Posted on 11/30/2020 2:54:43 PM PST by PoliticallyShort
Donald Trump is the result of a fracturing, dysfunctional polity whose leaders have lost credibility. Removing the man will not change the forces that created him. Our times are Lincoln’s. For decades, politics attempted to accommodate the “peculiar institution” with individual liberty. The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, all attempted to reconcile irreconcilable ends. But the conflict could not be resolved within the system. Bayonets accomplished what the Constitution could not.
Perhaps no contemporary issue can be compared to slavery. But, taken together, the multitude and significance of our present differences at least equal those of the 1860s. The current political system cannot bridge the divide between the two Americas. The Constitution is not broken, the People for whom it was created are broken. Like the lead-up to the Civil War, there may be compromises and snatches of harmony. But the moving average of division will increase. The election of Lincoln marked the beginning of the Civil War. Fort Sumter was fired upon six months later. Trump’s election is the analogue in our “cold civil war.” Like Lincoln, he was elected by one out of two Americas. Perhaps today’s Sumter was the “resistance,” the “insurance policy” of the Russia investigations.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanmind.org ...
The start of the 2nd Civil War.
You misspelled “separation”
If we are going to talk about history, we need to get it right.
S-e-p-A-r-a-t-I-o-n. There’s “a rat” in the middle.
>Perhaps no contemporary issue can be compared to slavery.
Abortion alone is worth annihilating Democrats and complicit others.
The author must be pro-abortion.
“Read more at”...
Why don’t you post your blog here?
Leaching hits off of this site that is run by donations...
Oh, and by the way, learn to spell.
Nah.
You can post your blog right here so we can make fun of it.
Get a job.
So you link to your blog, and refuse to comment here. cheesy
His saying he had “no objection” to it is not urging its passage, just as it’s also not opposing it.
I’m trying not to weep as today is my lovers chemo day and i don’t want to upset her. I’m sitting abound the corner in my chair 5 feet from her in the dining room — weeping over our country that she has wept and prayed over.
I actually read the whole article, and the Separation the author is suggesting will never happen, because the left doesn’t want to control half of America, it wants to control ALL of America, including and especially us. It would be like suggesting China being federated in 1948, with Mao controlling northern provinces and Chiang controlling southern provinces—Mao wanted EVERYTHING and would settle for nothing less.
As I have often said here, nothing in America is ever settled until it is settled the way the Left wants it settled, and then it is settled—until the Left decides to unsettle it to make it more radical, and then it is unsettled until it is settled the way the Left wants it settled. That is how the Left works, in a perversion of Hegelian dialectic intended to make things worse and worse until they someday get their desired conclusion, which is Hell. There is only one answer, and it would require the divorce that the author does not wish, but really cannot avoid.
As the leader of the Republican party, saying "no objections" is tacit approval for the membership to vote in favor of it, which they did that very day.
It passed both the House and Senate primarily on the votes of Northern state delegations.
Afterwards, Lincoln took the further unusual step of sending letters to all the governors of all the states, including all the seceded Southern states, informing them of the passage of this proposed amendment in the Congress.
The President plays no role in the Amendment process, and letters to inform the governors of the passage of this amendment must also be recognized as an effort to get approval in the states.
The Amendment was ratified by several northern states, and Seward guaranteed that it would be approved by New York as well. Seward was the primary sponsor of the amendment in the Senate, and he was also Lincoln's secretary of state.
There is even further proof that Lincoln was pushing this amendment for months before it was voted on in Congress, but i'm not going to look it up again at this time.
I haven’t seen a word salad this long and convoluted in many a year.
My guess is that Condi Rice wrote this. It has many good points. But our populace has been too dumbed down and riled up to agree to any rational cooperation. Greed and ego have overtaken the “common good.”
Even tacit approval is not urging, which is direct and an active appeal to pass and ratify the amendment in question.
With all due respect, stop contradicting yourself on this point.
Not to mention, instead of revitalizing this amendment upon victory, the Thirteenth Amendment was “pushed” as it were in its stead.
The commie left will not tolerate any any any separation. That is the problem. Total control is the goal. god bless these once united states.
The only separation necessary is to place the lying, thieving, cheating, bullying Democrat leaders in prison where they belong.
We don’t have a political divide in this country.
We have a truth and honesty divide.
The Republicans want truth and honesty and the Democrats want stolen money.
“You misspelled “separation””
Hide from search?
Lincoln wrote it.
Lincoln didn't want his fingerprints on it so he used proxies such as Seward to promote it.
Now you may think this is ridiculous, but there is evidence to support it. Not absolutely convincing evidence, but some evidence none the less. I'll have to look it up again.
In the meantime, here is an article from a Black Boston College Law Professor on the topic.
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2013/02/18/the-other-13th-richard-albert
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.