Safety Month Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Recess Monkey The best from Bose just got wireless Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks STEM Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors
Customer Discussions > History forum

'Father Abraham' Lincoln recognized the 'Perpetuity of the United States'


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-12 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 16, 2013 6:40:58 PM PST
In the Articles of Confederation, all states agreed to a perpetual union. Thus accepting this perpetuity, it wasn't included in the Constitution's 7 Articles (written on 4 pages) because once you agree to something in perpetuity, it would be redundant to state it again! In hind sight, the framers of the Constitution knew that secession was not an option for the states and should have restated this clause from the Articles of Confederation.

Abraham Lincoln certainly recognized this impossibility of a state seceeding and never would allow anyone in his company to use the terms "Confederacy" or "Confederates". They were always "the Rebels".

Did President Washington 'invade' Western Pennsylvania when he put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791? Of course not. The Federal Govt can not invade part of its own lands. It can use force to put down armed rebellion in parts of the land it governs. Matter-of-fact, that's part of the purpose of any government - federal, state, or local - to police the land it governs.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 7, 2013 5:45:59 PM PST
Lincoln insisted on the 'Perpetuity of the United States' but I wonder now if this was the wisest course of action; because history happened one way and not another we tend to block out what might have occurred. Lincoln's constitutional mandate required him to put down rebellions: the Whiskey Rebellion was a rebellion, but Secession was something entirely different, certainly in scope. Was it right to forcibly keep millions of people in a political union they rejected? Morally I don't think so, not any longer. The constitutional order always rested on a somewhat shakey foundation, with slavery as the primary lynchpin that could throw everything to pieces. If there was no way to constitutionally resolve the problem, it seems folly to force something that no longer works.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2013 7:02:28 AM PDT
HomoSardonicus said, "It seems folly to force something that no longer works".

What?! WRONG. The United States and its Constitution certainly "works", but slavery does NOT!

Also, what gets lost in history re: the causes of the Civil War is that southern plantation owners owed northern banks millions of dollars in 1860! These plantation owners controlled the southern state governments. By seceding, they could get away with not paying their large debts.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 11, 2013 7:27:43 AM PDT
<<By seceding, they could get away with not paying their large debts.>>

Is this the reason why New York City also wanted to secede--so that the bankers would be able to collect their debts?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 13, 2013 6:58:30 PM PDT
Thanks for your comment. I maintain that the constituton AFTER the Civil War was fundamentally different in understanding than the PRE-WAR constitution, and certainly at odds with the Founders' understanding and contrary to their intentions. History presents new problems which are interpreted according to current time rather than past, but whether new interpretations suite the nation's overall interests is open to question. Slavery was a political and moral question which could not be solved within the constitutional framework, so the document had to be violated in order to preserve it--bizzare logic. I do not believe ending slavery was worth the ensuing carnage; moral absolutists and those standing to profit from a new order certainly endorsed it. Slavery WAS a moral problem, but protecting the peace of society as a whole is a greater morality; the catastrophe of the war remains unresolved to this day. I am neither pro-Southern nor pro-Northern but a sardonic oberver of human folly; the constitution has been interpreted out of existance so that it is practically meaningless in this day; the Republic has become an aggressive Empire that has relegated the old document to a museum of antiquities but nontheless trots it out to serve as a fig leaf justifying any and all new horrors.

Posted on Mar 14, 2013 1:00:11 AM PDT
Sam Clemens says:
Thanks for your comment. I maintain that the constituton AFTER the Civil War was fundamentally different in understanding than the PRE-WAR constitution, and certainly at odds with the Founders' understanding and contrary to their intentions.

I'm inclined to agress. What's more, Mr. Lincoln was, in some very significant ways, a tyrant. He incarcerated hundreds of journalists, and shut down many magazines and newspapers. Due process was not in his political vocabulary. One could also argue that general economic issues were the real cause of the wars, not so much as slavery, per se.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 4:01:01 AM PDT
Debunker says:
"One could also argue that general economic issues were the real cause of the wars, not so much as slavery, per se."

One COULD argue that. Of course, one would lose that argument.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 14, 2013 4:18:39 PM PDT
Domenico,

No, but New York City was certainly split on the issue of seceding, right? Were you aware of the LARGE debt the southern planters owed the northern banks before this thread?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 15, 2013 7:43:04 PM PDT
Agreed. Arguing an economic cause of the war is a Marxist explanation. Nobody fights for economics, they fight for ideas, for emotions. Economics are always involved in any conflict, but never as a determinant. I'm sure the biggest Southern debtors were as patriotic as the lowest dirt farmers.

Posted on Mar 15, 2013 8:25:51 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
After the Constitution was ratified by 9 States on June 21, 1988 and the new Union was established to whom did the other five States belong? What if these five have failed to join the Union? Would there have been a War Between the States in 1789 or 1790?

Posted on Mar 15, 2013 10:48:13 PM PDT
aLocher says:
f4all: What if these five have failed to join the Union? Would there have been a War Between the States in 1789 or 1790?

AL: It is all speculation. But I think they would have just been left alone, no war to force them into the union. Sooner or later they would realize they were better off in than out. I don't think the others would have forced them in. But there is no way to know.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 16, 2013 12:37:24 PM PDT
Brad Watson,
I knew that some New York City politicians and plutocrats wanted to secede because of the extensive economic ties with the South, but I was not "aware of the LARGE debt the southern planters owed the northern banks."
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the History forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
440 13 days ago
Masada 80 14 minutes ago
JFK Assassination Part VI 1817 22 minutes ago
Will America go metric? 33 4 hours ago
David Cameron Falls On His Sword 1 10 hours ago
Explaining Hitler 247 14 hours ago
History of the Palestinian Nation (Part IV) 7785 17 hours ago
Was the second world war really one war? 23 18 hours ago
JFK Assassination V WW 201 19 hours ago
UK "Remain" edges back ahead.. 4 19 hours ago
JFK Assassination XXIV 155 20 hours ago
A Place For Pro-Israel Posters IV 743 22 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  7
Total posts:  12
Initial post:  Jan 16, 2013
Latest post:  Mar 16, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions