Jefferson vs Lincoln

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

To those who would support secession:

The Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution. Nowhere in any part of the Constitution, relevant to this discussion, are states referred to as sovereign entities that separate one from the other and nowhere is it stated that the United States is a group, a confederation, a league, or anything else along these lines. It seems that those who defend secession justify doing so based on the language of the Articles of Confederation. It is true that had the Articles become law, one would be hard-pressed to argue that secession was not entirely legal.

But the Articles of Confederation became moot when the Constitution was written. Based on the viewpoints of none other than James Madison, we can infer that the Constitution (and it’s specific removal of references to leagues or confederations of states) was, among other things, designed to eliminate the possibility of legal secession. In the words of Patrick Henry (ironically spoken while protesting the passing of the Constitution) “…WE the people, instead of the STATES, of America…”

The right to revolt and the right to secede are two entirely different beasts and the Founding Fathers knew this. Some, such as Patrick Henry, supported the idea of supreme state sovereignty (and by extension the right to secede). Henry and his supporters were opposed to the Constitution due to its exclusion of the ability to secede in its language. Madison and his pals believed that to allow for the ability to secede would undermine the very nature of the United States of America. As we know, the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, thus removing the possibility of legal secession. To solidify this point in 1869, in the Supreme Court case Texas v. White, the illegality of secession was cemented forever in statute when the Court ruled that the Constitution did NOT grant any state the legal right to secede.

This ruling and the fact that the Constitution, and NOT the Articles of Confederation, still exists unequivocally negates the argument that secession was at ANY point in our country’s history a legal act. So let’s move this discussion past the dead end debate about the legaility of the Southern states’ actions, since clearly they were not.

If there is anyone here who doubts the legality of secession, take it up with the signatories of the Constitution and the Supreme Court and please stop making the fallacious argument that secession was legal and provided for in the Constitution. It was not.

122

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The US didn’t ratify the first Geneva Convention until 1882. Before then it wasn’t written anywhere that Sherman COULDN’T plow right through Georgia. [/quote]

Where is it written that he COULD plow through states in a 60 mile wide swath of destruction? Please show me the part of the Constitution that says that citizens of the United States (Lincoln wouldn’t let them leave the Union, remember?) can have their homes burned down by Federal troops, their crops torched, their animals slaughtered, leaving women and children standing by the side of the road to starve.

Somehow, I just don’t think the signers of 1789 had provisions for that.

[/quote]

The Constitution does not address wartime actions, so of course this would be a horrible reference point in determining the legality of Sherman’s actions. You’re sensationalizing and highly exaggerating the nature of Sherman’s march with provocative language, a tactic that is becoming more and more prevalent as the actual SUBSTANCE of your argument whithers away.

Go back and read the orders Sherman gave his troops regarding his March that I posted earlier.

123

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I cannot stress enough how surreal this whole discussion is.

Imagine Austria wanting to leave the EU and Brussels sending forth armies to burn Vienna to the ground.[/quote]

That would be odd, especially since the Lisbon Treaty permits countries to voluntarily withdraw from the European Union under a formalized procedure.

Well done, Orion. And we thought your grasp of American law and politics was bad.[/quote]

That is complete nonsense we could have seceded (sic!) whenever we wanted for we are a souvereign nation and we could not even tolerate something that contradicts our constitution if we wanted to, because in these cases the Austrian VfGH > EUGH.

It is similar in Germany where the BfGH upheld the idea that Germany could leave the Union, at least theoretically, if all else fails.

Whether the EU acknowledges that right is irrelevant, this is up to the states constitutions and the very second the EU violates these constitutions we cannot not nullify those laws and ultimately we would have to secede.

124

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The US didn’t ratify the first Geneva Convention until 1882. Before then it wasn’t written anywhere that Sherman COULDN’T plow right through Georgia. [/quote]

Where is it written that he COULD plow through states in a 60 mile wide swath of destruction? Please show me the part of the Constitution that says that citizens of the United States (Lincoln wouldn’t let them leave the Union, remember?) can have their homes burned down by Federal troops, their crops torched, their animals slaughtered, leaving women and children standing by the side of the road to starve.

Somehow, I just don’t think the signers of 1789 had provisions for that.

[/quote]

Also, where is it written that the states had the right to SECEDE? And please do not confuse secession with revolution. The signers of 1789 certainly didn’t.

125

BTW, Greenland left the then EC in 1985.

126

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I cannot stress enough how surreal this whole discussion is.

Imagine Austria wanting to leave the EU and Brussels sending forth armies to burn Vienna to the ground.[/quote]

That would be odd, especially since the Lisbon Treaty permits countries to voluntarily withdraw from the European Union under a formalized procedure.

Well done, Orion. And we thought your grasp of American law and politics was bad.[/quote]

That is complete nonsense we could have seceded (sic!) whenever we wanted for we are a souvereign nation and we could not even tolerate something that contradicts our constitution if we wanted to, because in these cases the Austrian VfGH > EUGH.

It is similar in Germany where the BfGH upheld the idea that Germany could leave the Union, at least theoretically, if all else fails.

Whether the EU acknowledges that right is irrelevant, this is up to the states constitutions and the very second the EU violates these constitutions we cannot not nullify those laws and ultimately we would have to secede. [/quote]

Now of course the EU has no military, but let’s say at some future point let’s say there was an EU Army.

If Austria seceded yet EU troops remained on Austrian soil despite being ordered to leave, what would your analysis be of this?

Particularly if you could drive them out at the cost of only the life of one cow?

127

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

So you’re saying that states that had just rebelled against Britain and attained independence all voluntarily surrendered their sovereignty, forever and ever?[/quote]

States didn’t surrender all their sovereignty, nor did they surrender their natural right of revolution. States could organize whatever government they wanted, and did so under the Articles. When it became clear that the Articles weren’t what was needed, the people - not the states by themselves - decided to form a Union.

This has been covered ad nauseum. The Constitution replaced the Articles to strengthen, not weaken, the national government. Since there was no secession under the Articles, it’s inconceivable that there would be a right of secession under the Constitution.

That, and a thousand other reasons. You never have anything additive to this debate. You never explain why in the world secession would have been available under the Constitution when it wasn’t under Articles. You never explain how a democratic election of a candidate somehow justifies a revolution.

Then you should have no problem sourcing historical documents in the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers and in the ratification of the Constitution reflecting this. And you should have some explanation why the Anti-Federalists - those opposed to ratification - was positive that, in fact, that the Constitution did not provide for the kinds of “states’ rights” you are talking about. Looking forward to reading your findings.

Sorry, capitalizing letters doesn’t make faulty arguments somehow valid. But hey, it is great in a texting war with twelve year olds.

128

[quote]orion wrote:

That is complete nonsense we could have seceded (sic!) whenever we wanted for we are a souvereign nation and we could not even tolerate something that contradicts our constitution if we wanted to, because in these cases the Austrian VfGH > EUGH.[/quote]

More childish flailing after showing your posterior on a dumb claim.

Also, you make the point that the Austrian constitution trumps the EU constitution. No problem. Under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, the exact opposite is true in America.

Thanks for playing, Orion. Always good for a laugh.

129

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Then you should have no problem sourcing historical documents in the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers and in the ratification of the Constitution reflecting this. [/quote]

I’ve done this before, from Thomas Delorenzo’s book, and you simply pooh-poohed the author.

You’re a Lincoln apologist. Fine. We get it. And anyone who questions this doesn’t ‘know their Constitution’ or is some sort of immature conspiracy nut. Okay, we get it.

We also get that your boy forced states to remain in the Union, then did things to those states that are unconstitutional. And you want to defend that by reference to…the Constitution. And we get that you don’t see that as a contradiction.

How far one will go to defend criminals…

130

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Btw, HH, if you dare leave the T-mag forum, we’re going to come after you at your house with guns blazing to make you come back. You don’t have the right to leave.

I know it didn’t say that in writing when you signed up, but that’s the way it’s going to be because we can’t allow what we have here to be broken up.[/quote]

LOL! Maybe it was hidden somewhere:

Here it is! Claus 420: Anyone seeking to leave T-Nation will have his home fire bommbed.

:slight_smile:

131

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The US didn’t ratify the first Geneva Convention until 1882. Before then it wasn’t written anywhere that Sherman COULDN’T plow right through Georgia. [/quote]

Where is it written that he COULD plow through states in a 60 mile wide swath of destruction? Please show me the part of the Constitution that says that citizens of the United States (Lincoln wouldn’t let them leave the Union, remember?) can have their homes burned down by Federal troops, their crops torched, their animals slaughtered, leaving women and children standing by the side of the road to starve.

Somehow, I just don’t think the signers of 1789 had provisions for that.

[/quote]

The Constitution does not address wartime actions, so of course this would be a horrible reference point in determining the legality of Sherman’s actions. You’re sensationalizing and highly exaggerating the nature of Sherman’s march with provocative language, a tactic that is becoming more and more prevalent as the actual SUBSTANCE of your argument whithers away.

Go back and read the orders Sherman gave his troops regarding his March that I posted earlier.[/quote]

LOL! I had two great-uncles and my great-grandfather who were in the Illinois 57th. One bought a farm with his loot, another a butcher shop in Moline, IL. They were war criminals.

So…where again does it say that Federal troops may invade states and destroy/carry off the belongings of citizens?

132

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I’ve done this before, from Thomas Delorenzo’s book, and you simply pooh-poohed the author.[/quote]

Dilorenzo is a discredited hack, but I (and others) poo-poo’ed his Godawful arguments first and merely took liberty of calling a hack a hack. Not only did I address DiLorenzo’s buffoonish errors, but Jack Dempsey and DrSekptix did as well.

No, if you don’t know the Constitution, you don’t know, regardless of whether I am a “Lincoln apologist” or not. You are totally lost on the federal government’s right to “suppress Insurrections and Rebellions”. The clownish Bill Roberts somehow, some way thinks Lincoln had the unilateral power to legally extinguish slavery in all the Union during the Civil War.

As for the conspiracy nuts - uh, yeah.

He didn’t do anything to the “states” that was unconstitutional. If you think so, make the case. Cite the Constitution. Don’t forget to explain how the “Insurrection” clause doesn’t apply.

You’re a teacher - surely you know the value of homework.

Nope, and no one here has even provided a decent counterargument. Trust me, I am all ears to hear bona fide evidence on this “contradiction”.

But you’ll notice a funny trend: the “Lincoln apologists” cite history, the Constitution, the Articles of Confedeation, the Federalist Papers, the law generally, documents, letters, books and references, historical events, precedent, logic - there is no shortage of argument on our side of the fence.

As for your side, you have, well, ad hominems, general whining and capitalized text.

That trend should tell you something, HH.

Grade: F. Does not see projects through. Attempts theses without proper development of supporting evidence. Conclusions do not find support in assertions.

133

This is a related, but somewhat deflected line of questioning. At what point does the departure from constitutional principles become great enough to override the insurrections and rebellions clause? In other words, are we forever bound to submission to any and all political power structures whatever so long as they’re elected by a majority?

Is there no point at which constitutional principle itself demands revolution for it’s own preservation. If not then the constitution is in the end meaningless and defending it is a circular argument. If so then who and how many decide how and when?

134

Lincoln enacting martial law is the biggest red flag screaming unconstitutional, but who cares. He got shit done the north won, who really cares if what he did was unconstitutional.

135

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Dilorenzo is a discredited hack, but I (and others) poo-poo’ed his Godawful arguments first and merely took liberty of calling a hack a hack. Not only did I address DiLorenzo’s buffoonish errors, but Jack Dempsey and DrSekptix did as well.

[/quote]

Wait, are you talking about “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War”? This has been on my ‘to read’ list for the longest time. (Serious question).

136

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Then you should have no problem sourcing historical documents in the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers and in the ratification of the Constitution reflecting this. [/quote]

I’ve done this before, from Thomas Delorenzo’s book, and you simply pooh-poohed the author.

You’re a Lincoln apologist. Fine. We get it. And anyone who questions this doesn’t ‘know their Constitution’ or is some sort of immature conspiracy nut. Okay, we get it.

We also get that your boy forced states to remain in the Union, then did things to those states that are unconstitutional. And you want to defend that by reference to…the Constitution. And we get that you don’t see that as a contradiction.

How far one will go to defend criminals…
[/quote]

Since we’re discussing an historical matter, Thomas DeLorenzo and his opinions should never enter this discussion. Only primary evidence is appropriate. If you plan on making any argument of any kind about this issue (or any other historical subject), cite only primary evidence. Anything else is not historical evidence of any kind and is only an example of you latching onto someone else’s opinion because it tells you what you want to hear.

I have challenged you and others repeatedly to provide such evidence, and you have not. Your continued failure to do so, while pointing at perceived flaws in MY arguments, only serves to further the impression that there is nothing to support your stances. Your ability to reason and use of logic is not evidence of anything pertaining to this discussion.

137

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I’ve done this before, from Thomas Delorenzo’s book, and you simply pooh-poohed the author.[/quote]

Dilorenzo is a discredited hack, but I (and others) poo-poo’ed his Godawful arguments first and merely took liberty of calling a hack a hack. Not only did I address DiLorenzo’s buffoonish errors, but Jack Dempsey and DrSekptix did as well.

[/quote]

Like they say at the horse races: “And…they’re off.”

DiLorenzo lists (re-read that) quotes and statements from others. Again and again, he QUOTES OTHERS. But then… you dismiss him as a hack. A ‘hack’ that lists quotes and facts…

Yeah.

How about you show me the exact part of the Constitution that says the Federal government may send armed troops to invade a state? Show me where the civilians of the invaded states may have their possessions taken from them or burned.

Don’t give the tired out excuse of ‘Do your own work.’ You’re the expert. You know where it is. Enlighten us. Show us ‘the money’.

138

Thunderbolt again hits the nail on the head. I have practically begged for some sort of primary evidence from the revisionists throughout this thread, but have received virtually nothing. Bill Roberts came close by providing a couple of quotes from Lincoln that revealed him to be a racist. But the way in which he used them to support his assertions demonstrated that he had little understanding of the context in which the quotes were made.

However, NOBODY on this thread (unless I missed a response somewhere) has claimed that Lincoln was not a racist, so Bill’s evidence only served to further an argument that no one was making with him.

Once Bill realized there was nothing in the historical record to support his argument, he disappeared from the thread, only to return in order to make childish comparisons of secession to leaving this thread.

Several people have asserted that secession was legal. However, I have provided a clearcut, accurate explanation as to why secession has always been illegal. The 1869 Texas v. White ruling backs me up 100% on this. The secessionists on this thread have largely ignored this.

There has also been a criticism of Lincoln for not freeing all the slaves with the issuance of the EP. But Lincoln did not have this power and it is dubious as to whether or not he had the power to free any of the slaves, let alone ones in border states that were not directly at war with the North.

Once these arguments were proven incorrect on the behalf of the secessionists, they started to cling to the myth that Sherman and Lincoln advocated a policy of rape and murder of babies and whatnot. This too is false and an examination of the historical record demonstrates as much.

I’m not sure how much longer this thread can continue without devolving into pure bullshit on the part of the Southern apologists.

Oh yeah, one other thing. Pushharder, I’m still curious to know how you feel about Southerners throwing lavish parties while their fellow, poorer Southerners starved to death. And how do you feel about other Southerners taking advantage of the shortage of common goods to make money off the backs of starving, destitute fellow Southerners? Please tell me, or again, do you only direct your twisted sense of injustice toward Northerners.

139

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I’ve done this before, from Thomas Delorenzo’s book, and you simply pooh-poohed the author.[/quote]

Dilorenzo is a discredited hack, but I (and others) poo-poo’ed his Godawful arguments first and merely took liberty of calling a hack a hack. Not only did I address DiLorenzo’s buffoonish errors, but Jack Dempsey and DrSekptix did as well.

[/quote]

Like they say at the horse races: “And…they’re off.”

DiLorenzo lists (re-read that) quotes and statements from others. Again and again, he QUOTES OTHERS. But then… you dismiss him as a hack. A ‘hack’ that lists quotes and facts…

Yeah.

How about you show me the exact part of the Constitution that says the Federal government may send armed troops to invade a state? Show me where the civilians of the invaded states may have their possessions taken from them or burned.

Don’t give the tired out excuse of ‘Do your own work.’ You’re the expert. You know where it is. Enlighten us. Show us ‘the money’.
[/quote]

You’re the one whose aim is to prosecute the name and Presidency of Lincoln and all of his actions prior to and during the Civil War. I’ll do some more research to prove you wrong, but until then: let the burden of proof reside with the prosecutors.