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.
You mean the same Supreme Court that declared slavery legal and that women didn't have the same rights as men and it was legal for the U.S. government steal land and kill natives. That Supreme Court? of course that same crooked court will side with the winner. They are all politicians and bind to the establishment.
I guess the ratification papers put by the states and accepted by the Union is ignored even after 200 years. The 10th amendment goes out the window also: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.
75 years earlier the states went to war to get rid of a central power and fought to death and destruction to get sovereignty for each individual state to only surrender their sovereignty less than 10 years later to another central power far away from their state and borders . Yeah, that makes sense. Nobody enters a pact or a union or contract by surrendering your sovereignty and your right to walk away from it. Nobody does that unless is by brutal force. Ask the Natives about that. Once you had fought and died for your sovereignty you don't give it away unless by brutal force and tyranny.
After 250 years, if you still think the Federal government can't be a tyrant or abusive or use brutal force over the people who wanted to be left alone than they are really clueless and just a parrot for the establishment. You don't even have to take U.S. History from the beginning to know this. Just go from the Vietnam war to present to know how tyrant and evil our government can be against ordinary people and their struggle for sovereignty.
European countries have the right to leave the European Union. Every sovereign state has the right to enter and leave a contract. Why would they freely surrender their power? That doesn't make any sense.
Same Supreme Court. Sorry about your luck. Regardless of what the 10th Amendment says, the 14th Amendment made it clear that all the provisions of the Constitution apply to all levels of government, from the Congress down to the town council.
Whether it makes sense to you or not, that is indeed how the government works. The government was crafted by compromise, not necessarily by common sense. They intentionally made it difficult to change too.
The European Union is not organized under the US Constitution, so I can't see why you would bring that up in this discussion.
Maybe you should run for office since it seems you want to change how the government works.
Same Supreme Court. Sorry about your luck. Regardless of what the 10th Amendment says, the 14th Amendment made it clear that all the provisions of the Constitution apply to all levels of government, from the Congress down to the town council.
Whether it makes sense to you or not, that is indeed how the government works. The government was crafted by compromise, not necessarily by common sense. They intentionally made it difficult to change too.
The European Union is not organized under the US Constitution, so I can't see why you would bring that up in this discussion.
Maybe you should run for office since it seems you want to change how the government works.
My luck? the 14th amendment passed in 1868 after the war and 1 half of the nation destroyed with a large % of 1 side dead or handicapped with very limited political representation. Now you move the goal post.
What does that has do to 1861 and prior? 10th Amendment passed in 1789. 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.
Unless the limited powers delegated to the central government and black and white and prohibited to the states by the people, ALL powers are reserved to the states or people. That's pretty clear that you keep ignoring. The Southern states had every right to leave the Union.
If the states fought and died for their individual state sovereignty from a central tyrant power beyond their borders why would they give it away freely and easy to another central power beyond their border less than 10 years later? People don't give away their sovereignty unless by brutal force and tyranny.
The Europe Union went over your head. The E.U. has a constitutional charter. To enter you need to be sovereign and they keep their sovereignty to leave the treaty. If you bother to read the states ratification papers accepted by the central government it says they kept the right to leave if they felt the federal government became tyrant or abusive. These are the same people that went to war to get their individual state sovereignty from a central government but they will easily surrender it to another central government a few years later? That makes sense to you?
On February 3, 1861, the Virginia Secession Convention began.
On March 4, 1861, Lincoln was sworn in as President. Jefferson Davis called for 100,000 militia to serve for a year.
On April 12, 1861, Fort Sumpter fell.
On April 15, 1861, Lincoln called for the states to raise 75,000 volunteers to enlist for 90 days to put down insurrection.
On April 17, 1861, a majority of the members of the Virginia Secession Convention voted to secede from the Union.
Respectfully, you omitted Virginia's April 4th secession vote.. where the Virginia delegates voted overwhelmingly against secession. It was after Lincoln's call to conscription that Virginia voted to secede. The reversal on secession was a direct result of Lincoln's call to arms. That is why I believe Lincoln was not a great president. You're utilizing an incomplete series of events to try and dunk on my post, & my subjective opinion about Lincoln. I'm not trying to convince u too see Lincoln as I do. I'm simply explaining why I don't believe he was a great president. He was as a sectional partisan (early Republican party), which alienated the (opposing) sectional partisans of the first seceding states, then alienated a potentially neutral Virginia. To me, the great presidents were guys generally like Eisenhower, who were unifying figure heads (hanging out on the golf course). (peace)
Last edited by Babe_Ruth; 11-28-2022 at 02:50 PM..
Respectfully, you omitted Virginia's April 4th secession vote.. where the Virginia delegates voted overwhelmingly against secession. It was after Lincoln's call to conscription that Virginia voted to secede. The reversal on secession was a direct result of Lincoln's call to arms. That is why I believe Lincoln was not a great president. You're utilizing an incomplete series of events to try and dunk on my post, & my subjective opinion about Lincoln. I'm not trying to convince u too see Lincoln as I do. I'm simply explaining why I don't believe he was a great president. He was as a sectional partisan (early Republican party), which alienated the (opposing) sectional partisans of the first seceding states, then alienated a potentially neutral Virginia. To me, the great presidents were guys generally like Eisenhower, who were unifying figure heads (hanging out on the golf course). (peace)
That's an interesting perspective.
Do you think it was possible for any President to be a unifying head of state when several states had already seceded by the time he was inaugurated? It kind of sounds like you think the call for conscription was a significant event leading to Virginia's secession.
The lawyers I've talked to about Lincoln have said he was a brilliant lawyer and strategist.
Lincoln, like all presidents, was flawed -- but he was the president we needed at the time. He faced critical challenges never before faced -- or since. The slavery problem was forcibly extinguished. The Union was preserved. He understood the situation and the crisis better than most and knew it had to be faced head-on. He found a way to keep the border states in the Union.
Respectfully, you omitted Virginia's April 4th secession vote.. where the Virginia delegates voted overwhelmingly against secession. It was after Lincoln's call to conscription that Virginia voted to secede. The reversal on secession was a direct result of Lincoln's call to arms.
I believe that you're confusing Lincoln's call for the states to raise volunteer troops with an actual military draft, aka conscription. At the time that the Virginia Secession Convention voted (IMO under duress) for secession, there was neither a national nor state military draft.
I would also point to the example of the state of Kentucky. President Lincoln telegraphed the Governor of Kentucky, Beriah Magoffin, requesting that the state government of Kentucky raise troops to assist in putting down the rebellion. Magoffin telegraph back to Lincoln was:
Quote:
President Lincoln, Washington, D.C. I will send not a man nor a dollar for the wicked purpose of subduing my sister Southern states. B. Magoffin
Magoffin, a Southern sympathizer, was in the position that the majority of his own state did not want to secede from the Union. Magoffin's compromise was to declare his state neutral in the upcoming war, a stance that was respected by both sides until the Confederacy violated the neutrality by occupying Columbus, Kentucky on September 4, 1861.
Virginia could have also declared neutrality, the same as Kentucky. Instead, they chose secession.
You may believe what you want, and you are most certainly allowed your opinion, but I must point out that a call for a military draft by President Lincoln could not have been the impetus for Virginia's secession as he had not called for conscription, only volunteers.
It could have been the speech given to the convention prior to the vote by the Fire-Eater former governor who informed them that Virginia forces had already seized the federal armory at Harper's Ferry, Virginia. Some Virginians had already rebelled, now it was just a question of whether to formalize said rebellion by voting for secession.
Or it could have been the realization that federal troops might be traversing through Virginia on their way to fight Confederate forces further south. The delegates in the Virginia secession convention might have seen no other way to block such action.
Lincoln, like all presidents, was flawed -- but he was the president we needed at the time. He faced critical challenges never before faced -- or since. The slavery problem was forcibly extinguished. The Union was preserved. He understood the situation and the crisis better than most and knew it had to be faced head-on. He found a way to keep the border states in the Union.
Flawed is an understatement. More like a tyrant.
At was price? Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the “rewriting” of the Constitution by federal judges, “total war,” the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big “problem solver.”
I wonder if Lincoln was a German, Soviet, Japanese or Chinese leader if the same Americans would be talking about him the same way knowing about all the abuses and crimes he committed. I know many Americans that at least have the nerve and honesty to say our government committed war crimes and illegal actions in Vietnam and Iraq but for some weird reason they want to pretend on Lincoln.
Lincoln continuously circumvented the law and in many cases suspended the Constitution altogether. In doing so, Lincoln denied the rights of citizens he was sworn to protect. He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus, closed courts by force, and arrested citizens and elected officials without cause. Lincoln also raised troops without the consent of Congress, closed-down newspapers whose writers displayed any dissent to U.S. policy and free speech.
Lincoln’s troops razed the South and doomed to poverty–generations of Southerners for many years to come. General Sherman's “March to the Sea” was nothing more than a marauding rampage filled with robbery, rape, and murder. These men were less soldiers on a military mission and more common thugs on a crime spree. Northern armies brought war to women, children, and privately held property as a matter of official policy (rather than as so-called “collateral damage”).
Lincoln ordered the arrest of Baltimore police chief George P. Kane, police commissioner Charles Howard, as well as fellow commissioners: William H. Gatchell, John W. Davis, and Charles D. Hinks. Baltimore Mayor George W. Brown was arrested and sent to Fort McHenry. The men were incarcerated because they dared to publicly disagree with Lincoln and refused to carry-out the President’s tyrannical orders.Baltimore was placed under federal control and a military police force was formed. The list is endless of the crimes he did.
Both the continents of Europe and South America ended the practice of slavery, and unlike the United States government, they did so without murdering 700,000 of their own citizens. The abhorrent practice of slavery could have and would have been ended in this country, without ever firing a shot.
Contrary to popular belief (as perpetuated by government schools), slavery was a national institution, it was not unique to the South. Upon his inauguration, Lincoln could have freed the slaves in the Northern states which would have put severe diplomatic pressure on the South. However, Lincoln besides being a tyrant was also an incredible hypocrite. Lincoln’s multitude of personal letters show his outright disgust for the black man and his truly racist views.
List of crimes:
1. Lincoln waged a war that cost the lives of 620,000 Americans. Including the murder of 50,000 innocent Southern civilians.
2. He arrested several thousand Marylanders suspected of Southern sympathies, including 30 members of the State legislature, a US Congressman representing Maryland, the mayor and police commissioner of Baltimore, and most of the Baltimore city council. These political detainees were imprisoned in Fort McHenry and Point Lookout without trial, in many cases, for several years.
3. He suspended the writ of habeaus corpus without the consent of Congress (as required by the Constitution).
4. He illegally shut down and confiscated the printing presses of dozens of newspapers that had spoken out against him.
5. He re-instated and summarily promoted an Army officer who had been court martialed and cashiered by the US Army for war crimes.
6. He even had an arrest warrant issued for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court because said justice refused to back his illegal actions.
7. Chief Justice Roger B Taney ruled that Lincolns actions were illegal, criminal and unconstitutional.
8. He invaded the South without the consent of Congress as required by the Constitution.
9. He blockaded Southern ports without a declaration of war, as required by the Constitution.
10. He imprisoned without trial, hundreds of newspaper editors and owners and censored all newspaper and telegraph communication.
11. He created two new states without the consent of the citizens of those states in order to artificially inflate the Republican Partys electoral vote.
12. He ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections to assure his Parties victories.
13. He confiscated private property, including firearms, in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively gutted the Tenth and Ninth Amendments as well.
14. He had his Generals attack US cities full of women and children and burn them to the ground.
The degree to which his mention triggers modern neo-Confederates and other white supremacy-apologist types speaks to that greatness.
Lincoln was a great president for the crisis and challenges of the time. We all know that. But you know you have hit a nerve when the usual suspects from P&oC and the neo-Confederates turn up trying to rewrite history with various conspiracy theories they saw on YouTube or made up. It was on the internet, so it has to be true.
We have two full pages of History forum threads with titles based only on Lincoln and many more where he is dragged kicking and screaming into the debate over slavery, the Civil War, or secession. We will have another one before long.
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.
. Yeah, that makes sense. Nobody enters a pact or a union or contract by surrendering your sovereignty and your right to walk away from it. Nobody does that unless is by brutal force. Ask the Natives about that. Once you had fought and died for your sovereignty you don't give it away unless by brutal force and tyranny. 
the 14th amendment passed in 1868 after the war and 1 half of the nation destroyed with a large % of 1 side dead or handicapped with very limited political representation. Now you move the goal post.
