Posted on 11/25/2007 5:05:15 PM PST by Bear_Slayer
I am researching the phrase
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
that was used by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address
Specifically the part "of the people, by the people, for the people."
Is this phrase used anywhere in our constitution or DOI?
LOL! How about going to this link and seeing where no such thing was going to happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search
I can't speak for what you did or did not pay attention to in your history classes, and your conclusion that there were no slaves in the North is about as accurate are the rest of your posts tend to be. But you did criticize Lincoln claiming that he was denying a segment of the population their 'freedom', did you not? So I'd say that it's the height hypocrisy on your part to criticize Lincoln for his alleged denial of freedom of a people who were dead set to ensure one-third of their population never saw any freedom themselves.
And I’m simply saying that if it is indeed hypocritical, then we have to conclude that Lincoln share that hypocrisy. Slavery existed in the north. Lincoln did nothing to do away with that slavery. A fact of history that makes all of your babbling just that — babble.
There was a whole political party out to whittle away at that loaf, and they had just won the White House. The Republicans were opposed to the expansion of slavery into the territories, and would no doubt have challenged the Dred Scott decision on that part of the ruling as soon as they possibly could have . The Republicans would have done their best to end slavery in the territories, allowed states to grant run-away slaves basic legal protections, and no doubt would have tried to end slavery in D.C. All actions that the slave-holding states were bitterly opposed to.
And there was no reason for them to believe that they could not take their marbles and go home.
And they might have done just that had they not turned to armed rebellion to further their cause.
And, of course, they did not choose rebellion. They chose secession. But you knew that already.
As it turns out the path that they chose for secession was illegal. But you knew that already, too.
“There was a whole political party out to whittle away at that loaf, and they had just won the White House.”
Of course, Lincoln said there were no such intentions, so I guess you are making him out to be a liar, too. And you’re on HIS side.
Thanks for playing. But once again you have sunk into round robin babble. Go ahead and have the baby last word. If it’s anything more relevant than nanananabooboo I’ll be shocked.
The quote in question that started this thread was accurate, we did enjoy a government of, by, and for the people as the Taney court defined them. One of Lincoln's goals was to expand that base of people to those that Taney said could never be citizens. And your claim that Lincoln was out to deny any segment their freedoms was inaccurate to begin with.
Slavery existed in the north. Lincoln did nothing to do away with that slavery.
No, just pushed for passage and ratification of the 13th Amendment.
A fact of history that makes all of your babbling just that — babble.
Your version of history perhaps, which often bears little resemblance to actual history.
You really need to read up on the subject some time. What Lincoln said in his first inaugural was, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." He said nothing about the territories. If there is a liar in this discussion it isn't Lincoln and it sure isn't me.
Thanks for playing. But once again you have sunk into round robin babble. Go ahead and have the baby last word. If it’s anything more relevant than nanananabooboo I’ll be shocked.
And if you were ever to post anything relevant to begin with I'd be shocked.
In support of such apprehensions, see Lincoln's initiative that thrust statehood on Nevada, and his conniving at the (unconstitutional) partition of Virginia.
Latin into English? Not Greek and Hebrew? I know there was a Latin Vulgate Bible, but did Wycliffe take a shortcut?
LOL. That was good.
You really need to keep up. My point was about the states, not the territories.
Yeah. Except for my post #23 blowing it out of the water.
You had a point?
Please elaborate on how Lincoln 'thrust statehood' on Nevada. This should be good.
LOL. Sorry. I can’t post in Crayola.
ROTFLMAO!!! Still a legend in your own mind, I see.
So...we're supposed to cut you some slack because you're operating under a handicap? Even operating in an unfamiliar medium you should try and make some sense.
Ahhh . . great come back. And thus the origin of my tag line.
You're one of the few people I know of proud to be a PeeWee Herman fanatic. No accounting for taste, I guess. Perhaps someday you'll turn to more mature sources.
You’re the Pee Wee fanatic. You’re the one who insisted I use that cut line. Thanks, by the way. You know yourself much better than I do.
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.