In order for Lincoln’s position about the right of secession, the following is what the states agreed to when they signed on.
1) No state may ever secede for any reason. 2) If a state does secede, the federal government may suppress the secession with military force. 3) The federal government may coerce all states to provide militias to suppress the seceding state. 4) After suppressing the seceded state, the federal government may govern that state with a military dictatorship until the state accepts the supremacy of the federal government. 5) After the suppression, the federal government may force the state to adopt a new constitution imposed on it by military force, which happened in reconstruction. 6) The president may unilaterally suspend the Bill of Rights and the writ of habeas corpus.
Now, if it took the inclusion of a a written bill of rights to get some of the states to ratify the Constitution, do you think any of them would have signed on if they had believed those six points?
I think a big issue in the whole issue of the expansion of slavery was that the slaves were reproducing so rapidly that some states main export was slaves. Forward thinking white southerners realized they would soon be drastically outnumbered by Negro and Mulatto slaves. Haiti's successful slave rebellion with its attendant horrors weighed heavily on their minds. If the slave states could be cordoned off and not allowed to expand the southerners realized they were the next Haiti and could not only expect no help from the national government but might instead likely get steady agitation of their slave population from the northern abolitionists. The import of Negro African slaves is the worst thing ever done to the U.S. but by 1776 the situation was well entrenched.
The Southern States wouldn't have been able to export any significant number of slaves to the newly entering states because they didn't have the kind of economy that could use them in any large numbers. The whole issue with maintaining a balance between "Slave States" and non "Slave States" had to do with faction blocks in the Federal Government. The South was aware that the North had interests in conflict with their own, and sought to dominate and exploit the Southern States, and this conflict over whether the new states would be free or slave had to do with that alone.
"...united for national defense and a handful of policies..."
Policies, right, like life, LIBERTY and etc. etc. etc.
Given that slavery was LEGAL at the time of our founding and the writing of our Constitution and that many of our founders, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington ect were slave owners. It would seem pretty clear that they thought slavery to be legal and fall within the Constitution… It’s also fairly clear that they believed that the US should be a country for Caucasians to govern.
You can like that or not. You can apply your 21st century ideas how you like but those would seem to me to be obvious historical facts and did not give Lincoln or any President thereafter the right to violate our Constitution.
I don't know about Washington but Jefferson inherited slaves at the age of 14 when his father died. That never seems to be mentioned in these conversations and both men promoted legislation to free them. Another fact that is always omitted.
I have felt for many years that Lincoln was the father of the huge federal government we have today. The war gave him what he needed to implement it. He the same as admitted it when he made the statement that freeing the slaves was not it's purpose. It's purpose was to preserve the union. So ever since we have been taught that he was a great president and that he saved the union. That has been a diversion, in my eyes, to what the real purpose was. Never ever forget how near sighted most of us are. We view our world within the course of our own lifetimes. Men that form the future, whether for good or bad, do not. Lincoln was part of a master plan that is still playing out. This plan was forged in hell by the devil himself. There are no party lines in this. There is only good and bad. The Founders were on the side of good. They modeled this nation with God's approval. Any leader that goes against that has only one side to be in league with. Lincoln has also been portrayed as a man of God. I need to see evidence of that.
So let me get this straight...............you think Lincoln got rid of the evil of slavery to usher in a new evil of a huge federal government?
I'm reminded of this:
“How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end” (Mark 3:23-26).
What I am saying is that before Lincoln we were being governed by people that seemed to understand our founding as men like Adams, Monroe, Madison and others envisioned. During the war Lincoln moved away from that, in my opinion. This war allowed things to be done in regard to individual rights that had not been done. Instead of moving away from that after the war was over it was carried on to what we see today. It doesn't matter to me that he was a republican either. I truly think he had a vision before going into office and using slavery as a way to influence people to move that direction was something he took advantage of. He likely was one of the first to use Rahm Emanuel's idea of never let a good crisis go to waste. Slavery gave him the crisis and a crisis it was and still is today. I doubt many believe we absolutely had to have a war to free them but that's what he chose when he invaded Virginia. He chose a war to force people to stay involved in something they wanted out of. He was no different than the British after they read the Declaration of Independence. I agree our nation should be united but not under the heavy hand of an over reaching federal government but under the loving leadership of God through his Holy Spirit and the Bible. That is exactly what motivated the Founders to do what they did but I cannot see it as being what motivated Lincoln to start a war. The fruits of our out of control government are easily traced to Lincoln. Many since have built on that. He should have made his plea to the people to free the slaves as William Wilberforce did. He truly would have preserved the nation in doing so. Yet he chose a war.
One would think the proof of the fact that our Civil War was completely unnecessary and a total waste of lives, money and needless destruction is no other slave holding country had to resort to war in order to abolish slavery.
One would think the proof of the fact that our Civil War was completely unnecessary and a total waste of lives, money and needless destruction is no other slave holding country had to resort to war in order to abolish slavery.
Although it might seem like states can do anything they want there is limits on what they may do. The Constitution could not address any scenario that might have developed. The Founders made concessions as to slavery hoping that it would eventually die on the vine. The South was not willing to just keep what they had because Lincoln and the Republicans did offer concessions to them. They refused. They wanted to expand slavery to the new territories. No matter what the arguments about whether it was proper to fight the war the issue will forever remain the same. Slavery was wrong and will forever be wrong. Enslaving your fellow man is against those "Inalienable Rights". Those Rights don't just apply to certain people. They apply to all people.
One would hope that you people that are so passionate about States Rights and The Constitution would at least apply that thinking to current events. You apparently have no problems for State AG's and Governors usurping election law from their Legislatures in the last election in order to steal it. So far there has been no wailing and gnashing of teeth about Pence and McConnell allowing Biden to be confirmed illegally but you sure can find ways to defame the only president in history that had the fortitude to address our greatest national disgrace. The war was prosecuted whether we like it or not and the issue has been decided. Reliving old grievances only creates turmoil again. Instead of opining about what we think should or might have taken place and dead people's motives we would do well to just take a hard look at History. What did happen. We know what happened at Gettysburg but trying to get into the heads of the participants is a mistake. Let our honored dead rest in peace. Embrace each other as fellow Americans instead of territorial enemies. One of Trump's greatest achievements in office was to bring people of all colors and nationalities together. He did more for black Americans than any other president since Lincoln.
Jefferson wasn't legally permitted to free all of his slaves in his will, because he died deeply in debt, so, as property, they had to go to his creditors. He did free two while alive and five in his will.
Thomas Jefferson was a remarkable guy, we owe him a great deal.
Jefferson also took up with his late wife’s enslaved teenage half sister, the result of his father in law having taken up with an enslaved teenager himself. After their return from France we get the bizarre occurrence of John Adams and his wife congratulating Jefferson when Sally Hemings bore a child, presumably by Jefferson but possibly by Jefferson’s dissolute brother, who spent much time around the slave quarters, for music if nothing else to play music with them..
How does one congratulate a man for the birth of his enslaved child one wonders, is it like his dog having puppies or what? Not living in those times, I guess we’ll never know for sure.
Jefferson DID eventually free Sally Hemming’s children, which were either his or his brother’s own kids.
Despite his own misgivings about the institution, Jefferson, who gave us the wonderful line We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... never found the moral courage to free his more than one-hundred regular slaves during his lifetime.
Moral courage..???
I question if his reasons were a lack of moral courage...
Got to wonder what freeing "his more than one-hundered regular slaves" at their market worth back then along with the dollar loss in productivity via their labor would amount to total in today's dollars ?
Some people misunderstand Lincoln’s reluctance to cede federal territory in Fort Sumter. The fort was only secondarily placed there for defense of the harbor. The main reason it was there was to collect import duties and tariffs which were almost the sole means of funding the federal government in those days. Keeping the fort and keeping it garrisoned demonstrated an intent to continue to dominate the harbor and collect duties. In fact Lincoln even said South Carolina could do whatever they liked as long as duties continued to be collected. Obviously, no nation could allow a foreign power to collect import duties in its harbors.
Also, It was only federal territory in the sense that it was leased from the state of South Carolina. South Carolina leased the island to the federal government for a dollar a year in perpetuity for as long as they remained in the union. When they seceded they told the federal government they were canceling the lease and offered to pay for any improvements the federal government had made. When they fired upon it they did not view it as attacking the United States but rather reclaiming what was theirs. Jefferson Davis explains this in his book "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government".
Ok, my feelings about Lincoln and the role slavery played in the war are no secret here, so I’m not gonna go into that. But just for fun, let me pose a question to the ‘fire’s historians and wannabes! Who holds the title of bigger azzhole, Lincoln or FDR? My own feelings are that as much damage as Lincoln caused, FDR’s policies are really what got the ball rolling towards socialism. Thoughts? 7mm
One would hope that you people that are so passionate about States Rights and The Constitution would at least apply that thinking to current events. You apparently have no problems for State AG's and Governors usurping election law from their Legislatures in the last election in order to steal it. So far there has been no wailing and gnashing of teeth about Pence and McConnell allowing Biden to be confirmed illegally but you sure can find ways to defame the only president in history that had the fortitude to address our greatest national disgrace.
You’re such a dumb schit. Without Lincoln, Texas, Florida, and whoever else would have left this chickenschit outfit over that bullschit. But because, as you say, the issue has been decided then we are limited to petitioning a corrupt and venal Supreme Court.
Hilarious thread. Lincoln was a moderate. Very much a moderate. Just look at Reconstruction, and the way it ended. All 13 colonies signed onto the Constitution, so the only way to have a divorce legally would have been by Amendment, Constitutional Convention, Supreme Court decision, etc.. But this wouldn't have benefitted the powers that be on either side. The South was very much interested in expansion of Southern slavery westward and southward(Cuba.) The war was about protecting the ruling classes of both sides.
...Slavery was wrong and will forever be wrong. Enslaving your fellow man is against those "Inalienable Rights". Those Rights don't just apply to certain people. They apply to all people.
Do you even read, Bro?
Preamble COTUS
Originally Posted by https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
No slaves and no one of African descent signed COTUS. The founders wrote the COTUS for their benefit and their posterity, not for some obsolete farm equipment or even poor escaped white bondsmen making their way in the wilderness (see whisky rebellion). And we have learned that applying COTUS to anyone not of the same ancestry of the founders has been a grand failure.
Slavery
Originally Posted by EphesiansCh6NIV
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
God, the arbiter of morality, understands slavery is one of the natural conditions/stations of men. So much so that He elicidates rules on how they are to be treated and how they are to act. In addition, the patriarchs held slaves and were not counted immoral because of it.
================
Originally Posted by rainshot
One would hope that you people that are so passionate about States Rights and The Constitution would at least apply that thinking to current events. You apparently have no problems for State AG's and Governors usurping election law from their Legislatures in the last election in order to steal it. So far there has been no wailing and gnashing of teeth about Pence and McConnell allowing Biden to be confirmed illegally but you sure can find ways to defame the only president in history that had the fortitude to address our greatest national disgrace.
If we has the COTUS applied as it was written, other state AGs would not be a problem. Other states could secede and be done with them and their putrescent system.
And speak for yourself, I have written plenty against Pence & McConnell and their cowardice.
Lincoln is our greatest national disgrace. He traded a relatively decent yeoman middle class republic for a mess of imperial pottage that rules for the benefit of the rich and dishonest and has evolved into a plutocratic oligarchic golbalist homosexualist empire.
================
Originally Posted by rainshot
The war was prosecuted whether we like it or not and the issue has been decided. Reliving old grievances only creates turmoil again. Instead of opining about what we think should or might have taken place and dead people's motives we would do well to just take a hard look at History. What did happen. We know what happened at Gettysburg but trying to get into the heads of the participants is a mistake. Let our honored dead rest in peace. Embrace each other as fellow Americans instead of territorial enemies.
Your civic nationalism has been tried and is a failure. Because it is completely at odds with human nature and has been foisted on us by hateful outsiders. Or have you been in a coma for some years?
Originally Posted by rainshot
One of Trump's greatest achievements in office was to bring people of all colors and nationalities together. He did more for black Americans than any other president since Lincoln.
You cite this as a good thing. I see it as a betrayal of white Americans who have their own collective interests. Trump was so busy smoking the snipped sausage and pouring silver, gold, and Platinum (Plan) over blacks that he forgot that the majority of Americans may be tired of subsidizing the livelihood of predatory and/or feral minorities.
Regards,
deadlift_dude “The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.” ----Fred Rogers
Hilarious thread. Lincoln was a moderate. Very much a moderate. Just look at Reconstruction, and the way it ended. All 13 colonies signed onto the Constitution, so the only way to have a divorce legally would have been by Amendment, Constitutional Convention, Supreme Court decision, etc.. But this wouldn't have benefitted the powers that be on either side. The South was very much interested in expansion of Southern slavery westward and southward(Cuba.) The war was about protecting the ruling classes of both sides.
Ahem:
Originally Posted by 10thAmendment
Amendment X 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.
POWERS, baby. Not given to the fed.gov or prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states & people. That would include the POWER of secession, which is not delegated to fed.gov and not prohibited to the states & people.
Stop vomiting forth the lies you were fed. Sure, not your/our fault that for over 100 years we all have been fed vile, self-serving lies and propaganda. But we can all read and see the plain meaning. Time to grow up, push aside infantile gruel, and start eating the real meat that grown men eat.
Last edited by jfruser; 02/14/22.
Regards,
deadlift_dude “The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.” ----Fred Rogers
Interesting thread. It would appear that the South erred by ever joining the Union in the first place. It is clear that the issue of slavery was a contentious one from the get-go, and unlikely to ever have been resolved peacefully. A separate Confederacy established at the same time as the Northern Union might have prevented the War. Was this ever under consideration at the time that the Constitution came into being?
The biggest problem our country has is not systemic racism, it's systemic stupidity.
Interesting thread. It would appear that the South erred by ever joining the Union in the first place. It is clear that the issue of slavery was a contentious one from the get-go, and unlikely to ever have been resolved peacefully. A separate Confederacy established at the same time as the Northern Union might have prevented the War. Was this ever under consideration at the time that the Constitution came into being?
One of my favorite parts of this miniseries.
Founder Ancient Order of the 1895 Winchester
"Come, shall we go and kill us venison? And yet it irks me the poor dappled fools, Being native burghers of this desert city, Should in their own confines with forked heads Have their round haunches gored."
It is amazing how every time the subject of this time in our country's history is discussed, in the end everyone comes to complete understanding and agreement as to the true version of events. It is too bad that there are always folks arriving who are new to the topic and such time and effort needs to be put forth to enlighten them.
Not a real member - just an ordinary guy who appreciates being able to hang around and say something once in awhile.
Happily Trapped In the Past (Thanks, Joe)
Not only a less than minimally educated person, but stupid and out of touch as well.
And never mind the fact that had the south been allowed to leave peacefully, slavery almost could not have existed on a large scale. A north with no slavery would not have even had to give any lip service to fugitive slave laws or anything else. The northern border states would have soon been inundated with refugees fleeing slavery. That, of course, would have made it more difficult to secure capital for slaves in south, particularly in the border states. The slaves that remained would have been both more expensive and less secure making the whole thing much more difficult and less desirable.
One sometimes gets the feeling that states like Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio fought as much to make sure that the South kept its slaves as they did to free them.
One would think the proof of the fact that our Civil War was completely unnecessary and a total waste of lives, money and needless destruction is no other slave holding country had to resort to war in order to abolish slavery.
Most don’t appear to be able to grasp this inconvenient truth.
Economic disputes between the North and South go way back, even before the Civil War, but taxation sowed the first seeds of the Civil War. The Tariff of 1828 was created to help pay the national debt after the War of 1812. The North greatly benefited from that, as the South paid about 75% of all the country’s taxes.
The Great Compromise of 1833 reduced some of the South’s taxes until the Force Bill came along and allowed the government to collect federal tariffs from the states by any means available. Before Lincoln took office, Buchanan signed the even harsher Morrill Tariff, which taxed imports at over 45%.
Southerners countered by offering lower import taxes. Taxes didn’t seem to be worth dying for, but the issue of slavery soon changed all that. Both sides fought for economic reasons, but slavery gave the North the moral high ground advantage which rallied the troops. The human rights Plan B was a “better” reason than economics to fight and die for.
Even after the Civil War, the 13th Amendment conveniently left a (slavery) loophole:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States.”
