Posted on 02/23/2014 6:39:53 PM PST by grumpa
Lincoln’s own doctrine of the right of revolution that he expressed in Congress on January 12, 1848 during the Mexican War when he said,
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power,
have the right to rise up
and shake off the existing government
and form a new one that suits them better.
This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—
a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.
Nor is this right confined to cases in which
the whole people of an existing government
may choose to exercise it.
Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize
and make their own so much of the territory as they inhabit.
More than this, a majority of any portion of such people
may revolutionize, putting down a minority,
intermingled with or near about them,
who may oppose their movement.
Such minority was precisely the case
of the Tories of our own revolution.
It is a quality of revolutions not to go
by old lines or old laws,
but to break up both and make new ones.
http://san.beck.org/LincolnCivilWar.html
Looks to me like the Confederacy had the inclination to rise up and shake off the existing government but lacked the power to do so.
We’ll be better prepared next time.
Yes, I'm sure you will.
I doubt he'll voluntarily step down unless his puppetmasters tell him to, however.
That is a cool picture. Too bad its based on a false primus.
agreed on that
Napolitano is an embarrassment sometimes. This is one of those times.
He's no historian, that's for sure.
Oh, I assure you that the Abolitionists thought that the abolition of slavery was possible.
His only promise was to stop the spread of slavery into the territories which was the issue of contention at that point.
It was much more complicated than that.
Dred Scott had transformed slavery from a regional institution into a personal right. Any slaveholder could move permanently to any state or territory in the Union and bring his slaves with him.
The Fugitive Slave Act enabled any slaveholder to claim any black person as an escaped slave. That Act contravened the entire tradition of American law, since the burden of proof was on the black person to prove he was innocent of the crime of escaping rather than on the government or the slaveholder to prove he was guilty.
The situation was untenable in 1860: either every state and territory would be effectively a slave state or none would be.
The slave power had nationalized and federalized the greatest assault on liberty in America's history through judicial activism and intrusive federal legislation.
You make a compelling point.
No, forcing any person or group of people to remain in a union that they feel is abusing them is tyranny. How are you with the colonies and their declaration of independence from England?
My original point still stands. The Court charged with making the decision has a conflict of interest since they represent one side. The point of a court is to be impartial and by their citizenship to the union, they are not.
Thanks so much for posting that quote. I had forgotten about it. Didn’t practice what he preached, did he?
Politicians rarely do.
So right. We see clear examples of it almost daily.
Your feelings notwithstanding, we are (and always have been) a nation of law, not of men (or of feelings). Since its inception this nation had been ruled, more often than not, by southern democrats. They had no problem calling the shots and pushing their way around when they were in power. As a matter of fact they were decidedly critical of upstart northerners who had spoken of possible secession. So it cannot be claimed that they were disenfranchised or without recourse - or of the opinion that unilateral secession was assumed.
When Lincoln was elected they had what amounted to a ginormous temper tantrum. Like a kid who angrily knocks the pieces off the gameboard when it isn’t going their way, they set about stealing anything that wasn’t tied down (and much that was) and unilaterally breaking the bonds that were forged in Philadelphia. Whatever the merits of their case they had no right to go about it in the matter in which they did.
The ones who acted tyrannical and with malice toward their fellow countrymen were jeff davis and his southern slavers. It’s interesting that you mention the court. I presume by that you mean the Supreme Court? The one who was headed by the scurrilous southern partisan taney? That court? There is every reason to believe that, had the slavers gone to SCOTUS and petitioned for relief taney would have granted it. But they had no confidence that their case had merit so instead they chose insurrection and war.
Yes, actually he did. Lincoln was no different than the founders in his respect for the natural law of rebellion against tyranny. That is what he was referring to in that quote. Not the casual “Oh we don’t like how you voted so we’re going to blow up the union”.
The southern slavers were perpetuating tyranny - not suffering at the hands of it. They lacked legitimate cause to secede - and lacked the moral high ground to rebel.
And I am using nothing but clear headed logic, not “feeling” as you imply. I have studied the history of the South and there is another viewpoint entirely than the one you hold. I respect your interpretation, of course, but we clearly disagree - which is no different than the players on the scene at the time. That conflict even pitted family members against each other.
So you believe that "any person or group of people" can just declare themselve to be a different country anytime they want as long as they "feel" abused? By that logic, you must support Mecha's claim to the southwestern US, since they fit the criteria you lay out.
Look, I don’t subscribe to your viewpoint about the Civil War, alright? Why does that make you so mad? You can’t win this one, so just drop it.
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.