Click the Flames
Your Conservative Source of News and Information
Stop the FReepathon
Donate
Posted on 07/04/2011 6:57:54 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
In his Gettysburg Address, …… Abraham Lincoln found the precise words to describe America’s dire situation. Here they are. Hear them, and savor them. “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.
We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
“But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”…..
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Rebellion - "open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler."
Again, individual - not State.
Treason - "the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state."
Again, individual - not State.
I've already told ya, Lincoln dreamt up the whole rebellion/insurrection/treason/etc., within SC, NC, VA, etc. b/c States don't engage in such. Why do you think he was trying to get Governor Houston to declare a state of insurrection within the state of Texas?! Duh! The States (The People) are the sovereign. We don't have a ruler or king, remember?!
You were right that the war did not start with Fort Sumter.
I know. The USSC affixed the start of the war as April 19th, 1961 - Lincoln's blockade.
U.S. Supreme Court Case: The Protector, 79 U.S. 12 Wall. 700 700 (1870)
Commentary:
Its commencement in certain states will be referred to the first proclamation of blockade embracing them and made on the 19th April, 1861, and as to other states to the second proclamation of blockade embracing them, and made on the 27th April, 1861. (End commentary)
It started coming to a head during the 1850’s and peaked during Buchanan’s term. He claimed southern states didn’t have a right to seceed, but he sat on his hands:
Uh, you skipped the part where Buchanan acknowledged no Constitutional authority to use force/coercion against any State. See my post #139 to you; both Madison and Hamilton addressed the Unconstitutionality of it.
The last four states had first all voted against secessionists. Their pro-slavery governors strong-arming tactics pushing out pro-unionists in favor of anti-unionists was the only way they joined the pro-slave states.
VA, AR, NC and TN all followed legal secession processes. The People (9th Amendment) of each of those States (10the Amendment) voted for secession (even though the initial vote had been against secession), either through referendum or through their duly elected secession convention delegates, AFTER Lincoln determined to Unconstitutionally invade other sovereign States. The People (9th Amendment) speak as one voice through their State (10th Amendment). Sovereignty lies with The People, not with the Executive. We're a republic and don't have a ruler or a king, remember?
Regarding Texas: The People (9th Amendment) of Texas (10th Amendment) held a referendum on February 23, 1861 to secede, but did not join the Confederacy on the same date. After Texas joined the Confederacy Ol' Sam refused to take the oath of loyalty to Texas' (10th Amendment) new government, which was chosen by The People (9th Amendment), and at that point the convention delegates declared his seat vacant. Nothing illegal about that. Ol' Sam did end up supporting the Confederacy.
“Lincoln’s War”???
Yep. According to his secretary, in writing, and according to the USSC (see above).
Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by law:
In the States of SC, GA, etc. would be WITHIN. Duh! I've been tellin' ya this very thing. Not one of those governors declared insurrection/rebellion in their State.
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed.
See my post # 139 to you with quotes from Madison and Hamilton on the Unconstitutionality of use of force/coercion against a State. See the Constitution for Unconstitutionality of the Executive declaring war. Again, either way, his acts were Unconstitutional.
Agreed....may they wave their battle rag proudly (so I can spot the idiots in the crowd).
Ah, but you forget that the Constitution only applies to states in the union. When the States withdraw their delegated powers they were no longer under the US constitution, they were absolved from all allegiance to the Union, and that all political connection between them and the Federal government, was totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they had full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
Lincoln was totally justified in putting down the rebellion.
Putting down a rebellion (like the Whiskey rebellion) is very different than engaging in a war of subjugation against sovereign States whose people have declared themselves independent. Lincoln was much less justified in what he did than King George was when he went to war with the colonies. King George OWNED the colonies. They were legally his. Lincoln and the federal government did not own the States.
Militia Act of 1795, which , in section 2, specified that, “whenever the laws of the Union shall be opposed in any state by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by ordinary means, it shall be lawful for the President to call forth the militia, and the use of the militia may be continued until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.”
Lincoln DREAMED it???? Yea, those cannonballs firing into a federal fort, the siezure of federal property, etc was all just a dream??? It seems you expected Lincoln to sit on his hands like Buchanan did and turned a blind eye. Lincoln ordered troops to defend the union long after southern states had already mustered much larger forces. On July 4th, 1861 was the day for the special session of Congress to convene and approval for additional troops was given.
You admit that the last 4 states refused to join the confederacy, yet try to say it was due to Lincoln. You know well that it was the pro-secessionists wihin each state which pushed out those against secession. Just like the governor of Missouri attempted an end-run around the repeated votes against the secessionists. Where in the US Constitution does it provide methods for states to withdraw from the Union??? That's right...NOWHERE!
Then I'm sure you won't have any trouble finding some evidence from the Constitutional Convention to support that claim. Because I can't find anything in my Constitution granting New England a monopoly on shipping. Your presentation of Clarke's diary merely repeats the same unsupported mythology that you and Deo swallow so readily.
The fact is that South Carolina's delegate, Charles Pinckney, expressly said that unless slave imports were allowed, South Carolina would not ratify tbe Constitution, and when the committee presented a draft of clause that would have ended the trade in 1800, it was Pinckney who moved that the term be extended to 1808 . Because the other states felt that it was more important to have South Carolina (and Georgia) in the union than to immediately end the slave trade, they caved. As Madison told the Virginia ratification convention, "The Southern States would not have entered into the Union of America without the temporary permission of that trade; and if they were excluded from the Union, the consequences might be dreadful to them and to us."
Lincoln's actions were a RESPONSE to SECESSION. A blockade is an act of war. The USSC ruled that Lincoln's blockade marked the beginning of hostilities. Since a blockade is an act of war, Lincoln's declaration of a blockade recognized the Confederacy and took the US to war against another country sans Congressional approval. Unconstitutional. The Militia Act of 1795 does not apply here.
The Southern governors didn't declare rebellion or insurrection in their States b/c it didn't exist. Again, why do you think Lincoln was trying to get Sam Houston to declare a state of insurrection within the state of Texas? The People (9th Amendment)speaking as one voice through their State(10th Amendment)are the sovereigns - we don't have a ruler or a king.
Lincoln DREAMED it???? Yea, those cannonballs firing into a federal fort, the siezure of federal property, etc was all just a dream??? It seems you expected Lincoln to sit on his hands like Buchanan did and turned a blind eye. Lincoln ordered troops to defend the union long after southern states had already mustered much larger forces. On July 4th, 1861 was the day for the special session of Congress to convene and approval for additional troops was given.
Yep, he dreamt up whatever he chose. He manipulated language and the Constitution, in whatever manner he saw fit, in order to achieve his goals; subjugate a sovereign People so he could implement Hamilton, Clay and Lincoln's dream of big government. Buchanan didn't just sit on his hands, he acknowledged NO Constitutional authority to invade those States. You might want to check on exactly when Northern states began mustering large forces. What were they mustering them for?
You admit that the last 4 states refused to join the confederacy, yet try to say it was due to Lincoln. You know well that it was the pro-secessionists wihin each state which pushed out those against secession. Just like the governor of Missouri attempted an end-run around the repeated votes against the secessionists. Where in the US Constitution does it provide methods for states to withdraw from the Union??? That's right...NOWHERE!
VA, AR, NC & TN did indeed secede due to Lincoln's decision to use force/coercion against other states (again, see post #139 for Madison & Hamilton on this very thing). Pro-secession governors or not, each State seceded through legal means. The People (9th Amendment) of each of those States (10th Amendment) voted for secession through referendum or their duly elected secession convention delegates due to Lincoln's actions.
Where is the clause in the US Constitution which prohibits secession? That's right...NOWHERE!
I actually interpret Clarke's quote, which you're referencing, to mean that the Southern states wouldn't attempt to compete with the Northern states in the coasting and carrying trade and against all foreign tonnage. Could be wrong. Presentation of Clarke's diary is simply posting what I've found. I gave no indication of how I interpret any of it; that's something you've assigned. If you wish to verify your interpretation of Clarke's quote, I'd suggest starting with Elliot's Debates.
“He manipulated language and the Constitution, in whatever manner he saw fit, in order to achieve his goals..”
Sounds more like the secessionist DUmocrats and their retreads on this thread than Lincoln.
“...subjugate a sovereign People...”
No where where did he sieze property and force people into labor camps. Your LIEberal version of history doesn’t convince anyone. Sell stupid someplace else.
Uh huh. This is the same Charles Pinckney who said that if there was a slave trade ban in the Constitution, South Carolina wouldn't ratify it, and the same Charles Pinckney who moved to extend the ban on Congressional authority to end the trade from 1800 to 1808. His protestations of opposition to the slave trade don't seem particularly convincing.
In 1774, the citizens of South Carolina and North Carolina passed laws forbidding any importation of slaves.
And South Carolina later repealed that law. In just five years, from 1804 to 1808, South Carolina imported about 55,000 slaves--a number that represents about 15 percent of ALL slave imports to North America over the entire 250 year course of the slave trade.
In contrast, the US constitution passed laws forbidding the US congress from banning the slave trade. This was a direct result of the influence of New England Slavers who stood the most to gain from it.
Again your assertion stands in direct contradiction to the actual records of the convention, where Pinckney says that any ban on the trade will result in South Carolina refusing to ratify, and Madison's statement to the Virginia convention that reason for allowing the slave trade to run for 20 years was to keep South Carolina and Georgia in the union. I guess he was lying, too.
Already been there, and there's nothing that supports your interpretation. Maybe you can find it. Here's a link. But the page number indications in your sources don't match the edition, so you have to dig a little deeper. Go by the dates.
And when the North abolished slavery it was not out of human brotherhood but because the whites refused to compete with the blacks. Adams commented that if slavery persisted the northerners would kill both slave and master. It is also noteworthy that, when Rhode Island passed a law providing for the gradual emancipation of slaves, the law was very carefully written to preclude any interference with the ongoing slave trade that was enriching the state.
The industrial and commercial strength of the North is based upon the profits made by kidnapping, enslaving, and selling human beings--both Native American and Africans. What kind of logic is it that says it is wrong to buy slaves but not a big deal to kidnap and sell them?
DU retread? The Coven CO, NS, must be back. Glad you've identified yet another of your screen names. Who knew?!
Your LIEberal version of history doesn’t convince anyone. Sell stupid someplace else.
History as it was gets to ya, I see. No valid argument so you turn to ridicule. What else ya got?
Well, let's see....if we take your numbers and plug them in with the percent of slaves that ended up in America (6%) and the slaves that ended up elsewhere (94%), we get approximately this:
About 6,110,000 slaves sold total, of which...
About 366,000-367,000 ended up in America.
Vs.
About 5,740,000 that the Yankee slave traders sold elsewhere.
That gives us about 5.4 million slaves that the Yankee traders profited from that were not sold in the South. Looks like the Yankee slave traders were getting the better end of the deal by far.
From my post #168:
If you wish to verify your interpretation of Clarke's quote, I'd suggest starting with Elliot's Debates.
What's unclear? The word, "starting" throw you? The words, "If you wish to verify your interpretation" throw you?
And you are unable to present any actual, contemporary evidence that supports your position that it was the northern states driving the extension of the slave trade.
They were the ones getting all the money from it because the North monopolized the slave trading business
Oh, give me a break. American slave traders did not monopolize the slave trade, to the US or elsewhere. British slave ships were unloading at Charleston as late as 1807. The New Englanders were minor players in the trade and other maritime activities, such as whaling, were far more important to the region economically.
The industrial and commercial strength of the North is based upon the profits made by kidnapping, enslaving, and selling human beings--both Native American and Africans. What kind of logic is it that says it is wrong to buy slaves but not a big deal to kidnap and sell them?
Then you must also believe that the entire economic and political strength of the south was based on profits made off the labor of kidnapped, enslaved and purchased Native Americans and Africans, right?
Been here long enough, newb...I’ve never needed another screen name. I was just pointing out that your arguments are word for word out of the DUmocrat revisionist texts. Those who are on the side of secessionist DUmocrats deserve nothing but ridicule.
Same thing NS thought.
I was just pointing out that your arguments are word for word out of the DUmocrat revisionist texts. Those who are on the side of secessionist DUmocrats deserve nothing but ridicule.
Well, since the DUmocrat revisionist school texts are all in favor of your position...
And since the DUmocrat's all say the same thing you do regarding Lincoln and the war...
Not to mention the DUmocrat's claiming Zero is the new Lincoln...
If the shoe fits...
Just sayin'...
I provided evidence. The burden of proof is on you to disprove the evidence presented. Thus far, you haven't. Your dismissal of the evidence presented does not disprove it.
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.