"O'er the land of the free and home of the brave"

David; I would like to applaud you, as well as "Thank You" for the seed. I felt a surge of pride that I haven't felt in a while because of all the corruption we're facing on a daily basis. I do write my Senators, and Congressmen weekly....but, I must admit I haven't written Obama himself. I feel it is a waste of time and energy to try and let this president know how we feel. He doesn't care, if we aren't on his list of Radical Socialist inspired thugs. He is pushing an agenda that is based on the teachings of the radical 60's professors, Cloward and Piven. Which is to overthrow the United States Government based on the Constitution, and instill his Socialist ideologies.

However, you are completely right on.....the people will rise up against any tyrant that threatens our freedom. It will go down in history, as the greatest battle fought on this soil without a shot fired.

You know Jefferson Davis mouthed similar platitudes. A shame he never danced from the end of the rope like the traitor he was.

David: Slavery was a red herring. The Civil War was about states rights. And THAT is why we're in danger again

The Civil War was about states rights.

Yes, the right of states to allow their citizens to hold slaves.

But let's go straight to the source on the matter, shall we? Here's Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, speaking on the Confederate Constitution:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

States' Rights is and always has been a fig leaf for another agenda. Anyone who'd bothered to study history can clearly see that.

adipic - you posted good information. Let me ask, why did you find it necessary to close your comment with an insult?

A statement of fact is an insult?

Anyone who hasn't bothered to study history?????? YES it's an insult! Further, I CAN refute your information. Slavery was NOT the direct reason the states formed the confederacy. They left the union because they believed that the 10th Amendment gave them the authority to make their own decision about slavery. I don't give a damn about what Alexander Stephens said AFTER THE FACT.

Saying the civil War was about slavery is about the same as saying Roe v Wade was about abortion. CONSTITUTIONALLY, neither statement is correct.

I provided you with an original source document from the period, which last I checked was considered the gold standard for historical research. Alexander Stephens was one of the men who led the movement to secede, and that you don't care what he thought only proves my original point is indeed a fact.

adipic - twisting my words. I said I don't care what he said AFTER THE FACT. I know my history and I stand by my information. I don't NEED to post any further FACTS. My SOURCE is the U S Constitution. The confederate states believed that the 10th Amendment gave them the right to decide the slavery issue. THEY SECEDED FROM THE UNION BECAUSE OF THE ISSUE OF STATES RIGHTS.

After the fact? Who's twisting words now? That speech was given during the period that secession was occurring, not years later.

And your comment about having the "right to secede" to "decide the slavery issue" only proves my point: states' rights would never have even entered the conversation had Lincoln lost the election and the North had meekly acquiesced to the demands of the slave holders to impose fugitive slave laws in their states and to repeal their prohibitions on the institution.

They only cared about states rights when it wasn't their will being imposed, which is almost always the case with states' rights advocates, and is certainly the case with their modern incarnation. These people were silent from 2000 through 2008 when their "side" was running roughshod over the country. Now that they have lost an election or two, they begin their pathetic whining. It's sour grapes, not deep principle.

Where does it specifically give these rights:

• The right for someone to search you before you get on an airplane?
• The right for the government to listen to your telephone conversations without a warrant if they believe that you are a terrorist?
• The right to declare corporations to be "persons" with all the rights attendant?
• The right to impose a national drinking age?

I could go on, and on, and on. The Tenth is often the final refuge of the "I don't like it, but I'm in the minority." The same arguments were made about Social Security and Medicare, and both were found constitutional.

Face it: you just don't like the idea of national health care and will use any argument at hand to oppose it. When there is legislation that supports your political goals advanced, these theoretical concerns bother you not at all.