Abraham Lincoln on trial

[Votto]

Lincoln is one of the recognized best, and I'd put him in the top five. He had tough decisions to make, and he made them by the book. To wage war you need to do three things. The first is a clear goal, preserving the union. The second is to have a moral cause to rally the people, outlawing slavery. The last is to have the constitution to carry out the war to the very end, which cost him his life. Was he right back then? I believe he was, preservation of the union has proven to have been the correct descision. Should he have done everything else he did? Yep, it takes the percieved good and bad of his actions to come to the conclusion he wanted.

As for secession, we already have that. If you don't want to live in the state you live in for whatever reason, you have the freedom to leave that state. Same with the country if you don't like it, feel free to leave. What you can't do is make your neighbor leave with you.

Lincoln did what he had to do. It was a time for strong leadership and Lincoln stepped up. Lincoln seems to be the only one who understood the political big picture.

So had Lincoln made slavery in the South Constitutional, then he would have been justified in "doing what he had to do" in order to preserve the union?

 

[JoeB131]

I'll never forget the time when I learned the truth about Lincoln. Until then I had believed what I was taught in school about him. It's revisionist history and something, sadly, that we'll see a whole lot more of today and going forward.

I think you will find that those presidents who have usurped the most power from states and who have centralized government to its fullest capacity are the ones most praised in the educational system. Just google "greatest presidents" and there you will find Lincoln and FDR as the greatest. Of course, we can't ignore the first president in Washington, this they do begrudgingly.

This is what your real complaint is, isn't it? That they created a stronger national government.

So why all the smoke and mirrors about caring about the poor plantation owners.

 

[Votto]

[


Would you have supported Lincoln to make slavery constitutional just to preserve the union?

I think everyone knew Slavery was on the way out... So making a few temporary deals to win the war was worth it.

Case in point. Had Missouri, Maryland and Tennesee joined the Confederacy, the North might have lost. But political sentiment was against secession in those states. Lincoln played that one pretty well.

And at the end of the day, the 13th Amendment was passed, which oulawed slavery in all those states.

So in your estimation making a Constitutional amendment is a "temporary" fix?

 

[Dick Tuck]

As for today, the question is still being asked. Is it illegal to secede? If so, bring your best arugments to defend your position. More importantly, however, if it is illegal then should SCOTUS not be included on determing the Constitutionality of such an act?

Secession really wasn't the issue of what caused the Civil War. It was the Confederacy who decided to fire on the United States, at Fort Sumter. You are aware that South Carolina ceded all Fort Sumter property to the United States in 1814, in perpetuity. No, it was the Confederacy who knew their secession wouldn't hold unless they started a war.

To the contrary, secession was allowed to stand in West Virginia.

I hate revisionism.

 

[Votto]

I'll never forget the time when I learned the truth about Lincoln. Until then I had believed what I was taught in school about him. It's revisionist history and something, sadly, that we'll see a whole lot more of today and going forward.

I think you will find that those presidents who have usurped the most power from states and who have centralized government to its fullest capacity are the ones most praised in the educational system. Just google "greatest presidents" and there you will find Lincoln and FDR as the greatest. Of course, we can't ignore the first president in Washington, this they do begrudgingly.

This is what your real complaint is, isn't it? That they created a stronger national government.

So why all the smoke and mirrors about caring about the poor plantation owners.

Why give criminals the time of day? Why not just hang them all on the spot? In fact, why not just round up terrorists and let them rot without due process.......oh wait......

 

[JoeB131]

[


Would you have supported Lincoln to make slavery constitutional just to preserve the union?

I think everyone knew Slavery was on the way out... So making a few temporary deals to win the war was worth it.

Case in point. Had Missouri, Maryland and Tennesee joined the Confederacy, the North might have lost. But political sentiment was against secession in those states. Lincoln played that one pretty well.

And at the end of the day, the 13th Amendment was passed, which oulawed slavery in all those states.

So in your estimation making a Constitutional amendment is a "temporary" fix?

Absolutely.

Take the 18th Amendment. Put in there to finally get the prohibitionists to shut the fuck up. And it took about a decade to realize what a stupid idea that was and repeal it.

 

[JoeB131]

I think you will find that those presidents who have usurped the most power from states and who have centralized government to its fullest capacity are the ones most praised in the educational system. Just google "greatest presidents" and there you will find Lincoln and FDR as the greatest. Of course, we can't ignore the first president in Washington, this they do begrudgingly.

This is what your real complaint is, isn't it? That they created a stronger national government.

So why all the smoke and mirrors about caring about the poor plantation owners.

Why give criminals the time of day? Why not just hang them all on the spot? In fact, why not just round up terrorists and let them rot without due process.......oh wait......

A sign you are losing an argument- trying to change the subject...

 

[rightwinger]

I'll never forget the time when I learned the truth about Lincoln. Until then I had believed what I was taught in school about him. It's revisionist history and something, sadly, that we'll see a whole lot more of today and going forward.

I think you will find that those presidents who have usurped the most power from states and who have centralized government to its fullest capacity are the ones most praised in the educational system. Just google "greatest presidents" and there you will find Lincoln and FDR as the greatest. Of course, we can't ignore the first president in Washington, this they do begrudgingly.

Moving to a centralized government is what made the US a superpower

 

[rightwinger]

Lincoln is one of the recognized best, and I'd put him in the top five. He had tough decisions to make, and he made them by the book. To wage war you need to do three things. The first is a clear goal, preserving the union. The second is to have a moral cause to rally the people, outlawing slavery. The last is to have the constitution to carry out the war to the very end, which cost him his life. Was he right back then? I believe he was, preservation of the union has proven to have been the correct descision. Should he have done everything else he did? Yep, it takes the percieved good and bad of his actions to come to the conclusion he wanted.

As for secession, we already have that. If you don't want to live in the state you live in for whatever reason, you have the freedom to leave that state. Same with the country if you don't like it, feel free to leave. What you can't do is make your neighbor leave with you.

Lincoln did what he had to do. It was a time for strong leadership and Lincoln stepped up. Lincoln seems to be the only one who understood the political big picture.

So had Lincoln made slavery in the South Constitutional, then he would have been justified in "doing what he had to do" in order to preserve the union?

He would have compartmentalized slavery and kept it from expanding. Lincoln was willing to do what he had to do to preserve the union.
Once the south seceded.....he proved that

 

[spectrumc01]

Lincoln is one of the recognized best, and I'd put him in the top five. He had tough decisions to make, and he made them by the book. To wage war you need to do three things. The first is a clear goal, preserving the union. The second is to have a moral cause to rally the people, outlawing slavery. The last is to have the constitution to carry out the war to the very end, which cost him his life. Was he right back then? I believe he was, preservation of the union has proven to have been the correct descision. Should he have done everything else he did? Yep, it takes the percieved good and bad of his actions to come to the conclusion he wanted.

As for secession, we already have that. If you don't want to live in the state you live in for whatever reason, you have the freedom to leave that state. Same with the country if you don't like it, feel free to leave. What you can't do is make your neighbor leave with you.

Lincoln did what he had to do. It was a time for strong leadership and Lincoln stepped up. Lincoln seems to be the only one who understood the political big picture.

QUOTE]

Do you understand what it takes to wage war? Having a moral cause is such a huge advantage when waging one. What better moral cause than slavery? An institution that is economically unviable, and morally unpopular is an easy target. Anything could have worked, i.e. gay mariage, abortion. Making slavery constitutional would not have accomplished Lincolns goal of preserving the union. Therefore your supposition of "So had Lincoln made slavery in the South Constitutional, then he would have been justified in "doing what he had to do" in order to preserve the union?" is moot.

 

[Contumacious]

I'll never forget the time when I learned the truth about Lincoln. Until then I had believed what I was taught in school about him. It's revisionist history and something, sadly, that we'll see a whole lot more of today and going forward.

I think you will find that those presidents who have usurped the most power from states and who have centralized government to its fullest capacity are the ones most praised in the educational system. Just google "greatest presidents" and there you will find Lincoln and FDR as the greatest. Of course, we can't ignore the first president in Washington, this they do begrudgingly.

Moving to a centralized government is what made the US a superpower

Yep. That worked for the former USSR.

Making the central government powerful is great.

They are able to invade a religious compound in Waco and get away with murder because 'rightwinger" and his ilk are willing to look the other way because they are a parasitic tax consumers.

.

 

[Votto]

As for today, the question is still being asked. Is it illegal to secede? If so, bring your best arugments to defend your position. More importantly, however, if it is illegal then should SCOTUS not be included on determing the Constitutionality of such an act?

Secession really wasn't the issue of what caused the Civil War. It was the Confederacy who decided to fire on the United States, at Fort Sumter. You are aware that South Carolina ceded all Fort Sumter property to the United States in 1814, in perpetuity. No, it was the Confederacy who knew their secession wouldn't hold unless they started a war.

To the contrary, secession was allowed to stand in West Virginia.

I hate revisionism.

Lincoln personally ordered a Union fleet to relieve and reinforce Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston harbor and other nearby forts -- but to do so by having a lead vessel merely supply food to hungry soldiers at Fort Sumpter. Jefferson Davis saw the act as the Union fleet invading Confederate waters and amounted to a declaration of war.

This kind of reminds me of LBJ tying to pick a fight with Vietnam off the coast of Vietnam.

 

[Old Rocks]

The wingnuts just lost an election. So, the people that were castigating the liberals as unpatriotic during the campaign, are now stating that they wish to destroy the USA. I guess we can clearly see how deep their patriotism runs.

 

[spectrumc01]

The wingnuts just lost an election. So, the people that were castigating the liberals as unpatriotic during the campaign, are now stating that they wish to destroy the USA. I guess we can clearly see how deep their patriotism runs.

Extreme righties are like that. Like a child, if they can't have it no one can, and so they try to break it....come to think about the extreme left is just like that too.

 

[Contumacious]

The wingnuts just lost an election. So, the people that were castigating the liberals as unpatriotic during the campaign, are now stating that they wish to destroy the USA. I guess we can clearly see how deep their patriotism runs.

The fucktards just "won" an election which will economically decimate the USA. I guess we can clearly see that government "education" has failed miserably.

.

 

[paperview]

As for today, the question is still being asked. Is it illegal to secede? If so, bring your best arugments to defend your position. More importantly, however, if it is illegal then should SCOTUS not be included on determing the Constitutionality of such an act?

Secession really wasn't the issue of what caused the Civil War. It was the Confederacy who decided to fire on the United States, at Fort Sumter. You are aware that South Carolina ceded all Fort Sumter property to the United States in 1814, in perpetuity. No, it was the Confederacy who knew their secession wouldn't hold unless they started a war.

To the contrary, secession was allowed to stand in West Virginia.

I hate revisionism.

Lincoln personally ordered a Union fleet to relieve and reinforce Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston harbor and other nearby forts -- but to do so by having a lead vessel merely supply food to hungry soldiers at Fort Sumpter. Jefferson Davis saw the act as the Union fleet invading Confederate waters and amounted to a declaration of war.

This kind of reminds me of LBJ tying to pick a fight with Vietnam off the coast of Vietnam.

The first shots were fired by the rebels before Lincoln was even sworn in as President.

 

[Votto]

I'll never forget the time when I learned the truth about Lincoln. Until then I had believed what I was taught in school about him. It's revisionist history and something, sadly, that we'll see a whole lot more of today and going forward.

This is what your real complaint is, isn't it? That they created a stronger national government.

So why all the smoke and mirrors about caring about the poor plantation owners.

My complaint is the willingness of progressives to violate the rule of law, all in the name of preserving federal power or making it stronger. As I said, they were also willing to violate natural law by allowing slavery to become Constitutional. Many here seem to scoff at the notion as merely buying time. Perhaps they bought into the notion as merely buying time. Perhaps they thought Lincoln an expert on such deception and could easily revoke the amendemnt later on.

This reminds me of Obamacare. I think progressives were more than willing to allow a mandate pass for corporate America to set tax rates on health care. In their minds, this is just a temporary step to a single payer system. In the interim, they are more than willing to endure whatever evil society may endure from this path. I say you are all nuts.

 

[Barb]

Lincoln is one of the recognized best, and I'd put him in the top five. He had tough decisions to make, and he made them by the book. To wage war you need to do three things. The first is a clear goal, preserving the union. The second is to have a moral cause to rally the people, outlawing slavery. The last is to have the constitution to carry out the war to the very end, which cost him his life. Was he right back then? I believe he was, preservation of the union has proven to have been the correct descision. Should he have done everything else he did? Yep, it takes the percieved good and bad of his actions to come to the conclusion he wanted.

As for secession, we already have that. If you don't want to live in the state you live in for whatever reason, you have the freedom to leave that state. Same with the country if you don't like it, feel free to leave. What you can't do is make your neighbor leave with you.

Lincoln did what he had to do. It was a time for strong leadership and Lincoln stepped up. Lincoln seems to be the only one who understood the political big picture.

So had Lincoln made slavery in the South Constitutional, then he would have been justified in "doing what he had to do" in order to preserve the union?

If you want to have a serious discussion, why throw in the hypothetical? He didn't do that, and that is the reality we're working within.

Conversely, Jefferson's original rebuke to King George regarding slavery in the preamble to our Constitution was "compromised" out of it. That reprehensible compromise was the genesis of Lincolns troubles with the south over succession and slavery. If not for that (see where hypothetical wanderings take us?), the entire premise of "all men are deemed..." would have had to live up to the hype right from jump, and women's suffrage wouldn't have had to wait so long, either.

 

[Contumacious]

Secession really wasn't the issue of what caused the Civil War. It was the Confederacy who decided to fire on the United States, at Fort Sumter. You are aware that South Carolina ceded all Fort Sumter property to the United States in 1814, in perpetuity. No, it was the Confederacy who knew their secession wouldn't hold unless they started a war.

To the contrary, secession was allowed to stand in West Virginia.

I hate revisionism.

Lincoln personally ordered a Union fleet to relieve and reinforce Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston harbor and other nearby forts -- but to do so by having a lead vessel merely supply food to hungry soldiers at Fort Sumpter. Jefferson Davis saw the act as the Union fleet invading Confederate waters and amounted to a declaration of war.

This kind of reminds me of LBJ tying to pick a fight with Vietnam off the coast of Vietnam.

The first shots were fired by the rebels before Lincoln was even sworn in as President.

Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, defended the right of secession by saying that "To coerce the States [to remain in the Union] is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised" and thought of "a government that can only exist by the sword," with "Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another" a moral abomination

(Jonathan Elliot’s Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, p. 232).


.

 

[Votto]

Secession really wasn't the issue of what caused the Civil War. It was the Confederacy who decided to fire on the United States, at Fort Sumter. You are aware that South Carolina ceded all Fort Sumter property to the United States in 1814, in perpetuity. No, it was the Confederacy who knew their secession wouldn't hold unless they started a war.

To the contrary, secession was allowed to stand in West Virginia.

I hate revisionism.

Lincoln personally ordered a Union fleet to relieve and reinforce Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston harbor and other nearby forts -- but to do so by having a lead vessel merely supply food to hungry soldiers at Fort Sumpter. Jefferson Davis saw the act as the Union fleet invading Confederate waters and amounted to a declaration of war.

This kind of reminds me of LBJ tying to pick a fight with Vietnam off the coast of Vietnam.

The first shots were fired by the rebels before Lincoln was even sworn in as President.

Wut?

Lincoln sworn in March 4, 1861.

First shots fired April 12, 1861