[W:135] Great book to study The Problem with Lincoln

[Bezukhov]

“A tyrant”. *L*

To DiLorenzo and his sycophants Lincoln was a tyrant. Only the most evil and despotic of tyrants would deny to Good, White, Christian Southerners all the pleasures and profits that comes from tyrannizing Black people.

 

[JasperL]

So what? Blockading a port is an act of war, and extorting payments from foreign ships is piracy. And yes, Lincoln had a choice, and decided on war over protectionist tariffs for his railroad cronies.

Still waiting for any evidence secession was illegal. We already have plenty of proof of Lincoln's motives, and we also know the north didn't have the morals some are claiming here re black people, so stop being silly; Lincoln and the north didn't mind slavery in the south, they made lots of money off of it themselves.

You say that but we know the south seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated because of the long term threat Lincoln and Republican posed to slavery. They told us this is why they seceded. So if Lincoln and 'the north' didn't mind slavery in the south, that was news the south could have used before they seceded!! Why didn't the seceding states know this at the time?

 

[Closer]

You say that but we know the south seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated because of the long term threat Lincoln and Republican posed to slavery. They told us this is why they seceded. So if Lincoln and 'the north' didn't mind slavery in the south, that was news the south could have used before they seceded!! Why didn't the seceding states know this at the time?

Slavery was brought up as an organizing principle of southern govt., as it was what they had in common. When one studies the election of Lincoln, you will find he didn't run on the slavery issue, and neither did the GOP, though it was in their founding platform; they suffered huge setbacks in the next mid-terms because people were becoming suspicious that he was going to free them and then the northand the new territories would be flooded with black people; they essentially ran on a white nationalist platform for the Midwest and new territories. Only one state had seceded, until Buchanan tried to resupply Sumter; that provoked 4 or 5 more states to secede, so Buchanan gave up that idea. Lincoln did the same thing, which prompted the rest to secede, but not before he had a private army loyal only to him controlling the ballot boxes in the border states, which saved his agenda in the mid-terms by a very thin margin. He knew what would happen with his blockade from Buchanan's experience. He also did so against the advice of his entire Cabinet with the exception of his postmaster general.

I know it's a tough concept for ideologues and ignorant partisan hacks to grasp, but most of the time both sides of any given conflict can be wrong or have beliefs that are politically incorrect to todays' Snowflakes. ,Pronouncing oneself to be 'Against Slavery N Stuff!' today is just ridiculous virtue signaling, especially since those who do so weren't around back then to prove for a fact they would have lifted a finger to end it, and I'm willing to bet they do pretty much nothing about it today, despite it's pervasiveness, either.

Which side was right and which was wrong in the Hitler versus Stalin war?

 

[Closer]

And, I note still no evidence secession was illegal or the Federal govt. was granted the power to use force against any state. That's because secession wasn't illegal and nobody thought it was.

 

[watsup]

And, I note still no evidence secession was illegal or the Federal govt. was granted the power to use force against any state. That's because secession wasn't illegal and nobody thought it was.

“
think there's been some confusion about the word "illegal". It commonly refers to an act that is punishable under criminal law, but the question regarding unilateral secession is whether it's authorized by the Constitution. We commonly refer to unconstitutional actions as "illegal"; perhaps that's insufficiently precise.

I'd say the real question here is whether unilateral secession is permitted by the Constitution. Given that question, the principal of nulla poena sine lege is irrelevant, since it's not a matter of a criminal law for which violators may be punished.

For example, there is no punishment specified for passing a law that restricts free speech, but any such law is invalid.

Texas V. White clearly expressed the Supreme Court's opinion that unilateral secession was illegal in 1861, when Texas attempted to secede. There is no ambiguity in the Court's ruling. There are valid arguments that the Court's ruling was incorrect, but any such arguments should start with an acknowledgement of what the ruling actually said.”

Was the secession of the Confederate states illegal?

Putting aside their reasons for wanting to do so and all the emotional responses they would provoke, was the secession of states from the Union to eventually form the Confederacy an illegal act in ...

history.stackexchange.com

 

[watsup]

Slavery was brought up as an organizing principle of southern govt., as it was what they had in common. When one studies the election of Lincoln, you will find he didn't run on the slavery issue, and neither did the GOP, though it was in their founding platform; they suffered huge setbacks in the next mid-terms because people were becoming suspicious that he was going to free them and then the northand the new territories would be flooded with black people; they essentially ran on a white nationalist platform for the Midwest and new territories. Only one state had seceded, until Buchanan tried to resupply Sumter; that provoked 4 or 5 more states to secede, so Buchanan gave up that idea. Lincoln did the same thing, which prompted the rest to secede, but not before he had a private army loyal only to him controlling the ballot boxes in the border states, which saved his agenda in the mid-terms by a very thin margin. He knew what would happen with his blockade from Buchanan's experience. He also did so against the advice of his entire Cabinet with the exception of his postmaster general.

I know it's a tough concept for ideologues and ignorant partisan hacks to grasp, but most of the time both sides of any given conflict can be wrong or have beliefs that are politically incorrect to todays' Snowflakes. ,Pronouncing oneself to be 'Against Slavery N Stuff!' today is just ridiculous virtue signaling, especially since those who do so weren't around back then to prove for a fact they would have lifted a finger to end it, and I'm willing to bet they do pretty much nothing about it today, despite it's pervasiveness, either.

Which side was right and which was wrong in the Hitler versus Stalin war?

Ideologues. Ignorant partisan hacks. Snowflakes. Politically incorrct.
None of that has anything to do with the topic at hand, it’s just the typical ad him that we normally expect from the average right-winger. To bring forth such insults only shows the weakness of YOUR argumentation, no that of those whom you accuse.

And Buchanan had a perfect right to resupply a United Stares military facility. Was he supposed to let them starve?

 

[watsup]

Slavery was brought up as an organizing principle of southern govt., as it was what they had in common. When one studies the election of Lincoln, you will find he didn't run on the slavery issue, and neither did the GOP, though it was in their founding platform; they suffered huge setbacks in the next mid-terms because people were becoming suspicious that he was going to free them and then the northand the new territories would be flooded with black people; they essentially ran on a white nationalist platform for the Midwest and new territories. Only one state had seceded, until Buchanan tried to resupply Sumter; that provoked 4 or 5 more states to secede, so Buchanan gave up that idea. Lincoln did the same thing, which prompted the rest to secede, but not before he had a private army loyal only to him controlling the ballot boxes in the border states, which saved his agenda in the mid-terms by a very thin margin. He knew what would happen with his blockade from Buchanan's experience. He also did so against the advice of his entire Cabinet with the exception of his postmaster general.

I know it's a tough concept for ideologues and ignorant partisan hacks to grasp, but most of the time both sides of any given conflict can be wrong or have beliefs that are politically incorrect to todays' Snowflakes. ,Pronouncing oneself to be 'Against Slavery N Stuff!' today is just ridiculous virtue signaling, especially since those who do so weren't around back then to prove for a fact they would have lifted a finger to end it, and I'm willing to bet they do pretty much nothing about it today, despite it's pervasiveness, either.

Which side was right and which was wrong in the Hitler versus Stalin war?

Plus you have shown a purposeful fuzziness about history by implying, for instance, that the “illegal” blockade of Southern ports as an “act of war” somehow occurred prior to the firing on Fort Sumter. As such, we simply cannot have confidence in your statements and must fully “vet” them for accuracy before we believe them in the least.

 

[JasperL]

Slavery was brought up as an organizing principle of southern govt., as it was what they had in common. When one studies the election of Lincoln, you will find he didn't run on the slavery issue, and neither did the GOP, though it was in their founding platform;

And, yet, the south seceded over that slavery platform.

they suffered huge setbacks in the next mid-terms because people were becoming suspicious that he was going to free them and then the northand the new territories would be flooded with black people; they essentially ran on a white nationalist platform for the Midwest and new territories. Only one state had seceded, until Buchanan tried to resupply Sumter; that provoked 4 or 5 more states to secede, so Buchanan gave up that idea. Lincoln did the same thing, which prompted the rest to secede, but not before he had a private army loyal only to him controlling the ballot boxes in the border states, which saved his agenda in the mid-terms by a very thin margin. He knew what would happen with his blockade from Buchanan's experience. He also did so against the advice of his entire Cabinet with the exception of his postmaster general.

I know it's a tough concept for ideologues and ignorant partisan hacks to grasp, but most of the time both sides of any given conflict can be wrong or have beliefs that are politically incorrect to todays' Snowflakes. ,Pronouncing oneself to be 'Against Slavery N Stuff!' today is just ridiculous virtue signaling, especially since those who do so weren't around back then to prove for a fact they would have lifted a finger to end it, and I'm willing to bet they do pretty much nothing about it today, despite it's pervasiveness, either.

Which side was right and which was wrong in the Hitler versus Stalin war?

I just get tired of reading Lost Cause nonsense. I've made no argument Lincoln was a saint - clearly he was not on the subject of race. But the South seceded over slavery, lost that war, then imposed a century of Jim Crow. They're not the 'right' side of this debate. That's not to say the 'north' was free of racism - clearly that's false. What they didn't have was state-sponsored slavery, then a century of state sponsored second class citizenship for an entire race, that only ended in my lifetime.

 

[JasperL]

And, I note still no evidence secession was illegal or the Federal govt. was granted the power to use force against any state. That's because secession wasn't illegal and nobody thought it was.

What evidence is there 'secession' is or was 'legal?' That a state could just decide - 'hey, thanks for everything, we're gone.' If the founders contemplated 'secession' as a viable exit, you'd think they'd have established terms, how, when, what conditions, approval or not, etc. It's a MASSIVE happening, and yet the founders didn't provide for this supposedly legal option. Why is that if they believed states could simply 'secede' as they wanted, when?

 

[Closer]

“
think there's been some confusion about the word "illegal". It commonly refers to an act that is punishable under criminal law, but the question regarding unilateral secession is whether it's authorized by the Constitution. We commonly refer to unconstitutional actions as "illegal"; perhaps that's insufficiently precise.

I'd say the real question here is whether unilateral secession is permitted by the Constitution. Given that question, the principal of nulla poena sine lege is irrelevant, since it's not a matter of a criminal law for which violators may be punished.

For example, there is no punishment specified for passing a law that restricts free speech, but any such law is invalid.

Texas V. White clearly expressed the Supreme Court's opinion that unilateral secession was illegal in 1861, when Texas attempted to secede. There is no ambiguity in the Court's ruling. There are valid arguments that the Court's ruling was incorrect, but any such arguments should start with an acknowledgement of what the ruling actually said.”

Was the secession of the Confederate states illegal?

Putting aside their reasons for wanting to do so and all the emotional responses they would provoke, was the secession of states from the Union to eventually form the Confederacy an illegal act in ...

history.stackexchange.com

it's illegal to murder people in fraudelent violence and piracy. Texas vs, White was an attempt by the military governor of Texas to grab some $100,000 in bonds for his personal benefit, not a case specifically addressing the legality or illegality of secession. It was long after the war, in 1869, not 1861, and a SC packed by corrupt northerners isn't objective, the Chase Court was notoriously corrupt, and the claim re secession was merely an assumption to justify the theft of bonds, not a ruling on whether secession was legal.

So, still no evidence secession was illegal before Lincoln was elected.

 

[Closer]

What evidence is there 'secession' is or was 'legal?' That a state could just decide - 'hey, thanks for everything, we're gone.' If the founders contemplated 'secession' as a viable exit, you'd think they'd have established terms, how, when, what conditions, approval or not, etc. It's a MASSIVE happening, and yet the founders didn't provide for this supposedly legal option. Why is that if they believed states could simply 'secede' as they wanted, when?

Madison and the rest of the members of the Constitutional Convention specifically rejected granting the Federal govt. the power to use force against the states; what Lincoln did was illegal, period. Secession was a common threat by both northern and southern states, most commonly used by northern states up until 1829 or so. There is no evidence for it being illegal, the Union was to be voluntary. There are no 'terms' because it wasn't a forced Union. This principle was reinforced after 1789 by Madison and Jefferson in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

 

[Closer]

And, yet, the south seceded over that slavery platform.


I just get tired of reading Lost Cause nonsense. I've made no argument Lincoln was a saint - clearly he was not on the subject of race. But the South seceded over slavery, lost that war, then imposed a century of Jim Crow. They're not the 'right' side of this debate. That's not to say the 'north' was free of racism - clearly that's false. What they didn't have was state-sponsored slavery, then a century of state sponsored second class citizenship for an entire race, that only ended in my lifetime.

I'm not a Lost Cause' advocate; that's just a silly strawman made up by people who can't face the historical record and want to fake some moral authority or other they don't have.

Plus you have shown a purposeful fuzziness about history by implying, for instance, that the “illegal” blockade of Southern ports as an “act of war” somehow occurred prior to the firing on Fort Sumter. As such, we simply cannot have confidence in your statements and must fully “vet” them for accuracy before we believe them in the least.

Given your clumsy 'logic', I'm not surprised you are 'fuzzy' on it all, citing a case that came along 8 years after Lincoln's illegal war and a from a packed Court that went on to produce the Gilded Age and the robber barons looting the country, particularly the railroads. I don't need your 'belief' in anything, we have Lincoln's own words, and plenty of newspapers and other evidence to rely on.

 

[Closer]

Ideologues. Ignorant partisan hacks. Snowflakes. Politically incorrct.
None of that has anything to do with the topic at hand, it’s just the typical ad him that we normally expect from the average right-winger. To bring forth such insults only shows the weakness of YOUR argumentation, no that of those whom you accuse.

All of your arguments are just rubbish strawmen, nothing factual, just virtue signaling hackery.

And Buchanan had a perfect right to resupply a United Stares military facility. Was he supposed to let them starve?

Sumter was on state land, not Federal land. Why did Buchanan abandon most of the other forts if he thought they were 'legal'?

 

[Tigerace117]

it's illegal to murder people in fraudelent violence and piracy. Texas vs, White was an attempt by the military governor of Texas to grab some $100,000 in bonds for his personal benefit, not a case specifically addressing the legality or illegality of secession. It was long after the war, in 1869, not 1861, and a SC packed by corrupt northerners isn't objective, the Chase Court was notoriously corrupt, and the claim re secession was merely an assumption to justify the theft of bonds, not a ruling on whether secession was legal.

So, still no evidence secession was illegal before Lincoln was elected.

Oh really? Apparently someone forgot to tell the Confederacy, because the actions of their guerrillas(fully endorsed by Richmond) were pretty ****ing “fraudulent“.

The Confederates did steal the bonds granted to Texas in return for Texas giving up its absurd territorial claims, yes. That was the only “theft” going on.

 

[Tigerace117]

All of your arguments are just rubbish strawmen, nothing factual, just virtue signaling hackery.



Sumter was on state land, not Federal land. Why did Buchanan abandon most of the other forts if he thought they were 'legal'?

Nope, South Carolina had explicitly ceded all right to Sumter and therefore it was federal property.

“Early in the nineteenth century, South Carolina had owned multiple forts, namely Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney, and Fort Johnson, but ceded them, along with sites for the future erection of forts, to the United States in 1805.[6]:2 The forts were of questionable military value and costly to maintain, so when asked to cede them, the state complied.[5]:103 This was not the last time that South Carolina would cede forts to the United States; on December 17, 1836, South Carolina officially ceded all "right, title and, claim" to the site of Fort Sumter to the United States.[6]”

Fort Sumter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In case you missed it, 1836 is before the Civil War. Long before, in fact. And no, there was no “take-backsies“ clause.

Buchanan abandoned the other forts because he was a puppet of southern interests, despite being from the north. In that he was no different than just about every other president from 1820 up until the election of Lincoln, which is another reason why the southern tantrum over Lincoln’s election is so pathetic.

 

[JasperL]

Madison and the rest of the members of the Constitutional Convention specifically rejected granting the Federal govt. the power to use force against the states; what Lincoln did was illegal, period. Secession was a common threat by both northern and southern states, most commonly used by northern states up until 1829 or so. There is no evidence for it being illegal, the Union was to be voluntary. There are no 'terms' because it wasn't a forced Union. This principle was reinforced after 1789 by Madison and Jefferson in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

That's not an answer.

 

[JasperL]

I'm not a Lost Cause' advocate; that's just a silly strawman made up by people who can't face the historical record and want to fake some moral authority or other they don't have.

No, of course not, you're just repeating Lost Cause arguments, but you're not an advocate of their position that you dutifully parrot. For starters, the "historical record" is crystal clear on why the south seceded - slavery. And yet you won't accept that, claim slavery was just a common bond, but before the war the states who seceded were happy to tell us the reason - slavery. The cornerstone speech was quite elegant in that regard.

 

[JasperL]

Sumter was on state land, not Federal land. Why did Buchanan abandon most of the other forts if he thought they were 'legal'?

That's the problem with the notion that states could simply 'secede' and federal property like all the forts, and land bought by the U.S. with federal funds, or seized by the U.S. military just became the property of the state in which that land was located. In modern times, I live in TN and there's who knows how much federal money invested in the nuclear complex in Oak Ridge - $100s of billions over time. Well, so TN can legally 'secede' and just claim all that as their own? Same with the federal interstates, the federal parks, courthouses, offices?

It's impossible that's the case, so if secession is a viable option, then there has to be a mechanism for the feds to claim those assets and get paid for them. When there is a dispute, how is that settled? Which courts? Which legislatures? If TN says to the U.S. - "well pay you $1 million for all of Y-12" and the U.S. says, NO! what then? Don't you think the founders anticipating this dispute would make provisions for it? Yes, but they did not anticipate such a dispute - did not contemplate or allow for secession.

 

[watsup]

Madison and the rest of the members of the Constitutional Convention specifically rejected granting the Federal govt. the power to use force against the states; what Lincoln did was illegal, period. Secession was a common threat by both northern and southern states, most commonly used by northern states up until 1829 or so. There is no evidence for it being illegal, the Union was to be voluntary. There are no 'terms' because it wasn't a forced Union. This principle was reinforced after 1789 by Madison and Jefferson in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

In the end, it doesn’t matter whether or not it was considered “illegal” because no court case had ever made a determination and Lincoln has been proven right on his decision to save the Union.

 

[watsup]

Madison and the rest of the members of the Constitutional Convention specifically rejected granting the Federal govt. the power to use force against the states; what Lincoln did was illegal, period. Secession was a common threat by both northern and southern states, most commonly used by northern states up until 1829 or so. There is no evidence for it being illegal, the Union was to be voluntary. There are no 'terms' because it wasn't a forced Union. This principle was reinforced after 1789 by Madison and Jefferson in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

“
Buchanan (of all people!) also made a Ratification-argument. In Buchanan's 4th annual message, just two weeks before South Carolina seceded, he said:

In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution.”

Was the secession of the Confederate states illegal?

Putting aside their reasons for wanting to do so and all the emotional responses they would provoke, was the secession of states from the Union to eventually form the Confederacy an illegal act in ...

history.stackexchange.com

 

[Closer]

“
Buchanan (of all people!) also made a Ratification-argument. In Buchanan's 4th annual message, just two weeks before South Carolina seceded, he said:

Was the secession of the Confederate states illegal?

Putting aside their reasons for wanting to do so and all the emotional responses they would provoke, was the secession of states from the Union to eventually form the Confederacy an illegal act in ...

history.stackexchange.com

Buchanan's opinion is just that, his opinion. The SC never ruled on it, and as I said Madison specifically opposed including such a clause in the Constitution.

And, for all the sniveling over why the South seceded, they had already won all the SC cases over slavery, and Tainey was still Chief Justice til he died in 1864. Also we can note in a thread about Lincoln most of the bigots here can't comment on Lincoln so they focus on babbling about slavery, even though Lincoln said it wasn't about slavery and complained about the 10% tariff they were going pass.

 

[Tigerace117]

Buchanan's opinion is just that, his opinion. The SC never ruled on it, and as I said Madison specifically opposed including such a clause in the Constitution.

And, for all the sniveling over why the South seceded, they had already won all the SC cases over slavery, and Tainey was still Chief Justice til he died in 1864. Also we can note in a thread about Lincoln most of the bigots here can't comment on Lincoln so they focus on babbling about slavery, even though Lincoln said it wasn't about slavery and complained about the 10% tariff they were going pass.

Taney was a disgrace to the Supreme Court, and tried to legalize slavery across the US.

 

[watsup]

Buchanan's opinion is just that, his opinion. The SC never ruled on it, and as I said Madison specifically opposed including such a clause in the Constitution.

And, for all the sniveling over why the South seceded, they had already won all the SC cases over slavery, and Tainey was still Chief Justice til he died in 1864. Also we can note in a thread about Lincoln most of the bigots here can't comment on Lincoln so they focus on babbling about slavery, even though Lincoln said it wasn't about slavery and complained about the 10% tariff they were going pass.

Nor was there a court decision which okayed secession, so to claim that it was basically “legal” as you imply is simply not correct. And it is YOU who keeps strawmanning slavery. We have said over and over that Lincoln’s intent was to save the Union, so please quit lying about that. And your use of the term “bigots” to describe us is totally without merit as you can’t show it to be true, and thus it is just psychological projection on your part.

 

[swing_voter]

Buchanan's opinion is just that, his opinion. The SC never ruled on it, and as I said Madison specifically opposed including such a clause in the Constitution.

And, for all the sniveling over why the South seceded, they had already won all the SC cases over slavery, and Tainey was still Chief Justice til he died in 1864. Also we can note in a thread about Lincoln most of the bigots here can't comment on Lincoln so they focus on babbling about slavery, even though Lincoln said it wasn't about slavery and complained about the 10% tariff they were going pass.

The Supreme Court weighed in on the secession issue in Texas v. White in 1869, declaring it unconstitutional.


The South fought to preserve slavery.

Anything else is revisionist history.

 

[Closer]

The Supreme Court weighed in on the secession issue in Texas v. White in 1869, declaring it unconstitutional.


The South fought to preserve slavery.

Anything else is revisionist history.

It's your version that is revisionist. How many times does Lincoln himself need to be cited? Why was nothing done about 'slavery' until years after the war started? Instead they focused on pork for railroad scams, protectionism for northern manufacturers, and real estate fraud.