Posted on 11/03/2015 6:52:26 AM PST by don-o
The Civil War is, as Shelby Foote noted, at the crossroads of our being. Looked at one way, it marked the end of a long struggle against slavery and the beginning of a long one for civil rights and racial equality. Looked at another, it marked the end of limited government and the beginning of the encroaching, ever-present Leviathan that exists today. These memories can be both in sync and in conflict. After all, it was the deployment of strong government in the form of a dominant army and the passage of federal amendments that played a large role in the freeing of American slaves. And yet, as the government's mechanisms for intruding into the lives of the American people increased from the 1860s on, racial discrimination and segregation remained entrenched - moral suasion had at least as much to do with a broad acceptance of racial equality as big government did.
(Excerpt) Read more at theimaginativeconservative.org ...
Well, I think you’re focusing too much on slavery and the South. The fact is, Lincoln was the first President to fully embrace political pragmatism, deciding to ignore both the spirit and letter of our founding documents in order to accomplish his goals.
Some people focus on the fact that his goal was supposedly the noble idea of freeing the slaves, but that is actually irrelevant. It doesn’t matter to us living today WHY Lincoln decided to veer from the previous tradition of governing according to Constitutional principles. All that matters is that he did so, and virtually every President after him followed in his footsteps, evading Constitutional limitations at every opportunity in order to advance their own agendas.
We can see now, in hindsight, the perils of that choice. Not every President has noble goals; just look at the current one for an example. Once they took for themselves the power to ignore Constitutional limitations, it was inevitable that power would be used to undermine the Republic, sooner or later.
When you read the article, you will see that the author of this piece suggests that there are "several branches of conservatism" that "venerate the South as the paragon of American liberty."
See, the point is that most people do not view slavery as the epitome of liberty. In fact, most people see a tension between slavery and liberty.
Do you venerate the antebellum South as the paragon of American liberty?
Bkmk
Jefferson thought he didn't have the right to acquire Louisiana, but he did so anyway. If I remember correctly, he also didn't believe he had the right to impose an embargo but did so anyway. Pragmatism?
We could say things about Madison, Jackson, and Polk as well. Really, there is no politics without pragmatism, and some revered leaders have been willing to bend their principles to take advantage of circumstances.
Just added some context.
Like I said, we've heard it all from you before. I thought it was nonsense then and repetition hasn't changed it at.
I agree with what Jefferson Davis said after a couple of decades of reflection:
The past is dead; let it bury its dead, its hopes, and its aspirations. Before you lies the future, a future full of golden promise, a future of expanding national glory, before which all the world shall stand amazed. Let me beseech you to lay aside all rancor, all bitter sectional feeling, and to take your places in the ranks of those who will bring about a consummation to be wished, a reunited country.
The people of the USA are grateful for Lincoln and for the Union forces that preserved their country for them. There are always a few malcontents, but nearly everyone loves the USA and is proud to be an American now.
Inherent rights are not subject to acts of man. You can't "vote" that someone be murdered even if you have a majority, because individuals have a natural right to life. By the same token, you can't vote someone to be a slave, nor can you vote away someone's right to associate with whom they please.
So to answer your question, it doesn't matter if the constitution allows it or not. It is a natural law right, and the constitution cannot forbid it. It is beyond acts of man to tamper with.
2. Should the United States now become a union of 50 slave holding states since it is claimed that the Declaration Of Independence, the superior document of our founding, apparently included universal slave holding as one of its purposes?
It did not include it as one of it's purposes, it simply ignored the issue but for that one objection to the British inciting domestic insurrections. It operated on the assumption that slavery was a normal condition in 1776, which it was.
Like it or not, the entire country was a collection of slave holding states in 1776. To assert that the Declaration was purposed to upset this condition is intellectual dishonesty.
DoodleDawg,
Your rejoinder about hearing the same nonsense over and over is perfect. Thanks
You can’t be persuasive if it is impossible to understand the things you say.
You know how the "Global Warming" liberals fly all over the world in Jets and drive huge vehicles and produce massive carbon footprints all the while preaching against carbon emissions?
Well Washington and Jefferson were like that. They both used slaves for as long as they could, but felt guilty for doing it.
Washington didn't start out believing in abolition. He came to that position after years of contemplation of the issue. He actually wrote quite a lot on the subject, and it is fascinating reading. It is available on the internet and if you haven't read it, I urge you to do so.
“if the WBTS was about freedom, why did Lincoln and the northern states deny southern states their freedom?”
The freedom to enslave their fellow man? That’s not a “right” worth preserving.
The Civil War was about preserving the Union, as far has the United States was concerned. But for the Confederacy, it was all about Slavery.
Your context is irrelevant to the point that they had a right to do something, even if it was for a bad cause.
You have done exactly the same thing as saying you are against "freedom of speech" if it is speech with which you disagree, and against "freedom of religion" if it is a religion with which you disagree.
You are arguing that someone's right should be contingent upon your moral approval of their goals or purpose, and I, and the natural law philosophers, argue that rights are inherent, and they are not suspended because some people don't like the reason why other people want to exercise them.
OK. You totally didn’t follow along.
You can call Lincoln a liar if you want, but he said the war was about "Preserving the Union", and not about ending slavery.
The issue invokes many complex concepts. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of "natural law", then I am at a loss as to how to explain the principles involved, and how some very important principles were destroyed as a consequence of that conflict, and to the detriment of the nation.
Our current Fed-Zilla was born in that conflict. That is where the powers of the FedGov became free of the chains meant to constrain it.
You want to know who created the Monster state we are currently trying to hold back? That was Abraham Lincoln.
Read up on "natural law." Locke is a good place to start.
You wouldn't think so, but apparently the founders thought it was so necessary to preserve it that they wrote deliberate protections for it into the US Constitution.
The Civil War was about preserving the Union, as far has the United States was concerned.
But why did they have a right to do that, but the British didn't?
DegenerateLamp would have you believe that the Constitution gave explicit license for anyone to breach any agreement at any time, for any reason, and without the peril of consequence. See the incoherent: “Inherent rights are not subject to acts of man”. Thus, if a faction within a state, being malcontents to begin with, could declare itself independent and tear itself loose from the union its fore-bearers had committed themselves unto, no one could raise a single objection.
Getting the picture? LOL
The Civil War was about preserving the Union, as far has the United States was concerned. But for the Confederacy, it was all about Slavery.
highball, from the beginning to the end, your post is absolutely correct. There just is no way to evade the reality that slavery is inherently wrong and, of course, incompatible with any definition of liberty or freedom.
I do not believe that there ever existed a legitimate argument in favor of secession under our Constitution. But, if there ever existed even a weak Constitutional argument to be made for secession, that argument was permanently trashed by people who stupidly chose to associate it with slavery.
The freedom to enslave other people! Where to begin?
The freedom to enslave their fellow man? That’s not a "right" worth preserving.The Founding Fathers compromised to get our new country off the ground. It's disingenuous to compare that with the CSA, which claimed slavery as its fundamental founding principle and expressly forbade its member states from curtailing the practice.
You wouldn't think so, but apparently the founders thought it was so necessary to preserve it that they wrote deliberate protections for it into the US Constitution.
The Civil War was about preserving the Union, as far has the United States was concerned.Another staggeringly facile comparison. The American Revolution was fought to increase liberty for people on this continent, whereas the CSA was expressly founded on the belief that some human beings didn't deserve to be free.
But why did they have a right to do that, but the British didn't?
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.