Posted on 10/08/2007 4:07:14 PM PDT by mdittmar
Yep.
Howdy mdittmar. Neat thread. Planks #2 and #4 seem to contradict each other if there was a conflict invoving inalienable rights. Or am I missing something?
Freegards
My opinion was it was more of an excuse to break up the Union. I do not see any covenant breaker in there except the secessionists ire at the fact that the North was going to finally press the precedent of the Northwest Ordinance that free soil was the natural state of the territories and Congress had the right to control slavery in them.
The other irritants such as tariffs were constitutional actions that could be moderated constitutionally in concert with northern Democrats.
The most mature minds of the South, men like Robert E. Lee, John Bell and even Alexander Stevens saw the folly of the secession mania.
I don’t disagree with you on that. Let’s look at this from a business standpoint....Would you want to be told that you couldn’t take YOUR property, that you paid a large investment to procure into new territories?
Of course you wouldn’t. Expansion is MONEY.
It was of course folly, as you say, but...tempers were high on both sides of the Mason-Dixon, and as I posted to Lex earlier, it was an economic thing. Southern Slaveowners wanted to take their property with them. Understandable.
He actually said that???! Sheeeesh....
You have it out, apparently, for Rudy, Romney, and Thompson.
Against those, we have hillary most likely.
Where do you stand on this?
And the majority of the population in the territories didn't want slavery; also understandable. Leaving aside the moral considerations of expanding slavery, they didn't want the economic competition of plantation-like operations after they had risked all to get some free soil in the unsettled West. Certainly the California miners didn't want imported slave labor.
Also interesting is the Dem proposal to acquire Cuba from Spain, and that both the Dems and the Republicans wanted the transcontinental railroad.
Actually, there is some evidence that some of the territories were equally divided in that sentiment. Kansas for example. I agree with you on California....
I'm not sure I understand your question.
Thanks
Say a state allows for the legal murder of all left handed people. Plank #2 says the ‘pubs adhere to the Declaration, and I assume that most ‘pubs would think that left handed folks in this state are having their inalienable rights violated. Plank #4 says that whatever a state does is it’s own affair, no matter what, so nothing can be done for left handed folks in this state. Unless an invasion to help left handed folks wouldn’t be lawless because it’s purpose is to stop rights from being infringed?
Freegards
“That platform and that party agitated people enough to try to break up the Union. There’s still people today who will support the 1860-61 southern secessions over that platform. We may even hear from some of them on this thread.”
Yes indeed. You should read some of the posts on this thread I started. “How Libertarians Ought To Think About The U.S. Civil War”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1898013/posts
Not an Andrew Johnson fan?
“Not likely if the candidate is Rudy!”
Hannity was saying the other day that if Rudy gets the nod that it will be more likely that a 3rd party candidate will pop up. Not so likely if Fred gets the nomination. And that if a 3rd party candidate is in the race, then no way will the republicans hold the white house in 08. He makes a good point. Reason enough to vote for Fred.
There was no invasion,or hint or invasion,in any of Lincolns speeches or comments that I can find.
I am loath to close,We are not enemies,but friends. We must not be enemies.Though passion may have strained,it must not break our bonds of affection.The mystic chords of memory,stretching from every battlefield,and patriot grave,to every living heart and hearthstone,all over this broad land,will yet swell the chorus of the Union,when again touched,as surely they will be,by the better angels of our nature.
A.Lincoln March 4,1861
And then the war came.
Now,substitute unborn children for left handed people and reread your post,do you think the U.S.Government would invade any state that allowed it?
It should be pointed out that the first “act of war” and invasion didn’t come from the republican party lead US but from the confederates when they bombarded and invaded Federal property at Fort Sumter April 12-13, 1861.
bump
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Amen.
I kinda did have the unborn in mind, but I didn’t wan’t to inject that topic into this cool thread... No, I don’t reckon the gubberment would invade if killing the unborn was only allowed in some states. It would stink to be an unborn person in those states, not having the right to life and all until birth.
I wasn’t thinking about Lincoln or the war. I was trying to see how plank #2 jives with plank #4 as a practical matter.
Freegards
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.