Replies

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.

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

Please provide source documentation for where this expression was adopted by the Founders and incorporated in their work.

BJK said: Founders' expressions of Original Intent regarding secession all reflected Madison's view expressed above...

Please provide said expressions from the Philadelphia Convention.

BJK said: ...their unconstitutional declarations of secession...

Please provide source documentation proving the declarations of secession were unconstitutional at the time of their adoption.

The old Soviet propaganda technique was “poisoning the well”. They would accuse their opponent of what they did. That tended to disarm truth tellers.

When southern partisans assert that Lincoln was a tyrant (illegitimate ruler, usurper, one who rules by force) we should recognize that as what Jeff Davis and his ilk were. The southern rebellion was illegitimate, Jeff Davis pretended to the legitimate powers of the elected president, the southern states pretended to ‘at pleasure’ usurpation by individual states of powers secured to the states and people as a whole.

When southern partisans assert that the northern states were responsible for slavery in the south in 1860, we should recognize that the southern states were responsible for the existence of their domestic institutions, and in fact wanted to interfere with local government in the north, to inflict on them the domestic institutions of the southern states.

“Poisoning the well” is a dishonest debate tactic, and says more about those who use it than it does about reality.