Customer Discussions > History forum

Was Lincoln's invasion of the South Constitutional?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1376-1400 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 2:51:40 PM PDT
"interesting argument... so you are saying members of the United States no longer have a given right to self rule?

do you apply these same rules to other countries.. when members of a country you disagree with try to secede from it or declare their independence do you make a stand against it saying it is against that countries laws... or does the inability of a region to obtain autonomy ONLY apply to countries you agree with?"

Not at all what president Jackson said.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 2:58:25 PM PDT
SA: The invasion of the south was wrong.
Imagine you were a Boy Scout. Then you and your friends no longer wanted to be Boy Scouts. Then the other Boy Scouts came and beat you all up forcing to be Boy Scouts again.
That would be wrong.

BPL: Imagine you were a Boy Scout. Then you and your friends no longer wanted to be Boy Scouts. So you and your friends kidnap a bunch of Cub Scouts, beat them, rape them, and force them to work for you for the rest of their lives. Then the rest of the Boy Scouts came and beat you up, freed the Cub Scouts, and turned you over to the police. That would be a more realistic analogy.

BTW, the South fired first, and the south invaded first.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 2:59:40 PM PDT
SA: Lincoln was responsible for more American deaths than any other president. Because of that he deserved that bullet to the brain. His death was probably one of the main factors for peace afterwards.

BPL: You are one of the few people I have run into on these boards whom I consider actively evil. I disagree with many people, but I find most of my opponents to be confused or misinformed rather than malicious. You are doing the devil's work. You're on filter forever.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 3:02:15 PM PDT
f: Such bondage to death white men is tyranny.

BPL: No, keeping slaves is tyranny. Your sympathy for white men falls a little short of a decent ethical outlook.

Posted on Jul 19, 2012 3:02:52 PM PDT
from:https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/index.html

Narrative History of Texas Annexation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Texans voted in favor of annexation to the United States in the first election following independence in 1836. However, throughout the Republic period (1836-1845) no treaty of annexation negotiated between the Republic and the United States was ratified by both nations.

When all attempts to arrive at a formal annexation treaty failed, the United States Congress passed--after much debate and only a simple majority--a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States. Under these terms, Texas would keep both its public lands and its public debt, it would have the power to divide into four additional states "of convenient size" in the future if it so desired, and it would deliver all military, postal, and customs facilities and authority to the United States government. (Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance passed by the Republic of Texas' Annexation Convention gave Texas the right to secede.)

In July 1845, a popularly-elected Constitutional Convention met in Austin to consider both this annexation proposal as well as a proposed peace treaty with Mexico which would end the state of war between the two nations, but only if Texas remained an independent country.

The Convention voted to accept the United States' proposal, and the Annexation Ordinance was submitted to a popular vote in October 1845. The proposed Annexation Ordinance and State Constitution were approved by the Texas voters and submitted to the United States Congress.

The United States House and Senate, in turn, accepted the Texas state constitution in a Joint Resolution to Admit Texas as a State which was signed by the president on December 29, 1845. Although the formal transfer of government did not occur until February 19, 1846, Texas statehood dates from the 29th of December.

Opposition to Texas' admission to the United States was particularly strong in the North during this period. If a challenge to the constitutionality of the move could have been made successfully at that time, there is little doubt that the leaders of the opposition would have instituted such a suit in the Supreme Court.

Narrative by Jean Carefoot
Texas State Library and Archives Commission April 1997

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 3:06:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 19, 2012 3:07:52 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
BPL: No, keeping slaves is tyranny. Your sympathy for white men

f4a: What? I said the tyranny of dead white men. Those slave owners got the karma they deserved but for the wrong reason. Lincoln invaded because they left the Union, not because they had slaves. He said they could keep their slaves if they stayed and paid.

By the 9th and 10th Amendment they had every right to leave, just as they have free choice to join. How can dead people have authority over what a free people do?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 3:08:10 PM PDT
RA: they failed to provide a representative democracy... Not a single Southern State Voted for Lincoln yet he won the presidential election.. .isn't that a clear cut example that they were NOT represented in the government.

BPL: Ever heard of "Congress?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 3:09:14 PM PDT
RA: does the inability of a region to obtain autonomy ONLY apply to countries you agree with?

BPL: Ah, that's the point, isn't it? You want a rule that says "any region can secede for any reason." As opposed to a more rational "some secessions are justified and some are not."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 3:12:28 PM PDT
f: Lincoln invaded because they left the Union, not because they had slaves. He said they could keep their slaves if they stayed and paid.

BPL: Fallacy of distraction and you know it. Lincoln was committed to ridding the land of slavery. That was why SC seceded in the first place.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 3:19:47 PM PDT
D. says:
Richard: Besides the fact that secession was unconstitutional, and the confederated states violated the Constitution Article 1, Sec. 9, Article III, Sec. 3 of the Constitution says "treason against the United States consists of levying War against them." Therefore, the attack on Ft. Sumter was treason, punishable as Congress sees fit, which was to put down the illegal insurrection.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 3:20:03 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
BPL: Fallacy of distraction and you know it. Lincoln was committed to ridding the land of slavery.

f4a: Then why did he lie?

Posted on Jul 19, 2012 3:22:48 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. " --- Lysander Spooner

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 3:36:28 PM PDT
f4a:

Lincoln didn't lie, Tom DiLorenzo is the liar. Don't be so gullible.
Your reply to Eric Calistri's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

Posted on Jul 19, 2012 3:42:09 PM PDT
If you agree with Spooner, why discuss the Constitution at all? "it has no authority at all ..."

Very poor rhetorical technique to quote the Tenth Amendment in one post and Spooner in the next.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 3:53:31 PM PDT
D.
People keep saying secession is unconstitutional, but can't point to a single article that even mentions the word. South Carolina had already seceeded, and hadn't joined the Confederacy, so it was a soverign nation at the time of the Ft. Sumpter battle. So it was no more treason than the conduct of the United States making war against Great Britian in the war of 1812. Both had been part of the nation they were fighting against, but both had seperated from the mother country prior to the war. If the English had won the war of 1812 they would have reabsorbed the United States as colonies (I believe).

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 4:00:00 PM PDT
The patriots of 1776 were clearly committing treason, and they knew it. So yes, you are correct, what was treason in 1776 was treason in 1861.

Posted on Jul 19, 2012 4:09:20 PM PDT
To be accurate, Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, shows that a state issued ordnance of secession has no effect on the United States or it's laws.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 4:13:03 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
Eric Calistri says:
f4a, Lincoln didn't lie, Tom DiLorenzo is the liar. Don't be so gullible.

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "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." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

Was this the truth or a lie?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 5:23:51 PM PDT
Truth.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 19, 2012 8:29:43 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Following that logic, any state whose electoral votes went for McCain in 2008 could rightfully secede from the United States today. Do you think that would be good policy?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2012 5:23:55 AM PDT
BPL: Fallacy of distraction and you know it. Lincoln was committed to ridding the land of slavery.

f4a: Then why did he lie?

BPL: Who said he lied? Maybe he thought slavery would fall on its own. Why do you lie?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2012 5:25:15 AM PDT
RMS: South Carolina had already seceeded, and hadn't joined the Confederacy, so it was a soverign nation at the time of the Ft. Sumpter battle.

BPL: You're arguing in a circle. You're assuming SC was right (legal, moral) in seceding, when that's the point at issue.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2012 5:28:49 AM PDT
"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "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." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

f: Was this the truth or a lie?

BPL: The truth. He said "in the States where it exists." The fight for a decade had been whether NEW states should enter the Union slave or free. Lincoln came down hard for freedom, and the south wouldn't accept it. If they had agreed, the south would have been more and more an isolated, inhumane contradiction to a growing free United States, which would have eventually been able to vote slavery out of existence. Lincoln knew it. The South knew it. That was why SC passed an ordnance calling his election "a hostile act" against the south three months BEFORE the speech you keep citing as alleged evidence of Lincoln's duplicity.

The hell with your ad hominem arguments. No one cares how much you hate Lincoln. He did the right thing fighting the south. Deal with it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2012 6:16:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 20, 2012 6:44:17 AM PDT
freedom4all says:
BPL: Who said he lied? Maybe he thought slavery would fall on its own. Why do you lie?

f4a: I said Lincoln invaded because the CSA left not to free the slaves. I said that Lincoln told them they could keep their slaves if they said and paid.

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "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." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

BPL: The hell with your ad hominem arguments. No one cares how much you hate Lincoln. He did the right thing fighting the south. Deal with it.

f4a: Not ad hominem at all. The question to hold the Union was formed by free Sovereign Independent States who voted Separately by democratically called State Ratification Conventions is history. That 5 State were outside this new Union formed after 9 have voted for it and therefore were independent sovereign states, later choose to join. That the Principle of Legislative Entrenchment is a doctrine of tyranny. That a large part of the founders (not all for sure) held the Principle State nullification and secession, including the Five (5) living ex-Presidents in 1861. Are all germane to the question of Lincoln's Unconstitutional War.

That these logical arguments upset you sense of justice is your problems. That a lucky outcome (the freeing of slaves) happen as a result of a political power grab a central government is without question. That spin and propaganda was then used to justify the deaths of 620,000 Americans, the maiming of many more and the destruction of a region to ensure politician gain and power is proven history.

Aggression and its evil brother war are always the results of tyranny.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 20, 2012 7:42:24 AM PDT
Correct, the historical fact was that the people and government of South Carolina believed that they had the right to seceed. Everything that came after, all the hatred and bloodshed, was to decide that issue. The simple fact is that they had seceded, and rightly or wrongly, the north used force to return them to the Union.
[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
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  104
Total posts:  2009
Initial post:  May 10, 2012
Latest post:  Feb 7, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions