Posted on 04/14/2015 6:57:32 AM PDT by Paisan
On this date in 1865, Good Friday, Abraham Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. The 16th president died the next morning.
“horrors of Federal tyranny” - hyperbole much?
How is the horror many Americans (not only Confederates) felt at Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the creation of a draft, or the creation of an income tax any more "hyperbolic" than the complaints about today's Federal overreach? If Obama suspended the write of habeas corpus, would it be "hyperbolic" of us to call it tyranny today? If not, why is it acceptable for Lincoln to do so but not Obama or any modern politician?
“Round up the usual suspects.”
“Can you cite a source for Lee owning slaves?”
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/lees%20slave.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#Late_1850s:_Arlington_plantation_and_the_Custis_slaves
“Regardless, even if he did, so what? Many of America’s Founding Fathers were also slaveowners, including Washington and Jefferson.”
Your quarrel is with the lost causers, not me. I have no problem with the fact that Lee owned slaves since it was legal at the time (and especially under the circumstances how he came to be the master of those slaves). I was merely correcting a misstatement.
The nation isn't under armed attack right now.
If Obama suspended the write of habeas corpus, would it be "hyperbolic" of us to call it tyranny today?
Depends upon the circumstance but generally I would say no.
If not, why is it acceptable for Lincoln to do so but not Obama or any modern politician?
Because the nation was under armed attack.
That sounds a lot like the excuses that were made for Carnivore, The Patriot Act, and NSF surveillance post-9/11.
According to the wikipedia article, it looks as though Lee was more or less stuck with them as an inheritance (more of a burden than a gift), as opposed to going out of his way to acquire slaves.
Yes it does.
Every tyrannical government in history has used some external threat to justify its expansion of power, so it seems to me that a lot of people are very selective in which expansion of power they direct their outrage at.
Virtually every nation, including the migratory nations, had slaves or the equivalent, at various times in their history. The sanctimonious denunciations of fellow Americans, who did so, is as you suggest, merely a means to an anti-American end.
No, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
BTW: The south instituted the draft first.
Of course, slavery is not part of an optimal system. But the point is that accepting it as part of an existing culture or economy does not discredit one's arguments on other issues--such as some of those that were also in play in the period that you have chosen for your strident insults.
You've been studying the Civil war for a very long time. I've been studying the meanings and origins of the term "Natural born citizen" since 2008. I have been pursuing the philosophical underpinnings of the Declaration of Independence because it is the document which Created the United States, and therefore Created US Citizenship.
The Declaration did not come about out of thin air. It came about as a result of a great deal of thinking on the part of the colonies and others. Philosophers of Natural Law such as Wolf, Grotius, Locke, Puffendorf and Vattel were widely read and their ideas debated and pondered by the learned men of that day.
James Otis, John and Samuel Adams belonged to a debate club in Boston, and they would discuss these ideas regarding the relationship between the Monarchical government of England and the extant circumstances of the Colonies.
The motivation to separate from England came out of these discussions on natural law and the rights of man. It was not just a "throw down" as you seemed to think. In those days, people were very concerned that their actions were right with God before they concerned themselves with the desires of man.
Those natural law arguments convinced them that Rebelling from what was then considered "Divine Rule" was morally just. It was no small thing to challenge the Authority of the King as a representative of God in those days. They wanted to be sure of their beliefs and understanding before they could feel motivated to contest the established rule that allegiance to the King was perpetual and required by God.
You say "I've seen no writings that indicated that the DOL was anything other than a throwing down of the gauntlet to Great Britain." Well here is an example of some writings that does indeed indicate that it was not just a throwing down of the gauntlet.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.Emmerich de Vattel, 1758.
And *THAT* is the idea which got put into James Otis' Head in the early 1760s, and caused him to write his "The Rights of the British Colonies asserted and Proved", which is how the political will to separate from England became popularized in the colonies.
And where could Vattel have gotten such ideas that inspired the colonists? From his own Nation, the Swiss Republic. It was the only Republic in the World at the time, having overthrown their King 467 years earlier.
Virtually every nation, including the migratory nations, had slaves or the equivalent, at various times in their history.
That's never been a point of contention in any WBTS thread I have ever read at FreeRepublic - except as a strawman by lost causers. How many of those nations made war on itself over their insecurity regarding the institution?
Have you looked around lately?
Very cute, you get uppity over my observance of your hyperventilation and (again) try to put words in my mouth. Maybe posting on a political site is too strenuous for you?
And this is where you demonstrate that you either haven't been listening, or you haven't grasped the point.
Today's overreach is much the result of yesterday's overreach.
You’re so taken with the sound of your own voice that you don’t even recognize when others make the same point.
Of course it didn’t come about “out of thin air”, of course it came about “as a result of a great deal of thinking”. What you post is a validation of my post.
Where you go astray is when you attempt to conflate the Colonialist’s Revolutionary war with the WBTS. There more points of divergence than there are convergence or similarity.
Them black helicopters been hovering around your place again? LOL
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.