The Litmus Test for American Conservatism (The paloeconservative view of Abe Lincoln.)

Chronicles Magazine ^ | January 2001 | Donald W. Livingston

[philosofy123]

Paleocon are the only conservatives. The neocons are simply an opportunists liberal cabal with a mission to usurp power. I was pleased to read in the Washington Times yesterday an article by the title: TEAR DOWN THE NEOCONS MR. PRESIDENT! Real conservatives are waking up to theft of their agenda.

[stainlessbanner]

C'mon Non - here's the landscape for governorship. I'll follow up with state reps.

[Non-Sequitur]

If I read that correctly there are 6 Democrats as governors of states that Richmond considered in the confederacy, and three Democrats as governors of territories that Richmond claimed. I only see two Democrats as governors in the Great Plains. The south confederacy is looking more than a little pink to me.

[stainlessbanner]

Nearly 1/2 states in the union are dem - the majority of those are not in the South. Nice pinko comment - I'm not biting this morning though.

[Non-Sequitur]

Nearly 1/2 states in the union are dem - the majority of those are not in the South. Nice pinko comment - I'm not biting this morning though.

Nice attempt at changing the subject. I pointed out that the Great Plains states were GOP strongholds while the south was messing itself over the Democrat du jure. I said nothing about the east or the left coast. But hey, I've interrupted your sothron chest-thumping session with 4CJ, billbears, and the gang. By all means please proceed.

[4CJ]

Lee's letter refers to the Constitution by name.

Please post the clause of the Constitution containing the words "perpetual union".

[4CJ]

Thanks for clearing up the "misinformation"

At your service my friend ;o)

[Paul C. Jesup]

Thanks you.

[quidnunc]

4ConservativeJustices wrote: (You can always tell a neo-Confederate — but you can't tell him much.) Please get it right - 'paleoconservative', not neoconservative. And if I read your answer correctly, it is your opinion that an armed invaded must kill your familiy before you may attempt any defense. I'm sure they must be proud and appreciate the value that you place upon them.

Please get it right — I wrote neo-CONFEDERATE, not neoCONSERVATIVE.

[tpaine]

The concept of an 'all powerful state', one that can ignore our constitutions restrictions, has always been a product of the states rights movement in america.

Meditate on that statement until you figure out how totally wrongside-out it is, then get back to us.

[No need.. You haven't made a rebuttal, -- it's just a dumb wisecrack.]

.....and flowered in Roosevelts big government 'new deal'; which was bought to power by a coalition between leftist labor & states rightist political interests.

The coalition was unnatural and ephemeral and dissolved almost immediately when FDR's political maintenance of it ceased with his death.

Not so. It exists within our socalled two party system. Now and then a Nixon type makes it ~really~ evident.

The coalition was FDR's creature, as he recognized the need to keep the South in the Democratic Party, despite the Party's having been almost 100% taken over by urban ethnic liberals and socialists like himself in 1928, with the nomination of Al Smith -- a Tammany Hall urban Democrat, and Roosevelt's predecessor as governor of New York. The needs, composition, and agenda of the Southern Democrats and the urban, Northern Democrats could not have been more different. Imagine a donkey and a cow split in two and one half of each carcass sewn to one half of the other, with the head of Bernard Baruch sewn on one end: that was the Democratic Party in the 1930's.

Yada, yada, -- typical republocratic agit-prop...
The dual-party system takes turns socializing america while ignoring our constitution. - End of story.

[lentulusgracchus]

Seems like being civil with you doesn't work. Hey, you don't have to correct any of your flat, sweeping, erroneous statements. Let them stand. Rock on.

[tpaine]

You have a lot of illusions my boyo.

That ~you~ consider yourself 'civil' is one of the most hilarious.


Case in point, your opening statement to me on this thread:

"Meditate on that [civil] statement until you figure out how totally wrongside-out it is, then get back to us."

[4CJ]

Please get it right — I wrote neo-CONFEDERATE, not neoCONSERVATIVE.

No, I got it right. You equate paleo-conservatives with Confederates here:

'I've always considered them to be amalgamations of the America Firsters, the Know-Nothings and the Copperheads — isolationist, nativist and sympathetic to the Confederacy.'

American-Firsters - those that believe that the US does not have the constitutional authority to meddle in other nations affairs, or to be forced to support them via American taxpayers monies.

Know-nothings - those that supported tougher immigration and natualization.

Copperheads - "Peace Democrats" who were against the illegal actions of Lincoln and the Black Republicans. Thousands were jailed for speaking out against Lincoln and his administration.

Isolationist - one who does not espouse the doctrine in which the entire world is regarded as the appropriate sphere of influence and domination.

Nativist - favoring the interests of inhabitants over those of immigrants.

Sympathetic to the Confederacy - those that believe the South was right, that secession was legal, and that Lincoln was wrong.

Those are traits (assumed by you) of PALEOconservatives. Obviously, NEOconservatives would hold the OPPOSITE views.

[rustbucket]

The concept of an 'all powerful state', one that can ignore our constitutions restrictions, has always been a product of the states rights movement in america.

What constitutional restrictions have the states righters ignored?

[tpaine]

The concept of an 'all powerful state', one that can ignore our constitutions restrictions, has always been a product of the states rights movement in america.
-tpaine-


What constitutional restrictions have the states righters ignored?
-rb-


Lots, - but their support for the CA prohibitions on 'assault weapons' gets me the most.
There are dozens of self described conservatives on FR who ~insist~ that CA has a 'right' to so 'regulate' guns. -- IE, -- that our BOR's do not apply to a state.

Incredible. - In effect they are constitutional scofflaws, and are proud of it...

[WhiskeyPapa]

Lee's letter refers to the Constitution by name.

Please post the clause of the Constitution containing the words "perpetual union".

Not germane.

Lee clearly was referring in this letter to the Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation. Your obfuscation is easily exposed.

If Lee thought the Constitution involved a perpetual Union, he wasn't alone. Chief Justice Chase said essentially the same thing. What is more enduring than a perpetual Union made more perfect?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

You know that's not true. Why on earth would the Articles matter in 1861? And Lee refers to the "safeguards" put in by the framers. Why would you tell a lie like that?

Because it's the truth!

It's not the truth. Lee refers to the Constitution by name in the letter.

Walt

[rustbucket]

Thanks. Hadn't thought about the asault weapon situation.

To me, the claim that states have a right to ban assault weapons sounds somewhat like Northern states claiming before the war that under states rights they had a right to not return fugitive slaves. In my opinion, both claims are misapplications of states rights.

A claim that states can ban assault weapons is in conflict with the Second Amendment. The claim that states had a right to not return fugitive slaves is in direct violation of the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution.

Since these two claims are in conflict with the Constitution, it would seem to me that they are not legitimate applications of states rights. The concept of states rights, as I understand it, is that powers not expressly delegated to the federal government under the Constitution are retained by the states or the people, i.e., the Tenth Amendment.

[GOPcapitalist]

BINGO! Congress could have been assembled in days not months if the Lincoln had actually desired to wrap his actions in the veil of legality.

I read an interesting letter on that subject the other day...

"Every just view that can be taken of this subject, admonishes the public of the necessity of a rigid adherence to the simple, the received, and the fundamental doctrine of the constitution, that the power to declare war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature; that the executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not the cause for declaring war; that the right of convening and informing congress, whenever such a question seems to call for a decision, is all the right which the constitution has deemed requisite or proper." - James Madison, Letters of Helvidius No. 1 (emphasis added)

Seems as if Madison saw things quite clearly on that issue. If the president wanted to engage in war he had NO CHOICE but to call congress and his power to convene congress was intended for exactly that purpose. How one could claim that Lincoln acted properly by waging war without Congress' presence is beyond absurd.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The President did not wage war, which is for actions against foreign countries, which the Confederacy was not. He had no need to call Congres into session for a declaration of war against the rebels anymore than the President today would have to before taking action against Islamic militants seeking to secede from the United States.