Posted on 02/12/2024 11:09:57 AM PST by Rummyfan
Today is the anniversary of the birth of America’s great or greatest president, Abraham Lincoln. As a politician and as president, Lincoln was a profound student of the Constitution and constitutional history. Perhaps most important, Lincoln was America’s indispensable teacher of the moral ground of political freedom at the exact moment when the country was on the threshold of abandoning what he called its “ancient faith” that all men are created equal.
In 1858 Lincoln attained national prominence in the Republican Party as the result of the contest for the Senate seat held by Stephen Douglas. It was Lincoln’s losing campaign against Douglas that made him a figure of sufficient prominence that he could be the party’s 1860 presidential nominee.
At the convention of the Illinois Republican Party in June, Lincoln was the unanimous choice to run against Douglas. After declaring him their candidate late on the afternoon of June 16, the entire convention returned that evening to hear Lincoln speak. Accepting the convention’s nomination, Lincoln gave one of the most incendiary speeches in American history.
Lincoln electrified the convention, asserting that the institution of slavery had made the United States “a house divided against itself.” Slavery would either be extirpated or become lawful nationwide, Lincoln predicted, provocatively quoting scriptural authority to the effect that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Demonstrating how it “changed the course of history,” Harry Jaffa calls it “[t]he speech that changed the world.”
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
You never heard of the “Spirit of 1776”? People hadn’t heard phrases like “all Men are created equal ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ... among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” When they did, they were inspired to act upon that ideal.
Nobody is saying that the founders freed the slaves with the Declaration or that they intended to do so at the time. Rather, the Delaration set a standard that they tried to live up to later.
People argue about interpreting the Constitution because one argument can impose very different real world conditions. We’re not talking about that here. We’re talking about the inspiration that people got from the document.
Yes, they did. Prior to 1776 as well. It was internationally known.
In answer to this objection, it may be asked, where did this infamous commerce originate? Where is it still carried on with all the eagerness which avarice can inspire? Where, but in England? By what means can it be abolished? Surely by that power alone, which America acknowledges the parent state, may justly exercise over all her dominions, viz. the power of regulating their trade. The legislatures of some of the colonies have done what they could to put a stop to the importation of African slaves, by loading it with the heaviest duties: And others have attempted the total abolition of it, by acts of assembly which their governors refused to pass.
You can read it, or you can listen to it. But its time for you to drop the act. No more theatrics. Give the Founding Fathers what the Founding Fathers are due.
They were absolutely *NOT* concerned about slavery when their representatives signed the Declaration of Independence.
They were *ONLY* concerned about the right to leave the Union and form their own government. (A Confederacy.)
Again, I will say linking slavery to the Declaration of Independence in 1776 is dishonest.
It wasn't about slavery, it was about *INDEPENDENCE*.
That’s not how it was. The only two colonies who refused were South Carolina and Georgia. All of the rest were on board.
That’s 11 to 2, in case you needed numbers.
Why is this so important to you that you’ll go to such great lengths as to ignore the 11?
I am pretty sure you are mixing up the US Constitution (1787) with the Declaration of Independence. (1776.)
If you have evidence that 11 states were more concerned about slavery when they signed the Declaration of Independence (1776) than they were about their own freedom from England, I will be fascinated to look at it.
Now let's remember that Lincoln was referring to 1776 (Declaration of Independence) and not 1787. (Constitutional Convention.)
He most certainly wasn't.
Nobody said he was a perfect person. I freely acknowledge he had his faults just like everybody else. That said, he was far less oppressive than Lincoln who started the war thinking it would be easy. Deal with it Yank.
A: (No Response)
This likely means that whatever motivation you have, it would sound terribly silly and ridiculous if you actually let people know what it was.
From Freeper Ls’s book: The Confederate Government: 1. Raised Taxes to a 20th Century Degree. 2. Caused massive hyperinflatuon. 3. Nationalized Railroads,mills, clothing,salt and Telegraph lines. 4. Government buricrats confiscated food and other items. 5. By 1863, the Confedracy was employing 70000 civilian buricrats!
See post 89.
The Confederacy was the world’s 1st Socalist State.
See also, “War Socalism, and the Confederate defeat.”
Absolutely laughable BS.
Take it up with freeper LS, and with the Libertrian Miles Inatitute. “Facts are stubborn things.” John Adams.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute has repeatedly outlined how tyrannical Lincoln was. You might want to check who the current head of the Von Mises institute is.
All that may be true, but they point out that the Conf3deracy was Socalist, and tyrannical.
And they point out Lincoln was worse.
This likely means that whatever motivation you have, it would sound terribly silly and ridiculous if you actually let people know what it was.
Don't be dishonest. I asked you a question as to whether this "11" you refer to is in the context of 1776, or 1787.
You are the one that has given (No Response).
Let me ask again.
At what time did these "11" states object to slavery? Was it 1776, or 1787?
Yes. It's associated with American Independence. What I have *NEVER* heard is that the "Spirit of 76" has anything to do with slavery.
People hadn’t heard phrases like “all Men are created equal ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ... among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Well I agree with this, but that inspiration did not manifest into action until *AFTER* 1776, at least not for most of the people in the states. I think there were some that gave up their slaves shortly after the Declaration was issued, but the vast majority did not.
When they did, they were inspired to act upon that ideal.
Yes they were, and I have long said that Thomas Jefferson should be credited with planting the seed that led to the abolition of slavery. He had the most profound impact on the issue of anyone in history.
Nobody is saying that the founders freed the slaves with the Declaration or that they intended to do so at the time. Rather, the Delaration set a standard that they tried to live up to later.
There's the operative word. "Later."
This illustrates my point. Lincoln was referring to 1776, and he was doing so in the context of freeing the slaves. Nobody was trying to do that in 1776. They were trying to gain their independence from the British Union.
To try to make a document totally devoted to the right of people to have independence from their existing government, into a document glorifying the government forces for stopping independence, is dishonest. It's flim flamery.
We’re talking about the inspiration that people got from the document.
Yes, they were inspired LATER. They took action later.
In 1776 they simply wanted out of the Union.
Massachusetts didn't even abolish slavery until *AFTER* 1780. So at least four years LATER.
Nothing exceptional for a nation on a wartime footing. Governments at war often do things that they would not do in peace. Look at what the US did during WWI and WWII.
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.