Posted on 12/22/2011 3:04:51 PM PST by Federalist Patriot
Now this is a great ad from American Crossroads! Let’s hope we see a 30-second or 1-minute version of this playing in 2012 during the General Election Campaign.
It uses Obama’s own words against him, where he recently decreed himself to be essentially the fourth best President in the history of the United States in terms of his accomplishments! There’s nothing like the ego of “The One.”
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.net ...
If only our leaders today could be so clear. I’d like to have heard bush’s reasons for Iraq that clearly, etc.
IMO Lincoln was among the 5-10 worst.
His intent to abolish slavery was an act of war. You yankee apologist don't realize that abolition translated into economic terror for the south. Such an act would have thrown the southern economy into depression of unparalleled proportion.
A good analogy, would be if some southern environmentalist in 1860 forced every manufactuer type industry in the north to close. How would have that have gone over?
Hey bud, I have had so called freepers insult my CSA veteran ancestors with such vile, it was disgusting. Good reason there are no true conservative politicans in New England, and generally the north east for that matter.
A conversation about right and wrong regarding a war that’s been over for 150 years is for naught to me. Two sides fought, one side won, one side lost. Both sides had massive amounts of blood on their hands. The loss of over 1 million Americans is disgusting, whether it was over states’ rights or slavery.
If you read my prior posts in this thread, you’d see that I’m pretty clear in calling the Radical Reconstruction as very bad for the country as a whole.
C’ya!
In my humble opinion, everyone gets off track when we start to discuss how horrible the South was. Slavery was indeed an abomination, but the real issues are:
First, any reading of the Constitution provides no authority for the federal government (which up to that time was viewed as an agent of the states) provides no authority for such an action.
Second, what would have happened if Lincoln just let the Southern states secede? How long would have slavery lasted? Would the South continued as a nation, or would some (if not many) rejoined the union over time? My guess is that the Southern economy was brittle and within a generation or two, modern technology would have made slavery obsolete. Also, some of the border states were in a position to go either way and given time to make a rational decision would have opted to remain in (or rejoin) the union.
In which the north was heavily invested: Slavery in the North
Hi CVA, Is post #113 more in line with the sort of insults you’re referring to being forced to endure?
The United States Constitution gives the president the authority and binds him to the duty to suppress insurrections.
2. Should he have fought the war to keep these states in the union?
When the South Carolina seceded Lincoln tried to keep from ratcheting up tensions in the hopes that cooler heads would prevail. When elements from the south initiated open hostilities his hand was forced. Failure to stop the rebellion in its tracks would have been the undoing of our nation.
Second, what would have happened if Lincoln just let the Southern states secede? How long would have slavery lasted?
The confederate constitution was a cobbled up copy of the US Constitution except for one notable addition - the memorialization of the Peculiar Institution. They designed their nation to be mortally wedded to slavery. One would not be able to survive without the other.
Also, some of the border states were in a position to go either way and given time to make a rational decision would have opted to remain in (or rejoin) the union.
The tensions instigated and fanned due to such a circumstance guaranteed a perpetual state of hostilities between the two entities.
Well find another thread or something else to do.
Not only do you play guitar you also are a stand up comedian.
That is doubtful IMO.
I prefer to call it thread extending and revising. You call it what you will :D
I don’t see his intent to do away with slavery where it existed before the rebellion. Surely you can help me with that.
By contrast, would the intent of slavery to force slavery on northern states be an act of war?
So long as we all understand that the war was made by the southern rebels who fired the first shot and seized federal forts, that we all understand that the raised tariff occurred after the pretended secession, and could not have passed without secession, and we all know that the pretended secession of several states occurred before Lincoln took office.
Then we can agree that pretending to blame secession, tariff and war on President Lincoln is an act of desperation on the part of people who don’t really care about facts.
As far as your second comment, the philosphy of state's rights would precluded the south's intentions of expanding slavery northward. The states thought it was their business, not the federal goverment. This extension of the scope and breadth of federal involvement is the backbone of liberalism today.
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.