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?
Destroy? Hell no - he kept the amusing part around after putting them in their place. Fun to have around to this day.
Yes. Everything that it was intended to be as well as the very scope and fundamental operation of the federal government. Next question?
After Lincoln, everyone was a few percent slave - to the Federal Govt.
This percentage has increased over the years.
?
And, what lands have we conquered and ruled over lo these hundreds of years now?
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.
Ummm, no.
Ummm, no.
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.
LOL!
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.
LOL
Ah, the best humor is based on Truth.
It's a small world.
“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.
“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.
You do realize I was being sarcastic . . . well at least a little bit.
This country’s downfall began on Aug. 30, 1932. Francis W. Davis is responsible.
ping
I believe your opinion has been solicited.
For a short explanation, you've gotten pretty close to the matter, IMO.
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?
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.