Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lincoln the Tyrant: The Libertarians' Favorite Bogeyman
Big Government ^ | Dec 5th 2010 | Brad Schaeffer

Posted on 12/07/2010 11:31:03 AM PST by presidio9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-292 next last
To: WOSG

And yet instead of “putting it behind them”, the North continued for decades to punish the South for daring to disagree with them.

I believe that there may have been some who were for putting the war behind them, but the vast majority of the Yankees were for gloating over their victory and exploiting the economic spoils that they found in the South.


101 posted on 12/07/2010 1:23:01 PM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I have had mixed thoughts on this point myself but I have to say, when I read that 2nd Inaugural on the wall up there in DC it does bring trears to my eyes...


102 posted on 12/07/2010 1:27:25 PM PST by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amos the Prophet

“Abortion is not slavery. It is infanticide, the slaughter of innocents for self satisfaction. Abortion is the greatest crime of all. It destroys the future by destroying the present. There is no greater evil than abortion. Even slavery protected the life of the enslaved.”

Then certainly it should not be up to the states to decide which babies get to be saved or killed. Life and liberty are unalienable rights that shouldn’t be taken away by a majority vote by any part of government!


103 posted on 12/07/2010 1:28:02 PM PST by ari-freedom (Happy Chanuka! But also remember THAT day Dec 7, 1941.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

People attack Lincoln because he makes a nice scapegoat for the real originators of big government, who met in Philly in 1787.


104 posted on 12/07/2010 1:28:18 PM PST by Huck (Antifederalist BRUTUS should be required reading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Ironic isn’t it that now the southern states that seceded are the most patriotic while the northern states have the most left wingers


105 posted on 12/07/2010 1:33:12 PM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

Maybe I’m missing something here, but who said anything about abortion being a States Rights issue? It’s clearly an issue of infanticide and therefore protected under “...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”


106 posted on 12/07/2010 1:33:48 PM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Although the Articles of Confederation were never formally dissolved, to argue that they are still in force is preposterous.

The Peprpetual union was never abolished. So that is in force. Even today, much less 1861.

The idea that the same people who made the Perpetual union would have then changed it to "Well, any time someone breaks a nail or has a bad hair day they can unilaterally pull out," well, is to laugh.

107 posted on 12/07/2010 1:34:28 PM PST by Cheburashka (Democratic Underground - the Hogwarts of Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Huck

They were the originators of a functional, fiscally sustainable government.


108 posted on 12/07/2010 1:35:40 PM PST by ari-freedom (Happy Chanuka! But also remember THAT day Dec 7, 1941.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

So what you’re saying is that the States had the right to refuse to become a part of the Union, but once a part of that Union, they gave up their individual rights as soverign States? How very fascist of you.


109 posted on 12/07/2010 1:36:06 PM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs

“Maybe I’m missing something here, but who said anything about abortion being a States Rights issue?”

Quite a few populist conservatives.


110 posted on 12/07/2010 1:37:48 PM PST by ari-freedom (Happy Chanuka! But also remember THAT day Dec 7, 1941.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Your argument negates an important point as regards natural law, as expressed in the Declaration.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and 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.

I would argue that the Declaration is held more "perpetual" than the Articles, considering the Creator it cites for its authority.

111 posted on 12/07/2010 1:40:26 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

Actually they weren’t. That’s why they had to go back and fix it with the US Constitution. Think of it as US Articles of Confederation 2.0.


112 posted on 12/07/2010 1:40:36 PM PST by rockrr ("I said that I was scared of you!" - pokie the pretend cowboy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

Ah, gotcha. Wasn’t sure if I had missed something in this thread or not. For the record, I agree with you that abortion is not a States Rights issue, as it is infanticide and should be outlawed nation wide.

I’m not a populist, I’m a strict Constitutional Originalist.


113 posted on 12/07/2010 1:41:05 PM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

That’s actually an excellent point.

By what authority does the Federal government decree that States, and thereby the citizens of those States, do not have the Right to alter or abolish any form of government that they believe has become destructive?


114 posted on 12/07/2010 1:43:41 PM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
fiscally sustainable government

lol!

115 posted on 12/07/2010 1:46:45 PM PST by Huck (Antifederalist BRUTUS should be required reading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: elk
Lincoln was one of the most complex individuals landing in a position of power when a Republic was trying to sort out an irreconcilable issue; This issue sorted itself out by millions of armed people who just started shooting the crap out of each other at random points and places. If the obama was in his position then, we would still hold slaves.

One has to fall back to Roman times to make a comparison to a single man being charged with with such a responsibility; pulling it off in reasonably acceptable manner without being killed.

None were perfect people.

The winners wrote the books we read. Abe still took one for the team, after the fact.

116 posted on 12/07/2010 1:47:43 PM PST by mmercier (It was not personal, just business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: central_va
If anyone chose war it was the "Goon" himself, read his second inaugural again, Para. 2.

Total nonsense. The South started the conflict when it fired on Sumter. War was what Davis wanted. War is what he got.

117 posted on 12/07/2010 1:47:52 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
Yes, I am aware that I spelled Gettysburg wrong.

That wasn't my point. "The Killer Angles" was a work of fiction. A really terrific work of fiction, but fiction nevertheless. The conversation you quoted never existed, so using it as an explanation of why the war was fought doesn't make a lot of sense.

118 posted on 12/07/2010 1:50:43 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I would then take the argument down the path that the “States” were also a form of the destructive government as they suppressed to the rights of the Individuals. Were all of the individuals within those states that succeeded given the right to ‘throw off’ their form of government? Or, were the States suppressing the rights as obtained under Natural Law that should be preserved for the individual?

The Declaration says the Right of the People, not the Right of the State.

If the people of the State (yes, all the people, including slave) were not free to alter or abolish what the State was doing, then the Confederacy was rebelling against said Natural Law.

119 posted on 12/07/2010 1:51:21 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross
Remind me how wars start again? Who was it that fired the first shot?

I believe it was the rebels themselves.

120 posted on 12/07/2010 1:51:41 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
It depends upon the conditions under which it was accepted.

What do you mean by that?

According to one author on the topic, Charles Adams, total Federal revenue during the 1830s and 40s was $105.7 million, of which $90 million came from the South. So I was wrong, it was over 85%.

And I can point out that in his book "Lifeline of the Confederacy" Stephen Wise quotes congressional reports that show that in the year prior to the rebellion upwards of 95% of all tariff income was collected at three Northern ports. So that must mean that it was the North that paid 95% of all taxes, right?

121 posted on 12/07/2010 1:56:26 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: chrisser
The fact is, nobody knows what the future would have been like had Lincoln worked as hard on a peaceful resolution as he did on forcing the South to adhere to a system of government they felt no longer represented them.

Or if the South had taken the time to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement of all possible matters of contention before separating with the approval of all the parties impacted.

It's immaterial if the South was "right" or "wrong"...

Especially if you've already blamed the North for the whole matter.

If the South didn't have the right to leave the union, for whatever reasons they chose or for no reason at all, then our founding as a nation by severing ties to Britain is a farce.

Our 'severing ties with Britain' was accomplished only after a little seven year period of unplesantness known as "The American Revolution". So the real difference is that the founders won their rebellion while the confederates did not.

One example we have, of how things could have been very different, as others have pointed out, is Great Britain, who abolished slavery without a civil war.

In every single case where slavery was ended peacefully, it was done through government action and over the strong opposition of the slaveowners themselves. So how long do you think it would have taken for the U.S. slaveowners to agree to end slavery without launching a bloody and protracted rebellion?

122 posted on 12/07/2010 2:03:15 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard
The author of the article I read mentioned that several other contemporary countries, including Britain, our Mother country, had stopped slavery without going to war over it.

Britain was a monarchy in which the distant colonies that held slaves didn't have effective veto power over the entire government.

123 posted on 12/07/2010 2:05:06 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
And yet instead of “putting it behind them”, the North continued for decades to punish the South for daring to disagree with them.

Surely after LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and two Bush's the South has gotten it's revenge on the rest of us?

124 posted on 12/07/2010 2:07:36 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Your kind of govt only exists in your imagination.


125 posted on 12/07/2010 2:10:45 PM PST by ari-freedom (Happy Chanuka! But also remember THAT day Dec 7, 1941.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
By what authority does the Federal government decree that States, and thereby the citizens of those States, do not have the Right to alter or abolish any form of government that they believe has become destructive?

The People, in any form, always have the natural right of rebellion. But that's not the same as saying they have a legal right. Even the Constitution gives the government the power to put down insurrections.

126 posted on 12/07/2010 2:14:37 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
And yet instead of “putting it behind them”, the North continued for decades to punish the South for daring to disagree with them.

Decades? Reconstruction lasted 12 years, and the worst part of reconstruction and the only thing that made it last more than a year or so was brought upon the south not by the North, but by southerners in the Klan and other organizations who used the same tactics of terror, murder and intimidation as we see in Iraq and Afghanistan now.

To say reconstruction was wrong is saying that terrorists should be rewarded.

127 posted on 12/07/2010 2:19:23 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Maybe, but then you Yankees resorted to Obama. Just like a bunch of Yankees to place a socialist over all of us, even if he wasn’t born in the USA.


128 posted on 12/07/2010 2:23:12 PM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

So which has preeminence, natural rights granted by our Creator or legal rights granted by man?


129 posted on 12/07/2010 2:25:08 PM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Did you also happen to know that before that New England pay-rolled and provided the slave ships, not the South?

New England pay-rolled them? Was there a "New England' government that did that? Was it a "New England" government policy to do that? Did all the people of "New England" support that? Or was it individual ship owners who did it?

There were also southern ship owners who engaged in the slave trade -- not as many because, the south did not have as many ships or as many salors as 'New England." But they were sure as hell willing to buy slaves when one of those 'New England' slave ships showed up.

130 posted on 12/07/2010 2:28:45 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
Did you also happen to know that before that New England pay-rolled and provided the slave ships, not the South?

New England pay-rolled them? Was there a "New England' government that did that? Was it a "New England" government policy to do that? Did all the people of "New England" support that? Or was it individual ship owners who did it?

There were also southern ship owners who engaged in the slave trade -- not as many because, the south did not have as many ships or as many salors as 'New England." But they were sure as hell willing to buy slaves when one of those 'New England' slave ships showed up.

131 posted on 12/07/2010 2:28:52 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

I’m giving you one, and only one, warning. You refer to my ancestors as terrorists again and we’re going to have some serious problems.

There was more going on in the South than what you seem to know about and the reason the KKK was originally founded, long before it became a racist organization, was to protect Southerners from Northern Carpetbaggers who literally stole everything they could get their hands on.


132 posted on 12/07/2010 2:30:44 PM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
So which has preeminence, natural rights granted by our Creator or legal rights granted by man?

Legal rights aren't granted by man, but they are protected by man at the cost of other rights. This is the essence of the Social Contract.

Here's a question: Did black slaves in the south have a natural right of freedom and the right to rebel to obtain that freedom? Did they have a legal right to do so?

133 posted on 12/07/2010 2:37:51 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
I’m giving you one, and only one, warning. You refer to my ancestors as terrorists again and we’re going to have some serious problems. Terrorists is a bit of a stretch. Insurgents would be more accurate.
134 posted on 12/07/2010 2:48:58 PM PST by Domalais
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
First of all, was Lincoln in fact a tyrant?

Marx and the commies of '48 supported him.

135 posted on 12/07/2010 3:09:31 PM PST by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
Maybe, but then you Yankees resorted to Obama.

We also gave you Ronald Reagan. What have you done for us lately?

136 posted on 12/07/2010 3:10:53 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Excellent article. I agree with it completely, but beyond that it touches the important points and deals with them intelligently.

The Civil War was a great tragedy. To turn it into the evil Lincoln's victimization of the South is to distort the historical record and to diminish the tragedy.

But it was largely predictable and predicted. You can look up Webster's and Clay's warnings of what secession inevitably would mean -- war, destruction, and misery. There was no way to make unilateral secession at will work peacefully -- or if there was such a way, it wasn't the one the Confederates took.

Arguing over and over that secession was a constitutional right is like repeating over and over again that an experiment that always produces a given result ought to have a different one.

Secession at will wasn't constitutional and it wasn't a thing that could be made to work in our system -- or if it was, the people who attempted it weren't the kind of people who could make it work and they didn't approach dissolution of the union in a spirit that could have made it successful.

137 posted on 12/07/2010 3:11:41 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mjp
Marx and the commies of '48 supported him.

Who were they supposed to support? The slaveocracy of Jefferson Davis?

138 posted on 12/07/2010 3:12:51 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Domalais
Terrorists is a bit of a stretch. Insurgents would be more accurate.

"Traitors" would not be inaccurate either.

139 posted on 12/07/2010 3:15:50 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep

I don’t know if I agree with you that legal rights aren’t granted by man but are protected by man at the cost of other rights. I need to think on this and process it, but I will admit that my first reaction to it is that legal rights are granted by man but only as a recognition of the natural rights granted by God.

As for the natural rights of slaves in the South, let me ask you this.

Does mankind have a natural right to freedom or just liberty? Is there a difference between the two? Can liberty exist without freedom, or can it exist despite the lack of freedom?

We use the words “liberty” and “freedom” interchangably, but are we correct in doing so?

I honestly don’t know. I have a hunch that they are interchangable, but there’s a nagging doubt that I’m missing something here.


140 posted on 12/07/2010 3:16:41 PM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Domalais

Umm, no. As I hold to the idea that the South was a soverign nation, I don’t see my ancestors as being insurgents, since they didn’t rebel against their native soverign State.


141 posted on 12/07/2010 3:18:26 PM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

Even the very creation and adoption of the Constitution was not according to the rules set up in the Articles—rather created by the Constitutional Convention. If one tiny clause in the Articles are all one has to base keeping in union about, that’s shakey ground indeed!

That would also exempt subsequent states, outside of the original 13, from any imagined commitment to union.


142 posted on 12/07/2010 3:19:52 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Nice try, but Reagan was from California. That’s not considered part of Yankee territory so neither side gets to claim him.

We can claim Washington and Jefferson though. :P


143 posted on 12/07/2010 3:20:09 PM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Not from our point of view, but we all know that victors get to write the history books.

Anyway, I gotta run for the night. Have fun guys.


144 posted on 12/07/2010 3:21:43 PM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
the fact that the Congress accepted Texas' specific reservation of that right in admitting it to the union belies any assertion to the contrary.

I've seen this claim made a number of times, but I've never seen any documentation.

Do you have a link?

145 posted on 12/07/2010 3:21:56 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs; Ditto

Southern Armies made it into Union territory, in Maryland, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania several times, including to and from Gettysburg.

How many civilians in the Union were killed due to the actions of Confederate troops?

Exactly one, a farmer, by accident at Gettysburg. No other documented civilian deaths.

In the Northern Armies’ conquest and occupation of the South, how many civilians were killed, even murdered, due to the actions of the Union troops?

Many thousands...documented.


146 posted on 12/07/2010 3:31:00 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
So what you’re saying is that the States had the right to refuse to become a part of the Union, but once a part of that Union, they gave up their individual rights as soverign States? How very fascist of you.

Each state separately made their own decision to join. They had other options - like fighting their own war on a separate basis, or going back to the king and asking his mercy. Each state individually decided to join the Perpetual union.

Calling me a fascist does not make me one. Apparently name-calling is the only argument you have. If so, you lose.

147 posted on 12/07/2010 3:31:29 PM PST by Cheburashka (Democratic Underground - the Hogwarts of Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

Um, yeah, New England is a region, just like the South you referred to is, check your elementary school geography...

My point is that states North and South had to answer for the slave trade, not simply those of a particular region.

Did the “South” own slaves or purchase them from New England shipping companies? Or was that a (rather small) minority of individuals in the South?

You are aware that FAR more slaves were taken to Caribbean plantations, and to points in Latin America, than ever made it to the southern USA, right?

Also, you never responded to the fact you posted plans of a British slave ship, and, that the slave trade to anywhere in the USA was long over before the Civil War ever began.


148 posted on 12/07/2010 3:31:37 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: paladin1_dcs
I don’t know if I agree with you that legal rights aren’t granted by man but are protected by man at the cost of other rights

Here's the overview of Social Contract Theory from Wikipedia, which is as good a place to start as anywhere:

According to Thomas Hobbes, human life would be "nasty, brutish, and short" without political authority. In its absence, we would live in a state of nature, where each person has unlimited natural freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten our own self-preservation; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men establish political community i.e. civil society through a social contract in which each gains civil rights in return for subjecting himself to civil law or to political authority. Alternatively, some have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so; this alternative formulation of the duty arising from the social contract is often identified with arguments about military service.

The social contract and the civil rights it gives us are neither "natural rights" nor permanently fixed. Rather, the contract itself is the means towards an end — the benefit of all — and (according to some philosophers such as Locke or Rousseau), is only legitimate to the extent that it meets the general interest ("general will" in Rousseau). Therefore, when failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature. Locke theorized the right of rebellion in case of the contract leading to tyranny.


149 posted on 12/07/2010 3:36:26 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

If the South had won, the North would be being run over at the moment by grit-eating illegal aliens.


150 posted on 12/07/2010 3:37:24 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-292 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson