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 ...
Really? Then why no Southern claims to Nebraska? Montana and the Dakotas? They walked away from all that. All they really tried to claim was New Mexico and Arizona -- and perhaps Colorado, I'm a little iffy about that, whether Confederates were more interested in the territory or just raiding the mine shipments.
Someone once described Hamilton's politics as "monarchy without the king". Maybe the "without" part was based on a misunderstanding!
They boycotted the elections because they had already made their minds up to leave the union; the election of Lincoln cinched it. He was willing to allow slavery in the states that already had it but he would not allow it to expand further west. The slavers are very clear in the articles, that this is not acceptable because it means the eventual end of the slave system. Despite Lincoln’s willingness to leave their system in place, they made the decision to break in order to preserve slavery, not merely in the south, but into the rest of the west and most importantly to avoid the natural death they foresaw if not allowed to expand.
Seriously, the slaveocracy and the Jim Crow system of race repression that followed are Democrat Party history. Let them own it. Let them defend it. Never put yourself in the position of trying to justify it. They did enormous damage to the 10th ammendment by trying to use it to justify repression rather than its natural intent, as a barrier against repression.
What the Democrats usurped in service to repression during the bad old days of Jim Crow we must now reclaim in service to freedom and rule of law.
The GOP was formed by Christians who abandoned the Whigs over its refusal to take sides on the slave issue. They were distinctly a minority party and by rights ought to have had no influence over the outcome of anything. But in a decade slavery was gone. Despite the fact that most of the country either favored slavery or didn’t care and despite the fact that their champion was willing to compromise on it, in a decade it was gone. Sometimes God gets a vote.
So what is your point in posting this Klan material? You cannot think that black slavery is going to be revived or that blacks are going to be deported to Africa, or do you?
To quote Madison:
“Here, too, were facts on the other side. It has been alleged, that this contract, having been formed by unanimous consent, could only be dissolved by only unanimous consent.”
“A breach of the fundamental principles of the compact by a part of the society, would certainly absolve the other party to their obligations to it.”
During the convention,of course.....
I agree with most of your analogy, but not this section.
The colonies had all kinds of ways to petition the British government, and indeed did so. B. Franklin spent this whole period in London as a representative for a number of colonies. He did a very effective job in getting the colonial case out.
The problem is that the government and parliament decided to ignore the colonist's concerns, presented via their petitions. When they did so the colonists had no way to resist other than force.
The analogy to our present government being well aware the people oppose the health care but deciding to pass it anyway is remarkably close.
Haven't studied history much?
Didn't States use 'nullification' against the Federal fugitive slave laws?
Why don’t you answer my questions before asking ones of your own?
This is widely believed, but is not really correct.
The plural United States was universal up to the War of 1812. Thereafter the United States as singular noun became more and more common.
The horse's mouth said different:
“I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?”
It is very convenient to forget that in 1776 Independence was NECESSARY to secure inalienable rights. The south's secession was publicly decreed to be necessary to perpetuate the denial of those same rights, namely slavery. To pretend to invoke the principles of the Declaration of Independence for the south's action is brazenly ignorant.
Not quite correct.
Once a territory became a state, it could institute slavery and Lincoln and the federal government would have no way to prevent it.
What Lincoln opposed was allowing slavery in the territories north of the line imposed by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 brought this whole issue back into play and, not incidentally, also brought A. Lincoln back into politics and created the Republican Party.
Of course, if no slavery was allowed during the territorial period, when the area became a state it would be unlikely to bring it in.
Righto.
The famous Cornerstone Speech by the VP of the CSA, Alexander Stephens, rejected the Jeffersonian idea that “all men are created equal,” even specifically stating that Jefferson, while a very great man, had been wrong about this principle.
IOW, the CSA was built on the cornerstone that some men constitute a master race destined to rule over slave races.
bump
Lincoln gives [expletive deleted] to Stalin in hell.
Lincoln and his 'Henry Clay politics' at it's finest.
Lincoln never said that. But the Lost Cause brigade have never let the truth stand in the way of a good Southron myth.
The South overplayed its hand. Instead of petitioning the Southern-dominated United States Supreme Court for permission to secede from the Union, they decided to fire the first shot at Fort Sumter.
Lincoln could barely suppress a smile after that.
Give it a rest.
Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania
“no squeamishness upon the subject of slavery, no morbid sympathy for the slave.” “I plead the cause of free white men,” he said. “I would preserve to white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and my own color can live without the disgrace which association with Negro slavery brings upon free labor.”
In Saving the Union, I have destroyed the Republic, before me have I the Confederacy wich I loathe, but behind me have I the bankers wich I fear”
I can’t find any citation for that alleged quote, I doubt if Lincoln would ever say that. The Republican/Whig Party at that time was basically a tool of the Northern Banks and Industials.
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.