-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The resignation of Jack Hunter, the social-media director of Sen. Rand Paul (R, Kentucky), also known by the moniker “Southern Avenger,” has brought to the surface a not insignificant minority who identify themselves as libertarians. This minority defends the Old South, the Southern cause, and the Confederacy. These Neo-Confederate libertarians claim to be anti-slavery and their arguments are a case study in cognitive dissonance.
Timothy Sandefur (pdf) gives lie to any notion that states have a “right” to unilateral secession:
Since the Constitution is a law binding the People, and not a league of states, states have no authority to intervene between the people and the national government. If the people of a state wish to leave the union, they may not do so unilaterally, but must obtain the agreement of their fellow citizens—or they must rebel in a legitimate act of revolution.
Sandefur also notes that the Declaration of Independence imposes harsh restrictions on those seeking a legitimate act of rebellion. The right to throw off a government can only be exercised after “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism.” The Confederacy was formed to violate rights, especially the right to self-ownership, not secure them.
The Confederate states were motivated to secede by the desire to maintain slavery. In their Declarations of Causes, four southern states, South Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Mississippi, make clear that abolition of slavery was their primary reason for secession. The Confederate Constitution stated: “No law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” One cannot rationally justify Confederate secession on morals grounds while ignoring the great evil that such a secession intended to preserve.
In the postbellum South racial dominance was practiced unashamedly. “State’s Rights” became the rallying cry whenever the Federal Government insisted on adherence to the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The right of association and property owner’s rights were a common smokescreen used to defend Jim Crow, southern apartheid, laws. Today, “voter fraud” allows politicians cover when African-American voters are disenfranchised. The perversion of these concepts to scam voters into supporting the elite white power structure should not be tolerated.
The right to have your children attend a neighbor school was invented when the Supreme Court found segregated schools unconstitutional and busing was the solution. Today, taxpayer funding of private academies through voucher programs seeks to circumvent the 14th Amendment restrictions.
One cannot rationally support the Confederacy while condemning slavery. The raison d’être for the Confederacy was slavery. If one condemns slavery, then one condemns those who practiced it and sought to preserve it. One cannot simultaneously support the Southern state’s right to secede from the Union while supporting the denial that right to the individuals in those states. One cannot endorse the claim that secession was supported by a majority of the population when 40% of that population is not allowed to participate in the decision.
H/T: Ilya Somin, Jacob Levy, Jonathan Blanks, Jason Kuznicki, Randy Barnett, Conor Friedersdorf, Corey Robin, Massimo Pigliucci.
OS:
“Larry, the civil war was started by confederates attacking a US military installation. Namely, Fort Sumter.”
(Yes they were PROVOKED by Union troops NOT leaving THEIR Fort after FOUR MONTHS of being warned to leave)
“Lincoln had made it clear he would protect US property, and his intent was to preserve the Union.”
(Despite the fact that NO founding document indicates the states are in a perpetual Union)
“The attack on Fort Sumter was the 1861 equivalent of the attack on Pearl Harbor or the 9-11 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon.”
(Except for that tiny little fact you left out that the Japanese and Osama bin Laden, who they pinned 9/11 on, was NEVER a part of THIS country, so they were considered FOREIGN ordered attacks in which the US were NOT considered the belligerents….but the North WAS considered that since they were the aggressors by NOT LEAVING a seceded state’s Fort—–ALSO, and most importantly…the US government, in retaliating against Japan, was NOT violating the Constitution since that war was authorized by Congress, but they WAS violating it by levying war against the southern states—in fact, it’s considered TREASON according to Art. 3, sec 3 of the Constitution…….which is IGNORED every time I mention it). (But the 1861 attack WAS like our invasion of Iraq in one way—–BOTH were not authorized by Congress—–which means BOTH wars [Iraq and Lincoln’s war against the south] were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So, thank you for the most awful analogy anybody could possibly give)
“However, it was not necessary for Congress to declare war, because Lincoln and Congress did not recognize the confederacy as a foreign power. It was a rebellion, and Congress does not declare war in order to put down armed riots. In fact, a formal declaration of war by Congress would have given legitimacy to the secessionists they did not deserve.”
(OH god, I am so GLAD you said this because it proves all my points. IF Lincoln’s reasoning for attacking without the consent of Congress was because it was not a WAR [and even he admitted this because he called it a rebellion] then ALL of his acts were UNCONSTITUTIONAL because every atrocity Lincoln committed would have been LEGAL ONLY if Congress authorized Lincoln’s invasion. If Lincoln did not consider the Confederacy legitimate, that means he still considered them UNION STATES, and since that’s the case, he was committing TREASON according to Art. 3, Sec 3 of the Constitution, that states:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Did ya notice the word “ONLY” in there?)
(So Lincoln is SCREWED either way. On one hand, if he calls it a “rebellion” and not a “war” [which he did], according to you he doesn’t have to consult Congress [which I would LOVE to see your proof that Lincoln does not have to consult Congress unless the enemy is FOREIGN], but since it’s not a “war” everything he does is unconstitutional [because it’s not a war]. And since it is a “rebellion”, then they are still UNION states, therefore he is committing treason by levying war against them.
On the other hand, if he calls it war, he is giving legitimacy to secession [and since that’s the case, that would mean secession is constitutional, therefore he CANT attack] he has to consult Congress and get their approval, and even then he is STILL committing treason because even a SECEDED state is still a state. THIS is the VERY reason he did NOT get Congress’ approval. Lincoln KNEW it was unconstitutional and treason to invade states. He simply didn’t care)
“If you want to find out how that works, get some of your neo-confederate friends to attack a government fort, lets say, someplace like Fort Bragg or Fort Knox. See if the President or Congress declares war on you, or just slaps you down.”
(If we just attacked it out of the blue for NO reason, they would have every right to do what is LEGALLY necessary to punish us. But this is not what happened at Fort Sumter. I’ve only explained this a million times. South Carolina SECEDED from the Union and they formed the CONFEDERACY on February 8, 1861. They would NOT leave a SECEDED state—they PROVOKED the south and were the aggressors. That’s a MUCH different scenario than me and a bunch of guys just attacking something for no reason—douchebag)
“FDR declared war on Japan because the Empire of Japan is a foreign power. That declaration of war was extended to Germany and Italy because US ships were already under attack and being sunk in the Atlantic. Like Japan, Germany and Italy are foreign powers.”
I have no disagreement here, but where do you get that wars do NOT have to be approved by Congress if they’re NOT foreign?
“The secessionist states were not foreign powers, but a part of the Union.” (Actually they were neither. They weren’t foreign because they were still American, but they were NOT part of the Union after the secession)
“To this day, they are part of the Union, and subject to the laws of the government, just as they were then.” (They were NOT after secession)
“Get this straight. The confederate states were never not a part of the United States of America.” (This is where your thinking is flawed. The founding fathers NEVER spoke of the “United States” in the singular, as if it was some monolithic entity. They always spoke of the “United States” in the plural—–meaning INDIVIDUAL, sovereign, independent states that were part of a confederation of states that could break off any time they wished. When the states seceded, they were broke off from the US government. Whether they were “not part of the United States of America” as the singular, monolithic entity you’re referring to is irrelevant, because NO state is a “part of a giant piece of land”. Each state is independent and sovereign. Remember, the states came FIRST, THEN the Union—–not the other way around (as Lincoln FALSELY believed).
If Lee & his Aide-de-Camp hadn’t have sucked as
military commanders the
south may have looked different today.
It looks to me the US has just as sorry leadership today.
This story below won’t be going away any time soon.
Obama/Hillary Clinton involved in ki*lling a US ambassador to give su*rface to ai*r missiles to Al Ciada in Syria?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/08/breaking-obama-administration-is-hiding-benghazi-survivors-dispursing-them-around-the-country-and-changing-their-names-video/
Of course David & the SPLF can always write more stories blaming everything on those of us believe in people’s individual “Rights” & Libertarian views.
OS,
The attack on Fort Sumter was the turning point that started a “Hot” Rebellion.
History taught & parroted by many today, in almost every case, completely neglects the “Cold War” of economics, trade wars & the banking/insurance companies scheming to incite “Cold Wars” into becoming “Hot Wars”.
In other words history books just can’t say Southerns started it. Banking/Insurance trash started the Civil War just as they had done before & continue doing so today, right here in the US & Europe.
I remember seeing somewhere that the Russian Govt sent war ships to our West Coast during the US Civil War to protect against the UK, France or any other nation taking advantage of the War to seize control of any western territories.
Point being there were other interested parties actively involved during the “Cold War” phase, the “Hot War” phase & the aftermath to profit from the spoils of war from a collapsed US economy.
IE: Carpet baggers, Modern times, 1990s-2013 Argentina, ongoing Greece, Cyprus, Spain,Portugal, Ireland, Libya, Egypt, Syria….. etc…..
It’s always basically the same game.
It’s been some time since I last read the farewell address of Pres. Andrew Jackson, the President that Killed the Banks!
In his speech I recall he warns the people of the Civil War era as he does us today.
Ya there was an ugly side to him, but you’ll have to come to you’re own conclusions of his words/actions.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=67087
Nal: “Sure you can. If faced with the choice of slavery or the murder of every slave, I would choose the lesser of two evils.”
WHO was going to kill all the slaves????? LOL
Larry, the civil war was started by confederates attacking a US military installation. Namely, Fort Sumter. Lincoln had made it clear he would protect US property, and his intent was to preserve the Union. The attack on Fort Sumter was the 1861 equivalent of the attack on Pearl Harbor or the 9-11 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. Or in another context, Iraq invading Kuwait and seizing the oil fields. However, it was not necessary for Congress to declare war, because Lincoln and Congress did not recognize the confederacy as a foreign power. It was a rebellion, and Congress does not declare war in order to put down armed riots. In fact, a formal declaration of war by Congress would have given legitimacy to the secessionists they did not deserve.
If you want to find out how that works, get some of your neo-confederate friends to attack a government fort, lets say, someplace like Fort Bragg or Fort Knox. See if the President or Congress declares war on you, or just slaps you down. FDR declared war on Japan because the Empire of Japan is a foreign power. That declaration of war was extended to Germany and Italy because US ships were already under attack and being sunk in the Atlantic. Like Japan, Germany and Italy are foreign powers. The secessionist states were not foreign powers, but a part of the Union. To this day, they are part of the Union, and subject to the laws of the government, just as they were then. Get this straight. The confederate states were never not a part of the United States of America.
Larry,
Don’t be surprised that not many folks are listening to you…. Most of the regulars are ignoring you…. Save some….. Now, don’t be paranoid….. Turley doesn’t delete posts or put themin moderation…. WordPress has a mind of its own lately….
Larry:
Another lie.
Sure you can. If faced with the choice of slavery or the murder of every slave, I would choose the lesser of two evils.
Nal, nothing you say matters anymore, so Im ignoring you. Your credibility was blown when you said Lincoln was JUSTIFIED for supporting slavery and Corwin because he was “saving the Union”.
You can’t be AGAINST slavery and at the same time say that exceptions in accepting its existence exist. You can’t have it both ways.
Also, I still have not received ONE LINCOLN QUOTE from anyone that indicated HE WAS FIGHTING THE WAR because of slavery. None exists, because he wasn’t fighting for slavery.
“You should try to read your sources more closely. This Wiki fact is not with regard to Justice Taney, it is with regard to John Merryman.”
I posted that portion by mistake, it was Merryman that was actually taken away, but the warrant for Taney’s arrest was actually written up, BUT it was never served because there was no federal marshal who actually had the nerve to drag the elderly chief justice out of his home. I can provide you with several sources that corroborates the story of the arrest warrant and that it was written up.
“I don’t suppose you have ever heard of the prohibition against shouting “fire” in a theater that is not burning. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
Dumbest thing you’ve said so far. So youre equating people shouting “fire!” in a crowded theatre, endangering people’s lives, with criticizing the president, which endangers NO ONE, except the president’s ego???
“I could attempt to explain the legal fine points of this issue, war vs rebellion and so on, but I am afraid they would be lost on you.”
Translation: you can’t explain it, so you cover it up by suggesting I can’t “handle it”.
Show me PROOF that the civil war was AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS. I will post this several more times for the sole purpose of you having NO EXCUSE for not seeing it.:
Show me PROOF that the civil war was AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
Show me PROOF that the civil war was AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
Show me PROOF that the civil war was AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
Show me PROOF that the civil war was AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
You will NEVER be able to find proof it was authorized by Congress….THEREFORE, you can’t call it a WAR….THEREFORE, you can’t call ANY of Lincoln’s actions LEGAL or CONSTITUTIONAL.
“Suffice to say, Lincoln preferred to conduct a police action against the rebels without prosecuting the remainder of the Southern citizens. That this preference proved highly complex as the result of Southern resistance must have been disappointing. Nevertheless, it was his clear intent to welcome even those who had fought against the Union back into its embrace.”
LOL, yeah, a “police action” he says. Police ALWAYS do the following:
1. Rape Southern civilian women (I have proof this happened)
2. Pillage and plunder southern cities, murdering civilians.
3. Burn entire cities to the ground
4. Enter homes, stealing anything of value and destroying the rest
5. Confiscating crops and livestock and agricultural products
6. Robbing hen roots, slaughtering beef cattle, killing hogs
7. Holding civilians as hostages—sometimes shooting them and burning their homes.
8. Blocking the southern ports to not even allow drugs and medicine to get to southern civilians.
9. Burning churches to the ground
10. Bombardment of the town of Jackson, Mississippi every 5 minutes—day and night. (Sherman did this)
11. Farms stripped bare and completely detroying the southern economy.
12. Robbing civilians at gunpoint
“Police action” you say…LOL. Yeah, the police in my town do these things every single day!!
I will say it again…
Show me PROOF that the civil war was AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS
From Larry’s recommended historian, James G. Randall:
This interpretation of the conflict as insurrection, not war, added to the president’s importance. Congress declares war, or the existence of a state of war; but it is the president who determines the existence of insurrection, or rebellion. Suppression of rebellion is an executive function for which special weapons, particularly the summoning of the militia, have been placed in the president’s hands
Alright boys, stop playing with Cranky Larry-the-chew-toy. His stuffing is all over the living room.
Larry,
“Admit it…you didnt KNOW he wasn’t a Southerner until I TOLD YOU.”
Actually, I looked it up. I try to be careful with the facts. And, as I pointed out, I said he was a sympathizer, not an actual Southerner.
“He was seized in his home at 2:00 am by military authorities . . .”
You should try to read your sources more closely. This Wiki fact is not with regard to Justice Taney, it is with regard to John Merryman.
“So the First amendment didnt [sic] apply to them?”
I don’t suppose you have ever heard of the prohibition against shouting “fire” in a theater that is not burning. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
“The Civil War was never an official WAR. It was NOT a declared war by Congress. Therefore Lincoln had NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO ALMOST EVERYTHING HE DID.”
I could attempt to explain the legal fine points of this issue, war vs rebellion and so on, but I am afraid they would be lost on you. Suffice to say, Lincoln preferred to conduct a police action against the rebels without prosecuting the remainder of the Southern citizens. That this preference proved highly complex as the result of Southern resistance must have been disappointing. Nevertheless, it was his clear intent to welcome even those who had fought against the Union back into its embrace. The notion that all of this is somehow illegal borders on nonsense.
“you did know that the term “cannon fodder” in relation to soldiers is not LITERAL cannon fodder, correct???? It means soldiers are treated as expendable in battle You DID know that right???”
Why, no, that never occurred to me. Thank you for pointing that out.
“moron” . . . “MORON” . . . “you stupid ass hole” . . . “you idiot”.
Now, this is the type of argument for which I have always been at a loss to find the appropriate response. Your reasoning is so very clear, so concise, so crystaline that I find myself at a linguistic deficiency. Truly, you have humbled me. You have chased me from the field. All that remains is for you to type your every word in capitals for the rest of my days. I trust that you will include the occasional epithet along the way, the anticipation of them makes your prose so much more interesting.
pbh
From James G. Randall’s Lincoln in the Role of Dictator:
The government’s use of summary powers, Lincoln showed, was not for partisan advantage, not even for punishment, but for precautionary purposes.
The purpose of the Lincoln government was not to punish any individuals for treason or disloyalty. Its purpose was to detain citizens suspected of actively promoting the enemy’s cause, to hold them for a time in confinement, and then to release them on the promise of good behavior.
When viewed in a larger setting, and in comparison with dictatorships abroad, the irregularities and extralegal procedures of the Lincoln administration bear a milder appearance.
Lincoln’s practice, indeed, fell very far short of a thoroughgoing dictatorship.
Lincoln’s attitude toward freedom of thought was not that of a dictator.
Unlike a typical dictator, Lincoln submitted to election by the people.
The unusual measures he used were to preserve the nation and to preserve democracy in the world.
I posted all of them twice because it said “Comment is awaiting moderation”, so I was altering it, taking words out that might have been the reason for my banishment. LOL
Doesnt matter if I posted twice or 3 times…..pbh will still ignore it.
“Taney was never arrested and the entire story of the warrant relies on one witness who has long since been discredited.”
from wikipedia:
“He was seized in his home at 2:00 am by military authorities and taken to Fort McHenry. His was the first arrest under President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney#The_Taney_Court.2C_1836.E2.80.931864
As for the other two, they were active sympathizers and were given the opportunity to “love it or leave it.”
Ahhh, so the Mayor of Baltimore and Vallandigham cant have freedom of speech in America huh???
So the First amendment didnt apply to them??
LISTEN TO ME VERY CAREFULLY MORON….The Civil War was never an official WAR. It was NOT a declared war by Congress. Therefore Lincoln had NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO ALMOST EVERYTHING HE DID. If it was a DECLARED war by Congress, Lincoln would have been Constitutionally grounded in almost everything he did. IT WAS NOT A DECLARED WAR BY CONGRESS. And for THAT REASON alone, he should have been tried for treason according to Art. 3 Sec. 3 of the Constitution.
We CALL it the Civil War or the War between the States, but technically, it was NO war, and Lincoln even admitted it. He called it a rebellion.
“35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.” That is a rather broad brush. Have you personally reviewed each of these cases? In any event, Ibid.”
I DID respond to this you stupid ass:
I said:
“This is akin to saying that because I didnt review each holocaust victims case, it didn’t exist and they never died. Are you Nal’s brother?”
Got it now???
“41. Tolerating the arrest of ministers who refused to pray for Lincoln.” This one is really obscure. You would do well to provide some citations for these charges, but I already know you are just cutting and pasting crap you have not researched.”
in this book:
“Constitutional Problems under Lincoln” (James Randall)
That book also details the thousands of Northern political prisoners that were sent to Fort Lafayette in NY harbor (The American Bastille, as it was called)
“Executing those who refused to take a loyalty oath.” Now this is pure propaganda. I defy you to present a list of individuals so executed.”
A New Orleans man was executed for merely taking down a U.S. flag—also in Randall’s book.
Oh, and by the way—-you idiot——you did know that the term “cannon fodder” in relation to soldiers is not LITERAL cannon fodder, correct???? It means soldiers are treated as expendable in battle You DID know that right???
” I did not say that inflation was the sole cause of the increase in monetary value. I will say that it contributes overall. What you fail to comprehend is the differential built into freezing my carrying costs in 1994. But, I doubt that you are a homeowner, so much of this must escape you.”
Its not an issue of whether I own a home, it’s how you understand money, and obviously you dont. Inflation is not the cause of it at ALL, not even a little.
“I never said he was a Southerner. I said that he was “Deported to the South that he actively supported.”
Admit it…you didnt KNOW he wasn’t a Southerner until I TOLD YOU.
“I can’t quite figure out how you believe that a man who supported secession could be considered “loyal to the Union.”
I guess you IGNORED my earlier post when I said:
“Again, the “another person would have done worse” twisted logic. The entire point was, he was DEPORTED—-and you have ZERO problem with that. Know what his “crime” was??? …..Vallandigham made a speech in response to Lincoln’s state of the Union address in which he criticized Lincoln for his unconstitutional usurpation of power. The Democrats in Ohio (a loyal UNION state) were so outraged that they nominated Vallandigham for the office of governor even though he had been deported. Vallandigham was devoted to the Union and the Constitution, which is WHY he was critical of Lincoln. He made the point that Congress ALONE has the power to borrow money, and that Lincoln had usurped that power.
Vallandigham criticized Lincoln’s first inaugural address, condemned the Lincoln administration for its “persistent infractions of the Constitution, its high-minded usurpations of power [which] formed any part of a deliberate conspiracy to overthrow the prsent form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead”.
Vallandigham criticized Lincoln sending 75,000 troops to invade the South, which was never approved by Congress. The conflict was never declared a war but was called a “rebellion”. Lincoln never recognized the Confederate government as legitimate, because if he had, he would have had to admit that secession was legitimate. If it was officially declared a war, then the blockade of southern ports would have been constitutional. But it was never declared a war, therefore the blockade of ports was just another violation of the Constitution that the war was supposedly fought to protect.”
Read it this time—moron.
Turley isnt posting my long posts now. LOL.
” I did not say that inflation was the sole cause of the increase in monetary value. I will say that it contributes overall. What you fail to comprehend is the differential built into freezing my carrying costs in 1994. But, I doubt that you are a homeowner, so much of this must escape you.”
Its not an issue of whether I own a home, it’s how you understand money, and obviously you dont. Inflation is not the cause of it at ALL, not even a little.
“I never said he was a Southerner. I said that he was “Deported to the South that he actively supported.”
Admit it…you didnt KNOW he wasn’t a Southerner until I TOLD YOU.
“I can’t quite figure out how you believe that a man who supported secession could be considered “loyal to the Union.”
I guess you IGNORED my earlier post when I said:
“Again, the “another person would have done worse” twisted logic. The entire point was, he was DEPORTED—-and you have ZERO problem with that. Know what his “crime” was??? …..Vallandigham made a speech in response to Lincoln’s state of the Union address in which he criticized Lincoln for his unconstitutional usurpation of power. The Democrats in Ohio (a loyal UNION state) were so outraged that they nominated Vallandigham for the office of governor even though he had been deported. Vallandigham was devoted to the Union and the Constitution, which is WHY he was critical of Lincoln. He made the point that Congress ALONE has the power to borrow money, and that Lincoln had usurped that power.
Vallandigham criticized Lincoln’s first inaugural address, condemned the Lincoln administration for its “persistent infractions of the Constitution, its high-minded usurpations of power [which] formed any part of a deliberate conspiracy to overthrow the prsent form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead”.
Vallandigham criticized Lincoln sending 75,000 troops to invade the South, which was never approved by Congress. The conflict was never declared a war but was called a “rebellion”. Lincoln never recognized the Confederate government as legitimate, because if he had, he would have had to admit that secession was legitimate. If it was officially declared a war, then the blockade of southern ports would have been constitutional. But it was never declared a war, therefore the blockade of ports was just another violation of the Constitution that the war was supposedly fought to protect.”
Read it this time—moron.
“Taney was never arrested and the entire story of the warrant relies on one witness who has long since been discredited.”
from wikipedia:
“He was seized in his home at 2:00 am by military authorities and taken to Fort McHenry. His was the first arrest under President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney#The_Taney_Court.2C_1836.E2.80.931864
As for the other two, they were active sympathizers and were given the opportunity to “love it or leave it.”
Ahhh, so the Mayor of Baltimore and Vallandigham cant have freedom of speech in America huh???
So the First amendment didnt apply to them??
LISTEN TO ME VERY CAREFULLY MORON….The Civil War was never an official WAR. It was NOT a declared war by Congress. Therefore Lincoln had NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO ALMOST EVERYTHING HE DID. If it was a DECLARED war by Congress, Lincoln would have been Constitutionally grounded in almost everything he did. IT WAS NOT A DECLARED WAR BY CONGRESS. And for THAT REASON alone, he should have been tried for treason according to Art. 3 Sec. 3 of the Constitution.
We CALL it the Civil War or the War between the States, but technically, it was NO war, and Lincoln even admitted it. He called it a rebellion.
“35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.” That is a rather broad brush. Have you personally reviewed each of these cases? In any event, Ibid.”
I DID respond to this you stupid ass:
I said:
“This is akin to saying that because I didnt review each holocaust victims case, it didn’t exist and they never died. Are you Nal’s brother?”
Got it now???
“41. Tolerating the arrest of ministers who refused to pray for Lincoln.” This one is really obscure. You would do well to provide some citations for these charges, but I already know you are just cutting and pasting crap you have not researched.”
in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Problems-Under-Lincoln-Randall/dp/1477543570/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375577222&sr=1-1&keywords=constitutional+problems+under+lincoln
That book also details the thousands of Northern political prisoners that were sent to Fort Lafayette in NY harbor (The American Bastille, as it was called)
“Executing those who refused to take a loyalty oath.” Now this is pure propaganda. I defy you to present a list of individuals so executed.”
A New Orleans man was executed for merely taking down a U.S. flag—also in Randall’s book.
Oh, and by the way—-you idiot——you did know that the term “cannon fodder” in relation to soldiers is not LITERAL cannon fodder, correct???? It means soldiers are treated as expendable in battle You DID know that right???
lol, now my comments are “awaiting moderation”—–LOL, i love it. Even Turley hates facts.
” I did not say that inflation was the sole cause of the increase in monetary value. I will say that it contributes overall. What you fail to comprehend is the differential built into freezing my carrying costs in 1994. But, I doubt that you are a homeowner, so much of this must escape you.”
Its not an issue of whether I own a home, it’s how you understand money, and obviously you dont. Inflation is not the cause of it at ALL, not even a little.
“I never said he was a Southerner. I said that he was “Deported to the South that he actively supported.”
Admit it…you didnt KNOW he wasn’t a Southerner until I TOLD YOU.
“I can’t quite figure out how you believe that a man who supported secession could be considered “loyal to the Union.”
I guess you IGNORED my earlier post when I said:
“Again, the “another person would have done worse” twisted logic. The entire point was, he was DEPORTED—-and you have ZERO problem with that. Know what his “crime” was??? …..Vallandigham made a speech in response to Lincoln’s state of the Union address in which he criticized Lincoln for his unconstitutional usurpation of power. The Democrats in Ohio (a loyal UNION state) were so outraged that they nominated Vallandigham for the office of governor even though he had been deported. Vallandigham was devoted to the Union and the Constitution, which is WHY he was critical of Lincoln. He made the point that Congress ALONE has the power to borrow money, and that Lincoln had usurped that power.
Vallandigham criticized Lincoln’s first inaugural address, condemned the Lincoln administration for its “persistent infractions of the Constitution, its high-minded usurpations of power [which] formed any part of a deliberate conspiracy to overthrow the prsent form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead”.
Vallandigham criticized Lincoln sending 75,000 troops to invade the South, which was never approved by Congress. The conflict was never declared a war but was called a “rebellion”. Lincoln never recognized the Confederate government as legitimate, because if he had, he would have had to admit that secession was legitimate. If it was officially declared a war, then the blockade of southern ports would have been constitutional. But it was never declared a war, therefore the blockade of ports was just another violation of the Constitution that the war was supposedly fought to protect.”
Read it this time—moron.
“Taney was never arrested and the entire story of the warrant relies on one witness who has long since been discredited.”
from wikipedia:
“He was seized in his home at 2:00 am by military authorities and taken to Fort McHenry. His was the first arrest under President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney#The_Taney_Court.2C_1836.E2.80.931864
As for the other two, they were active sympathizers and were given the opportunity to “love it or leave it.”
Ahhh, so the Mayor of Baltimore and Vallandigham cant have freedom of speech in America huh???
So the First amendment didnt apply to them??
LISTEN TO ME VERY CAREFULLY MORON….The Civil War was never an official WAR. It was NOT a declared war by Congress. Therefore Lincoln had NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO ALMOST EVERYTHING HE DID. If it was a DECLARED war by Congress, Lincoln would have been Constitutionally grounded in almost everything he did. IT WAS NOT A DECLARED WAR BY CONGRESS. And for THAT REASON alone, he should have been tried for treason according to Art. 3 Sec. 3 of the Constitution.
We CALL it the Civil War or the War between the States, but technically, it was NO war, and Lincoln even admitted it. He called it a rebellion.
“35. Illegally imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens.” That is a rather broad brush. Have you personally reviewed each of these cases? In any event, Ibid.”
I DID respond to this you stupid ass hole:
I said:
“This is akin to saying that because I didnt review each holocaust victims case, it didn’t exist and they never died. Are you Nal’s brother?”
Got it now???
“41. Tolerating the arrest of ministers who refused to pray for Lincoln.” This one is really obscure. You would do well to provide some citations for these charges, but I already know you are just cutting and pasting crap you have not researched.”
in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Problems-Under-Lincoln-Randall/dp/1477543570/ref=tmm_pap_title_0
That book also details the thousands of Northern political prisoners that were sent to Fort Lafayette in NY harbor (The American Bastille, as it was called)
“Executing those who refused to take a loyalty oath.” Now this is pure propaganda. I defy you to present a list of individuals so executed.”
A New Orleans man was executed for merely taking down a U.S. flag—also in Sprague’s book.
Oh, and by the way—-you idiot——you did know that the term “cannon fodder” in relation to soldiers is not LITERAL cannon fodder, correct???? It means soldiers are treated as expendable in battle You DID know that right???