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

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We have to disagree on this point -

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."​

Yes, the laws necessary to do what they are explicitly authorized by the Constitution to do.

That is not what it says. You say it is, and that doesn't mean anything. You are trying to revise history.

You say it isn't, and that doesn't mean anything.

 

[JBeukema]

He just freed the slaves (which was America's worst injustice in its short history), kept the nation together and got the 13th and 14th amendments passed. Yea he is a real bad guy.

Where do you people come from? Mars?

Lincoln declared an end to slavery in a nation that he did not control. He did so in an attempt to undermine the Southern economy, not because of any moral commitment toward ending slavery on his part. That much becomes obvious when you recall that the Emancipation Proclamation did not affect the status of slaves in states that hadn't seceded - Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.

Not to mention the original thirteenth amendment, which was supported by Lincoln, would have made slavery a permanent institution.

true

• The Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. President Buchanan signed it the same day, which was also his last full day in office; it was later ratified by three states: Ohio, Maryland and Illinois.[22] This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adoption any constitutional amendment that would have abolished or restricted slavery, or permitted the Congress to do so. This proposal was an unsuccessful attempt to convince the Southern states not to secede from the Union.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, specifically referred to this amendment:[23][24]

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution...has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
​

 

[JBeukema]

the southern population shouldn't have waged war against their country.

They didn't. The Confederate states were well within their rights to secede and demand that the US leave their territory.

No they weren't. But I'm not going to re-litigate the issue with you.

Where does the Constitution state that the People are slaves, not free persons, and have surrendered by their birth within these borders the right to self-determination?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The South seceded. The South fired on Ft. Sumter and the flag. The north, Republican and Democrat alike, rallied to Old Glory and the Union, because South's cannonade of the fort was metaphorically spitting on the flag and pissing on the graves of the patriots of the War of Independence. What the heck did the South think would happen?

Precisely.

Lincoln was actually at odds about how to react to the seccession, and was interested in a peaceful solution, warning the Southern States that Federal Property would remain in the USA.

Confederates ignored this, and attacked Ft Sumter.

That would be incorrect. Lincoln threatened that if the south didn't pay its tribute to the federal government then there would be an invasion. He had to orchestrate Fort Sumter because public opinion was against forcing the south back into the Union. Up to that point most people believed in the right of secession.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I never realized Lincoln ever freed a single Union slave

Or southern slave for that matter.

 

[JBeukema]

argue it with the supreme court.

that was their holding.

sorry i was more polite to you than you deserved.

i should have just said you're a nutbar.

wow, nice dodge. I gave you a chance, but an idiot will always be an idiot I guess. The constitution was written at an easy to read level for the 1700s, an idiot could understand it. You don't need a supreme fucking court to tell you what it says, so if you CAN in fact read, please point out where it says succession will result in conflict. Or, please show us a court case where the court rules that succession is illegal and will result in instant war. Thanks.

if that were the case, the 9 justices would always agree, nutbar.

you assume they care only about what it says and not their own ideologies, politics, and what they think it should mean...

 

[Mr Natural]

You Southern folks really need to get over this Civil War fixation of yours.

You fought, you lost. Move on it's 2010.

 

[JBeukema]

I love when people who know zip, zilch, nada about the constitution try to make up what they think it means.

but you know what, i think i'll trust my professors more as well as the judges i've appeared before.

you can keep pretending you know something about the constitution. someone who doesn't know anything might even believe you.

i can at least answer simple fucking questions and not ignore them, and back up my ideas and opinions. If I am PROVEN wrong, I will submit, but all you do is basically say "I disagree" WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. BREAK MY ARGUMENT.

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

So if SCOTUS ruled that women had no right to leave the house without their husbands or they reversed the rulings outlawing spousal rape.... you'd be cool with that and believe whatever they said, since it came from SCOUTS?

 

[JBeukema]

Secession was a nullity because it could not legally occur.

I'm pretty sure the King said the same thing...

 

[JBeukema]

i'm sorry... you don't think we're debating these issues, do you? i told you the court held they had no right to secede. they didn't have a right to secede and they still don't. whether you agree with that or not, there will NEVER be a court that says they have a right to secede.

no argument.

fahrshteit?

Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?

From Texas v. White (1869), Chief Justice Chase's opinion:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

Texas v. White
​

Basically, the argument hinges on a concept from the Articles of Confederation and an irrelevant phrase from the Preamble.

Shame neither of those are legally binding or relevant.

It was a purely political decision- it was the Fed announces that the Fed was right.

 

[ABikerSailor]

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.

Welcome to the boards you retarded punching bag. You're gonna love it here.

Lincoln fought a war for an ideal which was freedom. The southerners were the ones that wanted to keep slaves.

By the way, if you look at how the SOUTHERN people treated blacks, it's very similar to how Hitler treated the Jews. Forced labor, intensive punishment for slight infractions.........no, if you want to compare anything from the Civil War to Nazi Germany, it should be the slaveowners.

Why? Because the slaveowners were discriminating based on racial identity, just like Hitler.

If anything, Lincoln was more like Churchill.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You Southern folks really need to get over this Civil War fixation of yours.

You fought, you lost. Move on it's 2010.

Well I'm from Northeast Ohio, so technically I guess I "won."

 

[JBeukema]

Where in the Constitution did the Court find the language that says the states have no right to secede?

From Texas v. White (1869), Chief Justice Chase's opinion:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [p725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

Texas v. White
​

Basically, the argument hinges on a concept from the Articles of Confederation and an irrelevant phrase from the Preamble.

Of course, if the Articles of Confederation were "perpetual" we'd still have them wouldn't we?

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

 

[JBeukema]

Apparently you get destroyed. That's the precedent set by the Civil War.

that's what happens when people commit treason

The Constitution defines treason thusly:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Sounds a lot like what Lincoln did. So who was really guilty of treason? And note that "seceding from the Union" is conspicuous only by its absence in the constitutional definition of treason.

funny... it doesn't say 'it'- the USA as a singular entity. It says 'they', plural- the States as sovereign bodies.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.

Welcome to the boards you retarded punching bag. You're gonna love it here.

Lincoln fought a war for an ideal which was freedom. The southerners were the ones that wanted to keep slaves.

By the way, if you look at how the SOUTHERN people treated blacks, it's very similar to how Hitler treated the Jews. Forced labor, intensive punishment for slight infractions.........no, if you want to compare anything from the Civil War to Nazi Germany, it should be the slaveowners.

Why? Because the slaveowners were discriminating based on racial identity, just like Hitler.

If anything, Lincoln was more like Churchill.

Forcing a people to live under a government they don't want is fighting for freedom?

War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc... etc...

 

[Dr Gregg]

what a bunch of crap the OP is. For one, the huge death toll was the South refusing to ever give up even though the north had better organization during the war. Second, they are the ones that wanted to secede. Plus, Lincoln after the north one didn't punish people of the south for the war.

And what do you think would of happened if the south won and seceded? How many other wars would of been fought over land, and we wouldn't be the United sTates of american anymore. who knows how long it would of taken to free slaves./

 

[ABikerSailor]

They both committed ridiculous and pointless genocide...maybe no where near in similar methods or to the same ends, but they both killed a large enough amount of people that should taint their legacy as villainous in my opinion.

Welcome to the boards you retarded punching bag. You're gonna love it here.

Lincoln fought a war for an ideal which was freedom. The southerners were the ones that wanted to keep slaves.

By the way, if you look at how the SOUTHERN people treated blacks, it's very similar to how Hitler treated the Jews. Forced labor, intensive punishment for slight infractions.........no, if you want to compare anything from the Civil War to Nazi Germany, it should be the slaveowners.

Why? Because the slaveowners were discriminating based on racial identity, just like Hitler.

If anything, Lincoln was more like Churchill.

Forcing a people to live under a government they don't want is fighting for freedom?

War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc... etc...

What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks? Giving them a vote?

How fucking stupid are you anyway? I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.

 

[Dr Gregg]

This thread I see has a lot of cookoo conspiracy theorist nonsense all making up their own history

 

[Dr Gregg]

Welcome to the boards you retarded punching bag. You're gonna love it here.

Lincoln fought a war for an ideal which was freedom. The southerners were the ones that wanted to keep slaves.

By the way, if you look at how the SOUTHERN people treated blacks, it's very similar to how Hitler treated the Jews. Forced labor, intensive punishment for slight infractions.........no, if you want to compare anything from the Civil War to Nazi Germany, it should be the slaveowners.

Why? Because the slaveowners were discriminating based on racial identity, just like Hitler.

If anything, Lincoln was more like Churchill.

Forcing a people to live under a government they don't want is fighting for freedom?

War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc... etc...

What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks? Giving them a vote?

How fucking stupid are you anyway? I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.

Yup, he's the name nut claiming that Americans were terrorist during WWII. Another person that likes to make up their own history

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Welcome to the boards you retarded punching bag. You're gonna love it here.

Lincoln fought a war for an ideal which was freedom. The southerners were the ones that wanted to keep slaves.

By the way, if you look at how the SOUTHERN people treated blacks, it's very similar to how Hitler treated the Jews. Forced labor, intensive punishment for slight infractions.........no, if you want to compare anything from the Civil War to Nazi Germany, it should be the slaveowners.

Why? Because the slaveowners were discriminating based on racial identity, just like Hitler.

If anything, Lincoln was more like Churchill.

Forcing a people to live under a government they don't want is fighting for freedom?

War is peace, freedom is slavery, etc... etc...

What were the slaveowners doing to the blacks? Giving them a vote?

How fucking stupid are you anyway? I'm guessing you ate lead paint chips as a child.

So you think the British were right during the Revolutionary War, since the colonies were practicing slavery, right?