Thanks harpygoddess.
Posted on 02/12/2018 3:57:10 AM PST by harpygoddess
It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of the people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies.
~ Lincoln
February 12 is the anniversary of the birth of the 16th - and arguably the greatest - president of these United States, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865). Born in Kentucky and raised in Illinois, Lincoln was largely self-educated and became a country lawyer in 1836, having been elected to the state legislature two years earlier. He had one term in the U.S. Congress (1847-1849) but failed (against Stephen A. Douglas) to gain election to the Senate in 1856. Nominated by the Republican party for the presidency in 1860, he prevailed against the divided Democrats, triggering the secession of the southern states and the beginning of the Civil War. As the course of the war turned more favorably for the preservation of the Union, Lincoln was elected to a second term in 1864, but was assassinated in April 1865, only a week after the final victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at vaviper.blogspot.com ...
Lincoln shouldn't have rebelled against the Founding declaration, but there wasn't much the South could do about it since Lincoln had the power of the Army to back up his rebellion against the founding principle of this nation.
Funny thing is, Lincoln had twice said that he believed that people could be independent of governments that no longer reflected their interests, and that it was a "sacred right" for people to chose independence.
He not only rebelled against the Declaration, he also flip flopped on what he claimed to believe in his own writing.
Probably because at the time, it only applied to the extreme Wealthy, which was mostly those New York power barons that were instrumental in getting the Federal government to attack them to protect their own financial interests by preventing the South from trading directly with Europe.
They probably saw it as a little pay back to the bastards that had gotten rich off of their blood.
Lincoln wasn't the one rebelling.
Funny thing is, Lincoln had twice said that he believed that people could be independent of governments that no longer reflected their interests, and that it was a "sacred right" for people to chose independence.
Sure. You forgot the "having the power" part. That's where the Confederacy was lacking in their rising up.
Northern Free States insisted on the 3/5ths rule. The Southerners wanted to count slaves as a full person for purposes of representation, and the Northern Free States realized this would give the South more representation, and therefore more power.
So they insisted on slaves only being recognized as 3/5ths of a person.
But pardon me for interrupting your pointless "waving the bloody shirt" rant with a contradictory fact that blunts your rant's momentum.
The invader and the invadee should be judged by different standards. One has a choice, the other does not. The nation being invaded should be given more leeway for desperate measures employed in an effort to prevent their destruction.
Thanks harpygoddess.
Fantasies and delusions are rightfully ignored.
Uh, yes he was. The Founders established the principle that it is a right given by God for people to become independent if they should wish it. It is part of that "consent of the governed" paradigm.
Lincoln rebelled against this principle that founded our own nation.
Sure. You forgot the "having the power" part. That's where the Confederacy was lacking in their rising up.
I thought Lincoln wanted the slaves freed even if they didn't have the power to free themselves?
It seems to me that freedom and independence is a right from God, even if you don't actually have the power to attain it.
Are you saying that Lincoln didn't twice articulate that people had a right to become independent and establish their own governments?
DoodleDawg obviously knows of one of the quotes I have in mind. Are you telling me that you aren't familiar with either quote from Lincoln?
Uh, no he wasn't. You opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.
I thought Lincoln wanted the slaves freed even if they didn't have the power to free themselves?
I thought you were talking about sections of countries rising up and forming their own government? What's slavery got to do with that? Or are you suggesting the Southern slaves should have risen up and thrown off their chains?
Regardless, to Lincoln's point. If you're going to engage in armed rebellion then it helps if you win. Our Founding Fathers did. The Southern slaveocracy did not.
Defends it yes, require it, no. Unlike the Confederate Constitution, Slavery could be outlawed in a State in the United States. It could not be outlawed in any Confederate State because the Confederate Constitution mandates slavery.
He said they have the right to try, not the right to succeed. Rebellion is never a done deal.
Right you are. Truth is, there is plenty of blame to be spread around but the supporters - both pro-union and pro-confed - often engage is “short-handing” narratives that buttress a POV but at the expense of accuracy.
My favorite is “Lincoln (The Butcher!) destroyed the Constitution!” Of course it is literally untrue since we still have the Constitution, but it is a non-serious claim even in a figurative sense. After all - which is worse, taking on authority in pursuit of his primary duties as president - duties which were later affirmed by Congress - or shytting on the constitution like the rebels did?
Lincoln recognized the divine right of people to rebel against tyranny. The only tyranny in play in 1861 was perpetuated by the south.
Yes, Harpy Goddess, thank you!
This was also my father’s birthday, having been born of South African immigrants on this day in 1890.
It’s common for me to celebrate President’s Day as “My dad’s birthday, followed in 10 days by A President’s Birthday.”
Are you saying that the principle of freedom should apply to individuals, but not collections of individuals? Why should what is true of the one, not be true for the many?
Or are you suggesting the Southern slaves should have risen up and thrown off their chains?
I am suggesting that everyone should recognize that people have a right to be free, even if held by the laws of some nation.
Slavery is just an advanced form of theft where you are stealing the fruits of other people's labor. It is a fundamental right that people should enjoy the fruits of their own labor, and should not be compelled to furnish their labor for the benefit of others. (Unless they be their offspring or other family member to whom they owe support.)
If you're going to engage in armed rebellion then it helps if you win.
You keep using that word "rebellion". While it might accurately apply to what the founders did to Britain, after establishing the principle that people had a right to independence, it was no longer "rebellion" to obtain that which the founders declared to be a right.
It was rebellion to oppose it.
Accurately, too. Despite your attempts to redefine the word.
The Confederate constitution did not require people to own slaves.
Unlike the Confederate Constitution, Slavery could be outlawed in a State in the United States.
No, it really couldn't. Article IV Section 2 does not allow states to free slaves. It specifically prohibits it so long as the slaves are held by the laws of another state.
All a state could do was to abolish any laws in their own state regarding the creation of new slaves. It could do nothing about the laws of other states that held people in bondage.
Yes, people pretended that they could, but this is the same sort of nonsense as "sanctuary cities" repealing immigration law, or "Marijuana dispensaries" repealing Federal Drug law. These kooks claimed to be able to do such things, but this was only because the Feds chose not to enforce the actual law.
The Dred Scott decision ripped off the mask of the fiction that they could continue to get away with ignoring Article IV Section 2 of the US constitution.
It could not be outlawed in any Confederate State because the Confederate Constitution mandates slavery.
This is incorrect. It did not mandate slavery, it made it very clear that it could not be banned by a vote of the state. It simply said more explicitly what the US Constitution said, but in such a clear manner that people could not pretend to ignore it the way the Northern States deliberately ignored Article IV section 2.
The Debate over slavery in the Constitutional convention was settled in favor of the Southern states understanding that the right to hold slaves would be respected throughout the Union. They made it clear in the discussion that if this were not the case, then they would not join the Union, and the Northern "free" states agreed to it rather than have a smaller weaker Union more susceptible of being reconquered by England.
So, based on what you wrote, Massachusetts could not make slavery illegal in Massachusetts. If you were in Alabama, slavery would still be legal...in Alabama.
I am not sure I understand what you wrote. Did the people of MA think they abolished slavery in Alabama? The only time that would come into play is if you brought your slave with you from Alabama to Boston. Although...I think it was assumed that slave remained the property of the owner.
Am I understanding this incorrectly?
Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder. Certainly the Canadians didn't see George III as a tyrant. Nor did the approximate 1/3rd of the US population that regarded themselves as loyalists.
Here is Lincoln's second quote on people's right to independence.
Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln2/1:184?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
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.
