How come Lincoln got away with shutting down hundreds of newspapers and jailed journalists

[Syriusly]

Its racist to think everything is about race involving white people, you racists!
This is about freedom, liberty and the abuse of power. And how the govt SHOULDNT abuse it.
Grow the fuck up!

The slaves didn’t have freedom or liberty, right?

Pick up a history book. That isn't why the north did it. Hint, their motto was "save the union"

I’ve picked up more history books than you’ve ever laid eyes on.

Yet you couldn't address my point. The slaves are not why the north invaded. Lincoln offered to enshrine slavery to end the rebellion

You can’t “invade” your own country. The war didn’t begin because of slavery, but the evil institution had a connection to everything the war was based on. By the end of the criminal uprising it was certainly about slavery as much as anything.

The war began because Slave owning states feared the end of slavery. While there were other issues too- slavery was at the heart of the reasons why the slave owning states attempted to secede. It is evident in their statements at the time- both before and after the election of Abraham Lincoln. The North did not enter the war because of slavery- but the South certainly did.

The war began when the rebels began firing on troops of the United States Army.

While Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery- and campaigned on preventing the expansion of slavery- he was very clear that he would accept slavery in order to preserve the Union.

When the slave owning rebel states made it clear that they were going to proceed- Lincoln realized that freeing the slaves became a strategic decision that happened to mirror his own convictions.

 

[Syriusly]

Its racist to think everything is about race involving white people, you racists!
This is about freedom, liberty and the abuse of power. And how the govt SHOULDNT abuse it.
Grow the fuck up!

Why are you talking to yourself?

 

[Syriusly]

Its racist to think everything is about race involving white people, you racists!
This is about freedom, liberty and the abuse of power. And how the govt SHOULDNT abuse it.
Grow the fuck up!

The slaves didn’t have freedom or liberty, right?

Pick up a history book. That isn't why the north did it. Hint, their motto was "save the union"

Get some reading lessons.

Harley said he is pissed off at Lincoln because:
This is about freedom, liberty and the abuse of power. And how the govt SHOULDNT abuse it.

Slaves didn't have freedom or liberty- and slavery itself was clearly an abuse of power and how government should not abuse power.

The Confederate states attempted to secede in order to protect their governments ability to abuse power by legally enshrining the loss of freedom and liberty to Americans who were slaves.

While Lincoln didn't respond to the attack on American troops to end slavery- that was never his initial goal- the result of Lincoln's actions was the end of slavery in the United States.

And you folks are pissed off at Lincoln for his 'abuse of power'......but oddly enough not starting any threads about the abuse of power of the Confederate States.....

 

[TNHarley]

Its racist to think everything is about race involving white people, you racists!
This is about freedom, liberty and the abuse of power. And how the govt SHOULDNT abuse it.
Grow the fuck up!

Why are you talking to yourself?

Im talking to tunnel vision dupes like you

 

[Syriusly]

Its racist to think everything is about race involving white people, you racists!
This is about freedom, liberty and the abuse of power. And how the govt SHOULDNT abuse it.
Grow the fuck up!

Why are you talking to yourself?

Im talking to tunnel vision dupes like you

Since you:
a) didn't name anyone and
b) didn't respond to anyone and
c) seem to be talking of your own personal issues

Sounds like you are talking about yourself.

Tell us all more about how the freedom and liberty loving Confederate slave States were oppressed by Lincoln.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous
America's Greatest President: Abraham Lincoln
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf
Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

you have this irrational hatred and obsession over Lincoln the same way Politicial chic has her unhealthy crazy obsession and hatred over FDR and the dems so much she turns a blind eye to the republicans corruption.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Not that this was a good excuse, but Lincoln made it clear that those measures were only temporary measures due to the conditions imposed by the war. Lincoln gave many indications that once peace was established, he would let the Southern states come back into the Union on very lenient, merciful terms.

 

[TNHarley]

and trump cant whine about fake news without being accused of being a tyrant? Lincoln actually WAS a tyrant.
Geez, americans are so disingenuous
America's Greatest President: Abraham Lincoln
http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fall09.pdf
Im not even going to get started on lincoln sending out sherman to rape, murder pillage and kill livestock and all of his other unconstitutional acts
Im very interested. TIA

you have this irrational hatred and obsession over Lincoln the same way Politicial chic has her unhealthy crazy obsession and hatred over FDR and the dems so much she turns a blind eye to the republicans corruption.

"irrational hatred"
Thats what i say about everyone that dislikes tyrants.

 

[kaz]

Its racist to think everything is about race involving white people, you racists!
This is about freedom, liberty and the abuse of power. And how the govt SHOULDNT abuse it.
Grow the fuck up!

The slaves didn’t have freedom or liberty, right?

Pick up a history book. That isn't why the north did it. Hint, their motto was "save the union"

I’ve picked up more history books than you’ve ever laid eyes on.

Yet you couldn't address my point. The slaves are not why the north invaded. Lincoln offered to enshrine slavery to end the rebellion

You can’t “invade” your own country. The war didn’t begin because of slavery, but the evil institution had a connection to everything the war was based on. By the end of the criminal uprising it was certainly about slavery as much as anything.

Consent of the governed and John locke never came up in all that history reading, huh?

 

[there4eyeM]

Perpetual Union (since repeating the same old thing seems to be in vogue here).

You do realize we go by the united states constitution right?
This isnt 1787

Funny, this poster seems to have been absent when we went over this, though was posting at that time, so it gives 'absent ' a special nuance.
Once upon a time, their was a group of white men who decided to form a nation. They called the form of nation they wanted to form a union. It was a confederation of a number of 'states', countries in a way. Not long afterward, it was evident that the confederation was not working, so they met again to improve the function of their union. They agreed to a more perfect union than how it how been. They understood English very well. Despite being an élite group of well-to-do gentlemen, they had some ideas that were , shall we say, politically advanced for how the world was then. They had seen and studied the errors of nations, treaties, etc. They had sworn to a Perpetual Union, and they had met to make that Union better.
The present Constitution issued from that. Technically, it seems not to have been approved, passed if you will, strictly by the terms described in the Articles of Confederation. This caused small stir at the time, though exception to it was expressed in some quarters. In any event, the language is clear. Attempting to obscure it is no more than that, an attempt. If a change in the nature of the Union to becoming a mere gentleman's club one could simply stop paying dues to an quit had been in these men's minds, there would be clear, discrete evidence. That conditional is there because the evidence isn't.
So, either we have a Constitution of a more perfect Perpetual Union, or we have an illegal Constitution and are still functioning under the nation established by the Articles of Confederation and are all part of the perpetual Union.
Thus, the states were and are either engaged in a Perpetual Union, or they are engaged in a Perpetual Union.
Sorry for the repetition of this info, but we must be kind to others how have a problem understanding.
P.S. Are there other interpretations of the described situation and documents? Certainly, tons of them. Anything can be justified in the truly determined mind. Notice, nonetheless, there is no mention of the sixteenth President.

 

[Unkotare]

The slaves didn’t have freedom or liberty, right?

Pick up a history book. That isn't why the north did it. Hint, their motto was "save the union"

I’ve picked up more history books than you’ve ever laid eyes on.

Yet you couldn't address my point. The slaves are not why the north invaded. Lincoln offered to enshrine slavery to end the rebellion

You can’t “invade” your own country. The war didn’t begin because of slavery, but the evil institution had a connection to everything the war was based on. By the end of the criminal uprising it was certainly about slavery as much as anything.

Consent of the governed and John locke never came up in all that history reading, huh?

I also have degrees in Philosophy and Political Science, so you might want to find another track, junior.

 

[mudwhistle]

Civil War.....It gave Lincoln a lot of leeway.....However Trump has more power than he knows...that goes to his advisers...they need to get caught up on presidential power....And his party needs to stand up and back him instead of joining in with the hate Trump crowd at every turn.....

But even with all of that he is outdoing Bush and Obama combined.....what a waste of tax dollars the Bush's and Obama were....sat on their asses acting like a leader without leading.....

Everything Trump does is deemed illegal and thus grounds for impeachment

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Harley said he is pissed off at Lincoln because:
This is about freedom, liberty and the abuse of power. And how the govt SHOULDNT abuse it.

Slaves didn't have freedom or liberty- and slavery itself was clearly an abuse of power and how government should not abuse power.

That is irrelevant. Everybody on all sides had openly expressed views of white supremacy. Nobody here is defending slavery. You are using that as a shield and cover for open tyranny and using the Constitution to wipe asses.

Is the issue of government abusing power still the topic of discussion?

The Confederate states attempted to secede in order to protect their governments ability to abuse power by legally enshrining the loss of freedom and liberty to Americans who were slaves.

That was not the issue for the remaining states, and certainly was not part of Lincoln's agenda. It was ALL about forcing states to stay in the union. Those states left long before any emancipation was decreed.

From Lincoln's inaugural address:

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."​

***


But, what was it REALLY about????

RIGHT HERE:

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

'Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

"Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989


So, stop lying to yourself.

While Lincoln didn't respond to the attack on American troops to end slavery- that was never his initial goal- the result of Lincoln's actions was the end of slavery in the United States.

Which still does not justify his actions. It's an excuse not tied to the real agenda.

I am sure we can find some good result from Hitler's actions too. Should we excuse him?

And you folks are pissed off at Lincoln for his 'abuse of power'......but oddly enough not starting any threads about the abuse of power of the Confederate States.....

If you want to call protecting the institution of slavery an abuse of power, I will not argue against you.

The day you see millions singing praises of how just and righteousness the confederacy is the day YOU can demand that we start threads bitching about it.

DEAL???

 

[kaz]

Pick up a history book. That isn't why the north did it. Hint, their motto was "save the union"

I’ve picked up more history books than you’ve ever laid eyes on.

Yet you couldn't address my point. The slaves are not why the north invaded. Lincoln offered to enshrine slavery to end the rebellion

You can’t “invade” your own country. The war didn’t begin because of slavery, but the evil institution had a connection to everything the war was based on. By the end of the criminal uprising it was certainly about slavery as much as anything.

Consent of the governed and John locke never came up in all that history reading, huh?

I also have degrees in Philosophy and Political Science, so you might want to find another track, junior.

You sure are low content for all that education. You spend too our classes asking your class if they have any idea how much you know? Lol. You're too smart to explain your views???

 

[bripat9643]

The slaves didn’t have freedom or liberty, right?

Pick up a history book. That isn't why the north did it. Hint, their motto was "save the union"

I’ve picked up more history books than you’ve ever laid eyes on.

Yet you couldn't address my point. The slaves are not why the north invaded. Lincoln offered to enshrine slavery to end the rebellion

You can’t “invade” your own country. The war didn’t begin because of slavery, but the evil institution had a connection to everything the war was based on. By the end of the criminal uprising it was certainly about slavery as much as anything.

The war began because Slave owning states feared the end of slavery. While there were other issues too- slavery was at the heart of the reasons why the slave owning states attempted to secede. It is evident in their statements at the time- both before and after the election of Abraham Lincoln. The North did not enter the war because of slavery- but the South certainly did.

The war began when the rebels began firing on troops of the United States Army.

While Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery- and campaigned on preventing the expansion of slavery- he was very clear that he would accept slavery in order to preserve the Union.

When the slave owning rebel states made it clear that they were going to proceed- Lincoln realized that freeing the slaves became a strategic decision that happened to mirror his own convictions.

Total bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

Perpetual Union (since repeating the same old thing seems to be in vogue here).

You do realize we go by the united states constitution right?
This isnt 1787

Funny, this poster seems to have been absent when we went over this, though was posting at that time, so it gives 'absent ' a special nuance.
Once upon a time, their was a group of white men who decided to form a nation. They called the form of nation they wanted to form a union. It was a confederation of a number of 'states', countries in a way. Not long afterward, it was evident that the confederation was not working, so they met again to improve the function of their union. They agreed to a more perfect union than how it how been. They understood English very well. Despite being an élite group of well-to-do gentlemen, they had some ideas that were , shall we say, politically advanced for how the world was then. They had seen and studied the errors of nations, treaties, etc. They had sworn to a Perpetual Union, and they had met to make that Union better.
The present Constitution issued from that. Technically, it seems not to have been approved, passed if you will, strictly by the terms described in the Articles of Confederation. This caused small stir at the time, though exception to it was expressed in some quarters. In any event, the language is clear. Attempting to obscure it is no more than that, an attempt. If a change in the nature of the Union to becoming a mere gentleman's club one could simply stop paying dues to an quit had been in these men's minds, there would be clear, discrete evidence. That conditional is there because the evidence isn't.
So, either we have a Constitution of a more perfect Perpetual Union, or we have an illegal Constitution and are still functioning under the nation established by the Articles of Confederation and are all part of the perpetual Union.
Thus, the states were and are either engaged in a Perpetual Union, or they are engaged in a Perpetual Union.
Sorry for the repetition of this info, but we must be kind to others how have a problem understanding.
P.S. Are there other interpretations of the described situation and documents? Certainly, tons of them. Anything can be justified in the truly determined mind. Notice, nonetheless, there is no mention of the sixteenth President.

The Articles of Confederation were tossed into the waste bin when they approved the Constitution, so all your blather about the "perpetual union" is complete nonsense.

 

[TNHarley]

Perpetual Union (since repeating the same old thing seems to be in vogue here).

You do realize we go by the united states constitution right?
This isnt 1787

Funny, this poster seems to have been absent when we went over this, though was posting at that time, so it gives 'absent ' a special nuance.
Once upon a time, their was a group of white men who decided to form a nation. They called the form of nation they wanted to form a union. It was a confederation of a number of 'states', countries in a way. Not long afterward, it was evident that the confederation was not working, so they met again to improve the function of their union. They agreed to a more perfect union than how it how been. They understood English very well. Despite being an élite group of well-to-do gentlemen, they had some ideas that were , shall we say, politically advanced for how the world was then. They had seen and studied the errors of nations, treaties, etc. They had sworn to a Perpetual Union, and they had met to make that Union better.
The present Constitution issued from that. Technically, it seems not to have been approved, passed if you will, strictly by the terms described in the Articles of Confederation. This caused small stir at the time, though exception to it was expressed in some quarters. In any event, the language is clear. Attempting to obscure it is no more than that, an attempt. If a change in the nature of the Union to becoming a mere gentleman's club one could simply stop paying dues to an quit had been in these men's minds, there would be clear, discrete evidence. That conditional is there because the evidence isn't.
So, either we have a Constitution of a more perfect Perpetual Union, or we have an illegal Constitution and are still functioning under the nation established by the Articles of Confederation and are all part of the perpetual Union.
Thus, the states were and are either engaged in a Perpetual Union, or they are engaged in a Perpetual Union.
Sorry for the repetition of this info, but we must be kind to others how have a problem understanding.
P.S. Are there other interpretations of the described situation and documents? Certainly, tons of them. Anything can be justified in the truly determined mind. Notice, nonetheless, there is no mention of the sixteenth President.

The Articles of Confederation were tossed into the waste bin when they approved the Constitution, so all your blather about the "perpetual union" is complete nonsense.

"but it was understood"

 

[Syriusly]

Pick up a history book. That isn't why the north did it. Hint, their motto was "save the union"

I’ve picked up more history books than you’ve ever laid eyes on.

Yet you couldn't address my point. The slaves are not why the north invaded. Lincoln offered to enshrine slavery to end the rebellion

You can’t “invade” your own country. The war didn’t begin because of slavery, but the evil institution had a connection to everything the war was based on. By the end of the criminal uprising it was certainly about slavery as much as anything.

The war began because Slave owning states feared the end of slavery. While there were other issues too- slavery was at the heart of the reasons why the slave owning states attempted to secede. It is evident in their statements at the time- both before and after the election of Abraham Lincoln. The North did not enter the war because of slavery- but the South certainly did.

The war began when the rebels began firing on troops of the United States Army.

While Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery- and campaigned on preventing the expansion of slavery- he was very clear that he would accept slavery in order to preserve the Union.

When the slave owning rebel states made it clear that they were going to proceed- Lincoln realized that freeing the slaves became a strategic decision that happened to mirror his own convictions.

Total bullshit.

Total bullshit is the only thing you post- ever- here at USMB.

 

[Syriusly]

Harley said he is pissed off at Lincoln because:
This is about freedom, liberty and the abuse of power. And how the govt SHOULDNT abuse it.

Slaves didn't have freedom or liberty- and slavery itself was clearly an abuse of power and how government should not abuse power.

That is irrelevant. Everybody on all sides had openly expressed views of white supremacy. Nobody here is defending slavery. You are using that as a shield and cover for open tyranny and using the Constitution to wipe asses.

Is the issue of government abusing power still the topic of discussion?

Quite a few of the die hard Lincoln opponents are also Confederate fanboys. They are not openly defending slavery- they just defend the 'rights' of States to pass laws to own slaves.

What was the greater abuse of governmental power- the greater expression of the denial of freedom and liberty- Lincoln's executive actions while in the midst of a war?

Or the actions of the Rebel states- and indeed of all of the slave states- in perpetuating the loss of freedom and liberty to millions of Americans?

 

[Syriusly]

Harley said he is pissed off at Lincoln because:
This is about freedom, liberty and the abuse of power. And how the govt SHOULDNT abuse it.

Slaves didn't have freedom or liberty- and slavery itself was clearly an abuse of power and how government should not abuse power.

That is irrelevant. Everybody on all sides had openly expressed views of white supremacy. Nobody here is defending slavery. You are using that as a shield and cover for open tyranny and using the Constitution to wipe asses.

Is the issue of government abusing power still the topic of discussion?

The Confederate states attempted to secede in order to protect their governments ability to abuse power by legally enshrining the loss of freedom and liberty to Americans who were slaves.

That was not the issue for the remaining states, and certainly was not part of Lincoln's agenda. It was ALL about forcing states to stay in the union. Those states left long before any emancipation was decreed.

From Lincoln's inaugural address:

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."​

***


But, what was it REALLY about????

RIGHT HERE:

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

'Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

"Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

Abraham Lincoln: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989


So, stop lying to yourself.?

Please feel free to quote a single lie on my part. Go for it.

Here once again- what I said- which you claim I was lying- go for it.
The Confederate states attempted to secede in order to protect their governments ability to abuse power by legally enshrining the loss of freedom and liberty to Americans who were slaves.