The Gettysburg Address

[rob63]

The answer is simply this: they can and should for any reason or none.

If we all believe that the only true right to govern is derived from the consent of the governed then the consent of everyone is required.

You left off a caveat: "except for slaves, of course, their consent is not required."

I might give Southern secession more credence if everyone had been allowed to vote on it. Is it really the consent of the governed if only white males that own property are allowed to vote?

I have no issue with your arguing in favor of limited government and the consent of the governed, I applaud your persistence in doing so, but the CSA is a really lousy anchor to tie your boat to.

 

[poptab]

You left off a caveat: "except for slaves, of course, their consent is not required."

I might give Southern secession more credence if everyone had been allowed to vote on it. Is it really the consent of the governed if only white males that own property are allowed to vote?

I have no issue with your arguing in favor of limited government and the consent of the governed, I applaud your persistence in doing so, but the CSA is a really lousy anchor to tie your boat to.

As I have already said I would never support the csa. My only goal is point out the hypocrisy of the north. I'm not defending the csa at all.

It is funny though that you mention only white males were allowed to vote. The north allowed anyone else to vote? When the constitution was passed in the first place hardly anyone was able to vote for it. Only land owning white males.

 

[rob63]

As I have already said I would never support the csa. My only goal is point out the hypocrisy of the north. I'm not defending the csa at all.

It is funny though that you mention only white males were allowed to vote. The north allowed anyone else to vote? When the constitution was passed in the first place hardly anyone was able to vote for it. Only land owning white males.

No one has claimed otherwise, or claimed that the North or Lincoln was perfect.

I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of those that claim a speech that honors the men that died fighting against the CSA is a speech that honors tyranny and then want to claim that they are not defending the CSA. The Gettysburg Address and the CSA have something to do with each other even if you wish it were not so!

 

[rambone]

No one claims Lincoln was perfect, yet he's on our money, he's enshrined on monuments, and there's even a mountain carved in his likeness. Come on. lol

 

[rob63]

No one claims Lincoln was perfect, yet he's on our money, he's enshrined on monuments, and there's even a mountain carved in his likeness. Come on. lol

I've seen much worse monuments, both in subject matter and especially in execution.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

and there's even a mountain carved in his likeness.

Who? Your hero Bobby Lee?

We idealize Lincoln because he defeated the traitors and set men free.

That is why you hate him, because you hate freedom.

 

[poptab]

By set free you mean permanently set them free, free of thier mortal coil.

 

[Henry]

Who? Your hero Bobby Lee?

We idealize Lincoln because he defeated the traitors and set men free.

.

Lincoln set men free?

With what, his "emancipation proclamation"?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

With what, his "emancipation proclamation"?

With his Union Army.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

By set free you mean permanently set them free, free of thier mortal coil.

By free, free of your beloved slavery.

 

[jamil]

Lincoln set men free?

With what, his "emancipation proclamation"?

So no rebuttle for "defeated the traitors?"

I suppose you could narrow the definition of "free" so that anything short of anarchy is tyrany. Or are you saying that men owned slaves as property after Lincoln?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Or are you saying that men owned slaves as property after Lincoln?

The South tried to reimplement slavery. That's why INGO's beloved freedom fighters, the Klu Klux Klan, was formed.

Yeah, the Klan was all about "states' rights". The right of the state to oppress others.

Brave INGO freedom fighters. Oppressing others to strut about how righteous they are.

 

[level.eleven]

I suppose you could narrow the definition of "free" so that anything short of anarchy is tyrany.

You've nailed many discussions around these part.

 

[lj98]

You've nailed many discussions around these part.

+1. Apparently any and all government exists only to subvert people's freedom in the eyes of some. Anarchy in the USA I suppose.
I think I have it about figured out:
Federal Government: Always wrong, should either not exist or do nothing.
States: Do as little as possible except when in conflict with the feds.
City and other municipalities: See above.

 

[Colts]

Why is this recited at 4 of July celebrations?

It seems that winners write their own history and celebrate how they want, while losers have less say (except now we have the Internet).

 

[Henry]

So no rebuttle for "defeated the traitors?"

I suppose you could narrow the definition of "free" so that anything short of anarchy is tyrany. Or are you saying that men owned slaves as property after Lincoln?

They were anything but traitors.


They were exercising powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, and thus reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Regarding his emancipation proclamation, it should be noted that Union States where slavery was legal (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri) were excluded from the scope of Lincoln's proclamation as were other areas under Union control. (Apparently, Lincoln had no problem with slavery in the Union illustrating yet again the matter was about something other than slavery.) In fact, the proclamation only applied to States that were in the Confederacy where Lincoln had no authority given those States had exercised their power to withdraw from that authority.


While I am not saying that anything short of anarchy is tyranny, there is much evidence that supports Lincoln was indeed a tyrant who ignored the Constitution regularly and was more than willing to kill 600,000+ in order to implement his will of a union by force over a union of consent.

 

[Henry]

The South tried to reimplement slavery. That's why INGO's beloved freedom fighters, the Klu Klux Klan, was formed.

Yeah, the Klan was all about "states' rights". The right of the state to oppress others.

Brave INGO freedom fighters. Oppressing others to strut about how righteous they are.

I have yet to see where anybody is advocating slavey or the Ku Klux Klan. Yours is a rather lazy claim.

"Oppressing others to strut about how righteous they are", however, would certainly apply to Lincoln.

 

[poptab]

By free, free of your beloved slavery.

Hey at least my jibe was based in truth...

 

[MisterChester]

They were anything but traitors.

So if a group of people say "we secede from the US!" and fire the first shots, they aren't traitors?

 

[lj98]

They were exercising powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, and thus reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I would argue that the Constitution is quite clear on where that particular power lies.
The Constitution, and the conventions it established, required the assent of 2/3 of the states to ratify it. Arguably, in order to break that covenant, the agreement of 2/3 of the states was also necessary. The 7 states that ultimately formed the confederacy did not even equal to 1/3 the total number at the time.