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 ...
You - “So you're saying no government anywhere has the right to oppose a rebellion?”
Your now claiming ‘implied’ authority? If the Bill of Rights ( Is a list of Shall not )How does the General Government infringe upon “shall not be infringed”?
Again,what facts support mythical Saint Abraham's claims?
Yours?
Don't y'all worry the Tower of Babel/Lincoln's statue will be cast upon the fires of hell soon enough.
Oops. Linked to the second letter rather than the first one.
Lincoln as Hitler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1KBMnj4BJY
I'm sure that great empty space between your's would provide it more room. I'll remind you that rebellion is defined as open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government. And that is a very accurate description of the Southern efforts between 1861 and 1863.
No implied to it. The power to oppose insurrections is specifically stated in Article I, Section 8.
Me, too.
I don’t understand the stupid “get over it” response. We are all taught that we must learn history or we are destined to repeat it. Regardless of where you stand on the War Between the States, saying “get over it” is moronic. Southerners and supporters don’t have these discussions to “still fight the war.” We have them because they are fundamental to where we are, how we got here, and where we are going. If you don’t get that, you are in the wrong place and hopelessly over your head.
See #171.
Cordially,
True enough. Most people are very energetic when they defend their families and homes. A southern shortcoming Yankees apparently can not fathom.
A myriad of claims, all documented. Which one in particular are you referring to?
But I digress. In his reply 272 Conservative9 Lee never owned a slave - a statement he has backtracked on. But he also claimed that numberous Northern generals owned slaves and that some of them didn't free their's until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 - claims I'm still waiting for evidence of. He also claimed Lee was vigorously opposed to slavery - something that Lee's own words clearly indicate is false. So I'll be glad to take on providing evidence supporting your alleged mythical Lincoln claims if you'll take on these mythical Southron claims. Deal?
And where would you Lost Causers be without your Hitler claims and comparisons? In a world of hurt, that's for certain. Without myth you would have nothing to post at all.
You - “No implied to it. The power to oppose insurrections is specifically stated in Article I, Section 8.”
Is your view ( States supporting the STRICT interpretation of said Constitution ) are Insurrectionist?
Article I, Section 8. Enumerates certain authority's - Regulating the Bill of Rights - isn't one of them.
Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Mr. Madison: "It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse."
You are a liar and an imbecile. I did not say Lee NEVER owned a slave. I said he owned not one and was referring to the time of the invasion from the north as the context indicates. But you refuse the facts even when a former freed slave who was a well known and respected Baptist preacher gives a first hand account. I will not waste my time answering your accusations to which answers you have been made blind.
But the power for "for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" is.
Mr. Madison
Mr. Madison: "It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact. Applying this view of the subject to a single community, it results, that the compact being between the individuals composing it, no individual or set of individuals can at pleasure, break off and set up for themselves, without such a violation of the compact as absolves them from its obligations."
I always enjoyed Southerner’s strong defense of State’s Rights when they were simultaneously demanding that Maine and Massachusetts be forced to return their runaway slaves.
It had everything to do about money, and nothing to do with about principle.
The North could not make money from slavery and was against it.
The South could make huge amounts of money from slavery and were for it.
End of discussion.
You said, "Robert E. Lee did not own slaves, but many Union generals did." Both ends of that statement are flat out false.
I said he owned not one and was referring to the time of the invasion from the north as the context indicates.
The context does not indicate that at all. Nor do the facts, since he had title to the slaves left from his father-in-laws estate.
But you refuse the facts even when a former freed slave who was a well known and respected Baptist preacher gives a first hand account.
Because Mack Lee's account is bogus start to finish, riddled with errors that an idiot should be able to spot, and is contradicted by reputable historians including Douglas Southall Freeman. Given all that, I'll leave believing him to the gullible types like yourself.
I will not waste my time answering your accusations to which answers you have been made blind.
How about naming a couple of those slave-owning Northern generals you mentioned? Please? Pretty please? With sugar on it?
Lincoln asked Scott to be ready on inauguration day to hold or retake the forts. How could Scott be ready to take the forts without violating Buchanan's do nothing policy?
I'm off for the rest of the week. You have fun and learn some history for a change.
Me - “Article I, Section 8. Enumerates certain authority’s - Regulating the Bill of Rights - isn’t one of them.”
You - “But the power for “for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” is.”
‘Laws of the Union’ Well, what do we have here?
Supporting the Clinton gun ban are you? It was after all the ‘law’ of the Union
And the Texas Board of Education is removing Jefferson from text books?
Right hand, meet left hand.
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.