How to stop the agitation?
Avoiding the conflict and/or appeasement have Never worked in history. You can defer it but never avoid it.
Now “unconditional surrender” like in WWII is not perfect either. But it has some advantages that overweigh the cons, at least I think so.
Folks, there is going to be a fight. Lets get it started and over with.
Do your mental rehearsal, get used to the idea in your own mind. Stand up when you can in many little skirmishes. Realize your freedom and responsibility are going to cost you.
Have a CLEAR IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR like our founding fathers did. Not like the French revolution which is the position of the opposition.
A house divided cannot stand..............it will be all one or all the other.
An April 1859 letter by Lincoln about Thomas Jefferson and how the two major parties have changed positions. From Column 3 in the newspaper:
Mr. Lincoln on Jeffersonlan Democracy.
The following letter from Abraham Lincoln was written in reply to an invitation to attend the “Jefferson Dinner" given at [can’t read].
Springfield, Ill., April 6, 1859
Gentlemen:--Your kind note, inviting me to attend a festival in Boston, on the 13th inst. In honor of the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, was duly received. My engagements are such that I cannot attend. Bearing mind that seventy years ago two great political parties were first formed in this country; that Thomas Jefferson was the head of one of them and Boston the headquarters of the other, it is both curious and interesting that those supposed to descend politically from the party opposed to Jefferson, should now be celebrating his birthday in their own original seat of empire, while those claiming political from him have nearly ceased to breathe his name everywhere.
Remembering, too, that the Jefferson party was formed upon its supposed superior devotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights of property to be secondarv only, and greatly inferior; and then assuming that the so-called Democracy of to-day are the Jefferson, and their opponents the anti-Jefferson parties, it will be equally interesting to note how completely the two have changed ground as to the principle upon which they were originally supposed to be divided.
The Democracy of to-day held the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with another man's right of property. Republicans, on the contrary are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.
But soberly, it is no child’s play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation.
One would state with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but nevertheless he would fail, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show success. One dashingly calls them “glittering generalities.” Another bluntly styles them "self evident lies,". And others insiduously argue that they apply only to "superior races."
These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect -- the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads plotting against the people. They are the vanguard, the sappers and miners, of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.
This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom others deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.
All honor to Jefferson -- to the man who, the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to enbalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.
Your obedient servant,
A. Lincoln.
Douglas’ position on popular sovereignty reminds me in a way of the modern pro-choice position. In both cases the person most affected by the decision gets no say in it.
History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme! Interesting article - thanks!