...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[JakeStarkey]

It's not an interpretation.

It's a fact.

It's what is says in plain English.

Talk to SCOTUS.

And please use Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln to give us all of the speech of a quote so that it can be put into context.

You are not doing that.

What the **** does anything Lincoln ever said have to do with what's written in the Constitution?

When you deflect, you lose respect.

Use the link, huh? It will help you tremendously.

 

[syrenn]

No, the U.S. went to war against a rebellious section to preserve the union. The primary cause of the war was slavery. Every other cause is subsumed in slavery.

The primary cause again was slavery. Slavery became the moral high grounds on which the north took its final stand.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the U.S. went to war against a rebellious section to preserve the union. The primary cause of the war was slavery. Every other cause is subsumed in slavery.

The primary cause again was slavery. Slavery became the moral high grounds on which the north took its final stand.

I would refine that only to the extent to note that the primary issue was preserving the union. The primary cause was slavery, which would be used later by Lincoln to gain the moral high ground.

 

[syrenn]

Slavery was the main cause of the war. The primary issue was preservation of the union. I agree that Syrenn has it correct that Lincoln expanded the moral base to include emancipation.

Thank you. But again you are confusing what the main cause of the war was. It was not slavery. It was about preserving the union. Lincoln finally adopted the idea of ending slavery as a last resort to gain support, to preserve the union.

Slavery gave the civil war a moral campus that other wise it did not have.

We are no longer a union of states. We are the United States of America.

 

[syrenn]

No, the U.S. went to war against a rebellious section to preserve the union. The primary cause of the war was slavery. Every other cause is subsumed in slavery.

The primary cause again was slavery. Slavery became the moral high grounds on which the north took its final stand.

I would refine that only to the extent to note that the primary issue was preserving the union. The primary cause was slavery, which would be used later by Lincoln to gain the moral high ground.

No I think the end "morality" was slavery. Slavery became and issue. Slavery was not the cause.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Well if the History Channel said it...

as opposed to, "you said it".

I don't expect people to simply take my word for it, however. There's been ample evidence given in this thread to show that Lincoln did not fight the Civil War to free the slaves.

Yes, there was more reasons, and it wasn't solely to free the slaves as so many believe. But slavery was most certainly a big part of it, along with preserving the union.

 

[JBeukema]

Talk to SCOTUS.

And please use Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln to give us all of the speech of a quote so that it can be put into context.

You are not doing that.

What the **** does anything Lincoln ever said have to do with what's written in the Constitution?

When you deflect, you lose respect.

.

Ten stop doing it.


Now answer the question:What does anything Lincoln ever said have to do with the Tenth Amendment and its meaning?

 

[JBeukema]

You two are saying the same damned thing and merely arguing your preferred semantics

 

[JakeStarkey]

The primary cause again was slavery. Slavery became the moral high grounds on which the north took its final stand.

I would refine that only to the extent to note that the primary issue was preserving the union. The primary cause was slavery, which would be used later by Lincoln to gain the moral high ground.

No I think the end "morality" was slavery. Slavery became and issue. Slavery was not the cause.

The evidence contradicts that. All other causes were subsumed in slavery, including states' rights. The primary issue was the south refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election of 1860.

 

[JBeukema]

refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election of 1860.

Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.

Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.

 

[syrenn]

The evidence contradicts that. All other causes were subsumed in slavery, including states' rights. The primary issue was the south refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election of 1860.

I think we are having a problem with semantics. I refer to "cause" as what the original starting point of the war was, its original reason to being.

 

[syrenn]

refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election of 1860.

Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.

Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.

Exactly!

Which is why Lincoln needed something else to bolster his stance on waging war. And that was Slavery.

 

[JBeukema]

refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election of 1860.

Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.

Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.

Exactly!

Which is why Lincoln needed something else to bolster his stance on waging war. And that was Slavery.

-which he himself said he had no authority to do anything about, as I quoted, and which he still never cared about, as shown by his failure to free the slaves in the Union while attempting to force the CSA to free the slaves as though he had any authority to do so.

There was a just war to be waged against those who would enslave their fellow Man, but Lincoln and the Union never fought that war. As with WWII later on, we had no interest in fighting the just war. We sought our own war for our own reasons [preserving the strength of the union and the CSA's economic resources; Hitler's declaration's of war]- that the enemy was the same merely allowed for great propaganda to fool those who don't look past the posters and statues of a man made into a demi-god.

 

[Mr Natural]

refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election of 1860.

Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.

Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.

Exactly!

Which is why Lincoln needed something else to bolster his stance on waging war. And that was Slavery.

Just like Cheney/Bush needed an excuse to invade Iraq.

 

[hortysir]

No, Buchanan didn't either. It was called the Corwin Amendment because...hey, I'll give you 3 guesses to figure out who proposed it. (hint: It's in the name of the Amendment.)

I'm not going to continue with your little escapade of inaccuracies, cause it appears you are all over the map. (WTF? Pledge of Allegiance? What the hell does a Socialist composed oath written in 1892 have to do with this discussion?)
Frankly, you don't seem to be worth my time.

I'll be nicer when you're smarter. ;0

***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took office. ************

:cheers:

 

[JakeStarkey]

refusing to bow to electoral and constitutional process in the election of 1860.

Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.

Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.

No, JB, you, and along with the South, expected your perverted expectations of the Constitution to be met by reasonable Americans. A secret for you: no!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Read; Exerting their rights and constitutional powers and expecting the Fed to obey the limits placed upon it by that same document.

Lincoln set the stage for all the abuse of federal power and the stripping away of the member States' sovereignty, and rightful authority that we see today.

Exactly!

Which is why Lincoln needed something else to bolster his stance on waging war. And that was Slavery.

-which he himself said he had no authority to do anything about, as I quoted, and which he still never cared about, as shown by his failure to free the slaves in the Union while attempting to force the CSA to free the slaves as though he had any authority to do so.

There was a just war to be waged against those who would enslave their fellow Man, but Lincoln and the Union never fought that war. As with WWII later on, we had no interest in fighting the just war. We sought our own war for our own reasons [preserving the strength of the union and the CSA's economic resources; Hitler's declaration's of war]- that the enemy was the same merely allowed for great propaganda to fool those who don't look past the posters and statues of a man made into a demi-god.

Nonsense.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

as opposed to, "you said it".

I don't expect people to simply take my word for it, however. There's been ample evidence given in this thread to show that Lincoln did not fight the Civil War to free the slaves.

Yes, there was more reasons, and it wasn't solely to free the slaves as so many believe. But slavery was most certainly a big part of it, along with preserving the union.

It wasn't fought to free the slaves at all, again, as Lincoln himself said.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, Buchanan didn't either. It was called the Corwin Amendment because...hey, I'll give you 3 guesses to figure out who proposed it. (hint: It's in the name of the Amendment.)

I'm not going to continue with your little escapade of inaccuracies, cause it appears you are all over the map. (WTF? Pledge of Allegiance? What the hell does a Socialist composed oath written in 1892 have to do with this discussion?)
Frankly, you don't seem to be worth my time.

I'll be nicer when you're smarter. ;0

***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took office. ************

:cheers:

The poster above did not have the guts to give you the provenance of this "amendment."

So query TONA Research Committee - The Thirteenth Article of Amendment and read and chuckle. A little research will reveal that no provenance for the amendment exists.

In other words, our reactionary moon bats are flying erratically beneath the sublunary atmosphere, snapping at shadows!

Quantam Windbag and Big Fitz should be ready recruits, along with Si Modo and Mudwhistle and cmike and others. Have fun, guys.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In this case, the history has been competently written. The immediate issue was unionism, the primary cause was slavery, and the South was morally wrong. Check the motives of those who argue otherwise.

Both Union and CSA were wrong.

If you really look at history, you'll see that there's often nobody who's really in the right or fighting for any real principles or cause.

I was just thinking this myself this morning. Amazing how clearly one can think when they actually get a good solid night of sleep.