Lincoln and Bush

[SPC]

I think so. Lincoln was like Bush only to a greater degree. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, violated the 3rd and 10th Amendments, got us into an unnecesary war, and was hypocritical, to say the least.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I think so. Lincoln was like Bush only to a greater degree. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, violated the 3rd and 10th Amendments, got us into an unnecesary war, and was hypocritical, to say the least.

Lincoln's war was at least fought on the American mainland.

And no, the two men are not comparable. Though Lincoln has alot to be criticized for surely. Whether you judge the war as unnecesary or not has to based on your opinion on the United States - The Ideal.

[SPC]

I think so. Lincoln was like Bush only to a greater degree. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, violated the 3rd and 10th Amendments, got us into an unnecesary war, and was hypocritical, to say the least.

Lincoln's war was at least fought on the American mainland.

And no, the two men are not comparable. Though Lincoln has alot to be criticized for surely. Whether you judge the war as unnecesary or not has to based on your opinion on the United States - The Ideal.

The justification for Lincoln's war was a violation of the 10th Amendment, as states had the right to secede from the Union, thus its preservation was bogus. I fail to see the difference between Lincoln's war against Confederates and King George III's war against the Americans. Lincoln used the arugument that the Southern states never really left the Union when it suited his purposes (going to war against the CSA) and used the argument that the Southern states did leave the Union when it suited his purposes (admission of WV). He suspended habeus corpus and violated the 3rd Amendment during and after the war. He was a horrible man who doesn't deserve the good reputation that he has.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Articles of Confederation were explicitly a perpetual union, indeed the full name of that instrument is the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.  Arguments that secession is one of the rights reserved to the States under the tenth amendment fall flat against Article VI Clause 1 which clearly indicates that the Constitution is a successor document to the Articles and that any Engagements entered into under the Articles are still binding.  Absent a specific clause in the Constitution concerning secession, of which there is none, the operative language in the Articles are still in force and hence secession is illegal.

[SPC]

The Articles of Confederation were explicitly a perpetual union, indeed the full name of that instrument is the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.  Arguments that secession is one of the rights reserved to the States under the tenth amendment fall flat against Article VI Clause 1 which clearly indicates that the Constitution is a successor document to the Articles and that any Engagements entered into under the Articles are still binding.  Absent a specific clause in the Constitution concerning secession, of which there is none, the operative language in the Articles are still in force and hence secession is illegal.

Yes, but the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, stating:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Therefore, the right to secede from the Union would reside with the states, because, as you said, secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, but the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, stating:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Therefore, the right to secede from the Union would reside with the states, because, as you said, secession isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

I stated very clearly why the Constitution prohibits secession, but because you don't like it, you ignored it.  Ignoring a law because you don't like it is human but not particularly admirable.  For the reasons I already stated, therefore the 10th amendment does not apply here since secession is a power prohibited to the States via the inclusion of the prohibition on secession under the Articles via Article VI Clause 1.

[??????????]

The Articles of Confederation were explicitly a perpetual union, indeed the full name of that instrument is the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.  Arguments that secession is one of the rights reserved to the States under the tenth amendment fall flat against Article VI Clause 1 which clearly indicates that the Constitution is a successor document to the Articles and that any Engagements entered into under the Articles are still binding.  Absent a specific clause in the Constitution concerning secession, of which there is none, the operative language in the Articles are still in force and hence secession is illegal.

Why then, was the legal belief, prior to the war and taught in the school books of West point supportive of secession as a legal right?

As for the poll. A sound "Yes" is the answer to this one.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Considering that the officer Corps proved riddled with traitors and that the USMA never has conferred law degrees, pointing to the West Point curriculum is hardly a strong debating point.  However, while secession cannot be supported on a constitutional basis, it can be supported on a revolutionary one.  The southern states certainly had the right to attempt a revolution to preserve slavery.  Thankfully, they failed in their revolution.  If they had succeeded in seceding, the Confederacy today would at best be like Mexico today in terms of its economic and political condition, and perhaps more like Cuba or Haiti.

[SPC]

Considering that the officer Corps proved riddled with traitors and that the USMA never has conferred law degrees, pointing to the West Point curriculum is hardly a strong debating point.  However, while secession cannot be supported on a constitutional basis, it can be supported on a revolutionary one.  The southern states certainly had the right to attempt a revolution to preserve slavery.  Thankfully, they failed in their revolution.  If they had succeeded in seceding, the Confederacy today would at best be like Mexico today in terms of its economic and political condition, and perhaps more like Cuba or Haiti.

Well, I doubt slavery would have been able to sustain itself in the South. Every other country in the Western hemisphere ended slavery without a war. I think the South was really just fearing the unknown, as they had never had a Republican administration before, and rightfully so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Every other country in the Western hemisphere ended slavery without a war.

Read up on the Haitian Revolution and the Ten Years' War (Cuba).  The Empire of Brazil came to an end because of coup d'etat made possible by the instability in the wake of abolition as the economy adjusted to the new situation.  You don't change the fundamental basis of an economic system without turmoil.

[12th Doctor]

I think so. Lincoln was like Bush only to a greater degree. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, violated the 3rd and 10th Amendments, got us into an unnecesary war, and was hypocritical, to say the least.

This kinda idiotic comparision is the type of thing you get when you follow the (moronic) anxium "The ends don't justify the means" without question.

What makes Lincoln so much better than Bush were his intellegence, self-examination, benevolence and motives, which one can hardly say for Bush.

Contrary to the pithy saying, why you do something changes almost everything about what you are doing and if it can be justified.

[??????????]

Lincoln obviously had to be a genius in order to get away with throwing American citizens in jail without charges and on an indefinite basis.

[Ebowed]

Yes.  Lincoln violated civil liberties and committed war crimes.

[12th Doctor]

Lincoln obviously had to be a genius in order to get away with throwing American citizens in jail without charges and on an indefinite basis.

As I recall, the Confederates threw a number of US citizens in prison too.  Not everyone in the south was in favor of the Confederacy, and they paid the price just as pro-confederate Northerners did.  Fact is, there reallt was no "right side" in the civil war, only very good people who were try to make the best of things on both sides... Lincoln, Lee, and company.

The thing that makes Lincoln great, in the end, is that he understood this.

[??????????]

Lincoln obviously had to be a genius in order to get away with throwing American citizens in jail without charges and on an indefinite basis.

As I recall, the Confederates threw a number of US citizens in prison too.  Not everyone in the south was in favor of the Confederacy, and they paid the price just as pro-confederate Northerners did.  Fact is, there reallt was no "right side" in the civil war, only very good people who were try to make the best of things on both sides... Lincoln, Lee, and company.

The thing that makes Lincoln great, in the end, is that he understood this.

You can continue to keep sticking your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes about Lincoln if you want to. That doesn't change the fact that history of him has been glossed over by the US Government and their are more then enough books out there that support my side of the argument since people have decided to finally discuss why he wasn't as good of a president as the history books like to lie about.

"Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision."

[DownWithTheLeft]

Lincoln caused a war by violating the tenth amendment, and then violated amendments 1, 3, and 5 at least.  When there was only twelve amendments, that's pretty impressive.

[Lincoln Republican]

Abraham Lincoln led a just and righteous cause, the preservation of the Union of the United States of America, and the abolition of the abomination known as slavery.

No person should be or ought to be in bondage to another.  This is abhorrent, and cannot be justified under any circumstances. 

Regardless of the arguments of how or why Lincoln did what, the fact of the matter remains, he was the President of the United States, and it was his duty to preserve the Union.  He did what had to be done, for the betterment of the nation, and for the sakes of all future generations.

The Confederacy was clinging to an archaic dream of days long since past when they could command with impunity the lives of other human beings.  The spirit of freedom cannot be blotted out with chains and whips.  You cannot put a price on a human soul.

Abraham Lincoln was, is, and always will be, one of the greatest Presidents, if not the greatest, because he knew the value of life, and because he knew the nation could not survive under these crises which were engulfing the United States of America.

Abraham Lincoln undertook the battle for freedom and justice on American soil, to preserve the Union, and to free those in bondage from the tyranny of their masters.

America is forever indebted to Lincoln's courage, vision, and compassion.

Thank the Good Lord that America had Abraham Lincoln during America's darkest hour, when the nation stood at the precipice of destruction and ruin.  It was Lincoln's courage and far sightedness that saved freedom and democracy for that generation, and that preserved freedom and democracy for all generations to come.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." 

"I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free."

Abraham Lincoln   

[??????????]

T.Hall. Lincoln also said that Blacks and Whites could never be equal in this country. He strongly believed the in the movement to send blacks back to Africa. And on your last post, real creative, I'm sure you came up with that tired old rant all by yourself.

[SPC]

Abraham Lincoln led a just and righteous cause, the preservation of the Union of the United States of America, and the abolition of the abomination known as slavery.

No person should be or ought to be in bondage to another.  This is abhorrent, and cannot be justified under any circumstances. 

"If I could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do that."

That sure doesn't seem like he wanted to abolish slavery.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." 

"I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free."   

So clearly the solution is to go to war and force the other side to adopt your viewpoint, even when it's destined to fail anyway.

[Lincoln Republican]

T.Hall. Lincoln also said that Blacks and Whites could never be equal in this country. He strongly believed the in the movement to send blacks back to Africa. And on your last post, real creative, I'm sure you came up with that tired old rant all by yourself.

Yes, thank you.  This "tired old rant" as you call it, is indeed entirely my own creation.

I do from time to time wax eloquent in the english language, as occasion requires.

In the final analysis, it was indisputably Abraham Lincoln's inspired leadership that preserved the Union of the United States of America for his, and for all future generations, of freedom loving peoples. 

[Joe Republic]

T.Hall. Lincoln also said that Blacks and Whites could never be equal in this country. He strongly believed the in the movement to send blacks back to Africa. And on your last post, real creative, I'm sure you came up with that tired old rant all by yourself.

Yes, thank you.  This "tired old rant" as you call it, is indeed entirely my own creation.

I do from time to time wax eloquent in the english language, as occasion requires.

In the final analysis, it was indisputably Abraham Lincoln's inspired leadership that preserved the Union of the United States of America for his, and for all future generations, of freedom loving peoples. 

Did you read what SR posted about Lincoln's personal views on race relations?

[Lincoln Republican]

T.Hall. Lincoln also said that Blacks and Whites could never be equal in this country. He strongly believed the in the movement to send blacks back to Africa. And on your last post, real creative, I'm sure you came up with that tired old rant all by yourself.

Yes, thank you.  This "tired old rant" as you call it, is indeed entirely my own creation.

I do from time to time wax eloquent in the english language, as occasion requires.

In the final analysis, it was indisputably Abraham Lincoln's inspired leadership that preserved the Union of the United States of America for his, and for all future generations, of freedom loving peoples. 

Did you read what SR posted about Lincoln's personal views on race relations?

Yes, I read that, but in the final analysis, personal views or no personal views, the ultimate effect that the course that Lincoln pursued was that slavery was in fact abolished in the United States.  That is an indisputable fact.

Another indisputable fact is that the course that Lincoln pursued did in fact preserve the Union of the United States of America.  Lincoln's actions saved the Union from splintering into two nations. 

What is better, one strong nation, where all or free, or two nations, where one is free, and where the other is part slave and part free?

I think the answer to that question is clear. 

[Joe Republic]

What is better, one strong nation, where all or free, or two nations, where one is free, and where the other is part slave and part free?

I think the answer to that question is clear. 

Not really.

As a Yankee, like yourself, I couldn't really give two hoots what route the South would have chosen to go down.  And speaking for StatesRights if I may, I believe he'd also be perfectly happy for both nations to have gone their separate ways too.  I also remember him saying (and I'm somewhat inclined to agree) that slavery in the South would have been phased out eventually anyway.

[Lincoln Republican]

What is better, one strong nation, where all or free, or two nations, where one is free, and where the other is part slave and part free?

I think the answer to that question is clear. 

Not really.

As a Yankee, like yourself, I couldn't really give two hoots what route the South would have chosen to go down.  And speaking for StatesRights if I may, I believe he'd also be perfectly happy for both nations to have gone their separate ways too.  I also remember him saying (and I'm somewhat inclined to agree) that slavery in the South would have been phased out eventually anyway.

Yes, Joe, I agree totally with you, and with StatesRights, that even if the south had been able to secede, that slavery would eventually have been eliminated in the south.  But slavery is by no means the only issue that had to be addressed at the time of the Civil War.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of Americans would care a great deal about the unity of the nation, including a vast majority, now, in the south, perhaps not a vast majority in the south in 1865, but certainly a vast majority, now, in the south. 

Don't forget, it was absolutely essential for America to be a united and strong country, in order to defend freedom in World War I, in order to defend freedom in World War II, and in order to be the only other superpower, along with the Soviet Union, at the time of the Cold War, in order to stand up to the strength of the Soviet Union, and in order to prevent the Soviet Union from expanding it's ideology and in order to prevent the Soviet Union's enslavement of  other nations in the free world.

And it is essential now, for a strong and united America, in order to fight the war on international terrorism.

So it was absolutely essential that the unity of the nation be preserved, even if a war, in this case the Civil War, was required in order to achieve it.   

[SPC]

What is better, one strong nation, where all or free, or two nations, where one is free, and where the other is part slave and part free?

I think the answer to that question is clear. 

Not really.

As a Yankee, like yourself, I couldn't really give two hoots what route the South would have chosen to go down.  And speaking for StatesRights if I may, I believe he'd also be perfectly happy for both nations to have gone their separate ways too.  I also remember him saying (and I'm somewhat inclined to agree) that slavery in the South would have been phased out eventually anyway.

Yes, Joe, I agree totally with you, and with StatesRights, that even if the south had been able to secede, that slavery would eventually have been eliminated in the south.  But slavery is by no means the only issue that had to be addressed at the time of the Civil War.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of Americans would care a great deal about the unity of the nation, including a vast majority, now, in the south, perhaps not a vast majority in the south in 1865, but certainly a vast majority, now, in the south. 

Don't forget, it was absolutely essential for America to be a united and strong country, in order to defend freedom in World War I, in order to defend freedom in World War II, and in order to be the only other superpower, along with the Soviet Union, at the time of the Cold War, in order to stand up to the strength of the Soviet Union, and in order to prevent the Soviet Union from expanding it's ideology and in order to prevent the Soviet Union's enslavement of  other nations in the free world.

And it is essential now, for a strong and united America, in order to fight the war on international terrorism.

So it was absolutely essential that the unity of the nation be preserved, even if a war, in this case the Civil War, was required in order to achieve it.   

But, does that not violate the very Declartion of Independence this nation was founded on?

Our country was founded upon the basis of dissolving a government when it becomes destructive to its own means. The Southern states seceded not only because of slavery, but also to avoid the disaster known as Reconstruction that they feared would happen. I, as a constitutionalist, would consider the preservation of the Constitution to be a more improtant goal than the preservation of the Union. Is the preservation of the Unon more important than abiding by the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 10th Amendments?