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

Skip to comments.

Question: Did President Lincoln Destroy The U.S.? (Vanity)

Posted on 10/14/2007 7:14:10 AM PDT by proudofthesouth

I'm curious as to what FReepers have to say on this topic. Did our (America) go downhill with the start of Abraham Lincoln being elected and the South loosing the Civil War?


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: abelincoln; lincoln; presidents; rights; states
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-144 next last
To: proudofthesouth

Destroy? Hell no - he kept the amusing part around after putting them in their place. Fun to have around to this day.


21 posted on 10/14/2007 7:37:54 AM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proudofthesouth

Yes. Everything that it was intended to be as well as the very scope and fundamental operation of the federal government. Next question?


22 posted on 10/14/2007 7:39:06 AM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proudofthesouth
Before Lincoln, some people were 100% slaves and some people with 100% free.

After Lincoln, everyone was a few percent slave - to the Federal Govt.

This percentage has increased over the years.

23 posted on 10/14/2007 7:40:47 AM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: live+let_live
"...and brought forth a great empire."

?

And, what lands have we conquered and ruled over lo these hundreds of years now?

24 posted on 10/14/2007 7:40:57 AM PDT by MountainPete (democrats are Liars . . . the Truth ain't in 'em!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: proudofthesouth

Lincoln was dead before the Constitution was gutted by the 14th Amendment. So I’d come nearer blaming Johnson than I would Lincoln. And due to the amendment process, even more blame would fall on Congress than the Executive for that Amendment.


25 posted on 10/14/2007 7:41:48 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proudofthesouth

Ummm, no.


26 posted on 10/14/2007 7:41:50 AM PDT by Cymbaline (I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stres)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proudofthesouth

Ummm, no.


27 posted on 10/14/2007 7:43:31 AM PDT by Cymbaline (I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stress I repeat myself when under stres)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proudofthesouth

Who wanted to keep slavery?

Democrats

Who decided to form their own little country to retain slavery?

Democrats

Who created the Confederate Battle flag?

Democrats

Who started the Klu Klux Klan?

Democrats

Who used the institutionalized racism and fear to maintain their grip on the south for almost 100 years after the civil war?

Democrats

Who would have you believe that Lincoln destroyed this nation
by trying to save it?

take your time, there is only one possible answer.


28 posted on 10/14/2007 7:45:51 AM PDT by usmcobra (I sing Karaoke the way it was meant to be sung, drunk, badly and in Japanese)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

LOL!


29 posted on 10/14/2007 7:46:25 AM PDT by andyandval
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: proudofthesouth
IMO, the “Civil War” was the triumph of the Nationalists over the Federalists. It clearly marked the end of the essential idea that the several states were sovereign in their own right that had entered into a voluntary compact under a constitution that gave limited, and strictly enumerated powers to a central government.

There is now a substantial and irrefutable body of historical evidence that peaceful secession was always a valid option for states should they reach a sufficient level of dissatisfaction with the federal government.

We only have to look to the Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions of 1798 as proof. Thomas Jefferson himself “...thought that any state government could nullify unconstitutional acts by the federal government, whereas Madison felt that the states needed to act in concert to do so. The crucial point is that they both regarded the states, not the courts, as the bulwark of the people’s liberties. It is highly instructive that, five years before the concept of judicial review was born in Marbury v. Madison, many Americans, including the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Father of the Constitution, looked to state governments as the remedy to federal usurpation of power.”

from:
Reclaiming the American Revolution
by George C. Leef, Posted December 30, 2005
revew of the book:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy by William J. Watkins Jr. (Independent Institute, 2004); 236 pages; $39.95.

at:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0509g.asp

Of these Resolutions, the wikipedia entry states:

“...The resolutions declared that the Constitution was a “compact.” That is, it was an agreement among the states. The federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it; should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be void. Thus it was the right of the states to decide as to the constitutionality of such laws passed by Congress....”

see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

Interestingly, I read that one of the lesser Republican candidates has stated he would support a Presidential Commission to study and publish a report on restoring the full power of the Tenth Amendment.

IMO, just the fact that this Amendment is obscure and almost ignored by the government and sadly by the Supreme Court, proves how far down the road we have come since the North invaded the South to enforce collection of the Tariff of Abomination.

30 posted on 10/14/2007 7:47:03 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
"...directly linked to allowing women to vote ...."

LOL

Ah, the best humor is based on Truth.

31 posted on 10/14/2007 7:47:13 AM PDT by MountainPete (democrats are Liars . . . the Truth ain't in 'em!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Ironic, isn't it? The African slave trade was initiated and perpetuated by Muslims and the English and Dutch bought into it.

It's a small world.

32 posted on 10/14/2007 7:55:46 AM PDT by MountainPete (democrats are Liars . . . the Truth ain't in 'em!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MountainPete

“And, what lands have we conquered and ruled over lo these hundreds of years now?”

Is that a trick question? It depends on who you ask.

Some Southerners might answer, Georgia or Alabama.
Some Hawiians might answer, Hawaii.
Some Mexicans might answer, the Southwest US.
Some American Indians might answer, Montana.
Some Puerto Ricans might answer, Puerto Rico.
Some Cubans might answer, Guantanamo Bay.

Whether you think you are ‘ruled-over’ depends on whether you agree with the aims of the current government.

And more directlly, can a great nation only be called an Empire if they are out colonizing other lands? I think the word empire can be used to describe a great and powerful nation.


33 posted on 10/14/2007 7:56:03 AM PDT by live+let_live
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: live+let_live

“The States are the equivalent of our tailbone. It’s still there but is of little use.”

I disagree, the concept of “Local Control” is just as valid today as it was at the founding of our Republic, the people in a given region will know what is best for them rather then some Beareau office in Washington DC ever will.


34 posted on 10/14/2007 7:56:07 AM PDT by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ No more miller brewing products, pass it on....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: padre35

You do realize I was being sarcastic . . . well at least a little bit.


35 posted on 10/14/2007 7:59:25 AM PDT by live+let_live
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: proudofthesouth

This country’s downfall began on Aug. 30, 1932. Francis W. Davis is responsible.


36 posted on 10/14/2007 8:01:55 AM PDT by Jaxter ("Vivit Post Funera Virtus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

ping


37 posted on 10/14/2007 8:06:20 AM PDT by groanup (Why do the shrill and shrieking SQL's accuse the opposition of shrieking shrilly?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

I believe your opinion has been solicited.


38 posted on 10/14/2007 8:07:12 AM PDT by groanup (Why do the shrill and shrieking SQL's accuse the opposition of shrieking shrilly?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MountainPete
Actually, I believe he preserved The Union and destroyed The Republic. He told the South, “Do what we tell you or we’ll come down there and kill you.” Which he then did. Now, all power resides in Washington D.C. (And the courts, but that’s another story.) The War Of Northern Aggression was not about slavery, it was about the consolidation of power and you can see where that has gotten us.

For a short explanation, you've gotten pretty close to the matter, IMO.

39 posted on 10/14/2007 8:09:13 AM PDT by AuntB (" It takes more than walking across the border to be an American." Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: proudofthesouth
The great myth is that the WBTS was only about slavery and the good guys won and abolished it.

Slavery was one issue out of many for the South. Other than a pocket of abolitionists in New England, the North had no truck with slavery and created its own form of "Jim Crow" from time to time. Some Northern politicians railed about new states and territories remaining free lands and the South felt threatened by that. It would mean more representation in D.C. for ideas that seemed at odds with Southern interests.

The WBTS was about preserving the Union. It was preserved but at what cost ultimately: 600,000 lives and a central government that is all powerful and steals our rights like they were candy in a baby's hand?

40 posted on 10/14/2007 8:14:47 AM PDT by groanup (Why do the shrill and shrieking SQL's accuse the opposition of shrieking shrilly?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-144 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