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
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.
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.
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
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.
I've seen this claim made a number of times, but I've never seen any documentation.
Do you have a link?
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?
Calling me a fascist does not make me one. Apparently name-calling is the only argument you have. If so, you lose.
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.
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.
If the South had won, the North would be being run over at the moment by grit-eating illegal aliens.
Contrary to what is actually happening now, with Yankee invasion of the South continuing from the last century.
Imagine that. Someone had to bring you out of the 18th Century.
That's a difficult question, just because you're basically getting into the Latin-via-French part of English vs the Germanic-via-Saxon part. There are some subtle differences based on ancient root words, but for the most part they're synonyms.
But I'm not sure where you're going with that question. My point was to show that there are obvious places where legal rights (e.g. owning slaves) conflict with obvious natural rights (freedom/liberty).
I'm sure if Jeff Davis had sent a letter to Karl they could have worked this little misunderstanding out and become best buds forever.
Oh, wait, you were talking about Lincoln. So sorry, the term “Goon” you threw around confused me.
Went back, read that second paragraph. Sorry, it doesn't say what you think. He was referring to the slaveowners choosing war. Which is, of course, the truth of the matter.
By the way, unlike Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee, Abraham Lincoln never had a slave whipped. Which I think disposes of the term “Goon”.
Yep, went back and read that second paragraph again just now. Definitely talking about the slaveowners.
LOL, best line of the thread.
Your point about Obama in those shoes is well taken.
Born and raised in Illinois. But regardless, California was part of the U.S. in 1861 and remained loyal to the Union. So either way Reagan was a Yankee.
And the losers get to write the myths.
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.