Nice come back Potsy.
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
“Actually, one of my sources states that Arkansas did not secede by constitutional or secession convention, but by an act of the legislature, which would be legally defective.”
Hey, lentulusgracchus! I always enjoy your informative posts. Will you please share your Arkanasas source w/me? Quick link below is a decent (but not all inclusive) summary of everything I have. Mine was one of the states literally torn apart, from within, over secession. Of course the slave holders wanted to secede from the state itself @ the 3/4/61 convention. I wouldn’t put an illegal legislative move past them. And my fellow statesmen still keep electing Dumocrats!!!!!!
The Constitution only gives the circumstances under which habeas corpus may be suspended. It does not identify who specifically has the power to do so.
If it does not state it, then he does not have that power.
How do you figure?
If you interpret it otherwise, then you might as well be a big-government, nanny-statist, democrat.
Because you say so? Well thanks for clearing that up for us.
By the way, Article 1 of the Constitution lists the powers and duties of the Legislature, Article 2 lists the powers and duties of the Executive and Article 3 lists the powers and duties of ther Judciary.
Article I also lists powers prohibited to the states, so your claim that it deals with the legislature alone is clearly false.
If you are so desperate in your attempt to find a foot-hold for your argument that you are searching Article 1 for powers of the executive, then, as before, you may as well be a big-government, nanny-statist, democrat.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
One irony is that in the Union slave states of Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky Lincoln occupied them with Federal troops to prevent them from seceding but did not interfere with slavery in those states during his lifetime. Occupied? More bullshit.
"more bullshit", eh?
Can you back up your assertion with facts?
The fact is, federal troops were used to prevent the Kentucky legislature from meeting to vote on secession. The fact is, the Maryland legislature was prevented from meeting to vote on secession; as was the legislature in Delaware. The fact is, the later Emancipation Proclamation did not free one slave in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky or Washington, DC.
If you're going to use such scintillatingly intellegent argument method as shouting "Bullshit" when someone says something you do not want to hear, you should at least be prepared to follow it up with some facts of your own.
Yes her copy/paste skills are truly impressive ;)
Thank you. By that ONE question, you have made it clear that you are most likely one of "those people" who interpret the Constitution as a "living document", intended to be broadly interpreted so as to allow the government to expand its powers over the People.
Do you also think it "grants" us rights?
Article I also lists powers prohibited to the states, so your claim that it deals with the legislature alone is clearly false.
Please do not put words in my mouth. It is intellectually dishonest and in very poor taste. I did not say Article 1 deals with the Legislature ALONE. However, I DID state that Article 1 lists the powers and duties of the legislature, while Article 2 lists the powers and duties of the executive. Thus, if the executive IS granted a power, it is listed in Article 2, NOT in Article 1, and there is no mention of habeus corpus in Article 2. The Constitution is a VERY well organized document.
The bottom line, though, is this: The type of people who root around in the Constitution trying to locate or justify powers which are not specifically listed for ANY branch of our government are the type of people who REALLY show hatred for the document.
James Madison was quite clear that its intent was for the People to grant the federal government very specific and very LIMITED powers. He wrote most of it, so I will trust his judgment on it over yours.
rockrr is our noisy neighborhood yapper dog.
Yap! yapyapyapyapyap!!!!
Nice come back Potsy.
Have you always had a love affair power and figures of authority?
Why don't you show your daughter this corrected version.....
Crockrr bump
Four slave states — Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky — did not secede from the Union. On April 29th, Maryland held a secession convention and delegates voted secession down 53 to 13. On May 20th, Governor Beriah Magoffin of Kentucky had declared that state’s neutrality. Missouri held a secession convention in February at Jefferson City, but did not vote for secession. Delaware had all but abolished slavery by 1861. Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri became buffer zones between the North and the South. All three of these states provided troops to the Confederacy.
“And the parts where all you Lost Causers express your hatred of the U.S. and your phobia for homosexuality. She wondered why you were allowed to be so anti-American and I reminded her that this is a free country where even idiots have the right to speak their mind.”
You are reminded that this is a free country? Shoosh, too bad your mass murdering lawyer from Illinois never entertained the limits of executive power or the concept of consensual government with respect to freedom. Too bad he never gave any thought to a reasoned cooling off, but rather, in a panic of irrelevance and incompetence, chose to escalate a legal difference of opinion into an generational holocaust. Great man. A real transformative person.
You speak of the horror of slavery, the denial of another humans right to choose, but defend those who could not accept the opinions of others and so chose to murder them. Do you see any irony in this position? When your hero’s armies were revealed as incompetent, he hired a drunk who unleashed his forces on civilians to rape, loot, and burn all in their way. This, again was done for righteous, pious, assholiness reasons. Killing civilians is what the Fed became under your dear leader. You justify it based on your “anti-slavery” morality and Constitutional inventions. The reality of Lincoln’s anti-slavery position was the dawning emptiness of his rhetoric of murdering citizens to preserve a union that did not exist. Even yankees were beginning to see this as a problem. He broke the Union, not the south. When his frail “legalistic” reasons for killing, imprisoning and looting those that disagreed with him became apparent, he desparately grasped the abolitionist movement for his new cause of murder. He became what he said he detested, a slave owner. He enslaved the south at the point of the sword. I do recall you being against such an act. He destroyed an entire economy, denied citizens due process, property rights, and the right to vote. Great union. He and sucessors installed puppet governments under “reconstruction” that would make Stalin plush. And for all of this, you think we the ancestors of a vanquished and enslaved people need to be moralized by the likes of you concerning right and wrong. Get real.
As I’ve said before, the South is the cultural center of America. This is why those of a pious “transformative” nature instinctually attack it. Because we define the true touchstone or archetype of America we are always a continual threat to those who wish to inflict foreign ideas onto the body politic. We stand today stronger than your ancestors. We have be tested like no other peoples in America and we will win our freedom and defend it. Take that back to your new Illinois transformer.
I like your tome, I can’t find much info on actual civilian deaths caused by Federal troops in GA. campaign. I think most of the atrocities were against property.
Apparently better than you.
The fact is, federal troops were used to prevent the Kentucky legislature from meeting to vote on secession.
The fact is that the Kentucky legislature refused to vote for secession. A majority of the legislators opposed secession and when Beriah Magoffin called for a special session of the legislature to vote for secession, the legislature voted the proposal down. A minority of legislators and other secession supporters met in Russelville and voted to secede, but they had no authority to take the state out of the Union. There was never a statewide referendum on the question.
Far from being prevented from seceding by Union troops, Kentucky neutrality was respected by Lincoln and not Union troops crossed the state's border until after Leonidas Polk violated Kentucky neutrality on September 3, 1861.
The fact is, the Maryland legislature was prevented from meeting to vote on secession...
The fact is that the Maryland legislature met on April 26 and 27 in Frederick and decided that they had no Constitutional authority to take the state out of the Union. On May 10, the legislature issued a more detailed statement saying that the war was unconstitutional and unjust, that Maryland would work for peace, and that while the state would not support the war they would not join the rebellion either.
...as was the legislature in Delaware
The Delaware legislature voted on the question of secession on January 3, 1861 and rejected it overwhelmingly.
The fact is, the later Emancipation Proclamation did not free one slave in Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky or Washington, DC.
For Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky it was because none of those states were part of the rebellion. For D.C. it was because Congress voted to end slavery on April 16, 1862.
If you're going to use such scintillatingly intellegent argument method as shouting "Bullshit" when someone says something you do not want to hear, you should at least be prepared to follow it up with some facts of your own.
How did I do?
I also point out to her that under the Constitution all states are equal, that no states have any more rights than any other state, and that the Constitution protects all states equally. Regardless of what the Lost Causers believe.
Why don't you show your daughter this corrected version.....
I will. She loves good comedy as much as I do.
I like your tome, I can’t find much info on actual civilian deaths caused by Federal troops in GA. campaign. I think most of the atrocities were against property.
Looking for stats after the bummers burned, looted and starved a population seems a bit unrealistic. If a child died of malnutrition because a Sherman or Sheridan burned all the crops they couldn’t steal do you really think the childs death was natural or caused by the Union? Who, but the family, would have recorded this fact? The absolute lack of any moral restraint with respect to civilians clearly demonstrates the depraved nature of the “unionist”. It wasn’t until Stalin starvation of Ukraine that we witnessed an equal abuse of power. Lincoln was an ideologue driven by incompetence. He was a rube who could not contain his righteousness. John Brown did indeed foreshadow his coming in great detail.
-----------------------------------------------
And draft Horses....
Nothing worse than lunatics like - Non-sense - dressed in Blue, let loose on the family farm. No telling what "atrocities" them poor animals suffered!
Rabid Lost Cause hyperbole. Gotta love it.
Too bad he never gave any thought to a reasoned cooling off, but rather, in a panic of irrelevance and incompetence, chose to escalate a legal difference of opinion into an generational holocaust.
And what about Davis? You don't think he should have thought twice before he began an armed conflict that would devestate the South, hill hundreds of thousands of men, and lead to the end of the confederacy? Maybe thought three times before doing all that?
You speak of the horror of slavery, the denial of another humans right to choose, but defend those who could not accept the opinions of others and so chose to murder them.
Oh give me a break. When those others choose war to further their aims then you have no choice but to surrender or fight back. What you're whining about is the fact that Lincoln didn't roll over and surrender to Southern aggression. Like a spoiled rotten five-year-old, you blame all your woes on someone else and take no responsibility for your own decisions.
When your hero’s armies were revealed as incompetent, he hired a drunk who unleashed his forces on civilians to rape, loot, and burn all in their way.
And what you're blubbering about is the fact that that 'drunk' beat every general your glorious confederacy sent against him. So what does that say about them? That they got their ass kicked by a drunk?
Killing civilians is what the Fed became under your dear leader.
Absolute nonsense.
As I’ve said before, the South is the cultural center of America.
In your imaginary world I'm sure it is.
We have be tested like no other peoples in America and we will win our freedom and defend it.
So you keep telling us. Over and over and over again.
But...but...but...you said that killing civilians is what the Fed became under Lincoln! You said that just a few minutes ago in reply 516. Now you're saying that you can't find much info on civilian deaths? So which is the case? Were they mass-murderers or is there no evidence that they were?
If a child died of malnutrition because a Sherman or Sheridan burned all the crops they couldn’t steal do you really think the childs death was natural or caused by the Union?
But there would be evidence of those deaths, wouldn't there? I've read a lot of sobbing and blubbering done by Southern civilians during Sherman's campaign but I've never come across any that indicates that starvation and death was a widespread result of his actions. You have no problem claiming Lincoln murdered civilians in other posts, but don't seem to be able to back your claims up. Why is that?
It wasn’t until Stalin starvation of Ukraine that we witnessed an equal abuse of power.
Your abysmal knowledge of history is duly noted.
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.