Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial - 2009; the official work and preparation begins now

lincolnbicentennial.gov/ ^ | November 2006 | Lincoln Bicentennial Commission

[TexConfederate1861]

I'm not laughing, and neither are my Southron Brothers on this thread.

[MamaTexan]

Or in other words expel it? Where is that forbidden? What prevents it?

Because when you are 'expelled', you are forced out against your will. Something done against your will is NOT a 'voluntary act' since you have no choice or control over the situation.

If you leave it is by your choice. It is a 'voluntary act', and you have total control over the situation. It is NOT against your will.

What is it about the word voluntary you seem to have so much trouble with?

-----

And what was the 'intolerable oppression' the Southern states were seceding over?

At 100 posts, that question has been answered ad naseum on this thread, but I'll humor you one last time.

South Carolina Causes for Secession :

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

(snip)

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burgeoning them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. 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 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.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slave-holding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

*****

South Carolina told the federal government of their grievance of increasingly unequal treatment against the slave-holding States. Lincoln had made quite clear his feelings on the subject and had told them he would not 'allow' them to leave and slavery would be forced out of the country whether the South liked it or not.

South Carolina followed the law in giving a legal notification that was summarily ignored. Legal notification doesn't mean the receiving party has to AGREE with those reasons, they only have to be told.

The federal government expanded itself into a national power outside its constitutional boundaries by forcing the South to stay in the Union.

If that were a power of the federal government, it would BE IN THE CONSTITUTION as part of the full disclosure of the compact. Since it is not, it is one of the powers RESERVED to the States.

-----

The next time you think you're over-regulated by the federal government, thank Lincoln.

[Ditto]

The fact is the legally Lincoln was wrong.

So you think that we should give Saddam all of his guns, bombs and WMD facilities back? Do you think that the Commander in Chief, in a time of war, does not have the authority to order the seizure of enemy property?

The EP did not free slaves. It seized them, just like horses or cattle, and made them government "property" (property is what the Confederates called them) and then disposed of that property as it saw fit by making them free persons. The EP did not make them citizens, but it did make them free.

Mama, it was not only perfect legal, it was BRILLIANT.

[Ditto]

Being a VOLUNTARY compact, the South 'violated' nothing.

Marriage is a "VOLUNTARY: compact. Can you leave that compact unilaterally?

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm not laughing, and neither are my Southron Brothers on this thread.

You're serious about that 'bloody tyrant' crap?

[TexConfederate1861]

D*MN straight......
You should know that. I have never minced words about my opinion of Lincoln. Professor Thomas Lorenzo has him pegged.

[Non-Sequitur]

Because when you are 'expelled', you are forced out against your will.

Well duh.

Something done against your will is NOT a 'voluntary act' since you have no choice or control over the situation.,,What is it about the word voluntary you seem to have so much trouble with?

This part. I don't understand the logic behind your contention that the 'voluntary' aspect of the relationship is on the part of the individual state itself. In your world a state can 'voluntarily' combine with the other states, but once in the other states are stuck. They lose their voluntary rights and are forced to tolerate that state. They cannot end their association with it. Where is the sense in that? At 100 posts, that question has been answered ad naseum on this thread, but I'll humor you one last time.

That's your idea of intolerable oppression? Not taxation without representation? No lack of sufferage? No occupying army? The southern states dominated the govenment for most of this country's existence prior to the rebellion, they had a disproportionate level of representation in Congress, and all of that was 'intolerable oppression'. You insult our founding fathers and any other people who rose up against their rulers with nonsense comparisons like that.

What you imagine to be 'legal notification' isn't legal because you say it is. If I whip up a legal document that says I own your home that doesn't automatically transfer title to me. The underlying act has to be valid in the first place, and as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869 the southern acts of unilateral secession were not Constitutional.

The federal government expanded itself into a national power outside its constitutional boundaries by forcing the South to stay in the Union.

So you keep saying. But putting down the Southern rebellion was not outside the Constitutional boundaries of the governments power.

If that were a power of the federal government, it would BE IN THE CONSTITUTION as part of the full disclosure of the compact. Since it is not, it is one of the powers RESERVED to the States.

Only if you believe that only explicit powers are granted by the Constitution, which would make the Air Force an illegal organization. But there are implied powers granted by the Constitution, something the Supreme Court ruled on in McCulloch v. Maryland.

But if you are correct in your claim that vrings us back to my original question. Since there is nothing in the Constitution that says the states may not expel another state it must be legal, right? Right?

[MamaTexan]

The EP did not free slaves. It seized them, just like horses or cattle, and made them government "property" (property is what the Confederates called them) and then disposed of that property as it saw fit by making them free persons. The EP did not make them citizens, but it did make them free.

And the Constitutional authority for that is found.....where exactly?

All three branches are bound by the Constitution. That includes the President.

[Non-Sequitur]

You should know that. I have never minced words about my opinion of Lincoln. Professor Thomas Lorenzo has him pegged.

Oh I've never doubted it, as your faith in Tommy DiLusional's pseudo scholarship shows.

[Non-Sequitur]

And the Constitutional authority for that is found.....where exactly?

The Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862, which were upheld by the Supreme Court. Of course those decisions were illegal, unfounded, and biased...because MamaTexan said so.

All three branches are bound by the Constitution. That includes the President.

And the states, too. Don't forget them.

[TexConfederate1861]

Disprove ANYTHING he says. He gives clear references and a very concise bibliography. Have you even READ the book?
Somehow, I doubt it.

[Non-Sequitur]

Disprove ANYTHING he says.

Oh heck, that's easy. His claim that the Southern acts of unilateral secession were legal. They weren't, as the Supreme Court found in Texas v. White.

[Ditto]

And the Constitutional authority for that is found.....where exactly?

So you would deny the President war powers?

[Ditto]

Professor Thomas Lorenzo has him pegged.

LOL. Well that settles it. I wonder what "Professor" Irwin Corry have to say about it?

If you spent money for DeLorenzo's book, you got ripped off. There are probably 20 posters on this board who know more about Lincoln and the Civil War period than that sad little Lou Rockwell libertarian hack.

[djf]

I doubt that. We all acknowledge Lincoln's greatness, humanity and contributions.

You know, I love it when the socialists use "We". Anytime I hear it, I know somebody is talking an agenda, and they're trying to make everybody else feel like an outsider if they don't agree.

Some of us are grown up enough we can speak for ourselves.

[MamaTexan]

So you would deny the President war powers?

I'm denying he has the authority to exercise those powers on one of the parties to the compact if that party never attacked another party, yes.

[Lee'sGhost]

"No, I said 'unilateral' to apply to a situation where only one side of the situation had any say in the matter."

And THAT's completely wrong. The one side you were refering to isn't one entity, it's multiple. Good lord man, we can't discuss this if you can't even grasp basic concepts.

[Lee'sGhost]

" . . .and don't understand how people like you can believe that one is while the other isn't. ""

I never said that. Keep up, please.