Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Understanding The Civil War More Clearly

Tyrants generally don't care for the rule of law. Thus the analogy between Jackson and Obama, and why you really should take better care who you cite to support your argument.

Keep betting on Jackson, whilst Jefferson lies there in counter, and your true colors become ever more apparent.

You were taught incorrectly.

If only obviously, and he clearly continues the malfeasance.

"Inconsistent b&tch".... now there's a new one (needing that eyeroll icon again, Rick? Are you there?)

All I did was give ol' Andy's opinion. Doubtless many of those who opted to fight and die to preserve the Union thirty years later were familiar with his line of reasoning.

And I never made an issue of the Texians' "right" one way or another.

...anyways take a chill pill, I'm 'back in the Barrio' here in my public school 'echo chamber'.....

HALLLLOOOOOOO............... HALLLLOOOOOOOO...........

PLEEEEEESE DON'T MISSPELL 'TEXAS' AGAAAAAAIN...........

Birdwatcher

AAAAK, more humanistic public school propaganda....

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/role-supreme-court

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.

I'd be sincerely interested to know where this above is incorrect.

Birdwatcher

Yes the same Jackson that said and I paraphrase "does the Supreme Court have an army?? Hey I got an army!!!" Referencing the case of;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

You've stated that Tejas had a right of secession for self-determination and self-governance.

But, please continue citing a tyrannical president; it serves your position so well. Feel free to cite Obama next, as the philosophical lineage is quite clear.

It was much less clear cut before the Civil War. Only twice before the war did the SC rule laws unconstitutional. Further, states exercised the authority to ignore the Court. I give you the Fugitive Slave Act as an example. Northern states practiced nullification and refused to enforce the law, with several states making it a crime for their officers to aid in its enforcement despite the fact that it was a law passed by Congress and validated by the Supreme Court.

Keep going. He's not dense; he'll just deny whatever you say. Figure you're making the argument for everyone else, as Birdwatcher lacks the intellectual honesty to accept any facts other than those that support this agenda (rather fascist socialism when you boil it down).

Same ol' question: Where did I do this?



My position has always been that I would have fought to preserve the Union. To me, the whole Union IS my country. If that strikes me off of your Christmas card list I cannot help that.

Jackson's position was, in part, that the threat and validity of a state seceding was substantively no different than a county seceding from a state.

How the Confederacy woulda handled secession from the Confederacy in turn is a moot point now I guess. I had no idea before this that the whole Northern Third of Alabama, an area about the size of Maryland voted against secession. Of course voting against secession and actually opting to fight to preserve the Union were two different things.

But still, the collective Confederacy was obliged to impose its will upon some unwilling folks within its borders. How was that not tyranny?

Birdwatcher

In the Tejas secession thread, you inconsistent bitch. I'll dig it up for you. Here: http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/10111446/5

Pay close attention to the summation on the next page, bitch.

WV voted against secession, too. VA let them go. Lincoln imprisoned the entire MD legislature and government to prevent a vote and turned cannons against Baltimore to terrorize civilians into staying in the Union.

"Ends justify the means"; Stalin would have loved you.

..and South Carolina tried nullification in 1832.

Anyways, thank you Sir for that informative reply.

As soon as the well of my disposable funds rises a tad, I shall be ordering "Albion's Seed"as per your recommendation.

Birdwatcher

Do the world a favor and order some of Rommel's last medicine while you're at it. A double dose should help things along.

????

This? That thread?

You'll not find a declaration of the justice of the Texian cause there from me.

I wrote...

Ultimately the Alamo came down to this; a refusal to submit to a lone dictator in the person of Santa Anna, beyond that, it gets complicated.

THAT is the story I believe most of us regulars want to be told, as close to the truth as possible.

Birdwatcher

As I stated, a few inside the Alamo were fighting to restore the Constitution of '24, a few were fighting to separate Coahuila and Texas from Mexico (the Coahuila y Texas flag was flown over the Alamo by the defenders) and many, most just in from the US, were fighting for Texas Independence ie. to separate Texas from Mexico. Probab'ly some too were fighting just because they were there when it started.

They ALL were fighting Santa Anna at that particular moment in time.

If I were doing the War over Southern Independence, probab'ly like most every reenactor I know, I'd depict both sides at different time as budget and on-site necessity allowed.

When reenacting Confederate, I'd state the Confederate views as best I knew them. The same is true of the Second Texas War of Independence, actually, as an Irish settler, I could be on either side.

Birdwatcher

????



You might think about using this as a sig line, save you some typing.

Sycamore

To give you an idea on just how WRONG this war was fought, We have historical data (circa 1960s-70s) of Soviet merchant vessels loading up with sugar (and I'm sure cigars) in Cuba (Cuban commies). Proceeding through the Panama Canal on its way to North Korea (chinese communists), unloading its cargo, then loading up with Soviet hardware such as SAMs and AAA (Soviet/Chinese commies) proceeding through the S China Sea and under the noses of the 7th Fleet and unloading it's cargo in Haiphong (Vietnamese communists). Nominal material support? NONSENSE.

No Sean, while all communists might not be exactly the same, they were most definitively united in world domination. What we should have done (well, it depends how far you want to go, but let's stick Vietnam), is establish a complete Naval Blockade of N. Vietnam, destroyed all the main infrastructure leading in from China and with a two pronged strategy, INVADE the North from the land through and a landing in/near Haiphong. We had them on the run after Tet in 68.

A quick victory is not in the best interests of those who manufacture the implements of war [and those individuals tasked with procurement of them].

D.W. Eisenhower, 1961....

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

For my own part, I cannot say how much the interests of the military industrial complex has influenced our policy decisions since that time.

Birdwatcher

During the Eisenhower years, no one made better use of the military industrial complex than Old Ike

Eisenhower made an interesting statement on that. Paraphrasing, and hopefully not butchering it too badly:



He seemed to understand very well that humanity would be much better off if we could find a way to not divert scarce resources to implements of war.

Unfortunately, the sad state of our world forces this misallocation of resources.