Posted on 09/27/2010 1:27:31 PM PDT by RandysRight
“Had they done it right they likely would have permitted.”
Huh?
And even if it was 100% about slavery—so what? Slavery WAS LEGAL at that time....it would be analogous to a cadre of states wanting to secede for abortion “rights”...or gay marriage “rights”. Looking at events through a prism of 150 years of “enlightenment” is not a valid historical construct. It needs to be looked at via the context of the time.
What IS true is that Abraham Lincoln took the constitution, shredded it, tore it to pieces and threw it in the garbage. It was strictly an “ends justifying the means” device—but he set the tone for every president to do it in ever increasing frequency and method. I would not, for any amount of money, have wanted to be in his place—it was probably the absolutely worst nexus in our country’s history...but that does not change the fact that he ignored the constitution at best, and outright defied it at worst.
and without missing a beat . . .
How about
“Jefferson Davis was an aggressor, but Southerners just won’t admit it”!
The South foolishly started the war, and then the South lost the war they foolishly started.
Lincoln beat your ancestors. So get over it, sore losers!
No, but they were insistent upon continuing it.
Secession killed the old Republic. Whatever came afterward was going to be different from America before 1860.
Two hostile governments, one slave and one free that would certainly mark a change. You can say that a rump Republic would have continued the Founders' vision, but many people who were alive at the time disagreed. Separation into squabbling nations on the Latin American model would have opened a new chapter in our history.
Did the Civil War really mark a greater change than the closing of the frontier and the transition from an agricultural to an industrial society?
Obviously Emancipation was a major change in American society, but a deeper break came with the Founders system came with the Progressive Movement and the graduated income tax.
Could the aristocratic Republic of the Founders really have endured? Didn't Jacksonian Democracy represent the beginning of the end and industrialization the final knell for that vision?
The South wasn’t another country, obviously. What kind of reasoning is that?
“...it was probably the absolutely worst nexus in our country’s history...but that does not change the fact that he ignored the constitution at best, and outright defied it at worst.”
The WORST was the so-called “reconstruction” - creating an enormous impoverished (except for the sanctioned “traders”, north and South) then destroying homes, farms and infrastructure and dumping three million homeless into the streets with no provision to care for them.
Almost as stupid as creating 30 million HealthCare clients with no more doctors or faciliti8es to care for them.
But far more lethal.
It was Lincoln’s Reconstruction act of a conquered states that we all lost our state sovereignty. North Carolina was going to join the union, except when President Lincoln or North Carolina governor to muster troops and attack South Carolina. North carolina advised Licon that this was unconstitutional and refused, therefore NC seceded. If anyone truely thinks the Civil War was about slavery, even black conservative here in the south know better. Slavery was not even a agenda in the public until 2 years after the civil had begun. Lincoln polls were at it’s lowest, so he had to use a PR tool to bring his polls up. Don’t get me wrong, slavery s wrong anywhere in the world, the slave ships entered the northern ports as well as the southern ports. If you wish to seek a real world Civil War Historian, google John Ainsworth Americas Remedy. He puts up $5,000 in gold if anyone can prove his documentation false.
I can always spot a liberal moonbat, they’re the one’s that start in line this comment.
Do you realize how many union troops were allowed by Sherman to rape women after conquering the south illegally. Even Lincoln’s wife couldn’t stand him. Well maybe know one could stand her. Even Lincoln’s Generals would avoid her. Plus it truely appears to me you have much more racial tension in the north than you do in the south. Just sayin. I got lots of black neighbors with farms that we all get along here in North Carolina
According to The official proceedings of Congress published by John C. Rives, Washington, D.C.
July 26, 1861, the object of the War was NOT for:
“Oppression
Any purpose of conquest
For the purpose of subjugation
For the purposes of overthrowing or interfering with the rights of those States
For the purposes of overthrowing or interfering with the established institutions of those States (Slavery)
The object of the War was to:
Defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made pursuant thereof
To preserve the Union, with all the dignity of the several states unimpaired
To preserve the Union, with all the equality of the several states unimpaired
To preserve the Union, with all the rights of the several states unimpaired”
http://www.ncrepublic.org/lib_objectofwar.php
Lincoln is not admired by me.
And apparently some who wouldn't recognize it if it bit them in their Jefferson Davis.
ping for later
Rimshot.
I don't know about your analogy. You defend secession in defense of slavery by comparing it to secession in defense of access to abortion or gay marriage. Then or now, all three would be wrong. And unconstitutional.
“Then or now, all three would be wrong. And unconstitutional.”
But legal. Which was his point.
Abraham Lincoln: For when it happened too long ago to blame on George W. Bush.
Uhmmm...Lincoln didn't do Reconstruction. He was dead, remember?
Your post is illiterate and incomprehensible.
Never-mind the general incomprehensibility of your almost-question, how many?
ROTFLMAO!!!!
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.