Abraham Lincoln on trial

[PredFan]

The first and foremost duty of the President is the preservation of the United States.

This is what Lincoln did.

.

I reject the notion that preserving the Executive or even legislative federal government defines preserving the United States. After all, if despots gain control the only way to preserve the United States would be to give them the boot.

So when one arrests citiznens without due process as Licoln did, or throws Japanese Americans in jail as FDR did, or passes the NDAA like Obama did which now gives government the legal means to arrest citizens without due process, then what are we to preserve here?

Well said.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the South has promised to not follow Dred Scott and promised to keep slavery out of the territories, yes, AL would have supported that.

The South would not do that. That is why Lincoln would not support the various attempts at compromise during the winter as the waited for inauguration.

Lincoln did not support Corwin. Your own source said he did not endorse it.

What you are saying is not true.

I never stated that he endorsed Dred Scott. He did support the Corwin Amendment.

Fine, he didn't officially endorse it, but the intention of my post, that Lincoln was willing to compromise on the slavery issue to avoid sucession remains. It's implications are clear.

 

[bripat9643]

We just lost Elmo. You really want to lose Lincoln too???

That's like asking if we want to "lose" a skin cancer on the end of our nose.

Lincoln was the worst kind of tyrant.

 

[PredFan]

That is right.

They lost.

So you agree that your post is wrong. thanks.

You know better than that.

The loser concedes to the winner in war.

Now, I have already expended to much time on this topic.

Which flies directly in the face of you point that the states agreed to the union.

 

[JakeStarkey]

paperview's post blows PredFan's OP into fail.

Fine, he didn't officially endorse it, but the intention of my post, that Lincoln was willing to compromise on the slavery issue to avoid sucession remains. It's implications are clear.

Lincoln addressed the issue of the Corwin Amendment in March of 1861, in his inauguration. At that point, many states had already seceded.

A little Timeline for you, from the SC Convention forward:

December 20, 1860: South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
December 24, 1860: Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis introduces a "compromise" proposal which would effectively make slavery a national institution.
December 26, 1860: Major Anderson moves Federal garrison in Charleston, SC, from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter.
January 3, 1861: Georgia seizes Fort Pulaski. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 4, 1861: Alabama seizes U.S. arsenal at Mount Vernon. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 5, 1861: Alabama seizes Forts Morgan and Gaines. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 6, 1861: Florida seizes Apalachicola arsenal. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE ARSENAL BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 7, 1861: Florida seizes Fort Marion. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 8, 1861: Floridians try to seize Fort Barrancas but are chased off.
January 9, 1861: Mississippi secedes.

Star of the West fired on in Charleston Harbor <-- FIRING ON A SHIP - A CLEAR ACT OF WAR
THE STEAMSHIP "MARION." SEIZED BY THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA TO BE CONVERTED INTO A MAN-OF-WAR.
January 10, 1861: Florida secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. arsenal at Baton Rouge, as well as Forts Jackson and St. Philip.
January 11, 1861: Alabama secedes.

Louisiana seizes U.S. Marine Hospital.
January 14, 1861: Louisiana seizes Fort Pike. <---NOTE: THEY SEIZED THE FORT BEFORE THEY SECEDED.
January 19, 1861: Georgia secedes.
January 26, 1861: Louisiana secedes.
January 28, 1861: Tennessee Resolutions in favor of Crittenden Compromise offered in Congress.
February 1, 1861: Texas secedes.
February 8, 1861: Provisional Constitution of the Confederacy adopted in Montgomery, AL.

Arkansas seizes U.S. Arsenal at Little Rock.
February 12, 1861: Arkansas seizes U.S. ordnance stores at Napoleon.
February 18, 1861: Jefferson Davis inaugurated as President of the Confederacy.
March 4, 1861: Abraham Lincoln inaugurated as 16th President of the United States.
March 21, 1861: "Cornerstone speech" delivered by Alexander Stephens. (This is where the Confederate V President lays it out clearly: Slavery is the Cornerstone of the Confederacy.)

April 12, 1861: Fort Sumter fired upon by Confederates.
THE WAR OFFICIALLY BEGINS.

Thanks again for providing some interesting trivia which btw, in no way refutes what I am saying. Let me give you a little clue, at his inauguration, it wasnt the first time he addressed attempts to compromise to avoid sucession.

 

[Contumacious]

The first and foremost duty of the President is the preservation of the United States.

This is what Lincoln did.

Notions and talk about creating a powerful centralized government are nonsense and nothing more than bringing modern desires into a reading of history. The country is so polarized, and the people on this forum so locked up in their addiction to arguing ANYTHING, they will project their own feelings on ANYTHING!

The States have rights and responsibilities. Their responsibility is to to adhere to their pacts and sacred word when they agreed to form this Union. It is too late to back out now. Their rights are outlined in the Constitution.

For those people who think they can secede from the Union, or even want to, are cowards and morons.

You don't like your government? Then work to change it. Don't run away like sniveling little kids taking your ball and going home.

This country fragments and we will soon be bowing down to real dictators and despots. Its only a fool who thinks that separate states can stand alone against the world we live in today.

Exactly.

The Fouding Fathers had no right to deprive us of the privilege of being British Subjects and supporting the parasitic British Royalty.

.

You are closer to the truth than you know. Until we declared independence, the people of this country thought of themselves as British subjects.

However, it does not matter. We won that war and the States later agreed to enter into a Union.

.

yep. I distinctly remember reading in my US History class where the states gave up their sovereignty and chose to become provinces instead .

.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Joining the union was contractual, with no statement of secession included.

 

[bripat9643]

If most slaves had been like Allen West, I doubt Abe would have bothered with a Civil War.

Lincoln didn't give a shit about the slaves. He wanted to ship them all back to Africa.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I notice that bripat has no source for his statement. We all know that AL believed black Union veterans and educated black men should be considered for voting rights.

 

[blackhawk]

I thought this a good time to start this thread, seeing that Hollywood is about to come out with a movie about Lincoln and all this talk about states wanting to secede. Also, Thanksgiving is upon us and Lincoln was the one who declared it a national holiday. For you see, Lincoln thought that creating a national holiday, that was only celebrated by the North, would help bring the nation together if we all celebrated it together.

Most of us have been spoon fed an image of Lincoln. For most of us, he stands out as one of America's greatest presidents, if not the best of the best. However, there are opposing view on this.

What Caused the Civil War Slavery States Rights Secession

President Licoln believed or thought that secession was illegal and strongly opposed it and obstructed the US Supreme Court convening and rendering a decision regarding whether or not any state had the right to secede. His opponent was none other than Cheif Justice Roger B. Taney who swore Lincoln into office. Tany ruled that Lilncoln's actions were illegal, criminal, and unconstitutional in his pursuit to prevent states from leaving the union.

Here are the charges.

1. Violation of the Constitution and his oath of office by invading and waging war against states that had legally and democratically withdrawn their consent from his government, inaugurating one of the cruelest wars in recent history.
2. Subverting the duly constituted governments of states that had not left the Union, thereby subverting their constitutional right to "republican form of government".
3. Raising troops without approval from Congress and expending funds without appropriation.
4. Suspending the writ of habeas Corpus and interfering with the press without due process, imprisoning thousands of citizens without charge or trial, and closing courts by military force where no hostilities were ocurring.
5. Corrupting the currency by manipulations and paper swindles unheard of in US history.
6. Fraud and corruption by appointees and contractors with his knowledge and connivance.
7. Continuing the war by raising ever larger bodies of troops by conscription and hiring of foreign merceneries and refusing to negotiate in good faith for an end to hostilities.
8. Confiscation of millions of dollars of civilian property by his agents in the South, esecially cotton, wihtout legal proceedings.
9. Waging war against women, children, civilians, and civilian property as the matter of policy, e.g. Sherman's March.


Funny how we were never taught this stuff in school, isn't it?

To begin the debate, I will debunk the notion that Licoln faught the war just to render slavery a thing of the past. After all, Licoln supported the Corwin Amendment to be added to the Constitution. It had passed Congress and it protected slavery in those states where it already existed. A few weeks before the war, Licoln went so far as to pen a letter to every governor in the South asking for their support in ratifying the Corwin Amendment as a means to avoid seccession. Licoln was obviously willing to allow slavery to continue, just to keep the union together. If so, why then did the South proceed in their plans to secede?

In short, was the Civil war really about slavery? It seems to me that the power and wealth that the South had to offer the northern states was enough to warrant a war that cost the union about 3% of it's population as dead, 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?

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?

Lincoln is like any other President he had his good and his bad on the whole I think the good outweighs the bad. We can question why he did the things he did and what his motives might have been but we should also ask ourselves what kind of country we would be living in Today without him my gut feeling is it would be step or two backwards.

 

[bripat9643]

While ridding ourselves of the dumb, inbred morons in the south would have its merits, Lincoln made the right call in doing whatever it took to keep the Union together.

Horseshit. The Union was intended to be voluntary. The federal government didn't have the Constitutional authority to force any member state to remain in it.

Not surprising, the descendents of the same dumb assholes who died by the thousands today so a few rich douchebags can live in mansions and own slaves, are the same dumb assholes today who vote Republican and support "Right to Work" laws that allow big corporations run by rich douchebags to pay them less.

It's not surprising that a brainwashed moron like you would defend the propaganda you've been spoon fed your entire life. The ability to shake off your childish delusions is what distinguishes the truly intelligent from goosestepping automatons who can do nothing but regurgitate propaganda.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat forgets no libertarians were at the Convention.

 

[bripat9643]

#s 4 and 7 seem to be total BS.

4) The Constitution plainly gives the president the power to suspend habeus corpus.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. Article I, Section 9.

Where did it mention the President?

7) Unable to find any evidence of the Union hiring mercenaries. If there were any during the war, Southern blockade runners seem to be the only group where foreigners were in it solely for the money.

You didn't look very hard, now did you?

Foreign enlistment in the American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although its largest foreign contingents were made up of Irish and German-Americans, over 60,000 Canadian and British volunteers served in the Union Army. Regiments such as the 79th New York Infantry Highlanders, originally formed in the 1850s, consisted completely of Scottish immigrants before accepting Irish, English and others into its ranks during the early years of the war. As the war continued, volunteers including Frenchman, Hungarians, Scandinavians, Mexicans and others (including a small number from Asia) would eventually enlist in Union service.

Communication difficulties, especially in Union regiments, were a constant problem in divisions made up of varied nationalities including volunteers from Ireland, Italy, Germany, Poland and other European countries. One regiment in particular was made up of both officers and soldiers from 15 different nations and the commanding officer's orders having to be passed down through seven different languages. Major General Franz Sigel had his orders translated from his native German, to Hungarian for his officers, then to English for the rest of his command and finally to German again when Sigel received reports.

Also: Southern blockade runners were Americans. You're also forgetting all the northern "war profiteers" that left-wingers are always railing about.

The other points can be open to interpretation, but these two seem to be the most easily debunked.

Too bad you failed to debunk them. I guess we can accept the last claim with equal credulity.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat forgets no libertarians were at the Convention.

They were almost all libertarians, shit for brains.

 

[bripat9643]

Joining the union was contractual, with no statement of secession included.

There is no such thing as a contract that you aren't allowed to break, moron. Check the Supreme Court rulings on that subject if you don't believe it.

 

[bripat9643]

yep. I distinctly remember reading in my US History class where the states gave up their sovereignty and chose to become provinces instead .

That's that the paid propagandists for the winning side will tell you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Check with SCOTUS says about secession. You fail again.

Joining the union was contractual, with no statement of secession included.

There is no such thing as a contract that you aren't allowed to break, moron. Check the Supreme Court rulings on that subject if you don't believe it.

 

[bripat9643]

Drastic times called for drastic measures. There was no precedent for what our nation was going through. Lincoln was chief executive and used his powers to preserve the union

He had no such powers.

And yes, the war was about slavery. Lincoln may have initially been willing to appease the slave states to buy time....but it was the slave states that insisted on leaving the union to preserve their right to own another human being

Lincoln was willing to approve a Amendment that would have enshrined slavery into the Constitution forever. That's how much he cared about slavery. The idea that the North fought the Civil War to end slavery is the greatest con of all time.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Only the goose steppers believe Lincoln HAD to do anything he did.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

In the Soviet Union they taught that Stalin was the country's greatest leader. The same rule for defining "great" obtains here.