If only Abraham Lincoln had understood and obeyed the Constitution

[LeroyDumonde]

Wrong and silly.
First of all, you are wrong that every citizen in those states supported slavery, separation, or renouncing their INALIENABLE right to citizenship in both the state and the federal !!!!!!!!!!!!
As Lincoln often said: People live in states with citizens of opposing views because their inalienable rights under the FEDERAL law keep them safe from reprisal

WE have many examples to the contrary of yours.

"One such incident was the suppression of the Chicago Times by General Ambrose Burnside on June 2, 1863 — after the paper. The Times, under editor Roger Storey, had become progressively more anti-war and harshly criticized Burnside’s arrest of former Congressman Clement Vallandigham the previous month. Popular opinion in Chicago was inflamed – both for and against Burnside’s action. Fearing street violence, a group of Chicago civic leaders sent a petition to the White House. Congressman Isaac Arnold alienated much of his German-American constituency by joining Senator Lyman Trumbull in asking that President Lincoln to reverse Burnside’s action — which the President did on June 4. Roger Waite wrote that President “Lincoln swiftly decided to act in the situation. Having received the petition from Chicago, being endorsed by two prominent politicians, Lincoln telegraphed orders suggesting that the order be lifted, to which Burnside followed with an order to revoke General Order 84 on June 4, 1863. However, soon, Lincoln also wrote stating: ‘I have received additional dispatches which…induce me to believe we should revoke or suspend the order suspending the Chicago Times. However, as Burnside had already issued the revocation, he let it stand.” "

Complete strawman. I never claimed that everyone in the South supported secession. A sufficient number of elected representatives supported secessions. That's how republics work.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Quote the part of your mortgage that says you can unilaterally decide to cancel it

I don't have a mortgage, but if I didn't it wouldn't be analogous to the US Constitution. However, I take this as an admission that the Constitution never bans secession. Now, have you ever heard of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution?

 

[Libby von H]

Complete strawman. I never claimed that everyone in the South supported secession. A sufficient number of elected representatives supported secessions. That's how republics work.

But that was ENTIRELY rejected by the founders, that is what Federalism is, you dolt. I am a member of a state AND of the nation, at the same time,so the state is utterly impotent to take away my unallienable rights, you exeedingly clueless dolt

 

[LeroyDumonde]

But that was ENTIRELY rejected by the founders, that is what Federalism is, you dolt. I am a member of a state AND of the nation, at the same time,so the state is utterly impotent to take away my unallienable rights, you exeedingly clueless dolt

If they rejected secession then they should have banned it in the Constitution. But they didn't. BTW, you haven't provided any evidence that the CSA banned people from having dual citizenship.

 

[Libby von H]

If they rejected secession then they should have banned it in the Constitution. But they didn't. BTW, you haven't provided any evidence that the CSA banned people from having dual citizenship.

YOU ARE STUPID AND WHOEVER DOESN"T SEE IT IS STUPID
A Constitution by its very nature rejects secession.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

YOU ARE STUPID AND WHOEVER DOESN"T SEE IT IS STUPID
A Constitution by its very nature rejects secession.

No it doesn't.

 

[Libby von H]

No it doesn't.

LINCOLN"S FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS

Remember he was a lawyer and President and you are a nothing

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."

"For instance, why may not South Carolina, a year or two hence, arbitrarily, secede from a new Southern Confederacy, just as she now claims to secede from the present Union? Her people, and, indeed, all secession people, are now being educated to the precise temper of doing this."

"If all the states save one should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon state rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called “driving the one out,” should be called “the seceding of the others from that one,” it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do, unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle and profound on the rights of minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the Constitution and speaks from the Preamble, calling itself “we, the people.”... "

Message to Congress in Special SessionAbraham Lincoln --- where he DESTROYS your premise
"The Constitution provides, and all States have accepted the provision, that, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government." But if a State may lawfully goout of the Union, having done so, it may also discard the republican form of government; so that toprevent its going out is an indispensable means to the end of maintaining the guaranty mentioned; andwhen an end is lawful and obligatory the indispensable means to it are also lawful and obligatory."

There's 4 reasons you are an unthinking moron

 

[TNHarley]

LINCOLN"S FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS

Remember he was a lawyer and President and you are a nothing

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."

"For instance, why may not South Carolina, a year or two hence, arbitrarily, secede from a new Southern Confederacy, just as she now claims to secede from the present Union? Her people, and, indeed, all secession people, are now being educated to the precise temper of doing this."

"If all the states save one should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon state rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called “driving the one out,” should be called “the seceding of the others from that one,” it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do, unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle and profound on the rights of minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the Constitution and speaks from the Preamble, calling itself “we, the people.”... "

Message to Congress in Special SessionAbraham Lincoln --- where he DESTROYS your premise
"The Constitution provides, and all States have accepted the provision, that, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government." But if a State may lawfully goout of the Union, having done so, it may also discard the republican form of government; so that toprevent its going out is an indispensable means to the end of maintaining the guaranty mentioned; andwhen an end is lawful and obligatory the indispensable means to it are also lawful and obligatory."

There's 4 reasons you are an unthinking moron

Oh well good. Americas favorite tyrant said so, so it must be true

 

[Libby von H]

Oh well good. Americas favorite tyrant said so, so it must be true

But you are a foul-mouthed cowarldy little twerp with no education so 'yes' I diss you.

 

[TNHarley]

But you are a foul-mouthed cowarldy little twerp with no education so 'yes' I diss you.

Yeah I forget how you have "science training" lolz and a history scholar
What will it be next week? You landed on the moon?

 

[Libby von H]

Too bad the south couldn't handle state's rights. Namely, the rights of northern states to not return escaped slaves. That's one of the reasons the southern states stated as a reason for secession.

In contrast, the north was fine with the right of the southern states to hold slaves, while the south rejected state's rights. Slaver apologists like to pretend the opposite, but they're always revising history.

And if the south had separated, they'd still be holding slaves today. After all, the entire sick Confederate culture was slavery-based. And the conservatives would be fine with that.

This is such a mess I won't answer it directly. The history is wrong and words are misused.
The Fugitive Slave law NEVER said who was to do the returning.You seem to think it does !!!!!!
The North was not 'fine" with the South holding slaves, and there were many working in the South against it too.It was John Brown that reversed that, people were now scared they would be killed


Who knows what would have happened but I doubt it would even be economically possible now to have any kind of public slave economy. Under Biden it would be financial ruin to own slaves,he has so distorted the economy that IRS, EPA, HHS would impose tremendous fines on many things related to slave labor.Imagine HUD examining slave quarters.

 

[mamooth]

This is such a mess I won't answer it directly. The history is wrong and words are misused.

The Declarations of Secession say otherwise. Those southern states were all enraged that northern states wouldn't enforce southern slavery rules inside the borders of the northern states.

 

[Libby von H]

The Declarations of Secession say otherwise. Those southern states were all enraged that northern states wouldn't enforce southern slavery rules inside the borders of the northern states.

Well, Lincoln had it dead on when he said "they won't be satisfied until we say slavery is a good thing"
Abortion, homosexual perversion...livel long enough and you see this for every sick and immoral thing. Conscience gets cancerous and they have to have you approve what they have done,.

 

[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.

I have destroyed this several times. Thoroughly

 

[LeroyDumonde]

LINCOLN"S FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS

Remember he was a lawyer and President and you are a nothing

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."

"For instance, why may not South Carolina, a year or two hence, arbitrarily, secede from a new Southern Confederacy, just as she now claims to secede from the present Union? Her people, and, indeed, all secession people, are now being educated to the precise temper of doing this."

"If all the states save one should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon state rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called “driving the one out,” should be called “the seceding of the others from that one,” it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do, unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle and profound on the rights of minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the Constitution and speaks from the Preamble, calling itself “we, the people.”... "

Message to Congress in Special SessionAbraham Lincoln --- where he DESTROYS your premise
"The Constitution provides, and all States have accepted the provision, that, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government." But if a State may lawfully goout of the Union, having done so, it may also discard the republican form of government; so that toprevent its going out is an indispensable means to the end of maintaining the guaranty mentioned; andwhen an end is lawful and obligatory the indispensable means to it are also lawful and obligatory."

There's 4 reasons you are an unthinking moron

Lincoln couldn't even form a reasonable constitutional argument. States can have a republican form of government without being in the United States. Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't say that every government in the world has to be in republican form. The Constitution only applies to the states/territories within the United States and the federal government. As soon as a state leaves the United States no longer has any duty to ensure that it has a republican form of government. Lincoln's argument is illogical and unconstitutional. The legal reality is that the Constitution doesn't ban secession so by the 10th Amendment the power of secession is held by the states. The final nail in the coffin of his argument is that when the states seceded they retained a republican form of government.

 

[BackAgain]

Lincoln arguably did violate the Constitution.

That doesn’t mean he didn’t preserve the republic.

He may also have been a bit of a racist and hypocritical.

That doesn’t mean that he isn’t essentially the ONE who ended US slavery.

 

[Libby von H]

Lincoln couldn't even form a reasonable constitutional argument. States can have a republican form of government without being in the United States. Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't say that every government in the world has to be in republican form. The Constitution only applies to the states/territories within the United States and the federal government. As soon as a state leaves the United States no longer has any duty to ensure that it has a republican form of government. Lincoln's argument is illogical and unconstitutional. The legal reality is that the Constitution doesn't ban secession so by the 10th Amendment the power of secession is held by the states. The final nail in the coffin of his argument is that when the states seceded they retained a republican form of government.

4 false statements and then I am done with your ignorance
1) States can't be in the US without a republican form of govt , it is in the Constitution
2) Any Constitution only applies to its ratifiers. OF COURSE.
3) As soon as a State leaves it loses all right to change government, it is in REBELLION And that was formalilzed by a Supreme Court decision : White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States IDIOT !!
4) Your last sentence undoes everything you claimed !!!!

So at the very least even you have to admit that

 

[Libby von H]

I don't have a mortgage, but if I didn't it wouldn't be analogous to the US Constitution. However, I take this as an admission that the Constitution never bans secession. Now, have you ever heard of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution?

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

 

[LeroyDumonde]

4 false statements and then I am done with your ignorance
1) States can't be in the US without a republican form of govt , it is in the Constitution

That's irrelevant and shows the sloppy think of both you and Lincoln. We're not talking about states that remained in the United States. We're talking about those who left. They can, and did, have a republican form of government.

2) Any Constitution only applies to its ratifiers. OF COURSE.

And by the Constitution any of those ratifiers could secede thanks to the 10th Amendment.

3) As soon as a State leaves it loses all right to change government, it is in REBELLION And that was formalilzed by a Supreme Court decision : White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States IDIOT !!

The problem with that decision is that it violates the text of the Constitution. Let me remind you of what the 10th Amendment says, since you appear to have selective memory.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

You've already agreed that the Constitution doesn't ban secession. The 10th Amendment is clear that secession is a power retained by the states.

4) Your last sentence undoes everything you claimed !!!!
View attachment 933102
So at the very least even you have to admit that

Sure. But that doesn't make secession unconstitutional. It just means that the CSA should do a better job of addressing states' concerns than the Union did. Indeed, no state seceded from the CSA

 

[Libby von H]

An excellent source.

a source debunked by Burlingame, Guelzo, and Jaffa