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 ...
Well . . . maybe I was just imagining things.
Sure enough. Good on you. Is there a way to wordsearch a “thread”?
I have noticed that you have a tendency to do that. Please read post #488 for the first time.
“Please read post #488 for the first time.”
O.K. have read it and note your comment: “You even had BJK saying that James Madison was yapping like a dog (which you know is not what BJK actually said).”
What, then, did BJK actually say?
Yes, I realize now that that can be interpreted to mean that “Madison yapped like a dog”. But only by someone like you. Did you get anything else out of post #488? Read it again for the first time.
Lol
Good use of metaphors
Or would that be analogy
I’m going with metaphor .
“And too, there were already regional tensions and southerners were in no mood to agree to give up their unalienable rights. “
A bit early for that. The divide was on the nature of the gov’t rather than along regional lines.
The divide was between Federalists like Hamilton, Washington, Madison and Light-Horse Harry Lee who believed that a stronger national gov’t was necessary, and Anti-Federalists like George Clinton, George Mason, and Patrick Henry who believed that the enlarged powers of the Constitution’s national gov’t would be a threat to liberty and the rights of the people.
I doubt that leaving off the “Perpetual Union” language was an oversight, because it has its own article in the Articles. It likely was another compromise in order to get some wavering states to agree to ratify the Constitution. Just as when the Anti-Federalists insisted on the addition of the Bill of Rights. It would be an interesting line of inquiry.
“But only by someone like you.”
By your account, you realize it too: “Yes, I REALIZE now that that can be interpreted to mean that “Madison yapped like a dog”.
Emphasis added.
Now that you mention it, yes, there is. I have my FreeRepublic threads set at displaying 250 posts. I click on the thread to display the first collection of 250 posts, i.e., posts 1-250. Then on my computer keyboard I push the Control and the F keys simultaneously. A little box comes up on my browser (Internet Explorer in my case) into which I type the word or phrase that I want to search for.
When I search for Madison in the first 250 posts of this thread, there is only one match for Madison, post 58 by Pelham. When I search on the 251-500 set of posts, my computer indicates that there are more than 100 matches in the second batch of 250 posts. The first post that includes Madison in the 251-500 posts is post 295 by Diogenes Lamp. I then click on the word "Next" near the search box and the next post that contains Madison is post 304 by BroJoeK. And so on through all the posts that contain the word, "Madison".
And it made no sense to say "Perpetual" because the English crown required "Perpetual" allegiance as well, and they just threw off that "Perpetual" allegiance.
The omission of that word or any others like it in the US Constitution speaks volumes from it's absence.
I don't know how many posts i've written, but i'm pretty sure it's well over 10,000. Maybe your technique (which I think BroJoeK also suggested) can tame it somewhat, but one that could search them all at once would be so much better.
Supposing you had searched 500 posts at once, you’d have come up with 100 plus hits for “Madison”, not knowing where the bulk of them resided. One could narrow down where the bulk lay by gradually reducing the number of posts to search. For example.
Why do you continually put your spin/twist on other’s posts? Wait, I know, ..... you are a ballerina! Keep on spinnin’.
(This space intentionally left blank.)
There you go again. Grasping at anything in your desperation. I am finished with you. For now. Spin this, ballerina.
“I am finished with you. For now. Spin this, ballerina.”
Your hurtful comments make me feel like this.
“#353 may be the first reference to James Madison”
Actually that distinction belongs to someone named pelham: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3682615/posts?page=58#58
I don't know if you've seen any of the videos, but I assume you have heard of what O'Keefe has been doing. In any case, there have been calls for easier methods to fire career employees, because it has become very difficult to get rid of incompetent or even malevolent employees.
People have been saying that the reason it is so difficult to fire people in the "Deep State" is because of the Pendelton Civil Service Reform act. I've read much commentary to the effect that this act must be repealed to allow the President to fire bad employees at his discretion.
It occurs to me that this act works towards the benefit of the "Deep State" bureaucracy that is currently fighting Trump and us "Deplorables."
Do you think the Pendelton Civil Service Reform act has empowered the "Deep State" or do you think otherwise?
After the disaster at Appomattox, northern thieves were grabbing plunder with both hands. But some of the greediest victors did not think they were getting their fair share of the loot.
During President Grant's two terms, systems were designed and implemented to plunder the South, Indian lands, and the public treasury - and ensure that key constituencies were rewarded.
By the end of Grant's time in office, even radical Republicans knew that some sort of “reforms” would have to be announced.
It was about this time that the term Civil Service Reform was introduced.
They tell me that if you lean forward a Judo fighter can use that forward movement to throw you down and hurt you. But if you lean backwards, that same Judo fighter can use your backward movement to throw you down and hurt you.
The powerful in Washington did well before Civil Service Reform. And, the powerful in Washington did well after the Civil Service Reform.
Here is a historical listing of all African Americans in Congress, in chronological order.
Note the first took office in December 1870, which was more than 7 years after the January, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation.
So I know you're desperately looking for some legal technicality you can throw at Republicans, to declare the entire enterprise illegitimate, but this is not it.
DiogenesLamp: "Maybe people at the time interpreted the 14th to be retroactive back to the date they were born.
I don't know, but that would explain a few things."
Appears to me they abided strictly by the 7-year rule.
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.