On Aug 16, 11:50 pm, ":
On Aug 16, 3:01 pm, "KLC Lewis" wrote:
...

Nah, it happened long before then. Lincoln burned a pretty wide swath
through it all by himself.


" wrote
All by himself? Maybe Davis had something to do with it too...

Nah, the Constitution did not (and still does not) say a word about
forbidding states to withdraw from the union. Nor does it grant the
President authority to order military action against any states
(hence, the "War of Northern Aggression" is a perfectly factual term
for the U.S. Civil War).

Stanton did more to help Lincoln get over the Constitution than
Davis... not that I'm a big fan of ol' Jeff Davis... in fact I think
the Confederacy was one of the most selfish & retarded gambits that a
dying aristocracy has ever foisted upon it's host society.



The
Constitution is far better with the 14th and the country is infinitely
better for 13 and 15. But what does this have to do with cruising?


umm... equal rights for sailors & cruisers?

Actually, I dunno what it has to do with sailing... but I think that
sooner or later, *everything* is related to sailing & cruising
somehow.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Aug 17, 1:41 am, wrote:
....
(hence, the "War of Northern Aggression" is a perfectly factual term
for the U.S. Civil War).
....

Well we've found a more divisive topic than multihulls as cruising
boats. The question of State's Rights is a vexed one and was hotly
argued at the Constitutional convention where the founders punted in
full knowledge that the question would come back and bite them. Some
(Madison, Adams, etc) clearly thought that art VI did mean that the
federal rule was to be supreme and thus (says he, time warping) any
succession could only be legal with the blessing of the federal
government. Of course, there were very strong opinions on the other
side (and there was Jefferson who, typically, managed to argue both
sides) and the horrible result was the Civil War. A vast number of
words has been written on this topic and the arguments still persist
so I doubt we'll solve it here, but I'd be content to concede to
everything you wrote if you just change "perfectly factual" to
"reasonably arguable".

-- Tom.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 17, 1:41 am, wrote:
...
(hence, the "War of Northern Aggression" is a perfectly factual term
for the U.S. Civil War).
...

Well we've found a more divisive topic than multihulls as cruising
boats. The question of State's Rights is a vexed one and was hotly
argued at the Constitutional convention where the founders punted in
full knowledge that the question would come back and bite them. Some
(Madison, Adams, etc) clearly thought that art VI did mean that the
federal rule was to be supreme and thus (says he, time warping) any
succession could only be legal with the blessing of the federal
government. Of course, there were very strong opinions on the other
side (and there was Jefferson who, typically, managed to argue both
sides) and the horrible result was the Civil War. A vast number of
words has been written on this topic and the arguments still persist
so I doubt we'll solve it here, but I'd be content to concede to
everything you wrote if you just change "perfectly factual" to
"reasonably arguable".

-- Tom.


Under the principle that "The Declaration of Independence Informs the
Constitution," our founders recognised that when the Government no longer
fit the needs of the People, it is their right to cast off that government.
I maintain that, regardless of the evil of "That Peculiar Institution,"
those Sovereign States which wished to dissolve their ties with the Federal
Government and create a new union had every right (both moral and legal) to
do so.