Posted on 02/25/2019 6:58:42 AM PST by Sir Napsalot
In you perhaps. Not in most people.
And for those that want to argue that President Lincoln “fought to free the slaves”...
Other than you who is arguing that?
I guess I haven't exactly gone out of my way to ingratiate myself with you.
Your comment brings to mind what retired Judge William J. Palmer (Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County) wrote: “Behind every decision of the Supreme Court, either supporting or repudiating it, still stands the Constitution of the United States, pronouncing what its makers intended it to pronounce, and doing so in the clarity of its own words for each citizen to read for himself.”
You might read the Constitution again, for the first time: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
What was the war about? Keeping Washington DC control over the money producing South, with all the profits funneling through New York, where Washington DC could easily get it's cut.
They had rigged the system so that the South was paying the vast majority of the taxes, and New York and Washington were collecting a lot of the benefit.
The South was an economic threat to the cartel that controlled Washington DC back then, and still controls Washington DC today.
“Other than you who is arguing that?”
I’ve ran into quite a few. On another thread, there was this:
“But, the first invasion was repulsed and once it became clear that suppressing the rebellion would involve a long and very costly commitment, a moral justification beyond “preserving the union” became required.”
But you and others will repeat it, because it's the only straw you have to justify the bloodshed of murdering people to maintain control of their economic output.
You hate to hear this, but money was at the root of this whole thing. Money that New York and Washington had controlled for years, and it was that loss of control that triggered the war against the South.
Slavery was legal in the USA for "four score and seven years", and it would have continued being legal for the foreseeable future if the South had remained in the Union, so stop lying about why the North invaded them.
There aren't any.
They made that lie up later. When they started the war, it was to stop the South trading directly with Europe and bypassing their rigged system to funnel money into New York and Washington DC.
lincoln was supportive of slavery?
Why did southerners try to assassinate him at the baltimore train station his first trip to DC
Why was the smithy afraid he would support more free than slave states when the territories became states.
What was all the bother for if he supported slavery. Seems like a lot of death and trouble.
why was the SOUTH afraid
The act of war was sending a fleet of warship with orders to attack.
*THAT* was the act of war, and it was initiated by Lincoln.
But instead I agree that Chase was correct. Legal secession was not rebellion.
And now you are putting words in Justice Chase's mouth that he absolutely did not say, and would have refuted. When Justice Chase spoke of "secession", he was referring specifically to the South, and what the South did.
Stop your prattle about "legal" secession. What the South did was legal secession, as Justice Chase clearly indicated, because it was to them that he was specifically referring.
Yes. This business of pretending it means what or "elites" say, when what they say clearly contradicts the plain language of the document, is one of the reasons why we fight the liberals.
They make sh*t up, and we don' go along with it because it is clearly made up nonsense.
Penumbra anyone?
In fact, even Massachusetts didn’t enact laws to outlaw slavery. They did use the courts to allow some slaves to be freed.
At the same time, many Massachusetts towns required a large bond if anyone wanted to free their slave. The towns were afraid that they would have to support those slaves and didn’t want the responsibility.
In those days you needed land to be a farmer or some skills to support yourself. The slaves had neither and relied on their servitude to keep a roof over their head.
He was when he urged the States to ratify the Corwin Amendment during his first Inaugural address. There is even some evidence that he may very well have written it himself.
"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."
The next time you visit Boston, just for fun, ask the tour guide in Quincy Market where the slaves were auctioned. They will choke and deny it but slaves were auctioned right near Faneuil Hall. An inconvenient truth.
Now that is a huge lie. There is absolutely no evidence that Lincoln wrote the Corwin Amendment.
“The Congressional session that began in December 1860, more than 200 resolutions with respect to slavery,[6] including 57 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments,[7] were introduced in Congress. Most represented compromises designed to avert military conflict. Senator Jefferson Davis, a Democrat from Mississippi, proposed one that explicitly protected property rights in slaves.[7] A group of House members proposed a national convention to accomplish secession as a “dignified, peaceful, and fair separation” that could settle questions like the equitable distribution of the federal government’s assets and rights to navigate the Mississippi River.[8]
On February 27, 1861, the House of Representatives considered the following text of a proposed constitutional amendment:[9]
No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as “all other persons”, shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.
Corwin proposed his own text as a substitute and those who opposed him failed on a vote of 68 to 121. The House then declined to give the resolution the required two-thirds vote, with a tally of 120 to 61, and then of 123 to 71.[9][10] On February 28, 1861, however, the House approved Corwin’s version by a vote of 133 to 65.[11] The contentious debate in the House was relieved by abolitionist Republican Owen Lovejoy of Illinois, who questioned the amendment’s reach: “Does that include polygamy, the other twin relic of barbarism?” Missouri Democrat John S. Phelps answered: “Does the gentleman desire to know whether he shall be prohibited from committing that crime?”[7]
On March 2, 1861, the United States Senate adopted it, with no changes, on a vote of 24 to 12.[12] Since proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, 132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. The Senators and Representatives from the seven slave states that had already declared their secession from the Union did not vote on the Corwin Amendment.[13] The resolution called for the amendment to be submitted to the state legislatures and to be adopted “when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures.”[14] Its supporters believed that the Corwin Amendment had a greater chance of success in the legislatures of the Southern states than would have been the case in state ratifying conventions, since state conventions were being conducted throughout the South at which votes to secede from the Union were successful—just as Congress was considering the Corwin Amendment.”
Sucking up to me would not have changed my opinion of you.
You might read the Constitution again, for the first time
I might suggest the same to you.
Your comment brings to mind what retired Judge William J. Palmer (Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County) wrote...
Your contempt for the judiciary only extends to the Federal courts? Is that what you're saying?
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
And your point is? It is clear from a reading of the Constitution that the makers intent was that the power to admit states was reserved to the United States, and the power to approve any change in their status once admitted was also a power reserved to the United States as well. That would include leaving. Or so Chief Justice Chase ruled in the Texas v. White decision.
Orders to resupply and defend against hostile acts on the part of the rebel forces in Charleston you mean.
And now you are putting words in Justice Chase's mouth that he absolutely did not say, and would have refuted.
How could he refute it when that is exactly what he said in the Texas v. White decision a few years later? "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States." Chase viewed secession as the South chose to pursue it as rebellion, nothing more or less. Rebellion could be seen as treasonous under the Constitution.
Stop your prattle about "legal" secession. What the South did was legal secession, as Justice Chase clearly indicated, because it was to them that he was specifically referring.
Not so much, no. Again from the Texas v. White decision: "Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."
Your definition of 'propaganda' being facts that you do not accept or which show your opinions to be wrong?
The facts clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was going to protect slavery. The South did not have to defend slavery at all. It was legal.
Yet the facts clearly show that the South rebelled to protect their institution of slavery from the Republicans in government.
... and so therefore the claim that the South "rebelled to defend slavery" is not only idiocy, it's a clearly demonstrable lie.
So then I guess the writings of the time clearly show that the Southern leaders were idiots? And liars?
You hate to hear this, but money was at the root of this whole thing. Money that New York and Washington had controlled for years, and it was that loss of control that triggered the war against the South.
So you keep saying. And I never cease to find your claims amusing.
One of these things cannot be true because it absolutely contradicts the other.
I'm not going to bother linking you to the information I have read indicating Lincoln was behind the Corwin amendment. It isn't really relevant other than to demonstrate what kind of double dealer Lincoln was, and I doubt you have any interest in looking at any evidence of that.
I think the fact that Lincoln urged the ratification of the Corwin amendment is sufficient evidence of Lincoln's willingness to trade principle for political advantage when he felt it necessary.
No. Orders to attack the Confederates if they resisted. Orders to start a war. Anderson himself said these orders would cause a war, and his heart was not in it because it was so dastardly.
Even Anderson acknowledged Lincoln's attack was underhanded and deceitful.
How could he refute it when that is exactly what he said in the Texas v. White decision a few years later?
Clearly Chase decided that he would not be responsible for the disaster that would legally befall the Union if he had ruled in accordance with his previous opinion.
He threatened the Federal Prosecutors with "You will lose in court everything you won on the battlefield...", but when the time came to carry through on the threat, he balked, and ruled in favor of the Union simply because to rule the correct way would cause too much upheaval.
Not so much, no. Again from the Texas v. White decision:
Texas v White was like Obamacare. The law was clear, but the court was not going to follow it. They simply refused to do the right thing because it would cause too much upheaval for them to do the right thing.
They had a court full of John Roberts, and that is what happened in Texas v White.
When you send five warships, and three tug boats, and call it a "supply" mission, you are a liar.
You keep repeating the blatant propaganda that a fleet of warships constitutes a "supply" mission. Then you keep repeating the propaganda that a peaceful convention for a state to leave the Union which it voluntarily joined, is "rebellion."
Just lies all the way around with your side, isn't it? Here's another one.
Yet the facts clearly show that the South rebelled to protect their institution of slavery from the Republicans in government.
No, the facts show no such thing at all. Your propaganda keeps repeating this claim, and your propaganda keeps ignoring the fact that there was absolutely no threat to the institution of slavery, so you are both lying about the term "rebellion" and lying about why the South left, and you are also lying about claiming the South's reasons had anything to do with the war.
As i've told you many times, the South's reasons for seceding are *IRRELEVANT* to why Abraham Lincoln deliberately launched a war to stop them.
The Declaration of Independence does not specify any threshold which must be met for a state to exercise the right of independence beyond the desire of the people to want independence.
"Consent of the Governed", is the sole requirement, and when a government no longer has the "consent of the governed", it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it" for any D@mned reason that suits their fancy.
So once again, I reject your effort to *FOCUS* the cause of the war on the people who just wanted to leave. The cause of the war must be focused on the people who went into other people's land and killed their citizens.
The invading force was responsible for the war, and they started it by sending warships into another peoples harbor with orders to attack.
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.