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 ...
Buchanan's policy was to hold on to the forts. That was Lincoln's policy as well. Nothing Lincoln did or said caused Scott to disobey his commander-in-chief.
I'm off for the rest of the week. You have fun and learn some history for a change.
Something you might devote some time to as well.
When nothing else works you toss in an irrelevant statement. Nice to know you haven't changed.
Ignoring facts is your specialty......
How is secession (see post #349 ) rebellion?
LOL! I guess we could call this the “End of the Discussion” if I was going to let such a moronic statement stand.
“I always enjoyed Southerner’s strong defense of State’s Rights when they were simultaneously demanding that Maine and Massachusetts be forced to return their runaway slaves.”
So, in your mind, if someone stole my horse or it ran away on its own and it ended up in Maine or Massachusetts, it no longer belonged to me simply because of “state’s rights”? As appalling as slavery is to us today, slaves were property. The horse example is no different from your slave example. The Constitution allowed for all citizens to own property.
Sorry to blow you out of your false comfort zone with facts and logic, but at least I’m saving you from looking stupid in the future.
What does Clinton have to do with the rebellion?
How is secession (see post #349 ) rebellion?
When it's done illegally.
Exactly. If Alabama has the right to recognize slavery, Maine has the right not to.
That is called State’s Rights.
As appalling as slavery is to us today, slaves were property.
Horses were property in Alabama and Maine.
Slaves were property in Alabama and not Maine.
Your analogy is invalid. Q.E.D.
“Your analogy is invalid.”
LMAO!
Except to me and the SCOTUS.
Amendment V
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Didn’t matter what those states deemed to be property, by being members of the U.S. they acknowledge the property rights of other states. Guess you never heard of the Dred Scott Decision. Not surprised, given your ignorance on this subject.
Q.E.Duh
Oh, but there is.
"General Scott, scarcely able to rise from his sick bed in New York, hastened to Washington on December 12th. [War Secretary] Floyd had hitherto with studied neglect kept him excluded from knowledge of War Department affairs; but now, for the first time consulted, and recognizing the gravity of the situation, the General heartily joined [Secretary of State] Cass in recommending that reinforcements be instantly sent.
"Floyd was surprised, disappointed, disconcerted. He summarily rejected the advice of Scott, as he had opposed that of Cass." (Emphasis added.)
-- John G. Nicolay, The Outbreak of Rebellion, 1881, pp. 24-25.
Keeping in mind, of course, that Nicolay is a burning partisan on your side and one of Lincoln's two personal secretaries (the other being John Hay, with whom Nicolay wrote another history of the Lincoln Administration), and has absolutely nothing good to say about any Southerner, unless he betrayed and helped burn down his home State.
You calling the brother an Uncle Tom? Pretty bold move for a white boy. Got your pass from the NAACP?
Why, yes -- have you?
Your defense of despots like Lenin, Mao, and the Taliban is remarkable.
Thanks. Now show me where I did that.
Congrats on the dumbest post I’ve read.
Thanks again. Now try re-reading it for comprehension.
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.
[Emphasis supplied for the tendentiousness-impaired.]
And yet you just quoted me -- "everybody", "nobody". Do you have trouble with pronouns?
Nobody is singling out Lincoln -- we're just trying to call you away from your constant groveling before his marble herm and your unseemly gloating at his dark victory over the Framers and the founding principles of the Republic.
See my post about Wide Awakes in Texas.
Is there? Are you suggesting that Lincoln ordered Scott to prepare reinforcements for Sumter in violation of Buchanan's wishes?
ROTFLMAO!!!! So for the record are you willing to call Lee and Davis and Jackson vile, disgusting racists as well?
Such a beautiful song. Wouldn't you agree?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuIpRJ7Rmq8
It's the hypocrisy (mythology) of Lincoln; not the overt racism....With Davis/Lee you get the same racism without the B.S. Interesting footnote: the colored troops in the South were integrated. I always thought that was ironic....
[You, persisting] It was Davis who appealed to the sword when he chose war over peace.
That isn't what Lincoln's secretary said, who laid the purpose of war at Lincoln's feet, even as he praised Lincoln's cleverness.
Au contraire, the North made one hell of a lot of money in the slaving business. Whose bottoms do you think all those slaves came to the New World in? A lot of the ships came from Boston, Salem, Providence, and Fall River.
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.