Posted on 06/17/2017 6:14:26 PM PDT by plain talk
People think that Abe Lincoln was such a benevolent President. He was actually a bit of a tyrant. He attacked the Confederate States of America, who seceded from the Union due to tax and tariffs. (If you think it was over slavery, you need to find a real American history book written before 1960.)
This picture is of 38 Santee Sioux Indian men that were ordered to be executed by Abraham Lincoln for treaty violations (IE: hunting off of their assigned reservation).
So, on December 26, 1862, the “Great Emancipator” ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailycheck.net ...
You'll have to be more specific than that. Where in the Gettysburg Address does he advocate a violent overthrow of the Constitution?
Not in the minds of serious people, no.
I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years.
And that question was answered by the Supreme Court in 1869.
And even before the war the question of secession was pretty much settled by most Constitutional scholars. Secession is, was, and always has been Constitutional. The question has been how that separation is accomplished. And most rational people agree that it is done with the agreement of both sides of the issue and not unilaterally.
The supposed criminal offense of secession is not quite the picture you paint.
Rebellion, not secession. Please keep it straight. And I doubt anyone disagrees that rebellion is criminal.
While there may have been room for men of goodwill to disagree at one time about intended limits on the the size and scope of the federal government, it is now too clear to deny the South was right in opposing corrupt, incompetent federal overreach and deadly tyranny.
Oh barf.
“..... Perhaps Lincoln did do it but calmer heads prevailed and the action was aborted?”
The historian Thomas J. Lorenzo gave a lecture in which he said the name of the officer to whom Lincoln issued the arrest warrant, but the officer could never bring himself to serve it and other event soon overtook Lincoln’s interest in carrying the order out. Lorenzo also claims that one of his graduate student researchers had located two copies of this order and both are in closed collections of papers at different university libraries and that his researcher was denied access to both. So, this issue is not entirely closed.
“Not in the minds of serious people, no.”
Washington and Jefferson had opposite views of The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.
Just for the tally book, which of these two people do you consider to be not serious.
“And that question was answered by the Supreme Court in 1869.”
Victor’s Justice.
Your contempt for the judiciary is duly noted
“And I doubt anyone disagrees that rebellion is criminal.”
Rebellion doth never prosper: why not you little hellion?
For if it prosper, none dare call it Rebellion.
I assume you mean Madison and Jefferson. Washington had nothing to do with them. And Madison later wrote, "But the ability and the motives disclosed in the Essays induce me to say, in compliance with the wish expressed, that I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in '98-99 as countenancing the doctrine that a State may at will secede from its Constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
And how doth the Southern rebellion prosper? Not well, if memory serves.
“I assume you mean Madison and Jefferson. Washington had nothing to do with them.”
There you go; wrong again. I meant Jefferson and Washington. Jefferson and Madison are credited with writing the Resolutions. Washington went on record as opposing, at least in part.
So Jefferson and Washington disagreed illustrating my point - more importantly General Eisenhower’s point - that, “Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.”
“Rebellion doth never prosper: why not you little hellion? For if it prosper, none dare call it Rebellion”
Pasteurized point.
Did you get all of them noted, including Obergefell v Hodges, or am I going too fast for you?
So he didn't actually "locate" anything?
“Secession is, was, and always has been Constitutional. The question has been how that separation is accomplished. And most rational people agree that it is done with the agreement of both sides of the issue and not unilaterally.”
James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” and a southerner had a different view:
“A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it.”
No, your contempt has been clear all along. Which is in keeping with the Confederate contempt for the judiciary as well.
And later in the same letter from James Madison, "Father of the Constitution", "The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains."
If the researcher didn’t see them then how did he/she know that they had located them?
“No, your contempt has been clear all along.”
You must be so proud of the judiciary!
And your contempt for it is, as I noted earlier, duly noted.
Total vindication of the southern position. At the time of the Second American Revolution, the North was not insisting “on the execution of the bargains” - except, perhaps, where it was in their economic and political best interests.
Where the bargains were not to their liking - the Fugitive Slave Clause, to cite an example, northern political and business leadership were openly repudiating and violating the covenants of the Constitution. In the case of John Brown, wealthy northerners funded his murder raids while northern politicians set up sanctuaries for him and his terrorist organization. That was not something that could continue.
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.