Posted on 04/12/2013 10:06:29 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
As the capital of the Confederate States of America, Richmond, Va. could hardly be described as a supporter of Abraham Lincoln; its grand Monument Avenue is chock-full of oversized statues of heroes of the Confederacy, including Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Jeb Stuart. But now, nearly 150 years after the Civil War ended, Lincoln – or at least the movie version of him – is Richmond’s new hero...
To coincide with the movie’s recent release on DVD, Virginia Tourism Corporation has created several self-guided tours that follow Lincoln around the state...
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.sfgate.com ...
You can be proud of the Father of Federalism is you want, I’ll pass.
And while we're at it, do you mind if we take a look at that quote of Jefferson's in context?
"The alternatives between which we are to choose [are fairly stated]: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter and hold the former at arm's length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war."
When you look at it that way two things become clear. The first is that Jefferson is almost talking about escaping from those states that prefer war, literally by getting rid of them. And second, Jefferson is making it abundantly clear that the separation would be a mutual decision. In 1860 the South walked out without discussion and in a manner deliberately designed to create anger and resentment behind, and likely lead to war.
Yeah, so much better than what Lincoln gave birth to, Obama and the nanny state. I think you’re on the wrong web site. DU is more suited to you.
The Industrial Revolution needed a capitalist system, and agrarians like Jefferson would have held us back, not to mention his dependence on slavery for his agrarianism. Jackson's mistrust of the central banking system led to a phenomenal collapse in the economy, and Jefferson did the same thing with tariffs.
I can only encourage you to read this.
Abraham Lincoln or the Progressives: Who was the real father of big government?
Thank you, thank you, thank you for civil exchange.
They don’t have that article in Audible format, do they? Though I haven’t read the article, I suspect I would come down on the side of “Abraham Lincoln AND the Progressives: the co-fathers of big government.” In short, I don’t believe that Lincoln was necessarily for big government, I believe that his actions ALLOWED big government to evolve.
FWIW.
Not really; marriage is the fundamental compact in human society: that is it is the one that is recognized and revered universally.
States, with but 13 exceptions, joined the Union only with the permission of the other states. This permission is expressed through a majority vote in Congress.
Just like a vote to expand a board of directors would be from a board of directors -- according to the bylaws of most [all?] companies.
So far as I know the bride does not need to get the permission of a majority of the grooms family to marry him. Once allowed into the Union states are limited as to what they can do outside their own borders if that action impacts another state. They can't split up without consent of Congress. They can't combine with another state without consent of Congress. They can't alter their borders or enter into agreements with the other states without consent of Congress. Leaving the Union entirely should require the same, or so James Madison thought.
All correct, except possibly the last, again the question becomes is a bereaved party still beholden to the contract's terms? Or does the law provide for the dissolution [with benefits] to the injured party?
"A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it." - James Madison, 1832
Looks like Madison agreed with me: that the federal government violating the Constitution was grounds for a State saying "no more".
In this article, Dr. Guelzo talks about how the Progressives, who used to hate Lincoln, decided to co-opt him like a hostage for their own wicked purposes. How many thousands of times have we heard liberals twist ideas and words to their cause? We should be onto it by now. As far as any of Lincoln's actions allowing big government, since when have Progressives asked for permission? They pass unconstitutional laws all the time and laugh off any questions about constitutionality - I know you've heard that one, too.
The huge danger for the conservative cause is that if we buy into the lie, and start hating Lincoln because Progressives pretend he's on their big-government side, then we fall right into their trap where they start harping on conservatives being for slavery and racism. That's their biggest ugly weapon that they've been using for decades. (See Breitbart).
I wish it were on audio - I don't know if it might be possible to run it through some voice recognition software. Dr. Guelzo might have the time to record it someday, since it's such a good piece.
Dr. Guelzo's excellent biography of Lincoln is available on Audible.
In this biography, he does an excellent job of talking about the philosophical differences between Jefferson and Lincoln, and their ideologies, and Lincoln's fight for the opportunity for the common man to rise above his station. Oh, I can't recommend it enough.
As far as Lincoln's actions allowing big government to evolve, Dr. Guelzo sums up this way:
"There is no doubt that the wartime emergency of 1861 to 1865 called out a significant increase in the size and scope of the federal government; what is important to notice, however, is that:
This increase was in response to a threat to the very life of the republic,Lincoln used federal powers in a true emergency, and then laid them down. Woodrow Wilson started to pretend that all of life was an ongoing emergency. It sounds familiar to "never let a crisis go to waste." Our fiscal emergency gave them words and power to expand the welfare state and the further unconscionable, unconstitutional powers yet again.It bears no proportional resemblance to the scope of modern “big government,” and
The increase shrank back to its prewar proportions with no sense of having established a permanent precedent, much less a government-knows-best philosophy."
Excellent link you provided. It was a great read. Thanks.
You really should take the time to read the article.
And which bears absolutely no resemblance to the relationship between the states.
Just like a vote to expand a board of directors would be from a board of directors -- according to the bylaws of most [all?] companies.
And wouldn't the same be required to reduce the size of the board of directors?
All correct, except possibly the last, again the question becomes is a bereaved party still beholden to the contract's terms? Or does the law provide for the dissolution [with benefits] to the injured party?
A more salient question is who decides when a party is injured? The Southern states claimed their rights were violated and the compact broken. Why didn't the other states have the ability to disagree and insist that the compact was intact? Even in your marriage analogy one side does not have the right to unilaterally end the marriage and walk off with all the property they can get their hands on. The decision has to be mutual, or decided by a judge.
Looks like Madison agreed with me: that the federal government violating the Constitution was grounds for a State saying "no more".
You would be wrong. Later in the same letter Madison wrote: "The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the Government. Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargain."
The problem is he let the Genie out of the bottle. Even though FedGov™ "shrank" post war, the precedence had been set.
Thank you!
I will try to get back the article. In the meantime, we can certainly agree about Wilson and Obama.
>> Not really; marriage is the fundamental compact in human society: that is it is the one that is recognized and revered universally.
>
> And which bears absolutely no resemblance to the relationship between the states.
Of course it does, being the fundamental compact must make it relevant if the relationship between the states [and federal government] is a compact.
(Your reply also indicates agreement with this premise.)
In theology saying that Jesus is a kind of Adam is not to say that he *is* Adam, that would be absurd, but precisely that there is a likeness/relevance/relationship between the two — in like manner to say “marriage is the fundamental compact” is to say that ALL other compacts share a “likeness” of some sort.
>> Just like a vote to expand a board of directors would be from a board of directors — according to the bylaws of most [all?] companies.
>
> And wouldn’t the same be required to reduce the size of the board of directors?
Not of necessity — what if the same bylaws require intimidate termination for some offense, or being investigated [as in arrested] for some offense (like, say, kindergarten teachers and arrest for pedophilia or child porn).
>> All correct, except possibly the last, again the question becomes is a bereaved party still beholden to the contract’s terms? Or does the law provide for the dissolution [with benefits] to the injured party?
>
> A more salient question is who decides when a party is injured? The Southern states claimed their rights were violated and the compact broken. Why didn’t the other states have the ability to disagree and insist that the compact was intact? Even in your marriage analogy one side does not have the right to unilaterally end the marriage and walk off with all the property they can get their hands on. The decision has to be mutual, or decided by a judge.
You are somewhat wrong - Jesus said that fornication was justification for divorce. There are obviously two witnesses to fornication, the fornicator & the one he is fornicating with — indeed there are three, for God Himself sees all the works of men. Proving it, however, is a different matter; but not generally a problem: a an unfaithful spouse acts from the heart, and that same heart will rule other actions. — Furthermore, there is no “mutuality” in dissolving a marriage in the manner that Jesus was talking about: there is only one exception for divorce, which is fornication. (In the same sentence he says that divorce in other situations was to “cause her to commit adultery” — this is something big, capitol offense big, look at the laws here: Deuteronomy 22:22; Leviticus 20:10; Proverbs 6:32)
Now, if you look at the Constitution — Can it be said that the Federal Government has kept the Compact? Has it stayed within the proscribed limits, or at least made good-faith efforts to do so? Or do things like Wickard, Raich, Kelo, Schenick, Affordable Care Act (all USSC decisions) indicate an overarching bad-faith? Indeed consider the recent federal gun registration and ObamaCare (both legislative) do these indicate good-faith? Now the executive: does Fast & Furious, or the EPA crackdowns, or the TSA searches, or the War on Drugs/No Knock Raid-style “execution” of ‘law’ indicate good-faith?
Except that the insurrection in the south created the conditions in which support for the insurrection was treason.
Without the insurrection, Lincoln would not have had cause to quash dissent, and didn’t for quite a while even with the insurrection on. The thing that always astounds me is how long it always was from the time of a treasonous insurrection it was to the time that Lincoln acted to stop the treasonous acts.
Certainly the northern states did away with slavery without a civil war. New Jersey had all of 18 remaining slaves in 1860, under the name of ‘apprentice’. All younger slaves served a time as an apprentice before gaining their freedom. The older slaves were converted to permanent apprentices.
By contrast, free blacks in North Carolina were able to vote until 1835. In the deep south, blacks were losing rights, because of the legal system run by white slave owners.
The reason why the civil war was necessary was because the southern slave owners wanted one so.
Keep in mind that there are a bunch of conservatives in ‘blue’ states, just not so many as the low information voters.
Then you can add in effect of fraudulent votes, using the practices proven in West Texas by Lyndon Johnson, where he would routinely poll 200% or more of the registered vote.
In fact, I would suggest that conservatives in blue states are conservative because we know have first hand experience of how corrupt and disfunctional big government can be.
I would suggest that it was Washington who let the genie out of the bottle, when he used Virginia militia to put down insurrection.
Or even worse, the genie was always out of the bottle. People who want power can always find a way to justify it. Which is why Franklin said “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.
Depends on which gospel you look at. And so far as I know Jesus was silent on the subject of secession.
Now, if you look at the Constitution — Can it be said that the Federal Government has kept the Compact? Has it stayed within the proscribed limits, or at least made good-faith efforts to do so? Or do things like Wickard, Raich, Kelo, Schenick, Affordable Care Act (all USSC decisions) indicate an overarching bad-faith? Indeed consider the recent federal gun registration and ObamaCare (both legislative) do these indicate good-faith? Now the executive: does Fast & Furious, or the EPA crackdowns, or the TSA searches, or the War on Drugs/No Knock Raid-style “execution” of ‘law’ indicate good-faith?
Can we keep to the 19th century please? Unless you have launched another civil war that I somehow missed.
Care to provide another gospel wherein he proscribes something different?
Um, we're talking about compacts, of which marriage is the 'prototype' -- you've already agreed that the Constitution is a compact -- therefore, dissolution of the first is applicable to dissolution of the second.
>> Now, if you look at the Constitution — Can it be said that the Federal Government has kept the Compact? Has it stayed within the proscribed limits, or at least made good-faith efforts to do so? Or do things like Wickard, Raich, Kelo, Schenick, Affordable Care Act (all USSC decisions) indicate an overarching bad-faith? Indeed consider the recent federal gun registration and ObamaCare (both legislative) do these indicate good-faith? Now the executive: does Fast & Furious, or the EPA crackdowns, or the TSA searches, or the War on Drugs/No Knock Raid-style “execution” of ‘law’ indicate good-faith?
>
> Can we keep to the 19th century please? Unless you have launched another civil war that I somehow missed.
Why? My goal is to show that not only has there been "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism," but violations of the compact that is the Constitution which make your assertion that "none can leave" laughable.
To put it another way, at what point would you be willing to concede that the thing that is the Federal Government looks so unlike the thing described in the Constitution that the people/states cannot be compelled to obey it?
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.