OR
I side with Jefferson.
I pick Jefferson .... Davis.
It’s been nearly 150 years. I think it’s time you got over it. History has given its verdict; Jefferson and Lincoln came out OK.
I side with Lincoln, next to Washington the greatest president we’ve ever had.
Cordially,
Jefferson was one of those gifted founders who changed the world. Lincoln had 50 years and still missed most of the boat.
My vote of course, therefore is for Jefferson.
Interesting read. But also interesting that Jefferson became president (as opposed to Burr) due to the efforts of Hamilton!
Side with Jefferson....Lincoln is way down on my list..
That burning Atlanta thing was Criminal.
As the author of the article says, it was the War Between The States. Lincoln couldn't have done much of anything without the support of the Northern States that elected him—twice.
I read that at the beginning of the war the Regular Army had a little over 16,000 men. And at First Manassas the Union forces consisted of about 35,000 men. The difference was made up by volunteers from the States. The brunt of the war was borne by volunteers from the States, not the Regular Army. (OK, later on the volunteers might have required a little “encouragement”.)
If Lincoln had had to depend on the Regular Army, without volunteers from the States and the support of those States, the South would have won in short order.
If the Northern States had acquiesced to the secession of the Southern States, what could Lincoln (who was only the President) have done about it?
OR
The United States, as envisioned by the Founders, ended with Lincoln.
Never put yourself in the position of appearing to defend the slaveocracy. That, along with Jim Crow race repression is Democrat Party history; let them defend it.
The tenth ammendment fell into disrepute because it was used to justify repression during the Jim Crow era. The whole purpose of the separation of powers vertically (local, state, federal) and horizontally (judicial, exec, legislative) is so that when one power becomes abusive you have others to appeal to. If the state is your abuser you appeal to the feds; if the feds overreach their just powers you appeal to the state or your local community. You don’t make a fetish out of any level or focus of power, the point of it all is maintaining freedom. Which ever level threatens your freedom, that is the level you resist with the other levels.
We have to reclaim the tenth ammendment. It is as important as the separation of powers between congress, president, and supreme court which are also being fuzzed together. We don’t reclaim it by justifying its abuse by the Democrats of yesteryear. We reclaim it by demanding its proper use in defense of rule of law.
That is such a gross oversimplification of each man’s views, it’s laughable.
It is very convenient to forget that in 1776 Independence was NECESSARY to secure inalienable rights. The south's secession was publicly decreed to be necessary to perpetuate the denial of those same rights, namely slavery. To pretend to invoke the principles of the Declaration of Independence for the south's action is brazenly ignorant.
bump
Jefferson.
May King Lincoln roast in central government, dictatorial hell.
I would phrase it as a choice between the Federalists and Jefferson. Many of them saw his election in 1800 as a second American revolution, one which overthrew what they had created.
TJ... Hands down.
Pick a better statesman, Ida. Jefferson changed his mind about so many things that "serious students of history" can certainly wonder about what view he would have taken. Politicians are like that, and Jefferson in office certainly was a politician.
Jefferson didn't believe the federal government had the right to purchase the lands west of the Mississippi from France, but when it looked like the opportunity would pass he changed his mind. Here's one writer's view of the embargo crisis:
How long could the end of peaceable coercion abroad be supported in the face of economic deprivation, loss of liberty, disobedience to law, division of the Union, and Republican collapse at home? Despite rising opposition, Jefferson stood firmly by the policy. Perhaps he recalled his experience in another crisis, when he, as Virginia's governor, was accused of jeopardizing the safety of the commonwealth by feeble and temporizing measures. To Gallatin, who complained that the embargo could be saved only by new and arbitrary enforcement powers, Jefferson replied, "Congress should legalize all means which may be necessary to obtain its end ," not excluding military force.
That's just one person's view of course. But to say that it's a given that Jefferson would have sat back and done nothing in a secession crisis is to make a questionable assumption.
I don’t care what either of the ol’ coots *said*. This is 2010.
States have rights.
Don’t mess with Texas!