Was John Wilkes Booth right to shoot Lincoln?

[Syriusly]

The Confederacy was nothing more than states in rebellion against the lawful authority of the United States- a rebellion for the express purpose of protecting the institution of slavery.
.

HAHAHA. What an ignorant thing to say. The Union had 4 slave states of their own ( ky md mo de) with a total of 400,000 slaves. How could the war be about ending slavery when both sides practiced slavery all 4 years of the war? THINK

Yeah- you are just stupid and bigoted.

The United States did not go to war over slavery- the Confederate rebels went to war to protect slavery.

As I said

The Confederacy was nothing more than states in rebellion against the lawful authority of the United States- a rebellion for the express purpose of protecting the institution of slavery.

And as a result- all slaves were freed.

 

[Syriusly]

Not Union soldiers- American soldiers.

Really? When a nation splits in half it's tough to say which side deserves to be called the original country. THINK

Not hard for anyone with a brain and reading comprehension.

Which side was the 'original country'- the one that stayed with the Constitution of the United States- rather than writing a new Constitution that expressly protected slavery.

The proposed new slave country of the Confederate States of America.

 

[hortysir]

The assassination only bolstered his false idol status

just like Jesus.

Not that you're remotely on topic, Jesus wasn't assassinated

 

[hortysir]

Not Union soldiers- American soldiers.

Really? When a nation splits in half it's tough to say which side deserves to be called the original country. THINK

Not hard for anyone with a brain and reading comprehension.

Which side was the 'original country'- the one that stayed with the Constitution of the United States- rather than writing a new Constitution that expressly protected slavery.

The proposed new slave country of the Confederate States of America.

Then ask yourself ho penned a proposed amendment that would not only legalize slavery, but was worded in such a way as to make it damned near impossible to repeal it.....meant only to lure the confederacy back in to the union

 

[daws101]

The assassination only bolstered his false idol status

just like Jesus.

Not that you're remotely on topic, Jesus wasn't assassinated

Of course he was.

 

[Syriusly]

It is AMAZING how people say Lincoln didn't shit on our COTUS. In his proclamation to call Congress together, he himself even said he needs Congress to OK his unconstitutional actions..
Revisionist bullshit is all this is.

Oh I agree that President Lincoln abused the Constitution as he worked to end the rebellion.

Of course the rebellious states abused the Constitution by the act of rebellion.

In the end, Lincoln's action kept the United States united- and that directly lead to the United States becoming the most powerful and affluent nation in the world 80 years later.

How did they abuse the COTUS?

Well first and foremost- they rejected the election of the President of the United States as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution- that is why they rebelled.


Secondly- they formed an unconstitutional confederation

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

 

[Syriusly]

Not Union soldiers- American soldiers.

Really? When a nation splits in half it's tough to say which side deserves to be called the original country. THINK

Not hard for anyone with a brain and reading comprehension.

Which side was the 'original country'- the one that stayed with the Constitution of the United States- rather than writing a new Constitution that expressly protected slavery.

The proposed new slave country of the Confederate States of America.

Then ask yourself ho penned a proposed amendment that would not only legalize slavery, but was worded in such a way as to make it damned near impossible to repeal it.....meant only to lure the confederacy back in to the union

Really have no clue.

The question was how to determine which was the 'original country' and the answer is the one that didn't write a new Constitution.

I do know of course that the Confederate Constitution was written to specifically protect the right to slavery.

What the Confederate States Constitution says about slavery | American Civil War Forums

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibited the Confederate government from restricting slavery in any way:

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."

Article IV, Section 2 also prohibited states from interfering with slavery:

"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired."

Perhaps the most menacing provision of the Confederate States Constitution was the explicit protection Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3 offered to slavery in all future territories conquered or acquired by the Confederacy:

"The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."

This provision ensured the perpetuation of slavery as long and as far as the Confederate States could extend it's political reach, and more then a few Confederates had their eyes fixed on Cuba and Central and South America as objects of future conquest.

Unlike the Confederate States Constitution, the United States Constitution freely permitted states to abolish slavery. If the day ever came when slavery was eliminated voluntarily throughout the United States of America, not one word of the United States Constitution would need to be changed, whereas slavery could never lawfully be abolished under the Confederate States Constitution.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

The Civil War was not quite over when lincoln was shot and since L was commander in chief of the Union army, he was certainly a legitimate military target.

Lincoln started the war that killed 600,000 americans and if he had lived he'd have likely started another war, maybe with canada or england.

Both legally and ethically, JWB was in the right.

I knew I had to come in and read this OP, and get a laugh out of it!

First off if you were really a historian then the war was Called the Insurrection, War Between the States, The north and South War, The war between the Blue's and Grey's but at that time was not consider a Civil War seeing the Confederate States were a country of their own.

Also the last fired shot of the war between the states was on June 22, 1865 and Lincoln death was April 15th 1865, so yes at the end of the war he was still a target of assassination and one was carried out because he was an enemy of the South.

Even though you are correct on the assassination having to do with the Civil War the fact still remains it was not correct course of action and no evidence has ever been shown Lincoln would have put America in another war.

The war between the states was coming to a end, and killing Lincoln did not prevent the end of the war nor did it prevent the south defeat.

So it was just revenge murder and nothing more...

 

[TNHarley]

It is AMAZING how people say Lincoln didn't shit on our COTUS. In his proclamation to call Congress together, he himself even said he needs Congress to OK his unconstitutional actions..
Revisionist bullshit is all this is.

Oh I agree that President Lincoln abused the Constitution as he worked to end the rebellion.

Of course the rebellious states abused the Constitution by the act of rebellion.

In the end, Lincoln's action kept the United States united- and that directly lead to the United States becoming the most powerful and affluent nation in the world 80 years later.

How did they abuse the COTUS?

Well first and foremost- they rejected the election of the President of the United States as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution- that is why they rebelled.


Secondly- they formed an unconstitutional confederation

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

Texas Vs White is the ruling that laid out the "states cant secede" business. That was in 1867. Try again?

 

[Syriusly]

It is AMAZING how people say Lincoln didn't shit on our COTUS. In his proclamation to call Congress together, he himself even said he needs Congress to OK his unconstitutional actions..
Revisionist bullshit is all this is.

Oh I agree that President Lincoln abused the Constitution as he worked to end the rebellion.

Of course the rebellious states abused the Constitution by the act of rebellion.

In the end, Lincoln's action kept the United States united- and that directly lead to the United States becoming the most powerful and affluent nation in the world 80 years later.

How did they abuse the COTUS?

Well first and foremost- they rejected the election of the President of the United States as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution- that is why they rebelled.


Secondly- they formed an unconstitutional confederation

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

Texas Vs White is the ruling that laid out the "states cant secede" business. That was in 1867. Try again?

As you pointed out- it is settled law.

 

[TNHarley]

It is AMAZING how people say Lincoln didn't shit on our COTUS. In his proclamation to call Congress together, he himself even said he needs Congress to OK his unconstitutional actions..
Revisionist bullshit is all this is.

Oh I agree that President Lincoln abused the Constitution as he worked to end the rebellion.

Of course the rebellious states abused the Constitution by the act of rebellion.

In the end, Lincoln's action kept the United States united- and that directly lead to the United States becoming the most powerful and affluent nation in the world 80 years later.

How did they abuse the COTUS?

Well first and foremost- they rejected the election of the President of the United States as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution- that is why they rebelled.


Secondly- they formed an unconstitutional confederation

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

Texas Vs White is the ruling that laid out the "states cant secede" business. That was in 1867. Try again?

As you pointed out- it is settled law.

AFTER THE FACT
Try again?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh I agree that President Lincoln abused the Constitution as he worked to end the rebellion.

Of course the rebellious states abused the Constitution by the act of rebellion.

In the end, Lincoln's action kept the United States united- and that directly lead to the United States becoming the most powerful and affluent nation in the world 80 years later.

How did they abuse the COTUS?

Well first and foremost- they rejected the election of the President of the United States as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution- that is why they rebelled.


Secondly- they formed an unconstitutional confederation

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

Texas Vs White is the ruling that laid out the "states cant secede" business. That was in 1867. Try again?

As you pointed out- it is settled law.

AFTER THE FACT
Try again?

Yeah- after the fact- it is settled law now.

They violated the U.S. Constitution every bit as much as Lincoln did.

The difference of course is that Lincoln did it to protect the United States- while the Confederates did it to protect the right to own slaves.

 

[TNHarley]

How did they abuse the COTUS?

Well first and foremost- they rejected the election of the President of the United States as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution- that is why they rebelled.


Secondly- they formed an unconstitutional confederation

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

Texas Vs White is the ruling that laid out the "states cant secede" business. That was in 1867. Try again?

As you pointed out- it is settled law.

AFTER THE FACT
Try again?

Yeah- after the fact- it is settled law now.

They violated the U.S. Constitution every bit as much as Lincoln did.

The difference of course is that Lincoln did it to protect the United States- while the Confederates did it to protect the right to own slaves.

AGAIN explain how they violated our COTUS. a later interpretation is about the most desperate thing I have ever heard of.

 

[Syriusly]

Well first and foremost- they rejected the election of the President of the United States as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution- that is why they rebelled.


Secondly- they formed an unconstitutional confederation

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

Texas Vs White is the ruling that laid out the "states cant secede" business. That was in 1867. Try again?

As you pointed out- it is settled law.

AFTER THE FACT
Try again?

Yeah- after the fact- it is settled law now.

They violated the U.S. Constitution every bit as much as Lincoln did.

The difference of course is that Lincoln did it to protect the United States- while the Confederates did it to protect the right to own slaves.

AGAIN explain how they violated our COTUS. a later interpretation is about the most desperate thing I have ever heard of.

Already explained- your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

 

[TNHarley]

Texas Vs White is the ruling that laid out the "states cant secede" business. That was in 1867. Try again?

As you pointed out- it is settled law.

AFTER THE FACT
Try again?

Yeah- after the fact- it is settled law now.

They violated the U.S. Constitution every bit as much as Lincoln did.

The difference of course is that Lincoln did it to protect the United States- while the Confederates did it to protect the right to own slaves.

AGAIN explain how they violated our COTUS. a later interpretation is about the most desperate thing I have ever heard of.

Already explained- your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem.

Your revisionist bullshit IS your problem, hombre.

 

[hortysir]

How did they abuse the COTUS?

Well first and foremost- they rejected the election of the President of the United States as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution- that is why they rebelled.


Secondly- they formed an unconstitutional confederation

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

Texas Vs White is the ruling that laid out the "states cant secede" business. That was in 1867. Try again?

As you pointed out- it is settled law.

AFTER THE FACT
Try again?

Yeah- after the fact- it is settled law now.

They violated the U.S. Constitution every bit as much as Lincoln did.

The difference of course is that Lincoln did it to protect the United States- while the Confederates did it to protect the right to own slaves.

Whether it was to keep slaves or to where pink shoes is irrelevant. They fought to be their own country. THAT is what Lincoln couldn't allow. He didn't give a shit about slavery

 

[ShootSpeeders]

How did they abuse the COTUS?

Well first and foremost- they rejected the election of the President of the United States as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution- that is why they rebelled.
Secondly- they formed an unconstitutional confederation
;

And lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus (something the constitution says only congress can do) and then imprisoned 15,000 war opposers without charges. Now that's abusing the constitution

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Texas Vs White is the ruling that laid out the "states cant secede" business. That was in 1867. Try again?

Another "law" written by unelected judges. If you want to ban secession, then get the states to amend the constitution. Only they can do it.

 

[TNHarley]

Texas Vs White is the ruling that laid out the "states cant secede" business. That was in 1867. Try again?

Another "law" written by unelected judges. If you want to ban secession, then get the states to amend the constitution. Only they can do it.

Nothing was "written", it was ruled on.

 

[Syriusly]

Well first and foremost- they rejected the election of the President of the United States as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution- that is why they rebelled.


Secondly- they formed an unconstitutional confederation

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

Texas Vs White is the ruling that laid out the "states cant secede" business. That was in 1867. Try again?

As you pointed out- it is settled law.

AFTER THE FACT
Try again?

Yeah- after the fact- it is settled law now.

They violated the U.S. Constitution every bit as much as Lincoln did.

The difference of course is that Lincoln did it to protect the United States- while the Confederates did it to protect the right to own slaves.

Whether it was to keep slaves or to where pink shoes is irrelevant. They fought to be their own country. THAT is what Lincoln couldn't allow. He didn't give a shit about slavery

Actually Lincoln was opposed to slavery- the record shows he was always opposed to slavery. However, he put the unity of our country ahead of his personal beliefs and was more than willing to allow slavery to continue to preserve the Union.

But the Confederate States unconstitutionally seceded in order to protect their 'rights' to own slaves- and Lincoln violated the Constitution to preserve the Union- which resulted in the emancipation of slaves.