Still think Hamilton was a good guy ? by Fremdfirma

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Still think Hamilton was a good guy ?

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 09:05
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 823
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, December 10, 2007 4:06 AM

That meaning Alexander Hamilton, one of our Founding Fathers, and a Federalist, and if you wanna go that far, spiritual forefather of the cabal in power today.

Think he's a good guy, do you ?

Remember him and Madison were rabidly against certain protections being embedded in the Constitution, arguing that no one would ever dare stoop so low and thus they were unneccessary, when history clearly shows the truth was that they wanted to immediately exploit those loopholes for their own benefit.

Like our modern parties today, they didn't really wish to END the abuses, they just wanted to change who's hand was holding the leash.

This well researched and excellent bit linked here is well worth a read...
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.6/hogeland.php

And here's an excerpt to make the point abundantly clear.
(emphasis mine)

"That the Hamilton revival admits conservatives and liberals alike gives it obvious appeal. But if opinion-shapers really want to strengthen democracy by enhancing competition, opportunity, and mobility, Hamilton is not their man. Nor did he want to be. Neo-Hamiltonians of every kind are blotting out a defining feature of his thought, one that Hamilton himself insisted on throughout his turbulent career: the essential relationship between the concentration of national wealth and the obstruction of democracy through military force.

* * *

That’s putting the matter bluntly, and bluntness is necessary. Time and again this galvanizing principle in Hamilton’s political life has been denied, ignored, and glossed over by his proponents, who thereby risk distorting the entire founding period. One can gain a refreshingly focused picture of Alexander Hamilton simply by looking at episodes in his public life, far from minor, that the rehabilitation industry’s guiding storytellers have done their best to downplay or leave out all together.

Among the most revealing of these was his participation in the dramatic events known as the Newburgh Crisis. Passed over in silence by the PBS biography, this affair launched the mature stage of Hamilton’s relationship with George Washington and placed him for the first time at the center of public finance. As such, it was nothing less than a profoundly formative experience in Hamilton’s life as a political actor.

In 1782, fresh from serving as a battalion commander at the Battle of Yorktown, Hamilton, 27, joined the Confederation Congress as a delegate from New York and entered into a scheme to threaten the Congress with a military coup. As executed by the Congress’s superintendent of finance (and Hamilton’s finance mentor), Robert Morris, his assistant Gouverneur Morris (no relation), and Hamilton (their promising young protégé), the idea was to encourage Continental Army officers—deployed, after victory at Yorktown, in a cantonment at Newburgh, New York—to refuse to lay down their arms unless the states acquiesced in Robert Morris’s longstanding insistence that the Articles of Confederation be amended to permit the collection of federal taxes from the whole American people. In Morris’s plan these taxes, collected not by weak state governments but by a cadre of powerful federal officers, would be earmarked for making hefty interest payments to wealthy financiers—including Morris himself, along with his friends and colleagues—who held millions of dollars in federal bonds, the blue-chip tier of domestic war debt.

The first tax Morris wanted Congress to pass was a duty on foreign goods, known then as an impost. Both Chernow and Brookhiser focus exclusively on the impost, but Morris assured his supporters that once Americans were accustomed to paying federal tax, a slate of land taxes, poll taxes, and taxes on domestic products would soon follow. The idea, in Morris’s phrase, was to “open the purses of the people” in order to enrich the interstate investor class, place American wealth in a few powerful hands, and create a unified nation poised to become an empire.

The officers at Newburgh were disgruntled because, with the war effectively over, promises about pay and pensions had not been met (Morris routinely paid financiers before soldiers). When they sent a delegation to Congress to demand payment, Hamilton and the Morrises urged them to make common cause with the investor class by insisting on pay in federal bonds. Hamilton channeled Congress’s panic about military takeover by insisting in resolutions from the floor that federal taxes be dedicated not just to officer pay but to funding all bondholders. He also took the immense risk—executed with remarkable coolness—of writing to Washington, on whose military staff he’d once served, to invite him to lead the threatened coup. But Washington’s loyal officers spurned the Morrises’ overtures, and when the conspirators in Congress reached out to Washington’s enemy General Horatio Gates, a mutinous plan developed at the Newburgh camp to give Gates command of the army.

It was all quite a scene. A high point was reached when, at a meeting in Newburgh, Washington leveraged his officers’ affection to disable Gates, quell mutiny, and prevent military takeover of Congress. Hamilton’s correspondence during and after the crisis reveals a young man working assiduously to cover every bet: he subtly adjusted his solicitation of Washington when it became obvious the great man wouldn’t play; he didn’t scruple to criticize, even partly rat out, his fellow conspirators; and he confessed to Washington certain aspects of his own participation in the conspiracy, while covering up others; in one letter draft he even crossed out a reference to it. A reader of this richly entertaining bob-and-weave can only stand in awe of Hamilton’s conjuring a role as Washington’s congressional informant and confidant from participation in a treasonous conspiracy. He set up his entire career!"

From the Newburg Crisis, to the Business Plot, Corporate Oligarchs have ALWAYS been the enemy of freedom, and Hamilton was wholly "Their man" from the very start.

It was this political environment whom Aaron Burr found himself up against, labelled historically as a conspirator of many sorts, not the least of which is annoying and sandbagging the Hamiltonian Federalists at every turn and corner in favor of the Jeffersonian Federalists before the party split later... and his hatred for Hamilton grew as did Hamiltons own plots and abuses, culiminating in that fateful duel.

Personally, I think Burr did the world a great favor, regardless of the attempted historical vilification of the man, much of which rests on some awful shaky ground, since his apparent agenda was more Libertarian and more so than the Federalists, while not quite being an Anti-Federalist like Pat Henry.. a crafty, devious and stubborn man, whom history has spat upon for a single well placed shot, that probably in the end prevented an earlier, more devastating civil war.

No, Hamilton wasn't a good guy - while I respect his tremendous efforts in the revolution, this is and always has been countered by the thought that he simply wanted to change who was holding that leash, not snap it entirely.

History is too kind to our Founders, as a general rule, they were people, and people have flaws, one and all.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2007 5:57 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
From the Newburg Crisis, to the Business Plot, Corporate Oligarchs have ALWAYS been the enemy of freedom...

Turns out Freedom has many enemies and stories often have more then one side.

The Newburg Crisis came about because Congress had left the Army in a horrendous state. No pay, no pensions, no bonus and all in violation of promises...not to mention no supplies or support.

Hamilton recognized that the condition would not be improving because 13 independent states were pursuing 13 self-interested agendas. He correctly reasoned that revolutionary zeal was no foundation for the social architecture needed to create an independent nation.

In essence there were two legitimate needs Hamilton was trying to correct. One, the mutinous sentiments of a neglected Army and two, the fatally flawed Articles of Confederation. That Hamilton was involved in trying to correct these issues is a sign of his intiment involvement with the evolution of or national consciousness.

I believe this began a process that eventually led to the establishment of the Federal Constitution for which Hamiliton was a chief architect.

Quote:

Personally, I think Burr did the world a great favor

So murder is about the quality of the victim rather then the action of the murderer. Hamilton said bad stuff about Burr, that is not license to kill.

Burr was recognized as a good administrator, even-handed and fair. Shame he blew it with a thin skin.

Quote:

History is too kind to our Founders, as a general rule, they were people, and people have flaws, one and all.

Perhaps. I think its their humanity that makes them all the more worthy of admiration.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2007 6:32 AM

FREMDFIRMA

"the fatally flawed Articles of Confederation."

To which I say...

"We have been told of phantoms and ideal dangers to lead us into measures which will, in my opinion, be the ruin of our country."

Oh, and...

"So murder is about the quality of the victim rather then the action of the murderer. Hamilton said bad stuff about Burr, that is not license to kill."

Murder would have been outright shooting him.

What Burr did, is challenge Hamilton to a duel to settle it without the endless he-said-she-said soap opera drama bullshit.

And Hamilton *accepted* - thus accepting the possibility of that outcome of his own free will, up to and including willful participation in a subterfuge to avoid legal ramifications for those involved.

Burr had full intent to blow him away, and Hamilton quite well knew this, and in spite of it apparently by accounts fired to miss even thought he shot first, when in turn Burr, who was by his own admission not that great of a shot with a pistol, returned fire and hit Hamilton.

How you dare call that murder is beyond me.

Even Burr, who when informed that Hamilton may have simply fired nearby for honors sake, after accepting such a challenge, replied to such with the sentiment..
""Contemptible, if true."
For he could not imagine challenging someone to a clearly lethal settlement and then not carrying the intent through properly, questions of honor aside, it just never occured to Burr that someone would do such a thing.

"Perhaps. I think its their humanity that makes them all the more worthy of admiration."

Admiration, sure - but idoltry as almost unto gods, no, and whitewashing their darker sides, absolutely not.

In fact, given time to do so I'd point out the flaws of every one of our Founders, even the ones I like... Pat Henry was a good orator, but his temper would have made him an awful administrator, and for all the good he did slaying the central bank, Jackson also cursed us with his treatment of the natives, and codifying the spoils system of replacing upper posts with cronies when elected.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2007 7:03 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
How you dare call that murder is beyond me.

New York and New Jersey called it murder. In New York dueling isn't legal...but it happened in New Jersey and dueling is legal there. Burr fled to South Carolina and was never tried.

Either way deliberating shooting a man is murder. He can't claim self defense because he's the one who instigated the whole affair with the intent to kill.

There is a dispute over whether Hamilton missed, deliberately missed, or never fired at all. I think this was the basis for the murder charge.

In any event its murder (maybe not murder most foul) no matter how you dress it up. Thats why we got rid of dueling.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2007 7:05 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
In fact, given time to do so I'd point out the flaws of every one of our Founders, even the ones I like...

Naturally. By dwelling on the flaws you give yourself license to disregard the good they did that you don't agree with. You cherry pick what you want a seek to delegitimize what you don't want. Typical of Freeman/Libertarian attitudes I've encountered.

I notice this about alot of the liberal attacks on President Bush as well.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2007 11:54 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I call bullshit on that - it's not ME rewriting and whitewashing history to cover their flaws, it's folks like you.

Look at the tremendous amount of whitewash and post-historic shovelling it took to practically deify Lincoln in spite of the fact that he spent most of his political career shitting on the document he swore to uphold.

Look at how the one thing that Roger Sherman is/was most remembered for, suddenly *disappeared* from wiki, along with just about everything else that ever made the status quo of former and present cabals look bad.

Oughta call them damn deletionists what they really are - revisionists.

Hamilton was a hero of the revolution, and a heck of an administrator, my dispute with his financial policies can NOT make those simple facts untrue - but he was also a corporate shill who planned, and in a small degree succeded, in betraying those principles the revolution was founded upon, by attempting to recreate the feudal society of lords and peons here.

As for Bush - ever ponder the fact that Bush gets flamed because he is an ignorant, incompetent, incoherent MORON unworthy of representing our country to the world at large ?

That he is a treacherous, backstabbing wretch of the worst order who has sold out the entirety of the people he claims to represent - to foreign and corporate interests ?

About the only people still supporting the little pissant are the useless piglets safely suckling off the Government tit cause it's not their rights, livelyhoods, incomes or health care that is under dire threat, just everyone elses who actually works for a living.

Those who are NOT sucking on the tax dime of others like demented little vampires are pissed because their quality of life, their freedoms, their security both physically and nationally, almost every single aspect of their lives has been fucked up by this little shrub and his policies and I don't know a SINGLE cabbie regardless of political affilication who doesn't spit curses on his name as they fill their tank with overpriced, overtaxed fuel that is ruining them by it's cost.

Ain't about party anymore, anywhere - it's about the fact that he's a dick.

-F

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2007 2:42 PM

RALLEM

Isn't life wonderful?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2007 2:50 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by rallem:
Isn't life wonderful?

I'm with you Rallem. "How sweet it is."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 10, 2007 4:53 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

What is Roger Sherman most known for?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 4:06 AM

FREMDFIRMA

A political handbill titled "A Caveat Against Injustice." and distributed circa 1752

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/rsherman/caveatagainst.htm

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 4:33 AM

FLETCH2

Can't help thinking that it's a little late to be making character assassinations. Here's the thing, the Federalist arguments generally won and the 13 states at that time chose to form a Federal government. Some of the greatest minds of the period worked though the many compromises to make an agreement that everyone could live with (including such bizarreness as black slaves being some proportion of a person so they could be counted as voting population without being allowed to vote.)

Now even if they got that incredibly massively wrong, either accidentally or through some vast conspiracy, it still doesn't explain something. With the exceptions of Alaska and the Louisiana territories most states outside of the initial 13 actually had to decide to join the Union, that is give up sovereignty as independent states to join the collective and they did that fully aware of the rules that were in place at that time?

It's an uncomfortable truth that there advantages and disadvantages for the ordinary man in larger political unions. The disadvantages are the representation gap --- the fact that the further away the government is from the governed the less influence the individual voter gets but the advantages with regards to the greater economic opportunities and potential of personal freedom that is offered to larger groupings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 5:07 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Now even if they got that incredibly massively wrong, either accidentally or through some vast conspiracy, it still doesn't explain something. With the exceptions of Alaska and the Louisiana territories most states outside of the initial 13 actually had to decide to join the Union, that is give up sovereignty as independent states to join the collective and they did that fully aware of the rules that were in place at that time?

I note for the record that only Texas and the 13 original States had pre-existing soveriegnty (and Hawaii, but that a special case). All the others existed as US Territories organized, administered, and governed by Federal law (or no law at all).

They really only had two choices. Exist as an unorganized and unrepresented mass within the Union or form a state and gain some measure of co-equal status with the rest of the country.

There were benefits to both forms of existence, but once the population density reached a certain level then the need for state administration became more pronounced (especially the need for things like education, police, and domestic services).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 5:26 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Hamilton was a hero of the revolution, and a heck of an administrator, my dispute with his financial policies can NOT make those simple facts untrue - but he was also a corporate shill who planned, and in a small degree succeded, in betraying those principles the revolution was founded upon, by attempting to recreate the feudal society of lords and peons here.

Hamilton was neither a corporate shill nor a Feudalist. He believed in modern (for the 1780s) ideas of economic development. Corporations didn't come into being till the mid-1800s and everybody could tell by 1780 that Feudalism was on the way out.

I'd suggest he supported Adam Smith's views more then King George or the Anglish moneylender types.

What the Americans had in the 1780s was an independent country of loosely affiliated independent states with no unified system of banking, taxation, currency, or trade. Their debts were huge and the credit in shambles. Hamilton and the others like him recognized the need to establish a firm economic foundation and the first step in doing that was to establish a strong central government.

The principals of the Revolution included the notion that America was to be a free and independent state. As such they needed the trappings of real government. A postal system, a navy, trade policy, taxes, currency, specie to back it all up, and so on.

Failing to take action to unify the country would have splintered America into a number of small countries and likely led to war. New England, New York, Pennsylvannia, Virginia, and the Carolina's would have emerged as the dominant players warring with each other over borders, trade, western territory, etc. it would have invited conquest by Britain, France, or Spain either whole or in part.

Quote:

As for Bush - ever ponder the fact that Bush gets flamed because he is an ignorant, incompetent, incoherent MORON unworthy of representing our country to the world at large ?

See, there's your problem. Your confusing what you think with reality. It simply aint so.

He see's things differently then you, that hardly makes a person ignorant. His policy decisions are not ones you'd make, that hardly makes them incompent, he says things in a way you don't like, that hard makes him incoherant, you don't like him personally, that hardly makes him a moron.

In fact your entire statement about the President has all the substantive analysis of a child calling someone names on a playground.

Perhaps if you put your fingers in your ears and hum real loud then you'll feel better...if not you can always take your ball and go home.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:20 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
A political handbill titled "A Caveat Against Injustice." and distributed circa 1752

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/rsherman/caveatagainst.htm

-F

Huh.

I only ever heard of him in relation to the 'Great Compromise.'

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 7:36 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Zero, dude.. you got issues...

You finally make the bones of a halfway decent argument, although Hamilton *was* a staunch Federalist, and did indeed believe in the Noble/Peon social dynamic, although he did not use those words for it... hell, most of the Founders believed themselves a little "better than" the "common man" - although most of them weren't out to shaft them, one of the reasons the Constitution was so clearly written, in such ironclad terms it takes a weasel like you to distort them, was so that the "common man" of the time, even those barely literate, could fully understand it.

The idea of considering the "common man" as mere tax fodder for the enrichment of oneself and their cronies predates corporations, but as the sentiment is the same, so applies the term I used.

The Anti-Federalists made a good argument as to the Articles of Confederation being entirely sufficient, and in the end chose to compromise so long as certain of their rights were explicitly upheld, a compact the FedGov has strained to violate, and has violated, at every turn and corner providing them an opportunity to do so.

They also left us with a warning of how things could come to pass, and sitting here at ground zero of the sum of all their nightmares, I cannot see where one could possibly disagree that every prediction of every abuse has come unmistakeably true.

And the principle of the Union being a Union of VOLUNTARY association went out the window when some folks felt that the compact was indeed broken during the 1860's and chose to rescind that association, an act met with the very force and violence, the civil war detailed in AntiFederalist #7 due to that Constitution and it's policies, then fell upon us.

And just ask Hawaii how "Voluntary" their absorbtion into that Union was.

Just look at the present day distortions of re-interpretation via the supreme court of the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments, something clearly pointed out as a potential issue in AntiFederalist #78-79 by Brutus, that the court could simply decide those words meant something else and that's that... with no proper check and balance upon them.

As for your "Bugbears" of Conquest and Strife, those were properly addressed by Mr Henry in Anti-Federalist #4, and I repeat an except of his commentary here.

"Where is the danger? If, sir, there was any, I would recur to the American spirit to defend us; that spirit which has enabled us to surmount the greatest difficulties--to that illustrious spirit I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty. Let not gentlemen be told that it is not safe to reject this government. Wherefore is it not safe? We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated...."

Those wanting more power to the FedGov have ALWAYS held up such bugbears to scare us with, Osama-been-forgotten, Al Qeada, Terrorism, Mushroom Clouds, Yellowcake, and before that it was those damn Communists, and the Reds, and those damn Trade Unions, and Anarchists, those dreaded Redskin Savages... it's *ALWAYS* been a shrill screeching of some supposed "danger" to strike fear into us and cuase us to hand over our wealth, rights and power...

And it's always been a lie, too.

====================

As for the Shrub...
I notice you offer no defense other than your opinion alone, which means as much, and as little, as mine.

I call him ignorant because he and his advisors were and are, utterly clueless of the cultures and political forces they chose to interfere with, completely oblivious of any possibilities but the ones they envisioned and hoped for - then totally blindsided by an outcome that was downright obvious to anyone with any knowledge of the region whatsoever beyond PNAC propaganda.

What else can you call it ?

I call him incompetent because he has managed to not catch Osama, who's without a doubt capped it by now of kidney failure if naught else, managed to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into a training and recruiting paradise for those pissed off at us who wish to visit violence upon us via terrorism or what have you... has neglected our infrastructure to the point where it's literally crumbling before us, has failed us totally and completely from an economic point of view (unless you're a multimillionare), has blown our credit and our currency, as well as our reputation and credibility all over the planet.

What else can you call it ?

I call him incoherent cause, well... have you even WATCHED this guy speak publicly ?
His spoken english skills are worse than mine, and he *has* a college degree!
There's just no excuse for that, especially in a position where it's so very important to be clear and comprehensible in what you say, cause the whole country, if not the world, is taking you at your word.

What else can you call it ?

And yes, I call him a Moron due to the combination of the above, you can dispute it all you like, especially since all you offer TO dispute it is your own opinion, which you as welcome to, as I am to mock it, and vice versa.

The FACT is, he's done a piss poor job as president, and most of his own constituents rightfully despise him for it, despite the laughable attempts of the mainstream media to float his ass at 29%... which is actually amusing in a way...

"Falls to 29%"
"Falls further, to 29%"
"Completely tanks this week, falling to an unprecedented 29%"

I dunno who else was paying attention to that, but it was amusing that they think we can't count, when they're playing shift-the-numbers week by week.

Historically, the only president ever more hated was Harry Truman back in January of 1952, with a dismal approval rating of merely 23% .. and according to reuters/zogby, ole shrub is a mere one point currently from matching that record.

Of course, he's not at all alone in drawing the publics ire, given that Congress itself sits at a mere 11%, having failed more completely than ANY congress in history to actually represent the people they supposedly work for.

When it comes right down to it - if you ask Gallup, Zogby/Reuters, or the American People, who of course, are the people those folks are polling, the general consensus is that Bush is an incompetent shithead, so it's not like I am alone in voicing THAT opinion.

Not at all.

-Frem

PS, Yes Anthony, interesting indeed that they nuked that, since it was what catapulted him into the public eye in the first place, isn't it ?
It *was* originally part of the entry, and one of the deletionists removed it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 11, 2007 9:05 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The idea of considering the "common man" as mere tax fodder for the enrichment of oneself and their cronies predates corporations, but as the sentiment is the same, so applies the term I used.

In economic terms the common man contributes to the economy by work, taxes, and consumption. Any economic policy that ignores the common man's role in taxation is doomed to failure.

Quote:

The Anti-Federalists made a good argument as to the Articles of Confederation being entirely sufficient,

Actually, they failed miserably as evidence by the universal triumph of the Federalists in carrying every state. How many times have every state ever agreed on anything? Does not happen often.

Quote:

and in the end chose to compromise so long as certain of their rights were explicitly upheld, a compact the FedGov has strained to violate, and has violated, at every turn and corner providing them an opportunity to do so.

You didn't just say that. I know you didn't because you don't have free speech and the soldiers living in your house would arrest you for saying it, arrest you without a warrant after they've coerced a confession from you and seized you private papers all without a lawyer and then you'd be returned to a state of slavery before suffering a cruel and unusual punishment in a State that does not allow the consumption of alcohol, collection of income taxes, or women, black men, or folks 18-25 years of age to vote.

Clearly...you have no rights at all. Feel free to disagree...although by disagreeing with me, I automatically win my argument.

Quote:

And the principle of the Union being a Union of VOLUNTARY association went out the window...during the 1860's and chose to rescind that association,

I note for the record that association by new states is voluntary. The precedent of the Civil War is that in addition to being voluntary, it is also permanant. The Consitution is silent on the issue. Legally, I think had the Court decided the issue, they would have found otherwise...but legal theory can and does recognize the prosecution of the war as having rendered the legal question moot.

My own theory is that States with soveriegnty pre-existing the Union can disassociate themselves. States formed from US Territories can also leave the union but it would require their return to their prior status as unincorporated US territories.

Quote:

And just ask Hawaii how "Voluntary" their absorbtion into that Union was.

I noted Hawaii was a special case, as it shares traits of both former soveriegn nations and former US Territories. I think the legality of the US annexation is the deciding issue.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE