Irrefutable legal arguments supporting the right of secession

[bripat9643]

The was a rebellion in the United States. The United States put down the rebellion.

No there wasn't. Herr Lincoln Uber Alles invaded sovereign nations that had seceded.

If your children ran away from home, do you think that gives you the right to kill them?

They were not a sovereign nation. Lincoln took action on American soil.

Nuh Uhn!

 

[bripat9643]

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war. Had Herr Lincoln Uber Alles not been so eager to kill 600,000 men to slake his bent bloodthirst, damages such as Fort Sumpter by the South and the blockade by the North could have been negotiated peacefully.

Let's put it another way. Even Jean Luc Picard, Captain of the Starship Enterprise would criticize Too Tall for not exploring all options before steering the country on a sure path to a bloody war.

And you know it.

The rebellion of the Southern states started the war. The act of secession was itself the act that justified all necessary and proper action by the President to preserve the Union.

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Says who? So your theory is that everything not expressly permitted is prohibited?

You realize that your theory is an idiocy of fascism, don't you?

The reason that 'secession' need not be word for word prohibited in the Constitution is because secession involves a multitude of other actions that violate Federal law.

You have failed to name any.

 

[bripat9643]

You're just repeating yourself. Surely you're intelligent to see the futility in this argument. You'll keep saying the militia commander had no right to fire on Fort Sumpter and I'll keep saying they did. Fort Sumpter did not start the war, Lincoln marshaling an army of 75,000 troops and ordering them to invade started the war.

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

The Poles fired the first shots of WW II. According to your theory that means they started the war.

Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. He didn't give a damn about them. He invaded to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states.

Holy analogy fail Batman!

To say Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves is comically ignorant.

Your "facts" are so far from reality you might as well just claim that Lincoln was an alien from outer space.

What evidence is there that Lincoln gave a damn about the slaves?

Lincoln Douglas debates are a good place to start but there is plenty of other examples of his position. There is also the point of view of the South which is also very important.

The Lincoln-Douglass debates prove your claim is wrong. Please post an example that proves Lincoln gave a damn about the slaves.

 

[bripat9643]

Where do you get this shit?

Secession is only illegal in the mind of the country being seceded from.

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

The states established how the Constitution could be changed. They couldn't change it all by themselves and even Washington helped establish the authority of the Federal government with force.

Do you want to fail again?

Secession doesn't require a change in the Constitution.

You just made a statement of belief that is not supported by history and the facts. My comments were a statement of fact established by history.

The OP contains the proof that it is supported by history and the facts.

You have yet to post any facts.

 

[Bombur]

Lincoln called for those 75,000 three days after South Carolina fired on American troops in an American fort, and started the hostilities.

The facts are always worth repeating- the first shots of the Civil War were by Confederate rebel forces firing on American troops in Fort Sumter.

All to protect the Confederate States which had seceded in order to protect their right to own human property- rights enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

The Poles fired the first shots of WW II. According to your theory that means they started the war.

Lincoln didn't invade Virginia to free the slaves. He didn't give a damn about them. He invaded to impose confiscatory tariffs on the Southern states.

Holy analogy fail Batman!

To say Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves is comically ignorant.

Your "facts" are so far from reality you might as well just claim that Lincoln was an alien from outer space.

What evidence is there that Lincoln gave a damn about the slaves?

Lincoln Douglas debates are a good place to start but there is plenty of other examples of his position. There is also the point of view of the South which is also very important.

The Lincoln-Douglass debates prove your claim is wrong. Please post an example that proves Lincoln gave a damn about the slaves.

"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."

 

[Bombur]

No it's illegal under the Constitution. No state is capable of seceding without breaking federal laws.

A declaration of secession is not a legal process by which the state or the residents of the state become exempt from federal law. There is no law that allows that.

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

The states established how the Constitution could be changed. They couldn't change it all by themselves and even Washington helped establish the authority of the Federal government with force.

Do you want to fail again?

Secession doesn't require a change in the Constitution.

You just made a statement of belief that is not supported by history and the facts. My comments were a statement of fact established by history.

The OP contains the proof that it is supported by history and the facts.

You have yet to post any facts.

The OP was legal opinion. A person can have a legal opinion and even try and support it but that doesn't mean it is correct or would be seen as sufficient in the eyes of the law.

What I said was a fact.

 

[Contumacious]

That would be hard to do since Lincoln supported that would have enshrined slavery into the Constitution.

Yeah, that's what an abolitionist would do!

Frank, it's funny to watch these guys because they are so obviously in denial.

THE MOTHERFUCKERS WILL NOT ADMIT THAT APE LINCOLN SLAUGHTERED 650,000 OVER TAXATION AND REAL STATE.

HE DID NOT WANT TO GO DOWN HISTORY LANE AS THE PRESIDENT WHO CAUSED 11 STATES TO LEAVE THE UNION.


.

BINGO!

I am glad you two idiots share the same delusion.

Back in reality Lincoln preserved the union, ended slavery, and fought against the states that had such a warped view of reality that they openly went to war against their fellow countrymen because people wouldn't return their slaves when they ran away.

OK BACK TO REALITY, LINCOLN DIDN'T WANT TO BE THE PRESIDENT WHO LOST 11 STATES, AS PROMISED IN 1828 , SC LEFT THE UNION BECAUSE OF THE NORTH INCREASED TARIFFS FROM 15 to 37%, SLAVERY AS AN INSTITUTION WAS ON ITS WAY OUT.


.

Actually your wrong. It was because Lincoln made it clear if made president he wouldn't allow the slave trade in the new territories.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

BULLSHIT VERN


SC HAD THREATENED TO SECEDE IN 1828 OVER THE TARIFF ISSUE. TARIFFS WERE INCREASED FROM 15 to 37% in 1861.


.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong! Get it through your thick deer skull. The states created the Constitution and the states can change it or even dissolve it with or without permission from the federal government. The original power is with the states. You Libtards seem to think the federal government sprang forth from nothing and created the states. Read a history book.

The states established how the Constitution could be changed. They couldn't change it all by themselves and even Washington helped establish the authority of the Federal government with force.

Do you want to fail again?

Secession doesn't require a change in the Constitution.

You just made a statement of belief that is not supported by history and the facts. My comments were a statement of fact established by history.

The OP contains the proof that it is supported by history and the facts.

You have yet to post any facts.

The OP was legal opinion. A person can have a legal opinion and even try and support it but that doesn't mean it is correct or would be seen as sufficient in the eyes of the law.

What I said was a fact.

It wasn't a legal "opinion." It was a legal argument using logic and facts. What you spout in here is opinion. It has no basis in either logic or fact.

 

[Bombur]

The states established how the Constitution could be changed. They couldn't change it all by themselves and even Washington helped establish the authority of the Federal government with force.

Do you want to fail again?

Secession doesn't require a change in the Constitution.

You just made a statement of belief that is not supported by history and the facts. My comments were a statement of fact established by history.

The OP contains the proof that it is supported by history and the facts.

You have yet to post any facts.

The OP was legal opinion. A person can have a legal opinion and even try and support it but that doesn't mean it is correct or would be seen as sufficient in the eyes of the law.

What I said was a fact.

It wasn't a legal "opinion." It was a legal argument using logic and facts. What you spout in here is opinion. It has no basis in either logic or fact.

I would hope the legal opinion tried to use logic and facts. The problem is that the criteria for establishing if something is legal or not is a little higher than that.

 

[paperview]

What evidence is there that Lincoln gave a damn about the slaves?

"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

"I did say, at Chicago, in my speech there, that I do wish to see the spread of slavery arrested and to see it placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Springfield, Illinois" (July 17, 1858, p. 514.

"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 185

, p. 492.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." Lincoln's 'House-Divided' Speech in Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858.


"What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle - the sheet anchor of American republicanism." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 266.

"We think slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the territories, where our votes will reach it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Speech at New Haven, Connecticut" (March 6, 1860), p. 16.

"In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 320.

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Letter to Albert G. Hodges" (April 4, 1864), p. 281.

"I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (March 1, 1859), p. 370.

"Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg" (October 7, 1858, p. 226.


"I think that one of the causes of these repeated failures is that our best and greatest men have greatly underestimated the size of this question (slavery). They have constantly brought forward small cures for great sores---plasters too small to cover the wound. That is one reason that all settlements have proved so temporary---so evanescent." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 15.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1858, p. 376.

"You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. For this, neither has any just occasion to be angry with the other. " The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to John A. Gilmer" (December 15, 1860), p. 152.


"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.


"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature - opposition to it, is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 271.

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, (August 1, 1858 ), p. 532.

"I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 255.

 

[paperview]

South Carolina chose to attack federal troops in a federal fort- to try to enforce its claim that the fort was no longer part of the United States.

And by doing so- fired the first shots of the Civil War- which caused a war that was not necessary- and cost the lives of 600,000.

...

Actually, the first shots were fired in January of 1861.

And before that, they were doing some pretty heavy work seizing and stealing and committing Acts of War.

I've post my timeline many times here, but this one is even more complete:

"December 20, 1860. South Carolina secedes from the Union.

On that same day William T. Sherman says to his friends in the South, "You, you people of the South, believe there can be such a thing as peaceable secession. You don't know what you are doing. I know there can be no such thing...If you will have it, the North must fight you for its own preservation. Yes, South Carolina has by the act precipitated war..."

December 27, 1860. The first Federal property to fall into South Carolina hands is the U.S. revenue cutter William Aiken turned over to secessionists by its commander, Capt. N. L. Coste, who did not resign his commission and therefore was in violation of his oath of office. The crew left the ship and went North.

Castle Pickney was seized by South Carolina militia and a problem arose: were the two Federal soldiers captured in the fort to be considered prisoners of war? If so, it would imply that there was in fact, a WAR. Following a lengthy discussion, the one Federal officer was allowed to go to Ft. Sumter while a sergeant and his family were given safe conduct to remain in their quarters at the fort. What was significant was that the secessionists now held, for the first time, a U.S. fort. Union officer Abner Doubleday called it "the first overt act of the Secessionists against the Sovereignty of the United States."

Fort Moultrie is also occupied by South Carolina militia on this day, after the fort was abandoned by Major Anderson and Federal troops on December 26, 1860, who relocated to Ft. Sumter during the night.

December 28, 1860. A detachment of South Carolina militia enters and takes control of Fort Johnson. Three out of four Federal forts have been seized and are now under the control of South Carolina militia troops.

January 3, 1861. The War Department cancelled plans to ship guns from Pittsburgh to the forts in the South. Former Secretary of War Floyd, who resigned and went South, had been shipping weapons and large guns South for the past several months to help build up the Southern arsenals.

January 4, 1861. Even though it had not yet seceded from the Union, Alabama troops seize the U.S. arsenal at Mt. Vernon, Ala.

January 5, 1861. Even though it STILL has not yet seceded from the Union, Alabama troops seizes Fort Morgan and Gaines which protect the harbor at Mobile.

January 6, 1861. Even though it has not yet seceded from the Union, Florida troops seize the Federal arsenal at Apalachiocola.

January 7, 1861. Even though it has STILL not seceded from the Union, Florida troops seize Fort Marion at St. Augustine.

January 8, 1861. At Fort Barrancas, guarding the entrance to Pensacola Harbor, Federal troops fired on a raiding party of about twenty men, who then fled.

January 9, 1861. On this day, Senators Judah P. Benjamin and John Slidell of Louisiana telegraphed Gov. Moore of that state (which had not yet seceded from the Union), that Federal gunboats were secretly bringing supplies to the forts at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Both men had yet to resign from the Senate. Gov. Moore ordered Braxton Bragg and 500 troops to seize the forts and the United States arsenal at Baton Rouge.

On this same day, the Star of the West attempted to resupply Fort Sumter but was fired on by a masked battery from Morris Island and then by guns from Fort Moultrie. In spite of the fact the ship was flying two United States flags, the ship was repeatedly fired on. The ship turned and steamed away.

January 10, 1862. General Bragg and the militia seize the United States forts and arsenals in Louisiana. William T. Sherman, presiding as head of the Louisiana State Seminary of Learning and Military Academy, stated that Bragg's actions were, "an act of war and a breach of common decency."

On the same day in North Carolina, before that state had yet to secede, citizens of Smithville and Wilmington occupied Forts Johnson and Caswell. The State government at Raleigh later repudiated these moves.

January 12, 1861. Captain James Armstrong, commander of the Warrington Navy Yard at Pensacola, Florida, is captured and "regarded [as] a prisoner of war, and...placed on his parole of honor...not to bear arms against the State of Florida."

January 13, 1861. Several men are seen near Fort Pickens in the night and were fired upon. These unknown men retired from the area of the fort.

January, 18, 1861. In the United States House of Representatives, John Sherman, brother of William T. Sherman, rose to reply to his Ohio colleague, Pendleton, remarks that the North should be concillatory towards the South. Sherman, in a highly emotional speech, said that it was not the North that should be concillatory, it was the South; were they not the ones who had fired on the flag and seized government property? Was not Mississippi stopping all traffic at Vicksburg for search? (which Mississippi had begun on January 12, 1861.)

January 21, 1861. Mississippi troops seize Fort Massachusetts off the coast, in the Gult. Ship Island is also taken.

January 24, 1861. Georgia troops occupy the U.S. arsenal at Augusta.

January 26, 1861. At Savannah, Georgia, Fort Jackson and the Oglethorpe Barracks are seized by state troops.

January 29, 1861. Louisiana state troops take possession of Fort Macomb, outside New Orleans. The revenue cutter Robert McClelland is surrendered to Louisiana state authorities by Captain Breshwood, despite orders not to do so by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Also on this date, a notice of truce was sent from Washington to the army and navy commanders at Pensacola. It was the result of an agreement between Secretaries Holt and Toucey and Florida official Chase and Stephen Mallory.

January 30, 1861. President-elect Lincoln leaves Springfield, Ill., to visit his step-mother in Coles County. He has not even left for Washington yet. In Mobile Bay, the U.S. revenue schooner Lewis Cass was surrendered to Alabama by its commander.

January 31, 1861. In New Orleans, the U.S. Branch Mint was seized by state troops along with the revenue schooner Washington.

February 8, 1861. Before it had yet to secede from the Union, Arkansas seized the Little Rock U.S. arsenal.

February 11, 1861. Lincoln boards the train that will take him to Washington.

February 16, 1861. Although it had yet to secede from the Union, in San Antonio, Texas, state troops seize the U.S. military compound, barracks and arsenal.

February 19, 1861. In New Orleans, the U.S. Paymaster's office was seized by state troops.

March 2, 1861. Texas, now out of the Union, seizes the U.S. revenue schooner Henry Dodge at Galveston.

March 6, 1861. The Confederate Congress authorizes an army of 100,000 volunteers for twelve months.

March 15, 1861. The State of Louisiana transferred over $536,000 in money taken from the U.S. Mint in New Orleans to the Confederate government.

March 18, 1861. In the Florida panhandle, General Braxton Bragg refused to permit further supply of Ft. Pickens, in effect, nullifying the truce then in effect between Washington and Florida from January 29, 1861.

March 20, 1861. Texas troops seize three more Federal forts. At Mobile, a Federal supply ship, the U.S. sloop Isabella, was seized before it could sail with supplies to Pensacola.

April 3, 1861. In Charleston, South Carolina, a battery placed on Morris Island, fired at the Federal schooner Rhoda H. Shannon.

April 12, 1861. At 4:30AM, Fort Sumter was fired on by Confederate forces.

April 15, 1861. President Lincoln calls for 75,000 volunteers for three months service.
-UnionBlue.

 

[there4eyeM]

Not one substantial source to refute that the original, Perpetual Union was and is in force.

 

[Contumacious]

What evidence is there that Lincoln gave a damn about the slaves?

"I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

"I did say, at Chicago, in my speech there, that I do wish to see the spread of slavery arrested and to see it placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Springfield, Illinois" (July 17, 1858, p. 514.

"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 185

, p. 492.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." Lincoln's 'House-Divided' Speech in Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858.


"What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle - the sheet anchor of American republicanism." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 266.

"We think slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the territories, where our votes will reach it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Speech at New Haven, Connecticut" (March 6, 1860), p. 16.

"In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 320.

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Letter to Albert G. Hodges" (April 4, 1864), p. 281.

"I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (March 1, 1859), p. 370.

"Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg" (October 7, 1858, p. 226.


"I think that one of the causes of these repeated failures is that our best and greatest men have greatly underestimated the size of this question (slavery). They have constantly brought forward small cures for great sores---plasters too small to cover the wound. That is one reason that all settlements have proved so temporary---so evanescent." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 15.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1858, p. 376.

"You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. For this, neither has any just occasion to be angry with the other. " The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to John A. Gilmer" (December 15, 1860), p. 152.


"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.


"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature - opposition to it, is his love of justice. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 271.

"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, (August 1, 1858 ), p. 532.

"I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 255.

LINCOLN WAS AN OBSESSIVE WHITE SUPREMACIST

“Free them [blacks] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We can not then make them equals.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 256).


“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 405).


“What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 521).


“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).


“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . . I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people . . .” (CW, Vol, III, pp. 145-146).


“I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 146).


“Senator Douglas remarked . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 281).


Until His Dying Day, Lincoln Plotted to Deport all the Black People Out of America


“I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation . . . . Such separation . . . must be effected by colonization” [to Liberia, Central America, anywhere]. (CW, Vol. II, p. 409).


“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right , and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime . . .” (CW, Vol. II, p. 409).


“The place I am thinking about having for a colony [for the deportation of all American blacks] is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia.” (CW, Vol. V, pp. 373, 374).

.

 

[paperview]

The 13th Amendment, giving Freedom the slaves -- passed by Congress in January of 1865.

See that signature to the right? :::::::::::: > Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln made the passage of the 13th Amendment a major plank in the 1864 election.

No President is required to sign an Amendment, in fact, none ever had.

He did though.

Also, too:



Suck it, bitches.

 

[Contumacious]

The 13th Amendment, giving Freedom the slaves -- passed by Congress in January of 1865.

See that signature to the right? :::::::::::: > Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln made the passage of the 13th Amendment a major plank in the 1864 election.

No President is required to sign an Amendment, in fact, none ever had.

He did though.

Also, too:



Suck it, bitches.

BULLSHIT , YOU STUPID ************.

THE 13th AMENDMENT THAT LINCONLN SUPPORTED WAS THE "CORWIN AMENDMENT" WHICH PREVENTED CONGRESS FROM ENACTING ANY LAWS WHICH PREVENTED THE SOUTHERN STATES FROM PRACTICING SLAVERY.


PROVIDE A LINK TO A HISTORICAL WEBSITE SHOWING THAT LINCOLN SUPPORTED THE PRESENT 13th AMENDMENT.


.

 

[paperview]

I just did, idiot.

I showed you the actual 13th Amendment with his signature on it.

I also told you how he lobbied for it's passage, and it was part of the party platform in the 1864 election

"During 1863 Lincoln must have mulled over the various piecemeal attempts at abolition. No clear program had been devised. The border states had refused to consider gradual emancipation. Even though the proclamation was having its effect in the Confederacy, Lincoln feared that some blacks might remain in bondage after the war's end. He was looking for greater guarantees. Therefore, it was only natural that he support a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery throughout the nation when such a measure was introduced in Congress late in the year.

Despite the president's encouragement, the amendment failed to pass the House in the spring of 1864.

Lincoln now became more aggressive. At his request Republicans incorporated a call for an abolition amendment into their 1864 national platform. In his annual address in 1864, the president encouraged Congress to consider the amendment once again. And this time, after its second introduction in Congress, he used the full powers of his office to secure the amendment's passage.

With both conservative Republicans and opposition Democrats, Lincoln argued the necessity for the amendment; to wavering Congressmen he made patronage promises. When passage seemed doubtful, he went so far as to release from military prisons certain rebels who were related to Democratic members of Congress. Indeed, Lincoln's actions caused Thaddeus Stevens, one of the most ardent Radicals in Congress, to remark: "The greatest measure in the nineteenth century was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America." [21]"

Lincoln s Constitutional Dilemma Emancipation and Black Suffrage

 

[paperview]

1864 Party platform:

"3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, hostile to the principles of Republican Government, justice and the National safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic; and that, while we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the Government, in its own defense, has aimed a deathblow at this gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of Slavery within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States. "

Republican Party Platforms Republican Party Platform of 1864

Tweet
Fourth Annual Message
December 6, 1864

"At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States passed the Senate, but failed for lack of the requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. Although the present is the same Congress and nearly the same members, and without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the present session.

Of course the abstract question is not changed; but in intervening election shows almost certainly that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not. Hence there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. A

nd as it is to so go at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better? It is not claimed that the election has imposed a duty on members to change their views or their votes any further than, as an additional element to be considered, their judgment may be affected by it. It is the voice of the people now for the first time heard upon the question. In a great national crisis like ours unanimity of action among those seeking a common end is very desirable--almost indispensable. And yet no approach to such unanimity is attainable unless some deference shall be paid to the will of the majority simply because it is the will of the majority. In this case the common end is the maintenance of the Union, and among the means to secure that end such will, through the election, is most dearly declared in favor of such constitutional amendment."

Abraham Lincoln Fourth Annual Message

 

[Contumacious]

I just did, idiot.

I showed you the actual 13th Amendment with his signature on it.

I also told you how he lobbied for it's passage, and it was part of the party platform in the 1864 election

"During 1863 Lincoln must have mulled over the various piecemeal attempts at abolition. No clear program had been devised. The border states had refused to consider gradual emancipation. Even though the proclamation was having its effect in the Confederacy, Lincoln feared that some blacks might remain in bondage after the war's end. He was looking for greater guarantees. Therefore, it was only natural that he support a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery throughout the nation when such a measure was introduced in Congress late in the year.

Despite the president's encouragement, the amendment failed to pass the House in the spring of 1864.

Lincoln now became more aggressive. At his request Republicans incorporated a call for an abolition amendment into their 1864 national platform. In his annual address in 1864, the president encouraged Congress to consider the amendment once again. And this time, after its second introduction in Congress, he used the full powers of his office to secure the amendment's passage.

With both conservative Republicans and opposition Democrats, Lincoln argued the necessity for the amendment; to wavering Congressmen he made patronage promises. When passage seemed doubtful, he went so far as to release from military prisons certain rebels who were related to Democratic members of Congress. Indeed, Lincoln's actions caused Thaddeus Stevens, one of the most ardent Radicals in Congress, to remark: "The greatest measure in the nineteenth century was passed by corruption, aided and abetted by the purest man in America." [21]"

Lincoln s Constitutional Dilemma Emancipation and Black Suffrage

LOOK , I WASN'T LOOKING FOR SOME WEBSITE TO PROVIDE THEIR OPINION.

I WANT YOU TO PROVIDE HIS ACTUAL WORDS STATING THAT HE SUPPORTED THE 13TH AMENDMENT.


.

 

[paperview]

I DID.

You skullfucking, attention-seeking shit fer brains.

 

[Contumacious]

1864 Party platform:

"3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, hostile to the principles of Republican Government, justice and the National safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic; and that, while we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the Government, in its own defense, has aimed a deathblow at this gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of Slavery within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States. "

Republican Party Platforms Republican Party Platform of 1864

Tweet
Fourth Annual Message
December 6, 1864

"At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery throughout the United States passed the Senate, but failed for lack of the requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives. Although the present is the same Congress and nearly the same members, and without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of those who stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration and passage of the measure at the present session.

Of course the abstract question is not changed; but in intervening election shows almost certainly that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not. Hence there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendment will go to the States for their action. A

nd as it is to so go at all events, may we not agree that the sooner the better? It is not claimed that the election has imposed a duty on members to change their views or their votes any further than, as an additional element to be considered, their judgment may be affected by it. It is the voice of the people now for the first time heard upon the question. In a great national crisis like ours unanimity of action among those seeking a common end is very desirable--almost indispensable. And yet no approach to such unanimity is attainable unless some deference shall be paid to the will of the majority simply because it is the will of the majority. In this case the common end is the maintenance of the Union, and among the means to secure that end such will, through the election, is most dearly declared in favor of such constitutional amendment."

Abraham Lincoln Fourth Annual Message

December 6, 1864 , almost at the end of the war , is the first time that Lincoln supported the actual 13th Amendment.

A politician who support issues according to political correctness is called a DEMAGOGUE.