Posted on 02/17/2006 5:47:19 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
I don't know how many of you get the Federalist Patriot report via email, but it is a great source of conservative news and opinion that all of you should get.
You can find their site at:
http://patriotpost.us/
Anyway, even though I support them, they sent out an email today that bashed Abe Lincoln fiercely. I was so moved to annoyance by their biased and ill thought out email that I had to write them and say how disappointed I was.
You can go to their site and see the anti-Lincoln screed that they put out to know exactly what I am replying to if you desire to do so.
Now, I know some of you freepers are primo confederate apologists so I thought this would stir debate on freerepublic!!
Now, let the fur fly as we KNOW it must...
As I've managed Locke, Batiste, Montague and am currently wading through Blackstone's Commentaries, I think I can comprehend it.
Any further reply will have to wait until tomorrow, though.
I have family obligations at the moment.
No, Lincoln said that revolution was a right. But he didn't say winning your rebellion was a right, too. And in the end you lost.
But with the exception of the first 13, states didn't voluntarily enter into anything. They were admitted, and only with the permission of a majority of the other states as expressed by a vote in both houses of Congress. So if the approval of the other states is needed to become a state in the first place then why isn't the approval of the other states needed to leave?
Point out to me where the Constitution says that the other states cannot band together and expel a state from the Union without its permission. Chapter and verse.
LOL.... and Congratulations!
But we're rising again......*~*.
Where does it say that in The Constitution?
Section 10. [1] No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation.
Actually it was a deluded bunch of slavers which were the problem. Their utter grasp of reality destroyed the South's chances to progress for the next hundred years. Their conspiracy to destroy the RAT party and elect Lincoln achieved precisely their intended result. An attempt to annull a proper election and separation. Using invalid constitutional excuses
they were responsible for the death and destruction.
Their is no equality of blame. Only John Brown was as deluded.
I have seen no evidence that Jefferson actually opposed ratification and doubt Washington would have put him in Cabinet if he had. I am fairly sure he would have had he been in the country. Thank God he was not.
That was always one of Hamilton's greatest worries. He knew the danger to the whole Empire of Liberty he strove for was an ability to walk away. A statesman of his foresight also knew that not one of the states could be able to seperate without absorption into one of the empires contesting for the continent.
This was one of the most weighty of the reasons Hamilton and Madison had worked incessently since 1782 for the Convention. Strengthening the Union "a more perfect Union" was the ONLY concern of the Convention. This impulse is utterly incompatible with the idea that unilateral seperation was even conceivable to them except as the most deadly of threats to the Empire of Liberty. Using extra legal means and open warfare would have been even more inconceivable given the excuse for revolution, oppression without representation, simply was not present in any form.
Hamilton gave the longest speech of the Convention and tried to push it as far to the right as he could believing that the great danger was weakness "imbecility" in the national government. But interestingly enough Madison at that time was more Hamiltonian than Hamilton and made equally radical suggestions for curbing the states power of the states and centralizing power. Hamilton's remark about the problem of using federal military intervention during the debate wherein Madison advocated just that. Only after Jefferson's return did Madison swing left and into, imo, error. Hamilton played "Bad Cop" very well at the Convention and drove a compromise which just barely strenghtened the government sufficiently to survive.
The southern economy before the civil war was cotton based. The cotton industry was based on slave labor. Take away slavery and the southern economy would collapse.
Why? Would all the blacks simply vanish? The fact is that most blacks stayed near their homes, becoming paid farm laborers or sharecroppers. By 1870, I believe, cotton production was back to pre-war levels. The reason it didn't help the south much was that the price of cotton had collapsed, with Indian and Egyptian cotton coming into the world market.
What would be threatened was the capital that the south had tied up in slaves, an asset second only to land in total value.
Taking your sweet time about it, aren't you?
It is impossible to look back at times when there was little mass communication, little mass transportation, all warfare was brutal, and fought to the death.
No one knows the true motives of most of those in power.
It was a complicated tragedy for both sides, including my ancestors who fought and died to keep the union together and to end slavery once and for all.
Even the Confederates had this in their Constitution!
You didn't. But you compaired divorce to unilateral secession.
The Patriots of 1776 were not trying to overthrow King George.
Sad thing, as you probably know,is that only 10% of Southerners owned slaves to begin with. I think there was enough blame to go around on both sides.
That's a low blow N/S. Every community in every state has it's problems but I believe the South has made sea changes in past years toward leveling the playing field for all people. Sure, there will always be the ignorant, intolerant types everywhere but if given a choice, the South will always closest to my heart.
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.