Abraham Dubya Bush

LR ^ | 30 August 2002 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[Pelham]

The Revolutionaries attacked the Redcoats first, were led by a slave-owning Virginian, killed Tories who were loyal to England. The British troops emancipated slaves as they moved through the rebellious Colonies. Thus it looks like you would take King George's side as well.

[zarf]

Yeah, but Lincoln was gay and Bush is not, so this analogy is way out of line.

[sneakypete]

"Lincolnesque but on a world-wide scale."

DAMN,but that's funny! And accurate.Who wrote it?

[zarf]

Don't be a short sighted fool. The way to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria is by way of Iraq (not to mention Afganistan on Irans eastern border).

Bush is playing a serious game of strategic dominoes.

[cartoonistx]

What an ignoramus.

And a racist slavery apologist.

[WRhine]

I'll be interested in seeing what this jerk has to say after the next terrorist attack.....which I believe will be designed to kill 10,000!

And I'll be interested in seeing what GW has to say when his OWN open borders immigration policies with the 3rd world comes under GREATER scrutiny after the NEXT terrorist attack which very well may kill 10,000 or more Americans.

[Coeur de Lion]

I hate to see the comparison made that somehow Bush is Lincolnesque. The travails which faced Lincoln are not the ones which face Bush. Bush is not facing a civil war so even though I think he's doing a good job and his administration will do the right thing; it really isn't the same.

As for Lincoln, he essentially re-established this country making it true to the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

The South had no right to secession, they had a right to rebellion and if they had succeeded then, I don't thing the topic would be one we'd be discussing now. Constitutional rule of law applied in the republic and in order to secede required nothing less than changing the constitution itself. A state couldn't decide which federal laws applied to it anymore than a state could decide to leave the Union; for all intents and purposes it was the same thing. To be allowed to do so would've made a mockery of the Constitution itself. The Southern states had a means of seceding from the Union. All they had to do was petition Congress to pass a constitutional amendment allowing the petitioning states to secede. If it passed the muster of Congress and the states no problem.

They didn't choose this route. They rebelled instead. And why? it wasn't because they thought Mr. Lincoln and his party were going to abolish slavery. It was because they saw the writing the wall; which was the institution of slavery would not be allowed to move into any other territories of the United States. It would be confined to the present slave states and its abolishment was only a matter of time, which was when the number of free states outnumbered the slave states with a sufficient majority to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing the peculiar institution. They figured let's get out now while the gettin's good.

Finally, it was Lincoln's duty in order to uphold the Constitution to prevent secession.

[weikel]

I hope.

[weikel]

At the time it would all depend if I were living in Boston which suffered the "intolerable acts" under the British administration. If I was a Bostonian I would feel no choice but to rebel at that point otherwise I will admit I would probably remain loyal to the crown( the taxes under George III were not high at the time of the revolution in fact after the constitution was ratified taxes quickly went higher than that under the new Republic you might have heard of the Whiskey rebellion).

I take the Hobbesian pro monarchist view of government that anything other than a monarchy or at least a right wing military dictatorship such as Pinochet's in Chile or Franco's in Spain leads either to socialism or anarchy.

[Twodees]

Still tubthumping for your marxist democrat "historians", I see. Mikey Bellesiles needs your support, too.

[Twodees]

And a racist slavery apologist.

That's what I love about articles like this. They bring you liberals swarming out to shriek "racist". ahaha Hey, you forgot "reactionary reich winger".

[Twodees]

Finally, it was Lincoln's duty in order to uphold the Constitution to prevent secession.

Thank you, Noam Chomskey. What are all you marxists doing on FR, anyway?

[Coeur de Lion]

I don't know what Noam Chomsky or Marxism has to do with it. I guess you don't think that Ike's calling in the troops to enforce the integration of Central High in Little Rock was not exercising his duty according to the Constitution, even though he personally disagreed with the Supreme Court decision. I guess that must have made him a Marxist too. By the way, I thought only liberals resorted to ad hominem arguments with out backing them up with anything of substance.

[sheltonmac]

Lincoln’s Bush's political strategy, carried out by the propaganda arm of the Republican Party known as the "Union League," "FreeRepublic," was to spread the lie that all of these men were traitors and Confederate terrorist sympathizers.

Having been branded a "traitor" and "terrorist sympathizer" by fellow FReepers, I can relate to what DiLorenzo is saying.

[x]

Lincoln’s Di Lorenzo's political strategy, carried out by the propaganda arm of the Republican Party secessionist movement known as the "Union League," "Tootie" was to spread the lie that all of these men were traitors and Confederate terrorist sympathizers Marxists and Chomskians.

Boo-hoo. Vilification is used across the political spectrum. It's not like you're the only one to have insults or accusations thrown at you. This style of "argument" didn't start with Lincoln -- or his opponents -- and it doesn't require Bush's approval to get it started.

[weikel]

Im no fan of Ike but the Lincoln haters don't start out with an objective examination of the two side in their logic. They start out with a pro confederate bias and contort the facts of history to "prove" that the south was right. What I really hate is how they make Lincoln out to be worse than the true father of big government and socialism in this country Woodrow Wilson.

[Aurelius]

BUMP

[Aurelius]

I've heard of "data compression" - your specialty would appear to be "crap compression" You've sure compressed a lot of it into a few short paragraphs.

[stainlessbanner]

it was Lincoln's duty in order to uphold the Constitution to prevent secession.

I assume you can point to out where in the Constitution secession is prevented.....

[Coeur de Lion]

No, I can't. But, I assume you can point out to me why it isn't there. It seems to me to be a major oversight on the part of the founding fathers. Did they leave it out because they were so interested in forming a more perfect Union that they were afraid any clause concerning the prohibition of secession might prevent the approval of the Constitution? Maybe. Did they leave it out because they felt the answer to the legal possibility of secession should be obvious? Maybe.

I do know that the absence of such a clause did lead to many debates as to whether secession was legally possible. The Civil War solved that debate.

Each state on entering the Union sacrificed some of their sovereignty by making itself subject to both the Constitution and federal laws, which were considered constitutional by the Supreme Court. The Northern states may've preferred not to abide by the "Fugitive Slave Act", but the Supreme Court pretty much said they had to. Since the Constitution and federal law were binding on all the states and superceded state law I find it difficult to believe that a state could vote in a law which superceded federal law or the Constitution. Secession was exactly the equivalent of doing that.