Kakki wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
> > If what you say were true, I doubt that Republican President >Abraham
> Lincoln would have gone to war to preserve the >Union, and instead would
> have favored the rights of states >and their citizens to "live the life the
> way they choose."
>
> I see him as completely following Republican ideology by fighting to put an
> end to slavery once and for all. U.S. citizens were denying rights to fellow
> U.S. citizens in the South. The slaveowners' "rights" were illegal under
> U.S. law from the beginning.
No, modern-day Republicans believe in the importance of States' rights above
all, and that's a turnaround in philosophy from Lincoln's time. Then, the name
Republican literally came from the "Republic", meaning the entire country.
It used to bug me a lot when the followers of Reagan or Bush Sr. bragged about
being in the party of Lincoln. Same name, but completely different
philosophies. Reagan or Bush, if they're being "pure" Republicans, would never
step in and dictate to a State about anything, including ending slavery or
segregation. They would agree with the white Southerners that US law is
superseded by each State's laws.
States' rights versus the federal government is the main difference between the
ideologies of today's two main parties, and it plays itself out in many
different ways.
Debra Shea
