Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: rockrr
Again (sigh) Lincoln was referring to the divine right of people to rebel against tyranny.

First of all, the word "tyranny" isn't in there. Second of all, "tyranny" is a matter of perspective. The Philippines considered us tyrants when we were running that country.

Lincoln had previously supported the right of Texas to become independent of Mexico. Apparently he was against the right of Texas to be independent of him.

215 posted on 02/12/2018 1:47:59 PM PST by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp; rockrr
DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln had previously supported the right of Texas to become independent of Mexico.
Apparently he was against the right of Texas to be independent of him."

The fact of history remains that neither President Buchanan nor President Lincoln lifted a finger to prevent Deep South states from first declaring secession, then forming a Confederacy, establishing a Confederate constitution, Confederate national government & military forces.
Both only acted (Buchanan ineffectively) to stop Confederate aggression against the United States.

Both Democrat Buchanan and Republican Lincoln believed that unapproved unilateral declarations of secession were wrong, legally, but neither believed the United States could take military actions on that basis alone.

So Civil War was not the result of declarations of secession, but rather of Confederate aggression against the United States.

353 posted on 02/17/2018 10:01:57 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson