Abraham Lincoln on trial

[konradv]

Let me guess, what I wrote about Lincoln was not in the movie.

Shocking!!
...

What you wrote about Lincoln wasn't even in history.

You summed up your OP with the worthless tiddlebit of the Corwin Amendment and
"...but why then was the South so determined to leave the union, especially in light of the fact that they apparently did not need to end slavery as a price for staying in the union?"

altogether missing the fact most of the states had already seceded by the time it passed Congress.

Timelines. Facts. They matter.

Not when you're pushing an agenda. Libertarians are like Marxists that way.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The movie is pure brainwashing bull shit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It would have died eventually.

1940 maybe? 1960?

Well before that, by the 1890s at least, given the advent of new economic models and technical developments related to industrialization. By that time the ‘slave’ would be obsolete and not economically feasible.

I'll add that to this day there are migrant farm workers who come here in droves to harvest certain crops by hand.

Mechanization and technical developments hasn't eliminated their workforce.

Correct, as that would likely contribute to the end of slavery toward the end of the 19th Century, where slaves not displaced by advancements in technology would become itinerate/migrant farm workers, as single plantations alone would no longer need or be able to sustain a large, permanent ‘workforce.’

 

[Contumacious]

Let me guess, what I wrote about Lincoln was not in the movie.

Shocking!!
...

What you wrote about Lincoln wasn't even in history.

You summed up your OP with the worthless tiddlebit of the Corwin Amendment and
"...but why then was the South so determined to leave the union, especially in light of the fact that they apparently did not need to end slavery as a price for staying in the union?"

altogether missing the fact most of the states had already seceded by the time it passed Congress.

Timelines. Facts. They matter.

Not when you're pushing an agenda. Libertarians are like Marxists that way.

HUH?

We have NOTHING in common with the Marxists.

.

 

[Votto]

Let me guess, what I wrote about Lincoln was not in the movie.

Shocking!!
...

What you wrote about Lincoln wasn't even in history.

You summed up your OP with the worthless tiddlebit of the Corwin Amendment and
"...but why then was the South so determined to leave the union, especially in light of the fact that they apparently did not need to end slavery as a price for staying in the union?"

altogether missing the fact most of the states had already seceded by the time it passed Congress.

Timelines. Facts. They matter.

They could have rejoined the union if they so chose. The bottom line is that slavery was not enough of an issue for the North to go to war, but seceding was.

As far as history, you may not agree with Taney, but it is history nonetheless. I'm reminded of a quote from Hermann Goring "The victor will always be the judge, and the vanquished the accused."

What can I say, might makes right.

 

[Votto]

Votto, you are disgusting to believe preservation of the Union, the end of slavery, the overthrow of fascism and militarism, the fight against the Great Depression, the rise of the greatest middle class in history ~ you are disgusting to disregard or by silent inference seem to believe all of this is worthless.

I am disgusting for questioning whether sending over 600.000 men to their deaths, brother against brother, was really necessary? Do you really think that slavery would have lasted that long had the been able to leave the Union?

And speaking of fascism, why is the term used only to describe those on the right? For me the term should be collectivist, for it is the collectivist who seeks to force everyone to do their bidding. I oppose this in any form, how about you?

And an overthrow of militarism? So what country has troops stationed in over 70 countries around the world? I'll give you a hint, they just got done kicking Libya into the ground. I think you will find that collectivists cannot help themselves when it comes to throwing their military might around the world. For you see, they become so powerul and meddlesome that they have to have a say in pretty much everything that goes on in the world.

 

[paperview]

Let me guess, what I wrote about Lincoln was not in the movie.

Shocking!!
...

What you wrote about Lincoln wasn't even in history.

You summed up your OP with the worthless tiddlebit of the Corwin Amendment and
"...but why then was the South so determined to leave the union, especially in light of the fact that they apparently did not need to end slavery as a price for staying in the union?"

altogether missing the fact most of the states had already seceded by the time it passed Congress.

Timelines. Facts. They matter.

They could have rejoined the union if they so chose.
....

Not bloody likely, as they had already commenced hostilities.

They were bound and determined to go to war and nothing was going to stop them.

Cocksure, undermanned, underarmed, lacking infrastructure and integrity for an honorable cause, the confederacy died, as Jeff Davis said, of a theory.

 

[paperview]

As far as history, you may not agree with Taney, but it is history nonetheless. ...

Do you agree with Taney?

How about when he expressed this view:

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney stated:

"The South contends that a state has a constitutional right to secede from the Union formed with her sister states. In this I submit the South errs. No power or right is constitutional but what can be exercised in a form or mode provided in the constitution for its exercise. Secession is therefore not constitutional, but revolutionary; and is only morally competent, like war, upon failure of justice."

Taney's views as to the constitutionality of secession were expressed in an untitled, eight-page memorandum in his own handwriting that was donated to the Library of Congress in 1929. This memorandum has been labeled (apparently by a library archivist) "Fragment of a Manuscript Relating to Slavery in the United States," RBTP-LC. Although the memorandum is undated, internal evidence indicates that it was written between January 26 and February 1, 1861. It was Taney's practice during the war to set forth his views on controversial constitutional issues for possible use in Supreme Court opinions, if and when those issues should come before the Court. For description and discussion of this memorandum, see Fehrenbacher, Dred Scott Case, 554-555, 7IIn.5.

Source: Lincoln & The Court, by Brian McGinty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your babbling does not address the solid points I gave below.

The South started the war and inherited its guilt of death and destruction.

Your opinions of collectivism mean nothing in this OP.

As long as 90% of southern capital was involved directly and indirectly in cotton, then, yes, slavery was staying around until someone figured out how to mechanize planting, care, and harvesting.

You suggest the problem was "collectivism"? That cannot even be defend poorly.

But try.

Votto, you are disgusting to believe preservation of the Union, the end of slavery, the overthrow of fascism and militarism, the fight against the Great Depression, the rise of the greatest middle class in history ~ you are disgusting to disregard or by silent inference seem to believe all of this is worthless.

I am disgusting for questioning whether sending over 600.000 men to their deaths, brother against brother, was really necessary? Do you really think that slavery would have lasted that long had the been able to leave the Union?

And speaking of fascism, why is the term used only to describe those on the right? For me the term should be collectivist, for it is the collectivist who seeks to force everyone to do their bidding. I oppose this in any form, how about you?

And an overthrow of militarism? So what country has troops stationed in over 70 countries around the world? I'll give you a hint, they just got done kicking Libya into the ground. I think you will find that collectivists cannot help themselves when it comes to throwing their military might around the world. For you see, they become so powerul and meddlesome that they have to have a say in pretty much everything that goes on in the world.

 

[bripat9643]

John Hay, the second secretary to Lincoln and later Secretary of State, said somewhere that secession was legal until Lincoln decided it was not.

That is sufficient.

Yep, that's all it takes to pacify boot licking toadies like you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If these sillies are the examples of every day libertarians, then America is no danger of them ever influencing anything; quite to the contrary, they give us grins and chuckles every time they post.

 

[bripat9643]

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was bitterly contested: all the Southern state legislatures, with the exception of Tennessee, refused to ratify the amendment. This refusal led to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. Ignoring the existing state governments, military government was imposed until new civil governments were established and the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.[54]

In other words, Fakey, the legitimate governments of these states rejected the Amendment, so the federal government abolished their legislatures and replaced them with puppet government.

Only a brain damaged douche nozzle like you would consider that legitimate.

Arkansas (April 6, 1868, after having rejected it on December 17, 1866)
Florida (June 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 6, 1866)
North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)

bripat, you are stupid in that your stupidity is emotional: you can learn but refuse to, the worst sort of stupidity. You are a prisoner of yourself.

You're actually correct. The 13th amendment appears to have been ratified by the states. That is, if you can deem a state under military occupation to have a legitimate election.

However, in 1866 Congress passed the reconstruction act that disenfranchised the Confederate states, so the 14th Amendment was only ratified by the Northern states.

True, but- to be fair- BritPat's argument that the ratification of the 13th Amendment was invalid because Southern States hadn't agreed to them is sort of silly. In fact, most of them did, fairly quickly after the war was over.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your argument fails. The legal government of the USA accepted those five states' ratification, which means that said ratifications were legal. Thus, you and wiki are wrong. A step further: you said no states in the South ratified the amendment without any further comment. So you want to move the goal posts as well.

Fail on your part. Again. As always.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was bitterly contested: all the Southern state legislatures, with the exception of Tennessee, refused to ratify the amendment. This refusal led to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. Ignoring the existing state governments, military government was imposed until new civil governments were established and the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.[54]

In other words, Fakey, the legitimate governments of these states rejected the Amendment, so the federal government abolished their legislatures and replaced them with puppet government.

Only a brain damaged douche nozzle like you would consider that legitimate.

Arkansas (April 6, 1868, after having rejected it on December 17, 1866)
Florida (June 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 6, 1866)
North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)

bripat, you are stupid in that your stupidity is emotional: you can learn but refuse to, the worst sort of stupidity. You are a prisoner of yourself.

You're actually correct. The 13th amendment appears to have been ratified by the states. That is, if you can deem a state under military occupation to have a legitimate election.

However, in 1866 Congress passed the reconstruction act that disenfranchised the Confederate states, so the 14th Amendment was only ratified by the Northern states.

 

[Votto]

If these sillies are the examples of every day libertarians, then America is no danger of them ever influencing anything; quite to the contrary, they give us grins and chuckles every time they post.

At least we don't send over 600,000 men to their deaths just for the sake of controlling their fellow citizens.

I don't really ever anticipate challenging the powers that be. After all, libertarianism is about freedom and equality. Political power, however, is defined by dividing and conquering and picking winners and losers. All I'm trying to do is get people to reconsider what they have blindly embraced.

 

[del]

Ditto.

I agree, also. Most of us are bottom posters, but we do have a few top posters that can make things confusing. Most people read top to bottom, so going the other way is counter-intuitive and switching back and forth gets really crazy. Can't force anyone to do anything, but it would clear up some continuity issues, if we all did it the same way.

I think the government should regulate this kind of posting.

Just say'in.

not so far

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. Whatever Congress does passes Constitutional muster, as far as your concerned.

You just admitted you're a goose stepping moron who doesn't give a damn about the Constitution.

Your argument fails. The legal government of the USA accepted those five states' ratification, which means that said ratifications were legal. Thus, you and wiki are wrong. A step further: you said no states in the South ratified the amendment without any further comment. So you want to move the goal posts as well.

Fail on your part. Again. As always.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was bitterly contested: all the Southern state legislatures, with the exception of Tennessee, refused to ratify the amendment. This refusal led to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. Ignoring the existing state governments, military government was imposed until new civil governments were established and the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.[54]

In other words, Fakey, the legitimate governments of these states rejected the Amendment, so the federal government abolished their legislatures and replaced them with puppet government.

Only a brain damaged douche nozzle like you would consider that legitimate.

Arkansas (April 6, 1868, after having rejected it on December 17, 1866)
Florida (June 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 6, 1866)
North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)

bripat, you are stupid in that your stupidity is emotional: you can learn but refuse to, the worst sort of stupidity. You are a prisoner of yourself.

 

[Contumacious]

Votto, you are disgusting to believe preservation of the Union, the end of slavery, the overthrow of fascism and militarism, the fight against the Great Depression, the rise of the greatest middle class in history ~ you are disgusting to disregard or by silent inference seem to believe all of this is worthless.

Comrade Starkiev, you are disgusting for posting under the influence of Vodka and Orwellian doubletalk..

.... the overthrow of fascism and militarism, the fight against the Great Depression, .....WTF.....

.

 

[konradv]

If these sillies are the examples of every day libertarians, then America is no danger of them ever influencing anything; quite to the contrary, they give us grins and chuckles every time they post.

At least we don't send over 600,000 men to their deaths just for the sake of controlling their fellow citizens.

I don't really ever anticipate challenging the powers that be. After all, libertarianism is about freedom and equality. Political power, however, is defined by dividing and conquering and picking winners and losers. All I'm trying to do is get people to reconsider what they have blindly embraced.

The devil is in the details. Marxism was about liberty and equality, too. See how that turned out! Don't fall for "isms". The history of the 20th century should be warning enough.

 

[JakeStarkey]

An Appeal to Authority?

But you are no constitutional authority. Dismissed.

In other words, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says. Whatever Congress does passes Constitutional muster, as far as your concerned.

You just admitted you're a goose stepping moron who doesn't give a damn about the Constitution.

Your argument fails. The legal government of the USA accepted those five states' ratification, which means that said ratifications were legal. Thus, you and wiki are wrong. A step further: you said no states in the South ratified the amendment without any further comment. So you want to move the goal posts as well.

Fail on your part. Again. As always.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In other words, Fakey, the legitimate governments of these states rejected the Amendment, so the federal government abolished their legislatures and replaced them with puppet government.

Only a brain damaged douche nozzle like you would consider that legitimate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarianism about the Strong making the Weak scream.

If these sillies are the examples of every day libertarians, then America is no danger of them ever influencing anything; quite to the contrary, they give us grins and chuckles every time they post.

At least we don't send over 600,000 men to their deaths just for the sake of controlling their fellow citizens.

I don't really ever anticipate challenging the powers that be. After all, libertarianism is about freedom and equality. Political power, however, is defined by dividing and conquering and picking winners and losers. All I'm trying to do is get people to reconsider what they have blindly embraced.