Posted on 04/09/2016 9:39:16 AM PDT by EveningStar
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Quick and rough interpretation: Under the Presidency of Lincoln was the first fundamental transfer of power from the local and state level to the federal thereby consolidating power where it was never intended to be consolidated. These United States became The United States.
The contested convention could bring about another fundamental change (and not for the good) if the candidate is one who does not care for freedom-based principles.
Refreshed
Well I guess I’m in that group in the sense that my opinion of Lincoln and the Civil War has changed.
IMO, the South jumped the gun when they ceded from the Union without first going through certain necessary steps as outlined persuasively and authoritatively in the Declaration of Independence. The South should have first notified the feds of why certain acts were unconstitutional. But instead, the South ceded in anticipation of acts of the feds that hadn’t even taken place yet. I believe Lincoln was right to put down the unconstitutional rebellion of the South.
The war of northern aggression to a lot of southerners.
I'll have to check it out.
I just don't see the habitual criminal lying Old Fat Cow morphing into Abraham Lincoln.
Was Lincoln born in Canada?
Did Lincoln’s mom have to choose which nation he would be a citizen of?
Did Lincoln find out he was a Canadian citizen when he was 43?
Did Lincoln renounce his Canadian citizenship at 43 years of age?
Hmmm...
I’m going to have to read more about Lincoln I guess.
From my understanding of the document, the only step necessary is to decide you no longer wish to be part of the existing government.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
.
.
The South should have first notified the feds of why certain acts were unconstitutional.
That is not a requirement as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration states that the listing of grievances is just a courtesy.
a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
But instead, the South ceded in anticipation of acts of the feds that hadn’t even taken place yet.
Yeah, like who could predict that a Race-Obsessed Liberal Lawyer/Politician from Illinois might use powers of "executive orders" to impose his own political agenda on the states?
I believe Lincoln was right to put down the unconstitutional rebellion of the South.
And why do you think the United States had a better right to put down an independence movement than did the United Kingdom?
What makes Lincoln more correct than King George III?
Historical truth!
Historically, there appear to be a lot of 1860s NYC values posted in this thread.
No, it’s the “wawuh of northrun agreshion”. Or that’s how i’ve heard it proclaimed in Dixie.
CC
Right now every true Southerner is buying ammo.
I don’t know why I keep buying ammo...I don’t have any firearms...I swear I don’t....
The D of I shows the steps necessary for valid secession:
1) should not be “for light or transient causes”
2) requires a certain “patient sufferance” while “evils are sufferable”
3) notifying and submitting the facts of abuse “to a candid world” (27 specific abuses are listed in the D of I) and finally
4) “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such Government.”
These are not a constitutional dictates, but, as the D of I says, what “Prudence, indeed, will dictate...”
The colonists suffered many decades of harm from George III and continually notified him of his wrongs and pleaded for redress.
In contrast, the South had not yet suffered any unconstitutional acts from the feds regarding slavery. The South should have first notified the feds of what acts were unconstitutional and why they were unconstitutional. Instead they ceded in anticipation of federal acts. There was really no “patient sufferance” and no attempt to notify the feds with reasonable constitutional arguments.
So the South’s cessation was invalid IMO and I believe the North had a constitutional right to fight them and get them back into the Union.
Agree on your assessment of Lincoln. Only good idea he had was repatriating the slaves to Africa.
It shows no requirements other than a desire to be independent.
1) should not be “for light or transient causes”
Which is a suggestion, and further, what constitutes a "light or transient cause" is in the eye of the beholder. They thought their cause of independence was worthy. So did the founder four score and seven years earlier.
2) requires a certain “patient sufferance” while “evils are sufferable”
No it doesn't. You are projecting. Same with the rest of your list. You want the Union to be in the right.
Well they weren't. They don't have a moral leg to stand on.
So the South’s cessation was invalid IMO and I believe the North had a constitutional right to fight them and get them back into the Union.
The same right that George III had to force the Colonies back into their Union.
When the colonies seceded from England, they broke English Law. Law that had a lot longer duration than the US Constitution had up to that point.
Their argument was that "Natural Law" gave them the right. Well if natural law gave the colonies the right, then it gave the Southern states the same right as well.
I would say that invading someone with 35,000 men is pretty aggressive, don't you think?
And his modern day defenders would sh*t a brick if they learned that he was very racist and wanted to do that.
By modern standards, he would be regarded as a "White Separatist. "
And what followed was a bloody civil war.
The D of I is basically a treatise to the world about what justified the colonists’ secession. It is probably the most elegant and well reasoned justification for secession maybe in the history of the world.
The authority of the D of I is not mandatory, but it is presumed and persuasive authority in regards to the Constitution. As I said, the things contained in the D of I are not constitutional dictates, but as the D of I says, what “Prudence, indeed, will dictate...”
The list I provided are factors contained in the D of I, which I think you need to study more. What I quote in that list, what you call “projecting”, are exact quotes in the D of I regarding justification for secession.
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.