quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Please point out chapter and verse all of the 'consitituional' terms for succeeding from the union ? There are none. The south thought they had a right to yet no one ever took succession to the federal courts...they would have lost their case. They had no case. 9 states voted internally to succeed before Lincoln was even inaugurated. Texans unconstitutioally (Texas constitution) threw Sam Houston out of office (telling them they would lose) so they could then succeed. The whole consitutional argument about the civil war against Lincoln and the north is bogus as hell.

There is nothing bogus about the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

quote:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomAviator

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

When is somebody gonna slam Ole Abe ? I mean, he didn't serve in the military. He was responsible for the death and maiming of thousands of his own countrymen. He freed the lazyass darkies and ruined the economy of the South for decades, and he died while enjoying a play put on by a buch of faggy thespians.

Don't even get me started on Martin.

C'mon, let all that right wing fascist hatred out. You'll feel better.

Why don't y'all go piss on somebody else's grave ?

I have slammed Abraham Lincoln.  He was a tyrant, and he single-handedly destroyed our status as a Republic.  If you think the American Civil War was about freeing slaves, than you have a simple-minded view of history. 

I am far from being a fascist, and that is a typical insult from someone on the Left.  The Kennedys have never done anything I find admirable.  Unlike the sheep in this country, I don't worship them or find them fascinating.  When I hear some moron describe the Kennedys as our royal family, I want to fucking choke them. 

Lincoln never intended to free the slaves. He woke up with a bad hang over the next day and said "I FREED WHO???"  Ok just joking - but Lincoln was not the champion of racial equality he was believed to be. There are numerous historical documents suggesting that he wanted to abolish slavery AND TO REPATRIATE SLAVES. Ie - he didnt love black people so much he wanted them free, he hated them enough that he wanted them out of this country even if at the time they were legally chattel.

Which raises another interesting point... and one Im sure will light many tampon strings. While this legal argument would never hold up in todays courts using todays moral code - what lincoln did in emancipation was LEGALLY WRONG. No person shall be deprived of property without due process. The slaves were, under the law of the land at the time, property. They were legally acquired, highly expensive pieces of farm machinery, bought at auctions and they came with a bill of sale. They were what is legally known as "chattle" ie "personal property". The emancipation proclamation was a unilateral presidential declaration under which tens of thousands of Americans were deprived of millions of dollars worth of property that they acquired legally and paid for with their hard earned dollars.

Talk about overstepping Presidential authotity! Imagine if for instance Bush declared that "Henceforth, all Ford Explorers are set free and can not be owned, bought, or sold". Well you know, I would be pretty pissed cause Im out $38,000 and where is my compensation and due process??? Don't give me the moral argument of keeping slaves as being wrong etc, or branding me a racist, because thats not what I am discussing here. I am referring unemotionally and only to the isssues of PROPERTY LAW, which is the legal status the slaves had at the time - chattel property used in agricultural production. (Im not saying thatsright, but thats the law of the time) Emancipation was a tremendous smear upon the property rights of Southern Americans. They didnt get compensated for the slaves they lost, they didnt get due process, etc... It was analagous to a modern day presisident saying "All John Deere Equipment is now set free and you get nothing for it". To have emancipated properly, and legally, they should have handled it with a buy back program or grandfather the existing slaves but deny the importation of new ones and say that all new births are free men etc...  So Lincoln was actually the first president to run roughshod across the constitution....

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomAviator

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

So emancipation was legally wrong because slaves were " legaly owned property" and Abraham Lincoln was a "tyrant" who "single- handedly destroyed our Republic", eh ?

Nah, no fascists here... I don't see any, do you ? Look in the fucking mirror, dudes.

Yes CJan, thats about the size of it. Note that I said LEGALLY wrong, not morally wrong. Lincoln overstepped his bounds and deprived people of property without due process or compensation. Emancipation should have been handled, as I said with a buy-back rather than a unilateral proclamation. Morally right, legally wrong. My family owned slaves and I have in my collection of neat stuff some documents I had framed and hung on the wall. One of the slaves they bought was $750 which was a lot of money back then!!! No wonder the republic was torn apart and there was resentment for decades... If Lincoln had compensated the slave owners the Klan probably would have never risen...

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Lincoln SAVED the republic from those who would attack it and reduce our country down to either have the north and national government surrender or sue for peace under a nation with slavery spreading out as one if its paramount social values.

And if Lincoln had not been elected, the south would not have seceded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomAviator

I have her blocked so I dont get to see what she is saying except what is quoted in reposts. However, she is clearly on another tirade again and taking my words out of context in her unholy crusade against me etc...

Once again - I did not say emancipation was wrong. I said it was HANDLED ILLEGALLY and Lincoln ran roughshod across the constitution. I said that it was MORALLY RIGHT but LEGALLY WRONG in that the owners, who were in full compliance with the laws of the time, were denied property they had paid dearly for without compensation.

Again - had lincoln followed the law in emancipation there would have been due process and compensation under fair market value such as when a govt exercises emminant domain to seize real estate. This would have prevented generations of bitterness, saved countless lives, and probably prevented a group that spread decades of terror - the Ku Klux Klan - from ever forming.

To reuse my Bush emancipates the Ford Explorer analogy - if you take away my explorer and write me a check for what tis worth Im content and fine. I will wave to it as it drives by me. However, if you take away my Ford Explorer - give me NOTHING for it and Im out $38,000 well then Im seriously pissed and will take my wrath out on every Explorer I see even if it means putting on a hood and going out at night to ruin Ford Explorers wherever I find them... It sounds far fetched but even though morally wrong, under the law of the land at the time, the slaves had the same legal status as a Ford Explorer. They even came with a bill of sale / title when you bought them... They were whether you like it or not, legally considered property and until the 13th ammendment were legal to own.

If the matter was handled better, legally, instead of by proclamation the slaves could have been freed and much hatred, violence, and bloodshed averted. Now how is that so bad to say except that someone has a special hard on for me???

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

I think he's saying that, like a Ford Explorer, the slaves had the right to have gas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Lincoln SAVED the republic from those who would attack it and reduce our country down to either have the north and national government surrender or sue for peace under a nation with slavery spreading out as one if its paramount social values.

And if Lincoln had not been elected, the south would not have seceded.

Surely CL you can do better than this ...the election didn't go there way so they stalk off in a huff...sounds like a schoolyard  not a democracy in action,though when i think about it,seems to be a better explanation for the Civil War than spurious claims of "state's rights

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I really am loathe to refight this tired argument..yes there were sectional differances but lets be honest here....remove slavery from the equation and there is no civil war ...and any claim otherwise is bullshit...The south didn't just fear abolitionist's they had a financial stake in the spread of slavery to new territories,without which the value of there "property" would surely diminish .The age old question of supply and demand....if a republican president could restrict slavery only to the states in whch it presently existed it would in the natural course of events been a deathknell to the economic structure of the south...now if you choose to deny these historical facts and regurgitate propaganda fed to the non slave holding citizens of the south in the 1800's go right ahead ...The south has it's history and it's glorious hero's and i don't mean to diminish them in any way,but to deny that the system they fought to defend was barbaric and inhumane is just ignorance

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Hey popeye just wondering aloud here but do you think it's possible that what is mourned is the person Bobby was becoming and not the hatchet man he was for brother John...By the way weren't you one of the folks defending Bush ANG record under the premise no charges filed therefore no crime...You think anyone else flew into California that day...just asking if the burden of proof is rumours and innuendo when discussing dead Kennedy's but different for the idiot in the white house