Posted on 04/30/2017 9:49:31 PM PDT by pboyington
Please enumerate the specific involvement Lincoln had in the passage of the 14th Amendment.
ek_hornbeck: ** “ Just because Republicans are the (somewhat/sometimes) conservative party today and Democrats are the radical party doesn’t mean that was true in the 1860 or even in the 1890’s. “ **
Depends on your definition of “conservative”.
Democrats have *always* protected the special interests of their own voters, whether those were antebellum slaveholders, post-war Jim Crow laws or today’s welfare population.
Yes, beneficiaries and victims have changed over time, but Democrats by nature are today what they’ve always been.
ek_hornbeck:** “The Democrats were historically the agrarian party - Jeffersonians who would have preferred the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution (the anti-Federalists).
They were anti-central government and anti central bank. “ **
Only somewhat.
In fact, from the beginning Democrats were the alliance of Southern Slave Power planters with Northern big city financial & merchant interests.
Sure, they favored “limited government” but not in protecting their own interests, especially slavery.
When it came to slavery Democrats required the full power of Federal government to return fugitives and to protect slavers in territories.
They resembled nothing so much as our own Democrats who use the full power of government to enforce their privileges until it comes to “sanctuary cities” and only then they say: “hands off”.
By contrast, Republicans were always the party of farmers, small towns, small business, Christians, pro law & order, national defense and independent minded suburbanites.
The Republican goal is equality of opportunity while Democrats have always insisted on special privileges for their people.
ek_hornbeck: ** “ The Republicans, strictly speaking, were ideologically neutral at the time of their founding on every issue except non-expansion of slavery. “ **
Republicans were basically the rump party of old Northern Whigs, after Whigs broke apart over slavery.
Young Lincoln, for example, was a Whig.
As for “radicals” on any subject other than slavery, no 1860 Republican was anywhere near as “radical” as the most “Neanderthal” of today’s conservatives.
They not only didn’t advocate what we now take for granted, they wouldn’t believe it if somebody from the future told them.
So “radical” is relative.
Most early Republicans had been Whigs, successors of the Founding Federalists.
They were only as “radical” as our Constitution.
ek_hornbeck: ** “ The point is, only extreme ignorance or extreme dishonesty could claim that there’s some kind of ideological straight line leading from Jackson or Cleveland to Barack Obama. “ **
There is a straight line from Thomas Jefferson to Barak Obama in their convictions that some classes of people, their voters, deserve special privileges at the expense of others.
For Jefferson it was slaves, for Obama “the 1%” for starters.
I know you prefer I not dwell on the why but it’s unavoidable
Race is their crucible upon which their view of America is based
Even some right leaning historians do it
I bought the book....nice otherwise but I was like damn dude I could have done without the hamfist
That obsession blinds everything
As you know I do a lot of business up north in the Pure State
I don’t know anyone up there like this seminar posse
Folks there love the south and admire our sense of commonality and respect for our predecessors and of course of fairly traditional and sweet women
Only our heat and high black populations causes some negativity
Our little tribe here are an anomaly
wardaddy: ** “ Folks there love the south and admire our sense of commonality and respect for our predecessors and of course of fairly traditional and sweet women. “ **
Of course, it’s the same in every “Blue Wall” state which flipped for Trump.
Here in Central PA I often see Confederate flags on homes & pickups.
We love our rebels and we love Mr. Trump.
wardaddy: ** “ Only our heat and high black populations causes some negativity “ **
In post #116 above I said heat and ch-chiggers, then noted that Northern Lyme’s ticks can make chiggers seem like, well, a walk in the park.
Point is, negativity has nothing to do with people.
wardaddy: ** “I don’t know anyone up there like this seminar posse. “ **
?
It’s no good BroJoek. Just like the antifa who have summarily labelled us all as fascists even though none of us remotely fit the description, we are tagged as “south haters” because we dare to criticize the acts of the confederate rebels.
Note that I didn’t say the south or southerners because I’m intelligent enough to know that they shouldn’t be judged by the actions of their ancestors. Hate is a consuming emotion and I save it for a select few - and that doesn’t include anyone on FreeRepublic or the citizens of our southern states.
Let them wallow in it.
West coast patriots from Los Angeles to Seattle have been turning out in large numbers to confront the violent leftists and protect our Constitutional freedoms.
Who cares what some fat lazy braggart sitting on a verandah Daddy’s money bought him thinks?
The nation survived? The Republic the Founders created didn't survive. It became a very different country as a result of the Civil War. Lincoln blazed the path for the Super State which Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and then FDR exploited.
The 14th amendment has become the most abused and most anti-American amendment in the constitution. (Because of it's vague wording that can be interpreted to mean anything the courts want.)
Federalism died in that war, and we have been living with the consequences of massive Federal power ever since. (You know, the stuff we conservatives are complaining about now.)
The "Establishment" of which we all bitch about, was created in and by that war. Crony Capitalism began in that war.
No, the Nation didn't survive. A different, more authoritarian and corrupt Nation took it's place.
The liberals have been changing history for years. Liberals worship President Lyndon Johnson for his contribution to Civil Rights, ignoring the fact he fought against Civil Rights for over 20 years until he was cornered into signing. Liberals refer to the Vietnam War as “Nixon’s War”...the list goes on...
Liberals create their own history daily with the help of the media twisting things their way.
No surprise they feel emboldened enough to destroy monuments, and they are getting away with it. Unreal.
The Constitution for the Federation that followed, left social questions, such as voting rights, moral views on social policy, etc., to the States. All Office Holders were sworn to uphold that document.
Your obsession with the long correctly dormant slave question has totally blinded you to that reality. It was not "Conservative" for either side, after 1820, to seek aggressively to make that question a Federal Argument.
That you and I may argue on the merits of this or that historic figure, is one thing. But your whole citation of incidents, individuals, and alignments, whatever the other merits or demerits, reflects an obsession over a long buried controversy.
Incidentally, the scurrilous Abolitionist pamphlets in the Oberlin College stacks, were most certainly not aimed at converting Southern Opinion. They were directed at making susceptible Northerners--the sort D.W. Griffith pictured in the scenes in "Intolerance" of elderly pouter pigeon women searching for a cause and trying to take the contemporary poor young mother's baby away from her.
Slavery was indeed a precipitant for the coming conflict; but defining American societies, largely in terms of how long to maintain an ancient form of agriculture, etc., provides a very distorted picture of what America in 1789 to 1860 was really all about--North or South.
The present racial chaos is a direct result of the Leftists in Academia forcing a PC dialogue, which convinces any minority member that every frustration is the result of mean spirited White action. It is the same false grievance instigation, first demonstrated with Eve in the garden. But because of the PC hue and cry, almost no one is willing to challenge it.
Perhaps the saddest victims, of course, have been those who have been deliberately affected.
For a quick demonstration of the point, consider the collapse in social statistics among the Black population in the South from 1865 to 1890, cataloged by the Prudential Insurance company; then the clear improvement under Booker T. Washington's benign leadership from 1895 until the New Deal; then, the social deterioration since the New Deal & the Civil Rights movement, reinfected the victims with the grievance mentality, coupled with a trust in big government's ability to solve all problems.
All of this demonstrates the betrayal of the true interests of both races, by Leftist demagogues, who know how to direct the energy of Lenin's "useful idiiots."
These people on this forum who berate the south over race all day every meanwhile ignoring northern treatment of blacks in circumstances with far fewer blacks than we have are allied with the exact same people who just forced Mark Green to remove his name from consideration for SOTA
it’s the exact same mentality and goals
let’s start here:
Ohioan: ** “Your obsession with the long correctly dormant slave question...” **
But I’m not in the least “obsessed” with slavery, only highly concerned to correct the false myths, fantasies & outright lies posted on these threads by so many pro-Confederates.
And since so many myths involve slavery’s role & importance, so do my responses.
Therefore, it’s not yours truly who’s obsessed with slavery, it’s our pro-Confederates.
Ohioan: ** “ America was born in a rallying together of a largely Anglo/Celtic (but with serious dutch & French contributions) population, then divided into several new nations, who declared their independence—and sustained it on the battlefield. “ **
That is a very odd & inaccurate way to express it.
In actual fact, the American Union was born when representatives from 13 British colonies first met in the Continental Congress.
All our Founders spoke English and came from Northern European ancestry, about half from England, the rest Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands & Germany.
They hoped at first to improve relations with the British government, but after Brits officially declared them in rebellion and launched war against them, then and only then they declared their own independence as the United States of America.
Those details matter, because the colonies did not become States until the Union declared them United States.
Ohioan: ** “ It was not “Conservative” for either side, after 1820, to seek aggressively to make that question a Federal Argument. “ **
No, your own link to Daniel Webster contradicts you.
Webster makes clear that gradual abolition was the basic understanding of all Founders, North and South, in 1787.
Congress then had authority to outlaw slavery in territories and on high seas, and most Northern States had already begun abolition, others were expected to follow.
But by 1820 Southern states were beginning to renege on their side of the bargain, as slavery grew ever more profitable, they refused ever more strongly to even discuss abolition.
That caused an understandable agitation in the North, and the rest is sad history.
Ohioan: ** “But your whole citation of incidents, individuals, and alignments, whatever the other merits or demerits, reflects an obsession over a long buried controversy.” **
So sorry, but it is you who are obsessed, I merely respond to correct your misunderstandings.
Since so many misunderstandings revolve around slavery, that subject must necessarily be reviewed.
But if you review my posts to others, you’ll find slavery is often not mentioned.
Ohioan: ** “ Slavery was indeed a precipitant for the coming conflict; but defining American societies, largely in terms of how long to maintain an ancient form of agriculture, etc., provides a very distorted picture of what America in 1789 to 1860 was really all about—North or South. “ **
In 1861 Deep South Secessionists’ “Reasons for Secession” documents clearly explained that it was all about, indeed only about, slavery.
That doesn’t surprise me, but our Lost Causers to a man insist those 1861 secessionists where lying and their real reason was something else, anything else, just not slavery.
Of course they have no evidence, except what’s most important to them, namely: “my ancestors owned no slaves but fought to protect their homes.”
And nobody disputes that, but their ancestors didn’t start or lead the war and the men who did were all slaveholders committed to their “peculiar institution”.
Indeed, the most important difference between our Constitution of 1787 and the Confederate constitution of 1861 is precisely in how much more definitely slavery was spelled out in 1861.
And yet our Lost Causers wish us to believe it was really all about something, anything, else.
Ohioan:** “ All of this demonstrates the betrayal of the true interests of both races, by Leftist demagogues, who know how to direct the energy of Lenin’s ‘useful idiiots.’ “ **
Just so we’re clear, I didn’t see a word in your post here I disagree with.
Wardaddy: ** “ These people on this forum who berate the south over race all day... “ **
In all my posts I’ve never seen anybody “berate the South” over race or anything else.
The only thing we try to do is correct errors we see posted all day.
Nobody here hates “the south”, just the opposite.
wardaddy: ** “...meanwhile ignoring northern treatment of blacks in circumstances with far fewer blacks than we have...” **
Nobody but nobody wants to debate whether Northerners or Southerners treat African-Americans better.
If you want to claim a “win” on that one, feel free.
It seems to me that these days as many Northern African-Americans move South for the hospitality as Sotherns move North for jobs, if not more.
Which tells me it’s much a matter of preference, and Southerners can take credit where it’s due.
"That is a very odd & inaccurate way to express it. In actual fact, the American Union was born when representatives from 13 British colonies first met in the Continental Congress.
"All our Founders spoke English and came from Northern European ancestry, about half from England, the rest Scotland, Ireland, Netherlands & Germany. They hoped at first to improve relations with the British government, but after Brits officially declared them in rebellion and launched war against them, then and only then they declared their own independence as the United States of America.
"Those details matter, because the colonies did not become States until the Union declared them United States."
That you are in fundamental error, here, see Declaration Of Independence--With Study Guide, the Declaration of State Sovereignty; any embryonic "Union" among them based solely upon their pledged "lives, fortunes & sacred honor"--a pledge violated when their heirs later--on any side of any question--started asserting a license to inflict adverse moral judgments on the descendants of their former partners in the grand venture's handling of their domestic non-Federal affairs.
That State Sovereignty was then ratified after Yorktown, by the Treaty Of Paris. The Constitution, adopted by those States a few years later, clearly reflected the original purpose.
Ohioan: "That you are in fundamental error, here, see Declaration Of Independence--With Study Guide, the Declaration of State Sovereignty; "
Note it's title: "The Unanimous Declaration Of The Thirteen United States Of America".
The final declarations are for "Free and Independent States" and "Independent States ", but it is all under the heading of "United States of America".
Point is: our Founders declared their colonies "United" at the same time as "Free and Independent".
Indeed, it was the United States which declared themselves Free and Independent of British rule.
I would not belabor this point except that you devoted Lost Causers whish us to believe the "Union" was some kind of afterthought, tacked on much later, when our Founders finally got around to writing the 1787 Constitution.
I'm just saying, correctly, no, the Union, the United States were there from well before Day One on July 4, 1776.
Ohioan: "any embryonic 'Union' among them based solely upon their pledged 'lives, fortunes & sacred honor' "
No, in fact General Washington as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army officially used the term "United States of America" as early as January 1776.
So Washington himself declared the states "united" before Congress officially declared the colonies states.
Further, the Articles of Confederation were prepared in June 1776, before the Declaration of Independence, and those articles also used the name General Washington first gave us: "The name of this Confederation shall be the 'United States of America.' "
Point is: the Union (Congress & Army) came first and the Union declared 13 British colonies to be the United States of America.
Every important Founder document -- the Declaration, Articles of Confederation and 1787 Constitution are all under the name of "United States of America".
Of course that would be no big deal except you Lost Causers wish to turn it on its head.
Ohioan: "...a pledge violated when their heirs later--on any side of any question--started asserting a license to inflict adverse moral judgments on the descendants of their former partners in the grand venture's handling of their domestic non-Federal affairs."
In fact, as you should well know, slavery was an important issue among Founders even in 1776.
Yes, at that time British law enforced slavery in all 13 colonies so most Founders, North and South, owned slaves.
But nearly all considered slavery an evil -- some said a necessary evil, others an unnecessary evil -- and most thought it should be gradually abolished.
That's what Jefferson's famous deleted passage is all about.
And most Northern states soon began to abolish slavery such that by the time of the 1787 Constitution Convention, only two Northern delegates still owned slaves.
By 1787 the overall sentiment against slavery was growing, enough to add abolition of international slave imports to the Constitution.
That same year Congress abolished slavery in the then "Northwest Territories".
At the same time Southern attitudes were hardening, resulting in the Fugitive Slave clause and 3/5 representative rule.
But still in 1787 our Founders North & South believed that slavery should eventually be abolished, just as your own link to Daniel Webster's famous speech confirms.
Thomas Jefferson, in addition to abolishing slavery in the Northwest Territories also proposed a Federal buy-out of slaves, such proposals always rejected by slaveholders.
So within a few years all Northern states had begun abolition.
But no Southern states did, and that was a matter of growing concern outside the South.
Ohioan: "That State Sovereignty was then ratified after Yorktown, by the Treaty Of Paris."
The Treaty of Paris, important as it is, did not overturn the Founders' Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and 1787 Constitution.
The United States began United and remained United, regardless of treaty language.
Ohioan: "The Constitution, adopted by those States a few years later, clearly reflected the original purpose."
Clearly reflected the original purpose of the United States of America.
Note, the United States in the language of the Constitution, always "are."
Note that at all times, prior to 1865, each of the newly independent States controlled its own suffrage--including who could vote in Federal elections, after the Constitutional Union.
Note the specific ratification process for the Constitution, and the nearly non-joinder by Rhode Island & North Carolina.
You do not define a book by its title. And you cannot read more into a joint venture, than the joint venture actually entails.
But enough of this silliness. In my last response, I gave you credit for acting more reasonably, but here--in this latest--even your obsession with slavery crops up again, although that was hardly the focus of my last riposte.
That obsession with an issue on which Americans disagreed, actually gives the lie to your theory of union. Those who pledged their "lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor," to one another, did not reserve a right to impugn each other's personal character. It was not any one precipitating issue of the day; it was the sudden loss of mutual respect, which caused the rupture--which continues to endanger a common American future. It was what Thomas Jefferson compared to a "Firebell in the night," in 1820; and your obsession with an old, once serious but long over, disagreement, continues to control what you choose to focus on.
Does this mean you’re going away now?
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.