http://killtheempire.blogspot.com/2011/12/webster-g-tarpleys-critique-of-ron.html
http://killtheempire.blogspot.com/2012/01/vote-for-ron-paul-is-vote-for-austerity.html
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/the-ron-paul-challenge-10-reasons-why-the-alternative-media-is-failing-this-test/
Whale says:
The north was threatening war? It was Jefferson Davis who called for 100K troops in his inauguration day speech, a month before Lincoln was inaugurated and called for peace. The US Army had around 2000 troops east of the Mississippi River when the southern states started to secede, not exactly an invasion force.
whale
___________
Jack Conroy says:
I can't believe these ridiculous comments about "state's rights."
First, the article's correct: the Confederate cause was all about slavery, whatever the CSA otherwise claimed.
Second, no man or state has the right to enslave a human. The Civil War corrected a moral wrong that the Founders did not, or would not, address.
Third, with respect to Patrick Carroll's remark, sometimes a war isn't good-guys-versus-bad-guys. Sometimes it is. The Confederacy was about slavery (see article). They were the bad guys.
By the way, I'm from Texas and I have ancestors that fought for the Stars and Bars.
I think people who defend the Confederacy argue from emotion, not reason.
_____________________
Whale says:
How could ANY black man or woman or any white woman run for President in 1863? According to the Dred Scott decision, which was the law of the land, blacks were not citizens of the United States and thus could NOT run for President. Your ranting fails to take into account minor things like THE LAW. The 14th amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision, until it was ratified, blacks were residents, not citizens and could not vote, sit on a jury or run for office.
The right to REBELLION is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, secession is not mentioned at all. Furthermore, the DoI is not a a part of instruments of government, it declared ourselves free from Britain, it has NO LEGAL weight or bearing upon how our government is run. The basis of our government has been and can only be found in the Articles of Confederation and the document that superseded the AoC, the United States Constitution and the right to secede is nowhere mentioned in that document.
whale
_______________________
Whale says:
There is "No mention of how secession was largely thought to be a right of the people" because it wasn't. Your claim is COMPLETELY unjustifiable. There is ."No mention of how the SCOTUS could not render a ruling on the legality of secession." because the southern states never brought a lawsuit to the USSC for a decision, they made their own decision as to what course they would take and that course was war.
Further, the USSC DID speak directly as to the ability of the Federal Government to put down rebellions within states and enforce federal laws was decided in MARTIN V. MOTT, 25 U. S. 19 (1827)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/25/19/index.html
The fact that the Federal Government could call up the militia from the states and take whatever action was necessary to put down a rebellion was a given fact of life supported by Democrat Presidents Jefferson, Jackson and Pierce and certified by the US Supreme Court. If anyone in the rebellious states knew this fact to be true it was Robert E Lee, for it was his father who commanded the troops which went into western PA and put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
whale
____________
whale says:
The US Constitution is a limitation of the Federal Government's powers AND a limitation on the powers of the STATE governments.
"If we grant the view that the states are sovereign", but we don't, the states are NOT sovereign under the US Constitution. They were sovereign under the Articles of Confederation where a specific article of the AoC declares EXPRESSLY that the states are sovereign.
"Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Where is such an article expressly granting state sovereignty found in the US Constitution? No where! Amendments to the Constitution wishing to inject such an article into the US Constitution were discussed at the Constitutional Convention and defeated. The same article was suggested to be part of the Bill of Rights and again was defeated.
This was the VERY article that was causing the problems of the Congress under the AoC, why would they allow states to remain sovereign if they were attempting to fix the problems of the AoC? They wouldn't.
The definition of sovereignty is the claim to be the ultimate political authority, subject to no higher power as regards the making and enforcing of political decisions. In the international system, sovereignty is the claim by the state to full self-government, and the mutual recognition of claims to sovereignty is the basis of international society.
Are states sovereign? Absolutely not, they have none of the powers necessary to claim sovereignty, those powers were taken from the states and given to the federal government. Finally, they are not the ultimate political authority, that authority again rests with the US Constitution according to article 6:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The entirety of your opinion is based upon the faulty assumption that states are sovereign, therefore your logic and your conclusion are proven false.
whale
__________________________________
Whale says:
First of all, the Yankees were not losing the war in 1862, the ONLY period of time when it was thought that the Yankees were losing the war was after the Battle of Bull Run when it was the only action going on. During the rest of the war Union advances were being made on all fronts except Virginia.
Second, the Emancipation Proclamation did NOT state that slaves would be freed but HAD to be deported back to Africa or S America.
Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed rebellion against authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are, for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.
Abraham Lincoln
He did advocate for colonization because he thought that it was what would be best for both blacks and whites, however, he abandoned that idea after talking with black leaders like F Douglas. He certainly believed that the black soldiers and sailors who he allowed to be inducted into the army and navy with his Emancipation Proclamation had earned the right to be American citizens.
I will tell you that your post is not the truth, because the facts state otherwise.
whale
__________
Whale says:
The reason that Lincoln did not receive many, if any votes, in southern states, was that southern states had made it a crime to advocate for any anti-slavery position and they considered Republicans to be Anti-Slavery so any Republicans in southern states who attempted to gather enough signatures to place Lincoln on that states ballot would have been arrested. You can not receive any votes if you are never allowed onto the ballot in the first place by unconstitutional laws.
whale
________
Jon says:
The article is spot on & well done. While I certainly have some issues as to some of the posters above, the one posted by Raul takes the cake.
First of all, the issue of slavery didn't come up 2 years into the war. That is sheer nonsense. The Deep South, which seceded in 1860-early 1861, flat said it was seceding over the issue of slavery. There were people in the North who wanted the war to be over slavery from the beginning, but Lincoln was smart enough to know that the border states would never go for such a thing. The North changed the war politically in the Fall of 1862 with the issuing of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Up to that time, the war aims for the North were the restoration of the Union…..after that it was the restoration of the Union & moving towards the freedom of the slaves. Why was Lincoln elected in the North? Was it because the South was afraid to put him on the ballot & see the numbers generated? The certainly left him off the ballot in the majority of the Southern states-hard to vote for someone who isn't on there is there?
In no way, shape or form was the North "lossing the war" (I assume the author means "losing", but this may simply be an indicator of the level of education or intelligence as such). To claim that is to ignore the entire Western & Trans-Mississippi theater, not to mention what was happening along the Eastern coast. I guess such battles as Pea Ridge, Forts Donnelson & Henry, Shiloh, Island Number 10, New Orleans, Iuka, Corinth, Mill Springs, Fort Pulaski, Perryville, Stones River, Antietam, etc were all part of the collective imagination of historians?
Finally, the Emancipation Proclamation said NOTHING about forcibly resettling the freed slaves. Here is a transcript of the EP & I challenge you to find ANYTHING about colonization in it: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html
The idea of colonization had been brought up prior to the EP & Lincoln had endorsed the idea. But colonization was not MANDATORY, it was to be VOLUNTARY. And after Lincoln met with a large group of black leaders who told him the majority of blacks had no intention of colonizing another country, Lincoln change his mind & did not back the plan afterwards.
What is it about the word "truth" that makes you Lost Causers salivate so much? Forget truth-truth is a concept that can manipulated to fit whatever agenda you are trying to push. Look at the facts-something in which Raul is sadly lacking.
________________________
You have so many factual errors in your post.
Lincoln advocated VOLUNTARY colonization before and during the war, until he met with black leaders in 1862 after he had authorized the US army and navy to enlist blacks, he completely abandoned the idea of colonization.
You state that honest Abe placed unfair taxation on the south, how can that be when the south declared themselves free 3 or 4 months before Lincoln was ever inaugurated? He couldn't. At the time the south rebelled, the taxes were at their lowest point since 1816.
You tell people to do research, I beg that you actually will.
whale
Lincoln advocated VOLUNTARY colonization before and during the war, until he met with black leaders in 1862 after he had authorized the US army and navy to enlist blacks, he completely abandoned the idea of colonization.
You state that honest Abe placed unfair taxation on the south, how can that be when the south declared themselves free 3 or 4 months before Lincoln was ever inaugurated? He couldn't. At the time the south rebelled, the taxes were at their lowest point since 1816.
You tell people to do research, I beg that you actually will.
whale
_____________________
Whale says:
The two opposing sides were ONLY called Federalists and Anti-Federalists from 1787-1796 when the Anti-Federalists became Democratic-Republicans
Neither Federalist or Anti-Federalist had been a term in use for 60 years before the Civil War.
The state legislatures of the rebellious southern states made many pronouncements as to their reasons behind secession and the majority of them mentioned SLAVERY.
whale
_______________________
Whale says:
And the CITIZENS of the United States spoke about their decision in 1860 and it was to reject forced slavery throughout the Union and to put in a Federal Government that would keep slavery restricted to those states in which it was still practiced. The north did not invade the south to free the slaves, the north invaded the south ONLY after the south claimed the right to seceded and took up arms in rebellion AND opened fired on US troops. It was the SOUTH who rejected the decision of the PEOPLE and resorted to the gun..
whale
________
Why would he return the money? He agrees with everything they believe. Hell, he even voted against the MLK holiday and opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
_______
If Obama made $940,000 a year writing and publishing the anti-white "Barack Obama Political Report" with Rahm Emanuel, the media would ask him a ton of questions, and you damn sure wouldn't call it "biased coverage" or "character assassination." If you can't stand the heat, sheep, you and your messiah should get out of the kitchen.
_______________
He also thinks the civil rights act was unconstitutional. The problem is the man lives in fairyland where the slavery and economic oppression of the black community by white society for 200+ years never existed. He speaks of the good old days when nobody was given favoritism by the government as a time of equality between the races when in reality Blacks couldn't get jobs doing "white man's work", couldn't live in certain neighborhoods, couldn't patronize certain businesses etc...
http://ronpaulexposed.wordpress.com/
_____________
