The greatest mistake made by those that discuss this issue today from either side is that they forget that a certain amount of political strategy was at work on everything both sides said and did. You look at the words and letter of each side under the cold microscope of history without examining the political ploys at work behind them.
Lincoln and the republicans wanted to debate and vote on the issue of slavery and the democrats didn't want to lose in either political contest so they chose to divide the nation, and then Lincoln said sorry fellows but you can't do that either.
In the end it was always the southern democrats that chose badly, they chose slavery over freedom, a nation divided over a single great nation, and the rule of force over the rule of law, and lost in all their choices.
And might I add even today when the democrats lose to republicans what battle cry do they still use....Well when President Bush beat Al Gore mthe democrats decided to secede from what they called "Jesusland" and threatened to from a new nation out of the Blue states. Surely even STAND remember that episode....
it's more "blame the victim" for what the DAMNyankees undeniably DID during their IMPERIALIST WAR against the new dixie republic. furthermore, it is an ATTEMPT to cover-up and/or EXCUSE the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of WAR CRIMES & CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, committed by the invading army in the southland, against UNarmed civilians (most of whom were "persons of colour",members of religious minorities & the "poorest of the poor whites") & helpless CSA prisoners of war.
TO "usmcobra":"snake" face it, you've been LIED TO & made a FOOL of by the LEFTISTS that you've evidently been reading/listening to.
what you posted is not only IGNORANT of the FACTS, but the "lunatic leftists", that endlessly spew out that BILGE, are well aware that what they say is FALSE. their intent is to DECEIVE the IGNORANT UNknowing masses. obviously, they succeeded with you!
the REVISIONIST LEFT "laughs behind their well-manicured hands" AT anyone,who is STUPID enough to believe their KNOWING LIES. (the noise you hear from the north is not thunder, it is the sound of RIDICULE from the ELITIST,self-righteous, LEFTIST,sanctimonious, ARROGANT"sources" that you believe. YOU are the well-chosen target of their RIDICULE, as you evidently BELIEVE their KNOWING LIES!)
free dixie,sw
Catchy title. You mean others think the way I do?
Lincoln and the republicans wanted to debate and vote on the issue of slavery and the democrats didn't want to lose in either political contest so they chose to divide the nation, and then Lincoln said sorry fellows but you can't do that either.
Certainly slavery was a moral evil and it divided the nation, but the blame for dividing the nation does not lie entirely with the South. Northern states were nullifying the Constitution by blocking the return of fugitive slaves. The Constitution wouldn't have been ratified in the first place unless the North had agreed to return slaves. Why should the South stay in the Union if the other side won't bide by the compact? (I could pull up the famous quote to that effect by Massachusetts senator Daniel Webster if you wish.)
The Supreme Court ruled that slaves could be taken into the territories or free states and remain slaves. Northern politicians such as Lincoln wanted the territories for free white men (their words), a position designed to appeal to northern voters and advocates of the Free Soil movement.
On what constitutional basis did Lincoln say that the South couldn't leave the Union? On his far-fetched argument that the Union created the states, and that the states were never sovereign and thus couldn't leave? That flies in the face of history.
... the rule of force over the rule of law
Which side was thwarting the Fugitive Slave Law? Which side tried to arm legal slaves and cause an insurrection? When Great Britain did that in the Revolutionary War it was mentioned against the king in the Declaration of Independence:
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us
Not quite consistent with "all men are created equal" is it?
It already was in the law. Here is what an 1856 Law Dictionary says:
SLAVE. A man who is by law deprived of his liberty for life, and becomes the property of another.
2. A slave has no political rights, and generally has no civil rights. He can enter into no contract unless specially authorized by law; what he acquires generally, belongs to his master. The children of female slaves follow the condition of their mothers, and are themselves slaves.
3. In Maryland, Missouri and Virginia slaves are declared by statute to be personal estate, or treated as such. Anth. Shep. To. 428, 494; Misso. Laws, 558. In Kentucky, the rule is different, and they are considered real estate. 1 Kty. Rev. Laws, 566 1 Dana's R. 94.
4. In general a slave is considered a thing and not a person; but sometimes he is considered as a person; as when he commits a crime; for example, two white persons and a slave can commit a riot. 1 McCord, 534. See Person.
Baghdad Bob of the liberal anti-conservative harpy coven, you'd never make a living as a lawyer sir. Marriage is not enumerated within the Constitution - it a STATE matter - not one delegated to the federal government. Slavery was LEGAL, and either PRACTICED in every state at the adoption of our Constitution - millions and millions in profits - vast fortunes - were made by YANKEES sailing to Africa to purchase their human cargoes. It was protected bt Article IV§2 federaly.
The Southern states could not force a Northern state to codify anything, neither could the Lincoln - state acts are MANDATED by Article IV§1 to be given FULL, FAITH and Credit in every other State. And to prevent liberal morons from attempting to declare that everything was a federal issue, the ratifying states demanded and received the 9th and 10th Amendments. My favourite President - Ronald Wilson Reagan - lived by that attitude - he was conservative (no Lincolnian bloated government for him), decried protectionism and federal graft to corporations. Reagan even stated that he was close to being Libertarian in his views of liberty and government.
You continue another liberal lie/mantra in that the seceeding states chose slavery - they ALREADY HAD LEGAL SLAVERY in the American union - if that were the case there was NO reason to leave. Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment and making it permanent. The Supreme Court had previously held that the territories were open for slavery - yet during the 20 or so years they had already been open there were almost none there. The only reason Lincon and the republicans (1854-1870 Democrats - protectionist, advocates of bloated government, corporate welfare, graft etc) wanted to keep the territories free of blacks - slave or free - was their BIGOTRY.
Well when President Bush beat Al Gore mthe democrats decided to secede from what they called "Jesusland" [The SOUTH!] and threatened to from a new nation out of the Blue states [YANKEELAND!].
Snicker.