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 ...
Then why not give us all the benefit of your expertise in Nazism?
Neely is no Tommy DiLusional or one of the Kennedy boys to be sure. He actually knows what he's talking about.
Mark Neely wrote a book stoutly defending Lincoln on the grounds that Lincoln had a war to fight, and then he sorta forgot about those same exigencies when he then wrote a book slagging Jeff Davis and the Confederacy.
Even if that were remotely true, isn't that the excuse you all give for each and every trashing of the constitution committed by Davis and his legislature? That there was a war on and the confederacy was fighting for it's life? That if only it had one then it would have dropped it's socialistic policies and it's statist ways and it's police-state mentality and return to a small government, state's rights nirvana that you all knew it would be? Some such crap as that? Well why not cut Lincoln the same slack?
Neely's a partisan poltroon. Says the resident rebel expert on poltroonism, partisan or otherwise.
Because you're backtracking on what you said the first time.
All undesirables, you and the coven for instance, will be standing with your fearless leader, obama.
Such a funny guy. But that's OK.
In other words, you'll exclude yourselves. Do you get it now? Do I need to slow down and user smaller words?
Hell, you can try big words, little words, even medium sized words and you still won't make any sense to a rational person. You never have to date. But you're right on one thing - life is a confederate police state holds no attraction for me.
There was an invasion by murderous, ransacking scum from the north, you buffoon.
Well why not cut Lincoln the same slack?
Because he started the hostilities. But, you knew that.
Go back and read the quote again. He clearly refers to the government being founded on a compact between equal parties. No one state has any more power or any more say than another. So all being equal, none can declare the compact broken on their own. The others have an equal right to deny the break.
During the Virginia ratification delegates worried repeatedly about being in a Union where there were seven Northern states and six Southern ones. Virginia and the South would be outnumbered and possibly oppressed and injured as a result. Consequently, Virginia put in its ratification document, a document written by Madison, Marshall, and three other Federalists, the right to resume its governance.
And that's all very nice. But also in that document is the following phrase: "We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed..." By agreeing to be bound by the Constitution then Virginia could not secede illegally. No matter what their ratification document said.
Modern DNA excluded, a woman who says a guy raped her is more believable than the rapist who says he did not do the crime.
And we all know that a woman has never, ever claimed rape when no rape occurred, don't we? </sarcasm>
The South protested various Northern personal liberty laws as being unconstitutional over a twenty year period.
And every time those laws appeared before the Supreme court they were struck down without exception. So what the hell are you complaining about?
No I'm not. From my post #733:
"But, in reality, there won't be any need to exclude you from Dixie 2.0 since you'll be standing shoulder to shoulder with obama to preserve the state, er, union."
I'm assuming that the logic is lost on you...
Such a funny guy. But that's OK.
Really? So, if several Southern states were to secede tomorrow, who would you stand with? Us or obama?
life is a confederate police state holds no attraction for me.
You can't sell that tripe here, yankeeboy. The Southern states are the last bastion of conservatism and freedom loving people left in this country.
As I'm fond of stating: If it wasn't for the Southern red states, you yankees would already be living in a european socialist style country.
In full mouth-foaming mode, aren't we? Let me point out that had the confederacy hadn't started the conflict and then mismanaged it so badly and so ineptly, there wouldn't have been any need for Union troops to travel all over the Southern states to put it down. You boob.
Because he started the hostilities. But, you knew that.
Yes, the ever popular "We wuz sooo stoopid we done fell into Linkum's trap" excuse. Where would y'all be without it?
That's it, stick with the revisionist talking points. You boys a just stuck on stupid.
The South Carolina secession convention immediately addressed the issue of equity division as soon as they passed their ordinance of secession. Lincoln's personal secretary, John Nicolay, wrote in 1881:
It was assumed that the President [Buchanan] would not refuse to yield them up [Charleston's forts] after peaceful diplomatic negotiation, and upon an offer to account for them as property in a regular business settlement between two governments. The [secession] convention, acting upon this theory, appointed three commissioners to proceed to Washington to treat for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real estate, for an apportionment of the public debt, for a division of all other property, and generally to negotiate about other measures and arrangements.
-- John G. Nicolay, The Outbreak of Rebellion <sic>, 1881, p. 27.
The South absolutely did attempt to negotiate for apportionment of the federal debt.
Your constantly harping on the ostensible and (fatally) according to you instructions of Southern commissioners who came to Washington, who were never received by Lincoln in the first place, does your elaborate ad hominem argument against the South no good, and you no credit. "Waaaaaaa, they stole stuff and waaaaa! They were so meannnnn!!" Baloney. You're the one who likes to pull wings off flies, who's into gloating over Southern dead, who's into triumphalism and power. Anyone who's read these threads for a long time knows that.
The South tried to be businesslike and fair about the separation. All Lincoln ever had for them was specious theories, political rhetoric -- and a knife. And, ultimately, chains. Which was his whole object in the first place.
Better than Southron fantasy.
You boys a just stuck on stupid.
You boys invented being stuck on stupid.
It actually went further than that. The provisional confederate constitution contained a clause requiring "The Government hereby instituted shall take immediate steps for the settlement of all matters between the States forming it, and their other late confederates of the United States in relation to the public property and public debt at the time of their withdrawal from them..." Yet Davis and the rebel congress immediately began hacking away at that statement, excluding it from the final constitution, removing any specifics from the legislation authorizing then delegation sent to Lincoln, until finally you have the letter sent by Davis which contained no concrete offer to negotiate anything that the South didn't want to. So you tell me. If the intent was there all along why was the language watered down until it was meaningless?
Your constantly harping on the ostensible and (fatally) according to you instructions of Southern commissioners
The instructions are there in black and white, contained in the letter Davis sent to Lincoln.
You're the one who likes to pull wings off flies, who's into gloating over Southern dead, who's into triumphalism and power. Anyone who's read these threads for a long time knows that.
You're still as full of crap as the proverbial Christmas turkey, aren't you? Nice to see some things never change.
The South tried to be businesslike and fair about the separation.
Bull.
I seem to have noticed the same thing a few times, when I've quoted The Federalist extensively and dispositively.
Never stopped him from coming back and pushing the same b.s. to some N006ie in another thread a few days later ....
The Toombs quote is from his November 1860 speech to the Georgia legislature. The Calhoun quote is from his March 1850 response to the Clay compromise.
Thank you. Late for work?
[Non-Sequitur]Bull.
How did they not?
[Letter of the commissioners to the President]
Washington, 28th December, 1860.
Sir: We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the Convention of the People of the South Carolina, under which we are “authorized and empowered to treat with the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses and other real estate, with their appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina, and also for an apportionment of the public debt, and for a division of all other property held by the Government of the United States as agent of the confederated States, of which South Carolina was recently a member; and generally to negotiate as to all other measures and arrangements proper to be made and adopted in the existing relation of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this commonwealth and the Government at Washington.
” In the execution of this trust, it is our duty to furnish you, as we now do, with an official copy of the Ordinance of Secession, by which the State of South Carolina has resumed the powers she delegated to the Government of the United States and has declared her perfect sovereignty and independence.
It would also have been our duty to have informed you that we were ready to negotiate with you upon all such questions as are necessarily raised by the adoption of this ordinance, and that we were prepared to enter upon this negotiation with the earnest desire to avoid all unnecessary and hostile collision, and so to inaugurate our new relations as to secure mutual respect, general advantage and a future of good will and harmony beneficial to all the parties concerned.
But the events of the last twenty-four hours render such an assurance impossible. We came here the representatives of an authority which could, at any time within the past sixty days, have taken possession of the forts in Charleston harbor, but which, upon pledges given in a manner that, we cannot doubt, determined to trust to your honor rather than to its own power. Since our arrival here an officer of the United States, acting, as we are assured, not only without but against your orders, has dismantled one fort and occupied another, thus altering, to a most important extent, the condition of affairs under which we came.
Until these circumstances are explained in a manner which relieves us of all doubt as to the spirit in which these negotiations shall be conducted, we are forced to suspend all discussion as to any arrangements by which our mutual interests might be amicably adjusted.
And, in conclusion, we would urge upon you the immediate withdrawal of the troops from the harbor of Charleston. Under present circumstances, they are a standing menace which renders negotiation impossible, and, as our recent experience shews, threatens speedily to bring to a bloody issue questions which ought to be settled with temperance and judgment.
We have the honor, Sir, to be, Very respectfully, Your obedient servants, R.W. BARNWELL J. H. ADAMS, JAMES L. ORR, Commisioners. To the President of the United States.
So like their successors, the South Carolina negotiators began with pre-conditions.
Thanks for posting.
[Bubba Ho-Tep] The South Carolina commissioners were a separate and earlier delegation from the confederate commissioners.
So what??!!!
The POINT is, the South offered to negotiate on the national debt!
DAMN! Make a point and you guys want to quibble about the size of Mickey Mouse's ears!!!
So like their successors, the South Carolina negotiators began with pre-conditions.
Again, so what?! All negotiations begin with positions and demands for preconditions or postconditions or suppositions or suppositories.
Grow a pair and give the point -- The South offered to negotiate the national debt, they did NOT "walk away" from it!
They did not "steal" anything!
POINT, dammit!
The point, which appears to have escaped you, is that South Carolina's inclusion of the national debt in their portfolio of negotiating points, does not mean that the confederate commissioners were likewise offering to negotiate that point.
Maybe you weren't aware of this, but the government of South Carolina in December 1860 was not at all one and the same as the government of the confederacy in March of 1861.
As to the preconditions, it's obvious that both delegations came from a position of "We're taking this, and you can either accept a price that we'll offer, or you'll get nothing." Or, as the Godfather put it, either your signature or your brains are going to be on that contract. Buchanan refused to negotiate under that threat and so did Lincoln.
The only point you’ve demonstrated thus far is the one on top of your gourd. No wonder you have to resort to huge font.
Read your letter. "It would also have been our duty to have informed you that we were ready to negotiate with you upon all such questions as are necessarily raised by the adoption of this ordinance..." So already they're saying they aren't there to negotiate? Why? Because Anderson did his duty to protect his garrison against Southern threats and moved to Sumter. And what what the result? "...we are forced to suspend all discussion as to any arrangements by which our mutual interests might be amicably adjusted."
And you say that was an offer to negotiate?
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.