Skip to comments.Jefferson vs Lincoln: America Must Choose
Posted on 03/10/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Idabilly
Over the course of American history, there has been no greater conflict of visions than that between Thomas Jeffersons voluntary republic, founded on the natural right of peaceful secession, and Abraham Lincolns permanent empire, founded on the violent denial of that same right.
That these two men somehow shared a common commitment to liberty is a lie so monstrous and so absurd that its pervasiveness in popular culture utterly defies logic.
After all, Jefferson stated unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence that, at any point, it may become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures God entitle them
And, having done so, he said, it is the peoples right to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Contrast that clear articulation of natural law with Abraham Lincolns first inaugural address, where he flatly rejected the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Instead, Lincoln claimed that, despite the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment, no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; [and] resolves and ordinances [such as the Declaration of Independence] to that effect are legally void
King George III agreed.
(Excerpt) Read more at southernheritage411.com ...
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.
Nobody knows for sure, but I suspect if given the choice Thomas Jefferson would choose Abraham Lincoln over Jefferson Davis.
Abraham Lincoln played the Southern fire-eaters like a fiddle. His secret was to use jiu-jitsu politics.
These techniques were developed around the principle of using an enemy’s energy against him,
“Its been nearly 150 years. I think its time you got over it. History has given its verdict; Jefferson and Lincoln came out OK.”
A great man once said:
“The contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena.”
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.
Put me down with Jefferson as well.
During Virginia's ratification convention
John Taylor of Caroline - Didn't stutter:
“In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation. But the union possesses no innate sovereignty, like the states; it was not self-constituted; it is conventional, and of course subordinate to the sovereignties by which it was formed.
The sovereignties which imposed the limitations upon the federal government, far from supposing that they perished by the exercise of a part of their faculties, were vindicated, by reserving powers in which their deputy, the federal government, could not participate; and the usual right of sovereigns to alter or revoke its commissions. “
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.
I suspect you're right, and I would know that presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Andrew Jackson agreed with Lincoln's view that a state can't unilaterally secede from the rest of them and declare war on them.
Comparing the south during the civil war to the American COLONIES during the revolutionary war is a pretty weak analogy -- a state within a nation has an entirely different status than a colony under the rule of another nation. The colonies had NO representation in Parliament and were at the mercy of another place across the ocean, compared to the southern states who had the exact same rights as all the other states under the constitution, and had overrepresentation in Congress thanks to the 3/5th compromise counting millions of their slave "property" with no rights or voting power as "resident population" entitled to more Congressmen.
In order for anyone to "secede" from England in a manner similar to the civil war, Cornwall, Devon, Somset, Dorset, the Isle of Wright, Hampshire, Sussex, Kent, Surrey, Whitshire, and Bristol would have to pass ordinances announcing they were leaving the U.K. (upset that the guy they wanted for Prime Minister didn't win in the rest of the country) and forming a pro-slavery United Confederacy of Great Britain, then fire on the Queen's guards for attempting to resupply a fort that was property of the federal government.
Likewise, in order for an internal U.S. dispute to resemble the revolutionary war, the United States would have to announce the Puetro Rico will have no longer have a delegate to Congress and pass a bill ordering Puetro Ricans to pay three times the rate of everyone else for stamps that they must buy from the U.S. When Puetro Ricans protested, the U.S. would then pass a law to force them to pay exorbitant taxes on all alcohol (say, $50 for a can of beer), cigarettes, gas, and guns, which were only allowed to be purchased from the U.S. and had to be imported. When Puetro Ricans rioted in response to that, the U.S. would then pass a series of militant fascist laws effecting putting Puetro Rico under martial law and giving them zero rights and freedoms, and in every step of this process Puetro Rico would have absolutely no way to petition the U.S. about their grievances. Finally, with no other option left, the Puetro Rican Legislation would pass a resolution declaring Independence form the United States and severing its long standing ties to the mainland.
Pretty different situations. One thing I would certainly say is if Lincoln and Jefferson were alive today they'd adamantly oppose the idea of government by "politicians appointing politicians", i.e. the U.S. Senate choosen entirely by state legislatures that some founders thought was a good idea in 1776. Martha Coakley provides the latest example of why this would be a disaster if it was in effect today.
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?
If it is indeed a contract, the SOuthern States which border with Mexico may have a case against the union for breach of contract. “...provide for the common defense” is a sham along our porous southern border.
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.