Posted on 02/12/2018 3:57:10 AM PST by harpygoddess
It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of the people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies.
~ Lincoln
February 12 is the anniversary of the birth of the 16th - and arguably the greatest - president of these United States, Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865). Born in Kentucky and raised in Illinois, Lincoln was largely self-educated and became a country lawyer in 1836, having been elected to the state legislature two years earlier. He had one term in the U.S. Congress (1847-1849) but failed (against Stephen A. Douglas) to gain election to the Senate in 1856. Nominated by the Republican party for the presidency in 1860, he prevailed against the divided Democrats, triggering the secession of the southern states and the beginning of the Civil War. As the course of the war turned more favorably for the preservation of the Union, Lincoln was elected to a second term in 1864, but was assassinated in April 1865, only a week after the final victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at vaviper.blogspot.com ...
Both by Constitution and US laws (i.e. Militia & Insurrection Acts) our Founders fully recognized the difference between normal peacetime and "rebellion", "insurrection", "domestic violence", "invasion" or "treason".
In all cases, Lincoln's actions were supported by Congress and the full Supreme Court.
Case dismissed.
I am not redefining the word. I am pointing out that you are applying it incorrectly. Lincoln rebelled against the foundation of the United States. The Confederates exercised the right articulated in our founding document.
The wrong side has long been labeled "rebel". It was the side that won which actually rebelled against our founding principle, and the side which lost that was actually being true to it.
You don’t even comprehend your own posts. Lincoln’s quote doesn’t say what you believe it to say.
Merriam Webster defines rebellion as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government." Where is that inaccurate or incorrect when applied to the Southern efforts of 1861-1865?
Rubbish.
Regardless of how often you repeat such lies, Civil War still began at Fort Sumter over Confederate demands that Lincoln surrender it.
Confederate motives were to defend & expand the Confederacy, Lincoln's motives were to preserve, protect and defend the Union.
Slavery also played a huge role, though behind the scenes on April 12, 1861.
It could bar the creation of new slaves in Massachusetts. It could do nothing about those that were already legal.
If you were in Alabama, slavery would still be legal...in Alabama.
So long as Alabama had laws that held them in bondage, they would still be bound by the laws of Alabama even if they were in Massachusetts.
The only time that would come into play is if you brought your slave with you from Alabama to Boston.
Pretty much. But could a state ban you from coming? I don't see how if the larger covenant that was the constitution was to be respected.
Am I understanding this incorrectly?
I think you are in the ball park. I don't see any wiggle room in Article IV section 2. You could stop people from creating slaves in your state, but you couldn't stop slaves that were held in bondage by the laws of other states.
But the powers that be in states like Massachusetts behaved as if they could free slaves, and they got away with it because there was no effort on the part of the Feds to stop them from doing it. Like I said, it was a lot like this "sanctuary city" nonsense repealing Federal Immigration laws while the Feds just sit around and let them get away with it. (Same with legal marijuana.)
.
Correctamundo!
.
Which means what? Lincoln arrested people who disagreed with him. That the Supreme Court and the Congress went along with him is like saying the Politburo went along with Stalin.
Of course they did. People are afraid of Tyrants.
Seems pretty clear in what it says.
...it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.
.
By 1860, it was no longer north/south.
The annexed territories were booming in the west, and by then the Salinas valley in California was producing more food than all the rest of the country combined.
That was what gave the railroads so much power.
.
.
The 16th amendment was never ratified, as was verified by SCOTUS!
Not even one state took up a vote on the ammendment as proposed by the congress. Each state re-created it in a different form, and then voted on their own version, thus no ratification was possible.
The newspapers ratified it!
.
DiogenesLamp: "So why wasn't saving the Union of the United Kingdom just as morally valid?"
As you well know, the British claim to legitimacy ended when they:
Similarly, Confederate claims to legitimacy ended when they:
DiogenesLamp: "Our founders articulated the principle that people had a right to independence, and so they broke from the United Kingdom.
Why isn't this same principle valid for people who wanted to break from the United States?"
Rubbish.
Our Founders declared independence from necessity in 1776 and again by mutual consent in 1787.
Neither necessity nor mutual consent existed in 1860, so there is no legitimate comparison.
Instead, Confederates declared secession "at pleasure" which no Founder ever supported.
All of which you well know, but keep saying what you say anyway.
DiogenesLamp: "Just like we've been doing with Canada for all these years."
Our experiences after the First World War show what would have happened had the US Civil War ended on any terms other than "Unconditional Surrender".
There is not one word in the constitution impeding any state from seceding.
.
“No, it really couldn’t. Article IV Section 2 does not allow states to free slaves.” The article does not prevent a state from making ownership of a slave by a citizen of that state illegal in that state. In some cases like New York or Pennsylvania, it’s citizens were give several years to free or sell the slaves out of state that they owed.
“The Dred Scott decision ripped off the mask of the fiction that they could continue to get away with ignoring Article IV Section 2 of the US constitution.” Which dealt with fugitives slaves. The Dred Scott case affirmed the right of a state to make ownership of slaves against the law it that state.
It did not mandate slavery, it made it very clear that it could not be banned by a vote of the state. Semantics. No southern state could take any action to outlaw slavery. Which states were free to do in the North or the West if they so chose.
That is it's second definition. It's first definition is:
opposition to one in authority or dominance
Lincoln acted in opposition to our founding Document; The Declaration of Independence.
The Southerners dealt with an attack launched against them and their right to independence, and subsequent people intent on spreading propaganda, portrayed them as "rebels" when in fact they were not. They were forced to fight a defensive war in an effort to protect their right to be independent of Washington DC and the New York cartel that has been running it ever since.
And if I lived in Alabama, I am pretty sure I would have to find a really good reason to go to Boston.
(However, back then a lot of the mills in Lawrence and Holyoke were using southern textiles.)
As much as Sessions thinks he can come into MA and ban pot, he has to realize that every other garden this year will have plants growing. We can have up to tweleve plants—that would give the average person is going to smoke in a few years.
Only after the US Supreme Court's bizarre Dred-Scott decision in 1857.
Before that everyone understood that slavery was a matter for individual states themselves and for the US Congress to rule over territories.
Before Dred-Scott that was not even controversial.
LOL! OK, I'll play along for a bit. What placed the Declaration of Independence in a position of authority or dominance over the Constitution or the President?
The Southerners dealt with an attack launched against them and their right to independence, and subsequent people intent on spreading propaganda, portrayed them as "rebels" when in fact they were not.
Yeah they were rebels, and they also lost the war that they themselves initiated. If you don't care enough about your cause to win then maybe it wasn't much of a cause to begin with?
Stopping the South from direct trade with Europe was the only thing the Fort was capable of doing, and therefore to protect the profits of those New Yorkers that controlled all such trade prior to the South declaring independence, the fort was essential as a casus belli.
New York runs this nation today. New York Media power elected that corrupt Chicago cretin "Barack Obama" and that disgusting corrupt con man "Bill Clinton." Both served the interests of the New York Plutocrats who have undue influence in our government.
New York donor class controls both parties and the "deep state" which is the primary enemy we all think we are fighting.
New York is the "Empire City." It has the Fed, Wall Street, the Major Banks, and the United Nations.
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.