- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: For you Abraham Lincoln haters out there, Razorfist just dropped a video on his channel...
Posted on 1/15/23 at 7:07 pm to INTmachine
Posted on 1/15/23 at 7:07 pm to INTmachine
quote:
Lincoln is the single most greatest being to ever occupy office in history
I wonder how all of the other nations' leaders were able to end slavery without killing 600,000 of its own citizens, including women and children?
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM
0
Posted on 1/15/23 at 7:10 pm to Errerrerrwere
He did take an oath to defend the union.... so there's that.
The constitution is silent about the secession issue at that time, but forget that and look at it through the lens of realpolitik.He really has no choice and after Ft Sumter. If he does not respond, you may have the prospect of a failed government....not just a failed Presidency
Plus the South are not innocent actors in the run up. Southern planter types were very covetous of the territories and imposing slavery there. There was the issue of slave agents working on behalf of the planters after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act wherein you had legalized kidnapping in the North. Plus Lincoln and the politicians are not about to compete out west for territories they own....and the Planter class is very expansionist.
The constitution is silent about the secession issue at that time, but forget that and look at it through the lens of realpolitik.He really has no choice and after Ft Sumter. If he does not respond, you may have the prospect of a failed government....not just a failed Presidency
Plus the South are not innocent actors in the run up. Southern planter types were very covetous of the territories and imposing slavery there. There was the issue of slave agents working on behalf of the planters after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act wherein you had legalized kidnapping in the North. Plus Lincoln and the politicians are not about to compete out west for territories they own....and the Planter class is very expansionist.
Posted on 1/15/23 at 7:11 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Show me where the constitution expressly prohibited it though. I’ll wait.
It didn't need to be express. The states agreed to the Constitution, and the Constitution does not provide for a legal process. Therefore, they were operating outside of the law.
Posted on 1/15/23 at 7:12 pm to Buryl
quote:.
It didn't need to be express
A bullshite artist.
Posted on 1/15/23 at 7:17 pm to Buryl
quote:
The states agreed to the Constitution, and the Constitution does not provide for a legal process.
Other than post facto convenience, I also see nothing there that implies a union in perpetuity. The Constitution is far from a perfect document, and this particular problem is one of the strongest arguments against this assumption.
The question is settled, so all this Hume is/ought shite is just jerking each other off.
Posted on 1/15/23 at 7:27 pm to Buryl
quote:
It didn't need to be express
And yet it very specifically was
quote:
Tenth Amendment
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.
Nothing in the Constitution prohibited secession. Not one single word. Therefore, by the very words of the Constitution, a state could leave if so agreed upon by the citizens within said state
Posted on 1/15/23 at 7:29 pm to INTmachine
quote:
Lincoln is the single most greatest being to ever occupy office in history except for some of Israel's kings.
You cannot make a comment like this without explaining why you think this?
Posted on 1/15/23 at 7:45 pm to Buryl
quote:
What do you mean by "right"? Legal right? The Constitution, which the states ratified and agreed to uphold, provides no process for a state to secede. None. Was never really considered in the Federalist papers either.
So you just want to skip over that Declaration of Independence thingy?
It may be a minor detail to those wishing to continue denying the truth. But it makes it crystal damn clear that our founding fathers believed in the right of secession.
But that probably doesn’t satisfy your Constitutional interpretation.
Would it satisfy you to hear from one of the founding fathers that influenced the drafting of the Constitution?
In 1816, former President and founding father Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the then Secretary of War which read, "In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate'."
So if you disagree, take it up with TJ
Posted on 1/15/23 at 7:53 pm to RobbBobb
That is the way it should be.
Posted on 1/15/23 at 7:57 pm to RobbBobb
And not one word allows it. Dissolution of a country is a big deal. The south claimed the right (obviously). The union claimed the opposite.
There was a process for determining constitutional questions, the south chose not to pursue it. The rest is history.
There was a process for determining constitutional questions, the south chose not to pursue it. The rest is history.
Posted on 1/15/23 at 8:00 pm to Buryl
quote:
And not one word allows it.
Agree, and none disallow it.
Lincoln was no abolitionist. All he cared about was saving the union.
Posted on 1/15/23 at 8:04 pm to HempHead
It’s the commie tsunami.
They hit during politicized events.
In short, they are paid shills imho.
They hit during politicized events.
In short, they are paid shills imho.
Posted on 1/15/23 at 8:12 pm to Buryl
quote:
And not one word allows it.
You missed the whole point of the 10th amendment
What isnt SPECIFICALLY written into the Constitution is up to the states. Including secession.
We just overturned a decades long abortion ruling because it isnt written that the fed can force states to do that. States can decide to opt out of abortions. It clearly allow each state to decide what is not written for them in the signing documents
Guess whats else is not written? Forced membership
Posted on 1/15/23 at 8:15 pm to Buryl
quote:
What do you mean by "right"? Legal right? The Constitution, which the states ratified and agreed to uphold, provides no process for a state to secede. None. Was never really considered in the Federalist papers either.
Here’s another piece for you to read to better understand the role of the US Constitution: The Jubilee of the Constitution: A Discourse (1839)
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
If the text in the hyperlink is not obvious, notice it was written by John Quincy Adams who was much closer to the Constitution than you and I. It’s a long read, but here’s one of the relevant parts:
quote:
With these qualifications, we may admit the same right as vested in the people of every state in the Union, with reference to the General Government, which was exercised by the people of the United Colonies, with reference to the Supreme head of the British empire, of which they formed a part - and under these limitations, have the people of each state in the Union a right to secede from the confederated Union itself.
Thus stands the RIGHT. But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.
So in your opinion, under what authority did Abraham Lincoln and yourself (or your history teachers) decide that the right to secession did not exist?
Posted on 1/15/23 at 8:22 pm to Buryl
quote:
And not one word allows it. Dissolution of a country is a big deal. The south claimed the right (obviously). The union claimed the opposite. There was a process for determining constitutional questions, the south chose not to pursue it. The rest is history.
Famed political thinker and historian Alexis de Tocqueville also disagrees with internet message board theorist Buryl. Let's take a look:
quote:
"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right."
Posted on 1/15/23 at 8:27 pm to Buryl
Buryl, dude, bro,
In order for the absurdity of your claims to be exposed, let's go ahead and entertain your thoughts. So let's start with a presumption which you are advancing - that the actions undertaken by Lincoln were Constitutional. If that were true, then the attendees of the constitutional convention (who barely ratified the Constitution) would have had to also agree to the following stipulations:
1. That no state may ever secede from the union for any reason.
2. If any state attempts to secede, the federal government shall invade such a state with sufficient military force to suppress the secession.
3. The federal government may require all states to raise militias to be used to suppress the seceding state(s).
4. After suppressing the secession, the federal government may rule by martial law until such time as the state accepts permanent federal supremacy (this was the "Reconstruction" phase).
5. After the secession is suppressed, the federal government may force the states to adopt new state constitutions imposed upon them by federal military authorities (also during the "Reconstruction" phase).
6. The president may, on his own authority and without consulting with any other branch of government, suspend the Bill of Rights and the writ of habeas corpus (as Lincoln did in the first months of his Presidency).
It is pretty clear that Lincoln believed (or wanted us to believe) the Constitution had all of this to say about the powers granted to him by the Constitution. Yet take a moment to think about whether or not any of these would have had the slightest chance of being adopted by the constitutional convention. No honest student of history would ever suggest such a thing.
In order for the absurdity of your claims to be exposed, let's go ahead and entertain your thoughts. So let's start with a presumption which you are advancing - that the actions undertaken by Lincoln were Constitutional. If that were true, then the attendees of the constitutional convention (who barely ratified the Constitution) would have had to also agree to the following stipulations:
1. That no state may ever secede from the union for any reason.
2. If any state attempts to secede, the federal government shall invade such a state with sufficient military force to suppress the secession.
3. The federal government may require all states to raise militias to be used to suppress the seceding state(s).
4. After suppressing the secession, the federal government may rule by martial law until such time as the state accepts permanent federal supremacy (this was the "Reconstruction" phase).
5. After the secession is suppressed, the federal government may force the states to adopt new state constitutions imposed upon them by federal military authorities (also during the "Reconstruction" phase).
6. The president may, on his own authority and without consulting with any other branch of government, suspend the Bill of Rights and the writ of habeas corpus (as Lincoln did in the first months of his Presidency).
It is pretty clear that Lincoln believed (or wanted us to believe) the Constitution had all of this to say about the powers granted to him by the Constitution. Yet take a moment to think about whether or not any of these would have had the slightest chance of being adopted by the constitutional convention. No honest student of history would ever suggest such a thing.
This post was edited on 1/15/23 at 8:30 pm
Posted on 1/15/23 at 8:33 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Plus the South are not innocent actors in the run up. Southern planter types were very covetous of the territories and imposing slavery there. There was the issue of slave agents working on behalf of the planters after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act wherein you had legalized kidnapping in the North. Plus Lincoln and the politicians are not about to compete out west for territories they own....and the Planter class is very expansionist.
Again, please tell the class what parishes in South Louisiana under Union control where the Emancipation Proclamation did not actually free any slaves.
Posted on 1/15/23 at 8:41 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
RollTide1987
Posted on 1/15/23 at 8:57 pm to BuckyCheese
quote:
Well, considering the South shot first...
You want ignore the chest bumping that preceded it?
Do you also forgive cops when they bully emotionally charged people into taking the first swing? And then use their authoritay to take the bullied assailant into custody?
Was it or was it not Lincoln’s plan to use any strategy necessary to cause the South to take the first shot? He needed that technically in the same way that you rely on it, but war was his plan. What he needed was the illusion of moral high ground.
Posted on 1/15/23 at 8:58 pm to Giantkiller
quote:
Who hates Abraham Lincoln?
I do.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News