Posted on 08/11/2004 7:08:05 AM PDT by The Wizard
And that's the REAL reason the demonrats hate GWB: not only is he everything they hoped billyboy would be, he will be remembered for planting the seeds that grew into peace to the Middle East.....
Washington was the Father of our country, and Lincoln freed the slaves, and GWB started the journey that will eventually bring peace to this troubled part of the world, and the rats hate him for it, so much so, that I wouldn't put ANYTHING past them.......
The real democrats, who controlled the party when Tip was the Man, lost control to the clintonistas, and he was so bad, the party regulars fled as the goon squad came in to defend their leader......
But as I sat watching Rummy from Afgahistan today speaking about 9 million folks so hungry to vote they risk their lives to register, it told any logical man that so it will be in Iraq, and all the other kingdoms throughout the world.....
The time of kings is over, now is the time of the little man, and he never had a stronger, braver friend than Ronald Reagan or GWB......
While not asking for this honor, GWB had it blown up on him on 9-11, and the world will be a safer, better place when this is done.
God Bless and protect GWB....
Yep, they maintained the right to leave. I'm willing to go to war for my rights as well. They could have simply been left alone.
Moreover, the war came to be fought for liberation of the slaves and that was hardly a "dubious concept,"
It more than dubious that many fought to liberate the slaves. Or keep them.
though I suppose one could apply such a description to the idea of secession at will or the vision of a slaveowners' republic.
They came voluntarily and were of the opinion that they could leave the same way. A look at the State constitutions and statements when they joined the union leaves little doubt of that.
The Civil War has been over for a good long time. Without neglecting its tragedy and horror, we ought to be able to see things in perspective by now and do without cardboard cut-out saints and villains.
I see none of what you describe. There are no saints, but there are villians aplenty. They aren't cardboard to me. Liberty is still my main issue. Today, we are as surely enslaved as many were in that century. It's a matter of degree.
(BTW, it wasn't a civil war.)
After you brush up on your "facts", we can continue.
Post 97
If you call yourself an American, you have Abe Lincoln to thank for that.
Revisionist crap.
May as well read Kitty Kelly's expose on Nancy Reagan. Or watch The Blob's "Fahrenheit 911."
Arrest.
Better check your facts. Lincoln ignored the constitution several times.
He violated the Constitution several times, without question. But I don't think he simply ignored the Constitution - he agonized over these kinds of decisions and took them under what he perceived to be inexorable necessity, not mere whim.
Hundreds of thousands died because of his "willingness."
Hundreds of thousands died because the political opinion of the South was that disputes over slavery were worth the risk of seceding and the political opinion of the North was that secession was treasonous. Lincoln was willing to make concessions to the South to convince them not to secede - but South Carolina, sadly, never even gave him a chance.
At least you don't subscribe to the fantasy of many hero worshipers, to your credit. He was a racist.
This is true by our standards. But unlike many of his contemporaries he at least believed that blacks were people and had some (but not all) of the rights white people had. He was a moderate in his day.
He could have simply let them go. By the time he was out of power, it would have been a settled issue.
I disagree. In the matter of such issues as Fort Sumter, you are quite correct. In the matter of the border states and the unorganized territories you are wrong. Missouri, West Virginia and Kentucky would inevitably have become battlegrounds and the territories would have occasioned endless conflict. These situations were much harder to accommodate and the armies of both the USA and CSA would have been pulled into a larger war.
You are making the case that the states knew they were forbidden at gunpoint from ever leaving the union and still joined? That is ridiculous IMO.
One of the arguments that Hamilton consistently makes in the Federalist is that the power of a federal government over individual citizens rather than just over states is desirable because otherwise the enforcement of laws might create a situation where a federal government would be forced to call in some states' militias to compel cooperation.
The constitution is nothing if not a document limiting the power of the federal government. The tenth amendment leaves the states and the people in charge of issues not covered in it. The federal government has no legitimate power to compel states to remain, Lincoln and others made it up.
If the states were free to go, they why would they need an amendment that guaranteed them the freedom to legislate on matters where the Constitution was silent? If the freedom of secession was an assumption of the signatories, then there was no need of a Tenth Amendment, which negatively implies that the states are bound to submit to enumerated Federal powers. If they could leave of their own volition at any time, the Tenth Amendment would be considered patronizing, not a necessary prerequisite for ratification.
Which of course was never the point, only a consequence.
It was a motivating factor for a plurality of Northern combatants (though certainly not a majority). The main goal was the preservation of the Union and the benefits that have flowed from that continued Union have been great.
Please cite numbers for this assertion if you can. I am more than skeptical. Both sides used conscription extensively.
There are no exact statistics on this, of course.
I could certainly be wrong.
explain to me what foriegn country Lincoln Invade?
I stand corrected. I was being too kind. You are of course correct, he violated it with malice aforthought.
War aims change over the course of wars. The first minutemen weren't usually in favor of American independence. It wasn't an issue at the time. Nor did most GI's in World War II have any great sympathy for the plight of the Jews -- anger at Japan was far more common, as was the desire to defend America. But as time went on, they came to see things in a different light.
The Confederacy had the option of dropping slavery and changing their own war aims. Had they done so, they would have won some support in the North and abroad, but they chose not to emancipation, and our assessment of the two sides reflects this.
State governments recognized that at some point the union might fall apart or grow tyrannical and justify rebellion against it. But it's not clear that the right of rebellion against tyranny added up to a right of unilateral secession. Indeed, plenty of observers have denied such a "right." Had it been highly cherished at the time it would have been written into the Constitution. The lesson to be drawn from the experience, is either write such "rights" into the Constitution or work within the institutions the Constitution established.
Liberty is an important issue, but our experience has been shaped by the circumstances we live in. If we lived in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, Eastern Europe or other parts of the world, where various breakaway groups and terrorist bands asserted their "freedom" through constant warfare, we'd look on the Civil War in a different light. I don't argue that that would be the right way to think about the war, just that it ought to be taken into account in any assessment of the period.
"An angel in a whirlwind directs this storm"
That was rejected out of hand by the framers. The constitution does not, and should not grant rights. It limits the government's power.
Rights come from God. Government is supposed to defend them in a free society. So far, it has failed most of the time. And been the instrument to usurp all too often.
The DOI outlines the concept.
I suggest that it is not I who should brush up on facts. To wit:
It was a recognized concept (take that DoI preamble) that a state could seceed.
The Constitution itself is silent on the subject. Still it makes sense that, once admittted, a state should have the right to leave. The most logical way is that a state should be permitted to leave in the same manner as it was permitted to join - through the consent of the other states as shown by a majority vote in Congress. The southern states chose rebellion instead.
...he suspended Habeus Corpus for the duration of his presidency...
Utter nonsense. Habeas corpus was suspended at various times during Lincoln's presidency, both by his order and through legislation passed by Congress. That was a tool used by the administration to combat the rebellion. Nothing in it was unconstitutional.
...just after they were elected, rounded up and imprisoned a double handful of merry-lander state congresscritters because they'd made pro-middle-states-secession noises during their campaigns.
The arrest of some members of the Maryland legislature occured in September 1861. Not after they had been elected but while they were agitating for rebellion. Given that the Maryland legislature had voted against secession in the spring and that fighting with the south was underway then arresting those who advocated rebellion against the government was a prudent act.
I have nothing but contempt for those who took the most perfect guideline for creating a government, one that protects individual volition, responsibility, and property, and basically uses it for toilet tissue.
You must really hate Jefferson Davis then. Or haven't you bothered to read up on him?
Skooz,
You should probably read that revisionist crap, along with the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights....ok, all of the amendments not just the first ten (the latter more modern ones don't have that ring of truth the founders brought to the fore).
If you think government is supposed to "do stuff" for you, we have no basis for discussion. If you believe government's charter is to protect your ability to make decisions, the freedom to succeed or fail on the basis of your own merits, and to do all this without INTERFERING, then the revisionist (debatable) crap looks less like a single guy yelling on a corner and more like a well researched and well intentioned statement of truth.
I won't go see tubbo's flick. I like the whole experience of going to the movies too much. I have looked at point by point summaries, from both sides of the argument, and it sounds to me like tubbo didn't get his facts straight (for the most part).
Bottom line, the founders wrote as perfect a "roadmap" for as perfect a government the world has ever seen. It started going south (pun intended) when the "Henry Clay-ists" started pushing for the "American Plan" (maybe even earlier than that), and really started the bad slide when lincoln abrogated the southern states' right of secession. He then perpetrated acts that would not be out of place in a cheezy banana republic.
We are now taxed more, interferred with more, with a great deal of what we produce going to programs that would NOT hold up to constitutional scrutiny. Lincoln, oratory not withstanding, does not hold up to constitutional scrutiny.
Nope, lincoln was a baaaaaaaaad president. no donut!
Noted. Jeff Davis. On my list.
Everytime I read your tagline, I shout Hurrah for Jeff Davis!
I have "bothered" to read quite a bit about a lot of things. Rejection of one bad leader is not an endorsement of another.
Kinda like the non sensical concept of many on this site that rejection of Bush principles is embracing Kerry.
If memory serves he never once won an election running against an opponent. Ya gotta admit, Davis had that whole election thing down to a science. Make sure that you run unopposed and you have it made.
ping
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.