Quoted:
Quoted: Is it watered down "Social Studies" that leads kids to believe that ABe Lincoln was one of the greatest President's???
He did acknowledge that is the printing of money by anyone but Congress would lead us into collapse but he also said if any congress person speak out against a war that the government was waging, he was a traitor...
So, in your opinion, was Abraham a good president or just another Federalist who opposed states rights? |
One of the greats...
'States Rights' is a fallacy from the get go... States are not people, they do not have rights... They have certain powers, but they are also denied other powers by the Constitution... |
Generally, you're right. From a position of modern political philosophy (and theory), you're also right.
Generally (and philosophically, and theoretically), states [in the generic] have powers, and people have rights. Thus, the concept of "states' rights" certainly seems like an oxymoron......
It would probably be more correct to say "states' powers," but that is simply not the language/terminology that is in vogue:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Since we operate fundamentally under the concept of popular sovereignty, it is a matter of course that all power originates in the people, and is
then delegated to either the federal government (the "United States"), or to the many states.
Thus what *follows* is a case of [limited, secondary] dual sovereignty.
The FedGov and the many state govs have power only because "We, The People" say they do (or "can").
But going back to the language of the Tenth Amendment......
While it would probably/possibly/perhaps be *more* correct to say that "the [many] States" and "the people" hold a bundle of powers against the Federal Government, the fact that the Tenth Amendment is nestled comfortably within the bounds of the Bill of
Rights leads many to consider the "reservation of powers" to be, essentially, a "right".
The Feds, OTOH, are explicitly given the Constitutional authority to suppress insurrection by military force... Which is exactly what Pres L. did.... |
Remind me again of the part where the South tried to take over the entire geographic holdings of the United States.....
Or was it just a separatist movement/conflict?
And federalisim is what this country is about - the Constitution is very clear on the subject... |
Remind me again of where the Constitution is "very clear" on the subject.....
Confederacy failed the first time we tried it, too... |
Agreed. Although I disagree that "we" ever tried it a second time, if that is in fact what you're alluding to.
That the South became upset & decided to leave simply because they lost a free & fair election indicates the 'wrong' nature of their cause from the beginning.... |
I think a little something about the "consent of the governed" might be an objection to that.
Linclon saved the union from fragmentation, and had the guts to do what needed to be done - no matter how painful... |
While you may very well be right, you'll forgive me if I'm not so quick to genuflect at the altar......
The Constitution would have been effectively moot, and the rights of all citizens neutralized, if the Southern way had been tolerated... |
Are you referring to toleration of their very existence as an independent nation? Much like how our present toleration of Canada and Mexico make the Constitution moot?
It should also be noted that Southern attempts to portray the man as a vindictive monster are 100% contrary to history - Linclon OPPOSED the concept of radical (vindictive) reconstruction, and things would have gone MUCH better for the South (And the nation as a whole) if he had been allowed to preside over the re-integration of the South rather than having his lame-duck VP do it, followed by US Grant (one of our most corrupt Presidents ever)).... |
I completely and wholeheartedly agree......