Will try again:
Posted on 11/23/2016 6:01:04 PM PST by Loud Mime
“What doesn’t belong is your claim that our Founders ever favored disunion or secession “at pleasure”, meaning absent either mutual consent or necessity caused by oppression & usurpations.”
Here’s the language for which you have been searching:
“The powers not delegated to the Unted States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people except that the powers reserved for the people can not be exercised at pleasure or without the mutual consent of the federal government.”
Isn’t this what you really believe?
“But the truth . . . is Lost Causer mythology rooted in Marxist dialectics and liberal reinterpretations of Founders’ Original Intent.”
To paraphrase Scott Adams, what you have written is definitely funny, but it’s only a joke by coincidence.
Thank You - - very much - - for all the information and recommendations.
The response from all of you has amazed me.
I didn’t know of the museum. I’ll look into it.
Isn’t this what you really believe?"
No, because "power" to break the law is not a "power", it's a crime, period.
The Constitution is a legally binding document, created from both necessity and mutual consent, which provides within itself multiple methods for addressing & redressing grievances.
It does not specifically address disunion, but our Founders' examples on that should be more than adequate: disunion from mutual consent or necessity, those are legit.
Disunion "at pleasure" is not.
And just so we're clear on this, my opinion is precisely that of Founders like James Madison ("Father of the Constitution") and such 1860 leaders as Democrat President Buchanan and Republican President-elect Lincoln, along with former living presidents Van Buren (Democrat), Fillmore (Whig) and Pierce (Democrat).
All believed in 1860 that Deep South Fire Eaters' declarations of secession were not constitutional or lawful.
They also believed, to a man, the Federal government could use no force to stop secessions, unless secessionists started war, which, of course, they soon did.
So all you Lost Causers wish to debate the legitimacy of secession, but the fact is there was no debate in 1860, since everyone understood it was unlawful, but could not be stopped unless secessionists themselves started war.
Which is exactly what President Lincoln said in his First Inaugural:
That's it, in a nutshell.
BUT YOU SAID disunion is not a crime if it is not done at pleasure, or if it was by mutual consent.
When Lincoln's justification for killing 600,000 Americans is juxtaposed with the words of the founders (either the DOI or the Constitution) even you reject it.
Your pretzel has reached snappage.
Yes, mutual consent and "necessity" are legitimate reasons for disunion, but "at pleasure" is not.
That's what our Founders believed.
jeffersondem: "When Lincoln's justification for killing 600,000 Americans is juxtaposed with the words of the founders (either the DOI or the Constitution) even you reject it.
Your pretzel has reached snappage."
Of course, it's the nature of Lost Causers to reject reality slapping you in the face in favor of fantasies that never were.
In this case, Lincoln did not go to war because Deep South Fire Eaters declared secession, he went to war because they provoked, started, declared and waged war on the United States.
As such, they represented an existential threat no US president could ignore.
In that, Lincoln was supported by nearly all Americans, even Democrats, though Democrats would have been satisfied with a military stalemate and negotiated peace.
As would have Lincoln, had Confederates ever proved willing.
But they weren't willing, insisted on fighting on and on, until their only peace was "Unconditional Surrender".
So the issue was never secession itself, but rather the Confederacy's declared war on the United States.
“They also believed, to a man, the Federal government could use no force to stop secessions, unless secessionists started war, which, of course, they soon did.”
If secession was not legal, as you and Lincoln say, then the actions of the South should have been put down as an insurrection.
No, Lincoln clearly announced that so long as Secessionists did not commit violence against the United States, no violence would be used in return.
Once Confederates launched war against the Union, then Lincoln responded in kind.
Yes, Lincoln's April 15, 1861 proclamation after Fort Sumter did not refer to either rebellion or insurrection, but his July 4th message to Congress used both terms many times.
Congratulations, you've just seen a glimpse of reality. How does it feel?
“Congratulations, you’ve just seen a glimpse of reality. How does it feel?”
BJK says he and Lincoln do not believe secession is the same as insurrection. Do you?
This is really difficult for you, isn’t it?
rockrr: "This is really difficult for you, isn’t it?"
I think they have to work hard to stay so confused about something that's so, so simple.
“This is really difficult for you, isn’t it?”
I have always had difficulty accepting Lincoln’s decision that lead to the killing of 600,000 people. But, enough about me.
Do YOU believe secession is the same as insurrection?
Company “Aytch” - Best Civil War book ever from the grunt perspective.
For all his faults Grant was a really good author/historian. Very fair.
It's hard to take you seriously when you start off with such an enormous distortion of the truth....and another strawman.
Do YOU believe secession is the same as insurrection?
Generally speaking they are not synonymous. The way the southern slavers tried it was definitely seditious.
“Generally speaking they (secession and insurrection) are not synonymous.”
When I wrote, “If secession was not legal . . . then the actions of the South should have been put down as an insurrection” you wrote “Congratulations, you’ve just seen a glimpse of reality.”
Seems you have your rump in two saddles. Do you have an explanation?
I'd recommend reading David Potter's The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861, Allan Guelzo's The Crisis of the American Republic: A History of the Civil War and Reconstruction Era, and David Donald's Lincoln and The Civil War and Reconstruction for background.
Daniel Farber's Lincoln's Constitution and Gabor Boritt's Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream might also be worth a look.
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.