Posted by SM on 7/19/2001, 6:33 pm

With this type of thinking, no wonder the 10th amendment has been effectively quashed Posted by Gordy on 5/17/2001, 9:43 pm , in reply to "McCarthy, Lincoln, power abuse, measures taken in national emergencies and the big picture (Part 2)" It's lonely being on the side of State's Rights and as far as I can determine it is a lost cause. I find it amusing though when anyone advocates State's Rights they are immediatley labeled as pro-slavery. Lincoln was indeed a threat to our constitutional republic and Lincoln's "success" in destroying it is clearly evident. The slow road to death of our Republic began under his administration and we are now forever mired in an ever increasing evil socialist democracy that has effectively turned our land into one of "legalized" plunder. A very small percentage of the people in this country are pulling the wagon with the rest either just riding or worse, tearing the wheels off every chance they get. When the precious few work horses left are finally beaten down by being plundered into oblivion or despair, this country, as we know it, will utterly fall apart. The cause justifying the means is the only argument one can use in defense of Lincoln. I strongly question the assertion that the cause was "bringing freedom to all it's inhabitants". Freedom? Really? All that really happened with the slaves was to move the plantations from the South exclusively and spread them around the nation, heavily concentrated in the cities. The white liberal agenda has kept the black people in this country oppressed by keeping them dependent on the public treasury. I do find a small measure of hope in seeing some of the younger black leaders attempting to get their people to shed the shackles of white liberal dependency. I am skeptical of their success as the white liberals see this as a threat to their power base and will not relinquish it easily. In addition to keeping the blacks enslaved in poverty, the freedoms of every other group has been assaulted and diminshed greatly. This is a result of the rise of an ever more powerful central government that plunders and enslaves it's people with swarms of agents that eat out their substance. It's all "legal" of course and for "the greater good". The problem with accepting the lesser or two evils is that you still wind up with evil. One could argue it is less evil but nevertheless it is still evil. I don't hold the views I do as a result of sitting under Don's teachings. If anything, sitting under Don moderated my views and brought a new sense of hope, that being, my home isn't in this world. I thank my Lord daily for that freedom from despair no matter how disgusting this country/world becomes. Believe me, things are going to get worse before they get worse! Am I a cynic? No, just a realist finding and walking in the grace of God in the midst of a sick, perverted and dying world. To preempt a probable charge of being "one sided" I admit that I am. I am on the side of true freedom for all people. Lincoln effectively enslaved all of us under the guise of holding the nation together which of course was "for the greater good". Whether or not that was his conscious intent I cannot determine nor do I care to do so. His intent is not the issue today but the resulting destruction of our Constitutional Republic and the individual freedoms we once had certainly is. Gordy ---------- States rights relevant today Posted by Steve M on 5/20/2001, 9:38 am , in reply to "McCarthy, Lincoln, power abuse, measures taken in national emergencies and the big picture (Part 2)" Dear Bill, I'm afraid you missed the point - not surprising given your assumptions about my agenda. I titled the post in such a way that only those interested in the subject would read it. Please consider not clicking your mouse on posts you find irrelevant. My motive, believe it or not, was to engage in conversation with other interested persons. Oh, and surprise! - I do believe my own views and try to convince others. I appreciate Gordy's cogent articulation of the issue. We were both interested in these matters prior to our Chapel experiences. I wish you would give serious consideration to his arguments. A few points: ~If the Civil War was just about freeing the slaves, then it isn't relevant to us at the CC board. But for most participants, (some plantation owners excepted), the war was about states' rights. Example: Willis Cash (my great-great grandfather) and his brothers fought at the Battle of Pea Ridge (Ark.) because their land had been invaded by the Yankees. They had no slaves. Lincoln did not fight the war to free slaves, a fact you have alluded to - and one he explicitly stated. His purpose was to hold the Union together - by brute force, with no regard for law. ~Do you realize just how devastating the war was? Total dead for both sides ranged somewhere between 600,000 and 900,000. That is many times more than the total dead of all OUR OTHER WARS COMBINED, from a population a fraction of what it is today! Is that the way to free slaves? Ever heard of Wilberforce? The war completely destroyed the south, which was the stated purpose of the abolitionists. ~In light of the hundreds of thousands of lives lost, millions of maimed, millions of bereaved, and the total destruction of the south, how can we tritely say that Lincoln "held the country together". Especially when he ended Constitutional government in this country by doing so. Why couldn't the South have been allowed to secede? ~Do you understand what the suspension of habeas corpus means? It means you can be thrown in jail indefinitely with no charges being filed! But Lincoln did these things during a crisis! Yes, a crisis he created! He could have allowed the South to secede. He did not have to invade the South. He did not have to send reinforcements to Ft. Sumter after promising the South he wouldn't. This was an act of war. ~The relevance to today is: The circumvention of the Constitution so widespread today has its precedent in Lincoln's war of aggression against the South. Our enormous Federal government is comprised mostly of unconstitutional (i.e. not enumerated) agencies, departments, and bureaus. These were typically created as response to some "crisis". The real crisis is that we have government that is not bound by law. But we are so self absorbed that we don't care as long as we are comfortable and not being personally tyrannized. The Constitution was not written by arrogant, pretentious men. Therefore it is amendable. If there were really a need, for instance, for a Department of Education to spend billions enforcing brilliant ideas like "Outcome Based Education", the Constitution could have been amended. But that would require open debate. Airing both sides might result in the idea of limited, accountable government prevailing. Much easier for the NEA to pump $$$ into Carter's campaign and be rewarded with their own cabinet level department - to support a government school system in which students are unlikely to ever read the Constitution....resulting in a society where public servants take oaths to defend a Constitution they know nothing about.