Friday, August 26, 2011
Some summarised thoughts on Abraham Lincoln's legacy
A Christian brother and I were chatting about Ron Paul and some Paul-ites' tendency to talk about Abraham Lincoln and how he was not a very good President.
This brother expressed some reservations over this, considers Lincoln to be a good president because his actions led to the end of slavery in America, and is glad the Union won the War Between the States.
Here are some of my thoughts on this:
I was referring more to Lincoln's wanton invasion of a sovereign country, which was unjust and unconstitutional.
In doing so, he was the main cause behind a conflict that cost $billions and was responsible for more than 1 million American dead.
His stated motivations were the preservation of the Union, which he had no right to do, not ending slavery. I'd argue that 1 million dead and half the country wrecked would not be sufficient justification for ending slavery. Especially since the institution would have eventually come to an end anyway.
Slavery is quite bad, but unjust war and 1 million dead is worse.
That's all I was saying. It's not really about slavery at all, but rather about the President deciding to forcefully re-annex territory lost because they felt unjustly treated and thus voted their consciences. He grossly violated the democratic process by beating the South into submission because they did something he disagreed with - removing themselves from a Union that wasn't agreeable to them anymore.
It's really a shame that it's nearly impossible to educate anyone in America about this without them screaming "racissss!!!!!"
I myself learned to love Lincoln b/c I was force-fed "Lincoln was a hero" in my pubblyk skrewel, and only later in life did I actually critically analyse the issue.
But I certainly plan on making sure my children learn the truth about this part of history. OTOH I see what you're saying about it reducing a candidate's electability. The American electorate is largely a bunch of unregenerate fools, and it certainly shows in not only who gets elected but who the candidates always are - nincompoops, wimps, and globalists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The problem with secession was that it was advanced by right of law. That is to say, secession was conceived and executed as if it were a legal right with a foundation in the positive law of the United States Constitution, when, in fact, no such right is provided for (nor would it indeed even be conceivable) under the framework of that document. There is no legal right to secede from the Union. There is only a revolutionary right to secede. Whenever a government becomes destructive of the ends for which governments are instituted among men, it becomes the right of the people to alter or abolish it. This is not a legal right. It is a natural right. It is the right of revolution.
The problem for the South was that it could not assert a right to revolution. Southerners believed the federal government was becoming a threat to their right to hold property. This is a fundamental right, and if the federal government were guilty of the charge then the right of revolution would apply -- except that the only form of property ownership the federal government was supposedly threatening was the right to own slaves. The Southerners had the good sense to know that any appeal to the right of revolution would find no sympathy in heaven or on earth. It would be a rejection of one alleged tyranny for the purpose of perpetuating the same in a more clear and present form. They had to make an appeal to positive law, and Lincoln saw (as had Buchanan before him) that no such right could be found in positive law.
The right to secede is as constitutional as the right to abortion.
President Lincoln did not invade a sovereign country. He reestablished the administrative authority of the United States over sections of the nation that were unconstitutionally rebelling against the authority he had received from the Constitution. That he had the wisdom to read the Constitution correctly, and the courage to enforce it, make him a truly great president.
Though I like Ron Paul in many respects, what would he do in the event that Vermont decided to secede... or Massachusetts... or California?
There is no legal right to secede from the Union. There is only a revolutionary right to secede.
Is there a law against secession?
I guess more specifically we'd have to know if there was one at that time. :-)
The right to secede is as constitutional as the right to abortion.
Hmm... yeah, I guess that's true. Ie, neither of them are found in the Constitution.
Would it be valid to argue that the Constitution assumes that abortion is not justifiable, though (in that it grants rights to citizens), whereas it is just straight-up silent on the matter of secession?
what would he do in the event that Vermont decided to secede... or Massachusetts... or California?
Don't know.
I'd be inclined to let those states go. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
But what if it were Missouri or something? That'd be harder.
Post a Comment