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 ...
Speaking of Klan and bigot:
See our present condition-—the country engaged in war! Our White men cutting one another’s throats! And then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another. Why should the people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated.”
— Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862, from COLLECTED WORKS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Vol 5, page 371
1. Saying contradictory things before different audiences.
2. Opposing racial equality.
3. Opposing giving blacks the right to vote, serve on juries or intermarry while allegedly supporting their natural rights.
4. Being a racist.
5. Supporting the legal rights of slaveholders.
6. Supporting Clay?s American System or mercantilism as his primary political agenda: national bank, high tariff, and internal improvements.
7. Supporting a political economy that encourages corruption and inefficiency.
8. Supporting a political economy that became the blueprint for modern American.
9. Being a wealthy railroad lawyer.
10. Never defending a runaway slave.
11. Defending a slaveholder against his runaway slave.
12. Favoring returning ex-slaves to Africa or sending them to Central America and Haiti.?
13. Proposing to strengthen the Fugitive Slave law.
14. Opposing the extension of slavery in the territories so that “free white people” can settle there and because allowing them to become slave states would dilute Republican influence in Congress because of the three-fifths rule.
15. Opposing black citizenship in Illinois or their right to immigrate to that state.
16. Failing to use his legendary political skills to achieve peaceful emancipation as was accomplished elsewhere—Lincoln's war was the only “war of emancipation” in the 19th century.
17. Nullifying emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.
18. Stating that his primary motive was saving the union and not ending slavery.
19. Supporting a conscription law.
20. Sending troops into New York City to quell draft riots related to his emancipation proclamation, resulting in 300 to 1,000 deaths.
21. Starting a war that took the lives of 620,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians and caused incalculable economic loss.
22. Being an enemy of free market capitalism.
23. Being an economic illiterate and espousing the labor theory of value.
24. Supporting a disastrous public works project in Illinois and continuing to support the same policies oblivious of the consequences.
25. Conjuring up a specious and deceptive argument against the historically-recognized right of state secession.
26. Lying about re-supplying the fed?s tax collection office known as Fort Sumter.
27. Refusing to see peace commissioners from the Confederacy offering to pay for all federal property in the South.
28. Refusing to see Napoleon III of France who offered to mediate the dispute.
29. Provoking Virginia to secede by taking military action against the Deep South.
30. Supporting a tariff and other policies that systematically redistributed wealth from the South to the North, causing great consternation in the South.
31. Invading the South without consulting Congress.
32. Illegally declaring martial law.
33. Illegally blockading ports.
34. Illegally suspending habeas corpus.
35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.
36. Tolerating their subjection to inhumane conditions in prison.
37. Systematically attacking Northern newspapers and their employees, including by imprisonment.
38. Deporting his chief political enemy in the North, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio.
39. Confiscating private property and firearms.
40. Ignoring the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
41. Tolerating the arrest of ministers who refused to pray for Lincoln.
42. Arresting several duly elected members of the Maryland Legislature along with the mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman Henry May.
43. Placing Kansas and Kentucky under martial law.
44. Supporting a law that indemnified public officials for unlawful acts.
45. Laying the groundwork for the establishment of conscription and income taxation as permanent institutions.
46. Interfering with and rigging elections in Maryland and elsewhere in the North.
47. Censoring all telegraph communication.
48. Preventing opposition newspapers from being delivered by the post office.
49. Illegally creating the state of West Virginia out of the “indestructible” state of Virginia.
50. Tolerating or supporting mistreatment of citizens in conquered territory.
51. Taxing those citizens without their consent.
52. Executing those who refused to take a loyalty oath.
53.Closing churches and arresting ministers.
54. Burning and plundering Southern cites.
55. Quartering troops in private homes unlawfully.
56. reating an enormous political patronage system.
57. Allowing an unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.
58. Engineering a constitutional revolution through military force which destroyed state sovereignty and replaced it with rule by the Supreme Court (and the United States Army).
59. Laying the groundwork for the imperialist and militarist campaigns of the future as well as the welfare/warfare state.
60. Creating the dangerous precedent of establishing a strong consolidated state out of a decentralized confederation.
61. Effectively killing secession as a threat, thus encouraging the rise of our modern federal monolith.
62. Waging war on civilians by bombing, destruction of homes, and confiscation of food and farm equipment.
63. Tolerating an atmosphere which led to large numbers of rapes against Southern women, including slaves.
64. Using civilians as hostages.
65. Promoting a general because of his willingness to use his troops as cannon fodder.
66. DiLorenzo blames Lincoln for the predictable aftermath of the war: the plundering of the South by Lincoln?s allies.
67. Supporting government subsidies of the railroads leading to corruption and inefficiency.
68. Supporting a nationalized paper currency which is inherently inflationary.
69. Creating the federal tax bureaucracy and various taxes that are still with us.
70. Establishing precedents for centralized powers and suppression of liberties that continue to be cited today.
71. Ending slavery by means that created turbulence that continues to this day.
I assume that’s just a comment and not supposed to be an answer to the question.
Bravo!
You pulled that out of your arse, my friend
LOL...me too.
I won’t even look but I can bet the resident ABMs and South bashers are in a tittypinch on this one..
bttt...nice petard toss Billy!
you were doing ok till you editorialized your own logic at the last paragraph
aside from seething resentments and strong cultural friction between north and south and economic issues aside from slavery, your first nuggets are fair enough but then you went subjective.
the expansion of slavery and what Lincoln’s election with a minority of the vote foreshadowed was the catalyst issue for both sides
preserving the union only became the focus for the north after the south started seceding after the election of Mr Lincoln...who was not actually a real abolitionist like Sumner or Stevens since as you correctly claimed did not intend to abolish slavery where it already existed.
after the South seceded, the North fought to keep them in the Union and the South fought to secede or more practically to fend off an invasion after they tried to secede
had the North done nothing, there is no hint the South would have invaded the north...and for what?....
You are right. The America west was the prize for both north and south. Reading the articles of secession makes that pretty clear, in my opinion. Had the south successfully seceded, things out west would have gotten much more interesting. Our wars out west which followed the civil war would have taken on a whole new dimension.
Would have made for some tremendously interesting history.
Lincoln offered them slavery if they gave up on western expansion. They refused explicitly because they intended to expand west. Its my opinion that civil war was inevitable. If not at Sumter, then out west. We would probably be four countries now. That might not be so bad, actually. But current history would be unrecognizable world wide for better or for worse. Some talented writers could probably have a hayday building a parallel history. It would be fun to take a crack at it, really.
You can certainly pick comments on race out of context for any 19th century American that look non-PC in 2010. Abraham Lincoln was always opposed to the extension of slavery, the great issue of the day. One can certainly point out that Lincoln and the Founding Fathers were not in favor of perfect racial equality, but none of them ever supported secession and the destruction of the USA.
Exactly!
Just speaking for myself, I don't consider myself much of a "defender of the Confederacy" -- because I don't think that many of the peculiar institutions of the Confederacy were or are morally defensible.
But I definitely consider myself a defender of a State's Right to secede from the voluntary Union of States -- in theory, for any reason or no reason, if that State's citizens' so elect; but certainly if the Central Government has become a tax-mongering Socialist Tyranny. (Are we there yet?)
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system... but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe
I beg to differ, Sir.
It was yourself that claimed (This was “Klan material”). I'm merely pointing to the Fact - That Lincoln was not that friendly to those of a different race/religion.Not that he even believed in a higher power.
Should we discuss Secession? It was understood during the formation of this (now Empire) that the Constitution was a compact.
“If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.”
That quote was from( Daniel Webster )one of your hero's Idols
Too bad for you that the DoI was a committee effort and not, as taught, written exclusively by Jefferson.
“(Are we there yet?)”
That,Sir
Is the million dollar question!
“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson,would say (we are there)!
I claim no expertise on Daniel Webster but doubt that he was ever sympathetic to secessionism. His most famous quote was: “Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable.”
State[s] were sold a bill of goods.
To deny the right of secession, is to deny , Several States
joined with the understanding - they could re-assume their delegated authority.
After the fact, you can find people claiming different.
New York
We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York , duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America . . . declare and make known. . . .
That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness;
Federal #43 To the People of the State of New York:
A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; 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.
Even is one believes that secession was a right, how was the mere election of 1860 a justification for secession?
You don’t ever need to worry why. To ask the question of why implies a threat to the seceding party.
BTTT
is this really a history question or a future question re: the rumblings re: Texas
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.