It is said in some circles of philosophy that any person really only begins to decline when he abandons his principles.
It is also said that there are certain underlying principles which have to be maintained or freedom can't exist. You have the right to associate, which means for it to be a right, you also have to have the right to disassociate. What freedom could you possibly have if once you decided to join up with somebody for any noble purpose, when that purpose is abandoned, you can't sever the ties to them?
The fundamental principles of slavery are that you can't leave when you wish and the fruits of your labors are taken from you, against your will, for the benefit of someone else.
The United States was founded on the principle that the people's of the States could join or not, of their own free will. The Constitution did not have to be ratified because there were the guns and bayonets of General George Washington's army pointed at the people. The Framers of the Constitution debated exhaustively and formed a government which was voluntarily consented to and contributed to, by the People. It is the only time in human history that I'm currently aware of where this has happened.
In the 1860's several States decided to declare their own independence. Whether we agree with this decision or not is moot. They have the same right to leave or not leave the Union, based on their own integrity, as any wife has to leave any man whose marriage is no longer suitable to her. They have the same rights as any person who has ever left the partnership of a company. They have the same rights to leave as any individual or anybody who has ever left any friendship or employment. They have the same rights as anybody has ever had to leave any political movement with which they no longer agree.
Without that basic right, to sever the ties that bind you to any other person or group of people, freedom cannot exist. From the moment military force becomes involved you are chained by force to whatever they decide, no matter how disadvantageous it may be to your own existence.
I submit to you this basic principle: You cannot free slaves by enslaving the masters. This is not to be understood as my saying that I agree with the Confederate States having slaves. It was wrong for them too. It is also not to be taken as my support for any of the reasons for their succession.
Since the first shots were fired over Fort Sumter on April 12th, 1861, the United States has been held together by military force, thus violating its basic principle, freedom, which is the natural birthright of not only every American, but every living being on the planet. Right there, without another word, we have violated the first rule of the fundamental principle of slavery. Rightly or wrongly we, as States, cannot leave, under the potential threat of our own destruction.
Now what of the second principle of slavery? The fruits of our labors taken from us against our will for the benefit of someone else? The current (as of this writing) government of the United States sucks 3.8 trillion dollars out of the American economy per year and nobody seems able or willing to stop it. If you doubt for a second that that money is not taken by threat of force, try not paying sometime and see how quickly the nice men with guns show up at your door. I cannot pretend to be arrogant enough to decide for you if that is money you wish to give for causes which you support. In the recesses of your own mind I also hope you will consider that to the same degree that you disagree with the taking of your money, or the spending of it, you are in every meaningful respect, a slave to the federal government of the United States of America, not as it was founded but as it currently is.
We are held to comply, as citizens of States, to every unconstitutional edict proclaimed by the federal government by military force, whether we agree or not, whether it benefits us or hurts us. We are held to comply to every crappy and smarmy federal politician who can bribe or threaten, through the potential loss of our individual sustenance owed to the federal government of the United States, the votes of enough people to win their office in Washington DC. We are held by military force, used to deny us the right to decide that enough is enough, having our basic rights as human beings destroyed. We can no longer choose not to participate against our will. We exist as the People of States bound to a federal government run out of control because the best means of correcting the actions of the federal government and bringing it back within constitutional limits has been taken from us.
Here is the man we have to thank for it and we have only to do so because he abandoned his principles or never really believed them in the first place.
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." —ABRAHAM LINCOLN, JANUARY 12, 1848
I think that it was the ultimate spit in the face to the men who risked their lives by signing the Declaration of Independence for Lincoln to "preserve the Union" in the manner which he did. The men who wrote this: "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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..." would most certainly have disapproved. They would have done so because the manner in which the "preservation of the Union" was accomplished was at the expense of its primary fundamental concept.
It was not the action of a wise statesman but that of a brutal barbarian to use force to hold a voluntary association of States together. In doing so Abraham Lincoln cast himself as the same sort of character as King George III. Everything that Lincoln did to preserve the Union or free the slaves could have been accomplished by a wise statesman without the dreadful cost of war. Without that use of force in United States history any president or federal congressman would not have nearly as much power to annoy us as they currently have.
Therefore I very firmly believe that Abraham Lincoln was the worst president of the United States because the fundamental principle of the country was destroyed the instant he allowed combat to begin at Fort Sumter.
No comments:
Post a Comment