Lincoln And The Death Of The Constitution

Wolves of Liberty ^ | 9/7/2010 | gjmerits

[gjmerits]

The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination - that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

[Monorprise]

fortheDeclaration is a sick Statist parasitic tyrant. I am disgusted by the thought that I share even a forum with him.

Any man who would force his rule upon any population of free folk deserves nothing but the contempt and hate by all free men.

Secession is an inalienable right of the people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC-QfZd6T9Y

Any tyrant that would defies and apposes such a right deserves slavery himself.

[r9etb]

When the ninth state ratified the Constitution what instantly became the status of the 4 states of the former "perpetual" union under the articles of confederation who had not yet chosen to ratify the same?

Not a dilemma at all. It would be a Union consisting of 9 states: "shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

The status of the other 4, would be that they were not members of the Union until they ratified.

Which they did, and thereby became states. There's no "dilemma" about it.

[Monorprise]

“I wonder what the record is for going the longest without a “Lincoln was a Tyrant” thread.”

It is a basic truth that weigh heavy upon the hearts of those that know of it. Anytime folk speak of Lincoln highly it insults the memory of the millions he enslaved and the hundreds of thousands he murdered in his brutal war of conquest.

So when folk like you or Glenn Beck mention the name of this tyrant in reference it is of the same effect(except more personal as it was OUR country, and OUR people!) as if you were the saying the same thing about Adolf Hitler.

Perhaps if you avoided mentioning Lincoln as someone to look up to we could go for longer.

One way or the other you can’t ignore the discussing truth about Lincoln.

As we fight for liberty again there are few men more destructive to that cause then Abraham Lincoln. To point to him as an example, of liberators is like pointing to chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hitler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3uPX5I6hUc&feature=player_embedded

[dangus]

>>When the ninth state ratified the Constitution what instantly became the status of the 4 states of the former "perpetual" union under the articles of confederation who had not yet chosen to ratify the same? << Oh, thanks! You just provided the clue by which I learned of a new proof of the absence of the right of secession:

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual;

The Articles of Confederation were never rescinded! Had a state not ever ratified the Constitution, I guess they would still be bound by the much more limited laws of the Articles of Confederation. Indeed, the Articles remained in force until not only was the Constitution ratified by the 9th state, but until it was ratified by the 13th state! A biennial Congress under the Articles of Confederation remained in session until 1790, by which time not just eight, but 11 states had ratified the Constitution, and by which time the new Constitutional Congress had already met! By the next scheduled A of C Congress, all 13 states had ratified the Constitution, so the Constitution's Congress could serve as A of C Congress! (I didn't even realize this!)

So, even under the theory that nothing in the Constitution separately prevented secession, the Constitution was passed under the laws of the Articles of Confederation, including the prohibition against dissolving the Articles of Confederation or seceding from them.

But wait, didn't Adams and Madison argue against the perpetuity of the Articles of Confederation? Yeah, they lost.

[r9etb]

Anytime folk speak of Lincoln highly it insults the memory of the millions he enslaved and the hundreds of thousands he murdered in his brutal war of conquest.

An interesting bit of rhetorical bafflegab.

As it happens, the South actually did -- quite literally -- "enslave millions." No vaporous rhetoric required.

And it was the South's ardent desire to keep those millions enslaved, that led them to secession.

After that, war was going to happen no matter what. The nice gentlemen of South Carolina were kind enough to fire the first shot.

You can't blame Lincoln for any of that.

[rustbucket]

You are too kind. Now if I could only convince my wife of that.

[Idabilly]

OK, dangus Mussolini.

I understand. The people, and their States have no rights. We live in a great big nanny State, The Soviet State of America... with no way out.

That's just peachy! Being stuck in Union with a pack of neo-con libtards - just makes my year. At the very least - can y'all stay in your "blue" states that you've already ruined?

[dangus]

Wow. You’re utterly destroyed at every turn in the argument, so you start throwing around names, like “Mussolini”. What’s funny here is that YOU’RE the one arguing for the states that would have people have the right the rip the skin off their subject’s flesh, send paramilitary into other states when they run away, and suppress statehood of any territory that didn’t agree with them. And when they didn’t get what they wanted from the electoral process, they launched a terrorist raid against a government fort. Yeah, I guess I’m the one who ought to be called “Mussolini” and a Soviet, aren’t I?

P.S. I’m in a red state. Where are you from, the Land of Lyndon Johnson? Bill Clinton? Al Gore?

[Non-Sequitur]

Napolean complex....

Looks like you had a few of your own.

And as bad as Pope was there are a couple of rebs in there who were much, mush worse.

[don-o]

gjmerits
Since Aug 10, 2010

Irrelevant. Now, let me read this thread, because there is NO doubt that the defeat of the Confederate States was the first step down the greasy slide to the total collectivization that is all over us.

[Non-Sequitur]

...I but you have yet to show me the Article, phrase, or word, in the Constitution which would prohibit a sovereign state from leaving.

Can a state be expelled from the Union against its will? In other words, can we get together and boot those liberal a-holes in Massachusetts and their whole miserable Kennedy clan right out of the U.S. and never have to worry about them ever again. Wouldn't that be permitted?

[IrishCatholic]

Are you crying? There’s no crying on Free Republic!

The Civil War was about slavery and the two speeches justifying the secession by the heads of the slavers just shows your position untenable. The reference to the South copying the federal system lays waste to the fantasy the South was against a centralized fedeal system.

Now, there actually is no such thing as a “Yankee” unless you are talking about a regional reference to the North East. What you have are “Americans” and those who hate America. I’ll simply put you down in the latter catagory. So pretend and revise all you want. You and the Marxists and the Code Pink folks can all make it up as you go along.

[Non-Sequitur]

When the ninth state ratified the Constitution what instantly became the status of the 4 states of the former "perpetual" union under the articles of confederation who had not yet chosen to ratify the same?

They were states in the United States. The United States predated the Constitution. Changing from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution did eliminate the United States. It merely replaced one form of government with another.

What did you think happened to them?

[kalee]

ping

[Non-Sequitur]

I am disgusted by the thought that I share even a forum with him.

So what's forcing you to?

[dangus]

I almost answered similarly, but I checked my facts first. It turns out that the Articles of Confederation remained in effect until the last state ratified the Constitution, at which point they were not rescinded, but merely moot. Since the Constitution was created under the color of law of the Articles, and since the Articles themselves prohibited their dissolution, and since the Constitution is not inconsistent with the Articles (unless you subscribe to the nonsense that the Constitution is dissoluble whereas the Articles were expressly not), one could argue that the Articles are still in effect today, as amended.

[Lee'sGhost]

“More like ESP or mind reading...”

Nope. It was very simple to understand. Sorry you had so much trouble.

“It must me nice to think to yourself that you were trying to make this point.”

Well, given that just about everyone on the planet except you who read it understood it, I wouldn’t say nice....just taken for granted.

“Therein lies a moral superiority of the NORTH in general, regarding slavery.”

LOL! Northern states owned slaves and condoned slavery UNTIL after the war was over and THEN did the politically expedient thing and freed them....and that gives them the moral high ground?

LMAO! Seriously. Enough of the this nonsense. You are way over your head here. Thanks for playing.

[Non-Sequitur]

Anytime folk speak of Lincoln highly it insults the memory of the millions he enslaved and the hundreds of thousands he murdered in his brutal war of conquest.

And anytime folks like you show up spouting your Southron bullshit and Lost Cause fairy tales, people like us will be here to oppose you.

[Monorprise]

“
That is why Texas wanted to be admitted to the Union in the first place. “

Texas wanted to be admitted to the union because:
1: At the time the union was still voluntary and mutually beneficial. (A fact that was specifically made clear to Texas)

2: Also at the time Texas was facing ongoing conflict with Mexico.

[dangus]

>> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. State officers were bound by oath to support it. Your boys broke their oath. Rebellion. Insurrection. Eventual and utter defeat. <<

No, r9etb, they were only obliged to support until such time as they declared they didn’t through some mysterious and unenumerated means, doncha know? After that they could go lynch all the black folk they wanted to, in furtherance of rights of man!

Because that’s what this discussion is really all about: whether Idabilly should have retained the right to go buy and flog and lynch some black folk... in the name of Democracy, of course.

(I’m not saying he would. That would be mind reading. I’m only saying he feels he should have that right, except for the horrible tyranny of that big, bad Abraham Lincoln.)