MT and the rest of Hillary lovers

[Chalenge]

Obviously the liberal government schools you attended brainwashed you thoroughly.

The Constitution in Article 10 prohibits any state from entering into any confederation and (without going into painful detail) other such things as the rebellious states attempted. Lincoln understood this and upheld the oath of his office in calling up the army to retain the states within the Union. The blame falls upon the secessionists for any bloodshed that followed.

[AKIron]

Obviously the liberal government schools you attended brainwashed you thoroughly.

The Constitution in Article 10 prohibits any state from entering into any confederation and (without going into painful detail) other such things as the rebellious states attempted. Lincoln understood this and upheld the oath of his office in calling up the army to retain the states within the Union. The blame falls upon the secessionists for any bloodshed that followed.

Probably you meant Article 1 section 10?

[lasersailor184]

Obviously the liberal government schools you attended brainwashed you thoroughly.

The Constitution in Article 10 prohibits any state from entering into any confederation and (without going into painful detail) other such things as the rebellious states attempted. Lincoln understood this and upheld the oath of his office in calling up the army to retain the states within the Union. The blame falls upon the secessionists for any bloodshed that followed.

No state still in the Union may enter into a confederation.  This is a clause of membership.  To be a member of the United States, they need to abide by these rules.

But if they aren't in the union, they can do whatever they damn well please.  I've already quoted this:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Government is made by the people who want it.  If a geographical region doesn't agree with the Government to the point where they practically believe the opposite, why should they stick around and abide by the rules?  The declaration, the foundation of why we form governments, clearly states that not only **CAN** they leave, but it is their duty to do so.

[Ack-Ack]

Ignoring for a moment that he abolished slavery (which I believe that any president at that time would have done), Lincoln would be viewed as a sub-rate president.  He bumbled his way through the war.  He got 600,000 americans killed.  He likely had no right to start the war anyway.

The other candidate that was running against Lincoln was Douglas and he wasn't about to get rid of slavery, he was going to appease the South in order to gain their vote. 

And he didn't start the war, the South were the ones to fire the first shot in the Civil War.  Remember Fort Sumter?

ack-ack

[lasersailor184]

Any candidate that was going to win.  Pretty much any northerner fielded was going to win.

[Chalenge]

That is why you make your mistake. The Declaration is not the basis of our Government.

"'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other." - Abraham Lincoln

This from the one man who would later have the duty to maintain the union.

Abraham Lincoln was instrumental in the founding of the Republican Party. As such he was the natural choice to be that parties first President.

[Ack-Ack]

Lincoln's only challenge was Stephan Douglas for the presidency.  Douglas supported a Union of half free states and half slave states.  Douglas was also the architect of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which led to the bloodshed between the free state and slavery supporters during that time.

Douglas was also a slave owner, having a plantation in Mississippi and is famous for this quote.

"For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any and every form. I believe this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship to white men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians and other inferior races." — Sen. Stephen Douglas, D-IL, 1858.

Now, do you really think that a man that campaigned on a platform of a Union made up of free and slave states would have abolished slavery upon election?

ack-ack

[bongaroo]

Obviously the liberal government schools you attended brainwashed you thoroughly.

The Constitution in Article 10 prohibits any state from entering into any confederation and (without going into painful detail) other such things as the rebellious states attempted. Lincoln understood this and upheld the oath of his office in calling up the army to retain the states within the Union. The blame falls upon the secessionists for any bloodshed that followed.

Obviously the conservative government schools you attended brainwashed you thoroughly.  See what I did there?

[lasersailor184]

That is why you make your mistake. The Declaration is not the basis of our Government.

"'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'(Mark 3:25) I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other." - Abraham Lincoln

This from the one man who would later have the duty to maintain the union.

Abraham Lincoln was instrumental in the founding of the Republican Party. As such he was the natural choice to be that parties first President.

Did you skip the Declaration month in history class?

The Declaration is why and how governments are formed.  It talks about why we fought against Britain to start our own.  It talks about why anybody would form their own government.  It was why we thought we had the power to form the confederation, then the constitution.

Just because some ultra melon in a hat says he has the right to rejoin the union does not mean he does.  I can say that I have the right to wonder over to your house and molest your dog.  Saying that it is my duty doesn't give my silly statement more power.  And just because I said it does not make it true.

[Chalenge]

Obviously the conservative government schools you attended brainwashed you thoroughly.  See what I did there?

Yes. You presumed I attended government schools at all. I predate the current system dominated by the department of education (which should be abolished along with the IRS).

And just because I said it does not make it true.

That much you got right. The Declaration is not how governments are formed. The Declaration was a statement of separation from tyranical Britain. The Declaration was a document formally explaining why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War.

[Toad]

Ah, Lincoln. The Greatest of them all. Freer of slaves, defender of the union.

I posted this a while back. Imagine if tEh EEveE1 BOOOSH had done these things:

"Lincoln suspended Habeas corpus on April 27, 1861, had it overturned in US Circuit Court and told (later) Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney to jam it.

Oh yeah, he declared martial law as well, trying civilians in military courts; this included Congressmen opposing him. For example, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, who was forcefully taken from his Dayton, Ohio home in the middle of the night by 67 armed federal soldiers, thrown into a military prison without due process, convicted by a military tribunal, and deported (to Canada).

Why did Vallandigham get arrested you ask?

Vallandigham was appalled and outraged at Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and his arrest of thousands of Northern political opponents; the trial of civilians by military tribunals even though the civil courts were operating; arbitrary arrests without warrants or charges; military edicts that prohibited criticism of the Lincoln administration; the arrest of all of the editors of opposition newspapers in Ohio; and the mobbing and demolition of opposition newspapers by Republican Party activists or federal soldiers.

Vallandigham’s "act of treason" was to make a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives (which was repeated to his home constituents) in which he condemned the Lincoln administration’s "persistent infractions of the Constitution" and its "high-minded usurpations of power," which were designed as "a deliberate conspiracy to overthrow the present form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead." (See The Record of Hon. C. L. Vallandigham: Abolition, the Union, and the Civil War, Wiggins, MS: Crown Rights Publishers, 1998).

Starting a war without the consent of Congress, Vallandigham said, was the kind of dictatorial act "that would have cost any English sovereign his head at any time within the last two hundred years." Echoing Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, he railed against the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the consent of the owners; the subversion of the Maryland government by arresting some twenty legislators, the Mayor of Baltimore, and Congressman Henry May; censorship of the telegraph; and the confiscation of firearms from private citizens.

"

I guess all these things can be overlooked in Lincoln because... well, because the historians decided he was great.

I'd like to see the response of all you Lincoln defenders if Booosh suspended habeas for US citizens, told the SC to jam a ruling up their tailpipes and arrested a few Representatives, jailed them and exiled them to Canada.   

[lasersailor184]

Perhaps the

THIRD FREAKING TIME

I quote the same passage from the declaration to prove you wrong.  The previous two times when I quoted the exact same thing in this thread did little to assuage you from saying something stupid.  I'm just really hopeful this time it might stick.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[bongaroo]

Yes. You presumed I attended government schools at all. I predate the current system dominated by the department of education (which should be abolished along with the IRS).

That much you got right. The Declaration is not how governments are formed. The Declaration was a statement of separation from tyranical Britain. The Declaration was a document formally explaining why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War.

Obviously the schools you attended that predate the current system brainwashed you.  There, happy?  Just showing how pointless your argument was and you tried to just throw it back with no argument.  So you get it in return.  Like tennis!

Thwack!

[Chalenge]

As I said before the Declaration does not in itself establish government. Lincoln was duly elected and it was his duty to defend the Constitution that was the basis of this government. No one of the Confederacy was duly elected of the U.S. and the states in secession were attempting the establishment of a Confederacy.

I would LOVE it if Bush acted in the same manner.

[lazs2]

chalenge.. apparently the first states did not get the same message that you got.   There were several movements toward secession before the confederate one.  there was never any question of the legality of it.. in fact.. one attempt came very close.   

The states freely entered into the union and expected that they could secede at any time.  Lincoln had a long held belief that secession was a bad, but not illegal, thing.   He played fast and loose with the constitution and the amendments on an almost daily basis including some of the things toad has mentioned.

He was the first of the really bad presidents.

If the confederates had not fired on the fort... it would have forced Lincoln to commit even more grievous breeches of the constitution.   He would have tho.

lazs