You don't look a day over 200.
To celebrate his birthday, I would suggest that you read one of his famous speeches. My favorite is the Second Inaugural, which ends with this inspiring paragraph:
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.
I think every American over the age of ten should read that speech at least once a year.
Or perhaps two of his famous speeches. Another favorite of mine is his 1858 House Divided speech, which uses a biblical metaphor to make a powerful political argument. Here is how Lincoln stated his thesis:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.
But don't take my word for it. Read one or both of the speeches.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(For extra credit and to learn a little history, read Lincoln's Cooper Union speech.
You may have seen an attack on Lincoln from neo-confederates. If so, you will want to read this reply to their arguments.)
Posted by Jim Miller at February 12, 2009 12:22 PM | Email ThisThat line is as apt today as it was when he first uttered it as it reminds me how much we're increasingly slaves to the government entity. Slavery still exists, only the 'Massa' has changed from the slaveholder to the representatives we put in Government. Today, we have a President who's being compared to the great Lincoln even though the two are about 180 degrees apart in ideology and the former has done exactly zero in his lifetime to draw the correlation in the first place (other than being a lawyer and hailing from Chicago by way of Indonesia,Hawaii,Kansas,Washington state,Hawaii again).
Posted by: Rick D. on February 12, 2009 01:56 PMMy thought always has been to resist the temptation to judge historical figures other than by the standards of the times in which they lived.
Churchill drank all day long, and Roosevelt wasn't far behind him. Today they'd both be quietly sent off to Shick/Shadle. In the 1940's that sort of adult beverage consumption was not considered to be unusual.
Lincoln was a remarkable man by the standards of any era. I read much of his Civil War correspondence and came to believe that he was perhaps the greatest general of the War.
Did he have his flaws? Certainly, as we all do. It is almost impossible to imagine the world he had to cope with.
I agree Jim, we should read Lincoln.
Happy birthday, Abe!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 02:31 PMYou might have ventured some evidence why you consider Lincoln to be "one of our worst Presidents".
I don't want to get into a big debate about Lincoln's Presidency but you should at least have given us the courtesy of explaining your opinion.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 02:44 PMI agree with Bill, how about breaking that down for us there Lysander. Lincoln was a self-made man that lived through (until assassinated) and lead this Nation through its roughest patch in history. Instead of kicking him in the groin on his birthday, perhaps a little explanation of the "one of our worst presidents" label would be aprapos.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 12, 2009 03:06 PMBut by and far the biggest reason I dislike him is his lack of respect for the sovereignty of states and his union uber alles approach to government. Noteworthy because Obama is echoing the same thing. The government and union is not the most important thing we should look for. It is just a tool to achieve liberty. Lincoln trampled liberty in the name of union and federal government power. This I oppose more than anything. If a state can not secede (regardless of its reasons for wanting to secede) it is no longer free. Lincolns war effectly destroyed the union and created a national government.
Posted by: Lysander on February 12, 2009 03:48 PMAlso Lysander Spooner (whom i borrow my name for sound politics) has some great writing from the time of Lincoln on how Lincoln is more of a tyrant than a hero.
Posted by: Lysander on February 12, 2009 03:50 PMHowever, your comments indicate that you believe it was within the rights of an individual state to decide whether they can hold slaves.
Yet another reason why I am not a Libertarian.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 04:02 PMJust because something is morally wrong and it coming under federal jurisdiction. Do you realize that murder is not a federal crime? Murder is certainly on par with slavery in terms of its 'evilness' yet we do not need the federal government to have authority over it. Libertarians are certainly anti slavery. Their refusal to use the issue to support an over reaching central government should not discourage you from supporting libertarian ideas today.
But the issue of the civil war was not slavery. It was tariffs. The south was being unfairly burdened with tariffs that benifitted the north. The south had had enough and decided to secede. I fail to see how one could make the argument that a state does not have the right to secede while still supporting the american revolution. Care to make that argument?
Posted by: Lysander on February 12, 2009 04:34 PMOne more comment:
Lincoln is not just 'not a saint'. His crimes and deeds go far beyond that and put him in the category of evil dictator.
I understand this will sound like hyperbole to most because there is alot of misinformation out there about lincoln and it is taught from a very young age but I have read quite a bit on the man and feel after doing so that it is not a stretch by any means.
Some refer to him as 'americas lenin' and I think that is a good term as well.
Posted by: Lysander on February 12, 2009 04:37 PMI don't take Liberatarians seriously for the most part. I do wonder where libertarians and anarchists differ.
It's easy in the 21st century to pass judgement upon Abraham Lincoln using standards which would have been unimaginable in 1860. I believe some understanding of the times in which the man lived might, after some consideration, cause you to alter your opinion.
Most large libraries have the entire written records of the Civil War. Take the time, Lysander, to read some of Lincoln's correspondence.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 04:41 PMhttp://www.lneilsmith.org/abelenin.html
At the bottom is a list of about 10 more (actually better) articles to read.
Posted by: Lysander on February 12, 2009 04:42 PMAs I suggested above, read the actual words of Lincoln as I have.
I don't know what else I can say.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 04:49 PMI give up.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 05:01 PMAs for reading the words of Lincoln, I feel the words of a politician are worth about as much as the coin that Lincolns face is on. I judge a man by his actions and Lincolns actions are inexcusable.
Posted by: Lysander on February 12, 2009 05:04 PMI hope that he will take the time to read it before commenting again. (And, yes, I was thinking of Lysander when I put that link in.) Lysander should also read the Cooper Union speech, which will help him learn a little history. He may believe that he understands the Constitution better than the men who wrote it, but Lincoln (and I) would disagree.
And I will say, as gently as I can, that anyone who believes that the Civil War was fought over tariffs needs to do a little more reading. They should, for example, look at what secessionist leaders actually said at the time.
For example, the Yancey faction in the Democratic party called for this addition to the 1860 Democratic platform:
"Resolved, that the Democracy of the United States hold these cardinal principles on the subject of slavery in the Territories; First that Congress has no power to abolish slavery in the Territories, Second that the Territorial legislature has no power to abolish slavery in any Territory, nor to prohibit the introduction of slaves therein, nor any power to exclude slavery therefrom, nor any right to destroy or impair the right of property in slaves by any legislation whatsoever." (From Bruce Catton's The Coming Fury, p. 30)
Nothing in there about tariffs, is there?
William Lowndes Yancy introduced that to split the Democratic party, and, after that, the union. He succeeded in both goals, at terrible cost to the nation, especially the South.
(And a note to other people who think of themselves as Libertarians or even libertarians: You might want to disassociate yourself from Lysander's views.)
You ask me to read the words of lincoln. The man you say is the greatest general of the war. The man who led the union as commander in chief.
Here are his thoughts on the subject:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
With the leader of the north admitting it had nothing to do with slavery, I think you are going to have a hard time arguing it was the primary reason. It was certainly a secondary reason, i do not doubt that but only in the larger sense that the south believed that states should be free to make decisions on issues the federal government had not been given authority over.
Is this argument new to you?
Posted by: Lysander on February 12, 2009 05:25 PMYears ago in college we were told that slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. I didn't buy it then, and I sure don't buy it now.
Certainly there were other issues that divided the country. The institution of slavery was by far the most significant issue.
Duh!
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 05:30 PMYes people at the time were passionate about slavery on both sides of the issue at the time. That does not mean that their actions caused the war. Lincoln who was the man who single handedly decided to go to war did so solely to save the union. The primary reason the south seceded was lincoln and the protectionist tariffs his party represented.
You can try to paint me as some sort of slavery supporting nut job if you want. And I encourage any that are scared of being labelled that to distance yourself as Jim has suggested because I am sure he will treat you the same way.
But for those interested in the truth, look into it and read as much as you can from both sides. I am confident that once you throw out your pre-existing ideas of lincoln as a hero, you will come to the conclusion I have.
Posted by: Lysander on February 12, 2009 05:37 PMDo not make the mistake of judging Lincoln by modern standards. Read that quote again, and again, and again until you understand it.
Perhaps it would be more illustrative if one were able to imagine that the great conflict of the Civil War would have occurred in the absence of slavery.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 05:48 PMCare to comment on any of the actual reasons for my dislike of Lincoln? If you notice, the reason for the war was not one of my reasons for my dislike of Lincoln.
I feel I must repeat, I am not judging Lincoln by any standards that are new to the modern era, I am judging him by standards set forth in the constitution and the deceleration of independence. Both documents written approximately 3 generations before Lincoln.
Posted by: Lysander on February 12, 2009 05:59 PMI don't entirely disagree with you on the issue of the rights of individual states. However, would your definition of "states rights" include the continuation of slavery?
Debating ethics isn't alway pleasant, Lysander. You can't begin to imagine what Abraham Lincoln was faced with. I can tell by what you write.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 06:13 PMWith that said, I think that any state that choses to allow rape, slavery, or murder to be one worthy of being overthrown.
I fail to see why you are so fixated on the issue of slavery. I am not disagreeing with you. It was a cause leading to the war and it was a horrible institution. Our only disagreement is how big of a factor it was in leading to war.
The ethical issues I have against Lincoln I will repeat one more time are not difficult, are not based on 21st century standards but rather standards outlined in 18th century documents. I gave a list of the issues and you have chosen to ignore them and pretend that I am upset with Lincoln over slavery.
Please address one of the other issues if you want to continue the conversation. If all you want to do is claim Lincoln a hero and claim anyone who disagrees is pro slavery then I am done here.
Posted by: Lysander on February 12, 2009 06:28 PM1. Do you support a groups right to self government?
2. Do you the suspension of habeas corpus on American citizens is constituional?
3. Do you support the imprisonment of political opponents?
4. Do you support involuntary servitude?
5. Do you believe the income tax was constitutional before the 16th amendment?
6. Do you believe it is ethical to buy up many acres and then give a government contract worth millions to a company full of your friends so that they can build an improvement that will make your land worth many times more than you bought it for in a very short time?
This is what you just said above. I want every reader here to remember this whenever they read your comments:
"I consider slavery to be an issue to be determined at the state level, just as I consider rape and murder to be an issue determined at the state level."
That is a direct quote.
What more remains to be said?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 12, 2009 06:42 PMSometimes, even misspelled words are fascinatingly accurate. :)
Posted by: Rick D. on February 12, 2009 06:44 PMBill, if you are not claiming that Lincoln is a hero, then I fail to understand your point. He is a man of his era? What does that mean exactly? Does it mean we can excuse anything he did? We can excuse some things he did? Why is not applicable to judge him based on the standards of the era before him when they wrote the declaration of independence and constitution?
And yes you can quote me anytime you want. To make it really sting, I suggest you also add the part of the constitution that authorizes the federal government authority over murder, rape, and slavery. :)
Rick D:
That is one of the funniest and apt mis spellings I have ever seen!
Perhaps Lysander might be able to inform us just how much longer slavery would have lasted.
But I will continue to answer yours nonetheless.
It is impossible to predict what ifs but my best guess is that had Lincoln not won in 1859, 600K less Americans would have died in the following four years, we would not have seen an unconstitutional income tax, no conscription, no huge inflation, no suspension of basic rights, no opposition politicians thrown in jail, the states would still be VOLUNTARILY together as a union, less mercantilist policies, and slavery would have ended much as it did throughout the western hemisphere due to the failing economics of the immoral institution.
Yes it might have lasted more than 4 years but as you point out, ethical dilemmas are tough. I think the idea of limit
I think the idea of limited government is too important to ignore. Especially when you look at income tax and conscription that was imposted by Lincoln... If the war was a war between slavery and freedom, I would have to say Slavery won!
Posted by: lysander on February 12, 2009 07:29 PMYou cannot possibly believe that had a magic wand been waved, the Civil War could have been avoided, and slavery would have simply disappeared.
Is it possible, even for the briefest of moments, that you might be able to imagine the world Lincoln had to carry on his shoulders?
I have read plenty on both sides of the Lincoln debate prior today. I skimmed Jims and saw nothing new to me.
Would you please address the direct questions i gave or maybe one of the other issues I actually laid out for why i dislike Lincoln? Is there a reason you are avoiding answering any of them?
You have once again assumed that I need to think in terms of the 1860s rather than now. Please explain what you mean by this. Please explain what you mean by him being a man of his era. Please explain why you seem to think his acts are excuseable simply because of the era he lived in when many men in his era, before his era, and after his era did and do not think that they are excusable.
Lastly... I certainly do not think a magic wand was necessary to avoid the war (not a civil war by the way) nor to abolish slavery. There are sound reasons why the war would be avoided and slavery abolished without Lincoln as president. But I really do not care to repeat them again. I would rather we focus on the reasons I actually dislike lincoln. You know... That list you keep avoiding.
Would it be correct to refer to Obama's style by calling him Barry Delano Carter ? So far, that is what is shaping up to be. He seems to show as a tyrant like FDR and to be fiscally challenged like Carter was.
Posted by: KS on February 12, 2009 08:42 PMWould it be correct to refer to Obama's style by calling him Barry Delano Carter ? So far, that is what is shaping up to be. He seems to show as a tyrant like FDR and to be fiscally challenged like Carter was.
Posted by: KS on February 12, 2009 08:43 PMWould it be correct to refer to Obama's style by calling him Barry Delano Carter ? So far, that is what is shaping up to be. He seems to have the underpinnings of a tyrant like FDR and to be fiscally challenged like Carter was. The current Democrat leadership's end game is to make the Republicans a long time minority party through the courts and through amnesty of 15 million illegal aliens, control of the US census in the White House, socialized medicine, the hammer and sickle and the list goes on.
Posted by: KS on February 12, 2009 08:46 PMI understand that my take on him is different from what most learned. That is what is frustrating, in school we are taught very little of what he actually did and more about the idea of freeing slaves.
The constitution is clear about what authority the federal government has and slavery was clearly not a federal issue.
I suggest you read the following:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I'd say that quite profound and unequivocal statement DEMANDS that the US Federal Government - in any form, pre-or-post Constitution - do whatever it can to eliminate the institution of slavery.
That it took 75 years to come to a head is the real shame.
This is ONE area where the Federal Government is ENTIRELY within its jurisdiction Constitutionally. States rights do NOT trump the inalienable rights we all hold. Period.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 12, 2009 10:32 PMThe point of the line you quote is important and I agree with it whole heartily. That is one reason I oppose Lincoln so much. He violated inalienable rights repeatably throughout his term as I have mentioned many times in this thread and still not had addressed by anyone!
However taking that one line from the declaration and using it to justify a federal government with the power to do whatever it deems necessary to preserve itself (Lincolns stated goal of the war) or to justify ending slavery (the prevailing view today) both would be a mistake.
I think the key is in the line following what you have quoted:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
There are two points of interest.
1. He refers to governments plural. In other words he is suggesting that not all powers need be in one particular government.
2. The governments powers are limited to what the people consent to. The idea of the constitution is it is document what the people have consented to. In it even reiterates that the federal government has limited powers and those not specifically specified are NOT granted to the federal government.
This results in things such as murders, rape, and even slavery NOT being something that the federal government has jurisdiction over.
You claim that states rights do not trump inalienable rights we all hold. This is true. However that is not what I am arguing. My argument is that federal POWERS do not exceed what is outlined in the constitution and that people have a right to self rule.
Posted by: Lysander on February 12, 2009 11:21 PMI would argue that the line you quote - "to secure these rights" - DEMANDS that the Federal Government take action to ensure those inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness exist for ALL men.
As such, it was incumbent upon the Federal Government to act to end slavery. States rights were non-existent because they did not have the "right" to violate those inalienable rights. In fact, the Federal Government was delinquent in securing those fundamental, first three delineated inalienable rights we had.
There was no excess of Government in pursuing the termination of slavery. The transgressions you list are, IMHO, secondary to the first three fundamental rights. Essentially your right to free speech, to keep and bear arms, to not house soldiers, etc. are secondary to my rights to Life and Liberty.
Fundamentally, if you deny those first three inalienable rights then you automatically forfeit your rights as later enumerated in the Constitution.
At least, that's my position. Your right to not self-incriminate is null and void if it interferes with my right to liberty.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 12, 2009 11:32 PMThe point of the line you quote is important and I agree with it whole heartily. That is one reason I oppose Lincoln so much. He violated inalienable rights repeatably throughout his term as I have mentioned many times in this thread and still not had addressed by anyone!
However taking that one line from the declaration and using it to justify a federal government with the power to do whatever it deems necessary to preserve itself (Lincolns stated goal of the war) or to justify ending slavery (the prevailing view today) both would be a mistake.
I think the key is in the line following what you have quoted:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
There are two points of interest.
1. He refers to governments plural. In other words he is suggesting that not all powers need be in one particular government.
2. The governments powers are limited to what the people consent to. The idea of the constitution is it is document what the people have consented to. In it even reiterates that the federal government has limited powers and those not specifically specified are NOT granted to the federal government.
This results in things such as murders, rape, and even slavery NOT being something that the federal government has jurisdiction over.
You claim that states rights do not trump inalienable rights we all hold. This is true. However that is not what I am arguing. My argument is that federal POWERS do not exceed what is outlined in the constitution and that people have a right to self rule.
Posted by: Lysander on February 13, 2009 06:00 AMSlavery only became an issue in Lincoln's speeches, which prior to this were all "Save The Union!", with the Gettysburg Address.
Carefully timed, tying slavery to the war caused anti-slavery England and France, which had until then been sympathetic to the South as the defenders, since the South had neither started the conflict nor attacked the North.
In fact, the otherwise inestimable Lee's attack into Pennsylvania was completely out of character. I think a disgruntled Federalist from the future used a time machine to go back to a critical moment, and influenced both Lee and Lincoln so as to make the war come out with the complete abrogation of state's rights.
I can recommend the Mises Institute's conference, "Reassessing The Presidency":
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=26
And lastly, Rick D., not all libertarians adhere to the Constitution. I consider it a blood-less coup by merchantilist royalists to install exactly the same kind of powerful central government as was thrown off only 11 years before.
Posted by: Bob Robertson on February 13, 2009 06:14 AMHe was mumbling something about states' rights back then. Being younger and apolitical, I didn't understand. Now, though, I have a greater appreciation of the sentiment.
However, it was Lincoln who abolished slavery.
I've had quite a dichotomy of opinion for a while. I agree with your take on the reason for the secession, but I like the idea of abolishing slavery.
Posted by: swatter on February 13, 2009 06:55 AMLysander: I checked into Di Lorenzo that wrote "the real Lincoln", and this is what I found
In a nutshell, the guy is nuttier than a squirrel turd as evidenced by the article in the link which starts out with:
The Neocon Case for Imprisoning and Executing Congressional War Opponents by Thomas J. DiLorenzo The neocon cabal is beginning to make the case for imprisoning or possibly executing members of Congress who oppose the war in Iraq.
If the libertarian party hopes to be a viable 3rd party option, I don't think this kind of hyperventilating fear mongering is the vehicle by which to drive their ideas home to ordinary Americans.
Lincoln was a visionary. He knew the hypcorisy of saying all men are created equal while holding some in shackles.
Name your favorite president, and we can find his personal failings.
An honest examination of Lincoln cannot conclude he was an abolitionist and to some exten he "went along to get along". That was the necessity of the time. How else culd he have possibly become president? In order to exercise power, you must first obtain power.
And whatever his motives for freeing the slaves, it was a visionary move way beyond his time.
Shanghai is exactly right. Inalienable rights of man, of all men of all races, TRUMPS any bogus "states rights" and yes, the federal government does have the authority to end slavery. Slavery is oppression of the citizens of the united states of America just as surely as if it had been conquered by a foreign army and its citizens all put in shackles. The first and foremost priority of government is the defense of the nation against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.
The South was a domestic enemy. It was put down. Throw aay your confederate flag. Your side lost. get over it.
Posted by: pbj on February 13, 2009 07:56 AMGeeezzzeee if Abe is such a POS then I guess BHO is too since he hangs his hat on Abe's all day long.
At least Abe lead us out of slavery while the NEW King of Kings and Lord of Lords leads us into it.
I guess I look at the end fruit of Lincoln...a Nation that staved off world darkness for 125 years...now I wonder who the next Abe will be that realizes the principles and values that Abe followed will again restore us from enemies both at home and abroad.
States' rights are "bogus"? Sounds like a liberal talking and pbj is no liberal.
The central government was formed as a necessary evil to protect the borders. No more and no less. What the country has devolved into is a lot more.
"Bogus" states' rights? You people write like you are on Obama Kool-Aid.
If you believe in a limited and decentralized government, you need to couch your wording there. Attack the slavery but still believe in states' rights.
Posted by: swatter on February 13, 2009 10:31 AMIf the State of Washington decided that all people matching your description were now considered property and chattel, with no rights, would you support that?
Would you want the Federal Government to ensure that your Creator-endowed inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness were protected?
States have all rights NOT ENUMERATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The Federal Government - per the Declaration of Independence - was created to guarantee these and other inalienable rights. States do NOT trump the Federal role of protection of our fundamental rights (as enumerated in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence).
In the case of slavery, there ARE NO STATE'S RIGHTS. None. Just like there should not be a State Right to restrict ownership of firearms, or States Right to board National Guardsmen in your house.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 13, 2009 11:07 AMYou are committing the same error as the liberals did when they accused Rush Limbaugh of saying he wanted Obama to fail.
Yes, compared to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and declared "state's right" that curtails either life, libtery or the pursuit of happiness IS BOGUS!
Locking a man in shackes, whipping him and treating him as your poperty because of the amount of melanin in his skin is certainly an infringement of his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
How about the shoe on the other foot. Let's say your state decides that people of your ethnicity should be enslaved. Does that "state right" trump your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
I suppose it's because they were not born with their particular characteristics like gender or race. But then I don't recall selecting to be straight.
On the other hand, I did select my religion.
Posted by: BA on February 13, 2009 11:40 AMYou are right, Lincoln was certainly no abolitionist, but in case you had not noticed... his stance on slavery is not what makes me dislike him.
As for shanghai's interpretation of the D of I and Const. It is not a state right to impose slavery. I agree. My point however is that it is not a federal issue, and power comes from the consent of the people. The people of the south were clearly not giving Lincoln power to rule over them in ANY fashion and the entire nation had never given the federal government power to determine slavery laws. In otherwords he did not have the consent of the people nor did he have constitutional authority, therefore despite his possible noble intentions, he was wrong.
Posted by: Lysander on February 13, 2009 11:43 AMNo. As swatter just said... oppose the slavery, but support state rights.
Posted by: Lysander on February 13, 2009 11:46 AMNo. As swatter just said... oppose the slavery, but support state rights.
Posted by: Lysander on February 13, 2009 11:47 AMSo Lysander - your argument is that states have no authority to impose slavery, and the Fed's have no authority to end it when a state imposes it anyway?
Um there was this thing called the presidential election, so yes, the people DID give Lincoln the power. States cannot simply take their ball and decide they no longer want to be part of the US because they don't get their way.
The federal government has the power to defend the citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic. The south, by virtue of declared secession and the oppression of American citizens was a domestic enemy.
Furthermore, any contention the federal government didn't have the authority to determine slave laws is a straw man to completely avoid the fact that state have no authority to impose laws that curtail the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. When the states infringed upon those rights for a certain population of American citizens, the federal government had all the authority to defend those citizens.
Posted by: pbj on February 13, 2009 12:03 PMAnd yes you have accurately summarized my position. If what I claim was not true and that states only have rights so long as the feds agree to it, then you have to throw out the entire concept the Const. and D. of I. outline.
Posted by: Lysander on February 13, 2009 12:14 PMAnd yes you have accurately summarized my position. If what I claim was not true and that states only have rights so long as the feds agree to it, then you have to throw out the entire concept the Const. and D. of I. outline.
Posted by: Lysander on February 13, 2009 12:15 PMPLease show me where in the constitution the federal government is granted power over things such as murder, rape, or slavery. Thanks.
Posted by: Lysander on February 13, 2009 12:17 PMPLease show me where in the constitution the federal government is granted power over things such as murder, rape, or slavery. Thanks.
Posted by: Lysander on February 13, 2009 12:18 PMPLease show me where in the constitution the federal government is granted power over things such as murder, rape, or slavery. Thanks.
Posted by: Lysander on February 13, 2009 12:19 PMPLease show me where in the constitution the federal government is granted power over things such as murder, rape, or slavery. Thanks.
Posted by: Lysander on February 13, 2009 12:21 PMAll I know is that there are non-racist southerners (my roommate, for one) who believe the Civil War was fought for more than slavery reasons.
Posted by: swatter on February 13, 2009 12:26 PMNo. As swatter just said... oppose the slavery, but support state rights.
And if the State decides that slavery is OK, what happens? Who wins? Does the Federal Government then have the right to use force to amend the egregious action of the State?
See, the Constitution is EXTREMELY EXPLICIT AND CLEAR on this point. When a State asserts rules or regulations that contradict those guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, then the Federal Government supercedes.
It is no more different than the State of Washington countermanding and sinking Greg Nickels' attempted CCW restrictions (regarding carrying in city parks and buildings). The City of Seattle cannot create or enforce laws that supercede the rights the State of Washington's Constitution guarantees.
Likewise, a State HAS no right to be recognized when the actions of the State conflict with those enumerated and implied on the Constitution.
PLease show me where in the constitution the federal government is granted power over things such as murder, rape, or slavery.
Are you being dense on purpose? Those are covered in the Declaration of Independence under the rights to Life (murder), Liberty (slavery), and the pursuit of Happiness (rape)!
Of course, if you ARE serious about your contention, then you would have ZERO problem with me coming and cutting off your feet, would you? It would be completely within my rights to do so, since amputation is not addressed in the Constitution.
So what's your address? When would be a good time for you to schedule your public amputation?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 13, 2009 12:49 PMThey're not loony, they just require by definition minority status.
Posted by: BA on February 13, 2009 12:50 PMIf Lincoln was "one of the worst" Presidents I have to wonder who he considers to be among the best.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 13, 2009 01:05 PMHere is where:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The preamble of the constitution clearly states this.
Posted by: pbj on February 13, 2009 03:16 PMReal libertarians are perfectly at home within the GOP, mainly because we tend to be pragmatists. I'll gladly support a party that aligns with 98% of my views, rather than try to cozy up with 5% of the population and thereby give the Slavery Party (how appropriate that name for this thread!) - with whom I share, perhaps, 1% of the views of - control of the Government.
The GOP represents at least economic freedom, and I understand that with economic freedom comes most other freedoms.
The Slavery Party represents no freedoms, really.
And "Libertarian Party members" are simply misguided, idealistic fools whose own slavish devotion to their mystical (and undefined) ideal candidate leads to completely illogical and untenable positions.
Such as allowing someone to cut off your feet because it isn't prohibited explicitly in the Constitution...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 13, 2009 03:35 PMYou have that exactly 100% assbackwards.
Posted by: Rick D. on February 13, 2009 04:06 PMI don't disagree at all with libertarian concepts and views - but we haven't seen any society adopt them... probably because they'd be crushed by their neighbors.
Posted by: BA on February 13, 2009 05:22 PMThe big L Libertarians are full of people that think like Lysander. They have every right to believe what they want.
Like you, I believe they don't understand the danger they present when they siphon off votes that might otherwise have gone to Republicans.
They'll scream that their principles are important. I would not disagree.
Electing Democrats is against my principles.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 13, 2009 07:01 PMI notice you did not cite where in the constitution it says it has power to over rule states on slaverly (or murder or rape for that matter).
PLease show me where in the constitution the federal government is granted power over things such as murder, rape, or slavery.
Are you being dense on purpose? Those are covered in the Declaration of Independence under the rights to Life (murder), Liberty (slavery), and the pursuit of Happiness (rape)!
The D of I is not the same as the constitution. Do you understand the difference?
Posted by: lysander on February 13, 2009 08:35 PMSo now you are contending if the right is not addressed in the constitution I do not have it?
Posted by: lysander on February 13, 2009 08:36 PMFor the most part the US adopted for the first 100 years. some exceptions were Lincolns term, slavery, etc..
Posted by: Lysander on February 13, 2009 08:38 PMYou seriously think the federal government should have laws on the book preventing crimes between individuals like what you mention above? Is there anything then that it is prohibited from doing?
By the way, implying that I am okay with something like that just because I do not think it is a federal issue is purposely misrepresenting my position and I consider to be quite bad form for you. I have seen your posts in the past and know you are capable of better than this Shanghai. Have I upset you somehow? If so I apologize. I would appreciate it if we could keep things a little more civil. Thanks.
Posted by: Lysander on February 13, 2009 08:43 PMSame here. That is why I do not vote for them, even when they try to trick us and put and (R) next to their name.
Posted by: Lysander on February 13, 2009 08:55 PMSo now you are contending if the right is not addressed in the constitution I do not have it?
No, that is YOUR position. I believe the rights enumerated by the Declaration of Independence are inherently covered by the Federal Government.
And I believe the right to Liberty is reserved to the People, not the States, meaning that the State has NO RIGHT to trample on my right to slavery.
You seriously think the federal government should have laws on the book preventing crimes between individuals like what you mention above? Is there anything then that it is prohibited from doing?
Apparently you do. In your world, if it is not explicitly laid out in the Constitution only then it is not a right. If the State of Washington decided that everyone that looks like you should be considered property, would you be fine with that?
Look, the Constitution does NOT enumerate all our rights; those not enumerated are left to the States or the People. But the Constitution DOES give the Federal Government the authority to uphold those rights of all. Meaning the Federal Government can protect my rights from being infringed by others, including States.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 13, 2009 09:31 PMI have never said that you do nto have a right just because the fed gov does not enforce the right.
Posted by: Lysander on February 14, 2009 07:47 AM@3 Medic/Vet - thanks for making a fool of yourself, yet again:
"Plus. Obama,your no lincoln."
Maybe Lincoln had no formal education, but he actually learned to use words, unlike the poor sap Medic/Vet. Try using the word you're - it will make you seem at least partially educated and it is a contraction of you are.
@4 Lysander: You are entitled to your opinion. However, most historians would vehemently disagree with you especially since you offer absolutely no evidence for your "educated" opinions. You must be a Professor of history then...where do you teach?
Posted by: correctnotright on February 15, 2009 10:20 AMTo re-iterate:
Some things that come to mind all though certainly not a complete list.
1. Very Corrupt. (look at his land deals and government contracts awarded to his friends in the railroad industry for starters).
2. Locked up politicians and journalists in the north and south that disagreed with his policies.
3. instituted the draft
4. instituted income tax
5. Disregard for civilians in war
6. Went to war resulting in 600K lives all to protect high tarifs and to force people to live under a government they did not desire (all things counter to what our country was founded on).
7. ignored supreme court decision
8. suspended writ of habeas corpus
When will any member of the "Saint Abraham of Springfield" crowd address these points?
Posted by: LameBill on February 16, 2009 07:29 PM