Goldwaterism almost destroyed the GOP by turning it away from its historical roots to pandering to States' Righters. States' Rights was NEVER anything but the "right" to repress, oppress and deny Blacks of their constitutional rights. While I appreciate BG's anti-communism that was no different that the rest of the Republicans.
Neo-abolitionism is as meaningless a term as I have ever seen posted here. It has no relation to anything espoused in the book or by me or any other Republican.
Both Hamilton and Lincoln understood that Slavery was utterly incompatible with the constitution. What constitution can guarantee rights for some of its people while denying ANY rights for a large percentage of the rest?
Lincoln and Hamilton were concerned to spread True freedom to all not, like the Democrats, to just certain white aristocrats. How about freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to assemble, the right to a trial by their peers, the freedom from unwarranted searchs, the right agains self-incrimination little things like that. You know all those things which Democrat/Slaver tyranny prevented Blacks for having. Blacks' right to keep and bear arms was the one right most strenously resisted by the Democrats.
Those in the South who went on a murderous rampage of killing and violence against Blacks and Republicans in the South should have been punished. Maybe not as viciously or violently as, say, Andrew Jackson would have done but sufficient to make sure they never as a class controlled those states. I have no doubt that had Jackson been president then there would have been thousands of traitors executed and who could have blamed him?
No broad-based Republican party which panders to the protectors and defenders of the Slavers' Revolt would be worth having. It is precisely such aversion to the truth of history which destroys parties and nations. Certainly nothing which exposes the brutality of the Slavers' Reign of Terror undermines the constitution since THEY were the only ones who ever made a direct armed attack upon that constitution.
I can say nothing to refute your off the wall rant more effective, than to suggest that people reread it! You well illustrate my point, that your position is hate-driven.
But I will point out some obvious things, which even you will agree with, if you will stop and catch your breath, and stop having a veritable tantrum:
When you suggest that Andrew Jackson would have gone on the rampage you suggest, you conveniently ignore the fact that Jackson was a slaveholder, himself. He was not working his own estate at the Hermitage. When Jackson joked about hanging John C. Calhoun, who was his intellectual superior, he was angry about the Tariff nullification attempt. It had nothing to do with slavery.
As for Hamilton & Lincoln & the Constitution? The Constitution specifically recognizes slavery. You may wish that it did not. But it did--specifically in providing for the fugitive slave laws, that secured the return of runaway slaves.
But it is not your preoccupation with radical assessment of American Societies of the middle 19th Century, which offends American Conservatives. It is your support for monolithic structures--similar to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. You would be as offensive, if you were advocating forcing New England to live under Southern social values, as you are suggesting the converse.
America was never intended to be a Nazi style monolith. It was never intended to force one social view on all Americans. And it is your intemperate refusal to allow the diversity, an acceptance of which made America possible, originally, that makes your rant totally unacceptable to thinking Conservatives, North or South.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site