If only Abraham Lincoln had understood and obeyed the Constitution

[LeroyDumonde]

So illogical and unaware you are !!!!
So you are saying that before the 10th Amendment things were different. You must be

Before the 10th Amendment we had the Articles of Confederation. Interestingly the Articles of Confederation actually state multiple times that the union shall be perpetual, yet it was dissolved anyway. The US Constitution doesn't even claim to be perpetual, yet you're arguing that it is. If a perpetual union can be dissolved then so can a nonperpetual union.

 

[Libby von H]

Before the 10th Amendment we had the Articles of Confederation. Interestingly the Articles of Confederation actually state multiple times that the union shall be perpetual, yet it was dissolved anyway. The US Constitution doesn't even claim to be perpetual, yet you're arguing that it is. If a perpetual union can be dissolved then so can a nonperpetual union.

No, wrong yet again.
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."


AND HOW DAMN STUPID to say that "

f a perpetual union can be dissolved then so can a nonperpetual union."

THEN NO UNION IS IN FACT A UNION. WHY CAN YOU NEVER SPEAK PLAINLY

 

[Libby von H]

The revisionists on American history are amazing. It's like they are writing a privileged uber nationalist point of view several decades old. The evidence is clear.

America took the SW from the Mexicans and the First Peoples. Fact.

The South had no legal or moral or ethical rationale to attack an American fort the land on which had been ceded to the US by contract.

Buncha amazing dolts.

On January 12, 1848 Abraham Lincoln, a Whig congressman from Illinois, gave a speech questioning the Mexican-American war that he believed was “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced.” A month earlier Lincoln, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, introduced the “Spot Resolutions” that asked President Polk to submit evidence that the initial cause and the first battle of the war was indeed fought on American territory.

But the First Peoples statement is NONSENSE

 

[Libby von H]

If Lincoln had not initiated his illegal war against the South....and the South had managed to secede peacefully....the North and South would have eventually gotten back together ...also in a peaceful manner and the U.S. today would be immensely more powerful, strong and united than it is today...and without most of the problems that divide us today. The costs of the civil war in human lives lost and the trillions of dollars wasted in revenue could have been avoided and we would have progressed much faster in terms of financial and military power...not even to mention the potential of all those killed would have had for the nation....tremendous,tremendous loss.

Sounds good but it goes against the actual history.

The war was legal
White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.
--- now if you say that you are right then you are saying that for 150 years the modern South has been lying about following the law.

North and South were getting further apart as even Stephen Douglas admitted.

The costs of the Civil War in lives is about 1 death for every 5 slaves. There was a cost to pay but you don't see it
" If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which in the providence of God must needs come but which having continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him. Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'"

 

[Libby von H]

"There would have been no war, no bloodshed, no sacking of towns and cities, no desolation, no billions of treasure expended, on either side, and no millions of lives sacrificed in the unnatural and fratricidal strife; there would have none of the present troubles about restoration, or reconstruction; but, instead of these lamentable scenes, a new spectacle of wonder would have been presented for the guide and instruction of the astonished Nations of the earth, greater than that exhibited after the Nullification pacification, of the matchless workings of our American Institutions of Self-government by the people!"
Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868

I can hear the demented, the liberals, and the politically correct progressives lamenting already.....(but we had to free the slaves) forgetting if they ever knew what that yankee --White Sumpremacist Lincoln said regarding that... ... "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

The majority of people back then believed and the more astute and intelligent today, still believe and (those who are knowledegable regarding genetics) understand that Negroes were designed by Nature(Creator) to be slaves; that they were part of a 'degraded caste' meant to serve the rest of humanity...and of course any advanced civilization must have servants(at least until robots are able to assume that role)....a glaring hypocrisy in America today is that we are perfectly o.k. with illegal mexican immigrants being our servants...but our historical servants are too entitled by their supposed victimhood to serve in such roles any longer....mostly democrats that think like that..... also believing in the concept of 'the democrat plantation' as in keep the Negroes on the dole so they will always vote for the democrat.

Most Southerners based the legitamacy of slavery (it had been legal for thousands of years) on the Bible....which from Genesis to Revelation sanctions slavery.

Lincoln's disdain for Negroes was based on his own deep seated dislike of all non-white peoples, whom he typically referred to as 'inferior races'. Lincoln publically and quite often called blacks '*******' aka the infamous n woid(of which only negroes are allowed to use today) and mexicans 'mongrels'. Besides, Lincoln could not use the Bible to justify his beliefs: he was a self-proclaimed atheist and anti-Christian.

Mr. Lincoln's religious views.................
by William Herndon---Mr. Lincoln's best and lifelong friend.
The following letter appeared, in 1870, in the Index, a journal published in Toledo, Ohio.
:

Abraham Lincoln's Religious Views

What If There Was No Civil War?

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." ... Faulkner.

There are so many errors in this I can only recommend the greatest book on the topic and append a typcial review

"Of all the books I've ever read this one remains in my top ten and I have no doubt that I will dip into it again and again over the course of my life, and in fact already have. If you are a seeker and love American history, do yourself a favor and read this book. You will be challenged and you will learn as much about yourself as about Abraham Lincoln."

 

[LeroyDumonde]

No, wrong yet again.
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

It wasn't matured and continued. The Articles of Association pledged loyalty to King George. That was revoked by the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore they were essentially a trade boycott and thus have nothing to do with the Articles of Confederation or the US Constitution.

It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.

And then that Union was dissolved and replace by a significantly different union.

And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

What's more perfect than perpetual?

AND HOW DAMN STUPID to say that "

THEN NO UNION IS IN FACT A UNION. WHY CAN YOU NEVER SPEAK PLAINLY
View attachment 933280

Temporary unions are formed all the time. Heck, half of marriages end in divorce. The Hanseatic League lasted 4 centuries but it too dissolved.

 

[Libby von H]

It wasn't matured and continued. The Articles of Association pledged loyalty to King George. That was revoked by the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore they were essentially a trade boycott and thus have nothing to do with the Articles of Confederation or the US Constitution.



And then that Union was dissolved and replace by a significantly different union.

What's more perfect than perpetual?



Temporary unions are formed all the time. Heck, half of marriages end in divorce. The Hanseatic League lasted 4 centuries but it too dissolved.

Yes, and they are called 'temporary' because by itself UNION MEANS PERMANENT
Was that so hard

 

[Libby von H]

Before the 10th Amendment we had the Articles of Confederation. Interestingly the Articles of Confederation actually state multiple times that the union shall be perpetual, yet it was dissolved anyway. The US Constitution doesn't even claim to be perpetual, yet you're arguing that it is. If a perpetual union can be dissolved then so can a nonperpetual union.

No it was not dissolved and that was the point Lincoln made so well


in the First Inaugural Address that the "Union is much older than the Constitution" (IV, 253). In fact, he went on, "it was formed ... by the Articlesof Association in 1774 ,,. [and] matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776 .,. [and] further matured and expressly declared and pledged, to be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778."

 

[LeroyDumonde]

No it was not dissolved and that was the point Lincoln made so well


in the First Inaugural Address that the "Union is much older than the Constitution" (IV, 253). In fact, he went on, "it was formed ... by the Articlesof Association in 1774 ,,. [and] matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776 .,. [and] further matured and expressly declared and pledged, to be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778."

It wasn't formed by the Articles of Association. Instead of blindly quoting the tyrant perhaps you should read them for yourself.

 

[Libby von H]

It wasn't formed by the Articles of Association. Instead of blindly quoting the tyrant perhaps you should read them for yourself.

I know and you don't. Address your embarrassment to other readers (who probably despise you for not admitting you are wrong)

NOt a union but la more perfect union, what can that mean

 

[LeroyDumonde]

I know and you don't. Address your embarrassment to other readers (who probably despise you for not admitting you are wrong)

NOt a union but la more perfect union, what can that mean

It meant one that could collect taxes.