M/center>Posted on 10/31/2012 9:08:23 PM PDT by EveningStar
The Abraham Lincoln of popular perception is a mythological figure. He has little to do with the actual 16th president.
(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...
You have a problem with cause and effect.
The insurrection attempted by the slave power was put down. The insurrection was attempted by the slave power, to further and extend the institution of slavery. The emancipation proclamation was developed to hinder the war making power of the insurrectionists.
The 14th Amendment was developed to correct the error of the Taney court in the Dred Scott case. It, with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments corrected the error of the Dred Scott court.
It is amusing to watch people attempt to defend the Taney court. Life slavery was first instituted by colonial courts at the request of a slave owner of African heritage. North Carolina in particular permitted persons of African heritage to vote until 1835. Taney’s false legal doctrines were finally corrects.
I recommend you review “The Devil’s Brigade”. Canada provided crucial aid to the US during WWII, to include the expensive Dieppe raid which taught us much about the things that needed to occur during an amphibious landing.
LOL
That movie was so cheesy and crappy.
I loved it and watched til the end.
agreed
The Canada National Compost is a combination of the words Communist and post . Here global warmers call others “deniers”. They bought out The Canada Financial Post and destroyed a serious scientific study article by Patterson who argued that solar conditions cause global warming...Bunch of creeps should not be taken seriously.
That happens on this board's Civil War threads.
Unfortunately for your argument, 'State's Rights' included the use of human beings as slaves. They're inseparable.
You're always going to lose, because you're never going to be able to justify the slaves.
The Republican Party platform of 1860 was revolutionary in denying the Supreme Court’s authority, not just disagreeing with the decision. Secession was counterrevolution.
A responsible party could have challenged the Dred Scott decision in many political ways, but the party of Lincoln chose confrontation. Just as today’s left wants it all in one bite, disaster followed when they got what they wanted.
What’s the definition of a communist: a liberal in a hurry.
“It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the State [instead of colonizing them]? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites, ten thousand recollections by the blacks of the injuries they have sustained, new provocations, the real distinctions which nature has made, and many other circumstances will divide us into parties and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.” —Thomas Jefferson:
Was he right or wrong?
The insurrection attempted by the slave power was put down. The insurrection was attempted by the slave power, to further and extend the institution of slavery. The emancipation proclamation was developed to hinder the war making power of the insurrectionists.
The 14th Amendment was developed to correct the error of the Taney court in the Dred Scott case. It, with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments corrected the error of the Dred Scott court.
It is amusing to watch people attempt to defend the Taney court. Life slavery was first instituted by colonial courts at the request of a slave owner of African heritage. North Carolina in particular permitted persons of African heritage to vote until 1835. Taney’s false legal doctrines were finally corrects.
Slick, but tedious. It's you who have inverted cause and effect. Any reference to Dred Scott was merely part of the cover story to push the 14th, and the supportive 13th and 15th. You're trying to explain an ocean by citing a need for a water faucet - it's ludicrous.
I would say your understanding of law is virtually nonexistent, except you took care to try to cover your inversion of facts by accusing me of your own strategy - typical lawyer trick. Therefore what you are doing is deliberate, and you also understand you must base your argument upon misinformation and psychological tricks. So much for ethics, eh? Let alone truth.
>>You’re always going to lose, because you’re never going to be able to justify the slaves.
Hm, have you ever thought that we are slaves? I mean consider this:
- Congress spends money
- This increased national debt
—Debt is incurred by a promise to pay out of future earnings monies borrowed now
- This national debt _is_ what the taxpayer’s payment (supposedly) is for [in part]
- You are prohibited from not participating
- You are liable for [a portion of] that debt
- Your wages are garnished before you see a dime, as tax ‘withholdings’, for taxes
- Your government asserts things like ownership over your children [see public schools]
- Your government asserts ownership over things you produce (see raw milk raids)
- Your government claims ownership of your body (see the War on Drugs, and now Obamacare)
- Your government claims it can strip you of rights (voting, arms, etc) for felonies, even after the sentence is served
- Your government has increased possible felonies to such a point that “Three Felonies a Day” id the name of a serious, non-fiction book.
- Your government makes it a liability to be a citizen and an advantage to be an illegal immigrant.
Was he right or wrong?
Depends on what he meant by "incorporate." The entirety of the Constitution Jefferson helped create was based on the protection of The People from "incorporation." That act is the creation of a slave - a wholly state-owned human being. What Jefferson was suggesting was to take slaves that were already slaves and shift their ownership to the State, away from their human masters, and thereby "free" them by creating a legal "wardship" status for them, where they would be protected by law.
But if you would have told Jefferson HE should be "incorporated" by the State, or his family, or the rest of the free country, you'd find a gun stuck up your nose so fast you wouldn't be able to sneeze first.
Unfortunately, while the 16th Amendment actualized pretty much Jeffersons idea of slavery incorporation, the 14th Amendment extended that incorporation to free people - and for the most part, they STILL haven't figured it out.
Just recently, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court TRIED to educate Americans about this issue, and was villified and ignored for his efforts. I wrote about that (in detail) here:
In the end, the war came down to one thing - slavery. Now, that wasn't why most ordinary soldiers, Northern or Southern, fought, but for the Southern political leadership and the elites, that was very much why they desired to leave. Slavery was explicitly named as a primary cause for secession.
Don't take my word for it - let's look at what the men of the time had to say.
Mississippi Declaration of Causes:Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
South Caroline Declaration of Immediate Causes:
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States...
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
Texas Declaration of the Causes:
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
These are not the words of men for whom slavery was of only tangential relation to secession, and who expected the institution to slowly die out within the next two decades.
Or, rather, no grievances that would be appealing to modern apologists attempting to shoehorn in a modern political scene into the era. Many of the things that popped up concerned the internal affairs of other states (Southern states took a dim view of Northern states allowing abolitionist papers to be published freely, or their ignoring the Federal fugitive slave laws, or not recognizing slave ownership within their own territory), and that shouldn't have been their business under the doctrine they were supposedly advocating. The declarations of secession of many Southern states explicitly name this fact (Northern state's disobeying Federal pro-slavery legislation) as a major point for leaving the Union.
How much withholding taxes did slaves pay in 1861?
The author correctly points out every one of Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts, except for imposing an income tax for the first time.
Lincoln himself said it best: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” He and his high priests have been fooling most Americans for a long time.
In the end, the war came down to one thing - slavery. Now, that wasn't why most ordinary soldiers, Northern or Southern, fought, but for the Southern political leadership and the elites, that was very much why they desired to leave. Slavery was explicitly named as a primary cause for secession.
Don't take my word for it - let's look at what the men of the time had to say.
All of your examples - all of them - were argued at the time, and ever since, as empowered and defended by Federalism. They were federalist ISSUES. And you are being especially disingenuous by saying the South "pushed" these issues on the rest of the country, when the truth is that the South was arguing that Federalism applied to the whole country - there's a BIG difference there, thank you very much.
Same for your quotes - the LEGAL CONTEXT being argued for that "right" of slavery was Federalism, i.e. States Rights.
And I'll tell you the final nail in the Northern Righteousness coffin - you know how the North could have made the Civil War CLEARLY and ONLY a slavery issue? Simple - by acknowledging Blacks as full human beings, and therefore innately part of The People of the Constitution, and endowed with all Rights by their Creator. But did the North do that? No way!
Instead they were hypocrites, wanting to "free" a people they refused to acknowledge were fully human. And as a result, we got the 16th, and then the 14th Amendments, imposing corporate slave law upon us all by presumption.
And people STILL don't understand it.
M/center>
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.