Replies

"Seems to me like the Constitution still stands. I haven't read about it being destroyed.".

um, the constitution does not stand as it was originally formed, ours is not a voluntary union. Exactly what was so important about maintaining the union to begin with when you destroy its form and intent by doing so? So anyone can violate the constitution as Lincoln did or use any of those methods in the pursuit of something supposedly worthwhile?

"He had that right in a time of war. Congress couldn't act, and the country needed to put down a rebellion.".

He had the right to suspend it, but he did so illegally and merely to silence opposing voices to his own. Since when is the first amendment not valid in this case? The "copperheads" were not inciting treason, but protesting Lincolns abuses of power, we do have the constitutional right to do that in this country...

"The Supreme Court ruled in the Prize Cases that Lincoln had every right to do so, in keeping with his role as the executor of the laws of the land.".

You of course ignored his reference to the lack of Congressional consent for the military invasion of Virgina, and the initial issue of the legality of South Carolina's secession and their actions concerning Fort Sumter. Which were the things that caused the ensuing Supreme Court actions. But as James Ostrowski put it, "If South Carolina illegally seceded from the Union, then both the Union’s initial refusal to surrender Fort Sumter and its subsequent invasion were lawful and constitutional. Conversely, if South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, then indeed the Union soldiers in the Fort were trespassers and also a potential military threat to South Carolina. Thus, assuming the right of secession existed, the Union had no right to retaliate or initiate war against the Confederacy. Its subsequent invasion of Virginia then marks the beginning of its illegal war on the Confederacy.". The Supreme Court saw the firing on Fort Sumter as the beginning of a state of civil war, regardless of the legality of secession, Lincolns intentional provocations and the complete lack of threat that the seizure of the fort posed, it being 500 miles away from the nearest state remaining in the Union.

"All the more power to Lincoln. I say hurrah. Down with the Traitor! Up with the Stars!"

wow, hurray for oppression, abuse of power and infringement of fundamental rights as long as you agree with the person or assumed reasons behind it!!! uh huh... You say that you will disassociate yourself with the Republican Party, conservatism, and FreeRepublic if attitudes critical of Lincoln are indicative of these organizations and movements. But then you go and praise oppression and abuse of fundamental freedoms and rights, for what again? What was your reasoning? Oppression for oppression's sake? Or free slaves by any means necessary and viciously oppress anyone who disagrees with any abuse of power? Down with free speech and ideas such as freedom as long as the cause is "righteous" enough? In my humble opinion, any freedom loving person should disassociate themselves from you and your concepts of convenient rights and freedoms.

"If the three states didn't like it, they could have left the union too. And have been put down with a vengeance. Last I checked, the citizens of West Virginia left Virginia because they wanted to remain in the Union.".

So this makes Lincolns unconstitutional actions regarding this ok, because they SUPPOSEDLY wanted to remain in the union? What legal concept or precedent is your little theory here based on again? oh wait, US Constitution Article IV, Section 3 "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any state be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress". Stupid constitution... And also, d*mn that whole concept of inherent rights of man, who cares if the people of Kansas, Nevada and West Virginia never formally consented, put them down if they disagree. What a brave new world you propose for all of us.

"Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. He sent soldiers home to vote. What a crime.".

What in the world are you talking about? Are you making this stuff up as you go along? The reference he was making to Federal troops interfering with Northern elections is specifically referring to the 1864 New York elections where votes were gained at the end of a federal bayonet (Lincoln Reconsidered), not because he sent troops back to vote...

"Woe is me. I'm surprised most of you ignorant slavehounds know what the word "eviscerated" is.".

wow, no wonder you wanted to ban anyone who disagreed with your Lincoln praise... "oursacredhonor" states that Lincoln violated basic private property rights, violated the second amendment, and "eviscerated" the Ninth and Tenth amendments, and your response is with an ad hominem attack and implied baseless comment about the supposed educational worth of someone else. Just what kind of Republican or conservative are you again? Are there any fundamental "conservative" rights or beliefs that you wouldn't flippantly disregard or debase to denegrate the statements of others and suckle at the teet of Lincoln?

"I wish I could have had the opportunity to participate as a member of the firing squad.".

Absolutely stunning, if you are serious I pity you and anyone who might have to rely on your amazing grasp of basic humanity and justice.

"Wasn't it your hero who shouted, "Thus always to tyrants?" Well, I say, "Thus always to traitors!"".

You assume John Wilkes Booth is his hero without any apparent factual basis to delegitimize him and further your own little sound bite? How typical of you. Good to see how you would equate failure to pray for a president as traitorous activity though. Do you plan on being logical or factual anytime soon?

"That is sheer blather, not based in fact or reality.".

Actually the Federal army occupied Maryland in 1861, threw most of the legislators in military prison, which kept them from discussing secession.

"You breathless rebel. You are repeating yourself.".

Again, you state that he is a rebel, nice baseless assumption and attempted slur. This still doesn't change the fact that your original statement was wrong.

"Taney? Oh what a valiant slavehound you are. Yes, let's put Taney's mug on Mount Rushmore. All hail the man who said the slave is not a man, but property! HOW JEFFERSONIAN!"

Nice ad hominem attack to start the comment off. And where is the constitutional basis for your rebuttal of Chief Justus Taney? oh wait, you failed to make any logical rebuttal of Taney and instead decided to *gasp* attack him. We sure haven't seen this from you before. And frankly, you have shown absolutely no evidence of any understanding of Jeffersonian ideals or principles, merely incivility, illogic, and an apparent pathological need to portray any opposing viewpoints other than your own as racist or something of that ilk.

Absolutely pathetic...

He had the right to suspend it, but he did so illegally and merely to silence opposing voices to his own.

If he had the right to suspend it then how were his actions illegal? And since the most famous 'victim' of the habeas corpus suspension, John Merryman, was arrested for terrorist activites (he burned a bridge) then how can you say Lincoln's actions were 'merely to silence opposing voices to his own?"

You of course ignored his reference to the lack of Congressional consent for the military invasion of Virgina, and the initial issue of the legality of South Carolina's secession and their actions concerning Fort Sumter.

Why did Lincoln need Congressional consent to combat the rebellion? He had all the authority he needed to do that under the Militia Act of 1795. And I'm pretty sure that shooting up Fort Sumter violated some law or another.

But as James Ostrowski put it, "If South Carolina illegally seceded from the Union, then both the Union’s initial refusal to surrender Fort Sumter and its subsequent invasion were lawful and constitutional. Conversely, if South Carolina had the right to secede from the Union, then indeed the Union soldiers in the Fort were trespassers and also a potential military threat to South Carolina. Thus, assuming the right of secession existed, the Union had no right to retaliate or initiate war against the Confederacy. Its subsequent invasion of Virginia then marks the beginning of its illegal war on the Confederacy.".

This makes no sense. Even assuming for a moment that the secession of South Carolina was legal where does that automatically give her title to federal property within her borders? And Sumter was federal property, built with federal dollars on land deeded to the federal government in perpetuity by the legislature of South Carolina. The troops occupying the fort were no more tresspassing than were the troops occupying the forts in New York harbor. And the U.S. did not 'retaliate or initiate war against the (c)onfederacy.' It responded to an attack on Sumter by the Davis regime. Legal or not, the southern states forced war upon the U.S. When Virginia joined the rebellion she left brought upon herself the results of her action.

So this makes Lincolns unconstitutional actions regarding this ok, because they SUPPOSEDLY wanted to remain in the union?

Lincoln's actions were not unconstitutional simply because you say they are.

US Constitution Article IV, Section 3 "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any state be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress".

And that is what happened. People from Virginia, primarily western Virginia, organized an alternate, loyal Virginia legislature and it was this body which petitioned the government for permission to separate, in accordance with Article IV. There was nothing unconstitutional with that.

Actually the Federal army occupied Maryland in 1861, threw most of the legislators in military prison, which kept them from discussing secession.

Flat out false.