Skip to comments.Lincoln the Tyrant: The Libertarians' Favorite Bogeyman
Posted on 12/07/2010 11:31:03 AM PST by presidio9
click here to read article
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.
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...
“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!
People attack Lincoln because he makes a nice scapegoat for the real originators of big government, who met in Philly in 1787.
Ironic isn’t it that now the southern states that seceded are the most patriotic while the northern states have the most left wingers
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.”
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.
They were the originators of a functional, fiscally sustainable government.
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.
“Maybe Im missing something here, but who said anything about abortion being a States Rights issue?”
Quite a few populist conservatives.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Total nonsense. The South started the conflict when it fired on Sumter. War was what Davis wanted. War is what he got.
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.
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.
I believe it was the rebels themselves.