Here is a low "lewinsky" angle shot of your hero. Enjoy Lincoln lovers, enjoy.
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 ...
Here is a low "lewinsky" angle shot of your hero. Enjoy Lincoln lovers, enjoy.
I am not a “Lincoln Lover”, far from it.
Lincoln gave the South as much rope as they needed to hang themselves. I can’t condone either side.
You can pick the side of tyranny or of freedom. We are all slaves of the feds now thanks to the Illinois Butcher™.
LOL. The South didn’t care about freedom . They were mainly worried about the North returning their runaway slaves!
“You can pick the side of tyranny or of freedom. We are all slaves of the feds now thanks to the Illinois Butcher™. “
Well said central -so I’ll repeat it!
Agreed
This is easy. You're a Fed loving boot licker. You are no "Switzerland".
Perhaps you could enlighten me. How does a Pennsylvania Congressman's speech bear on the reasons the South seceded? A brief reading of any of the secession resolutions passed by any of the states that seceded proves that slavery was the reason.
That the reasons the north used to justify keeping the South in the Union varied among the players matter not one iota.
I have no interest in a civil war do-over. My complaint is with those who mischaracterize the Declaration of Independence and its principles. The Declaration of Independence is the Touchstone of Conservatism; if we fail to understand its principles, this country is lost. As one American said
"but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world, if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it.
He went on to say:
All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.
Let me help you with the approach for landing...
Secession does not mean war. The reaction to it may or may not cause war, but the act itself is war neutral. So if you can't seperate the two concepts in your mind then you sir are entering a "no fly zone" where Hilter and other tyrants orbit.
Lincoln was a blood thirsty tyrant.
States acceded with a stroke of a pen - Left with a stroke of a pen.
At NO time did our Founders condone the use of force against a seceding state.
Madison:
“A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. ?The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
?
If what you say is true and not just hyperventilation, then the South should have petitioned the Supreme Court (which was controlled by Southerners) to secede.
Problem solved.
Do you agree or disagree with the following?
Under no circumstances shall a state or states be allowed to seperate from the United States and form their own autonomous country.
Don't allege that the North cherished racial equality.
Far from it
What a mean = What ‘I’ mean
Your slavery argument is self-vitiating; Is slavery ok or isn't it?
Cordially,
Secession commissioner William L. Harris of Mississippi:
"Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality."
Also James Madison:
"It is not usual to answer communications without the proper names to them. But the ability and the motives disclosed in the Essays induce me to say in compliance with the wish expressed, that I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-’99 as countenancing the doctrine that a state may at will secede from its Constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
Problem solved.”
They would have need arrested! Just like other vocal critics of the tyrants Administration.
“Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the supreme late of the land, anything contained in any constitution, ordinance, or act of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
28 nays to 18 yeas
Jefferson.
May King Lincoln roast in central government, dictatorial hell.
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.