Posted on 01/29/2024 11:08:47 AM PST by Rummyfan
More than a decade ago, somewhere in the pages of National Review Online and writing under the name of my alter-ego, David Kahane, I coined the term, the Cold Civil War, and amplified the subject in my book, Rules for Radical Conservatives.
Despite all the evidence of the past several decades, you still have not grasped one simple fact: that, just about a century after the last one ended, we engaged in a great civil war, one that will determine the kind of country we and our descendants shall henceforth live in for at least the next hundred years — and, one hopes, a thousand. Since there hasn’t been any shooting, so far, some call the struggle we are now involved in the “culture wars,” but I have another, better name for it: the Cold Civil War.
Hasn't been any shooting so far. But with his recent rejection of federal authority, Texas governor Greg Abbott may have turned up the heat. Just as the South did during the first Civil War, Texas -- supported by fully half the states now -- has effectively nullified a Supreme Court order via the simple expedient of ignoring it. In this Abbott recalls another southern president, Andrew Jackson, who (perhaps apocryphally) in the case of Worcester v. Georgia (1832), said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
Or, to paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does John Roberts have?
(Excerpt) Read more at the-pipeline.org ...
It’s been a continuous cold civil war ever since the last one ended. Man’s yearning for freedom from tyrannical central government is eternal.
o Senators voted on by the people rather than appointed by representatives of the state.
o No truly bicameral assemblies allowed at the state level.
o Expansive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.
o Expansive interpretation of the "general welfare" clause.
o Laws passed by congress that prevent states from creating programs fine-tuned to their particular condition.
o Rules/regulations imposed by unelected bureaucrats that impinge on state autonomy.
o Huge debts held by states (partly due to unfunded federal mandates) that keep the states beholden to their sugar daddy.
o Continuous pressure to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote.
o Completely ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments to our "living" Constitution.
We no longer are the United States of America. We are now just that American State sandwiched between Canada and Mexico.
But we’ll never know so it’s irrelevant.... Just wishful thinking on my part.
It was about states rights not slavery as many think and Lincoln’s sole purpose for war was to keep the Union together at all costs and he’d didn’t care one way or the other about slavery.
That’s real history not the made up shxt being pushed.
The Sucessonists were the biggest Abolitionists ever. If they had stayed in the Union, Slavery would have remained in the South for decades.
The civil war was about states rights not slavery as most people would like to believe it was.
Lincoln stated explicitly that the war was about holding the Union together.
The North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I “seem to be pursuing” as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
But somehow the Civil War did evolve towards ending slavery, as espoused by President Lincoln in the Emancipation Proclamation. And soon after the war ended, the 13th amendment outlawed slavery.
That is the biggie. The Senate was intended to represent THE STATES, with Senators elected by the state legislatures. Now, with election by popular vote, they're merely extra Congress-people, with the large population cities and counties in effect electing them - Philly and Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, New York City in New York, Seattle in Washing, etc etc.
a good first would be to stop believing everything(anything) the government says.
Lincoln was reacting to the political reality that ending slavery was not the motivating factor for was for many northerners in 1862. He would change his public policyin6weeks after Antietam when he prepares the Emancipation Proclamation. While directed only at the states inrebellion everyone knew the ultimate goal was slavery’s end. In fact the govt of the CSA made every effort to use the Proclamation to convince Ky, Md. Mo.,or at least elements of their population to support the CSA.
The Union may not have went to war to end slavery, but the CSA seceded precisely to maintain and if possible extend it.
While technological advances probably would have spelled the end of slavery eventually, the laws of slavery became progressively more draconian as we neared the Civil War. Slavery would not have expired quickly if left to the South’s ruling party.
“Slavery would not have expired quickly..”
I disagree, but - we’ll never know.
True dat.
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.