Posted on 11/25/2007 5:05:15 PM PST by Bear_Slayer
I am researching the phrase
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
that was used by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address
Specifically the part "of the people, by the people, for the people."
Is this phrase used anywhere in our constitution or DOI?
It is true. You do make shit up as you go along.
I can’t tell you why he did this. He is called the Morningstar of the Reformation—the first glimmer of light. Once he put the Bible into the hands of the people, England was never the same. It was William Tyndale who later translated the Bible from the original languages.
If that was true that would mean I made you up.
So you're suggesting I'm your imaginary friend?
No, I’m applying your logic. If I made up “shit” that means I made you up. Your words, not mine.
Better put some ice on that.
President Lincoln, a Republican, coined the phrase “ government of the people, by the people, for the people”. The modern democRat party prefers the phrase “the people of the government, by the government, and for the governement”.
Actually it was Lincoln’s contention that it was the intent of the founding fathers that slavery was to be put on the path to eventual extinction. Lincoln wanted to get back to that notion by prohibiting the expansion of slavery into the territories and limiting the institution to where it already existed.
In the 1850’s The South began aggitating for the renewal of International Slave trade( something that had been prohibited since the early 1800’s) and for territorial expansion south which would be more accomodating economically for slavery. There was an ongoing debate and plan for the acquisiton of Cuba, for example.
My source for the above comes from a multi-volume series entititled “Ordeal of the Union” by Allan Nevins.
“Everyone” who was educated in Europe at that time knew Latin and Greek, not so much Hebrew. Wycliffe probably knew written Latin as well as he did written English. Actually, he probably saw more written Latin than English.
...since I'm Catholic I suppose I should now make some pejorative remark about Wycliffe?Ha, ha. Well, for sure, FEW Americans ever thought that a Catholic could ever BE an American until recently! Most Catholics were hated by true Americans all the way until the 1960s! It was thought your allegiance could never be to the country because your Pope ruled all.
You get that my post was about the silliness (IMHO) of using everything that might be a reference to Lincoln as an excuse to re-fight the Woah buhtween the States?
Yes. It’s also absurd to claim he was pro-slavery because he didn’t necessarily think that blacks and whites were exactly equal in ability and brainpower, too! Even SCIENCE thought blacks were inferior then! Acting as if all his efforts against slavery was hypocritical because he doesn’t fit today’s PC mold is just as stupid!
Any manual history of the West should do it. Lincoln initiated Nevada statehood, not the inhabitants of Nevada. As in, it was his idea, not theirs (they were only a few thousand strong, centered on the mining towns around Lake Tahoe). The documents petitioning Congress for admission were drawn at Lincoln's direction.
This should be good.
Your cynicism shines and stinks in the moonlight.
I've read a couple of them, and none indicate the conspiracy that you find. But then again, you find conspiracies in anything Lincoln did. Perhaps you can elaborate? Again, this should be good.
Your cynicism shines and stinks in the moonlight.
As does your paranoia.
The statehood of Nevada has been discussed on these boards, and you were present for the discussion. Lincoln absolutely did accelerate Nevada's premature statehood, and his reason was the impending 13th Amendment.
Now go and infibulate yourself.
What we probably had was you and your buddies claiming conspiracy and being absolutely flabergasted when the rest of us didn't buy on to your paranoid fantasies. But that's just a guess on my part based on my experience dealing with you, because I honestly don't remember the discussion you're referring to.
Nevada's first state constitutional convention was authorized by the territorial legislature in 1862, long before any enabling act was passed by Congress. That shoots your asinine claim that statehood was 'thrust' on Nevada to begin with. The legislature was fully onboard. Then there were two enabling acts for Nevada. The first, passed in the Senate in March of 1863 and died in the House. The second passed in February 1864. Finally, the people of Nevada had to approve their constitution, which they did by a vote of 19-2 in a state convention convened in July 1864 for that purpose.
Another fact that you ignore, or didn't know in the first place, was that the Nevada enabling act was grouped with enabling acts for Nebraska and Colorado. Now if your paranoid ramblings are right and all Lincoln was concerned with was ratifying the 13th Amendment then why not admit Nebraska and Colorado as well? Three states to ratify are better than one, isn't it? But Nebraska wasn't admitted until 1867 and Colorado had to wait for years after that. What's your explanation for that?
Now go and infibulate yourself.
You have no idea what that word means, do you?
Then how do you view slavery today as well....since it too is viewed under today’s PC mold?
Did Southerners not have a right to at least expect compensation if forced to give it up?
the Brits did..
If slavery could have been gotten rid of through the normal political process, they could easily have been compensated. I see no reason why not. However, they lost a war and winners make the rules.
As a damn Yankee even I know that the Civil War - or War Between the States or War of Northern Agression, or whatever you want to call it ;) - wasn’t just about the slaves, it was about money. And about the individual states to govern themselves in Union with other states, but not to be dictated to from a burdensome Federal government.
But as I recall some of the taxes or tariffs or something got out of whack with regards to the industrialized north taking in lots more money than (and from) the agricultural south due to unfair tarifs. (It’s been a long time seen I’ve looked at this so I may be wrong in the details).
However, it did NOT start to primarily “free the slaves”. It was after the war had started and the Union was having troubles on the battle field and support for the war started flagging in the north that Lincoln called for freeing the slaves (after the Battle of Antietan where he first gave the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation):
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”
All that said, I’m glad I can visit the South without having to use my passport!
You’d be surprised how many people don’t know that. When I made that point to Non-sensical he came back with the, “all he did was free the slaves” BS, total ignoring my point, which was that it was just an after thought on his part at the end. But facts mean little to that guy.
Come see us some time.
I posted a link to you once about Lincoln bribing three congressmen to vote for Nevada statehood. Charles Dana had done that at Lincoln's behest, and the link I provided was to a 4CJ post giving Dana's recounting of the affair. Here's the link: Link
Tsk. I see you're still having selective memory problems.
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.