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 ...
Straw man. I said nothing that even resembles your comment which you attribute to me. Capitalism is fine. Crony Capitalism in which the rent seekers secure control of the government so that they can keep funneling money (through government contracts and administration) into their pockets is not fine. It is bad.
Many people thought that way in the 1890s, maybe the 1930s, even the 1970s.
Well since you didn't get it right about the way I think now, the rest of your speculation is just so much garbage.
That is wrong in half a dozen ways. Schumer is the first New Yorker to hold a leadership position in the Senate (since the Federalist party folded anyway). The last Speaker of the House from New York was 150 years ago, and the last party leader in the House from New York was back in the 1930s.
Again you did not comprehend what I said in my last message. New York's power is not manifested through their representation. It is manifested through their control of major governmental agencies and through the Media manipulation of the public.
Virtually everyone in positions of power throughout the US Federal government is a lackey of the power structure of New York/Washington. We see now that the troubles President Trump is having are the result of this "deep state" power structure fighting back against Trump the reformer.
I understand. You get an idea into your head and just can't get rid of it, and the more people argue against it, the more you dig in your heels and refuse to concede anything.
This is how I see you. You can't seem to wrap your head around this new Idea that the power structure of the North East basically runs the entire nation through crony influence, media manipulation of the people, and campaign contributions.
I asked “where?” Not “when?”
Lincoln didn't go so far as murder, but he certainly engaged in dirty tricks to win the nomination.
You should read up on the law of contracts. "Intent" has not a D@mn thing to do with it. What you wrote down and to which you agreed in writing is all that is required to hold you to the letter.
The Founders agreed that all escaped slaves should be returned to their owners. They didn't say "Unless a state passes a law to the contrary." In fact, they deliberately said that no state law could change this requirement.
So you just stop talking about "intent", and start talking about the requirements of a contract.
In my previous message I noted how you were disregarding what was actually written down on paper in favor of some "intent". Well you are doing it again here. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that people have a right to independence for whatever reasons they see fit. It mentions no "necessity", and it D@mn sure doesn't conform to your "mutual consent" crap that you keep spouting.
There was no "Mutual Consent" to break from England, and there was no "Necessity" to do so either.
It was a choice by the people who wanted independence, and nothing else.
It wasn't manned until Anderson made the decision to man it, *AFTER* South Carolina had declared independence. Burning the cannons at Ft. Moultrie and seizing Fort Sumter were deliberate and hostile acts taken by the Union forces against the South.
Lincoln's goal was to hold Fort Sumter to bargain for something valuable, like Virginia.
So the principle that the "Union must be preserved" was negotiable? Then it wasn't a "Principle." It was a bargaining chip.
Interestingly enough, Representatives of Virginia came to Lincoln after his flotilla of warships had already been sent to start a war with the South, and they told him that Virginia would agree to remain in the Union in exchange for the other states being permitted to leave peaceably.
Lincoln was said to have replied "Too late! You are too late sir!"
Lincoln knew he was going to start a war.
No, it's filled with euphemisms, but no honest reading of the document could conclude it meant anything other than slaves.
It used nicey nice language to mean slaves, but it was talking about slaves none the less.
Article IV, section 2. It renders null and void all state laws that attempt to deny a slave owner the ability to recover a slave.
So long as that article remained in effect, no state law could free a slave held by the laws of other states.
I don't know why this is so difficult for you to grasp. It's clearly written.
You have admitted this before, and I think it represents about the most you're willing to put forth as an "admission against interest."
1/4 of the citizens were responsible for at least 50% of the revenue stream to the Federal Government, while the other 3/4ths of the population was only paying the other 50% of the bill?
The Real numbers are closer to 73% for the South, and 27% for the North, but at least you will admit to 50%, which is still way lopsided in favor of the North.
In some ways Trump has a harder task than Reagan, and it is a testament to Trump's shrewdness and determination that he is actually accomplishing a lot more of the conservative agenda than Reagan was able to manage.
Trump fights. This is what we need.
Be still my beating heart. ;-)
The Clintons are way overdue for prison. There is a former wrestler who is now claiming to have been involved in their skullduggery, and we have heard many such accounts from other people who made similar claims. Given how many people have claimed the Clintons were involved in illegal activity, you would think that they would have been arrested by now, but for some reason they just seem to be able to keep getting away with it.
It's almost as if there is this huge cabal in the Justice Department that is protecting them or something. :)
Don't put words into my mouth. I agree with neither of the two statements you make and that you wish to attribute to me as being my position.
.
By 1860 agriculture in the Salinas valley had been well established for over a century.
After the Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty, the land owners had greatly increased their investments in the land to avoid any claim of ownership by the greedy US government. The same also applied to the San Joaquin delta “islands.”
You haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
.
.
The north had little to export.
.
Exports are not taxed. Imports are.
You’re confused!
Here's a fact that anyone can "wrap your head around": there's no data to support your very silly accusations because the nexus of political/economic power is not just New York/Washington, it's spread across the country, heavily focused in "blue" districts:
Chicago, San Fransisco, Los Angeles and Boston all have some power, but the heart of the Beast is New York, the Ivies are it's nursery, and Washington is it's store front.
Too much to address, and you don’t listen anyway, so I won’t bother.
Irrelevant.
As I pointed out, the last ditch 1895 defense of "are" vs. "is" was made by the Northeastern Power Brokers, Democrat Richard Olney, Secretary of State under Democrat President Grover Cleveland.
It doesn't matter they were from Massachusetts & New York, what matters is they were Democrats and thus highly dependent on Solid Democrat South votes.
You need to wrap your mind around that, FRiend.
You've already conceded the 50%, so i've only got to come up with the other 30%. The link I constantly post to that book "Southern Wealth and Northern Profit" gets me up to 73%. The 80% number I actually got from another Freeper who have told me (and told you too) that he got the numbers from the official record. I don't remember which Freeper it was that said this, but I know him to be among the group that normally argues about this stuff.
So basically, the 1/4 of the Citizens who lived in the South produced 80% of all the European trade.
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.