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 ...
In other states the swing was more pronounced. Mississippi went about 60/40 for Breckinridge, but their convention went 84/15 for secession. Florida voted 62% for Breckinridge, but their convention went for secession 62 to 7. Georgia gave less than 49% of her vote to Breckinridge, but two and half months later, their convention voted 209 to 89 for secession. Clearly there was a shift in sentiment.
Quoting deliberately out of context is one of the lowest of cowardly leftist tactics. Why am I not surprised that you choose to engage in it pokie?!
“Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
William Pitt
There is clearly a difference between the votes of convention delegates (often composed of slaveholders and politicians) and the votes of the electorate of the state. The Texas secession convention voted 166 to 8 in favor of secession on February 1, but also put the question directly to the people of the state on February 23. The electorate of Texas didn’t change their sentiment from the previous fall’s election.
Or perhaps you are going to argue that Texas secession sentiment dropped in the month of February 1861 from 95% on February 1 to 76% on February 23. That’s an apples and oranges comparison and in the opposite direction of the fever you cited.
Which leaves you in the position of arguing that the secession conventions and their decisions weren't truly representative of the will of the people.
Oh please. Is that the best excuse that you can conjure up for your hero, lincoln? Like that lady at obama's town hall, you must be exhausted defending lincoln (and obama).
A negotiation is between equals, either of which can depart at any time with what they came to the negotiation with. The southern position was that they were going to take what they wanted, whether the US wanted to accept payment or not.
Obviously you don't know much about negotiation. Negotiation is a contact sport. The purpose of negotiation is to pursuade others to listen to your arguments, consider them and then to decide to help you achieve your goals.
If you are unable to convince others to your way of thinking, then you will ultimately end up doing their bidding.
However, your side refused to enter into negotiations (probably because they knew that they would lose legally, logically and rationally). They much preferred the 'might makes right' method.
The fact is that both are true. Are you familiar with Hobbes, Locke and social contract theory?
A social contract, or contract of any kind, has to have the agreement and compliance of both/all parties, otherwise it simply becomes strongarm tactics by the strong against the weak.
But regardless, these 'social contracts' are drawn up by men and do not trump every man's God given rights.
It's the fundamental basis of political philosophy.
Plato and Aristotle would be hurt to read that.
I was not aware of that quote by Pitt. Thanks.
Conventions are imperfect representations of the will of the people. I wonder how the people of the original 13 states would have voted in 1787-89 on the new Constitution. Oh, that's right, the question was not directly put before the electorates of the states, the sovereign voices of the states.
On the other hand, a number of seceding states did go that extra step to confirm the decisions of their secession conventions by putting the question to their electorates. Thus, those particular secessions were on firmer ground as being the will of the electorate than the ratifications of the US Constitution.
So if I hold a gun to your head, force you to listen to my demands, and you then do as I want, you'd consider that a negotiation. You should invest in a dictionary.
They much preferred the 'might makes right' method.
Says the side that seized everything they wanted, then made a vague offer to talk about paying something for it.
A social contract, or contract of any kind, has to have the agreement and compliance of both/all parties, otherwise it simply becomes strongarm tactics by the strong against the weak.
But you can't simply renounce the social contract at will and do what you want without regard to society, without society having any recourse. You can revolt against the society, revert to the state of nature, then create a new social contract more to your liking. Good luck with that.
Plato and Aristotle would be hurt to read that.
Plato's Republic was a totalitarian state built on enslaved masses unworthy of freedom. It figures you'd be a fan.
Eisenhower didn't raise troops and invade Sovereigns.
Germany and Italy might disagree with you on that one.
Interestingly enough at least two states were admitted as states to the confederacy before the votes were held. I guess that the electorate's opinions weren't all that important after all.
For a third state, North Carolina, the confederate congress had voted to admit it before the legislature even voted on secession.
I keep a Bible at my bedside...along with a H&K USP Tactical.
Where did this mythical gun of yours come from?
Says the side that seized everything they wanted, then made a vague offer to talk about paying something for it.
From your mentor, ns: yaddi yaddi yaddi blah blah blah
But you can't simply renounce the social contract at will
Well, actually you can.
and do what you want without regard to society, without society having any recourse.
And what if society/government demonstrates a disregard for the will of the people? (I reference our current situation.)
You can revolt against the society, revert to the state of nature, then create a new social contract more to your liking. Good luck with that.
It should be common knowledge that, throughout the course of history, all societies have undergone change. We do not live in a static universe and for one to argue as if we do demonstrates the smallness of his mind.
Kind of like the Articles of Confederation? Canada was admitted to the US if they agreed to the Articles.
Not even close.
Eisenhower fought socialism and tyranny - we had both forced on us. Sadly, he didn't emancipate us. One fine day Non-Sequitur, will shall be free.
When it came to socialism and tyranny, the confederacy jumped into that pool with both feet.
Regardless, Eisenhower fought a war that had been forced upon the U.S., as did Lincoln. Eisenhower took that war home to those who started it, as did Lincoln. If you care to call that an 'invasion' then so be it.
One fine day Non-Sequitur, will shall be free.
Not if I were to find myself in your new confederacy. Not if y'all have you say.
Oh? See Article XI of the Articles.
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.