...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[JakeStarkey]

The legal reality, yes, that no right exists for states to leave the union. And that is how the great majority of Americans thought in 1861.

That's incorrect. Until April of 1861 with the attack on Fort Sumter northern opinion was against war and forcing the south back into the Union.

Be correct. The northern democrats were against war but not for letting the South leave.

The utter stupidity of the South in firing on Ft. Sumter sealed its fate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took office. ************

:cheers:

The poster above did not have the guts to give you the provenance of this "amendment."

So query TONA Research Committee - The Thirteenth Article of Amendment and read and chuckle. A little research will reveal that no provenance for the amendment exists.

In other words, our reactionary moon bats are flying erratically beneath the sublunary atmosphere, snapping at shadows!

Quantam Windbag and Big Fitz should be ready recruits, along with Si Modo and Mudwhistle and cmike and others. Have fun, guys.

No Jake. The Corwin Amendment existed. There were actually two "almost" 13th Amendments.

Corwin was a last ditch effort and really had no true punch or legitimacy.

I know about "Corwin". I as simply giggling about TONA. Look it up: what a hoot!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I would like to repeat that this is the most 'civil' discussion I've ever taken part in on this matter.
I've learned some new stuff and learned that some people refuse to try and learn new things about history.

Many of us have had this discussion many times over on this board, and none seem willing to give an inch. But that's alright, so long as we can respect each other's opinion then the discussion is a success in my opinion.

 

[paperview]

***** On December 3, 1860, the month after Lincoln was elected, President Buchanan asked Congress to propose an "explanatory amendment". It was to be another 13th Amendment, to eradicate and cover-up the deletion of the Original Thirteenth Title of Nobility and Honour Amendment. This proposed amendment, which would have forever legalized slavery, was signed by President Lincoln shortly after he took office. ************

:cheers:

I don't know where you get your information from (well, actually, I do, it's neo-confederate sites) -- Lincoln did not sign the Corwin Amendment.

He did tacitly support it and transmitted a copy of the joint resolution to amend the constitution to the Governors of the states, but he did not "sign the amendment."

Presidents play no role in the Constitutional Amendment process.

hortysir is not referring to the Corwin amendment.

Yes, he is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the History Channel's "America The story of us" stressed it was largely about slavery and issues dealing with western expansion and which areas would be slave or no slave states. They also mentioned that once Lincoln got elected the south started talking about secession because they feared Lincoln would abolish slavery

Isn't that the channel with Ancient Astronauts, UFO Hunters, Mystery Quest, and Nostradamus Effect?

 

[JBeukema]

#2 - That you refuse to accept that you had opportunity in an Euro-American culture that was generally denied to peoples of color does not exonerate you. Your denial merely illustrates your ignorance and lack of that on the matter.

I had no opportunities that any negroe doesn't have when he sets down the crack pipe and decide to leave the ghetto in search of a better life. The Negroe today has greater opportunities than the White man and is given preference in admission to schools and for employment under the system of racial discrimination deemed 'affirmative action'. Despite this, or possibly because of the sense of inferiority and dependence that it instills in young Black children, large swaths of the Negro race remain unable or unwilling to participate in society as equals. The Chinese and the Irish have all overcome past and current discrimination to integrate and succeed- even the Latiino, who still faces great discrimination to this day, is making great strides, save for the radical racist element that speaks the tongue of the Spaniards while crying for a rebuilding of the Aztec Imper despite his Mayan and Italian heritage. The problem with the Negro race is the attitude which permeates it, which blames everyone but himself for his unwillingness to make progress.

 

[paperview]

The poster above did not have the guts to give you the provenance of this "amendment."

So query TONA Research Committee - The Thirteenth Article of Amendment and read and chuckle. A little research will reveal that no provenance for the amendment exists.

In other words, our reactionary moon bats are flying erratically beneath the sublunary atmosphere, snapping at shadows!

Quantam Windbag and Big Fitz should be ready recruits, along with Si Modo and Mudwhistle and cmike and others. Have fun, guys.

No Jake. The Corwin Amendment existed. There were actually two "almost" 13th Amendments.

Corwin was a last ditch effort and really had no true punch or legitimacy.

I know about "Corwin". I as simply giggling about TONA. Look it up: what a hoot!

Oh, I know full well about the "Missing 13th Amendment." I have Circa 1840's and 1850's books that have the Constitution in it that contain that Amendment.

Wild.

(And I made good money off those issues. lol. )

 

[JBeukema]

do you think states currently have the right to secede?

Yes.

They have the Constitutional right until any amendment declares otherwise and they and the People shall always have the moral right to self-determination, just as the FF had the right to throw off their own government and send the Redcoats back across the ocean.

No, no indication at all exists states had a right secede except in the minds of delusional individuals.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Show me exactly where in the Constitution the right to self determination is taken away. Show me where the Constitution says they can't.

There's no room for 'opinion' or 'interpretation'- the matter could not be clearer.
​

 

[hortysir]

I don't know where you get your information from (well, actually, I do, it's neo-confederate sites) -- Lincoln did not sign the Corwin Amendment.

He did tacitly support it and transmitted a copy of the joint resolution to amend the constitution to the Governors of the states, but he did not "sign the amendment."

Presidents play no role in the Constitutional Amendment process.

As to where I get my info:
The Original 13th Amendment, by The AWARE Group
Notice the ".ca"? Wouldn;t that signify a Canadian site? Hardly "neo-confederate".

WADR, if what you said about handling so many original documents, I do value your opinion.
Just as Kevin stated, earlier, I'm not trying to defend slavery whatsoever. I, also, have never believed in it and had a hard time understanding why it was even condoned in my Bible.
It's just that, from the info that I've read, I just don;t see Lincoln as the hero so many make him out to be.
I am, however, always happy to read anything ya'll wanna push my way.

 

[Liability]

do you think states currently have the right to secede?

Yes.

They have the Constitutional right until any amendment declares otherwise and they and the People shall always have the moral right to self-determination, just as the FF had the right to throw off their own government and send the Redcoats back across the ocean.

No, no indication at all exists states had a right secede except in the minds of delusional individuals.

There is such an indication, of course. The Union was formed by the AGREEMENT of the STATES under the terms and conditions of the Constitution. Since the constitution is SILENT as to the terms on which a member STATE may withdraw, logic suggests that the very process by which the Union was formed (agreement) is the process by which it may be withdrawn from. This is especially true where one of the Parties (the Federal entity) fails to abide by the terms and conditions and restrictions imposed upon it.

If I (a member State) cede to the Union a portion of my sovereignty (which the Constitution clearly spells out) but reserve to myself all other incidents of that sovereignty, then I remain a sovereign state. I do not require permission from the Union my agreement helped make to withdraw from that Union.

As a purely pragmatic matter, Lincoln arguably had no choice other than to try to defeat the effort of the Southern States claiming their own secession. And the SCOTUS determination notwithstanding, a rational view of the Constitution STILL implies the right to secede.

I consider it a very interesting (potentially devastating) question: if a number of States tried to secede today, would President Obama emulate Lincoln? Would we really take up arms, today, brother against brother, when the stakes do not involve morality issues like slavery? I cannot believe that President Obama would choose to become a new Civil War President. He'd preside (politely), in my view, over the dissolution of the Union rather than permit us to take up arms against ourselves.

I am not at all convinced that this makes him morally (or in ANY other way) superior to old Abe. Far from it. I think this weak poseur in the Oval Office is the worst mistake the nation ever made in choosing a President.

 

[syrenn]

Individual colony(states) rights is what this country is all about. We fought the British to gain those rights. Those rights were never flexed until the south tested them.

Lincoln understood that for this country to survive, the union need to stay intact. The north need the resources of the south. The south need the industrial might of the north.

The country was expanding and the larger point was if new states were going to be allowed to have slavery or not, to be decided by and for each state. At the time the north and south were about equal in power in reference to yes and no. New states held the balance of power. The south understood that if the balance shifted against them then the national government could change their way of life by popular mandate.

Before that could happen the south decided to push for states rights and secede from the union.

The civil war began about economics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should. And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.

Does it also apply to the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery? If it does, how do they know which side of racial guilt they should be on? Should they feel guilty because their ancestors dealt in slaves, or should they feel free because their ancestors were slaves. Racial guilt is nothing but propaganda arising out of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

 

[paperview]

I don't know where you get your information from (well, actually, I do, it's neo-confederate sites) -- Lincoln did not sign the Corwin Amendment.

He did tacitly support it and transmitted a copy of the joint resolution to amend the constitution to the Governors of the states, but he did not "sign the amendment."

Presidents play no role in the Constitutional Amendment process.

As to where I get my info:
The Original 13th Amendment, by The AWARE Group
Notice the ".ca"? Wouldn;t that signify a Canadian site? Hardly "neo-confederate".

WADR, if what you said about handling so many original documents, I do value your opinion.
Just as Kevin stated, earlier, I'm not trying to defend slavery whatsoever. I, also, have never believed in it and had a hard time understanding why it was even condoned in my Bible.
It's just that, from the info that I've read, I just don;t see Lincoln as the hero so many make him out to be.
I am, however, always happy to read anything ya'll wanna push my way.

Thank you for your civility and willingness to learn. I am here to learn too.

There is never enough one can know.

I think you & I will get along just fine.

Cheers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should. And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.

Does it also apply to the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery? If it does, how do they know which side of racial guilt they should be on? Should they feel guilty because their ancestors dealt in slaves, or should they feel free because their ancestors were slaves. Racial guilt is nothing but propaganda arising out of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Argued and dismissed. We are talking about "us".

 

[JBeukema]

Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should. And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.

Does it also apply to the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery? If it does, how do they know which side of racial guilt they should be on? Should they feel guilty because their ancestors dealt in slaves, or should they feel free because their ancestors were slaves. Racial guilt is nothing but propaganda arising out of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Argued and dismissed. We are talking about "us".

In other words, you have no answer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your question is not pertinent to our responsibility for the crime of slavery in the British colonies and thereafter in America.

OK, officer, let me go, because he shot the guy, too.

Sheesh.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should. And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.

Does it also apply to the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery? If it does, how do they know which side of racial guilt they should be on? Should they feel guilty because their ancestors dealt in slaves, or should they feel free because their ancestors were slaves. Racial guilt is nothing but propaganda arising out of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Argued and dismissed. We are talking about "us".

Nope. Still valid.

If anything, black slavery is the fault of Africans themselves. Yeah, the white man bought the slave, but they weren't offered up by the white man.

Ultimately, Africans are responsible for the enslavement of their own people.

 

[Oscar Wao]

Your question is not pertinent to our responsibility for the crime of slavery in the British colonies and thereafter in America.

OK, officer, let me go, because he shot the guy, too.

Sheesh.

The point is that slavery is not and should not made out to be ultimately the white man's fault.

 

[syrenn]

Nope. Still valid.
If anything, black slavery is the fault of Africans themselves. Yeah, the white man bought the slave, but they weren't offered up by the white man.
Ultimately, Africans are responsible for the enslavement of their own people.

Try and get them to admit that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your question is not pertinent to our responsibility for the crime of slavery in the British colonies and thereafter in America.

OK, officer, let me go, because he shot the guy, too.

Sheesh.

The point is that slavery is not and should not made out to be ultimately the white man's fault.

Why couldn't you have said that in the first place, Wao?

All the peoples of the 15th century practiced slavery on the various continents. So, yes, white, Indians, Africans, aborigines, Eskimos, JBs practiced it. How does that excuse our ancestors from doing it, and how does that excuse us from realizing that whites in this country after 1900 had very specific entitlements that peoples of color did not?

Those of us who came out of lower working white class environments benefited because we were white, thus our descendants benefited from our advantages and advancement up the socio-economic ladder in America.

And, Syrenn, African responsibility for slavery does not excuse us, period.