Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jefferson vs Lincoln: America Must Choose
Tenth Amendment Center. ^ | 2010 | Josh Eboch

Posted on 03/10/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Idabilly

Over the course of American history, there has been no greater conflict of visions than that between Thomas Jefferson’s voluntary republic, founded on the natural right of peaceful secession, and Abraham Lincoln’s permanent empire, founded on the violent denial of that same right.

That these two men somehow shared a common commitment to liberty is a lie so monstrous and so absurd that its pervasiveness in popular culture utterly defies logic.

After all, Jefferson stated unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence that, at any point, it may become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…

And, having done so, he said, it is the people’s right to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Contrast that clear articulation of natural law with Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, where he flatly rejected the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Instead, Lincoln claimed that, despite the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment, no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; [and] resolves and ordinances [such as the Declaration of Independence] to that effect are legally void…

King George III agreed.

(Excerpt) Read more at southernheritage411.com ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; abrahamlincoln; confederate; confedertae; donttreadonme; dunmoresproclamation; greatestpresident; history; jefferson; lincoln; naturallaw; nutjobsonfr; statesrights; thomasjefferson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,160 ... 1,261-1,264 next last
To: Non-Sequitur
Why wasn't Lincoln justified in fighting the war that Davis started? Can you at least take a stab at answering that?

Why should he? Your premise is bogus, that "Davis started the war" -- Lincoln came into office looking for a war from the minute the vote-counting stopped, and he by-God got his war. You still haven't proved Nicolay wrong, which you will need to do, to keep peddling your nostrum.

You have been shown convincing evidence that you are wrong, but here you are, arguing as if you'd never heard or seen any of it. That's called resistance, it's dishonest and it makes you an intransigent and refractory liar.

1,121 posted on 03/24/2010 5:21:53 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1116 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

“I didn’t say I bought Bennett’s explanation.”

You were just spreading it around. I see.


1,122 posted on 03/24/2010 5:22:03 AM PDT by AlanD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1118 | View Replies]

To: AlanD
We were talking about Bennett! What the hell?!

The fact of the matter is, there was an awful lot of slaving money made in the Northern ports, and that was the point being contended for at the moment.

Bennett also specifically mentioned Jewish banking interests, one of which, a big investment bank, only a couple of years ago checked their records and admitted his charge, that one of their predecessor companies had indeed been in the slave trade.

After 1808 it was illegal to import slaves into the United States, but there was still a lot of traffic to the Caribbean and Brazil, supposedly legal except for the Anglo-American blockade.

1,123 posted on 03/24/2010 5:36:25 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1122 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Excuse me, I have to take a shower now.


1,124 posted on 03/24/2010 5:37:34 AM PDT by AlanD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1123 | View Replies]

To: AlanD
Spit it out, what is your problem?

American history a little icky-poo for you?

1,125 posted on 03/24/2010 5:47:51 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1124 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Speaking of long standing things, occasionally I've said that South Carolina could claim eminent domain over Fort Sumter.

Constitutionally they could not per Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

1,126 posted on 03/24/2010 5:52:02 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1109 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
As I sat by the pool tonight grilling steaks, I hoisted a beer in your honor in the general direction of Kansas.

I assume you were grilling Kansas City Strip steaks? If so then you gesture of respect is well warranted. If you can get it, the local Boulevard brew is perfect with the well prepared steak that you no doubt produced.

What I don't understand is your belief that the Founding Fathers would endorse an action guaranteed to leave bitterness and acrimony behind it. I just don't see them being that foolish.

1,127 posted on 03/24/2010 6:08:47 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1108 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Palpably untrue. You're refuted. I'll wear your lie like garland of roses.

Carefull, your Lost Cause buddies might start to question your sexual orientation.

Yeah, and you were watching every minute.

Hardly.

1,128 posted on 03/24/2010 6:11:16 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1111 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
No, I didn't -- I quoted John G. Nicolay in extenso, a confidential eyewitness who knew a lot more about Lincoln and his night moves than you ever will, and you're still trying to wriggle out of the headlock he's got you in.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

You're done, son. Branded and castrated. Into the cattle car with you.

Hardly.

1,129 posted on 03/24/2010 6:12:22 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1112 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Just like the Southern States did in 1861.

Complete nonsense. In 1789 the United States changed their form of government, but the United States themselves continued unbroken. States did not leave one country to form another, they kept the same country and formed a more perfect Union. No states left the country and then rejoined, they all continued as part of a single nation.

...and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.

And as Madison pointed out, all parties to the compact are equal. One party has the power to declare the compact violated any more than the other has to declare the compact unviolated.

Game over, Non-Sequitur.

So you keep saying. Yet the game continues.

Elenchus.

If you're referring to the dinosaur then yes, I'd say that the Southern rebellion of 1861 is as extinct as they are.

1,130 posted on 03/24/2010 6:25:30 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1115 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
You keep saying that after you've been refuted. We had a post above, of South Carolina's offer of compensation.

Any desire that South Carolina may have had in December to pay for the property stolen and the debt repudiated was dropped by the Davis regime by February, as you well know.

1,131 posted on 03/24/2010 6:30:19 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1119 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; Cincincinati Spiritus
Cincincinati Spiritus: “Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon March 2, 1861:”

You of course: “Oh my God!”

Your hero - Obama - Is about to “pull a Lincoln” and expel dissenters...
This is a short list
Of Good and honest men that were expelled ( or attempted expulsion) or Arrested for alleged disloyalty to the Union....
Waldo Porter Johnson - Missouri
Lawrence Washington Hall - Ohio
Trusten Polk - Missouri
Edson Baldwin Olds - Ohio
Benjamin Stark - Oregon
Eccles G. Van Riper - Indiana
Clement Laird Vallandigham - Ohio
Alexander Long - Ohio
Samuel Medary - Ohio
Luke Pryor Blackburn Kentucky

1,132 posted on 03/24/2010 6:33:56 AM PDT by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1116 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Why should he? Your premise is bogus, that "Davis started the war" -- Lincoln came into office looking for a war from the minute the vote-counting stopped, and he by-God got his war. You still haven't proved Nicolay wrong, which you will need to do, to keep peddling your nostrum.

My premise is sound. If there was a desire for war then that desire was as strong if not stronger in Davis than it was in Lincoln. He was bound and determined to have Sumter come what may, and was willing to go to war if that's what it took. You constant complaint that Lincoln somehow suckered Davis into starting a war does not hold up. Even if you are true and Lincoln was itching for a conflict, Davis didn't have to give it to him. Unless he wanted to. Which Davis did.

You have been shown convincing evidence that you are wrong, but here you are, arguing as if you'd never heard or seen any of it. That's called resistance, it's dishonest and it makes you an intransigent and refractory liar.

Hardly convincing.

1,133 posted on 03/24/2010 6:48:10 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1121 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
Scratch

Eccles G. Van Riper

I'll add more when time permits

1,134 posted on 03/24/2010 6:49:39 AM PDT by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1132 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; Idabilly
Constitutionally they could not per Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

That might apply if they had not already withdrawn from the Union and the US Constitution. In all these years you have never once proven they could not legally secede, while many of your fellow posters, including Idabilly on this thread, have offered proof that states could withdraw or were not restricted from withdrawing from the Union.

I hate to see an old adversary twisting in the wind so badly.

1,135 posted on 03/24/2010 6:59:14 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1126 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
Your hero - Obama - Is about to “pull a Lincoln” and expel dissenters...

Your hero maybe. Not mine.

Of Good and honest men that were expelled ( or attempted expulsion) or Arrested for alleged disloyalty to the Union....

In several cases - Johnson and Polk, for example - the disloyalty was true. Both those men joined the rebel congress in Richmond. As for the rest, none of them were expelled from Congress for their actions. Luke Blackburn was tried in Canada but not in the U.S. Your list of heroes is pretty thin.

1,136 posted on 03/24/2010 7:00:49 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1132 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
That might apply if they had not already withdrawn from the Union and the US Constitution.

OK, so assume for the sake of arguement that is true. Eminent domain is the process used to acquire private property for public use. How can any government use eminent domain to seize the property of a foreign country?

In all these years you have never once proven they could not legally secede, while many of your fellow posters, including Idabilly on this thread, have offered proof that states could withdraw or were not restricted from withdrawing from the Union.

You've offered opinion on the legality of the Southern acts of secession. I've offered opinion on their illegality as well as a Supreme Court case stating such. If I've not proven my position then you certainly have not proven your's.

I hate to see an old adversary twisting in the wind so badly.

Any twisting is all in your imagination. Most of your posts are.

1,137 posted on 03/24/2010 7:05:51 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1135 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
“As for the rest, none of them were expelled from Congress for their actions.”

Jesse David Bright — Expelled from the U.S. Senate, February 5, 1862, over alleged disloyalty to the Union.

Dennis Aloysius Mahoney — Newspaper editor who criticized the Civil War; arrested in August 1862 and held until November at the Old Capitol Federal Prison in Washington, D.C.

Lawrence Washington Hall—Imprisoned for alleged disloyalty to the Union in 1862.

Edson Baldwin Olds—Arrested for alleged disloyalty to the Union and imprisoned in Fort Lafayette in 1862.

Alexander Long—Censured by the House of Representatives during the Civil War, for treasonable utterances.

What is “treasonable utterances” ? F-— Lincoln?

1,138 posted on 03/24/2010 8:02:36 AM PDT by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1136 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly
Jesse David Bright — Expelled from the U.S. Senate, February 5, 1862, over alleged disloyalty to the Union.

Alleged? He introduced arms merchants to the rebel government in Montgomery.

Dennis Aloysius Mahoney — Newspaper editor who criticized the Civil War; arrested in August 1862 and held until November at the Old Capitol Federal Prison in Washington, D.C.

And?

Lawrence Washington Hall—Imprisoned for alleged disloyalty to the Union in 1862.

And?

There were a great many people locked up without trial - on both sides.

1,139 posted on 03/24/2010 8:23:58 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1138 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

What are “treasonable utterances”?

F___K Lincoln
Tyrant
Thug
Queer
??


1,140 posted on 03/24/2010 8:29:16 AM PDT by Idabilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,160 ... 1,261-1,264 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson