Lincoln statue unveiled

From the Kentucky Resolutions (Jefferson)

I. Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: That the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

I don't take issue with that; but it has nothing to do with the laws of the United States.

The judicial power of the United States rests in the Supreme Court. Here is what the court said in 1862:

"By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare was against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.

All persons residing within this territory whose property may be used to increase the revenues of the hostile power are, in this contest, liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. They have cast off their allegiance and made war on their Government, and are none the less enemies because they are traitors."

Walt

I don't take issue with that; but it has nothing to do with the laws of the United States.

Then why did you misrepresent the position of Jefferson and Madison about the "primacy of the federal government over the states"?

ML/NJ

And BTW, the Federalist Papers are very often cited by judges who interpret the Constitution. (but not often enough) The Kentucky Resolutions are cited less often but they are cited in a number of Supreme Court decisons.

You won't even find Jefferson saying there was a legal right to overthrow British rule.

What are you smoking?

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Why do you embarrass yourself like this?

ML/NJ

Andersonville was indeed a tragedy. But if you insist upon comparing war crimes, consider that more POW's from the CSA died in Northern prison camps than the total of yankees who died in Southern ones. Andersonville is famous in part because it was politicized during and after the war. Northern prison camps like Point Lookout, MD were every bit as wretched in their conditions if not more so, and the death stats show it.

I am well aware that war crimes go both ways. Sheridan and his officers were none to kind to the Shenadoah valley in VA. I was just pointing out one example to show that the person in question was being rather naive about who he called a war criminal. Seemed like a WW2 era German saying that Stalin was a butcher. Obviously Stalin was a butcher, but he needs to remember Nazi Germany's dark little secret.

Sherman was not alone in his war crimes. His subordinate generals carried out brutalities against civilians across the area where he marched. Other union generals permitted the same elsewhere in the south. As for Lincoln being complicit, one cannot deny that a captain is responsible for what occurs on his ship. In other words, one cannot credit Lincoln for the victories of his commanders while simultaneously denying him any part in their widespread wrongs.

Agreed, the war in general was brutal. Of course Lincoln knew what was going on, he thought it would end the war quicker. I agree that there where no true "saints" in this war, there never are. I simply meant that you shouldn't be throwing mud at someone when you are caked in it aswell.

I'm from the south, born and raised in Charleston Sc. The exact place where the war began, so guess I'll reply.

Who started the war?! Cause from what I learned visiting Fort Sumter is that the Confederacy fired the first shots. You don't start a war and expect a 100% pleasant ending, the North lost 360,222 men during the civil war which the South started. The South lost around 258,000 men during the war...which they started.

Yes Lincoln was the President at the time, he did what he had to do and the world is a better place for it, other than a few hard feelings. It was a brutal war, so should we remove all monuments to Robert Lee? He was commander of the Army of Northern VA, his orders sent thousands to their death. No, we shouldn't....he is an important historical figure, and in my opinion a great example of a military commander and person in general.

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.