Lincoln And The Death Of The Constitution

Wolves of Liberty ^ | 9/7/2010 | gjmerits

[rockrr]

In other words right makes right you POS libtard seminar poster.

[Monorprise]

“Which is the unspoken challenge behind all slavery and the motivation behind every rebellion. And would you deny the truth of it? Do slaves have a natural right to rise up and rebel?”

I would not deny that slaves have the natural right to rise up and rebel.

“That’s easy. It’s because you don’t feel strongly enough about your position to do what would have to be done to insure it. “

No its cause:

1: I have no desire to see millions of northerns killed, when the example should be enough to teach northerns that the costs and risk of forcing your union upon others is not worth it.

2: Why would we launch an attack to defend our independents when we have yet to redeclare that independence? More importantly why would we tell you about what we are doing before its too late for you to do anything about it?

[Monorprise]

“”The United States(northern States) would have had to start paying more attention to the rights and fair treatment of their minion. The Union would have had to be a better deal then independents for all States.”

The South exercised her rights, and the North resorted to the sword.”

Sad but true and in doing so the North Screwed not only the South but itself as well.

i wish i could say justice was served, but really the true victors of the War between the States was the political leaders of the Federal Government who got to consolidate their absolute and unconditional power.

The Union ceases to exist for the betterment of the people and their States and started exist more and more for its political leader’s own greed for power.

“
The biggest exercise of diplomacy during Lincoln’s tenure was erecting the fiction that “the South started it”. That and the Trent Affair — but in the latter, Lincoln had substantial help from Prince Albert; the Fort Sumter affair he arranged on his own, cards held tightly to his vest.”

Lincoln had little to no interest in peace, he wanted one thing and one thing only, the forced union with the south under his leadership.

[rockrr]

More importantly why would we tell you about what we are doing before its too late for you to do anything about it?

Spoken just like someone who knows he's about to do something wrong.

[Non-Sequitur]

Non-Sequitur, curb your dog. He's crapping all over the thread.

The crapping on the thread started in earnest on Monday at 12:20:33 PM.

[Non-Sequitur]

There's a reason so many groups who've done business with Northern businessmen detest you. Huron Indians, Dutchmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards -- you guys are the moral halitosis of the New World.

Another reason may be loony-tunes like you?

[Non-Sequitur]

There was no rebellion. Only an exercise of rights. But then, you knew that.

Sure there was. Eleven Southern states between 1861 ans 1865. It was in all the newspapers. But then, you knew that.

[Non-Sequitur]

What circumstances would have provided Lincoln a reason to meet with them?

A sincere offer to negotiate might have done it.

[Non-Sequitur]

In other words, might makes right. Yes? No?

Might is not the only thing that makes a cause right. But since that doesn't apply to the Southern rebellion the question is moot. The North won because their cause was just and their people felt that it was worth fighting and winning. The South lost because their cause was shit and their people caved like a cheap cardboard box.

[Monorprise]

“Bigotry aside,”

LoL so now your calling me a racist? typical..

You know your becoming more and more like your democratic brethren every day.

“let me point out that you ignored the question entirely. Is it your contention that the colonies peacefully and legally seceded, as you claim the Southern states did? And that the British response to that formed an illegal and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, as you claim Lincoln did?”

From my legalistic point of view the answer to both your question is yes. Was that not clear in my full explanation not the snip you quoted?

“For what? For your failed second rebellion, of course. Would it be worth it for you?”
For freedom and Constitutional government, yes absolute.

The thing about human liberty that you MUST come to understand is that you can’t keep it suppressed forever. Crush it with the hand of force and you will only buy time before it invulnerably rises again.

The Reason for this fact is intrinsic in the human spirit. The natural resentment of injury, and demand for liberty.

We now have the technology to do this, and the experience of the failures of our 2nd rebellion to know how to fight this war. While I can’t say when we will rise again for many reasons that should be obvious to even you. I can tell you that it will either happen when you are least able or willing to stop it.

To be perfectly clear I of course speak not of independents but the cause of liberty for which independents is sometimes required to secure.

The Union MUST be a better deal then independents for it to be justified in its existences.

We the people aut not to be wasting our time, money, and freedom on a government(union) which is doing more harm to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then good.
Thats the real bottom line that you need to accept.

[Non-Sequitur]

LoL so now your calling me a racist? typical..

Well I wouldn't know about the racist part. But your bigotry against Yankees was duly noted.

From my legalistic point of view the answer to both your question is yes. Was that not clear in my full explanation not the snip you quoted?

Lunatic point of view would be more accurate I think. Nobody in their right minds would consider the colonists actions legal, least of all the Founding Fathers themselves. They knew their actions were a rebellion. They knew that they would have to fight for their independence. They knew the penalties if they lost. The rebel leaders, on the other hand, were wrong in all their decisions. Especially the need to win part.

For freedom and Constitutional government, yes absolute.

Of course you would.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I would not deny that slaves have the natural right to rise up and rebel.

Good. Now would you say that slaves had a legal or constitutional right to rise up and rebel? Did their masters have a legal and constitutional right to suppress their rebellion?

No its cause...

All of which adds up to the same thing, that you haven't done anything because you lack the motivation. In other words, for all the southron talk about intolerable oppression, your situation isn't really that intolerable because here you are tolerating it.

2: Why would we launch an attack to defend our independents when we have yet to redeclare that independence?

Interesting. Do rebellions only have legitimacy after a formal declaration of independence is made?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The Reason for this fact is intrinsic in the human spirit. The natural resentment of injury, and demand for liberty.

Which gives you what Hobbes described as "Bellum omnium contra omnes."

[Monorprise]

“The North won because their cause was just and their people felt that it was worth fighting and winning. The South lost because their cause was shit and their people caved like a cheap cardboard box.”

LoL
That’s the funnest thing you have said so far, soo disconnected from reality...

The South fought feverishly, with little to nothing against a a well-funded enemy more then twice their size.

And still they inflicted more loses on that enemy then they themselves suffered, while managing to drag out the war for 4 long years.

As if being out numbered was not bad enough the south was even more heavily out gunned, Cut off from the rest of the world and any real industry they were forced to uses what little they had to start with and what they could capture from the north to fight.

By comparison the North had an industrial war machine, they were well funded and vastly superior to the south in numbers.

Even still the north had to implement an oppressive draft, the income tax for the first time, and it had to end the free banking era as to enable the Federal government to “print” money.

a lot of this was because outside of Lincoln and the radical republicans who were left controlling the remaining governments a lot of folk in the north did not want to fight the south.

A lot of folk openly pointed out the utter contradictions of Lincolns causes and the cause of American Constitutionality and natural rights. And many of them were arrested or otherwise shut down for their speech.

Lincoln was a tyrant at home just as he was a tyrant in what he was doing to the south. The north was not well motivated indeed they didn’t even start winning battles when the south invaded the north.

Lincoln “had to”(according to his apologist) disregard much of our constitution just to deal with the “resistance” in the north towards is unconstitutional war of tyrannical conquest.

You tell me which side was more motivate to win. The one that had every advantage in the world and still struggled or the one that had nothing and yet still managed to fight until they had nothing left.

[Idabilly]

Right makes right. The right side won the American Revolution. The right side won the War of Southern Rebellion.

Was that the reason for your lack of lunch money during grammar school through Ivy League college? Them big mean Southrons rightfully taking geeky Non-Sequitur's money. This would explain your hatred towards Southerners.

The only thing you won, by the way, was forcing statism on an unwilling people. Congratulations! My hats off to you, libtard...

North 1 South 0 Halftime

[southernsunshine]

A sincere offer to negotiate might have done it.

I believe the offer extended was sincere, but since you don't, can you tell me how a sincere offer would read?

[Non-Sequitur]

That’s the funnest thing you have said so far, soo disconnected from reality...

I noticed that reality and you don't seem to collide in the same sentence all that much either.

The South fought feverishly, with little to nothing against a a well-funded enemy more then twice their size.

And in the end their armies faded away through desertion and their cause collapsed like the cheap box I spoke of. On the other hand, the Union army at the end of the war was overwhelmingly volunteer and was as strong or stronger than any other time during the war. So which side believed in their cause more strongly?

And still they inflicted more loses on that enemy then they themselves suffered, while managing to drag out the war for 4 long years.

The Union had about 110,000 battle deaths out of an army of between 2.5 and 2.75 million. That's a loss of 4 to 4.4 percent depending on which figure you use. The confederates had 94,000 battle deaths out of an army of between 750,000 and 1.25 million. That's a loss of between 7.5% and 12.5% depending on which figure you use. As a percentage of soldiers engaged the Union made the South pay a much higher price for their losing effort. Was it worth it?

Even still the north had to implement an oppressive draft, the income tax for the first time, and it had to end the free banking era as to enable the Federal government to “print” money.

I would point out that the south instituted a draft earlier than the North (April 1862), instituted an income tax, and printed money like crazy long before the Union did. Plus at the same time they instituted conscription they forcibly extended all enlistments for the duration of the war, something Lincoln never did. As a result the Union army could have faded away several times during the rebellion but didn't. Why? Because those Union volunteers stayed and fought for what they thought was right. Confederates stayed because they had to. Maybe that's why when the going got tough the rebels went home?

A lot of folk openly pointed out the utter contradictions of Lincolns causes and the cause of American Constitutionality and natural rights. And many of them were arrested or otherwise shut down for their speech.

Studies have shown that you had a better chance of being locked up without trial for speaking out against your government in a Jeff Davis confederacy than an Abe Lincoln United States. I would refer you to Mark Neeley's works on the subject, both North and South.

Lincoln was a tyrant at home just as he was a tyrant in what he was doing to the south. The north was not well motivated indeed they didn’t even start winning battles when the south invaded the north.

Absolute nonsense. Not only was Lincoln not a tyrant but the Union was winning victory after victory in the west almost from day one. You make the common rebel mistake that the war was fought only in the east by Bobby Lee. The fact of the matter is that Grant was kicking rebel butt from early in 1862 on.

Lincoln “had to”(according to his apologist) disregard much of our constitution just to deal with the “resistance” in the north towards is unconstitutional war of tyrannical conquest.

When it comes to disregarding their own constitution, Lincoln didn't hold a candle to Jeff Davis or the rebel congress. They totally ignored the third article of their constitution, Davis made promises that he could not legally deliver on, their contempt for the rule of law was complete and unabashed.

You tell me which side was more motivate to win. The one that had every advantage in the world and still struggled or the one that had nothing and yet still managed to fight until they had nothing left.

Southron BS aside, I'd say the side that won was more motivated. In addition to having the better cause.

[Idabilly]

The North won because their cause was just and their people felt that it was worth fighting and winning. The South lost because their cause was shit and their people caved like a cheap cardboard box

yer gittin' a-talkin to. when yuz wuz a young'n yuz wuz tumpt over. Yer Ma' cood-n see ya, bein' Natural Horizontal an' all.

[Non-Sequitur]

Was that the reason for your lack of lunch money during grammar school through Ivy League college? Them big mean Southrons rightfully taking geeky Non-Sequitur's money. This would explain your hatred towards Southerners.

I did attend a Public Ivy, though I would doubt you would be familiar with the term. And I should point out just how little sense your statement makes - if I did attend schools and an Ivy League university then how would I have run into enough southerners for them to take my lunch money at any stage?

What is the reason for your pathological hatred of Northerners? Come on, you can tell us.

The only thing you won, by the way, was forcing statism on an unwilling people.

We preserved the Union whole and undivided, as our founders left it to us.

Congratulations! My hats off to you, libtard...

Would that be your stovepipe hat?

"Come on Non-Sequitur ! I'll even dress up like disHonest Abe, Stove pipe hat and all... and, I'll slap you around and make you lick my boots." - Idabilly

[Non-Sequitur]

I believe the offer extended was sincere, but since you don't, can you tell me how a sincere offer would read?

There was a sincere demand for recognition but no offer to negotiate. Do you honestly believe that if Lincoln said he would meet to discuss subject at all if an end to secession was also open to negotiation that the rebel group would have agreed? If not then how can you say there was a sincere offer extended?