of 1787, which failed over the issue of slavery and died on the battlefields of the Civil War. The third Constitution, of the late 1860s, was patched together from the old one. Americans didn't admit to the discontinuity, but the principle was established in the Civil War that on matters of supreme morality - the suppression of slavery and secession - the states are subordinate to the federal government, and the states cannot leave the union. Some people refuse to acknowledge that last piece, thinking that it was not settled. But few people are stupid enough to really want to test the theory. If any state ever DOES test the theory, the Federal government will destroy that rebellion, and the state will not leave the Union. There is no right of secession. Secession must be effected by power. No state is powerful enough to do it, and no state ever will be.
The Scotch-Irish did not come from Scotland. They came from Northern Ireland. They were the Presbyterian descendants of the Scots who migrated to the "Irish Plantation" launched by James I in 1606, whereby he authorized the Protestants of Scotland to invade Ireland and take what they pleased from the Catholics. They did, but they only got so far before the native Catholic Irish resistance stopped their momentum and drove them into their Ulster bunker, where they remain today. Ulster did well for awhile, but then the English in the early 1700s, ever greedy for London interests, imposed laws on Ulster that effectively broke the textile industry, creating massive unemployment, and emigration from Ireland to America. The men who came over were not Scots, they were from Ireland. And the Americans of the period, and those people themselves, called themselves Scotch- Irish or just Irish, not Scots-Irish. Today, people punctilious about Scottishness, insist on the Scots being called Scots, not Scotch. That's fine. But the particular group that emigrated to America in the 1700s are not properly called "Scots-Irish". They were, and are, properly called "Scotch- Irish", because that's what they called themselves, and because they are not Scots, they are Irish. The word change indicates that important difference. Scots don't like to be called Scotch. The Scotch-Irish are not Scottish, however. They're Irish. Protestant Irish. The Orange. The Ulstermen. The use of the offensive word, to Scots, today, highlights that difference. The English Parliament did not break Scotland with its tariffs and rules. But it DID break Presbyterian Ireland, destroyed its economy, prompting a great deal of animus between the Irish Presbyterians and their English government, causing massive immigration to the Americas, where they settled on the frontiers as Scotch-Irish - and thought (and still think) of themselves as Irish in origin, not Scottish. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are descended from the Scotch-Irish. When they referred to their ethnicities, which was rarely, it was within the context of the internecine Irish rivalry, and they identified themselves as being of Irish extraction. The Scottish are Scots. The Presbyterian Irish who came over in the 1700s are Scotch-Irish.
Not a sparrow falls without the permission of the Father. God sent Joan of Arc to France for a reason. The outcome of wars are God's Providence. He has sides in wars - his side - and he uses war as a scourge to man, to chastise him, and to effect justice. He did so in the days of Abraham. He did so the Egyptians. He did so to the Canaanites. He did so to the Israelites of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, and then he did so to their Assyrian and Babylonian conquerors. He did so to the Greeks, and he did so to the Jews when he sent the Romans to utterly destroy the Temple for good. He opened the Americas to settlement by Christian Europe through the scythe of disease. And he gave to the Americans their civil war, and meted out justice through it for America's evils. So, "who stared the mess in violation of law"? White English colonists, who imposed slavery on blacks. This made them rich, and so was continued in America, which made America evil. God finally chose to remove the evil, and he did so with his "terrible swift sword", with rivers of blood, and with the scythe of disease, visited on troops and ravaged areas. Southern states had some black soldiers as cooks. There were no black Southern combat units. Blacks were overwhelmingly, nearly univocally, for obvious reasons. The notion that blacks gave a damn about Southern states rights is a lie. They wanted to be free, and the war freed them. Blacks had guns and fought in units for the North. By the end of the war, 10% of the Union Army was black. The South did not have any black combat units, and didn't trust blacks to be organized under arms. Had the Southerners given them arms, the blacks would have rebelled against them, and they knew it. All over the South, the blacks assisted the Union soldiers when they came through. Black Americans were rescued by the Union army from the oppression of Southern whites. That was a good thing. Indeed, had that been the purpose of the war at the outset, it would have justified it and made Lincoln a better man than he was. But God didn't let anybody escape with their pretensions. The North was about power. The South was also, and about slavery. Economics were front and center, at the outset. Slavery was a sore point, and without it there would have been no war, but neither side started the fight over slavery. God did not let either side win decisively. The war got desperate for the North, and only when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued did the war really become ABOUT slavery. That's also when the tide turned decisively towards the North, for many Northerners were not willing to fight for abstract ideas like the Union, but they WERE willing to fight for an abolitionist cause. And so, contrary to the intentions of either side at the start of the war, the war came to be about slavery, and utterly destroyed the institution by force. And THAT was just and in accordance with the Law of God, even though it completely tore up the Constitution and existing laws of the time. The Constitution had to be rapidly and radically altered right after the war to formally kill slavery, and it was. But that was a case of the fait accompli being ratified by the winners, not a case of the law determining the outcome. The law failed, war settled the issue, and the law was rewritten after the war to reflect the victor's justice. All in the Providence of God. All good in my eyes.
Wow, I'm glad I got my question answered at the top of this thread - nobody would ever find it down here in the irrelevant muck.
You are correct. I will start a new thread to respond. As I have noted, inaccurate information, gone unchallenged, becomes accepted as fact, such as there being an Obamacare mandate penalty.
Well, it looks like some brave FBI agents and whistleblowers are about to do an end-run around the restrictions on bringing these assholes to justice.
Is it really possible that just two, or a handful of, corrupt individuals in Washington D.C. can thwart efforts to bring obvious criminals to justice, forever, and maybe even get elected to the presidency - with no recourse?
#2. To: nolu chan (#1)
Yes. When worse comes to really worst, there is always the pardon power.
#3. To: Hank Rearden (#0)
(Edited)
I'm assuming that somewhere there still remains an officer of the court who retains a sense of justice and duty to the oath they've sworn who might consider such a prosecution no matter the harm to his/her career prospects, of course. They'd need some support from GOPussies suddenly growing balls, but I just want to know if there's a mechanism.
#4. To: nolu chan (#3)
(Edited)
#5. To: Hank Rearden (#4)
#6. To: Vicomte13, Hank Rearden (#5)
But note well: resort was ALREADY MADE to the Second Amendment by half the country in the 1860s, and they got slaughtered.
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
#8. To: nolu chan (#6)
Resort was made to warfare by the North, not the South, and they prevailed.
#9. To: nolu chan (#6)
#10. To: Stoner (#9)
There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."Theodore Roosevelt-1907.
#11. To: Hank Rearden (#7)
Well, that's depressing, but thanks very much for the detailed info.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
The North resorted to force - the force of governmental authority, like the police kicking down the door.
The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the states. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second of the 27th of April, 1861, embracing the States of Virginia and North Carolina; and there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866, embracing the State of Texas.
USS SUPPLY SHIPS LOG - APRIL 11, 1861
210 OPERATIONS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO.
Barrancas: The First Shots Fired in the Rebellion
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
The United States Coast Guard and the Civil War:
". . . an incident occurred, which I have never seen recorded, but which seems to me worthy of note. A vessel suddenly appeared through the mist from behind the Bar, a passenger steamer, which was made out to be the Nashville. She had no colors set, and as she approached the fleet she refused to show them. Captain Faunce ordered one of the guns manned, and as she came still nearer turned to the gunner. 'Stop her!' he said, and a shot went skipping across her bows. Immediately the United States ensign went to her gaff end, and she was allowed to proceed. The Harriet Lane had fired the first shotted gun from the Union side."
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
#14. To: nolu chan (#12)
#15. To: nolu chan (#12)
#16. To: Stoner (#13)
to go in the opposite direction is to embrace multiculturalism.
#17. To: nolu chan (#12)
(Edited)
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
#19. To: nolu chan (#12)
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
" grand principle: might makes right - that God is on the side of the larger battalions - is also why the Democrats have the advantage in American politics "
#21. To: Stoner (#18)
Our nation became strong because we were united. That is what I was talking about, and that is what I take from TR. Not talking about getting tacos, or Chinese food.
#22. To: Stoner (#20)
Are you saying that God favors the demoncrats ?
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
As far as the Second Amendment and the Confederacy goes, look again.
To what unit does the 2nd Am. refer? The militia, well-regulated.
What fought the war? Not the "regular Confederate Army". There was none. Rather, the Confederate Army was formed of units by state. These were the state militias, marching with their arms, under military discipline, to war.
Likewise, the regular US Army was quite small, mostly cavalry, mostly stationed out in forts looking at the Indians. Most of the fighting was done by the state militias of the Northern States, the First New York, etc. Cavalry was generally regular army, but infantry was not.
Chap. LXXV. — An Act for enrolling and calling out the national Forces, and for other Purposes.
10 U.S.C. § 311 (2014)
SEC. 4. That the militia employed in the service of the United States shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war as the troops of the United States: and that no officer, non-commissioned officer, or private, of the militia, shall be compelled to serve more than three months after his arrival at the place of rendezvous, in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which he belongs.
These units were called forth by the states, well-regulated through state-appointed commanders. They were the well-regulated militia. This was the Army of the Second Amendment, on both sides.
The Southern states called forth their militias, as envisioned by the Framers in the 2nd Am. It was a cheap way to keep a large army without making it a standing one.
The South relied on its state militias to keep the invading Union out. It was the 2nd Am in action, on both sides. The Union was much stronger, so they won.
#24. To: nolu chan (#23)
(Edited)
#25. To: nolu chan (#23)
Mainly, the Union won because the Confederacy eventually ran out of everything.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
Well, that was certainly a tour-de-force.
So, the 2nd Amendment was irrelevant? The South armed its soldiers with firearms, did they?
The Confederate Armies marched into the field in 1861 armed with huge numbers of personal weapons. That's the 2nd Amendment in action.
There was no right for slavery to exist in the first place, other than as a bald assertion of armed power.
History records that the Confederates fired first, at Fort Sumter, but even if they didn't, it's an irrelevancy.
Justice went out the window with slavery, so the notions of some people being "in the right" because of some arbitrary law is silly.
With 20/20 hindsight, it is clear that the Southern slave power was not completely broken in the war, for the grandees were still able to assert leadership over the South even after having been broken. The great plantations were not broken up and the wealth of the slave masters confiscated and redistributed.
There was, rather, a desire to try to "heal the wounds". This ultimately resulted in the unwillingness to use sufficient force to crush the Klan, and the unwillingness to use force to prevent the imposition of Jim Crow.
Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln
April 14, 1876
Delivered at the Unveiling of The Freedmen’s Monument in Memory of Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
Hotheaded, certain, violent, and wrong. They lost. And in losing, they set a precedent: you can emigrate individually, but the only way out of the union with LAND is to fight your way out, and that's pretty damned hard because the United States is a very powerful country.
Immigrants played a key role in bringind down the South as well. Thanks to slavery, the bulk of immigration went to Northern cities. Many immigrants were Irish, and they did not have a great deal to do. But joining the Union Army gave them a position, a status and a salary.
Scotch-Irish
Substantial numbers of blacks marched in Union ranks.
You've made an interesting and entertaining set of legal arguments regarding the Southern position. But war is decided by guns, not law, and God is on the side of the bigger battalions.
#28. To: nolu chan (#26)
I Wrote: There was no right for slavery to exist in the first place, other than as a bald assertion of armed power.
#29. To: nolu chan (#27)
If my time in Scotland taught me anything, it is that the people are Scots, and Scotch is a golden nectar of the gods given to the people.
#30. To: nolu chan (#27)
God does not waste His time picking sides in wars and ball games.
#31. To: All (#0)
#32. To: Hank Rearden (#31)
Wow, I'm glad I got my question answered at the top of this thread - nobody would ever find it down here in the irrelevant muck.
#33. To: All (#0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]