If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?

The Patriotist ^ | 2003 | Al Benson, Jr.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The rebels had been forming an army long beforte then, and had been arming and training with the purpose of fighting the government -- those were insurgents whom President Lincoln ordered to disarm and disburse in his procalamtion. The armistice you mention is imaginary. Even if there had been, it would have been the equivalent of police agreeing not to storm a terrorist-held building while they tired to talk them into surrendering.

[Grand Old Partisan]

President Lincoln's following his oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" is indeed a politiccal reason, and every patriot who fought for the United States Government during the Civil War did so for political reasons.

[Grand Old Partisan]

In 1866, an Indiana Senator said famously: "...In short, the Democratic Party may be described as a common sewer and loathsome receptacle into which is emptied every element of treason, North and South."

My, how things have changed, NOT!

[WhiskeyPapa]

Well, like I said, you are a defender of slavery.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

I've quoted the text you use in #952 on numerous occasions.

The most reasonable and compelling information is totally rationalized away by the neo-confederates.

There is plenty of leeway in the record for President Lincoln to have done everything he did, with very few exceptions. There was both precedent for some things he did, and no precedent to prohibit him in others. As he said, nothing was done that went outside the powers of Congress. Those that love the United States won't carp over what president Lincoln did in the hour of need.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

But again, how was it an act of war?

"The attempt to reinforce Sumter will provoke an attack and involve war...

You take President Lincoln to task for initiating actions that were entirely within his purview and entirely required by his oath and duties as president.

You neo-confederates could probably be safely ignored completely. The things you profess to throw up your hands in disgust over don't amount to a hill of beans.

Walt

[Grand Old Partisan]

"Those that love the United States won't carp over..."

Exactly! The neo-Confederates kooks are consumed by their hatred for the United States of America, and lacking the guts to act on their political convictions, they re-fight battles waged by 19th century insurgents.

[WhiskeyPapa]

It's an interesting book. You should read it sometime.

When I converse with neo-confederates, I am especially fond of Mathew 7, verses 21-23.

Walt

[Gianni]

What powers did President Lincoln assume that were unconstitutional?

Suspension of the writ. You've been following along.

Raising an army seems like it also qualifies, Carrying out acts of war without a declaration or the approval of Congress surely extends beyond constitutional executive power. I don't have time to look into it and provide a detailed response right now. We can table that one for the next thread if it's ok with you.

[Gianni]

The rebels had been forming an army long beforte then, and had been arming and training with the purpose of fighting the government

Not exactly, Partisan. They were raising an army for the purpose of repelling an invasion which they saw was forthcoming from Lincoln. Defense of one's home is no crime.

those were insurgents whom President Lincoln ordered to disarm and disburse in his procalamtion

So what you're saying is that Lincoln was the Baghdad Bob of his day? Even I give the man more credit than this.

The armistice you mention is imaginary.

Really? Seems that a lot of people knew about it, for it's being imaginary and all. Your saying so does make me think about looking into it, as I consider you the foremost authority on imaginary powers of government.

Even if there had been, it would have been the equivalent of police agreeing not to storm a terrorist-held building while they tired to talk them into surrendering.

Another appeal to the weak of mind? Can I expect this to end sometime soon? The Southerners who'd seceeded prior to Sumter were no terrorists, which you already know. What acts, sanctioned by the acting CSA government, qualify as terrorism?

[Gianni]

President Lincoln's following his oath "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" is indeed a politiccal reason

Of course, this is not what was said. It was specifically stated that the war was prosecuted to further the Republican ideals.

If you don't like it, take it up with this Grand Old Partisan fellow who keeps coming around here and proclaiming the state almighty.

[Gianni]

In 1866, an Indiana Senator said famously: "...In short, the Democratic Party may be described as a common sewer and loathsome receptacle into which is emptied every element of treason, North and South."

My, how things have changed, NOT!

In 1999, Donna Brazille called the Republican party the "Party of the white boys," and someone else said Dick Cheney was representative of "the Taliban wing of the Republican party."

Using partisan crybabies as sources doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and is once again an appeal to the weak-minded cheerleaders, not the thinkers.

[Gianni]

The neo-Confederates kooks are consumed by their hatred for the United States of America

Who are these neo-Confederates that you keep talking about?

[Gianni]

Think about it. Lincoln was authorized, by the Founding Fathers' Militia Act of 1792, to kill rebels, but not, according to you, to arrest them.

It is your contention, then, that Lincoln was authorized under the Militia act to kill newspaper editors and congressmen?

[Non-Sequitur]

Suspension of the writ. You've been following along.

I have, and as had been pointed out time and again the question of whether or not the president has the power to suspend the writ has never been definitively answered by the Supreme Court.

Raising an army seems like it also qualifies, Carrying out acts of war without a declaration or the approval of Congress surely extends beyond constitutional executive power.

The Constitution does not say that the president needs congressional approval to increase or decrease the size of the army. Congressional approval is needed to pass legislation to pay for such an increase, and that is what happened. The Militia Act gave the president the authority to call up the militia when congress was not in session. President Lincoln abided by every provision of that law.

President Lincoln carried out no act of war, in fact war was never declared by the Lincoln adminsitration. Nor should it have since war is conducted between sovereign nations. One does not declare war on rebellious parts of your own country.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The President did not kill any newspaper editors or congressmen.

If one day there is an Islamic insurgency in this country, I'm sure that one day you'll be defending the right of newspaper editors to openly support the insurgents, call for the overthrow of the government, and the replacement of the Constitution by Sharia law.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Anyone who criticizes the preservation of the United States of American hates the United States of America.

[Grand Old Partisan]

"Using partisan crybabies...."

you haved unmasked yourself as a Democrat provocatuer on Free Republic, as iu suspect GOPcapitalist and other kooks are too. Back to DU with you -- Hope your paycheck doesn't bounce.

[Grand Old Partisan]

The President using force against the rebels is no different than the police using force against bank robbers or any other class of criminals, regardless of the cause for which they are breaking the law.

[Grand Old Partisan]

"Using partisan crybabies...."

You haved unmasked yourself as a Democrat provocateur on Free Republic, as I suspect GOPcapitalist and other kooks are too. Back to DU with you -- Hope your paycheck doesn't bounce.