Lincoln was a great leader exclusive of the war, darn him

[paperview]

and just when you thought there wasn't enough of the Stormfront contingent....





along comes Comatose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conty has never understood this topic, never.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Liberia is one of the things Lincoln did One of the poorest countries in all of Africa!

 

[Contumacious]

Conty has never understood this topic, never.

Comrade Starkiev, loves this topic

.He gets all lit up with excitement when government bureaucrats murder the citizens.

To him Ape Lincoln translated to Russian is Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin.


.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The only apish morals here are yours, Conty.

 

[paperview]

To the humans & normal people here...

I know very few people will click this link, but if you want to *hear* Lincoln, maybe as you go about your chores tonight or some other time, spend some time Here:

It's a recreation of the 1858 Lincoln Douglas debates (not all of them...they each ran 3 hours long (image that!) and there were seven debates - 21 hours in total.)

This is part one of nine. Each one about 10 minutes long.



The second one you can hear Lincoln say

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, 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, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."

 

[Baruch Menachem]

can someone tell me if the quote that if someone thinks slavery is so great, why doesn't he volunteer to be a slave is lincolns? Something like that. I like it

 

[Cassandro]

[QUOTE
The seceding states offered to pay for all federal facilities on their land and their share of the national debt. Lincoln told them to **** off.[/QUOTE]

I had not heard this before. Do you have a cite? Was this before Fort Sumter?

 

[JakeStarkey]

There may have been some unofficial feelers. If so, Lincoln would have said no.

 

[Cassandro]

Here is a good reference cite:

The Secession Of The Southern States

 

[gipper]

[QUOTE
The seceding states offered to pay for all federal facilities on their land and their share of the national debt. Lincoln told them to **** off.

I had not heard this before. Do you have a cite? Was this before Fort Sumter?[/QUOTE]
You are not alone. Most Americans know nothing of this, thanks to the misinformation planted in our heads by the state.

The Confederacy did not want war.One of the first things Jefferson Davis did after assuming office as president of the Confederacy was to send a peace delegation to Washington, D.C., in an effort to establish friendly ties with the federal government (Cooper, Jefferson Davis, American, pp. 360-362; Kenneth Davis, Don’t Know Much About the Civil War, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996, pp. 156-157). The Confederacy offered to pay the South’s share of the national debt and to pay compensation for all federal installations in the Southern states (Charles Roland, The Confederacy, University of Chicago Press, 1960, p. 28; Patrick, Jefferson Davis and His Cabinet, p. 77; William C. Davis, Look Away! A History of the Confederate States of America, New York: The Free Press, 2002, p. 87).The Confederacy also announced that Northern ships would continue to enjoy free navigation of the Mississippi River (Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, p. 138; Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume 1, pp. 210-213).Yet, Lincoln rejected all Confederate peace offers and insisted that federal armies would invade if the Southern states didn’t renounce their independence and recognize federal authority.

THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE CIVIL WAR

The South lost the election of 1860 and refused to submit to constitutional, electoral process.

And they chose to secede, which was their right.

Correct. However, they had no right to fire upon or seize federal property. Instead of invading the South, Lincoln could have demanded reparations and used a naval blockade to enforce it.

They had no right to secede. They had no right to fire on the federal troops. They had the right to submit to federal law, and when they did not, they signed the death warrant of the Union.

Wrong...all states are perpetual right?...just as dishonest Abe claimed...

You are babbling.

If only you were capable of learning and accepting the truth.

Did the South Have the Right to Secede?

I believe the evidence is clear that the South had the right to secede. None other than Ulysses S. Grant, the commanding general of the Union army for much of the Civil War and later a president of the United States, admitted he believed that if any of the original thirteen states had wanted to secede in the early days of the Union, it was unlikely the other states would have challenged that state’s “right” to do so. Grant also conceded that he believed the founding fathers would have sanctioned the right of secession rather than see a war “between brothers.” Said Grant,

If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. . . .

If they [the founding fathers] had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers. (The Personal Memoirs Of Ulysses S. Grant, Old Saybrook, Connecticut: Konecky & Konecky, 1992, reprint of original edition, pp. 130-131)

Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts wrote the following in his 1899 biography of the famous nationalist Daniel Webster:

When the Constitution was adopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of States in popular conventions, it is safe to say there was no man in this country, from Washington and Hamilton on the one side to George Clinton and George Mason on the other, who regarded our system of Government, when first adopted, as anything but an experiment entered upon by the States, and from which each and every State had the right to peaceably withdraw, a right which was very likely to be exercised. (Henry Cabot Lodge, Daniel Webster, Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1899, p. 176)

Union general Thomas Ewing acknowledged that the founding fathers did not address the issue of secession in the Constitution--he believed the war settled the question:

The North . . . recognizes the fact that the proximate cause of the war was the constitutional question of the right of secession -- a question which, until it was settled by the war, had neither a right side nor a wrong side to it. Our forefathers in framing the Constitution purposely left the question unsettled; to have settled it distinctly in the Constitution would have been to prevent the formation of the Union of the thirteen States. They, therefore, committed that question to the future. . . . (Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 31, 1903, p. 89)

British historian Goldwin Smith argued that the history of the Union showed it was a voluntarily compact:

Few who have looked into the history can doubt that the Union originally was, and was generally taken by the parties to it to be, a compact; dissoluble, perhaps most of them would have said, at pleasure, dissoluble certainly on breach of the articles of Union. (Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume 31, 1903, p. 87)

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits a state from peacefully and democratically separating from the Union. The Constitution doesn’t say that ratification is irrevocable. Nor does it give the citizens of a majority of states any right to prevent the citizens of a minority of states from withdrawing their states from the Union. Nor does it say that the Union itself is permanent. Lloyd Paul Stryker, who opposed secession, admitted the Southern states had an “arguable claim that no specific section of the Constitution stood in their way,” i.e., no section of the Constitution prohibited peaceful, democratic separation (Andrew Johnson: A Study in Courage, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930, p. 447). Indeed, the right of secession is implied in the Tenth Amendment, which reads,

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.

The Constitution does not give the federal government the power to force a state to remain in the Union against its will. President James Buchanan acknowledged this fact in a message to Congress shortly before Lincoln assumed office. Nor does the Constitution prohibit the citizens of a state from voting to repeal their state’s ratification of the Constitution. Therefore, by a plain reading of the Tenth Amendment, a state has the implied legal right to peacefully withdraw from the Union.
Southern Side of the Civil WarSouthern Side of the Civil War

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sonny, because some of the northerners thought secession was lawful does not make it so. It wasn't, by force of arms and by SCOTUS. You can argue it as a hypothetical but not as a fact.

The research of the Jefferson peace commission is good. Thank you for that.

 

[Kosh]

Sonny, because some of the northerners thought secession was lawful does not make it so. It wasn't, by force of arms and by SCOTUS. You can argue it as a hypothetical but not as a fact.

The research of the Jefferson peace commission is good. Thank you for that.

The far left once again shows they do not anything beyond their programming!

They use terms and words they do not understand..

 

[Cassandro]

Sonny, because some of the northerners thought secession was lawful does not make it so. It wasn't, by force of arms and by SCOTUS. You can argue it as a hypothetical but not as a fact.

The research of the Jefferson peace commission is good. Thank you for that.

1. Why use the derogatory term "Sonny?" Do you need that to bolster your own stature?

2. There was no Constitutional prohibition against secession in 1864.

3. Virginia had voted to stay in the Union until Lincoln announced he would invade the seceding States.

4. Without Virginia, the Confederacy would have collapsed in short order.

5. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sonny, because some of the northerners thought secession was lawful does not make it so. It wasn't, by force of arms and by SCOTUS. You can argue it as a hypothetical but not as a fact.

The research of the Jefferson peace commission is good. Thank you for that.

1. Why use the derogatory term "Sonny?" Do you need that to bolster your own stature?

2. There was no Constitutional prohibition against secession in 1864.

3. Virginia had voted to stay in the Union until Lincoln announced he would invade the seceding States.

4. Without Virginia, the Confederacy would have collapsed in short order.

5. Draw your own conclusions.

1. Stop patronizing. Get respect.
2. Show us where the Constitution permitted states to secede.
3. That was VA's fault.
4. Immaterial.

 

[Contumacious]

The only apish morals here are yours, Conty.

I got your drift, comrade.

When the president slaughters 650,000 Americans - the worst act of domestic terrorism in the nation's history - that means is not a crime.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Sonny, because some of the northerners thought secession was lawful does not make it so. It wasn't, by force of arms and by SCOTUS. You can argue it as a hypothetical but not as a fact.

The research of the Jefferson peace commission is good. Thank you for that.

1. Why use the derogatory term "Sonny?" Do you need that to bolster your own stature?

2. There was no Constitutional prohibition against secession in 1864.

3. Virginia had voted to stay in the Union until Lincoln announced he would invade the seceding States.

4. Without Virginia, the Confederacy would have collapsed in short order.

5. Draw your own conclusions.

1. Stop patronizing. Get respect.
2. Show us where the Constitution permitted states to secede.
3. That was VA's fault.
4. Immaterial.

Comrade Starkiev,

our Constitution is different than the Soviet's

In ours the government only has those powers SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED

NONE OF THE POWERS SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED state that Congress has the authority to prevent the sttes from seceding . Therefore, the right to secede was retained pursuant to the 10th Amendment.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[Contumacious]

Thank you for surrendering and seeing the light.


.

 

[occupied]

Reply to the giant block of text posted by gipper above:

Take your history revision and shove it. The question of the legality of secession was settled the minute the confederacy opened up on Fort Sumter. Such a hostile expansionist nation could not be allowed to share the same continent with the United States. If they had been interested in peaceful co-existence and sticking to their borders maybe things would have ended up different but the South had dreams of conquest West and further South that could not be allowed to go forward. Bleeding Kansas was still a fresh example of how far the slavers were willing to go to expand their way of life.