Why? Because he was a Republican?
>>he didn't give a lick about slavery
He was a racist, but he found slavery to be morally repugnant. He did not support abolition … because he thought it was unconstitutional.
>>he cared about a powerful central government.
As did the majority at the Convention in 1789 who drafted the Constitution. The anti-Federalists lost, and that view has continued losing.
I see ones support for a consolidated power, in this case the federal government, as a blatant attempt to force all people of a nation to conform to a single viewpoint and is in affect limiting my right to decide what is right for me and my family what my opinion differs from popular opinion.
Yes, this is the anti-Federalist argument. They were (more or less) brought in with the Bill of Rights.
ultimately, I side with consent of the governed.
So do I. We have elections, access to the courts, and the power to amend the Constitution.
>>If people want to divorce, we allow them to divorce.
US citizens residing in secessionist states were deprived of their constitutional rights when their state gubmints seceded. You go to court to get a divorce. You don't throw yer spouse out the door and then open fire on the police when they come to look into the matter. Not without serious consequences.
It could be that, or it could be people understanding history and knowing that the Executive Order only …
Yer saying that understanding would cause them oppose the action?
the war of northern aggression is still considered to be a black mark to many of us, just as slavery is.
I understand. But how do you justify the heavy firing on Fort Sumter? War could have been avoided.
That is better than shooting you!!
Someone else would likely beat you to it. Then you could yell at my grave.
the precedent of allowing people to govern themselves would not of been a bad thing.
I agree. That's why I support the Constitution and oppose armed insurrections aimed at depriving US citizens of their constitutional rights.
>>I'd bet that we would of unified long, long ago, and wouldn't of wrecked the constitution in the process.
I don't see it as "wrecked," and if you guys wanted unity, you either shouldn't have started shooting or at least called for negotiations before things really got started at Shiloh.
I personally see a better reason to wage war against socialists at home then fighting in wars overseas.
You plan on attacking the local Social Security office?
>>How does the U.S. survive the growing hatred we have for your way of doing things?
Accepting the results of elections and working within the system. Or you could engage in violent actions based on yer hatred and end up either dead or in a federal prison.
In-state undergraduate tuition used to be very affordable. I'd like to see a return to that.
>>Force people to bake cakes.
Hey! That sounds like a good idea. I'll bring it up at the next commie meeting. Hmm, I see from yer next post that you were just referring to "No wedding cakes for homos." I
still say the more cakes the better!
>>Just don't be surprised when I sit on my hands while I watch what you built burn to the ground
Don't be surprised when we get along just fine without you.
not as many as we used to have
Any examples?