Replies

No they are not,

Well, other than your personal attacks on me they were.

and DiLorenzo is Kool-Aid Central for pro-Confederate propaganda lies.

And you are Kool Aid Central for the neo-yank False Cause Losers propaganda team. Touche!

who is right in most everything he says -- most everything.

Except when he disagrees with you, perhaps?

But we should also note that none of this has anything to do with Honest Abe Lincoln

Unbelievable! Why do you continue to defend the defenseless? Historians from every spectrum are beginning to show lincoln for the tyrant that he was. Numerous examples have been hyperlinked to you but you continue to poke your head in the sand/Kool Aid jug and deny, deny, deny.

I remember a few months back when you were in complete denial about the yankee involvement in slavery but you finally capitulated under the barrage of undeniable facts presented to you. Is the lincoln myth too strong for you to let go?

I say: if you oppose Original Intent, then you oppose the Constitution itself.

Then you'll agree that lincoln was opposed to the Constitution. I think we're making progress.

Well, the good Judge Napolitano argues, in effect, against the Founders' Original Intent, saying the document was flawed from the beginning in allowing the Founders to increase Federal power beyond what anti-Federalists approved of.

First of all, the fact that amendments and a process to add amendments are part of the constitution shows that the Founders understood that they or the constitution wasn't perfect, e.g. the protection of slavery.

Second, the Constitution is only as strong as the elected and those that elect them. In the case of lincoln, the South knew that he was going to trample all over the Constitution and they seceded. In the case of 0bama, we conservatives also knew that he was going to trample all over the Constitution, however, our only recourse, thanks to lincoln, is to hope that we can have a fair and free election and replace him with a patriot.

the Founders' Original Intent on secession is clear: constitutional secession is by mutual consent

Please provide evidence of that from the Founders own words.

Your 'mutual consent' argument comes from the T v W Chase dicta. Not a shred of evidence to back it up. Zero, zilch, nada. In addition, how can you maintain that I'm free if I have to have your consent to exercise my freedom?

And the slave-holders' declaration of war

I'm gonna type this slowly so that maybe you'll get it this time: a declaration of war simple means that a state of war exists, not that you've started one. You've been shown who started the war and why. The Judge and others painted that picture quite clearly.

The US Constitution says nothing directly about "secession".

What a tick. You stated above that "constitutional secession is by mutual consent". Which is it? Does it say nothing or does it define the terms?

I'm anxious to see how you try to weasel out of this one.

It says a lot about people who make war on the United States, or provide them with aid and comfort, committing rebellion, insurrection, invasion and domestic violence.

You've show time and again that you're fast and loose with the facts and a staunch defender of the neo-yank False Cause Loser mythology. The above sentence is simply more evidence of that.

Those are the constitutional provisions Lincoln used to defeat the slave-holders' rebellion.

Actually, lincoln used unconstitutional acts to wage a slave traders invasion to collect back taxes.

cowboyway: "Historians from every spectrum are beginning to show lincoln for the tyrant that he was."

There are several answers to that allegation:

The Constitution authorizes Government to take on extraordinary powers during times of war, rebellion, insurrection, etc.
Such powers as Lincoln assumed while Congress was out of session were soon approved by Congress when it came back.
The Constitution's definition of "treason" is simple and clear: to make war on the United States, or provide aid and comfort to our enemies.
Congress declares punishment for Treason.
Lincoln's alleged "tyrannies" during the Civil War were in no ways worse than Wilson's during the First World War, or Franklin Roosevelt's during the Second World War, or, for that matter, no worse than the Revolutionary War generation treated British Loyalists.
Lesson: war is h*ll, so don't even think about starting one.
Lincoln's alleged "tyrannies" are matched or exceeded by those of Jefferson Davis in the Confederacy.
Lesson: what's good enough for the goose should be enough for the gander.

cowboyway: "I remember a few months back when you were in complete denial about the yankee involvement in slavery but you finally capitulated under the barrage of undeniable facts presented to you."

There were few to zero "Yankees" involved in:

Southern intra-state slave sales.
Southern inter-state slave trade.
International deliveries of slaves to the US after 1808.
Clotilde, the last known slave ship to arrive in Mobile Bay, Alabama in 1859, was owned by Timothy Meaher, a wealthy Mobile shipyard owner and shipper, who had built the Clotilde in 1856.
The last fully documented slave ship, Wanderer, arrived in Georgia in 1858, was primarily owned by wealthy businessman and cotton planter Charles Augustus Lafayette Lamar from Savannah, Georgia.

The historical fact that slavery was legal in all American colonies in 1776 is nowhere disputed.
Nor is the fact that northern states only gradually abolished their own slavery.
Nor is the fact that the United States did not vigorously enforce the 1808 ban on International shipments of slaves until 1858 -- thus allowing pirates to operate with more-or-less impunity.

But any suggestions that "yankees" were primarily responsible for Southern slavery is just ludicrous denial of historical reality.

cowboyway: "In the case of lincoln, the South knew that he was going to trample all over the Constitution and they seceded."

Correct: in November of 1860 there was no mutual consent to secession, and no "usurpations or abuses of power" having that same effect.
Those are the Founders' Original Intent for constitutional secession, and no such conditions then existed.
So, in effect, the Deep-South slave-holders seceded "at pleasure", an act which is not authorized by the Constitution.

In 1860 the Deep-South slave-holders began to secede "at pleasure" out of fear for what a newly elected President Lincoln might do against slavery, at some time in the future -- not from any existing "usurpations or abuses of power."

cowboyway: "Please provide evidence of that from the Founders own words."

Numerous quotes to that effect have been cited here on past threads.
One of the clearest expressions comes from James Madison, in 1830:

"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.
"The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

cowboyway: "a declaration of war simple means that a state of war exists, not that you've started one."

But simultaneously with, indeed often before their unconstitutional declarations of secession, Deep-South slave-holders began to commit many acts of increasing rebellion or war, culminating in their violent attack and seizure of Fort Sumter in April 1861 -- soon followed by their formal declaration of war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

No Confederate soldier was killed by Union action until after the Confederacy declared war on the United States.

cowboyway: "You stated above that 'constitutional secession is by mutual consent'. Which is it?"

The Constitution says nothing about secession, period.
Founders' expressions of Original Intent regarding secession all reflected Madison's view expressed above -- that it must be by mutual consent or "usurpations or abuses of power" having that same effect.
No such condition existed in November 1860.

cowboyway: "Actually, lincoln used unconstitutional acts to wage a slave traders invasion to collect back taxes."

Sorry, pal, but I'd say: when you've reached that level of insanity, you are probably well beyond the reach of reason or facts.