Posted on 08/27/2018 11:20:25 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Human beings (and Americans are no exception) like their heroes and villains easily identifiable and the explanation of historical events simple. As such, both Republicans and Democrats have built easily digestible historical narratives regarding American political history since the Civil War. Peculiarly, there seems to be a debate about who gets to own the legacy of Abraham Lincoln.
On the left, the meandering and incoherent narrative goes like this. Lincoln and his mighty Union army launched a war against the racist, slave-holding Confederacy to rid America of the abominable institution of slavery and make equal citizens of the former slaves. Therefore, modern Democrats own his legacy of greatness, because Republicans "switched" to become Democrats at some undefined time before FDR's New Deal when all those big-government, socially conscious, expansive, and redistributive federal laws were visited upon all the states. Then, somehow, they switched back at some undefined time after LBJ's Great Society and the creation of the welfare state.
On the right, it goes like this. Lincoln and his mighty Union armies launched a war against the racist, slave-holding Confederacy to rid America of the abominable institution of slavery and make equal citizens of the former slaves. Because Lincoln was a Republican, modern Republicans own Lincoln's legacy of greatness. Dinesh D'Souza currently has a new book, movie, and massive campaign underway to prove to Americans that this is the case, suggesting that Trump is a modern avatar of Lincoln or some such.
Both arguments might fit nicely into simple talking points, but neither is the least bit accurate.
The foundation of both narratives – that Lincoln launched his war against the Confederacy to destroy the institution of slavery in order to make equal American citizens of the freed slaves – is never questioned, because doing so is political heresy.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
J.Effersondem “It sounded like you said something different here: “The fact is Democrats hate our Constitution, always have, always will.”
And here: “Democrats: at war against the US Constitution since 1788.”
And here: “. . . you Democrats from Day One opposed the Constitution . . .”
And here: “It’s all just Democrats doing what Democrats naturally do: lie.”
You have made it sound monolithic.”
You have made it sound monolithic. What strikes me as odd is that you failed to quote where BJK said any of these things about James Madison, in particular. In fact I don’t see where in this thread that BJK introduced “James Madison”. Just where, when and by whom was James Madison interjected into this thread? Hmmmm...? It seems to me that You, J.Effersondem, dragged in that strawman and you have been playing with yourself ever since. Give it a friggin rest, guy.
Well, take the inflammatory and declamatory statement - “Democrats: at war against the US Constitution since 1788.”
This ill-advised broadside had to be directed at men such as James Madison (Father of the Constitution), and Thomas Jefferson (Author of the Declaration of Independence).
I, too, was surprised, at BJK. But I saw something so I said something.
Well, take the inflammatory and declamatory statement - “Democrats: at war against the US Constitution since 1788.”
This ill-advised broadside had to be directed at men such as James Madison (Father of the Constitution), and Thomas Jefferson (Author of the Declaration of Independence).
I, too, was surprised, at BJK. But I saw something so I said something.
That is an interesting comment.
Have you reported what you saw to the DHS, like a good little Democrat snowflake? What you saw was something that you yourself interjected and then you said something about it over and over and over. Like beating a dead horse.
I didn’t notice anyone other than you deciding that the “broadside” was intended for James Madison. Broadsides are not particular.
Anyway, thanks for concedeing that it was you who interjected James Madison into the thread.
Madison in a thread discussing the US Constitution? God forbid!
This was not at all a matter of “Madison in a thread discussing the US Constitution”. That is what is called a non-sequitur. So, it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t understand that James Madison was a straw-man introduced by your friend so that he could beat BJK over the head with it over and over and over again. Don’t be so obtuse.
I hope that I did not do wrong.
You tell me. Even after BJK stated: ” . . . I’ll cheerfully grant your claim — if indeed you do so claim — that not all Democrats were/are perfidious to the Constitution all the time.” you kept up your haranguing. You made a spectacle out of yourself, man. You took it upon yourself to declare that everything BJK stated about “Democrats” was specifically aimed at James Madison. Then you incessantly, maniacally, berated him for what he “said about James Madison”. You even had BJK saying that James Madison was yapping like a dog (which you know is not what BJK actually said). Only you know if you did not do wrong. You did represent yourself as a drama queen. That much I can tell you.
I hate to be persistent, but are you sure I am the one that first interjected James Madison into the thread? You may prove me wrong, but I don't remember it that way.
#353 may be the first reference to James Madison
Sure, BJK had brought up James Madison earlier in the thread, in a good way and not in the context that we are here and now discussing. It was your post #423 (see below) to which I am referring in the current context, unrelated to BJK’s earlier post that had nothing to do with you and your straw man.
BJK: “Civil War = Democrats doing what Democrats do, in their now 230-year war to destroy the US Constitution.”
J.Effersondem: Didn’t James Madison consider himself to be part of the Democratic party?
I hope you didn’t mean to say that Madison - Father of the Constitution - was part of a “war to destroy the US Constitution.”
Yes, you may well be correct. Madison was brought up in post #353 but in a completely different context. And favorably by BJK. I wouldn’t know how to search posts prior to that. I was technically incorrect in saying that Jeffersondem first brought up Madison “in the thread”. Is that your point? Please see post #423 which is where Jeffersondem shoehorned Madison into BJK’s words. Thanks.
“Sure, BJK had brought up James Madison earlier in the thread, in a good way and not in the context that we are here and now discussing.”
I, too, referenced James Madison in a good way, as the “Father of the Constitution.” See my post 423.
But James Madison was a southerner, yes a southern Democrat, and some feel justified in glutting their vengeance on him and Thomas Jefferson. I don’t agree with that thinking.
And so you shoehorn your thinking into other people’s words (see post #423) so that you can then attack them? Interesting. Isn’t that psychological projection? You are trying to slither your way out with your weasel words.
You may have missed my previous, respectful, comment about James Madison (post 438):
“Democrat James Madison is one of the tent poles in American history. His reputation as “Father of the Constitution” was well-earned.”
“And so you shoehorn your thinking into other people’s words (see post #423) so that you can then attack them?”
I thought my post 423 was mild; you say it was maniacal. Fair enough.
Regardless, you are here attempting to take the heat off your friend until his swelling goes down. I respect you for that.
funny how the Articles of Confederation are never cited by anyone, considering that the United States existed under the Articles and it was our organizing document prior to the Constitution.
The full name of the Articles was actually the ‘Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union’, and the document expressly stated in Article XIII:
“the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual”
language that is missing in the Constitution. That may have been the influence of George Mason, Patrick Henry, and other Anti-Federalists who saw a threat to liberty in the enlarged powers of the central government created by the Constitution.
The link in post 347 takes you to a collection of things that Madison and other key Founders (Hamilton, Jay, Marshall, and various ratifying conventions, and the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia) said and/or voted for or against concerning what the Constitution meant. There are five references to what Madison specifically said or proposed in that link.
This is just my opinion: Since the perpetual Articles of Confederation lasted only 12 years, founding fathers probably recognized “perpetual” was a failed aspirational word they did not want to repeat and remind people of in the new document.
And too, there were already regional tensions and southerners were in no mood to agree to give up their unalienable rights.
One of your many problems is that you cannot think straight. You think that your post #423, where-in you introduced a strawman, was mild?
I said your post #423 was maniacal? You lie. I said that your many follow-up posts (possible as many as ten) were maniacal.
JD: Regardless, you are here attempting to take the heat off your friend until his swelling goes down. I respect you for that.
More drivel from you. This time I charge you with misdirection. BJK can handle himself. He doesn’t need me. It is YOU who I am leveling one charge after another on. Keep on spinning, ballerina.
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.