Posted on 03/10/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Idabilly
Over the course of American history, there has been no greater conflict of visions than that between Thomas Jefferson’s voluntary republic, founded on the natural right of peaceful secession, and Abraham Lincoln’s permanent empire, founded on the violent denial of that same right.
That these two men somehow shared a common commitment to liberty is a lie so monstrous and so absurd that its pervasiveness in popular culture utterly defies logic.
After all, Jefferson stated unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence that, at any point, it may become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…
And, having done so, he said, it is the people’s right to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Contrast that clear articulation of natural law with Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, where he flatly rejected the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Instead, Lincoln claimed that, despite the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment, no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; [and] resolves and ordinances [such as the Declaration of Independence] to that effect are legally void…
King George III agreed.
(Excerpt) Read more at southernheritage411.com ...
"Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality."
Perhaps you'd like to quote Lincoln, too, on the subject of racial equality, from his 1858 debate speeches.
Took you this long to resort to a Nazi analogy? You are slipping. Usually you've sunk to that level long before now.
Because we were talking about something else -- the fact that Lincoln started planning before he armed the Wide-Awakes in January, to suppress the entire State of Missouri.
Which is bullshit but hey, without BS where would any of your posts be?
Missouri isn't the only Southern State -- it was a Southern State, pal, get over it! Full of rednecks! And you can't stand it, but there it is! -- to have voted down secession, only to change their minds later when they saw what Lincoln was doing.
Except that nobody changed any minds. Missouri's secession was launched by an impeached governor and a rump part of the legislature. It was no more legal than the secession announced by any of the other rebelling states. In the end, Missouri wound up supplying more troops to the Union than to the rebels.
Only they never got the chance -- Lincoln had his tigers at their throats before they could move.
The Southron myth machine knows no limits.
Nice try. The whole State was a "Southern mob" according to you ..... except for the Missouri Wide-Awakes who were innocent little lambikins rowing back and forth to the Illinois side to arm up with the contents of Illinois arsenals.
Hardly. The majority of the state preferred the Union to the rebels.
The Missouri volunteer Militia, the MMV, were legitimate. The Wide-Awakes were not. That's the difference.
A difference that exists only in your mind.
Lincoln used force against States the way I use flyswatters on flies, and he did it unprovoked. Lincoln was the aggressor, you can't get out of it.
So you would like us to believe.
As far back as February, I believe. From one of my old posts I linked to non-seq above in post 282:
From the Richmond Daily Dispatch (VA) of February 11, 1861:The Massachusetts Military.
Boston, February 7.
--Military orders promulgated to-day by the Commander-in-Chief are prefaced as follows:
"The present condition of national affairs renders it possible that the services of the volunteer military of Massachusetts may be required at no distant day, and at short notice, by the President of the United States for the defence of the Federal capital, and it is the desire of his Excellency, the Governor, and Commander-in-Chief, that the troops be in readiness for any legal requisition that may be made upon them."
The orders apply more directly to the First Division, and require rigid scrutiny of company rolls, frequent company drills, and a thorough preparation for active service.
Large amounts of equipment and ammunition were procured by Massachusetts for their military buildup.
But all those times? Capturing three full rebel armies? Beating every single Southern general you chose to send against him? Even Saint Robert of Lee? Come on, you've got to be cringing just a bit over that.
Helen Keller could have beaten the South with the resources at Grant's disposal.
Which says what about the confederacy and its cause? To say that they could have been beaten by a drunk or a blind woman any time from 1862 to 1865? Not a ringing endorsement of your side, is it?
But might doesn't make right, does it, Dr. Lecter?
It was more which side believed in their cause that they were willing to bear any burden and endure any cost and make any sacrifice it took to persevere. That would be the North.
When all Lincoln was trying to do was hold on to that which belonged to the U.S., then saying that that is an act of aggression is a lame attempt to put the blame for your dumb mistakes everywhere except where it belongs.
The letter proved nothing except that Lincoln asked Scott to have plans ready for after the change in presidency. Nowhere in that letter is any suggestion or request that Scott not follow Buchanan's instructions or to drag his feet in carrying out his orders. Nowhere is there any attempt to usurp power before his constitutionally mandated date.
Ever notice, rb, that every time you document a point, every time someone makes a good argument, this guy starts hitting the ROFLMAO button?
ROTFLMAO!!!!! That's what you call 'good points'?
Sure. If you'll quote from Jefferson Davis on the same subject.
Of course they were "opposing the execution of the laws of the Union" -- they were no longer in the Union, whose laws were now as foreign to them as the laws of France.
They were not, however, in "insurrection" for having resumed their reserved powers and full sovereignty. They were within their rights to do so, and the Framers understood that that would be true someday when they took the vote posted up by Idabilly at No. 79, above:
“Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the supreme late [sc. "law"; sic] of the land, anything contained in any constitution, ordinance, or act of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
28 nays to 18 yeas (Emphasis supplied.)
His link: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=052/llsj052.db&recNum=378&itemLink=D?hlaw:3:./temp/~ammem_iHF8::%230520379&linkText=1
The language you say you don't need, N-S, to argue that secession was "forbidden" (your word not mine) by the Constitution, was in fact considered and rejected by the Philadelphia Convention.
Smoking gun, Non-Sequitur. And Idabilly posted it up to you and everyone else, and you keep ignoring it.
Well of course he would. Where would you Southron types be without Nazi analogies and calling Lincoln a racist? What about the Democratic storm-troopers? The Douglas Invincibles? Or the southern Minute Men? Don't have much to say about them.
Incorrect.
They were not, however, in "insurrection" for having resumed their reserved powers and full sovereignty
Again, incorrect.
The language you say you don't need, N-S, to argue that secession was "forbidden" (your word not mine) by the Constitution, was in fact considered and rejected by the Philadelphia Convention.
Not my word. I've never said that secession was forbidden. But the way the Southern states chose to go about it was.
When it didn't, not after assertion by South Carolina of her sovereign rights over her own territory. No title deed on earth can stand up to an assertion of sovereign power, I don't care whose legal system you're talking about.
Lincoln resorted for continued control of the forts to ius belli, an appeal to the sword. He no longer had the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause to work with. South Carolina was no longer a member of the Union.
Nice try at eliding, evading, and spinning the issues. Missourians did not prefer the Wide-Awakes and Lincoln to the legitimate State government.
In the 1860 election, Lincoln logged only 10% of the popular vote.
Breckinridge got 19% (almost twice as many as Lincoln), and Bell got 35%. The two Southern candidates combined for 54% of the popular vote.
Stephen Douglas of Illinois got about 350 more votes than Bell, at 35% and a fraction, and carried Missouri's nine electoral votes.
But combining the two Illinois candidates' votes, you're only at 45% -- and Douglas's "Northern" candidacy was far different from Lincoln's. Douglas had no plans to fall upon the South and occupy or destroy it, and everyone understood that. John Bell's Constitutional Union Party, favored by the big planters in the South, stood for the South's remaining in the Union -- but he was nobody's Abolitionist and as far from a South-basher as you could get.
No, you don't get this point. You're wrong.
No, no deal -- you started this, by slagging on a Southerner for having "backward" racial attitudes.
Your point is subverted. Nobody had "progressive" attitudes about racial differences. They didn't even understand what race really was.
Not even your boy Lincoln. That's the point. So put away your pointing finger, hypocrite.
[You, ad hominem] Took you this long to resort to a Nazi analogy? ...sunk to that level ... and bla, bla, bla.
Buried in your ad hom and attempt to change the subject (you hope) is the fact that I stripped your attempt to steal a point.
The Wide Awakes were organized long before the other political groups like the Minute Men and Invincibles and they numbered, according to rustbucket's Austin, Texas, newspaper article, 300,000 men. They were a very considerable and threatening presence, and yes, they were sinister -- as witness their taking arms from the Illinois Militia.
And yes, arming up to impose by force a putsch government on Missouri, organized by the party that only 10% of Missourians voted for, is sinister.
[Me] ....Lincoln started planning before he armed the Wide-Awakes in January, to suppress the entire State of Missouri.
[You, substituting invective for argument] Which is bullshit but hey, without BS where would any of your posts be?
You didn't answer the point. Lincoln did arrange for Nathaniel Lyons to arm the Wide Awakes. Got a problem with that? Complain to the historians. Who are mostly on your side, btw.
Except that Scott did exactly that -- exasperating Buchanan by creating fait accompli regarding the Administration's deliberations over what to do about the forts.
That Scott busted his move at Lincoln's request, given the letter (which indicates previous communication as well) is a no-brainer.
But you're still wriggling, because this shows Lincoln interfering and laying the basis of his war policy.
What you're saying is that no rule of law supports South Carolina's claim to the property so you're making up stuff.
Lincoln resorted for continued control of the forts to ius belli, an appeal to the sword. He no longer had the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause to work with. South Carolina was no longer a member of the Union.
It was Davis who appealed to the sword when he chose war over peace.
According to the state convention they did.
In the 1860 election, Lincoln logged only 10% of the popular vote.
ROTFMLAO!!!!! Lincoln placed third in the vote tally in Delaware and lost New Jersey to Douglas by four points. Next thing you know you'll be trying to convince us that those states really wanted to secede, too.
If you check you'll see I was responding to Idabilly's post from some Pennsylvania congressman. So no, I didn't 'start it'. However you did drag Lincoln into the comment, so I'll be glad to compare his racial views to those of Davis. If you care to quote the man and his views on blacks.
Your point is subverted. Nobody had "progressive" attitudes about racial differences. They didn't even understand what race really was.
By today's standards they certainly did not. Nobody did, not Lincoln and certainly not men like Davis and Lee. Yet you all try to bring Lincoln in as if he was the only racist on the continent in the mid-1800's. Like your constant resorting to Nazi analogies it's a rather pathetic tactic, but in keeping with Lost Cause Brigade traditions.
Not even your boy Lincoln. That's the point. So put away your pointing finger, hypocrite.
In this area, hypocrisy lies with the Southron contingent. In most other areas as well come to think of it.
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.