Posted on 09/07/2010 12:43:35 PM PDT by gjmerits
The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination - that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at wolvesofliberty.com ...
If you wife is as perceptive as you, and I suspect she must be, then not only does she know it, she also knows better than to admit knowing it for fear of you're getting too big for your britches.
Wow. Are they all applying for the same cough-medicine modelling job?
But you’re overlooking the shocking sensation that some of the southrons crossed their fingers when they signed the ratification papers so they don’t really count.
/extreme sarc
Ah yes, the poor defeated CSA. If only they had won and been allowed to enshrine their consistutional right to perpentually own human beings. Those were the good ol’ days, when we had governments created for the sole purpose of preserving slavery.
“”The Yankees SO loved the Union and detested slavery that they enslaved the entire South. And yet...THEY and their hero Lincoln are remembered for “freeing the slaves.”
The one bit of logic that cannot be diluted with rhetoric.”
In denying us the right to leave his domain of authority,
Lincoln made government slaves of us all.
No longer is government by the consent of the governed, as their consent is no longer revolvable.
So they didn’t buy the charter lifetime membership but instead just a one-year subscription?
How many nations went to war to abolish slavery?
Answer is none. No nation, including the USA did such a thing.
So you agree with him, then? That anyone, at any time, for any reason, should simply be able to unilaterally declare themselves their own country, outside the control of any government, and that the existing government should have no recourse other than to just build a fence around them?
“I believe the millions of Blacks being held against their will had a better complaint than did the Confederates.”
Why did we not go to war with Brazil, Cuba, Korea, Madagascar, Zanzibar, China, Siam, Nepal, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Qatar, Tibet, Yemen, Oman, Mauritania, the UAE, Saudi Arabia or all the other nations of the world that had slavery?
If your so against slavery as to justify conquering anther land and people “to end it”, why does your conquest end with the South?
Don’t say its cause the south was part of your country, cause after secession Southerns were good enough to remove that “moral” burden from you.
You can either admit the war was not about abolition of slavery or you can keep dancing around the issue with half truths, and outright lies.
“LOL! No, the 13 colonies each has some sovereignty, but under the Articles, gave up the right to act as independent nations-FOREVER.”
Thats funny cause I thought they did the same thing under their colonial compact. The whole point of an inalienable right is that you can’t give it up forever, and voluntarily become a slave.
“No Lincoln wasn’t. He believed that secession of any kind was illegal, which I disagree with. I think that it’s obvious that the founders meant to allow secession with the consent of the impacted parties.”
Yes just like we got the consent of the British to secede from their union.
don’t forget that they felt they were very much impacted cause they had just gotten them into serous financial straits “defending us” from the French Canadians in the French-Indian war.
Thats the whole reason they were trying to tax us!
But no according to you they we’re “impacted” by our secession, and therefore we didn’t need their consent.
You need to be the bigger man and in the name of freedom rethink your position.
” But the idea of unilateral secession is not supported anywhere in the Constitution.”
What is with this idea that rights of the people and their states much be “supported” in the American Constitution?
I thought our rights came from God not the constitution of government... Or are you a socialist/statistic now beleive the government has the right to impose what ever it wants upon the people. Enslave the minority to provide for the selfish non-productive yet government controlling majority...
We didn’t secede from the British.
If memory serves that secession from the British union was followed by a seven year period of unpleasantness known as The Revolutionary War. So will you admit for the record that your secession in 1861 was illegal too?
You need to be the bigger man and in the name of freedom rethink your position.
And adhere to your position? I believe I'd need a frontal lobotomy first.
What is with this idea that rights of the people and their states much be “supported” in the American Constitution?
Say what?
I thought our rights came from God not the constitution of government... Or are you a socialist/statistic now beleive the government has the right to impose what ever it wants upon the people. Enslave the minority to provide for the selfish non-productive yet government controlling majority...
ROTFLMAO!!!! I swear that you Lost Causers all get funnier and funnier as your gaskets blow.
Just out of curiosity, what in your philosophy would constitute an insurrection under the Constitution? What difference would uttering the words, "I secede" make?
I have no problem with Gen. Pope. He invaded Va. realized what a loser he was, and turned North and ran home.
“Is the state the fundamental, unbreakable unit of sovereignty? Can a county secede from a state? Can a township secede? Can you unilaterally announce that you and your house are now their own country? Why or why not?”
Monorprise went over all this last night.”
Still he should watch the show thou not 100% accurate as I explained.
You don’t automatically become am ambassador or get diplomatic immunity, you just become an illegal alien.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Peterbus_Unum
Of course, the REASON for secession is what is always covered up by the neo-Confed Kooks, namely slave property. And perhaps that’s why I went out of my way to point out that the Confederacy was not about “states’ rights” or any other nonsense but was entirely and exclusively about slavery and slave property. But, of course, you really don’t want to talk about that, do you? Yet the Rebels did. They made it CLEAR what their holy secession was about: holding people as property.
I just figured you as a tyrant. The Saint Lincoln fan club usually includes lofty figures like Hitler. Who.. after all wants a all powerful central Government, but a tyrant? Your other points are laughable! Our opinions differ, lose? No, I rest my augment on the "consent of the governed". You on the other hand, are still stuck on that whole "slave" thing. You forget, that Britain tried that same thing with the colonist. Does that mean they fought for slavery? Who cares. You hate the founders [they owned slaves]. Your history begins and ends with Lincoln.
” Unilateral: an adjective
undertaken or done by or on behalf of one side, party, or faction only; not mutual: a unilateral decision; unilateral disarmament.
The Southern states walked out without discussion with the other side of the issue. Their actions were unilateral in nature. And also illegal.”
Sorry you must have been asleep when they were discussing Antebellum history. There was a great deal of discussion with the other side on the issue. If thats your definition of unilateral then there was nothing unilateral about the southern secession. In fact one could say it was 70 years in the making.
The North had plenty of time to change their ways.
But if your insisting that the oppressed party get the permission of the oppressor to throw off the same oppressors chains. Then your living in the loony land of tyrants.
“It applies to states that remain in the Union, not to states that have exercised their right/power to withdraw from the Union.”
Which, unfortunately for you, was an act of insurrection.
Never pick a fight with the dictionary, son. It just makes you look stupid.”
If that be the case then the Founders were hypocrites who had no legitimate right to establish the United States much less outlaw “insurrection” against their government in the first place.
but as we are going to fight on this we should look into acquiring the necessary super weapons and infiltrating the appropriate sections of government so when the time of our liberation comes you won’t stand a chance.
“might makes right” well learn to except our natural “rights” as reestablished by our natural “might”.
Its you who decided to bring the gun to the sand box to force your way and your will upon others. So don’t complain if other bring a bigger gun, and your the one forced to lick the feet of your new master.
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.