Posted on 12/24/2008 7:49:20 AM PST by COUNTrecount
Hardly. The Emancipation Proclamation worked. That is not propaganda.
That`s hilarious coming from a man who cared not a wit for the “rule of law...
You keep saying that. Give me examples where Lincoln deliberately violated the law.
The distinction here is the fallacy that Lincoln was doing what he did based on morality and not power in the form of a massive centralized govt. with Clay/Keynes economics as it`s basis.
Manure.
LOL You cite a decision that came down AFTER States did in fact secede ! LOL
And when was the decision supposed to have been handed down? Before the south seceded? You have no idea how the courts work then. What the Texas v. White decision established was that unilateral secession was illegal. It was illegal when the South tried it. It had always been illegal. And it will remain illegal unless the Constitution is amended or the decision is overturned by a future court. You will just have to deal with that.
Chase, the then to be USSC chief justice who in all honesty should have recused himself, was an abolitionists who had challenged Lincoln for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination.
Chase, the then Secretary of the Treasury. At the time Taney was still alive and kicking. And why should Taney have recused himself? Should Taney have recused himself in 1856 from the Dred Scott decision since he had prejudged the case decades earlier?
United States, not a citizen of Washington, before 1868.
Now you're being silly again.
Stephen B. Oates, With Malice Toward None: The Life of Abraham Lincoln Nathaniel Weyl and William Marina, American Statesmen on Slavery and the Negro
How about the quote?
I`m bored with correcting your gubment skooling.
Your education in the Southern school systems is showing. You misspelled 'government' and 'schooling'.
It was the only time the federal government compensated former slaveowners for the loss of their slaves. (13thamendment.harpweek.com)
But your claim was Lincoln didn't try compensated emancipation. I gave you several examples when he did call for it and tried to promote it. And I can give you more if you would like.
Slavery was economically untenable. The fact that either those in the south or north didn`t get it is testament to their undeveloped economic theories and practices.
So that's you way of saying that no, you have not a single example of a Southern leader of the time agreeing with you that slavery was doomed. Why not just come out and say so.
“servile labor disappeared because it could not stand the competition of free labor; its unprofitability sealed its doom in the market economy.”
Nonsense. Servile labor disappeared in each and every case because of government intervention. And every time it was over the strong, sometimes violent opposition of the slave owners themselves. Market forces had nothing to do with it.
Uh-huh... I see I`m dealing with another Keynesian without a clue who thinks usurping the law is fine in order to uphold Abe`s nebulous ideals of what the law should be according to how he felt on any particular given day. In today`s era we call them adherents to a “living breathing Constitution”.
And I'm obviously dealing with another Southron kool-aid guzzler.
” The Emancipation Proclamation worked. That is not propaganda. “
Ignoring half of history only makes you look stupid. Lincoln was a white supremacist who used the proclamation only after the war started knowing the Union forces were not as hearty as he thought. I`ve laid out the time lines and details, the fact you suffer cognitive dissonance is none of my concern.
” You keep saying that. Give me examples where Lincoln deliberately violated the law.”
Already have.
” And when was the decision supposed to have been handed down? Before the south seceded? You have no idea how the courts work then”
You`re getting dumber by the minute the more I try educate you. Why yes, isn`t the proper time to litigate is when the States were in fact warning they would secede if Lincoln raised tariffs even further !?
I`m driving down the road and see a deer in my path, do I hit the brakes now and avoid the deer or keep driving, hit the deer, then hit the brakes.
” But your claim was Lincoln didn’t try compensated emancipation. I gave you several examples when he did call for it and tried to promote it.”
No, you stated it fell on deaf ears. You were either lying or were ignorant of the basic facts. It did not fall on deaf ears and was in fact accepted and passed by Congress with open ears.
Lincoln tried compensation not as a precursor but as an after thought. Southern States were debating cessation long before 1860 BECAUSE of the decades long feud over the proper economic role of the central government. High tariffs were punishing the south beginning with the 1828 Tariff of Abominations.
The fact you fail to observe the time line of events and suffer cognitive dissonance is not my concern.
The distinction here is the fallacy that Lincoln was doing what he did based on morality and not power in the form of a massive centralized govt. with Clay/Keynes economics as it`s basis.
“Manure.”
Henry Clay, the era`s Keynes. Read it, learn it, don`t get back to me, educating the ignorant is something I have little patience for.
“you have not a single example of a Southern leader of the time agreeing with you that slavery was doomed.”
Once again, the fact that either those in the south or north didn`t get it is testament to their undeveloped economic theories and practices. As much can be said about your grasp of economics.
Now onto Chase, Abe`s stooge on the USSC. Of course he was biased and should have recused himself. The decision stating the US was “indestructible” is nothing more than hype. Article IV makes clear that the states are not indestructible(caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article07).
Secession may still be accomplished through mutual agreement.
” Servile labor disappeared in each and every case because of government intervention.”
Ufft~ Typical, assbackwards as usual.Slavery and serfdom were abolished by political action dictated by
the spirit of laissez faire.
I`m dealing with another Keynesian without a clue who thinks usurping the law is fine in order to uphold Abe`s nebulous ideals of what the law should be according to how he felt on any particular given day. In today`s era we call them adherents to a “living breathing Constitution”.
Why is such a leftist Keynesian suffering cognitive dissonance doing trolling on a Libertarian site, besides being embarrassed by the facts?
Well when it comes to looking stupid who better than you would know?
Lincoln was a white supremacist...
So you keep claiming.
...who used the proclamation only after the war started knowing the Union forces were not as hearty as he thought.
Now for that to be true you would have to show something supporting your claim that the average Union soldier was in it to free the slaves and not to preserve the Union. In fact, the opposite was true. I know of no evidence supporting the claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was overwhemlingly popular among the troops or did anything to encourage them to continue the fight. In fact, there is a considerable body of evidence that indicates the opposite was true.
Already have.
I must have missed it. Where? And please provide something other than your own opinion on what constituted violations of the law and what did not. If that's not too much to ask.
Why yes, isn`t the proper time to litigate is when the States were in fact warning they would secede if Lincoln raised tariffs even further !?
And you call me dumb? Even had the Southern states not already initiated their illegal secession prior to Lincoln's inaguruation, litigate what? The threat to secede? Talk of secession? Neither is illegal. Litigation takes place after the act, not before. And only on actions brought before the court. Considering that the South launched their war less than six weeks after Lincoln took office then there was hardly time to let the courts work.
I`m driving down the road and see a deer in my path, do I hit the brakes now and avoid the deer or keep driving, hit the deer, then hit the brakes.
Well if you're you then you take the deer to court for thinking of going near the path.
No, you stated it fell on deaf ears. You were either lying or were ignorant of the basic facts. It did not fall on deaf ears and was in fact accepted and passed by Congress with open ears.
You don't read much, do you?
Lincoln tried compensation not as a precursor but as an after thought. Southern States were debating cessation long before 1860 BECAUSE of the decades long feud over the proper economic role of the central government.
And it wasn't until a president was inagurated who was opposed to the expansion of slavery that they went and rebelled. Not tariffs, slavery.
High tariffs were punishing the south beginning with the 1828 Tariff of Abominations.
Then why didn't they rebel then? If tariffs were such a big bone of contention then why was one of the first acts of the rebel congress the implementation of a tariff?
The fact you fail to observe the time line of events and suffer cognitive dissonance is not my concern.
The fact that you're wrong should be.
Once again, the fact that either those in the south or north didn`t get it is testament to their undeveloped economic theories and practices. As much can be said about your grasp of economics.
And your grasp of history. You seem to say the rebellion couldn't be about slavery since the institution was economically feasible, and then point out that none of the Southern leaders realized that. If only they could have fast-forwarded 150 years and talked to you before hand then their whole bloody rebellion could have been avoided. The fools. </sarcasm>
Now onto Chase, Abe`s stooge on the USSC. Of course he was biased and should have recused himself.
Because you say so. Thanks for clearing that up.
Of course he was biased and should have recused himself. The decision stating the US was “indestructible” is nothing more than hype.
Hype agreed to by people like Webster, Clay, Jackson, and even Buchanan. Chase didn't make it up on his own, nor did he say that there was no way to get out of the Union. Just that there was no way to get out unilaterally. Madison said the same thing.
Secession may still be accomplished through mutual agreement.
Through mutual agreement. I've never said otherwise. That has always been the only way that a state can leave the Union legally. But the Southern states did not try to secede through mutal agreement, they walked out.
Ufft~ Typical, assbackwards as usual.Slavery and serfdom were abolished by political action dictated by the spirit of laissez faire.
There is no reasoning with you, is there? You've gone out of your way to be unplesant as possible throughout this. Fine, believe what you want.
You`re being reduced to mere vague opinion so I find little to rebut.
” I know of no evidence supporting the claim that the Emancipation Proclamation was overwhemlingly popular among the troops or did anything to encourage them to continue the fight”
Lincoln cited “military necessity” when issuing the proclamation.The war had been going on for more than a year despite the north`s advantageous in manpower and industrial might. I`ve already gone thru the propaganda reason and one other effect was to strike a blow at the Confederacy’s ability to wage war by encouraging dissension, escapes, and possibly revolt among its slave labor force.
” I must have missed it. Where? “
Look up.
“...then there was hardly time to let the courts work. “
Yes hardly, I`m sure their docket was full of other pressing matters.
“Just that there was no way to get out unilaterally. Madison said the same thing...That has always been the only way that a state can leave the Union legally. But the Southern states did not try to secede through mutal agreement, they walked out.”
In the first half of the 19th century, every cadet at West Point was taught constitutional law by the Pennsylvania abolitionist William Rawle, whose book on the Constitution argued that there was indeed a constitutional right to secession.
Most Americans – North and South – believed in the right of secession as of 1860, as judged by the 1,000 Northern newspaper articles surveyed by historian Howard Cecil Perkins in his book, “Northern Editorials on Secession.” Virginia, North Carolina and Rhode Island explicitly stated in their articles of ratification of the Constitution that they reserved the right to secede if the federal government ever became destructive of their liberties. (wnd/amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0781248914/lewrockwell/)
” Not tariffs, slavery...why was one of the first acts of the rebel congress the implementation of a tariff?”
You don`t read much, do you?
” Fine, believe what you want.”
That being the whole truth and not the revisionist apologist nonsense you blindly adhere to much like an algore AGW acolyte.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.