Posted on 05/20/2014 8:57:04 AM PDT by Sioux-san
The stupid thing is thinking we need a reason to fly the stars and bars. We fly it all the time dude. We fly it on Memorial Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Christmas Eve. Get it? We live in Dixie. You on the other hand live in God knows where and we don’t care. :-)
“If asserting that states have the right to secede makes me “pro-confederate”, then I am in good company with the Founding Fathers.”
Might makes right that is the lesson of Abraham Lincoln. He was happy to let 750 thousand die to bend the South to an unconstitutional rule. The next secession will see the Federal govt too weak to resist. The new slave states are the NE states and they will not be able to overcome the next big reset.
You evidently haven’t read the Bill of Rights.
Nobody is perfect. But Jefferson was a lot less imperfect than Lincoln.
I agree that it was impracticable. But it is also true that Lincoln, like other Free Soilers didn’t believe that whites and blacks could live in social equality. BTW, let me emphasize that I am not saying that that view was unique to Lincoln. Lincoln was never in favor of slavery, but it had nothing to do with his decision to invade the South.
The real civil war only lasted 4 years. It has been fought here at FR for at least 15 years.
There are a lot more similarities between Lincoln and the present POTUS than people realize. Both were experts at constitutional circumvention.
I have used the word "actors" to describe Fire Eaters and Jefferson Davis.
By that I don't mean stage actors, rather, one who acts to make things happen.
Perhaps a better word would be "driver" -- somebody who drives & forces events.
In 1860, Fire Eaters were the drivers, the actors who forced events to happen as they wished.
First they acted to split their long-term majority Democrat party in half, making them small minorities and thus engineering victory by the larger minority party: Republicans.
Having raised the specter of "Black Republican" abolitionists ruling over the South, they next drove the slave-power to declare secession and a new Confederacy.
At that point Fire Eaters began to fade from importance, and more "establishment" politicians like Jefferson Davis took charge.
They became the new drivers, acting to force events on others, such as the new President, Abraham Lincoln.
Difficult, as it should be, but not impossible.
Remember, our Founders considered there to be two legitimate reasons for "disunion".
The first was "mutual consent", meaning with the approval of Congress.
The second was, in effect, "breach of contract" such as "oppression", "usurpations" and "injury".
Such breaches made "mutual consent" irrelevant and unnecessary.
The issue then, much debated, was who could legitimately declare when such a breach had happened?
But in November 1860, when the slave-power began organizing to declare secession, all that was mute -- there was neither "mutual consent" nor "breach of contract".
Instead there was one event only: the 100% legitimate election victory of Abraham Lincoln and his "Black Republicans" -- a victory which had been entirely engineered by slave-power's own Fire Eaters -- see previous posts on this.
So, what about secession today?
It would certainly require a majority in Congress and/or a Supreme Court ruling of, in effect, constitutional "breach of contract".
But such votes could only be made in support of a political majority, a majority which could then readily correct whatever grievances it felt against current conditions.
And so, ironically but imho intentionally: secession is only politically possible at the moment when it becomes unnecessary to solve political problems.
Of course I have, and am totally familiar with pro-Confederate arguments that it somehow authorizes them to make unilateral declarations of secession "at pleasure".
But the truth of this matter is that no Founder -- none -- expressed that as the meaning of their Constitution, or of its Bill of Rights.
We might well debate the constitutionality of unilateral secession "at pleasure" forever, but on one matter the US Constitution can leave no doubts: when a power provokes, starts and formally declares war on the United States, then sends military aid to its allies within Union states, that power needs to be defeated and destroyed, to the best of the Federal Government's ability.
That's what Lincoln did, and all your other nonsense is just, well, blather.
My collection of Gettysburg books is smaller, but more recent works, and it's hard for me to imagine anything new to be said on the subject, after all these years.
Still, that's what's claimed about Guelzo's book, and the new material is his more negative (or, we might say, "fair & balanced") view of Mead, especially his report that Mead was, like most of his officers, a McClellanite -- meaning, less than fully committed to Union victory.
Of course, I can't myself judge how valid that is, but would be most interested to hear your considered opinion, after you've read it.
Sherman Logan: "OTOH, there were perhaps as many as a dozen points on Day 2 when the battle and therefore perhaps the war might have turned out completely differently."
One of my hard-copy books (not on Kindle), addresses specifically how Lee could have won the battle, and top 20 reasons why he didn't.
IIRC, pretty much everyone came in for some share of the blame...
Three percent sounds about right for the number of large slave-plantation owners who set out to destroy the United States on that last go-around.
So how well did that work out for them, do you think?
You got that backwards: there are no similarities between conservative Republican Lincoln and liberal Democrat Obama.
The real similarities are between Big Government welfare-plantation Democrats today and their Big Government supporting Slave-Power Democrat predecessors, 150+ years ago.
Both used big government to unnaturally prop up their favored classes of voters, at the expense of others compelled to work (today only part of the year) to provide desired profits/taxes.
Democrats have always been the party of special privileges for its supporters.
Lincoln and the Decision for War, The Northern Response to Secession, Russell McClintock c: 2010
We Have the War Upon Us: The Onset of the Civil War, November 1860-April 1861. William Cooper c: 2012
That's the best you can do? Lincoln was for voluntary emigration, Jefferson was for forced deportation. Lincoln believed that blacks were entitled to the same guarantees detailed in the Declaration of Independence as white people were, Jefferson didn't believe they had any rights at all. Yet you call Lincoln a tyrant and Jefferson 'a lot less imperfect'.
I'm not going to be judgmental but apparently you're the one who feels the need to wait for Yankee Memorial Day and Yankee Independence Day and Yankee Labor Day to haul out your rebel flag. I admit I can't see the connection with the rebel flag and Christmas Eve but regardless, why aren't you flying it 24x7?
You on the other hand live in God knows where and we don’t care. :-)
Missouri. But since you don't care...
Lincoln conservative? Hardly. First you didn't address the main things. (1) Circumvention of Constitution (2) Trampling of State's Rights. (3) Lincoln's desire to destroy wealthy plantation owners pretty mirrors Obama's present wealth redistribution plans. (South to North vs. Rich to Poor)) Hmmmm....... real conservative there. /s
You make a warped convoluted argument for the sake of propping up his perceptive cult of personality. Lincoln lovers love doing that while forgetting the facts.
Typical response of a liberal when they are losing an argument. N-S .... is that you?
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.