No, Jill doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about, and apparently has never read a single bloody thing about Abraham Lincoln or Steven Douglas.
Lincoln absolutely took a State’s-Rights view on slavery; it’s only a bunch of confederate hicks trying to justify their ancestors’ treachery and abominations that say otherwise. But Lincoln and the Confederate slave-holders both knew that the plantation system would be doomed if decent, Christian Americans ever took a very deep look at the institution of slavery.
Thompson’s answers are nearly Lincoln’s verbatim. And I suspect that’s by design.
Exactly....though there was differnence between Douglas and Lincoln. Both thought the states should decide slavery but Douglas, unlike Lincoln, would also let the territories also decide. I agree, however, that the Douglas comparison is bogus since popular sovereignty dealt with territorial govenrment.
dangus says: “No, Jill doesn’t know what the hell she is talking about, and apparently has never read a single bloody thing about Abraham Lincoln or Steven Douglas.
Lincoln absolutely took a State’s-Rights view on slavery; it’s only a bunch of confederate hicks trying to justify their ancestors’ treachery and abominations that say otherwise. But Lincoln and the Confederate slave-holders both knew that the plantation system would be doomed if decent, Christian Americans ever took a very deep look at the institution of slavery.
Thompson’s answers are nearly Lincoln’s verbatim. And I suspect that’s by design.”
Hmm. I’d like to see that Lincoln/Thompson parallel dialog. By Fred’s logic, Abe should’ve kept the Emancipation Proclamation to himself.
It’s valid to fight on all fronts; the states, federal legislation and the courts. How about a presidential emancipation proclamation for the unborn? Robert George hinted at that: http://www.clmagazine.org/backissues/2006janfeb_14-17notimetolose.pdf