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'm guessing you would favor secession of .... whatever states, let's say the "Confederacy".
If that happened....
would you join them and attack american soldiers to defend your new country?
The real question is, would American soldiers attack their former countrymen doing the same thing the American founding fathers did? And if so, would you support using force to force an unwanted government on those states?
It's a myth that Lincoln was a great president & saved the nation:
These are all from "Constitution in Exhile" by Andrew Napolitano who is one of the fiercest defenders of the Constitution.
1. He only emancipated the slaves in the south...several Union States like DE & MD still were allowed to keep slaves throughout the War of Northern Aggresion (AKA Civil War). Even Lincoln himself states "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it: andif I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would do that". In fact, he could have avoided the Civil War altogether by compensating Southern slave owners, like England had done 20 yrs earlier, but instead he denied the states their right to VOLUNTARILY participate in the Union. For you conservatives who believe that he was so great, he spit in the face of conservatism by increasing federal power and assaulting the constitution. He basically said the southern states wouldn't be permitted to secede, which according to the constitution was an implicit right the states had, since it was they that ratified it. This was an opposite view of one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson who put States Rights above the Union's. Also, look at the words of our very own Declarations of Independence: "When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bonds which have connected them with another and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the seperate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation." So, the southern states were following their right based in Natural Law. The Declaration continues w/ "when a long Trainof Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security." Another way in which Lincoln broke the constitution to start the Civil War was his going against the 9th & 10th amendments which basically state that whatever powers that aren't implicitly given to the Fed Gov't are given to states governments.
2. You could say that Lincoln really didn't care for the slaves anyways b/c he pushed for the Confiscation Act of 1862, which stated that any slaves captured by the Union Army where captives of war, and instead of being freed and allowed to move to the north, they were to be transported to the countries in the tropics. Lincoln could have granted these captures slaves citizenship in the north if he truly cared about them. Also, If any escaped slaves from Union states were captured by the army, they would be returned to the owner if he showed his "loyalty" to the union.
3. Lincoln also enhanced the centralization & enlargement of the Federal Gov't by imposing taxes on manufactured goods, & adopting an inheritance tax. Also, he imposed the first ever Income Tax in US History even though Art 1, Sec 9 of the Constitution stated "No capitation, or other direct TAX, shall be laid unless Proportion to the Census or Enumeration." From 1861-1865 duties on imports were increased several times a year. Taxes were also increased on occupational licenses, stamps and inheritance. He also had National Banks established to compete with and bankrupt state banks. Lincoln basically was the first President to establish "New Deal" like policies which many conservatives rail against.
4. Also, during the Civil War, Lincoln trampled on numerous civil rights. Even his supporters like James F Rhodes accused him of being a dictator by stating "never had the power of dictator fallen into safer and nobler hands". Numerous civilians were injured by Lincoln's troops, and many had their homes burned & destroyed (doesn't sound like a noble dictator). Here's what one prominant historian Thomas DiLorenzo said "Had the South been permitted to go in peace, as was the wish of the majority if the Northern opinion makers before Fort Sumter according to historian Joseph Perkins, a democracy would have continued to thrive in the two nations. Moreover, the act of seccession would have had exactly the effect the founding fathers expected it to have: it would have tempered the imperialistic proclivities of the central state. The federal government would have been forced to moderate its high-tariff policies and to slow down or abandon is quest for empire. Commercial relationships with the South would have continued and expanded. After a number of years, the same reasons that led colonists to form a Union in the first place would likely have become more appealing to both sections, and the Union would probably have been reunited."
Other violations by Lincoln of the constitution were murdering civilians, declaring martial law, suspending habeas corpus which the Supreme Court said only Congress could do, seizing private property w/out compensation, conducting a war w/out congressional consent, imprisoning 30,000 Northern citizens w/out trial, shutting down several newspapers, & deporting Congressman Clement Vallandingham of Ohio b/c he objected to the income tax. Also Republican members of congress associated w/ Lincoln tampered w/ the Electoral College by creating the new states of NV, KS, WV to secure his reelection in 1864.
So, Lincoln expanded the power of the Central Gov't by taking away many civil liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Founders thought that the rights guarenteed by the Constitution were too important to be abridged ever. Therefore, how can anyone consider Lincoln a great man, and a great President?
Lincoln was a lying demagogue, an opportunist thug who grabbed and centralized power more than any other president before him. He closed newspapers, suspended habeas corpus, favored high tariffs and a central bank, and allowed countless war crimes. He never freed a slave in his life, and increased the power of the federal government, to which we all are now slaves!
Lincoln could be accurately described as a fascist. Not sure why the left supports him so much...
Lincoln was far from being the criminal you make him out to be. I'm not going to argue the point, or produce "evidence" in support of my position, because I've been on this forum long enough now to know that it wouldn't make any difference, anyway.
Lincoln is Obama's personal hero. Obama has read MUCH of what Lincoln wrote and said, I am sure. Obama is a Constitutional Law scholar. I think that if half of what you allege is true, Obama would know it, don't you?
Not exactly, he is much more of a Liberatarion...he is actually is highly critical of the Bush administration, especially when it comes to the Patriot Act (the largest assault on the constition since FDR), and on the current rendition type programs. He is a true defender of the original intent of the U.S. Constitution...of course if you only think b/c he's a Fox News contributor he's a right wing fascist, you're sadly mistaking.
The real question is, would American soldiers attack their former countrymen doing the same thing the American founding fathers did? And if so, would you support using force to force an unwanted government on those states?
The South had no business seceding from the U.S. And the question of whether secession is legal very much depends on one's interpretation of the Constitution. Legal scholars are still battling it out.
Lincoln was far from being the criminal you make him out to be. I'm not going to argue the point, or produce "evidence" in support of my position, because I've been on this forum long enough now to know that it wouldn't make any difference, anyway.
Lincoln is Obama's personal hero. Obama has read MUCH of what Lincoln wrote and said, I am sure. Obama is a Constitutional Law scholar. I think that if half of what you allege is true, Obama would know it, don't you?
You won't produce evidence b/c you know you can't.
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.
