Where would North America and Planet Earth be if President Lincoln had failed?

[TML]

you stated the federal government did not enforce state laws.

Correction, I stated the federal government did not enforce its own laws (i.e. federal fugitive slave laws pass by Congress in pursuance of Article 4 Section 2 Clause 3)

It is not the responsibility of Federal government to enforce state laws, except in the capacity you mention

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

i didnt see it that way, next time steer clear of emotional comments, if make for a better argument.

I cannot control what you understand. There wasnt any emotions in describing those that support slavery as morons. You jumped to conclusions when you saw the word moron, but you missed the fact that the only reason that you could be offended by what I said was if you were a supporter of slavery.

But as a I said there isnt anything wrong with becoming emotional when it comes to something as vile as slavery. But lets back up a bit here.


I never said that the Constitution limits rights. I dont even know why you said that. The 13th Amendment protects our rights it doesnt limit them because to own slaves is not a right. So do you have a problem with the 13th Amendment?

 

[TML]

But Lincoln apparently wasnt racist enough for his assassin.

But here is a fact, Lincoln did issue the Emancipation Proclamation. And in his last speech he recommended extending the vote to African Americans. Lincoln changed his position you knew that right? Lincoln supported black suffrage. Which makes your point mute.

Abraham Lincoln's Last Public Address

But my point here isnt racism its slavery. And Lincoln makes a really good case.

July 1, 1854: Fragment on Slavery

If A. can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why may not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A?--

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.

There's no argument from me against the ideas that slavery is wrong.
However, his position, and the Emancipation Proclamation (which only freed slaves in the Confederacy - where he technically had no authority at that time - while states in the north were allowed to keep their slaves) was nothing but a war measure/tactic. He didn't suddenly change his views about the political inequality of blacks or wanting to ship them back to Africa, which just so happens to have last another 100 years until the civil rights movement.

 

[Master PO]

Correction, I stated the federal government did not enforce its own laws (i.e. federal fugitive slave laws pass by Congress in pursuance of Article 4 Section 2 Clause 3)

agree..

It is not the responsibility of Federal government to enforce state laws.

if you mean by boots on the ground....no... they do not

but by the courts ..yes...

 

[Master PO]

I cannot control what you understand. There wasnt any emotions in describing those that support slavery as morons. You jumped to conclusions when you saw the word moron, but you missed the fact that the only reason that you could be offended by what I said was if you were a supporter of slavery.

But as a I said there isnt anything wrong with becoming emotional when it comes to something as vile as slavery. But lets back up a bit here.


I never said that the Constitution limits rights. I dont even know why you said that. The 13th Amendment protects our rights it doesn't limit them because to own slaves is not a right. So do you have a problem with the 13th Amendment?

well ....you believe that i was offended [but was not], therefore you must believe you raised an emotional point....to offend me.

i simply stated, that the constitution does not pertain to the people, meaning it does not limit them, its only limits governments.

the 13th amendment protects you from government slavery or involuntary servitude.......it does not protect you from a citizen engaging in those practices,..... criminal law does that.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

There's no argument from me against the ideas that slavery is wrong.
However, his position, and the Emancipation Proclamation (which only freed slaves in the Confederacy - where he technically had no authority at that time - while states in the north were allowed to keep their slaves) was nothing but a war measure/tactic. He didn't suddenly change his views about the political inequality of blacks or wanting to ship them back to Africa, which just so happens to have last another 100 years until the civil rights movement.

I dont care what Lincoln believed. I also dont care about what he did wrong, of course historically I find it fascinating, but it doesnt matter anymore the guys dead. What does matter is that Because of all that we abolished slavery and thats that. So I see nothing wrong with the 13th Amendment it isnt even a issue.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

i simply stated, that the constitution does not pertain to the people, meaning it does not limit them, its only limits governments.

the 13th amendment protects you from government slavery or involuntary servitude.......it does not protect you from a citizen engaging in those practices,..... criminal law does that.

So you think that abolishing slavery is limiting the Government from owning slaves?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Who the **** do you suppose owned slaves?

A. The Government
B. Private citizens

Slaves were owned and traded by private citizens. People in the government owned slaves but the government never owned any slaves.
You are lacking a grasp of reality here, slaves were used as labor by private citizens. All i can do is laugh at you because you are being entirely ridiculous.

 

[TML]

I dont care what Lincoln believed. I also dont care about what he did wrong, of course historically I find it fascinating, but it doesnt matter anymore the guys dead. What does matter is that Because of all that we abolished slavery and thats that. So I see nothing wrong with the 13th Amendment it isnt even a issue.

This is a thread concerning, "Where would North America, and the planet, be if President Lincoln had failed"

It doesn't even matter that his act actually abolished slavery; that the end justified the means (that the result justifies the method of achieving it).

 

[Master PO]

So you think that abolishing slavery is limiting the Government from owning slaves?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Who the **** do you suppose owned slaves?

A. The Government
B. Private citizens

Slaves were owned and traded by private citizens. People in the government owned slaves but the government never owned any slaves.
You are lacking a grasp of reality here, slaves were used as labor by private citizens. All i can do is laugh at you because you are being entirely ridiculous.

our federal constitution was not written for the people.... meaning they don't adhere to it....governments do.

nothing in the constitution places A LIMIT ON A CITIZENS ..directs them to do anything.

slaves were freed from slavery by governmental law under force of arms during the war.......... after.... slaves were made citizens by constitutional law.

since they are now citizens by constitutional law, there are no longer property, and illegal to institute slavery under government laws or by individuals..which falls under criminal law.



can you provide for me a citizen, with a constitutional violation of the 13th?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

our federal constitution was not written for the people.... meaning they don't adhere to it....governments do.

nothing in the constitution places A LIMIT ON A CITIZENS ..directs them to do anything.

slaves were freed from slavery by governmental law under force of arms during the war.......... after.... slaves were made citizens by constitutional law.

since they are now citizens by constitutional law, there are no longer property, and illegal to institute slavery under government laws or by individuals..which falls under under criminal law.



can you provide for me a citizen, with a constitutional violation of the 13th?

what makes James Madison any different then a average American farmer?

I would rather not see this country become any form of aristocracy.

 

[TML]

what makes James Madison any different then a average American farmer?

I would rather not see this country become any form of aristocracy.

You equate a farmer with aristocracy? Explain, please

 

[Master PO]

what makes James Madison any different then a average American farmer?

I would rather not see this country become any form of aristocracy.

Madison laid the foundation of the constitution months before the convention, he took the notes of the convention, made more proposals then anyone, spoke more then anyone, worked on the committee of style, wrote more on the constitution then anyone, and even lived longer then anyone.

and aristocracy, DOES NOT MEAN ROYAL to the founders, ..it means that the state legislatures will chose someone who has political experience to represent there state in the senate...instead of a person with no experience.....

so it has noting to do with being royal.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

You equate a farmer with aristocracy? Explain, please

James Madison is a American citizen. so is the American farmer. what makes Madison and the farmer different?

according to my beliefs, the fact that James Madison is a founding father does not give Madison or any of the founding fathers the right to deny average American citizens a chance to voice their opinions or their right to decide what government they want.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Madison laid the foundation of the constitution months before the convention, he took the notes of the convention, made more proposals then anyone, spoke more then anyone, worked on the committee of style, wrote more on the constitution then anyone, and even lived longer then anyone.

and aristocracy, DOES NOT MEAN ROYAL to the founders, ..it means that the state legislatures will chose someone who has political experience to represent there state in the senate...instead of a person with no experience.....

so it has noting to do with being royal.

and when the state legislatures stop sending qualified men to the senate and instead start sending political crony's, men who helped them win elections, men who were owed a favor, or political ally and friends, the system becomes nothing more then a oligarchy.

 

[Bodi]

He saved the country and struck a blow for democratic rule.

The idea of a Republic being able to endure dissension and survive it's tribulations and emerge as an attractive vehicle for government is directly attributable to the fortitude he showed as President. Lincoln understood what many at the time did not, that the eyes of the world were upon the United States. The destruction of the Union would have undermined Republican government everywhere and strengthened autocrats the world over. The government could not be dissolved due to the frivolities of election outrage, nor could it be torn asunder by violent rebellion. Especially not a rebellion led by aristocratic planters and slave holders.

He saved the country from becoming a splintered wreck. The secession of the Confederacy would surely have created an armed tension on the continent that may never have disappeared. Moreover it would have almost certainly prompted similar efforts both within the Confederacy and the Union has time wore on (some stresses in the Midwest, New England, California, Texas, and Georgia, could already be seen during the war). The result would have been a dysfunctional collection of polities unable to pool their resources, their genius, and their industry to become the greatest country on the face of the earth.

He prevented a slave holding aristocracy from arising as a major power in the Americas, and by his determination to prosecute the war as a liberating one struck a moral blow for millions of enslaved Americans.

Whats more he did all of this without destroying the Constitution. He had the foresight and wisdom to realize that it was better to bend and stretch that document than to allow the entire country to fall to tatters.

I have no sympathy for the rebellion, and I find this resurgent pro-South narrative that has cropped up within the past 3-4 years as childish.

Quoted for emphasis. Great post.

 

[Master PO]

and when the state legislatures stop sending qualified men to the senate and instead start sending political crony's, men who helped them win elections, men who were owed a favor, or political ally and friends, the system becomes nothing more then a oligarchy.

answer me this ..if you are going to have corruption....were would you like it, on a state level were it is less harmful and easier to correct the problem, or on a federal level were it can do much damage and much harder to correct.

corruption is always going to exist, the key is to limits it effects, which is what the founders sought to do.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

answer me this ..if you are going to have corruption....were would you like it, on a state level were it is less harmful and easier to correct the problem, or on a federal level were it can do much damage and much harder to correct.

corruption is always going to exist, the key is to limits it effects, which is what the founders sought to do.

Government is supposed to be "of the people, for the people, and by the people" and i truely see no difference between state government and federal government. government is a instrument of the people, and the people have the right to choose what senator they want to send to represent their state, not the state legislature who only chooses people who they want and not the people they represent.

 

[JJB3333]

i think we would be slightly behind where we are now, but not much. the civil war would have happened sooner or later, even if he failled but the 2nd would be far more worse

 

[Master PO]

Government is supposed to be "of the people, for the people, and by the people" and i truely see no difference between state government and federal government. government is a instrument of the people, and the people have the right to choose what senator they want to send to represent their state, not the state legislature who only chooses people who they want and not the people they represent.

the founders sought to divide power between the states and the people.

they did not want power concentrated into one entity, but spread power out, which is what republican government does.

democracy concentrates it, which makes democracies unstable.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

our federal constitution was not written for the people.... meaning they don't adhere to it....governments do.

nothing in the constitution places A LIMIT ON A CITIZENS ..directs them to do anything.

slaves were freed from slavery by governmental law under force of arms during the war.......... after.... slaves were made citizens by constitutional law.

since they are now citizens by constitutional law, there are no longer property, and illegal to institute slavery under government laws or by individuals..which falls under criminal law.



can you provide for me a citizen, with a constitutional violation of the 13th?

Hodges v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._Alfred_H._Mayer_Co.

 

[Surtr]

Slavery would have died out within 50-100 years anyway, due to economics and technology. Just sayin'.

Funny you bring that up, because after the war, the southern states started using convict labor to great effect. I don't remember the exact quote by a plantation owner, but it went something like 'criminals are better, because they don't cost a thing, you don't have to feed, house, or clothe them, and if one gets sick or dies, the prison just sends you a new one'.

 

[chuck71]

I'm conflicted about Lincoln. He destroyed the Constitution and the United States. Made it into a federal nation and the feds have done nothing but take power they shouldn't have had after that. However, as a man of his time, he did what he thought was best for the nation as a whole and was key in ending slavery (the beginning of the end at least).

He sent a lot of young men to die in a war they didn't want to fight in, particularly immigrants. He tore the country apart and put it back together as something the founders would have been radically opposed to (some of the founders at least).

How did Lincoln destroy the Constitution? and the United States?!! He said that if there was a civil war the Union would not start it. The war was started when southerners took control of Fort Sumpter. Lincoln chose as his running mate in 1864, Andrew Johnson, a southern democrat who believed in "States Rights". Lincoln, in my opinion did not want to make this country a federal nation. He simply wanted to abolish slavery, not in the South at first, but at least to the new states coming in from the West. This Country took a drastic turn for the worse when he got assassinated. tks, chuck

 

[Master PO]

Hodges v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._Alfred_H._Mayer_Co.

Hodges v. United States 203 U.S. 1 (1906) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court limiting the power of Congress to make laws under the Thirteenth Amendment. Three White men had been convicted in the Eastern Arkansas District Court for conspiring against Black sawmill workers. The statute used to convict the men prohibits conspiracy to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional liberties, including the right to make contracts. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, holding that that Congress did not have the right to intervene against racially motivated interference with labor contracts.

statue or u.s.code

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968),[1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that Congress could regulate the sale of private property in order to prevent racial discrimination: "42 U.S.C. § 1982 bars all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property, and that the statute, thus construed, is a valid exercise of the power of Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment."

 

[chuck71]

Re: Where would North America and Planet Earth be if Lincoln had failed: I often think about what this Country (North America) would be if Lincoln had failed. My answer to myself is "Thank God he didn't". And if providence would have allowed him to live thru his 2nd term, I see a much better America. He wanted to restore the South to the way it had been before the War (minus slavery, of course.) There probably would not have been a "Jim Crow South" because the "Carpet Baggers" would not have been able to take control of the South and humiliate the southern white man. The fact that we were one nation during World Was Two was extremely significant in winning the war, although I believe Russia was the biggest factor. tks, chuck

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Hodges v. United States 203 U.S. 1 (1906) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court limiting the power of Congress to make laws under the Thirteenth Amendment. Three White men had been convicted in the Eastern Arkansas District Court for conspiring against Black sawmill workers. The statute used to convict the men prohibits conspiracy to deprive American citizens of their Constitutional liberties, including the right to make contracts. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, holding that that Congress did not have the right to intervene against racially motivated interference with labor contracts.

statue or u.s.code

Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968),[1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that Congress could regulate the sale of private property in order to prevent racial discrimination: "42 U.S.C. § 1982 bars all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property, and that the statute, thus construed, is a valid exercise of the power of Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment."

Forbidding slavery isnt a limitation of individual rights it is the protection of individual rights. Those cases that I linked dealt with individuals and the 13th Amendment.