Lincoln And The Death Of The Constitution

It would seem thateither negotiations

My, my but you are the tedious one.

Linkln refused to negotiate. We've been over that on this thread already. Your refusal to acknowledge this fact does not erase it.

I'm posting an actual Supreme Court decision.

Texas v White? LMAO? Secession was never decided by the Supreme Court.

Oh! You're talking about the dictum that Chase tagged onto a case that wasn't about secession?

You're a typical liberal in that you want this to be your magical bench legislation.

Where evidence is lacking is the idea that the South was ever a sovereign nation. No other nation on Earth recognized them as such.

ROTFLMFAO!! Hell, Linkln recognized The Confederacy! What more do you want?

No, I'm speaking of the loony rebs. Of course.

Stinkin yanks, you old bromide.

Yeah. Five Southern presidents and countless Southern senators and congressmen in my lifetime have done more to screw this country up than anything Lincoln ever did.

Oh please. Linkln is the first link in a direct chain of tyrants that has culminated in your Chicago friend and neighbor, obama.

I've never posted a self-portrait.

Why, you most certainly have. Multiple times. I copied and saved it. Here, I'll show you:

non-sequitur self portrait

Free Dixie!

Linkln refused to negotiate. We've been over that on this thread already. Your refusal to acknowledge this fact does not erase it.

Damn you're stupid. The South had walked away from the Union, walked away from their responsibility for national obligations like debt, and stolen every piece of federal property they could get their hands on without any negotiations or discussions whatsoever weeks before Lincoln ever got into office!!! So even if your claims that there was actually a serious attempt to negotiate with Lincoln were true to begin with, they were weeks late. Yet that doesn't stop boobs like you suffering from a severe cases of "It's All Lincoln's Fault" syndrome.

Texas v White? LMAO? Secession was never decided by the Supreme Court

Why not read the decision and find out how wrong you are?

Oh! You're talking about the dictum that Chase tagged onto a case that wasn't about secession?

Dicta, not dictum. But you're completely wrong as usual. The central argument of the defense was that since Texas had seceded and since they had not completed reconstruction then they were not a state in the Union and the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction at that stage of the legal process. So the question of the legality of secession was indeed a matter before the court and the decision did not represent obiter dictum.

ROTFLMFAO!! Hell, Linkln recognized The Confederacy! What more do you want?

Truth would be nice for a change. Actual fact. Lincoln never recognized the confederacy at any time.

Stinkin yanks, you old bromide.

Delusional rebs.

Oh please. Linkln is the first link in a direct chain of tyrants that has culminated in your Chicago friend and neighbor, obama.

Following such Southern prizes as LBJ, Clinton, Carter, and both Bush's. Thanks a lot, y'all.

Why, you most certainly have. Multiple times. I copied and saved it. Here, I'll show you:

Ah I can see why you could be confused since you're not able to see very well in that position. Considering the quality of your posts that has to be you.

I finished my trust taxes and dropped them in the mailbox at 4 PM this afternoon.

Another good one [book] is Huston, "Calculating the Value of the Union," who argues that value in slave PROPERTY dominated the debate (not slave labor) and that slave property was worth more than all the textiles and railroads in the north put together. Not surprising Rebs would be reluctant to give up that kind of financial investment-—even if it was immoral and an investment in human trafficking.

Thanks for the reference to Huston. I'll probably get it, but I've put a temporary hold on purchasing books until I decide whether to get a Kindle, a Nook, or an iPad. With those I can search a book for a word or phrase, making it easier to find what I want.

The value of slaves was something like 3 or 3.5 billion dollars in 1860, so Huston was correct that it dwarfed the vale of the textiles and railroads in the North. Slavery was the basis of the Southern economy, and pledges to end slavery such as those in the Helper book endorsed by the majority of Republican Congressmen foretold the destruction of that Southern economy.

Another elephant in the room was the enormous value of land in the territories. There were millions of acres available to the public from $1.25 or 2.50 an acre at the time of the war. For example, the Louisiana Purchase alone added over 500 million acres to the country. The value of that land far exceeded the value of the forts and public buildings in the South formerly owned by the Federal government. It is no wonder that the North refused Southern offers to negotiate a fair apportionment of the public debt and a division of all property held by the US Government. To balance accounts fairly, the North would have had to give to the South a huge tract of land, much of it paid for with Southern money and Southern blood.

“
“it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”

Their slaves weren’t men or people so of course they couldn’t govern themselves, right? - sarc.”

Nether were the imperialist northerns waging war to liberate the enslaved in all the rest of the world.

The very same imperialist who repeatedly professed that the matter of slavery was not the reason they were waging war on the South. Instead theses imperialist explicitly and repeatedly proclaimed that the war was to force an a once voluntary (but now unwanted) “union” upon a once free self-determining people.

They even went so far as to proclaim that the United States would cease to exist if secession were allowed. As if every union must be maintained by the sword rather then the free will and mutual benefit of its members.

Quite frankly what theses imperialist were imposing was just anther form of slavery, slavery thou subjugation.

The northern copperheads were right to hate the tyrant Lincoln just as Booth should be celebrated not condemned for what he did to that tyrant.

The fall of The American Republic bares a great deal of similarity to the fall of the Roman republic into the roman empire.

In both cases the Republic fell in a bloody “Civil war”

In both cases the Tyrant that ultimately destroyed the republic was slain by the last patriots defenders in a vane attempt to advert the great evil he had brought upon them and their republic.

In both cases the assignation was too late in the process and the oligarchy had already been formed to supported and really sustain that dictatorship remained to appoint a new “head”.

In both cases the population was left oblivious to what really happened and allowed the illusion that their republic still exited for a great many years, and forestall their rebellion until too few of them remembered and valued liberty to ever pose a serous threat to the dictator/oligarch.

Interestingly enough in both cases the patriot assassin of the dictator were condemned for their acts of opposition of the supreme ruler.

The truth is our Federal republic fell the day the Federal Government decided it had to force the free States back into the union against the will of their people.

The day the same Federal government acquired the military power to do that, the oligarchy was formed, and the empire became self-sustaining.

John Wilkes Booth like the Roman patriots Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus was indeed an American patriot, who tried in vain to save our republic.

Although the victor write the history books the truth as illuminated by the light of reason and the persistence presence of evidence, reveals the truth of what really happened just as it illuminates the morality and virtue(or lack there of) of what they did.

The myth about Lincoln as a hero by all rights aut to be acknowledged as what it is, an imperial fabrication of a tyrant and his accomplices to white wash the horrible evils they done.

“punkrr is a troll and you know what they say about feeding those low lifes”

Oh, sorry, didn’t see you’d already got there and swatted the trollpup.

But that’s good advice to a new guy about not feeding the energy creatures.”

Upon hearing of this wisdom from far more experienced members on this forum, i lost much of my interest in-replying to their post in this thread, as i realized they were right.

To theses people the truth matters little compared to the preservation of their imaginary history and “hero’s”.

But if we cannot be true to ourselfs about what happened how is it that we can expect not to be made a victim of those who would repeat theses same evils with even more gravely devastating consequences?

One usurpation does not, and can not legitimize anther just because it was successful.

To be conservative is not to blindly embrace the dogma left behind by the tyrants of history. If that were the case then our founders could be regarded as anything but conservatives, and you would be anything but a conservative by now following their example of independent thinking.

I am not a follower of the “theory” that might makes right. I am however one who recognizes the reality that might very often supersedes right.(There are countless examples to this effect)

Just because Lincoln was successful in his tyrannical conquest, doesn’t make that conquest “right”, nor does it make that conquest consistent with the principles, values, and limitations of our Republic.

Indeed it is not a difficult feet of examination to realizes that they are in utter contradiction.

The 13 colonies can not have legitimately done what they did, if the 11 confederate states were not equally authorized to do what they did.

Hence the paradox of imperative being imposed upon the United States by the tyrant Lincoln in utter contradiction to the fact that the United States was founded in opposition to imperialism, and in rebellion against men like Lincoln. If Lincolns cause was legitimate then the 13 colonies cause was not, and thus ironically Lincolns standing as head of the nation founded by them colonies is illegitimate.

Perhaps the funniest quarks about Lincolns logic is his insistent that a a more prefect union could in any American way(with respect to the deceleration’s definition), be one ever more bounded together thou the threat of the sword, rather the bounded together by the consent, mutual benefit, and free will of the governed.

And yet he argued that the union that must rely upon the sword to exist is somehow “more prefect”. I wish I could have asked Lincoln:

More prefect for whom, the rulers or the ruled?

Absolutely right on territories---but Huston's point is that the reason the fight was always over the territories, and not the states where slavery existed itself was one of property rights. If you could establish the principle of slave property rights in the territories, it would not be long before using property law you would have to reintroduce it to the north. His evidence on what the southerners were already saying about the PROPERTY (not labor!) element of slaves is extremely strong.

So even if your claims that there was actually a serious attempt to negotiate with Lincoln were true

They weren't my 'claims'. It's a historical fact. I have an idea: see if you can find a friend who has some decent reading comprehension skills and have him explain the following to you:

Confederate States of America - Letter of President Davis to President Lincoln February 27, 1861 MONTGOMERY, February 27, 1861.

The President of the United States: Being animated by an earnest desire to unite and bind together our respective countries by friendly ties, I have appointed M. J. Crawford, one of our most settled and trustworthy citizens, as special commissioner of the Confederate States of America to the Government of the United States; and I have now the honor to introduce him to you, and to ask for him a reception and treatment corresponding to his station and to the purpose for which he is sent. Those purposes he will more particularly explain to you. Hoping that through his agency. &c. [sic.]

JEFF'N DAVIS.

_________________________________________________________

For the purpose of establishing friendly relations between the Confederate States and the United States, and reposing special trust, &c., Martin J. Crawford, John Forsyth, and A. B. Roman are appointed special commissioners of the Confederate States to the United States. I have invested them with full and all manner of power and authority for and in the name of the Confederate States to meet and confer with any person or persons duly authorized by the Government of the United States being furnished with like powers and authority, and with them to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations, and to conclude and sign a treaty or treaties, convention or conventions, touching the premises, transmitting the same to the President of the Confederate States for his final ratification by and with the consent of the Congress of the Confederate States.

Given under my hand at the city of Montgomery this 27th day of February, A.D. 1861, and of the Independence of the Confederate States the eighty-fifth.

JEFF N DAVIS.

ROBERT TOOMBS, Secretary of State

Why not read the decision and find out how wrong you are?

I have. I'm not.

Dicta, not dictum.

dicta - Plural of "obiter dictum." A remark made by a judge in a legal opinion that is irrelevant to the decision and does not establish a precedent.

Lincoln never recognized the confederacy at any time.

He most certainly did.

Following such Southern prizes as LBJ, Clinton, Carter, and both Bush's. Thanks a lot, y'all.

And yet another straw man argument from the septic cerebral cortex of the coven's unofficial el jefe.

Your chain of yankee tyrants and would be tin horn dictators began with Linkln and currently resides with your yankee friend and neighbor, obama.

It's a historical fact.

It's rebel revisionism. Delivering an ultimatum and making demands do not constitute an attempt at negotiation.

I have. I'm not.

If you had you would realize you were.

He most certainly did.

When?

And yet another straw man argument from the septic cerebral cortex of the coven's unofficial el jefe.

Truth hurts, huh? Say it loud, say it proud, they were all your fellow Southerners. Thanks a lot.

Delivering an ultimatum and making demands do not constitute an attempt at negotiation.

That is patently false.

If you had you would realize you were.

I have. I'm not.

Truth hurts, huh? Say it loud, say it proud, they were all your fellow Southerners. Thanks a lot.

Why don't you admit that the first marxist president that took office in 1861 and the most recent in 2009 were/are both yankees.

Truth hurts, doesn't it! Say it out loud! The current president, destined to become the worst president in US history, is a yankee and a marxist. Thanks a lot, assholes.

That is patently false.

There can be no other description for the purpose of the delegation. Was an end to secession on the table? If Lincoln said, "I'll meet if everything including a reunification of the Union is open for discussion" then would the South have met with him? Not a chance. Their purpose was right there in the first sentence of the second paragraph - for the purpose of establishing relations between the confederate states and the U.S. Nothing else was on the table. No other outcome was acceptable. So it was cave in to the rebel demands or stay away. Under those circumstances there was no reason for Lincoln to meet with them.

I have. I'm not.

You are, regardless of whether you read it or not.

Why don't you admit that the first marxist president that took office in 1861 and the most recent in 2009 were/are both yankees.

Because the first half of your statement is pure Southron BS.

There can be no other description for the purpose of the delegation.

Go back and read it again.

Because the first half of your statement is pure Southron BS.

So you don't agree that obama is a yankee marxist and the worst president in US history?!?

Why don't you go back to DU, libtard.

To theses people the truth matters little compared to the preservation of their imaginary history and “hero’s”.

And to you the truth means nothing apparently. So be it.

Go back and read it again.

I can read it 600 more times and that doesn't change the clear meaning of the letter. No matter how much you would wish it did.

So you don't agree that obama is a yankee marxist and the worst president in US history?!?

First half of the sentence, doofus. Not the second half.

To theses people the truth matters little compared to the preservation of their imaginary history and “hero’s”.

You have just summed up the Southron activities to a tee.

Just because Lincoln was successful in his tyrannical conquest, doesn’t make that conquest “right”, nor does it make that conquest consistent with the principles, values, and limitations of our Republic.

Oh barf.

The 13 colonies can not have legitimately done what they did, if the 11 confederate states were not equally authorized to do what they did.

Legitimately done what? Start a rebellion? I'm not aware that anyone needs to be 'authorized' to start a rebellion; you just do it. Our founders did in 1776 and the Southerners did in 1861. The major difference between the two is that our Founding Father's won their rebellion while your confederate ancestors, well, they didn't.

Perhaps the funniest quarks about Lincolns logic is his insistent that a a more prefect union could in any American way(with respect to the deceleration’s definition), be one ever more bounded together thou the threat of the sword, rather the bounded together by the consent, mutual benefit, and free will of the governed.

And had you won your rebellion and established your confederacy, what consent or free will or benefit would be enjoyed by that one-third of your population you had enslaved?

Absolutely right on territories---but Huston's point is that the reason the fight was always over the territories, and not the states where slavery existed itself was one of property rights. If you could establish the principle of slave property rights in the territories, it would not be long before using property law you would have to reintroduce it to the north. His evidence on what the southerners were already saying about the PROPERTY (not labor!) element of slaves is extremely strong.

Interesting point. There were indeed two conflicting claims to the territories before the war.

The North (Republicans and former Free Soilers) wanted the territories for free white settlers only (their constituents). They also probably figured if the territories were settled without slaves, the future states formed from those territories would be free states. This would increase the voting block of free states against the voting block of slave states perhaps eventually leading to a constitutional amendment outlawing slavery.

The South (Southern Democrats) argued that their slaveholding constituents were being excluded from the territories. They might have also hoped that some states formed from those territories would be slave states if slaves were to be allowed in the territories. I've seen it argued that the South needed new markets for their slaves or new land to move to with their slaves.

I am reminded of Lincoln's Cooper Union speech wherein he says [my bold below]:

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

It might well have been Lincoln's intention to leave slavery alone (consider his support of the Corwin Amendment and the first time(?) enforcement of the fugitive slave law in the sanctuary city of Chicago shortly after Lincoln's inauguration by his Springfield friend, a United States Commissioner named Stephen Augustus Corneau.)

However, unless Lincoln was using the "royal we" in his Cooper Union speech, he apparently forgot about Helper's Book, which was endorsed by 68 Republican congressmen. That book says things like this:

... our purpose is as fixed as the eternal pillars of heaven; we have determined to abolish slavery, and -- so help us God -- abolish it we will! [page 187]

We believe it is, as it ought to be, the desire, the determination, and the destiny of this party [Republican] to give the death-blow to slavery; ... [page 234]

We are determined to abolish slavery at all hazards ... [page 149]

I can read it 600 more times and that doesn't change the clear meaning of the letter.

You mean reading it 600 more times won't change your mind because you're so blindly biased.

Well then, just keep living in your fantasy world, el jefe.

First half of the sentence, doofus. Not the second half.

Then say it out loud, el jefe: My yankee friend and neighbor, Barack Obama, is a marxist and the worst president in US history!!

Go ahead. Shout it out.

“Legitimately done what? Start a rebellion? I’m not aware that anyone needs to be ‘authorized’ to start a rebellion; you just do it. Our founders did in 1776 and the Southerners did in 1861. The major difference between the two is that our Founding Father’s won their rebellion while your confederate ancestors, well, they didn’t. “

Ahh so according to you might makes right, and you would respect our “rebellion” if we just successfully destroy our enemy, or if our enemy has a better character then the northern states and gives up trying to force union upon our people over time.

Even if insuring our our “successful rebellion” requires annihilation of your northern city’s. To you “might makes right”.

You are the slave master that the declares to his slaves “You can have your freedom just as soon as you successfully rebel and kill me.”
If that be the case why do we not plan to do the same? Why do we not capture nuclear weapons and uses them to level your population and industrial advantage?

Thats perfectly OK to you, that certainly makes me feel better about what must be done.

“And had you won your rebellion and established your confederacy, what consent or free will or benefit would be enjoyed by that one-third of your population you had enslaved?”

Just like your slaves who are bound to the the land and the service of their more distant government master. Their freedom is apparently depend upon their ability to successfully escape or “revolt”.

O yes there were slave revolts and it is increasingly likely that the confederacy would have been less and less able to contain the same. Just as there were an endless stream of slave escapes. Equally the Confederacy would have been less and less able to contain the same escapes, with the border beyond which there was no returning being soo much closer.

From a piratical point of view the north was fighting to retain the very position the abolitionist northerns hated. That is the position which legally required them to return escaped slaves.(A requirement they frequently ignored or nullified(Where it exceeded the constitutional authority)).

Ahh so according to you might makes right, and you would respect our “rebellion” if we just successfully destroy our enemy, or if our enemy has a better character then the northern states and gives up trying to force union upon our people over time.

According to you the colonies peacefully and legally seceded, and Great Britain launched an unprovoked invasion. Who's view differs more from reality.

But I would disagree with you on yet another point. In both rebellions, 'right' won out.

Even if insuring our our “successful rebellion” requires annihilation of your northern city’s. To you “might makes right”.

Go ahead and rebel again, nuke a couple of cities, and then we'll talk about it.

Just like your slaves who are bound to the the land and the service of their more distant government master. Their freedom is apparently depend upon their ability to successfully escape or “revolt”.

Damn it's getting deep around here. Again.

O yes there were slave revolts and it is increasingly likely that the confederacy would have been less and less able to contain the same. Just as there were an endless stream of slave escapes. Equally the Confederacy would have been less and less able to contain the same escapes, with the border beyond which there was no returning being soo much closer.

So then what? Ratchet the chains down tighter? Start another war with the U.S. to regain your chattel? Surely you don't expect us to believe that you would just have sat there and take it?

From a piratical point of view the north was fighting to retain the very position the abolitionist northerns hated. That is the position which legally required them to return escaped slaves.(A requirement they frequently ignored or nullified(Where it exceeded the constitutional authority)).

Mega-barf. The federal government went beyond the call in supporting slave owners. They passed laws, trampled all over state-rights, gave powers to slave catchers that a Barbary pirate would have envied. The Supreme Court time and again upheld slave laws and overturned state laws meant to hinder the return of slaves. The South has absolutely nothing to complain about with the federal government in that regard.

Nice mixture of historical fact 'n nonsensical interpretation.

But you and that man child, that usurper 'n chief disHonest abe.... sure liked that Morrill bill, protectionism, and subsidies for lazy yanks; like yourself.

Your thievery and laziness caused the divorce, as it will again. Spreading the wealth around has been going on for years, but it's your quote to own....yours and the rest of damn yankeeville.

Toombs:

Even the fishermen of Massachusetts and New England demand and receive from the public treasury about half a million of dollars per annum as a pure bounty on their business of catching codfish. The North, at the very first Congress, demanded and received bounties under the name of protection, for every trade, craft, and calling which they pursue, and there is not an artisan in brass, or iron, or wood, or weaver, or spinner in wool or cotton, or a calicomaker, or iron-master, or a coal-owner, in all of the Northern or Middle States, who has not received what he calls the protection of his government on his industry to the extent of from fifteen to two hundred per cent from the year 1791 to this day. They will not strike a blow, or stretch a muscle, without bounties from the government. No wonder they cry aloud for the glorious Union; they have the same reason for praising it, that craftsmen of Ephesus had for shouting, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians," whom all Asia and the world worshipped. By it they got their wealth; by it they levy tribute on honest labor. It is true that this policy has been largely sustained by the South; it is true that the present tariff was sustained by an almost unanimous vote of the South; but it was a reduction - a reduction necessary from the plethora of the revenue; but the policy of the North soon made it inadequate to meet the public expenditure, by an enormous and profligate increase of the public expenditure; and at the last session of Congress they brought in and passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty per cent above the existing rates of duty. That bill now lies on the table of the Senate. It was a master stroke of abolition policy; it united cupidity to fanaticism, and thereby made a combination which has swept the country. There were thousands of protectionists in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New-York, and in New-England, who were not abolitionists. There were thousands of abolitionists who were free traders. The mongers brought them together upon a mutual surrender of their principles. The free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists. The result of this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill - the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South.

Several years earlier.. Calhoun:

The next is the system of revenue and disbursements which has been adopted by the government. It is well known that the government has derived its revenue mainly from duties on imports. I shall not undertake to show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exporting States, and that the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue; because I deem it unnecessary, as the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed. Nor shall I, for the same reason, undertake to show that a far greater portion of the revenue has been disbursed in the North, than its due share; and that the joint effect of these causes has been to transfer a vast amount from South to North, which, under an equal system of revenue and disbursements, would not have been lost to her. If to this be added that many of the duties were imposed, not for revenue but for protection--that is, intended to put money, not in the Treasury, but directly into the pocket of the manufacturers--some conception may be formed of the immense amount which in the long course of sixty years has been transferred from South to North.

Slavery was the basis of the Southern economy, and pledges to end slavery such as those in the Helper book endorsed by the majority of Republican Congressmen foretold the destruction of that Southern economy

Hey, look, rustbucket, you can't go around talking like that. Non-Sequitur has done tole us that there was NO Yankee oppression of the South, and that the South's prospects were virginal and glittering with promise, if only the retrograde, regressive, genetically recessive Southerners had continued in the Union.

It's their racism, you see. Explains everything, drives everything, accounts for everything. Vote Democratic, it's cleaner. You'll feel better. And no, Non-Sequitur is not a seminar poster or a DU troll. Never think of it.

</sarc>