REMEMBERING MR. LINCOLN

Powerline ^ | 12 Feb 2024 | Scott Johnson

[Rummyfan]

Today is the anniversary of the birth of America’s great or greatest president, Abraham Lincoln. As a politician and as president, Lincoln was a profound student of the Constitution and constitutional history. Perhaps most important, Lincoln was America’s indispensable teacher of the moral ground of political freedom at the exact moment when the country was on the threshold of abandoning what he called its “ancient faith” that all men are created equal.

In 1858 Lincoln attained national prominence in the Republican Party as the result of the contest for the Senate seat held by Stephen Douglas. It was Lincoln’s losing campaign against Douglas that made him a figure of sufficient prominence that he could be the party’s 1860 presidential nominee.

At the convention of the Illinois Republican Party in June, Lincoln was the unanimous choice to run against Douglas. After declaring him their candidate late on the afternoon of June 16, the entire convention returned that evening to hear Lincoln speak. Accepting the convention’s nomination, Lincoln gave one of the most incendiary speeches in American history.

Lincoln electrified the convention, asserting that the institution of slavery had made the United States “a house divided against itself.” Slavery would either be extirpated or become lawful nationwide, Lincoln predicted, provocatively quoting scriptural authority to the effect that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Demonstrating how it “changed the course of history,” Harry Jaffa calls it “[t]he speech that changed the world.”

[ProgressingAmerica]

"Now bear in mind, that banning the importation of slaves is not the equivalent of banning slavery itself."

Now, bear in mind your refusal to stop clutching to Critical Race Theory slogans.

The first thing I would recommend to put a stop to slavery in this country, is to leave off importing slaves. For this purpose let our assemblies unite in petitioning the king and parliament to dissolve the African committee of merchants: It is by them that the trade is chiefly carried on to America.

Those who were abolitionists believed that there was no separation. If you could end the slave trade, you would end slavery. Full stop.

That's Benjamin Rush quoted, one of our Founding Fathers who wrote that. That is what abolitionists actually believed in the 1700s, and not the fake revisionist history garbage that all of us were taught.

"Oh that wasn't slavery! That was just the slave trade"

BS!!!!! It's nothing but 1619 Project BS that you keep promoting. In that specific regard banning the slave trade and slavery were the exact, exact, !E!X!A!C!T! equivalent same thing. The original sources aren't wrong. It's your CRT historians - THEY are who is wrong and you look foolish relying on them.

An address to the inhabitants of the British settlements, on the slavery of the Negroes in America. To which is added, A vindication of the address, in answer to a pamphlet entitled, "Slavery not forbidden in Scripture; or, A defence of the West India planters." - B. Rush

The Constitution of the United States: is it pro-slavery or anti-slavery?

No less philanthropic, no less clear-sighted men than your own Wilberforce and Clarkson supposed that the abolition of the slave-trade would be the abolition of slavery. Their theory was - cut off the stream, and of course the pond or lake will dry up: cut off the stream flowing out from Africa, and the slave-trade in America and the colonies would perish. The fathers who framed the American constitution supposed that in making provision for the abolition of the African slave-trade they were making provision for the abolition of slavery itself, and they incorporated this clause in the constitution, not to perpetuate the traffic in human flesh, but to bring that unnatural traffic to an end.

[FLT-bird]

There is EVERYTHING about the illegality of secession in the 14th. Amendment but you being who you are the sky is yellow and the sun is blue and never the twain shall meet. I should know better than engage with you. You're a bloody parrot.A regular one note Willie.

You clearly haven't understood a word in the 14th amendment. Its not about secession. What the 14th amendment says is basically that the bill of rights applies to the states...and of course it has a laughable "insurrection" clause in there at the end that only applied to certain elected officials.

If you actually knew this subject, you would know the basis for claiming states do not have the right to secede was a decision by the Chase court (majority appointed by Lincoln) in Texas v White.

[jmacusa]

If YOU actually knew the subject you keep refusing to read and learn from the this amendment you's stop making yourself look like a fool but you keep proving to make yourself the resident ignoramus here. So have it. I'm enjoying seeing yourself make a fool out of yourself. Funny how when Joe K takes you to the wood shed rather than go back at him you start in on me lie you're some kind of an eighth grade girl who can't accept the facts.

[DiogenesLamp]

The first thing I would recommend to put a stop to slavery in this country, is to leave off importing slaves.

Well that was clearly wrong.

[FLT-bird]

If YOU actually knew the subject you keep refusing to read and learn from the this amendment you's stop making yourself look like a fool but you keep proving to make yourself the resident ignoramus here. So have it. I'm enjoying seeing yourself make a fool out of yourself. Funny how when Joe K takes you to the wood shed rather than go back at him you start in on me lie you're some kind of an eighth grade girl who can't accept the facts.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So which provision exactly says that a state cannot legally secede?

Show us.

[ProgressingAmerica]

It doesn’t matter if it was wrong. That is what they thought. that was in fact their assumption. And the wrote it down for us to read it.

So stop propagating lies.

Stop it.

[jmacusa]

The Privileges or Immunity’s Clause explicitly prohibits a state from depriving citizens of their federal rights, and secession would be a blatant violation of that prohibition.

[jmacusa]

And if you’re so tough Reb, why don’t you stay in the ring with Bro Joe K instead of every time you get your stupid Confederate ass handed to you , you come after me?

[FLT-bird]

The Privileges or Immunity’s Clause explicitly prohibits a state from depriving citizens of their federal rights, and secession would be a blatant violation of that prohibition.

Leaving would not deprive anybody of any constitutional rights per se. Your "legal interpretation" is one that is not shared by the courts or anyone credible.

[FLT-bird]

And if you’re so tough Reb, why don’t you stay in the ring with Bro Joe K instead of every time you get your stupid Confederate ass handed to you , you come after me?

Well considering I've never had my ass handed to be stupid Yank, that would be an impossibility. Oh and in case you hadn't noticed, YOU came after ME. Not vice versa. I didn't start it with you. In fact, I never do. But I damn sure will respond.

[DiogenesLamp]

It doesn’t matter if it was wrong. That is what they thought. that was in fact their assumption. And the wrote it down for us to read it.

Well the guy you quoted certainly did. How many of him were at the signing of the Declaration then?

Someone posted earlier that there were 56 of them, so him and Jefferson make two, and that leaves 54 that we don't know about.

Presumably as they all came from slave owning states, they likely didn't want to wade into that issue while they were trying to justify their own independence from England.

[jmacusa]

Every time the man schools you, you slink off to your hole and come back with a new pack of lies.

You really think the North started the war in face of all the evidence presented to you.

Yeah. Ill be here and for every dumb thing you post I’ll be right here to challenge it.

Just can’t get it into your head your side lost.

[jmacusa]

Texas vs. White 1869.

[FLT-bird]

Every time the man schools you, you slink off to your hole and come back with a new pack of lies.

The first in your pack of lies is that he has ever "schooled" me.

You really think the North started the war in face of all the evidence presented to you.

you really think Lincoln didn't start the war in the face of all the evidence presented to you.

Yeah. Ill be here and for every dumb thing you post I’ll be right here to challenge it.

Likewise. I'll be here to refute all of your lies.

Just can’t get it into your head your side lost.

You just can't get it in your head that Lincoln was a tyrant who started a war of aggression for money and empire.

[FLT-bird]

Texas vs. White 1869.

I already mentioned it several posts ago. Do try to keep up.

[jmacusa]

NO. YOU try and keep up Reb. Your side LOST! It started a war to preserve slavery and lost the gambit!

And nothing . NOTHING is going to change that!

GET OVER it REB!

[ProgressingAmerica]

"I think you have mentioned Virginia previously, and perhaps another state, but what about the rest?"

The ones I know of are Mass, Penn, and Rhode Island. That including Virginia are the four. so no, the clause makes these four look very, very good. They would not have objected on the grounds you suggest in the context you rely on.

"You are trying to make it look like all the other states were against Georgia and South Carolina, when in fact they were very likely in agreement with them, though they remained silent on the point."

This cuts both ways. There were four colonies on record legislatively opposing the king's slaving before independence. Many more of the remaining 13 were just as likely to be in agreement with the four, though they remained silent on the point after seeing the big veto hammer slammed down.

That's why I say 2. We know 2, we can verify 2. Georgia and S. Carolina. You want to rely on an if, well, if the crown didn't veto how many more would there be than just 4 opposing slavery? It didn't even take Vermont a year after the declaration to abolish slavery. (I know, it was a part of their statehood process. It's the date of 1777 that is the point, and the date of 1776 that is the point. That's 1. One single year.)

"It is a detail that changes the entire outlook of what the Declaration was intended to be."

I do not think the declaration was solely about slavery, you're taking this too far. I just know it's impossible to separate. Once the crown vetoed, the only way the colonists were ever, ever going to see slavery go away was by separation from the empire where the sun never sets, and it wasn't going to be anything else. It was either separation or slavery forever the way the abolitionists would have seen it. So by definition slavery must, must be considered somewhere down the grievance list.

"You want it to be an anti-slavery document, and I am pointing out that they had no intention of making it into an anti-slavery document, they intended that it be a justification for their own secession, and that is the sole purpose they intended for it."

You're ignoring that there were 27 grievances. Being a justification for secession doesn't exclude anti-slavery. Slavery did in fact have something to do with it and you can blame the crown for that. That's why your persistence doesn't bring this to a conclusion. It's never going away. Especially in light of the 1619 Project. Now because of The 1619 Project every minute thing that the Founders did in light of slavery or anti-slavery matters. It's blown up larger than life. The fact remains that precious few of the Founders stood on the side of slaving, which is very good for us.

It doesn't help (you) either that I'm making the works of the Founders into audio books. Freely downloadable and 100% free/public domain. That's only going to have the result of more knowledge about the Founders' work - including the abolition aspects - and not less, which is what the schools have worked for for a century, and what The 1619 Project works for today.

Reviving the Founders (ideals) is the _only_ way to put The 1619 Project to bed because of what comes with those ideals. There is no other option. It's the only one we have. First, last, only.

The Founders stood against slavery, even many of those who owned slaves. That is by definition a weapon we can use against The 1619 Project and I don't care how complacent everybody else is with using it. I'll us it myself. It will NOT go unused, it's not going unused.

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately. (B. Franklin)"

I'm more than happy to hang alone on this, thank you very much.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"How many of him were at the signing of the Declaration then?"

11 state's worth. They didn't object to that infamous clause. That's what the operable or available information states.

[FLT-bird]

NO. YOU try and keep up Reb. Your side LOST! It started a war to preserve slavery and lost the gambit! And nothing . NOTHING is going to change that! GET OVER it REB!

No, I can keep up with and refute all your lies with ease. The tyrant Lincoln started the war for money and empire. He was more than willing to protect slavery by express constitutional amendment effectively forever. NOTHING is ever going to change that!

[jmacusa]

No. Your side started the war with it's; intent to preserve slavery and thus began by opening fire on Ft.Sumter.

Just like a little girl. Joe K kicks your butt with knowledge, fats and the history as it is in truth.

And like some little petulant, foot stomping little cry baby who can't handle the truth of history you come to try and get a rise out of me. You're a loser. I should have known better to rattling your cage.