Posted on 04/19/2010 8:18:35 AM PDT by erod
Hi FRiends,
I have two brothers who I love very much, they’re young and libertarian Ron Paul supporters, sigh. We get along and I’m hoping that one day they’ll come back to conservatism, but they have bought into a theory that I don’t think makes much sense:
Abe Lincoln was a dictator.
There are many websites dedicated to this nonsense you can Google "Abe Lincoln dictator" and get some weird stuff, if you want to check it out.
I need your help in busting this myth are there any books I can read on this subject to dispel this stuff? Do you know any of the arguments to combat this nonsense? Ie. Lincoln did not want to free the slaves.
Thanks for taking time out of your day to help me out, -Erod
Yankees still suck!
Not all of it. Article I, Section 10 deals with the states. Parts of Article I, Section 9 deal with people other than those in Congress. So your claim that just because it's in Article I then it has to refer to Congress and Congress alone is not supported.
But we've been over all that before. Tried to catch me napping, didn't you?
No. But you still can't make your point conclusively however.
The American Civil War was not a true war in the sense that the Union Government held the position that secession from the Union was illegal and military force was used to restore the union by defeating in battle the military forces of the illegally rebelling states. No Southern ambassador or diplomat was accorded any status by the Union so an armistice or peace treaty was never an option because that would legitimize the Confederacy as an actual Nation. The legal right for armed force lay with the Constitution of the United States, which the Union interpreted as unbreakable. The actions of the Southern states were therefore illegal (according to the Union) because they were attempting to drop the Union as their form of Government, which is considered rebellion or insurrection.To have declared war would have required recognizing the Confederacy as a separate sovereign nation which war could be declared against; being viewed instead as an insurrection, war could not be declared.
The festivities began when the South shot first at Fort Sumter. A valid case may be made that the subsequent conflict was just the natural process of the Union ending a fight it did not start.
“Israel is not part of the U.S. Louisiana is.”
But they were not in 1864.
To call slavery a 'compassionate institution' does.
Can’t you *ever* remember what *you* wrote and then apply it later, _in context_?
~You~ said:
“Unilateral secession is simply anarchy”
To which I provided the fact that secession *is* a constitutionally provided solution.
*I* never said jack squat about “anarchy” being constitutional...because secession is *not* anarchy.
Damn, Ditto.
Try to keep up.
I don’t have time to keep pasting your comments into my replies just so your train[wreck] of thought doesn’t derail.
They were, yes. Louisiana may have joined the Southern rebellion but that doesn't mean that they, or any other Southern state, were ever out of the Union.
“which the Union interpreted as unbreakable”
That is the money quote. The intolerant chose intolerance and those not agreeing to the intolerance were crucified. A real great consensual governing document that Constitution. One could always argue that the Constitution is no longer a governing document since 1861. I know Obama and his friends think this way. Hey, they like Lincoln, might be right. All they need is an army of immigrants and more guns than the freemen.
To recognize the truth does not create a sarcastic moment.
To call slavery a ‘compassionate institution’ does.
You are being willfully ignorant and obstanate. My replies stand. The logic is complete. History tells the tale. Pose and preen at your leisure.
I got the riots in 72’ cued for reading. 1972?
Fascinating.
Thanks.
It deals with activities that Congress is empowered to legislate upon, which the States will forebear from doing.
Still Congress. No mention of the President.
Parts of Article I, Section 9 deal with people other than those in Congress.
As objects of legislation by Congress. Still all Congress and its powers and things Congress will desist from.
So your claim that just because it's in Article I then it has to refer to Congress and Congress alone is not supported.
Not so. There is no other authority than the Congress discussed in Article I Section 9. You have another nominee? Trot him out -- show me where Article I refers to his power. You can't.
But you still can't make your point conclusively however.
However, I just did.
I was waiting to go to kindergarten so I wouldn’t have seen it unless it was on Romper Room.
I got the riots in 72’ cued for reading. 1972?
Fascinating.
1972 was Boston. Detroit was around 1970. Funny how these pieces of history never make the rounds on network TV.
So we should accept wrong, because it's always been done that way.... Got it.
The logic that the end of slavery in the US came because the Confederacy got its ass kicked is also cold and hard. Deal with it.
There was no rebellion. Louisiana seceded, Louisiana didn't "rebel" because a) Louisiana was, and is, sovereign, and b) Louisiana made their own decisions to join, and to leave, the Union. People don't "rebel" against the People. Ergo, there was no rebellion.
Louisiana's decision was taken a pay grade above the Union and the Constitution -- it was taken at the People level. Only God gets over that.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes
Lincoln as Hitler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1KBMnj4BJY&feature=related
So we should accept wrong, because it’s always been done that way.... Got it.
The logic that the end of slavery in the US came because the Confederacy got its ass kicked is also cold and hard. Deal with it.
You determine right or wrong. As I pointed out the institution of slavery has been with us from time immorial. I am not the originator or defender of the institution, but do recognize it as a compassionate alternative to slaughtering the entire village. (I know many here find that heresy, but it is a true fact) There were many cultures that were organized around slavery. Some like the Aztecs, needed human sacrifice, and lots of it. Romans/Greeks/Arabs/Cartheginians (et al) needed cheap labor. Vikings, Celts, like their African tribal equals would war for the sole purpose of capturing slaves for commerce. This is all true, my point is simply that at some point in time some conquering band decided to take captives instead of slaughtering the entire village (men, women and children), and this was compassion.
Dont recall dictators having a free election in 1964.
You don't want to go there.
You'll only encourage them.
Well, there is a valid uncertainty regarding the difference between insurrection and secession. The Constitution authorizes Congress to suppress the former by force, but does not address the latter at all. The punch thrown at Ft. Sumter kinda skewed the question to the former interpretation, ending any hope of talking a way to an amicable separation; military bases elicit a universal recognition as being the property of the occupying military, so if the Confederacy had just left it alone as though a local military base of a friendly country (just as the USA does today in many locations) ensuing hostilities would not have been justified.
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.