With Liberal judges, it works about as well as Prop 8 in California. Do you know what happened with Prop 8?
Posted on 02/20/2020 9:13:10 PM PST by Pelham
Thanks, will try to get a copy.
>>Bull Snipe wrote: “Thanks, will try to get a copy.”
You can borrow it from here, with a free account:
https://archive.org/details/complicityhownor00farr
Mr. Kalamata
How do you claim that the "property" of all persons residing in the territory of the seceded states is "contraband of war"?
By what authority does a president have to seize all of a specific class of "property" in an entire state without allowing all citizens to have "due process" before their "property" is seized without compensation?
If a president has the power to *DECREE* that all of one class of property may be seized from all citizens residing in a particular area, then he has the same power to decree that all other classes of property be seized too.
If you make the argument that slaves are "contraband of war", are not cows and pigs and chickens and wagons and farm houses and carriages and trees and the very land itself not also "contraband of war"?
Why is one thing "contraband of war" and not every other thing as well? And if you are seizing "contraband of war" with no due process, then does not the United States government have the legal right to seize every f***ing thing?
And you are telling me the US constitution grants this sort of awesome powers to the President?
That's not how I understand the constitution. It doesn't go so far as to allow the President to ignore "due process" for American citizens.
If Lincoln had revealed this idea in 1861
Was this Lincoln’s idea in 1861
Thanks again.
So he was stringing them along until he could get enough power to do the thing that would have lost their support had he told them the truth of his intentions?
Honest Abe?
Much like the constitutional founding fathers thought it was more important to have all the states remain a part of the Union then it was to get rid of slavery.
Especially since in 1787, I think 12 of the 13 states were still slave states. Massachusetts wouldn't be much of a Union by itself. It sorta needed the other 12 states to keep England from taking it back.
And yes, Massachusetts ended slavery in 1780 with a Liberal Judge making up fake law and applying it to the Massachusetts constitution to make it say something that it was never intended to say.
Liberal Judges got rid of slavery in Massachusetts. It was not done through the Democratic process. It was not done through "consent of the governed." It was imposed on the people by the liberal Legal system. Same way "gay marriage" was imposed on them 250 years later.
Here is that cognitive dissonance from you again. The "monarchy" was the equivalent of the "duly elected government" of England. According to their laws, the King reigned supreme, and every subject owed perpetual allegiance to the King.
This nation was founded on the principle that people had a right to throw off a government that they felt did not serve their interests, and create a new one that would.
It says that in the Declaration of Independence.
And the Declaration of Independence specifically says they have a right to leave if they want to do so.
Additionally, New York, Virginia and Rhode Island all stipulate in their ratification statements that they have a right to leave if they see the central government as becoming oppressive.
Additionally, both Massachusetts and Connecticut asserted a right to secede during the Hartford convention in 1814.
So there is a *LOT* of evidence that secession was legal, and virtually no evidence that states could be forced to remain in the Union against their will.
So Thomas Fleming, historian and native son of Massachusetts, shouldn’t write a book if you disapprove of it?
Better ask him why he does it. Maybe he does it to piss off people who prefer hagiography over history they’d prefer to ignore.
Don’t know why it should bother you, you won’t be reading it anyway.
And it was the likelihood that this money stream would cease, and worse, be used *AGAINST* them, that triggered the war necessary to stop this threat to their finances.
The money powers were fine with slavery so long as *THEY* controlled the slave produced money.
They were not about to let that money producing engine go independent. They would rather murder everyone in the South before they were going to allow that to happen.
Liberal Judges got rid of slavery in Massachusetts. It was not done through the Democratic process. It was not done through “consent of the governed.” It was imposed on the people by the liberal Legal system.
Of course the Citizens of Massachusetts immediate launched a campaign to amend their state Constitution to make slavery legal again?
You can't post hoc justify an act you took. This is like shooting into a crowd and striking a murderer, and then claiming you were justified in shooting into a crowd because you killed a murderer.
You have to justify what you did on the basis of why you did it *WHEN* you did it. You cannot come along later and claim a new retroactive reason for why you invaded and killed other people.
Also, the president doesn't have the constitutional authority to declare an entire region in "rebellion" and then seize all their property. He is still required to adhere to "due process."
Okay
It’s not the book. It’s the constant rehashing of the entire thing. On and on and on.
I guess it’s good to have a hobby.
(You might want to work on your “old man on the porch” attitude. People might think you are a pompous ass.)
Besides your opinion, show me the case law, supported by court decisions that makes Lincoln’s actions illegal.
Was a Union state? I've pointed out before that even Pennsylvania could not keep Washington from bringing his slaves into their supposed "free" state.
So far as I can tell, no state could free a slave held by the laws of another state. Period. The fact that they did it anyways does not make it legally valid. They should not have been legally able to do this, but the Feds wouldn't intervene to stop them, and so they got away with it.
Many all but four of the States that remained loyal to the United States had outlawed slavery.
West Virginia makes five. And yes, states loyal to the Union could have slavery. It was all about loyalty and not at all about slavery.
There is when you try to claim a moral argument for killing people. You claim it's all about some "principle", and then you don't actually take a stand on principle?
Pure speculation, not supportable by facts.
Five more states and all the manpower that went with it? It's not exactly speculation. The South came close to winning anyways. With several more hundred thousand men to throw in it, they very likely would have won.
More likely, with five more states as part of the Confederacy, they would have been seen as more formidable, and this would have greatly reduced the desire to test them.
Hard to say. I've seen enough about him to not be able to tell what he really believed, and what was intended to fool the masses.
Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. Certainly many people thought this was his position.
“Pennsylvania could not keep Washington from bringing his slaves into their supposed “free” state.”
by 1860 there were no slaves in Pennsylvania.
“It was all about loyalty and not at all about slavery.”
Yes, because the power of the slaves interests in Legislatures of states was not nearly as substantial as they were in the States of the Upper and Deep South.
Two of the border states had outlawed slavery by the end of 1865. A third, had added a clause to their constitution to gradually outlaw the institution. By January 1865, only two states in the Union had legal slaery.
With Liberal judges, it works about as well as Prop 8 in California. Do you know what happened with Prop 8?
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.