Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think its DNA, more like brain damage of some sort.. who knows.
I think you can tell a persons mind and heart without power.. but there is no doubt power can alter that... i guess the question is, does power corrupt all or just a few brain damaged individuals?
But back to my point.
I don't think Lincoln was a tyrant by default. I think he would have been just another Grover Cleveland had there been no WAR. His tyrannical traits were a product of War.. perhaps of his on doing..
without getting personal lets debate state's rights and the constitution:
In 1783, thirteen new nations were created in North America by the Treaty of Paris. Those nations joined a confederation of alliance, first under the Articles of Confederation then under the Constitution of the USA. Under neither alliance did the independent sovereign nations agree to become subservient component parts of a single nation. It was an understood given that those nations had the right to leave the confederation (secede) at any time, and the Founding Fathers believed (if you read their own words) that the right was preserved by Article IV of the Constitution and further guaranteed by Amendments IX and X. The right of secession from a government that fails to serve, protect or defend the rights and interests of the governed was the core principle of the Declaration of Independence and have watched all that blood flow in the name of that right, the Founders weren't about to throw it away.
Abe Lincoln himself argued in favor of the right of secession on the floor of Congress on January 13, 1848. The New England states knew the right existed when they threatened to secede in 1803, 1812, 1814 and again in 1815. States on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line threatened to secede in 1820 over the illegal and unconstitutional Missouri Compromise. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (the former as Vice-President and the latter shortly after leaving Congress) authored the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, wherein they argue in favor of the right of state nullification of federal law (and, by extension, the right of secession). Obviously if member nations of the confederacy had the right to leave it and reclaim their full autonomy, sovereignty and independence at any time without the consent of the federal government, state's rights were far superior to federal power. That is why the constitution deliberately limits federal power and reserves any power not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states.
The Constitution created a FEDERAL government, not a NATIONAL one. There is a difference. The federal government was the governing agency of those areas of interest common to all member states (think "nation-states, as did the Founders). Those powers were expressly delineated in the Constitution, were extremely limited, and any power not expressly delegated to the federal government were reserved to the states. The founders had no intention of creating a single nation and did not, therefore, contemplate a national government. That is why the Bill of Rights pertained to federal legislation only and it took Amendment XIV to extend application of those rights and protections state law.
Unless and until you can understand these simple but critical points, you cannot begin to understand the State's Rights issue. Don't feel bad. Most people don't understand. Most people believe the Founding Fathers wanted to create a single nation and that they actually wanted to surrender the autonomy of their newly created home nations. Most people simply don't read history, especially from original sources, and most people rely on text books and teachers that teach the myths and legends - at the expense of the truth - either to forward a particular propaganda or because they know no better.
In 1860/61 eleven nations left the confederacy, as was their unalienable right. They did so under full and fair democratic process in accordance with constitutional strictures. In response, the remaining nations of the USA decided to invade those nations in a war of aggression. It was NOT a civil war. When the CSA was conquered and annexed, for the first time, the USA became a single nation composed of subservient sub-divisions called states and the government the Founders tried so hard to avoid and prevent came into being.
As an aside, only a fool believes the southern states seceded over slavery. Slave ownership was guaranteed by the constitution (Art I, sec 2& 9, Art IV, sec 2, Amendments IV, V, IX, X) It could be abolished only by constitutional amendment or state law. The federal government had no authority over the issue whatsoever - as Abe Lincoln repeatedly stressed in his campaign and in his First Inaugural Address. No attempt was made to amend the constitution to abolish slavery before 1864 because there was not enough support to ratify such an amendment in the north, never mind the south. In fact, in 1861 Congress passed the Corwin Amendment which, if ratified, would have prohibited any future attempt to abolish slavery by constitutional amendment. In 1864, congress introduced, but failed to pass, an amendment to abolish slavery. Ratification is impossible when the amendment cannot even be submitted for consideration.
This is all accurate and factual. If you intend to use it, you better be able to support it. Chances are, you teacher, like most Americans, will be ignorant of the truth of the matter. History was rewritten by the victors after 1865, especially as pertains to the nature of the creation of the federations under the Articles and the Constitution. By now, the memetic algorithms based on the perversions of myth, legend and propaganda intended to justify the invasion, war of aggression and annexation of the nations of the CSA, have replaced the facts of history and are accepted without question or debate as truths.
The constitutionality of secession has been debated on here several times. You have presented one side of the argument. Your presentation would lead one to believe that what you are saying is a matter of settled constitutional law and interpretation, but it is not. Unfortunately no court ever heard an argument over the legality of secession until after the Civil War, so their decision is obviously tinged. In it though, they decided that secession was not possible. Here is the other side of the argument...
1. Does the constitution allow for a state to legally secede?
Fact: The constitution is absolutely silent on the matter of secession.
Counter to Rush's argument: The Federal government derives its power directly from the people. This was a major difference between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. The Confederation was formed by the States. The Federal government was formed by the people. Hence the opening "We the People", instead of a list of the various States as in the Articles of Confederation. The Articles eplicitly stated that they were not forming a "national government of a recognizable nation", but the Constitution made no such statement and was intended to form a nation with power derived from the People who were granting it. Interestingly enough, the Articles pointed to a "perpetual union" between the States signing it. While the Constitution does not mention such a thing directly, it has been often interpreted that this was implied, including by the Supreme Court.
Once the People formed a Federal government and invested it with power, the States then submitted to the sovereignty of that Federal government. The States ceased to be sovereign when they ratified the Constitution. They gave the Federal government supremacy and surrendered virtually all rights to the Federal government that people would interpret to define a "sovereign nation".
Now, there is of course the 10th Amendment. Would not the silence on the topic of secession mean that the right is reserved to the States? Not necessarily. It also states that the rights may also belong to "the People". Who was it again that formed the national government? The People. Whose right therefore is it to dissolve the Federal government if one was so inclined? The People. Does that mean all of the People or some of the People? It means all of the People, in theory. Therefore if one was to claim some sort of "right of secession" that right could only occur following the acquiesence of the body of the People either through direct vote or via their duly elected representatives in Congress. Essentially, unless a majority of the country agreed and voted to allow a State to leave, then they cannot leave. It cannot be a unilateral action. That is not even relying upon the Supreme Court view that secession is impossible no matter what.
2. Didn't the "Founding Fathers" express a right of secession/revolution/resistance/overthrow?
Fact: Of course they did. Jefferson is the one most often quoted and he believed, as did the majority of other Founders, that people have an unalienable right to change their government when it no longer suits them.
Counter to Rush's argument: The problem is when people try to twist this "right" into a legal argument. Jefferson and the Founders were speaking of an existential right to revolution for people to resist and overthrow a government that no longer suited them. This "right" is not evidence of a legal right that people have the ability to make that choice without consequence. In fact, the Founders would probably argue that all of that "tree of liberty watered with blood" business is evidence of that fact. Essentially, people have a "right", some would say duty, to fight for what they believe in. That, however, does not absolve them from the consequences or that they should expect to be allowed to unilaterally leave the body they are in.
3. Was the Civil War about freeing the slaves?
Fact: No, but it was about slavery vis-a-vis political power in the Federal government. The abolition of slavery was a consequence of, not a goal of, the war.
Counter to Rush's argument: When the war began, it was not over the preservation or elimination of slavery. However, it was very much about the balance of power between free and slave states. While there was no movement by the north to even attempt to pass a law abolishing the slavery, the southern states feared the gradual erosion of their power. Why is that you ask? Well, as the US expanded and more and more states were added, those states were admitted as either "free" or "slave". This allowed a balance of power to exist in the Federal government. The slave states were able to control the Senate and had often found a southerner sitting in the White House.
When the Republicans swept into power with the election of Lincoln, they did so on a platform of resisting further expansion of slavery into the territories. This meant no more compromises where the south would be given an artificially inflated representation in the government. With the support of the House and the Presidency, the Republicans had a good chance of following through on their promise. This would erode southern power and soon they would find themselves outnumbered in the Senate and their grip on power would be lost. With their hold on power lost, they feared it would only be a matter of time before the North started moving towards abolition.
Essentially, the south, at least the lower south (the upper south seceeded more or less over the norths reaction to the secession of the lower south), seceeded over what they perceived as a direct threat to their political power and the institution of slavery. To say that slavery was not the issue is disingenuous because without slavery, there would have been no Civil War. Slavery, meaning the abolishment or preservation of, may not have been the central issue, but it was the issue that underlined and/or created every other reason.
4. Wait, didn't the South secede over State's Rights?
Fact: The South cared less about State's Rights than the North did.
Counter to Rush's argument: The South argued issues from whichever side supported slavery. For much of the history of the early US, it was the SOUTHERN states that were at the forefront of the erosion of state's rights in order to support and expand slavery. From the acquisition and admittance of Louisianna, the Embargo, War of 1812, annexation of Texas by "joint resolution", delcaration of war on Mexico with a mere statement by President Polk, the Fugitive Slave Law, to the Dred Scott Decision and many others; these were all uses of central authority by the slave powers to expand slavery at the expense of rights of the free states. It was mentioned earlier that New England wanted to secede at one point...they did. Massachusetts nearly screamed as loud over the abuse of central authority by slave power than South Carolina ever did.
Whenever a question came up of expanding, entrenching or reinforcing slave power, the southern states were all to happy to oblige by using central authority to do it. This is is because slavery as an institution REQUIRES centralized authority to maintain it and that control of that central authority by slave power is absolutely necessary in order for the system to work. In fact, one of the first things the CSA did was to draft a constitution. What interesting choice of language did they include in theirs..."We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government." Wait, I thought they were all about state's rights and the ability to secede? Why would they expressly establish a "permanent" federal government? Well, slavery needs a strong central authority in oder for it to work.
The southern states only hollered about states rights when they disagreed about a policy. They always stood up for a states right to engage in slavery and suppress freedom of speech when the speech was talking about slavery. If you want to argue that it was about "states rights", then fine, just include the caveat that it was about a states right to have slaves and do everything and anything it wanted to preserve that right.
5. Did the North wage an aggressive invasion on the South?
Fact: The South fired first at the Union garrison at Fort Sumter and relief ships sent to the fort. So, the first shots of the war were fired by the South. The main point of the question though rests on your interpretation of point number 1. If you believe the South had a right to secede, than the North waged a war against them. If you believe that the South had no such right, than the North simply engaged in putting down a massive uprising, something that was well within the bounds of Federal authority to do.
6. Did Lincoln violate the Constitution when he did things like suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
Fact: Lincoln did NOT violate the Constitution when he took such measures. Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 states...."The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Lincoln was also well within his authority to establish martial law in territories and areas where there were large groups of "rebel sympathizers". Lincoln exercised and did indeed stretch the powers of the Presidency, but all of his actions were deemed constitutional at the time. In 1866 the Supreme Court ruled that the Writ of Habeas Corpus should be restored and that military trials were illegal in areas where the civilian courts could still function. This was not a damning of Lincolns actions, just a clarification of the applicability.
It probably would have taken longer, but yes, I believe it would have ended eventually anyways. Technological advances made it much easier to do farm work that it just would not have made financial sense to use slaves as opposed to technology.
With the demand for slaves diminishing greatly (and an already growing pro-abolitionist movement anyways), it would only be a matter of time until it was officially ended, war or no war.
Nothing can absolve the North of it's share of guilt for injustice - not even the Civil War blood shed. The subsequent mistreatment of various indigenous people both on our shores and beyond - by the UNION based in Washington DC under Old Glory - is absolute and undeniable truth that the North and South had more in common than the North cares to admit when it comes to exploitation and suprematism.
Moreover, white liberals today are doubly guilty of falsely absolving themselves of guilt concerning our history while simultaneously continuing to either ignore or blatantly misrepresent the awesome evil perpetrated around the world by the various radical Left ideologies of the 20th century. Such people as call American conservatives by the epithet "fascist" were themselves extolling the virtues of men like Stalin and Mussolini here in America. They say NOTHING about the dreadful treatment of religious minorities in socieities all over the Asian and African continents. Even today, I've heard a cabinet level member of the Obama administration praise Chairman Mao for his "great works" in China. I couldn't help but think of the unpublished photos I've seen of Tianemein Square after the Chi-Coms rolled across protestors with 30 ton battle tanks, mashing their bodies into a ghastly fluid paste on the cobblestones. The "great hero Mao", according to the Science Czar. Even the history of small Marxist regimes in places like Cambodia and Laos absolutely dwarfs the evils perpetrated in the antebellum South.
Really, I think the founding fathers just plain messed up badly when they ever even considered entertaining the vaguest idea of allowing slavery in the new nation. Frankly, if I had been there as a signer, I would like to believe that I would have laughed at the whole idea of independence with slavery, and made ridicule of those who said "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" out of one side of their mouths, while talking about compromise with slave states on the other. I would like to believe I am moral enough to at least object to that. But then again, I consider George Washington and I find it hard to assert that he was a lesser man than me morally.
I look at the List of Grievances against King George, and I just have to laugh at the myopic stupidity of humanity. Our incredible capacity to be self-deluded and arrogant about it. We've NEVER really lived up to the high sounding ideals of 1776. And the saddest thing now, is that so much time has been wasted moving in the wrong direction, that we mind end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater and going back to the Old World way of doing things. The Constitution we had was truly a revolutionary document - but I'm convinced people today would rather blame anything but humanity itself for our failings. Even to the point where we just convince ourselves it's better to step back toward the Dark Ages of authoritarianism.
Simple question. Why should anyone today feel guilt about what their ancestors did or may have done over a hundred years ago? Or even less if they themselves did not? You can look at how people behaved, but guilt is only for those who are guilty. If your ancestors multi generations ago were indian fighters or southern slave holders you can look at them IN THEIR TIME, not today, but your own actions are what matters for you, not those of ancestors. As for more recent history it should be studied, but history is no longer considered as important as 'occuptional skills'. And that includes the social us/them mindset of the midcenture thru the seventies. But it should be studied as a time, without any pointing of fingers.
Of course we didn't live up to the ideals of the Revolution. They are ideals. They are goals. Ideals are what you reach for and as such they still matter absolutely. That is what those who fight the authoritarism of today are doing.
And at any time, a good chunk of the populace won't care either way until it effects them personally. Just how things are.
In 1860/61 eleven nations left the confederacy, as was their unalienable right. They did so under full and fair democratic process in accordance with constitutional strictures. In response, the remaining nations of the USA decided to invade those nations in a war of aggression. It was NOT a civil war. When the CSA was conquered and annexed, for the first time, the USA became a single nation composed of subservient sub-divisions called states and the government the Founders tried so hard to avoid and prevent came into being.
The question of what would have happened had the south seceded peacefully is moot. They committed treason on their way out the door, when they fired on Ft. Sumpter, and in the process declared war on the United States. If the South had not been so eager for war, things might have gone very differently.
In any case, absent a forcible end to slavery, it probably would have followed the Medieval European pattern, evolving from chattel slavery into a serf/manor system very similar to sharecropping. At the beginning of the 20th century the serfs would have revolted like they did in Russia, killed all the landowners, and established a communist dictatorship in the Confederacy.
The question of what would have happened had the south seceded peacefully is moot.
Lincoln went so far as to recognize that possibility in his first inaugural address.
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people."
The question of what would have happened had the south seceded peacefully is moot. They committed treason on their way out the door, when they fired on Ft. Sumpter, and in the process declared war on the United States. If the South had not been so eager for war, things might have gone very differently.
In any case, absent a forcible end to slavery, it probably would have followed the Medieval European pattern, evolving from chattel slavery into a serf/manor system very similar to sharecropping. At the beginning of the 20th century the serfs would have revolted like they did in Russia, killed all the landowners, and established a communist dictatorship in the Confederacy.
you really believe that?........you actually believe the North invaded 11 nations in the south because of FT. Sumter?
You think if the 11 nations would have ask really nice to leave the Union the North wouldn't have invaded in a war of aggression?......LMAO......keep drinking the kool aid.
you really believe that?........you actually believe the North invaded 11 nations in the south because of FT. Sumter?
You think if the 11 nations would have ask really nice to leave the Union the North wouldn't have invaded in a war of aggression?......LMAO......keep drinking the kool aid.
Hey, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq because half a dozen Saudis flew airplanes into a few buildings.
The fact is, the North didn't start the Civil War, the South did.
Simple question. Why should anyone today feel guilt about what their ancestors did or may have done over a hundred years ago? Or even less if they themselves did not? You can look at how people behaved, but guilt is only for those who are guilty. If your ancestors multi generations ago were indian fighters or southern slave holders you can look at them IN THEIR TIME, not today, but your own actions are what matters for you, not those of ancestors. As for more recent history it should be studied, but history is no longer considered as important as 'occuptional skills'. And that includes the social us/them mindset of the midcenture thru the seventies. But it should be studied as a time, without any pointing of fingers.
Of course we didn't live up to the ideals of the Revolution. They are ideals. They are goals. Ideals are what you reach for and as such they still matter absolutely. That is what those who fight the authoritarism of today are doing.
And at any time, a good chunk of the populace won't care either way until it effects them personally. Just how things are.
I don't think it's a question of guilt. I think it's a question of political divide and conquer. It's a question of organizing a new majority opposed to the former majority partly on the basis of their "historical guilt". Slavery is the emotional backdrop upon which hangs an ideological assertion that the USA can never be anything but a white establishment benefitting whites at the expense of everyone else. And, of course, the core of the thesis is the founding fathers. What they did has to be undone. And of course, YOU are supposed to get so caught up in the moment that you fail to ask yourself some obvious questions:
"How does getting rid of freedom and property rights in favor of authoritarianism help the ancestors of slaves? How can it be that only whites can benefit from the American system? Isn't capitalism being practiced in non-white countries too, with great success?"
When it comes to the ideals of the American Revolution, the guilt/guilt assignment game serves to provide the populist rhetorical emotion driven assertion that we need to ABANDON the "faulty ideals" of 1776 about limited government and maximized liberty rooted in religious morality and instead try the "enlightened humanist approach" embraced by some much of the rest of the world. The State is the Ultimate and Only Reality. God doesn't exist. But neither does the individual.
In my mind, your question would be appropriate for those who claim some moral high ground on the past, while unjustly convicting others on the elements of a past that EVERYONE shares. For those who condemn Robert E. Lee while at the same time praising Mao and Castro...
Last edited by Led Zeppelin; 10-04-2013 at 02:21 PM..
Hey, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq because half a dozen Saudis flew airplanes into a few buildings.
The fact is, the North didn't start the Civil War, the South did.
so it was the Southern nations that invaded the Northern nations? "fact"? ...LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
