Posted on 01/18/2023 11:11:53 PM PST by CFW
If you had ‘’handed Joe his ass then why does he stay here and keep handing your ass to you? Why don’t you just admit you’re a Democrat like the Confederacy was?
You're a moron Yank. BroJoeK got his ass handed to him for one simple reason: the facts do not support the PC Revisionist narrative. Hilarious you try to spin it as some kind of "win" for him though.
Do you support Lincoln? Yes you did. What was his program? Big government, centralized power and corporate subsidies. If you support him and he has an agenda like that, you support an agenda like that.
Oh that's an easy one to answer. He doesn't. He never did. The reality is quite the opposite. Why don't you just admit you're a big government, centralized power, corporate subsidies supporting Leftist just like Lincoln was?
Doesn't sound like ‘’big government’’ to me.
And centralizing power? He also declared martial law, authorized the trial of civilians by military courts( there was a war on, the Constitution gives him the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus during such time) and proclaimed the emancipation of the slaves. "I may, in a emergency do things on military grounds which cannot be done constitutionally by Congress''.
Then prove to him they don’t. You come up short on that score every time.
Yet the same guy wanted high tariffs and MASSIVE subsidies for big business as well as to centralize all power in imperial Washington. Sounds just like big government to me.
The President can only suspend Habeas Corpus when the courts are not functioning - which they were. His jailing of between 13,000 and 38,000 of his political opponents during the war was an outrageous act of tyranny and a blatant violation of the Constitution. And no, the President does not have carte blanche during wartime. If you follow the principle of inter arma enim silent leges you are just asking for perpetual war. So that those in office can have unlimited power. Even as far back as Rome everyone saw the danger of that.
Why don't you admit that you're an anti American, anti Constitutional, treasonous hardcore Leftist pretending to be a Conservative?
Prove to who that who doesn't what? If you don't include the quote, nobody knows what the hell you're talking about.
Because I don’t sup[port the Confederacy as you do. The Confederacy was a Democrat creation Reb. I quoted Lincoln’s belief of the role government. The only one who doesn’t know what I was talking about is you. But then again you know nothing about anything. Certainly nothing about The Civil War and it’s causes, that’s for sure.
Thank you!
So, in your alternate version of reality, Confederate Democrats really didn't mean they were seceding over slavery, even though they wrote that slavery was their reason; they wanted decentralized government, even though they argued for the federal government and other states to return their escaping slaves; the U.S. started the war, even though the Confederate Democrats fired the first shots; Southern Democrats were conservatives who hated big government, even though they voted in favor of FDR's New Deal, LBJ's "War on Poverty," and Carter into his first term; and you're a conservative, even though you're here pushing a Democrat talking point.
The Democrats of the mid 19th century were pretty conservative Yank. They weren't the party that supported massive corporate subsidies, sky high taxes or the centralization of power. I've already cited what Lincoln supported and what he did to do all of these. You're a complete ignoramus. You know nothing but supporting your Leftist dogma that was taught to you in the government schools.
In your alternate version of reality they were seceding over slavery even though slavery was not threatened in the US....even though they turned down slavery forever by express constitutional amendment....even though about half of them didn't even secede until Lincoln started a war and ordered them to provide troops to attack other states.
they wanted decentralized government, even though they argued for the federal government and other states to return their escaping slaves;
Yes they wanted decentralized power and strict limits on the power of the federal government. The Fugitive slave clause is in the Constitution which all states ratified. Did you forget that part?
the U.S. started the war, even though the Confederate Democrats fired the first shots;
is an aggressor one who fires to drive an invader away or one who invades the land of another? If somebody who is heavily armed breaks into your house and you fire to drive him off, are you the aggressor? Did you start it?
Southern Democrats were conservatives who hated big government, even though they voted in favor of FDR's New Deal, LBJ's "War on Poverty," and Carter into his first term;
After the Occupation in which the vast majority of the voters were disenfranchised, everything in sight was stolen by the corrupt governments installed by military occupation and the region was plunged into a century of poverty....hardly any Southerners were willing to vote for any Republican. Shocker. When you abuse people like the examples above, they tend to neither like nor trust you.
and you're a conservative, even though you're here pushing a Democrat talking point.
Let me guess, you're the conservative even though you support big government, centralized power and massive corporate welfare.
Talking to you is like talking to a parrot. I don’t support big government, corporate welfare or centralized power.
You’re a Democrat. That’s what your party supports Reb.
You claim you don't support any of those things yet you support a president who championed all of those things and enacted policies to further all of those things. So obviously, you do support all of those things.
I'm not a Democrat. I'm an Independent. I might consider becoming a Republican *IF* MAGA takes full control over the party. You however definitely do support a Leftist agenda, Yank.
The Confederate Democrats disagreed with you. They didn't think Corwin gave them "slavery forever," which is why they rejected it.
>"The Fugitive slave clause is in the Constitution which all states ratified. Did you forget that part?"<
The words "fugitive" and "slave" don't even appear in the so-called "fugitive slave clause." Note that Southern Democrats insisted on fugitive slave laws.
>"is an aggressor one who fires to drive an invader away or one who invades the land of another?"<
The aggressor was South Carolina which fired at federal property. The U.S. didn't invade "the land of another."
>"When you abuse people . . . , they tend to neither like nor trust you."<
That statement could be about the enslaved people.
Patently false on both counts. The Confederate Constitution was not different from the US Constitution on the issue of slavery. They could do basic math back then just as well as they can now. There were 15 states that still allowed slavery. Without their consent, it would take 45 states voting in favor of a new constitutional amendment to overturn the Corwin Amendment. 45-15 = 60. That's 10 more states than we have in the US even now. ie the Corwin Amendment would have been irrevocable without their consent. They knew this.
The words "fugitive" and "slave" don't even appear in the so-called "fugitive slave clause." Note that Southern Democrats insisted on fugitive slave laws.
You're trying - disingenuously - to play semantics here. Article IV Section 2 clause 3. "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
The aggressor was South Carolina which fired at federal property. The U.S. didn't invade "the land of another."
The aggressor was the US which sent a fleet of heavily armed warships to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory. I already provided a list of said warships, their armaments and crew complements in this thread. You were already provided a picture of one of said warships with its multiple heavy guns.
That statement could be about the enslaved people.
It also happens to fit White Southerners.
(1) The U.S. Constitution did not mention race or slavery. The Confederate Constitution did. (2) As noted earlier, those Democrat states provided written documentation of their reasons for secession. They did not believe Corwin went far enough, and seven states had already seceded by then, anyway. All documents were linked on this thread. You simply don't want to believe them.
>You're trying - disingenuously - to play semantics here. Article IV Section 2 clause 3. "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."<
Note how the words were written with ambiguity. No reference to slavery or race. That was intentional. The Founding Fathers knew slavery was a moral wrong that must be dealt with at some point.
>"The aggressor was the US which sent a fleet of heavily armed warships to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory."<
The aggressor fired the first shots at U.S. property.
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.