Posted on 09/07/2010 12:43:35 PM PDT by gjmerits
The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination - that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at wolvesofliberty.com ...
Glad you bought his book. Despite a few quotations, I don’t know how you can get around his conclusions. Moreover, to excuse the South as having done these because it was in a war, is puzzling. So the South gets to be statist in a war but the North doesn’t? As for Lincoln, what exactly was the response of Congress when he “abused” the financial process? At any rate, I know what Bensel concluded, I know his overall evidence, and I spent several hours with him discussing this and without question, he thinks the South was “more tyrannical” and the North less so. But at least someone here actually reads the material.
What a lame response. Davis was the real tyrant. The confeds were the true Marxists. BTW, Calhoun, your hero apparently, deeply believed in the Labor Theory of value. Marx would have been proud.
And the majority has the equal right to declare that no violation has occurred. Now what?
By the means he described yes of course they do. But technically they are all just leaving the union and forming a new one independently. Just as he described.
That's not true at all. They are not leaving anything. They are retaining the Union and booting someone out of it.
Well gollygee! We finally found something good about you!
certainly never by you or your friends on this forum.
You're totally delusional. You get your ass whupped every time you show up.
And pot meet kettle moment...
And we're still looking for something good about you.
Don't you ever get tired of posting the same threadbare replies?
You remind me of a certain Carly Simon song:
You walked into the party
Like you were walking onto a yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
Your scarf it was apricot
You had one eye in the mirror
As you watched yourself gavotte
And all the girls dreamed that they'd be your partner
They'd be your partner, and
You're so vain
You probably think this song is about you
You're so vain
I'll bet you think this song is about you
Don't you? Don't you?
Yawn....
ROTFLMAO!!!! You're the ones bitching about how things are now and blaming it all on Lincoln. You need to come down to earth. You lost your rebellion. Get over it.
Update on last response: it’s been many years since I’ve read Ben: cover to cover. Let me get the book out, and let’s go over the details of his 150 points of comparison in detail so I’m not doing it from memory.
I look forward to discussing this further with you. Unfortunately, for the next few days I have to finish and file several trust tax returns due on September 15. This may keep me off the thread for a few days. I’m getting conflicting recommendations from my CPA, so I may not have any hair left when I’m done.
You asked what did Congress do when Lincoln “abused” the financial process? As I remember (harder to do as I get older), they indemnified and/or approved his actions. They do not have the authority to approve unconstitutional actions after the fact. It was a Republican-led Congress. During wartime, they were not going to condemn the first Republican president, a president who had choreographed the country into war while they were not in session.
No, Texas fought a successful revolution, and Mexico's point of view is not that there was a secession, but a rebellion. And no one in Texas talks in terms of secession, but of revolution.
All people, in whatever form, have a natural right of rebellion. But that natural right doesn't confer legal authority, unless you win, remove yourself from the existing law and write your own. Similarly, it doens't automatically mean that the governemnt from which you are rebelling has no authority to suppress your rebellion simply because you said the magic words, "I secede."
You should look at a world map closely, usually its small but sometimes you got large disconnected areas in the middle of other countries/states.
Should I take that as a concession that if all the neighbors surrounding you decide to form their own country, you're simply screwed?
You know, the more you read, the more you get impressions of what a guy’s evidence said and lose a lot of the specifics. I remember how shockingly strong Bensel’s book affected me, and I remember some of the stuff but it’s been years since I read it. Another good one is Huston, “Calculating the Value of the Union,” who argues that value in slave PROPERTY dominated the debate (not slave labor) and that slave property was worth more than all the textiles and railroads in the north put together. Not surprising Rebs would be reluctant to give up that kind of financial investment-—even if it was immoral and an investment in human trafficking.
Here you go NS, for you and your boys’ club, or anyone dancing to the wrong song.
“Discothèque” by U2 (edited by mstar)
You can reach but you can't grab it
You can't hold it, control it, no,
You can't bag it
You can push but you can't direct it
Circulate, regulate, oh no,
You cannot connect it
You get confused but you know it
Yeah, you hurt for it, work for it,
You don't always show it
Looking for the one
But you know you're somewhere else instead
It's not a trick ‘cause you can't learn it
It's the way you don't pay that's okay
‘Cause you can't earn it
You want heaven in your heart
But you take what you can get
‘Cause it's all that you can find
And you know there's something more
Discothèque, it's not enough
Thanks for publicly validating our point that you are a contented statist.
You need to come down to earth. You lost your rebellion. Get over it.
You sound more and more like your hero, obama, everyday: "I won."
“And the majority has the equal right to declare that no violation has occurred. Now what?”
Yes an equal not greater right to the minority. What’s your point? Obviously the oppressor is going to deny his or her oppression. The clear solution is a separation between the 2.
If they agreed on the oppression then they would be able to right themselves within the existing union.
” That’s not true at all. They are not leaving anything. They are retaining the Union and booting someone out of it.”
No you said:
“Madison went on to ask, “An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them.”
“
If a State has the right to secede at will then all states have the same right and thus all other states could simply opt to secede from the existing union together and form a new union without a particular state.
Believe it or not i have actually advocated that we do this in order to get rid of a few leftist States like Mass and Califorina.
We can’t kick them out of the existing union but we can all leave the existing union and form a new one which we will simply deny them entrance to.
Its not hard to do and this right of each State individually to be exercised by most states is undeniable. The Union is voluntary for all in it. that includes any combination of them that might make a majority or all.
“No, Texas fought a successful revolution,”
As James Madison pointed out there is no difference between secession and revolution, they are 2 words for the same thing. It’s too bad you can’t recognize that fact. but if it pleases you when we leave the union we will call it Revolution.
“and Mexico’s point of view is not that there was a secession, but a rebellion.”
Thats odd thats the same point of view you have about the south circa 1861-1865... Maybe the south really was in a “revolution”/secession.. which you brutally crushed with the sword and with it the peoples inalienable right.
” And no one in Texas talks in terms of secession, but of revolution.”
Again no operative difference in the terms. Your distinction is artificially contrived on your part as it is hollow in its significants.
“
All people, in whatever form, have a natural right of rebellion. But that natural right doesn’t confer legal authority, unless you win, remove yourself from the existing law and write your own. Similarly, it doens’t automatically mean that the governemnt from which you are rebelling has no authority to suppress your rebellion simply because you said the magic words, “I secede.”
“
Ahh so thats how it is, might makes right.
Ok if we ever do it again we will make sure we plant nukes in your union city’s for simultaneous detonation to commence the minute you decide to wage war upon our rights.
As your incapable of respecting our natural rights peacefully. (thank the Tyrant Lincoln) We can do this because unlike you we don’t have any desire to rule you or live in that now radioactive ****hole you call a state.
Honestly you would be better off if you didn’t try force your will upon others and instead just let them go in peace knowing that if your union was more mutually beneficial and fair to them them they wouldn’t want to go in the first place.
Of course after they go off you will be in serous need of help help we have no intention of giving you, instead our resources will be focused on preparing for your meager counter attack long with the retaliatory nuking of your remaining city’s. Basically a war of destruction that must commence until you give up your attempts to shove your rule down our throat, or realize that you no longer have the popular majority to rule at all, and thus its in your best interest to be separate from us.
One way or the other you will learn to respect the rights of others.
Its too bad too, you could have choose not to be a hypocrite and let them go peacefully rather then forcing them to wait and prepare to destroy you to be free of you.
Nobody had to die, if only you respected their rights and let em go peacefully... I am sadden by the fact that we must share a union with fools like you, just as I am endangered by your presence.
Any would be free people in the United States will doubtlessly be unable to distinguish between killing me who supports their right to be free, and you who would be trying to kill them to maintain their status as slaves to your imperial union also known as an empire.
Yea, good luck with that (snicker)...
You might want to ask your Lost Cause brethren about that one. The standard line is that secession is not rebellion, and much time has been spent denying that simple fact, going back to 1865. The difference, of course, is that you're not allowed to bitch and moan about how unfair it was that you lost your rebellion.
As for the rest of your screed, yeah, yeah, yeah, same old "the South will rise again" bluster and empty threats we've been hearing for years. Be sure to let me know when you actually get around to doing something beyond ranting on the internet.
Separatist movements and a rebellions are different, anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that.
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.