Lincoln vs The Declaration and The Constitution

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
BlkbrryTheGreat
BANNED
Posts: 2658
Joined: 2002-11-04 07:48pm
Location: Philadelphia PA

Lincoln vs The Declaration and The Constitution

Post by BlkbrryTheGreat »

I was reading the book "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo and I found the following paragraphs quite interesting, interesting to the point that I thought it would be worth sharing on the board simply to see the conversation it would provoke (btw, the entire book is good IMO, I recommend it to everyone).
...The advocates of secession always understood that it stood as a powerful check on the e xpansive proclivities of the federal government and that even the threat of secession or nullification could modify the federal government's inclination to overstep its constitutional bounds. A case can be made that secession would "destroy" such extra-constitutional abuses of power; perhaps that is what Lincoln had in mind when he used such language. The right to seced is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Moreover, at the constitutional convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state, but that propsal was rejected after James Madison said
A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably b e considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.
In defending the individual right to bear arms embodied in the Second Amendment to t he Constitution, Madison invoked the right of armed secession. In warning against the dangers of a standing army controlled by the federal government that might invade a state (or states), Madison believed that with a well-armed populace, the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger
(114-115)

As for the Declaration of Independece, I'm only going to quote part of the passage as it is well over 4 pages long.
In the Declaration of Independce Thomas Jefferson listed a "train of abuses" by King George III that the founding fathers believed were so egregious that they justified the colonies' secession from England. Looking over Jefferson's list of abuses, one is hard-pressed to discover any of them that were not also perpetrated by Lincon. Consider the following words of the Declaration:

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He was refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected.

Lincoln imposed military rule on those p arts of the South that became conqured territory during the war, and for twelve years after the war the Southern states were run by military dictatorships appointed by the Republican Party....

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

Myriad new bureaucracies were created to run the occupied states during and after the war. General Benjamin Butler famousl harassed the people of New Orleans during the war by issuing an order that any woman who did not display proper respect for occupying Federal soldiers would be considered a prostitute and treated accordingly. Federal armies pillaged and plundered their way through the Southern state for the duration of the war, and Lincoln supported several confiscation bills that allowed them to plunder private property as they went...

He has affected to render the Military indepedent of and superior to the Civil Power.

This was a consequence of Lincoln's four-year suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

For depriving us in many cases, of the right of Trial by jury.

Habeas corpus was abandoned in the North; civil rights were even more precarious in the federally occupied South. At times during the war, Wouthern men were executed for refusing to take a loyalty oath to the Lincoln government. Many others were imprisioned.
That should certianly be enough to discuss for now, enjoy.
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.

-H.L. Mencken
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Southerners bitching over losing again. In time of War law falls silent. The entire South committed treason - the Constitution is clearly a permanently binding document which once entered cannot be left (those quotes claim the opposite, ignoring clear evidence therein) - and Lincoln, bold and brave man that he was, suppressed the revolt with the necessary force. Honestly, the South is fortunate that we didn't create new states for black citizens, strip the wealth of the traitors and give it to the oppressed, and shoot every damn one of those traitors who broke the union - And hung the leaders from trees. They didn't deserve any better.

That was a war of righteous moral cause and a war of pure and just purpose, in defence of State and of every human virtue. There was no question of its legality nor of its morality, and Abraham Lincoln stands as the man who, in truth, forged a nation out of a confederation, a freedom-loving Republic ready to sacrifice blood in its own defence and in for the liberty of others. In a sense he's the true father of this country, and I'm tired of southerners who can't let the conflict die going around and deginerating him. The sad thing of it is that many of them are the most loyal of modern Americans - But some of the others just can't stand what's now a century and a half gone. Oh well.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
kojikun
BANNED
Posts: 9663
Joined: 2002-07-04 12:23am
Contact:

Post by kojikun »

Here here, Duchess! But I don't believe that this nation has continued on its mission to preserve freedoms. I fear it's become too much of what the founders didn't want, that being an oppressive-majority run state with no regard to freedom if it serves the prejudices of the people.
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
User avatar
BlkbrryTheGreat
BANNED
Posts: 2658
Joined: 2002-11-04 07:48pm
Location: Philadelphia PA

Post by BlkbrryTheGreat »

Southerners bitching over losing again.
Ad Hominum
In time of War law falls silent.
Funny, I thought they were unalienable Rights.
The entire South committed treason - the Constitution is clearly a permanently binding document which once entered cannot be left (those quotes claim the opposite, ignoring clear evidence therein)
Clearly pulled out of your ass, 10th Amendment condradicts that idea blatently, as does the position of Madison, the man who WROTE the Constitution. Try providing evidence instead of making unfounded assertions.
and Lincoln, bold and brave man that he was, suppressed the revolt with the necessary force.
Aka a dicator who violated the civil rights of both Northerns AND Southerners. Sorry, just governments are are instuted among men to protect their Lives and Liberty, tyrants rule through force and elimate those who stand in their way.
Honestly, the South is fortunate that we didn't create new states for black citizens, strip the wealth of the traitors and give it to the oppressed, and shoot every damn one of those traitors who broke the union
Nevermind that only 1 in 4 Southerners actually owned slaves. Or that the majority of the North was just as racist (if not more) then the South. Or that Lincoln SPECIFCALLY said at the start of the War that the War was not being fought to free the slaves.
And hung the leaders from trees. They didn't deserve any better.
Funny, since the North specifically made a policy of NOT trying the leaders of the South, it was thought that they win their case, since secession was considered legal, in a trial.
That was a war of righteous moral cause and a war of pure and just purpose, in defence of State and of every human virtue.
Emancipation Proclamation came after the Battle of Antitam (2 years into the war.), the purpose of the war was not to free the slaves.
There was no question of its legality nor of its morality
Thats not what many Northerns Newpapers thought, at least until Lincoln had them arrested and closed their establishments.

That was a war of righteous moral cause and a war of pure and just purpose, in defence of State and of every human virtue. There was no question of its legality nor of its morality, and Abraham Lincoln stands as the man who, in truth, forged a nation out of a confederation, a freedom-loving Republic ready to sacrifice blood in its own defence and in for the liberty of others. In a sense he's the true father of this country

IE he "fathered" an huge central buracracy that would enforce its every dictate through the force of arms, and keep people from leaving its juristiction through the force of arms.
I'm tired of southerners who can't let the conflict die going around and deginerating him.
How rude of people to point out the facts.
The sad thing of it is that many of them are the most loyal of modern Americans - But some of the others just can't stand what's now a century and a half gone. Oh well.
More ad hominum attacks for listing the facts.
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.

-H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Can we expect similar attacks on FDR as well? I thought it was widely understood that when martial law is declared, civil rights are typically curtailed. Was martial law not declared in this case? Not being an American, I'm not as obsessed over Civil War history as you are.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
BlkbrryTheGreat
BANNED
Posts: 2658
Joined: 2002-11-04 07:48pm
Location: Philadelphia PA

Post by BlkbrryTheGreat »

Darth Wong wrote:Can we expect similar attacks on FDR as well? I thought it was widely understood that when martial law is declared, civil rights are typically curtailed.
Thats ignoring the point, which is whether one has the right to seceed.

If one does then the declarion of martial Law by Lincoln (assuming it was legal) would have no bearing on the South in the first place.

Secondly, the North was not in Rebellion, he had no justification for declaring Martial Law across the North. Even if he did have a legitimate reason to declare Martial Law in the North (such as the NYC riot) the fact remains that he STILL used the army to rig elections, arrest the polictical opponents, and supress the freedom of the press, and freedom of speech (which are supose to be unalienable rights).

Lincoln violated the rights of Americans, and if Roosevelt (or anyone else) did the same he was merely mimicing the same violation through the "legality" of precedent.
Not being an American, I'm not as obsessed over Civil War history as you are.
I'm hardly obsessed over the Civil War, I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've even brought up something related to it, here.

Regardless, the argument is about the Liberty and the Constitution. I would think that anyone interested in freedom would be interested in the conversation.
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.

-H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Thats ignoring the point, which is whether one has the right to seceed.
Tricky question. When lunatic militia groups buy up a small plot of land and unilaterally declare secession from the USA in order to disregard its laws (which has happened), do you think they have that right?
Secondly, the North was not in Rebellion, he had no justification for declaring Martial Law across the North. Even if he did have a legitimate reason to declare Martial Law in the North (such as the NYC riot) the fact remains that he STILL used the army to rig elections, arrest the polictical opponents, and supress the freedom of the press, and freedom of speech (which are supose to be unalienable rights).
I wasn't aware of the "rigging elections" bit. Could you elaborate?
Not being an American, I'm not as obsessed over Civil War history as you are.
I'm hardly obsessed over the Civil War, I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've even brought up something related to it, here.
Perhaps I should re-phrase that to be a bit more direct. Not being an American, I don't give a fuck about your Civil War and hence, I know very little about it. That's why I asked whether martial law had, in fact, been declared.
Regardless, the argument is about the Liberty and the Constitution. I would think that anyone interested in freedom would be interested in the conversation.
Sure, but it's a bit silly to seize upon the word "inalienable", isn't it? We regularly alienate people from the right to life and particularly liberty when they commit crimes.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
BlkbrryTheGreat
BANNED
Posts: 2658
Joined: 2002-11-04 07:48pm
Location: Philadelphia PA

Post by BlkbrryTheGreat »

I wasn't aware of the "rigging elections" bit. Could you elaborate?
Here's a direct quote from the book.
The Federal government placed posters at the polling booths instructing everyone to point out any "peace activists" to soldiers so that they could be arrested and prohibited f rom voting....
The ballots were made of different colors so that the soldiers could throw out the Peace Party votes. "may who attempted to vote the Peace ticket in Baltimore were arrested for carrying a ballot of the wrong color. The charge agaisnt there men was simply 'polluting the ballot box.;...
Not suprisingly, the Republician Party candidates won every single election.... Similar suppression of free elections occured in most other Northern states. "Under the protection of Federal bayonets," wrote David Donald, "New Yord went Republican by seven thousand votes" in the 1864 presidential election.
(144-145)
Perhaps I should re-phrase that to be a bit more direct. Not being an American, I don't give a fuck about your Civil War and hence, I know very little about it. That's why I asked whether martial law had, in fact, been declared.
Ah, sorry I thought you were accusing me of being a Civil War "nut" or something.
Sure, but it's a bit silly to seize upon the word "inalienable", isn't it? We regularly alienate people from the right to life and particularly liberty when they commit crimes.
Keep in mind that trial by jury, fair and expident trial, right to counsul, etc. are also rights. Only after this has been done do the people have the legitimate right to take away the rights of other (for violating the rights of other people by commiting a crime).
Tricky question. When lunatic militia groups buy up a small plot of land and unilaterally declare secession from the USA in order to disregard its laws (which has happened), do you think they have that right?
Difficult question, I'll address it when I log on tomorrow (or later today). I'm going to get some sleep and take some time to throughly think this one through before I answer it.
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.

-H.L. Mencken
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Article IV.

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
That's pretty clear to me.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
NapoleonGH
Jedi Master
Posts: 1090
Joined: 2002-07-08 02:25pm
Location: NJ, USA
Contact:

Post by NapoleonGH »

I seem to recall that Lincoln's actions were constitutional in that he used the president's right to suspend habeus corpus in times of national emergency, but suspending habeus corpus people could be arrested and held without trial indefinetely, making it so that he could have people arrested for any reason, held, then once the war was over and habeus corpus was restored most of these people were released as they hadn't violated any real laws.


Also as far as reconstruction, this wasnt lincoln, he very much wanted everything back to normal ASAP, but if you recall his plans were interupted when he was SHOT IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD. But for Reconstruction, the southern states were conquered territory during reconstruction and were NO LONGER american states, they had to be, one by one, readmitted to the Union, as evidenced by how they had to go through the whole process of becoming states from writing a state constitution that the fed likes, etc. Thus as military districts they could be ruled the way that Alaska was until 1959, as a US District, rather than territory or state. This also serves as evidence to demonstrate that any state CAN leave the union as it pleases, if you recall the Confederacy fired the first shots of the war on Fort Sumter, thus in actuality the war wasnt over the state's rights to leave or not, it was over their right to attack and sieze and damage US federal property
Festina Lente
My shoes are too tight and I've forgotten how to dance
User avatar
Wicked Pilot
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 8972
Joined: 2002-07-05 05:45pm

Post by Wicked Pilot »

Southerners should praise Lincoln and be greatful the North won the war. Had the South remained independent, it'd be a third world nation by now. Even Texas would have been like 'screw you poons, we're going back to Mexico'.
The most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.
User avatar
Joe
Space Cowboy
Posts: 17314
Joined: 2002-08-22 09:58pm
Location: Wishing I was in Athens, GA

Post by Joe »

I've actually heard it speculated that a Southern victory would have turned America into a target for the imperial ambitions of France and Britain (who greatly increased their presence in the countries surrounding America during the Civil War).
Image

BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman

I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
weemadando
SMAKIBBFB
Posts: 19195
Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Contact:

Post by weemadando »

Actually states can leave the nation, but it would take a vote by Congress and Senate in order for their request to be passed. Just like any other legislation.
NapoleonGH
Jedi Master
Posts: 1090
Joined: 2002-07-08 02:25pm
Location: NJ, USA
Contact:

Post by NapoleonGH »

weemadando wrote:Actually states can leave the nation, but it would take a vote by Congress and Senate in order for their request to be passed. Just like any other legislation.

where in the connie does it say that can be done?

Durran: that could very well be true, during the civil war France took over mexico by appointing "Emperor" Maximiliian to run the show, but he was kicked out after a short time
Festina Lente
My shoes are too tight and I've forgotten how to dance
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Post by MKSheppard »

I suppose this is a bad time to point out that I'm
chainging my political affiliation from Republican
to Southern Party...
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
NapoleonGH
Jedi Master
Posts: 1090
Joined: 2002-07-08 02:25pm
Location: NJ, USA
Contact:

Post by NapoleonGH »

good fewer votes for the idiot next election.
Festina Lente
My shoes are too tight and I've forgotten how to dance
weemadando
SMAKIBBFB
Posts: 19195
Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Contact:

Post by weemadando »

NapoleonGH wrote:
weemadando wrote:Actually states can leave the nation, but it would take a vote by Congress and Senate in order for their request to be passed. Just like any other legislation.

where in the connie does it say that can be done?
It doesn't, but its implied in the legislative process of the nation that it can be done.

But it would take several things:

1) Legislation within the state calling for a referendum on teh issue.
2) A successful referendum
3) Legislation to move the referendum to the national parliament.
4) An act of parliament on the national level recognising the referendum and releasing the state.

Its MASSIVELY unlikely that all of these things could be accomplished.
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

weemadando wrote:
where in the connie does it say that can be done?
It doesn't, but its implied in the legislative process of the nation that it can be done.

But it would take several things:

1) Legislation within the state calling for a referendum on teh issue.
2) A successful referendum
3) Legislation to move the referendum to the national parliament.
4) An act of parliament on the national level recognising the referendum and releasing the state.

Its MASSIVELY unlikely that all of these things could be accomplished.[/quote]

Actually, the section of Article IV I listed stated that process as being just the one required (though a referendum might not be required, but rather whatever process the particular states in question require for a constitutional amendment of their own state constitution, which might be different). The Confederacy never undertook that process. Their action unconstitutional and in taking up arms against the Federal Government in that context, was treason.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
BlkbrryTheGreat
BANNED
Posts: 2658
Joined: 2002-11-04 07:48pm
Location: Philadelphia PA

Post by BlkbrryTheGreat »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Article IV.

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
That's pretty clear to me.
Did you even read article IV? It clearly addresses the creation of new States from existing states. Like the creation of West Virginia from the State of Virginia.
NapoleonGH wrote:
weemadando wrote:
Actually states can leave the nation, but it would take a vote by Congress and Senate in order for their request to be passed. Just like any other legislation.


where in the connie does it say that can be done?
It doesn't, but its implied in the legislative process of the nation that it can be done.

But it would take several things:

1) Legislation within the state calling for a referendum on teh issue.
2) A successful referendum
3) Legislation to move the referendum to the national parliament.
4) An act of parliament on the national level recognising the referendum and releasing the state.

Its MASSIVELY unlikely that all of these things could be accomplished.


If its not a power explicitly assigned by the Constitution then that legislature has no authority on the issue, as is stated in the 10th Amendment.
Actually, the section of Article IV I listed stated that process as being just the one required
No it didn't...

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Their action unconstitutional and in taking up arms against the Federal Government in that context, was treason
Sorry, but the evidence you've provided hasn't proved that.
Devolution is quite as natural as evolution, and may be just as pleasing, or even a good deal more pleasing, to God. If the average man is made in God's image, then a man such as Beethoven or Aristotle is plainly superior to God, and so God may be jealous of him, and eager to see his superiority perish with his bodily frame.

-H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

MKSheppard wrote:I suppose this is a bad time to point out that I'm
chainging my political affiliation from Republican
to Southern Party...
Fuck the South.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Post by RedImperator »

God damn it, why do people insist on making heros about a bunch of Goddamn slavocrats who threw a fit when they lost a presidential election? The men that created the Confederacy got 600,000 Americans killed and their own homeland ruined for nothing--may I remind you that the Democrats still controlled Congress (or would have had the southerners not walked out) and the Taney Supreme Court was packed with Southern sympathizers? Lincoln couldn't have done a damned thing to them and wasn't going to try. The moral right to secede from or overthrow a tyrannical government is a fundamental human right, but democracy is worthless if the losing side of every election can walk away.
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
User avatar
Robert Treder
has strong kung-fu.
Posts: 3891
Joined: 2002-07-03 02:38am
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by Robert Treder »

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Fuck the South.
RedImperator wrote:God damn it, why do people insist on making heros about a bunch of Goddamn slavocrats who threw a fit when they lost a presidential election? The men that created the Confederacy got 600,000 Americans killed and their own homeland ruined for nothing--may I remind you that the Democrats still controlled Congress (or would have had the southerners not walked out) and the Taney Supreme Court was packed with Southern sympathizers? Lincoln couldn't have done a damned thing to them and wasn't going to try. The moral right to secede from or overthrow a tyrannical government is a fundamental human right, but democracy is worthless if the losing side of every election can walk away.
These are the two best responses to the American Civil War that I've ever heard. Seriously.
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'

Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
HemlockGrey
Fucking Awesome
Posts: 13834
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm

Post by HemlockGrey »

I was going to blast the Confederacy, but Red and Illumintus already did it.

Damn.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Post by SirNitram »

It may be legal to leave the Union, but not by simply grabbing guns and saying 'Get the fuck off our land!'.

If people want to examine his unconstitutional acts, you should look at the state of West Virginia, the only third party in the Civil War(Or so sayeth the Mountianeers :) ).
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Post by RedImperator »

I should point out that I feel it's acceptable to call individual Confederate soldiers and officers heroes--they were fighting for what they believed was their liberty and clearly saw themselves as the heirs of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of the Founding Fathers, and their suffering was as needless and tragic as those of the Union fallen. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the planters who created the Confederacy are guilty of their slaughter as well.
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues
Post Reply