Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Brion McClanahan
MemberMemberFor Delaware, see this: https://books.google.com/books?id=NKERAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
It is probably the most egregious example.
MemberI think a case could be made that had Lincoln lived, he would have been as ineffective as Johnson in handling the Republican Party during Reconstruction and perhaps would have been viewed as a much different president.
MemberSimple answer: No, at least not according to an originalist position.
According to contemporary legal opinions (1787), a “natural born” citizen would have been one with two native born parents, but at least with a native born father, and preferably born within the United States.
Or they had to be a citizen with the U.S. Constitution was adopted. Cruz isn’t that old.
MemberThanks for reading my new book.
Crapol takes the typically Whiggish position that Tyler was violating executive powers throughout his presidency, particularly in regard to foreign policy. Botts wanted him impeached, for example. I don’t agree.
MemberI echo Dr. Gutzman. “For Cause and Comrades” is the best study produced on why men fought in the War.
MemberLudwell Johnson’s “North Against South” is excellent. Here is a good list: http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/recommended/books/war-for-southern-independence/
October 2, 2015 at 10:04 am in reply to: The War Between the States and the Rise of Progressivism #15490MemberNo, not the Progressive Era, but the Populists who realized they cut a raw deal with Northern industrialists in the 1850s. Lawrence Goodwyn’s “The Populist Revolt” is the standard treatment of the movement.
MemberThank you for the link. I had not read this until today. I think Paulson makes a great case, and yes, the president is only obligated to enforce constitutional laws. Congress also has an obligation to only pass constitutional legislation and the during the ratification debates several proponents of the Constitution argued that should the general government violate the Constitution, the States would be “powerful enough to check it,” in other words nullify unconstitutional legislation. James Wilson essentially made such a statement in his famous State House Yard Speech of Oct 1787.
MemberJeff,
It must also be remembered and emphasized that the Second Amendment only applied to the general government, not the States. Had Virginia or any other State wanted to restrict the possession of firearms they were perfectly allowed to do so. The general government could not disarm the militia, but the States could. Now, no State would have disarmed the militia, but Pennsylvania had several restrictions on firearms.
Brion
April 29, 2015 at 10:55 am in reply to: Anti-slavery movement and newspapers located in Southern/Slave states??? #20953MemberMost Southerners who advocated ending slavery favored either manumission or colonization and the majority of these people were to be found in Virginia. George Mason, for example, has long been considered an early advocate of ending the institution, and by the end of his life so was Washington.
The Southern movement was not as radical nor vocal as that which started to pop up in the North in the early 19th century, and no Southern anti-slavery movement matched the zeal of Garrison or Beecher, et. al. Southern anti-slavery proponents were not militant and after Nat Turner most refrained from advancing the message if they still harbored any support for eradicating slavery.
Peter Kolchin’s American Slavery is a solid treatment of the institution, as is Louis Filler’s Slavery in the United States of America.
April 29, 2015 at 9:43 am in reply to: Prior to Civil War, South buying Federal land in the South to get out of union? #20955MemberI am not certain which lecture you are referencing. I don’t remember using those exact words. Are you talking about Southern interest in purchasing federal property in 1860 and 1861?
If so, the Southern States, mainly South Carolina but there were discussions in other States as well, sent commissioners to Washington D.C. to purchase federal property and settle any outstanding debt issues. They were rebuffed by the Lincoln administration. Secretary of State Seward feigned sick so he did not have to meet with them. If the Union had negotiated with South Carolina, that would be both a de facto and de jure recognition of secession, something Lincoln refused to accept.
MemberHis name was William Walker. There are several secondary sources about his activities, some of which are in the public domain. The link below is his own work about Nicaragua. These events had little to no impact on the U.S. after the War.
MemberYes, absolutely. Bart Talbert, “The South’s First Casualty” is the best. You can get it on Amazon but it is out of print so expensive.
MemberThey had a substantial role. Thomas Nast was a 48er, so were people like Villard, Hecker, and Schurz. Schurz was fairly independent and after the Republican Party moved somewhat right after Reconstruction (I mean mildly) they did not have much influence. The neocons own the modern Republican Party.
-
AuthorPosts