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 do dislike Lincoln. His hands are stained with the blood of 600000 and his yankee victory ushered in the era of big federal government. No one can deny that Appomattox was the beginning of a growth in federal power that leads right up to today's abusive overbearing federal government that regularly violates the rights of individuals and of states. States rights is a major cause again, division again is reaching levels not seen since 1860. Constitutional issues and internal decisiveness may have us heading down the old dark path again, leading to civil war part 2 sadly over some of the same issues that caused the first one. If we only followed the wonderful constitution our brilliant founding fathers left us we would be fine. It was set up to protect the rights of individuals and states in a nation that is very diverse politically and values wise. The federal government was never meant to be a hammer the populated northeast was to use as a weapon against the south and west in order to force thier more liberal value system on the nation. Nothing has been learned in the past 150 years, some appear to want to repeat history.
The federal government was never meant to be a hammer the populated northeast was to use as a weapon against the south and west in order to force thier more liberal value system on the nation. Nothing has been learned in the past 150 years, some appear to want to repeat history.
The South used the Federal government as a hammer to force their values on the North with the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act. Those states which disapproved of slavery were compelled by law to cooperate in recovering southern "property" regardless of how they might have felt about it.
Further, until the election of 1856, the South had exercised what was a defacto veto power over the nominees of both political parties starting in 1828. From 1828 through 1860, every US president was known to be sympathetic with slavery. Had any of them not been so, then they would not have received their party's nomination because the southern branch of that party would have withdrawn their support.
Finally, because the slave states had an equal number of US senators, they were able to exercise a defacto veto power over all Supreme Court nominees during this period. No judge who expressed a distaste for slavery would be affirmed in a Senate which had sufficient southern votes to block it. So even though the North had a far larger population, they were constantly checked by the South's smaller population.
So...the hammer works both ways. You are only upset when the side you support is getting hammered, but seem to have no complaints about the hammering the South did.
States rights has never been an ideological position, rather it has been a tool, a hammer as you say, to be used by both conservatives and liberals when they are unhappy with something the Federal government is doing.
I do dislike Lincoln. His hands are stained with the blood of 600000 and his yankee victory ushered in the era of big federal government. No one can deny that Appomattox was the beginning of a growth in federal power that leads right up to today's abusive overbearing federal government that regularly violates the rights of individuals and of states. States rights is a major cause again, division again is reaching levels not seen since 1860. Constitutional issues and internal decisiveness may have us heading down the old dark path again, leading to civil war part 2 sadly over some of the same issues that caused the first one. If we only followed the wonderful constitution our brilliant founding fathers left us we would be fine.
So you'd be fine if states were free to ban speech, ban firearms, ban certain religions? You know, like they were under the system set up by the Founders? (pre-Incorporation, which is predicated on Amendment XIV, one of the Reconstruction Amendments?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72
It was set up to protect the rights of individuals and states in a nation that is very diverse politically and values wise. The federal government was never meant to be a hammer the populated northeast was to use as a weapon against the south and west in order to force thier more liberal value system on the nation. Nothing has been learned in the past 150 years, some appear to want to repeat history.
The irony of extolling the rights of individuals as you side with the right of states to enslave individuals is off the charts.
So you'd be fine if states were free to ban speech, ban firearms, ban certain religions? You know, like they were under the system set up by the Founders? (pre-Incorporation, which is predicated on Amendment XIV, one of the Reconstruction Amendments?)
The irony of extolling the rights of individuals as you side with the right of states to enslave individuals is off the charts.
No I would not be ok with states banning speech, religious freedom or weapons ownership. States cannot ban these as they are rights guaranteed by the bill of rights. Anyone with basic civics knowledge knows that neither states or the federal government has the right to do those things. The rights of states are to hold all powers not granted the federal government in the constitution. Again, basic civics.
As far as slavery goes yes the states had a right to protect slavery. Unfortunately this institution was brought here by the British and by 1860 it was entrenched in our economy, but that did not give the federal government the right to grow in power and usurp the rights of states to end it. The effect of northern victory was to damage our system giving far more power to the federal government, allowing it to grow more and more each year. Look at what it has become today.
The issue of slavery needed to be settled without a war and the undermining of our constitutional rights. Slave states needed to be bargained with, financial packages needed to be offered slave owners for the loss of property in exchange for the state to sign on giving up slavery for ever. If such a package was offered over a period of time the slave states would have voluntarily accepted the offer piecemeal over a period of a few decades. No ones rights would have been violated, no war and the relationship between freedmen and white Americans would not have begun with reconstruction era violence and the KKK. The events of Lincolns years were so damaging to this nation that we still deal with the consequences every day. He is one of the worst if not the worst president in US history. Having a huge civil war on your watch is a great big fail.
[b]No I would not be ok with states banning speech, religious freedom or weapons ownership. States cannot ban these as they are rights guaranteed by the bill of rights.[/B] Anyone with basic civics knowledge knows that neither states or the federal government has the right to do those things. The rights of states are to hold all powers not granted the federal government in the constitution. Again, basic civics.
You really ought to study constitutional history. You are showing you do not have a knowledge of basic civics yourself. When the Framers enacted the Bill of Rights they had no intention of forcing the states to comply with it. The Bill of Rights was enacted to protect the citizens of states against actions by the federal government. The concept was that citizens did not need a Bill of Rights to protect themselves from their own state and their own state officials. That's the way it was until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment changed things because there is language in the text of the amendment which prohibits the states from denying citizens due process of law or equal protection of the laws. Even so, it was not until the 1900's that courts began to slowly say that the Fourteenth Amendment required the state governments to avoid violating specific sections of the Bill of Rights. In the 1920's, the Supreme Court began applying a doctrine of "incorporation" that kept states from denying citizens the protections guaranteed under the First Amendment. Finally, in the 1960's the court held that states had to give their citizens the protections set forth in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.
As far as slavery goes yes the states had a right to protect slavery. Unfortunately this institution was brought here by the British and by 1860 it was entrenched in our economy, but that did not give the federal government the right to grow in power and usurp the rights of states to end it. The effect of northern victory was to damage our system giving far more power to the federal government, allowing it to grow more and more each year. Look at what it has become today.
Lincoln never attempted to abolish slavery until after the Civil War was well underway. In fact, Lincoln made it clear, early on, that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slaves that he would do so. What brought about the Civil War was a group of people in the South who could not accept the election of Lincoln as President. Slavery was abolished by ratification of the Thirteen Amendment by 3/4/s of the states in this country. The legal process was followed and no one could claim that the federal government usurped anyone's rights. The federal government grew in response to needs that had to be met.
The issue of slavery needed to be settled without a war and the undermining of our constitutional rights. Slave states needed to be bargained with, financial packages needed to be offered slave owners for the loss of property in exchange for the state to sign on giving up slavery for ever. If such a package was offered over a period of time the slave states would have voluntarily accepted the offer piecemeal over a period of a few decades. No ones rights would have been violated, no war and the relationship between freedmen and white Americans would not have begun with reconstruction era violence and the KKK. The events of Lincolns years were so damaging to this nation that we still deal with the consequences every day. He is one of the worst if not the worst president in US history. Having a huge civil war on your watch is a great big fail.
You don't seem to understand that the issue of slavery could only have been settled by either (1) a war; or (2) Lincoln accepting a situation where every state in the country could choose to leave the Union for any reason, at any time, whatsoever. We would have ultimately had 50 different countries in what today comprises the United States of America.
Slave states wanted to remain slave states. Slavery was profitable and it wasn't going to be ended voluntarily. Slave owners often used the Bible as justification for the institution of slavery. Even if slave owners were willing to give up slaves in return for monetary compensation, there was the issue about how that money would have been obtained. There was also an issue about how former slaves were to be accorded rights and fair treatment under the law. If you truly believe all these issues could have been worked out without conflict and bloodshed, you are pretty naive.
You don't seem to understand that the issue of slavery could only have been settled by either (1) a war; or (2) Lincoln accepting a situation where every state in the country could choose to leave the Union for any reason, at any time, whatsoever. We would have ultimately had 50 different countries in what today comprises the United States of America.
Slave states wanted to remain slave states. Slavery was profitable and it wasn't going to be ended voluntarily. Slave owners often used the Bible as justification for the institution of slavery. Even if slave owners were willing to give up slaves in return for monetary compensation, there was the issue about how that money would have been obtained. There was also an issue about how former slaves were to be accorded rights and fair treatment under the law. If you truly believe all these issues could have been worked out without conflict and bloodshed, you are pretty naive.
*My replies in bold
Agree the assertion that Slavery would've ended voluntarily is thoroughly refuted by the realities of that time & place. Yours & previous members' posts provide the contextual background.
The 36th Congress reviewed more than 200 resolutions with respect to slavery, including introducing 57 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments. Many or most of those represented compromises designed to avert military conflict.
No I would not be ok with states banning speech, religious freedom or weapons ownership. States cannot ban these as they are rights guaranteed by the bill of rights. Anyone with basic civics knowledge knows that neither states or the federal government has the right to do those things. The rights of states are to hold all powers not granted the federal government in the constitution. Again, basic civics.
As far as slavery goes yes the states had a right to protect slavery. Unfortunately this institution was brought here by the British and by 1860 it was entrenched in our economy, but that did not give the federal government the right to grow in power and usurp the rights of states to end it. The effect of northern victory was to damage our system giving far more power to the federal government, allowing it to grow more and more each year. Look at what it has become today.
The issue of slavery needed to be settled without a war and the undermining of our constitutional rights. Slave states needed to be bargained with, (1) financial packages needed to be offered slave owners for the loss of property in exchange for the state to sign on giving up slavery for ever. (2) If such a package was offered over a period of time the slave states would have voluntarily accepted the offer piecemeal over a period of a few decades. (3) No ones rights would have been violated, no war and the relationship between freedmen and white Americans would not have begun with reconstruction era violence and the KKK. The events of Lincolns years were so damaging to this nation that we still deal with the consequences every day. He is one of the worst if not the worst president in US history. Having a huge civil war on your watch is a great big fail.
1. No. That very action would have legitimized slavery.
2. You have no evidence for that whatsoever.
3. No one's rights? How about the rights of the people who were enslaved?
In your response, essentially you have legitimized the concept of slavery and stated that Blacks who were enslaved had no rights.
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.
Study Constitutional History
