Posted on 04/29/2019 10:09:48 AM PDT by Pelham
:)
Does “consent of the governed” mean “consent of every community”? Can a town choose to become independent? Can a county?
The solution to the election of Lincoln was to fight him in Congress and elect someone else in 1864. Lincoln wasn’t going to abolish slavery.
BTW: As much as I disliked Bill Clinton, he was the President. Didn’t matter that he didn’t get more than 50% of the vote. People have to factor that in WHEN they vote.
I don't think it had anything to do with Robert E. Lee either.
“Well, there was that whole going to war against his country thing....”
EVERYONE in the 1800’s thought of themselves FIRST as Virginians, Carolinians, New Yorkers, Ohioans. They thought of themselves first as citizens of their particular States. They considered themselves citizens of the US second.
It has only been since the end of the civil war that the federal government was stronger than the states, that citizens began to consider themselves citizens of country first and state second.
Lee was offered command of all union armies by General Winfield Scott but asked for time to see what Virginia would do, stay or secede.
When Virginia voted to secede Lee resigned his commission and first went to his home in Arlington and then to Richmond to offer his services to his home state.
To the minds and hearts of the people of his day he acted honorably.
Do not judge the past by today’s standards.
There are no justifiable reasons for secession warned about since Washington’s Farewell Address. Our constitution can be legally changed in only one way- amendments, not with cannons.
Morally and militarily Lee was a man of the highest caliber, politically not so much.
Concept of “State” doesn’t have the same importance to us these day as it did 150 some odd years ago. That is one reason that many find Lee’s decision troubling. If you look at the world in a 1860s mindset, Lee’s decision is logical and rational. The only contact most people in the United States had with the Federal Government in those days was when the went to the Post Office to mail letter. For the most part their entire lives were built around being a Virginian, or Vermonter or an Alabaman. They did not dwell heavily on being a citizen of the United States. JMO
Why not? You think it is unreasonable to believe that the authors of Kansas constitution did not have an unlimited right to abortion in mind when they wrote:
§ 1.Equal rights. All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
.
I don't think it had anything to do with Robert E. Lee either.
I don't either, but if you will remember our previous conversation regarding Massachusetts' 1780 constitution and how they somehow managed to find the abolition of slavery in similar language, then that is the point i'm getting at.
Interpreting things to mean something that is not clearly stated in the law is subject to all sorts of abuse at the hands of Judges who will see in the words whatever it is they wish to see in them.
“Lee was offered command of all union armies by Winfield Scott.” This is not the case. The command was to be the 75,000 volunteers that Lincoln had called for April 15.
Scott did not ask Lee. Montgomery Blair, at the request of Abraham Lincoln, was asked to “feel out” Lee on the proposal.
Lee then went to discuss the question with Scott.
I think I will let a wiser man than myself answer that question for you.
"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 of 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."
The solution to the election of Lincoln was to fight him in Congress and elect someone else in 1864. Lincoln wasn’t going to abolish slavery.
No he wasn't, that's why I now think we've been sold a bill of goods from people who claim slavery was the motivating factor for causing a war. But there was no fighting Lincoln in congress. The Southern states found themselves in a position where no matter what they did, they would be outvoted by the Northern coalition. They could do nothing to resolve any dissatisfaction they had with the direction of the government.
They found themselves paying most of the bills, yet unable to have any impact on any decisions of consequence.
BTW: As much as I disliked Bill Clinton, he was the President. Didn’t matter that he didn’t get more than 50% of the vote. People have to factor that in WHEN they vote.
My point here is that we should require runoff elections of a President doesn't get greater than 50% of the vote. It does a disservice to the man if it can be argued that he doesn't have the support of the majority of the people. It hampers his ability to enact his agenda, and it leaves much of the country with the ability to deny responsibility for what happens.
Also I do not think Bill Clinton would have won a runoff election against HW Bush.
I think the libertarians jumping ship to Perot would have returned back to Bush.
I would argue that Washington was America’s greatest general. Lee is definitely not far behind.
Oh, Alabama is quite a change from NY City - so says this daughter of Copperheads from long ago.
I love it. The weather has been gorgeous here but we will probably be indoors for most of June - October. It’s a nice state, full of wonderfully conservative people, 2nd Amendment Rights people, and hospitable people. We made a good choice.
They understood what they were voting for and what they were doing.
Unless you actually have something new to contribute, find something else to talk about.
Are you suggesting the abolition of the Electoral College and replacement with direct popular vote?
To claim that the Constitution forbids the very thing the Declaration of Independence asserts is a right is nonsensical.
If the constitution forbade such a thing, it would be clearly stated in the body of the document. Clearly New York, Virginia and Delaware believed otherwise because they articulated in their ratification statements the right to "reassume" the sovereign powers they were relinquishing.
Massachusetts and Connecticut also thought they had a right to leave, because they openly discussed doing so during the Hartford convention.
This notion that the US Constitution forbade states from leaving is a later day creation that would have been laughable to the delegates of the Constitutional convention.
If states had the right to leave the United Kingdom, they had just as much right to leave the United States.
"Zeitgeist." And you are correct, far too many people have no concept of the zeitgeist of that era. They have a modernist view of events, and they do not understand them in context.
I endeavor to convey my understanding of that era's zeitgeist, but often people do not want to even try to see the past through Civil War era eyes.
The only contact most people in the United States had with the Federal Government in those days was when the went to the Post Office to mail letter. For the most part their entire lives were built around being a Virginian, or Vermonter or an Alabaman. They did not dwell heavily on being a citizen of the United States. JMO
The Federal became a great deal more powerful than it was ever intended to be as a consequence of the Civil War. We are still dealing with that problem today. People don't realize the influence those long ago decisions are still having on modern people's lives.
I'm glad you are happy with your decision. I used to wonder what made some people conservative and others liberal, and I think much of it has to do with population density. I think cities normally tend to be liberal, and more rural areas tend to be conservative. This isn't the only factor, but it does seem to correlate pretty strongly.
If you want a laugh, this article pointing out some differences between liberal areas and conservative areas of the country is quite good.
:)
Myth - unless you can provide primary sourced data.
DL can’t bring himself to admit that he believes in the rule of man over the rule of law and “might makes right” even though he espouses it routinely.
As did the other George. George Washington.
"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes."
I grew up in Alabama (Huntsville) and loved it there.
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.