Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Lincoln Returned to Richmond
The Weekly Standard ^ | 12/29/03 | Andrew Ferguson

Posted on 12/24/2003 10:30:18 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan

Abraham Lincoln, with his son Tad in tow, walked around Richmond, Virginia, one day 138 years ago, and if you try to retrace their steps today you won't see much that they saw, which shouldn't be a surprise, of course. The street grid is the same, though, and if you're in the right mood and know what to look for, the lineaments of the earlier city begin to surface, like the outline of a scuttled old scow rising through the shallows of a pond. Among the tangle of freeway interchanges and office buildings you'll come across an overgrown park or a line of red-brick townhouses, an unlikely old belltower or a few churches scattered from block to block, dating to the decades before the Civil War and still giving off vibrations from long ago.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: civilwar; confederacy; confederates; dixie; lincoln; richmond
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 561-567 next last
To: Non-Sequitur
"The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will, and without the consent of the other States, from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, cannot be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant, both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted, and to the objects which it was expressly formed to attain." - Thomas Jefferson"

Terrific! Where and when did TJ say that? BTW, the notion that a state could secede constitutionally did not even occur to many people until the 1830s.

161 posted on 01/03/2004 5:04:14 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Warning that the rebels should not fire on Ft. Sumter, Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs said: ""It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal,""
162 posted on 01/03/2004 5:07:31 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan; Gunslingr3
Oops, my bad. That was Andrew Jackson not Thomas Jefferson. But Jefferson did say, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union...let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." So it's clear he wouldn't have supported the southern rebellion.
163 posted on 01/03/2004 6:04:04 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; Gunslingr3; Ditto; GOPcapitalist; WhiskeyPapa; wardaddy; stainlessbanner
My favorite Andrew Jackson quote was what the South Carolina-born President told the would-be South Carolina secessionists during the nullification crisis:

"If one drop of blood be shed in defiance of the laws of the United States. I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find."
164 posted on 01/03/2004 6:14:16 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan; Gunslingr3
A state government that rebelled against the United States Government was no longer illegitimate,

Fruedian typo.

165 posted on 01/03/2004 6:21:59 AM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
You got me! I meant to say, of course, that a state government that rebels against the United States Government is therefore legitimate. Good catch!!
166 posted on 01/03/2004 6:25:29 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
[G] You're not going to start arguing that three million Seattle residents go through 50 million DVD players anually again, are you?

[NS] No.

So why go on about how where the tarrif is paid somehow indicates the final destination of finished goods? Your 'trade axiom' that goods are shipped directly to end customers seems flawed, especially since I cannot think of a single instance of international trade which follows your 'rule.'

167 posted on 01/03/2004 6:29:48 AM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
[G] So do you agree that this means maintenance of political power and dominance of an unwilling people?

[NS] No.

Can you give a more detailed explanation of the phrase 'preserve the Union' then? I apparently have it all wrong.

168 posted on 01/03/2004 6:31:25 AM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Face it, power, not principle, has your allegiance

Neocon creed.

169 posted on 01/03/2004 6:32:21 AM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
It served no military purpose because as was seen through the civil war, Charleston harbor could be perfectly well defended from the mainland.

The rebels used the fort throughout the war in defense of the harbor. It was quite effective.

170 posted on 01/03/2004 6:37:29 AM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; Grand Old Partisan; Gunslingr3
That was Andrew Jackson not Thomas Jefferson.

No difference in opinions there.

But Jefferson did say, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union...let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." So it's clear he wouldn't have supported the southern rebellion.

Allright, Non... Tell us what your native language is and I'll translate the quote into something you can understand.

171 posted on 01/03/2004 6:51:34 AM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
I meant to say, of course, that a state government that rebels against the United States Government is therefore legitimate.

Man, you did it again... Maybe you're not such a bad guy after all!

Happy 2004, Let's make it a good year.

172 posted on 01/03/2004 6:53:03 AM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
Perhaps the sarcasm was not clear enough for you.
173 posted on 01/03/2004 6:54:24 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And there is no greater myth-making machine than the 'lost cause' fanatics

You are right about one thing. Defending the constitution does seem to be a lost cause and Lincoln went a long way toward making sure that would be the case.

174 posted on 01/03/2004 7:16:12 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated

Seems to me Jefferson was supporting the notion that those who wish to leave ought to be left alone so as to be examples of how tolerant the Union was. And I agree with him....

175 posted on 01/03/2004 7:20:48 AM PST by Nanodik (Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Nanodik
You forget that seven rebellious state governments "seceded" before Abraham Lincoln became President, as the rebels were the ones trashing the Constitution, which they had also sworn to uphold.

176 posted on 01/03/2004 7:35:09 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
Face it, you lost. It was 138 years ago. Get over it already.

We all lost. Or haven't you noticed how the "living" Constitution has acceleratingly changed since those dark days? One would think you would have considering your location and its "progressive" tendencies.

177 posted on 01/03/2004 7:45:20 AM PST by wattsmag2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: wattsmag2
Proponents of the "living Constitution" approach are Democrats, as were those other Constitution-trashers, the Confederates.
178 posted on 01/03/2004 7:47:37 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan (You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: wattsmag2
My location? Where would that be. I keep moving to keep 'em guessing. (And, read the tagline...not from there, never want to go back.)
179 posted on 01/03/2004 7:47:39 AM PST by Vermont Lt (I am not from Vermont. I lived there for four years and that was enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
I have yet to see you explain how secession was "constitution trashing"
180 posted on 01/03/2004 7:49:02 AM PST by wattsmag2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 561-567 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson