Posted on 03/10/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Idabilly
Why should he? Your premise is bogus, that "Davis started the war" -- Lincoln came into office looking for a war from the minute the vote-counting stopped, and he by-God got his war. You still haven't proved Nicolay wrong, which you will need to do, to keep peddling your nostrum.
You have been shown convincing evidence that you are wrong, but here you are, arguing as if you'd never heard or seen any of it. That's called resistance, it's dishonest and it makes you an intransigent and refractory liar.
“I didn’t say I bought Bennett’s explanation.”
You were just spreading it around. I see.
The fact of the matter is, there was an awful lot of slaving money made in the Northern ports, and that was the point being contended for at the moment.
Bennett also specifically mentioned Jewish banking interests, one of which, a big investment bank, only a couple of years ago checked their records and admitted his charge, that one of their predecessor companies had indeed been in the slave trade.
After 1808 it was illegal to import slaves into the United States, but there was still a lot of traffic to the Caribbean and Brazil, supposedly legal except for the Anglo-American blockade.
Excuse me, I have to take a shower now.
American history a little icky-poo for you?
Constitutionally they could not per Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.
I assume you were grilling Kansas City Strip steaks? If so then you gesture of respect is well warranted. If you can get it, the local Boulevard brew is perfect with the well prepared steak that you no doubt produced.
What I don't understand is your belief that the Founding Fathers would endorse an action guaranteed to leave bitterness and acrimony behind it. I just don't see them being that foolish.
Carefull, your Lost Cause buddies might start to question your sexual orientation.
Yeah, and you were watching every minute.
Hardly.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
You're done, son. Branded and castrated. Into the cattle car with you.
Hardly.
Complete nonsense. In 1789 the United States changed their form of government, but the United States themselves continued unbroken. States did not leave one country to form another, they kept the same country and formed a more perfect Union. No states left the country and then rejoined, they all continued as part of a single nation.
...and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void.
And as Madison pointed out, all parties to the compact are equal. One party has the power to declare the compact violated any more than the other has to declare the compact unviolated.
Game over, Non-Sequitur.
So you keep saying. Yet the game continues.
Elenchus.
If you're referring to the dinosaur then yes, I'd say that the Southern rebellion of 1861 is as extinct as they are.
Any desire that South Carolina may have had in December to pay for the property stolen and the debt repudiated was dropped by the Davis regime by February, as you well know.
You of course: “Oh my God!”
Your hero - Obama - Is about to “pull a Lincoln” and expel dissenters...
This is a short list
Of Good and honest men that were expelled ( or attempted expulsion) or Arrested for alleged disloyalty to the Union....
Waldo Porter Johnson - Missouri
Lawrence Washington Hall - Ohio
Trusten Polk - Missouri
Edson Baldwin Olds - Ohio
Benjamin Stark - Oregon
Eccles G. Van Riper - Indiana
Clement Laird Vallandigham - Ohio
Alexander Long - Ohio
Samuel Medary - Ohio
Luke Pryor Blackburn Kentucky
My premise is sound. If there was a desire for war then that desire was as strong if not stronger in Davis than it was in Lincoln. He was bound and determined to have Sumter come what may, and was willing to go to war if that's what it took. You constant complaint that Lincoln somehow suckered Davis into starting a war does not hold up. Even if you are true and Lincoln was itching for a conflict, Davis didn't have to give it to him. Unless he wanted to. Which Davis did.
You have been shown convincing evidence that you are wrong, but here you are, arguing as if you'd never heard or seen any of it. That's called resistance, it's dishonest and it makes you an intransigent and refractory liar.
Hardly convincing.
Eccles G. Van Riper
I'll add more when time permits
That might apply if they had not already withdrawn from the Union and the US Constitution. In all these years you have never once proven they could not legally secede, while many of your fellow posters, including Idabilly on this thread, have offered proof that states could withdraw or were not restricted from withdrawing from the Union.
I hate to see an old adversary twisting in the wind so badly.
Your hero maybe. Not mine.
Of Good and honest men that were expelled ( or attempted expulsion) or Arrested for alleged disloyalty to the Union....
In several cases - Johnson and Polk, for example - the disloyalty was true. Both those men joined the rebel congress in Richmond. As for the rest, none of them were expelled from Congress for their actions. Luke Blackburn was tried in Canada but not in the U.S. Your list of heroes is pretty thin.
OK, so assume for the sake of arguement that is true. Eminent domain is the process used to acquire private property for public use. How can any government use eminent domain to seize the property of a foreign country?
In all these years you have never once proven they could not legally secede, while many of your fellow posters, including Idabilly on this thread, have offered proof that states could withdraw or were not restricted from withdrawing from the Union.
You've offered opinion on the legality of the Southern acts of secession. I've offered opinion on their illegality as well as a Supreme Court case stating such. If I've not proven my position then you certainly have not proven your's.
I hate to see an old adversary twisting in the wind so badly.
Any twisting is all in your imagination. Most of your posts are.
Jesse David Bright — Expelled from the U.S. Senate, February 5, 1862, over alleged disloyalty to the Union.
Dennis Aloysius Mahoney — Newspaper editor who criticized the Civil War; arrested in August 1862 and held until November at the Old Capitol Federal Prison in Washington, D.C.
Lawrence Washington Hall—Imprisoned for alleged disloyalty to the Union in 1862.
Edson Baldwin Olds—Arrested for alleged disloyalty to the Union and imprisoned in Fort Lafayette in 1862.
Alexander Long—Censured by the House of Representatives during the Civil War, for treasonable utterances.
What is “treasonable utterances” ? F-— Lincoln?
Alleged? He introduced arms merchants to the rebel government in Montgomery.
Dennis Aloysius Mahoney — Newspaper editor who criticized the Civil War; arrested in August 1862 and held until November at the Old Capitol Federal Prison in Washington, D.C.
And?
Lawrence Washington Hall—Imprisoned for alleged disloyalty to the Union in 1862.
And?
There were a great many people locked up without trial - on both sides.
What are “treasonable utterances”?
F___K Lincoln
Tyrant
Thug
Queer
??
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.