From: lhughes@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes)
Subject: Re: re-legalize drugs? (was Re: BUSH IS A NEO_NAZI! AND A LIAR)
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:31:01 GMT

In article <6203.2AD71F37@umagic.FIDONET.ORG>, Garth.Patterson@umagic.FIDONET.ORG (Garth Patterson) writes:
> Lincoln 'planning the death of freedom and individual liberty as we know 
> it, and quite litterally at cannon-point'??? Right!!

Indeed. If you really study the history of this period (and not the crap that
big government advocates feed to our public school kids these days, but a real
political history), you find that Lincoln did NUMEROUS things before the south
felt obligated to leave the union, ALL of which concentrated more political
power into the central FEDERAL government, at the expense of autonomy at the
STATE level. He felt strongly (and wrote several things to the effect) that
only a strong central federal government could force ALL of the people to do
things "for their own good" (how paternalistic). 

Before Lincoln, there was quite a variety of government styles to choose from,
with the south being the most laizze faire, and the north being the most 
autocratic/beauraucratic. If you didn't like the way things were run in *your*
state, you could always locate to one where things were more to your liking.

Before Lincoln, no one paid a great deal of attention to the Federal government,
other than as final arbiter for basic constitutional issues (supreme court),
diplomacy and some help with trade with other countries, and the general 
defense of the country *in times of war* (the notion of needing a large 
standing army at all times is a recent invention, and one quite abhorent to the
framers of the constitution - in quite specific terms). 

Before Lincoln, people said "the United States ARE...". Lincoln ramrodded 
through one thing after another to concentrate vast power into the federal 
government (he would have LOVED the monster we have today, and known exactly
how to use it to best effect).

After Lincoln, people said "the United States IS...." (which is just as wrong
gramtically as it is morally/ethically/politically). Ever since then, the
strong federal government has used numerous ploys (like withholding hiway
funds) to force the states to have uniform laws and regulations, often not to
the liking of MOST of the states - only to our new masters, the federal govt.

The southern states were the least inclined to go along with this radical new
direction, and finally withdrew from the union rather than relinquish state 
level autonomy. The CSA was a model of laizze faire non-centrist government. 
Alas, there was a powerful well armed and more industrialized agressor to the 
north that immediately delcared war on that new republic, and employed hideous
new tactics against entire civilian populations, such as Sherman's march to 
the sea (including the rape and genocide of Atlanta) not to be outdone until 
World War I. During "reconstruction", the south was made to pay heavily (many 
penalties only timed out in 1965 - REALLY!) and was occupied and abused like 
few other defeated countries have ever been (at least by the U.S.) Now, of 
course, when we defeat a country (militarily, as in the case of Germany and 
Japan, or politically, as in the case of the USSR), we immediately start 
sending massive aid and help them rebuild their economy... not so with the 
south. Ever hear of "carpet baggers"?

> Perhaps the freedom to own human beings as slaves is the freedom that 
> the south so dearly fought for is what you refer to.

Slavery was never anything more than a "bloody shirt" to wave and inflame the
ignorant masses, and make the south appear to be inhuman and vile. Similar
tactics were used to inflame the allies about the "inhuman" "jerries" and
"japs". Only difference is, we have dropped most of the propaganda distortions
from that war, and we haven't about the civil war. Slavery as an institution
was over and done with before the first shot was fired, by a much more powerful
weapon than anything employed by the northern army - technology - in the form
of the cotton gin. It was no longer economical to own slaves after that. The
blacks should revere Eli Whitney as their liberator, not Lincoln. Thanks to
him, we are now all equal, we are ALL slaves - only to the cruelest possible
master, an authoritarian centrist government.

> If so then I know 
> *I* would be proud to have Lincoln as my ancestor if it were true.

It is - my father's mother was a Lincoln (yes, Abe's branch of the family).

>  I think you've been reading too much of Margaret Mitchell's 'Gone with 
> the Wind' as official Civil War history.

Nope - that played up the south rebelling against the "repeal of slavery"
far too much - the real issue, and one worth leaving a newly centrist and
agressive, big-government union for, was "state's rights". 

>     Garth
> 
>  = Micro Magic, 830-2362,  Alabama's Usenet/Fidonet gateway.
>  = Reply-To:  Garth.Patterson@umagic.FIDONET.ORG

Larry "you don't really BELIEVE the stuff they fed you in school, do you?" Hughes
Newsgroups: hsv.general