20 reasons to join the fight against the Far Left

[Emjay]

He transformed the Union and made certain it remained under his control.    He had no right to oppose those member states that wanted to leave.   The Declaration of Independence made it clear that independence was a natural right,  and Lincoln himself had affirmed this principle twice before.   


 


But he had no intention of doing so when he started his war against the South.   He also had no legal right to do so,  but by January of 1863,  he had so much abused the powers of dictatorship that no one would dare tell him he was violating constitutional law.   



His major failing was killing nearly 3 million people to cement his control on power,  and transforming the relationships between the States and the Federal government from one of voluntary participation to one of coerced obedience to central authority.    "These States"  became "the State."   


The "new nation"  which the founders "brought forth upon this continent"  was based on the principle that people had a right to independence.   Lincoln revoked that principle.

I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion but my husband did.

And he hated Lincoln.

[Cyber Liberty]

That one cracks me up!   

[DiogenesLamp]

And FYI, not even a "sovereign state" has the right to hold a race of people in thrall...the evil that was pervasive in the South

No.  It was pervasive in the Union when the Union began.  In 1776,  all the states were slave states.  By 1787,  the bulk of the states were still slave states.   There was an opportunity for the North Eastern states to reject Union with the Southern states when they were negotiating representation,   and they deliberately caved. 

They also wrote into the US Constitution a clause that was deliberately intended to protect slavery.  It is Article IV,  Section 2,  if you want to look it up. 

So when you speak of slavery,  you should say "Slavery in the Union",  not "Slavery in the South."  Had the Southern states remained in the Union,  it would have been impossible to eliminate slavery before 1895,  and probably for a lot longer than that.     

 

was a timber in the eye of god and Lincoln could not have been more right in extinguishing that hellish institution and restoring the Union.

But that's not why he went to war.   He even clearly said he would support an amendment to the constitution to make slavery permanent and irrevocable.  (The Corwin Amendment)   

Lincoln abolished slavery because it suited his purpose for political power.   He had no intention of doing it because it was the right thing to do,   he did it because he thought it would help defeat the South,  and afterward it would help consolidate power in the South.   (White people were disenfranchised,  and not allowed to vote in the aftermath of the Civil War,   so this  helped to consolidate control of Congress for Lincoln.)   

[EasyAce]

The implication---without wading into the Lincoln qua Lincoln debate---that one is a traitorous seditionist
for deciding any president was a bad president is an implication about which the most polite adjective
to apply is grotesquery.

I would remind one and all of a pronouncement by a Republican president several generations removed from
Abraham Lincoln:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right
or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

That, ladies and gentlemen, came from the mouth of Theodore Roosevelt, a man not without his own presidential
faults, and a man not otherwise renowned for rejecting what Gene Healy in due course would describe as (and
write two books addressing) the cult of the presidency.

[Mesaclone]

He transformed the Union and made certain it remained under his control.    He had no right to oppose those member states that wanted to leave.   The Declaration of Independence made it clear that independence was a natural right,  and Lincoln himself had affirmed this principle twice before.

Yes, he strengthened the role of the Federal government and restrained the right of the states to revolt and dismember the Union itself. And thank god he did so, or we'd either be living in a world dominated by German-Japanese victory...as the isolated states of the US could never have opposed these forces in union...or the ensuing Soviet menace would have consumed the planet. While a stronger central government is not without problems, a string of isolated states would have left each to "hang separately" in the face of the threats of the 20th century. 


 


But he had no intention of doing so when he started his war against the South.   He also had no legal right to do so,  but by January of 1863,  he had so much abused the powers of dictatorship that no one would dare tell him he was violating constitutional law.

This is partially true. He was willing to tolerate slavery in the South if it facilitated maintaining the Union, but he clearly opposed it as an institution. Once the rebellion started, he made clear in private that he would end this ignoble institution in the South as soon as it was feasible...but he wanted a clear military victory before moving forward.   



His major failing was killing nearly 3 million people to cement his control on power,  and transforming the relationships between the States and the Federal government from one of voluntary participation to one of coerced obedience to central authority.    "These States"  became "the State."

3 million people died because southern states rose in rebellion against the Union...and in advocacy for their economic-social interests AND for the continuance of the horrific institution of human slavery.   


The "new nation"  which the founders "brought forth upon this continent"  was based on the principle that people had a right to independence.   Lincoln revoked that principle.

No, he in no way revoked the right of individuals to freedom...and nowhere in either the Declaration nor the Constitution, are individual states guaranteed "independence" from the Union.

ALL of the states consented to the formation of the Union. Nowhere in the constitution, is there an "out" clause or a guarantee that states have a right to "independence".

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion but my husband did.

And he hated Lincoln.

Most of what I have learned of the subject I learned in the last few years.   I had always revered Lincoln during most of my life because I was taught that I should because he freed the slaves.   

For the longest time I never had much reason to question this thinking,  and so I didn't.   But in high school my best friend was a black guy who was obsessed with racism and especially the civil war.   I learned to avoid these discussions because I thought we as a people had more serious problems to worry about than that.   

He became a history major in College,  and I used to go over to his house to lift weights with him.  On one such occasion he gleefully told me that he had just recently learned from his history professor that Lincoln deliberately started the civil war.    Now I had always heard the South started it,  so this came as a shock to me,  and I asked him to explain,  and he did.    I also didn't think it was a matter which anyone should find amusing,  because a lot of people died in that war,  and no one should deliberately start such a thing without a very good reason.   

I kept what he told me in the back of my mind,  and over the years (and since I got the internet)  I started looking for the documents he told me about.   I eventually found them,   so I considered his claim to be stronger than I had earlier thought.   

But what bugged me was motive.  What motive was there for Lincoln to start a war?   It didn't make any sense.    Years later,  I found the motive,  oddly enough on a blog dedicated to mocking the Confederates.   A Guy had put together a map to prove the war couldn't have been over tariffs,  because the South wasn't paying the tariffs.    This map. 



It was several years later that I ran across the information which seemed to contradict that map,




 and this caused all the pieces to come together.   


The money was being produced in the South,  but the Tariff's were being collected in New York City.  Why?   


The more you dig,  the better picture you get of what was going on and why.   


It was about money.   It was all about money.   

[Bigun]

The implication---without wading into the Lincoln qua Lincoln debate---that one is a traitorous seditionist
for deciding any president was a bad president is an implication about which the most polite adjective
to apply is grotesquery.

I would remind one and all of a pronouncement by a Republican president several generations removed from
Abraham Lincoln:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right
or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

That, ladies and gentlemen, came from the mouth of Theodore Roosevelt, a man not without his own presidential
faults, and a man not otherwise renowned for rejecting what Gene Healy in due course would describe as (and
write two books addressing) the cult of the presidency.

@EasyAce

Yes indeed!  Lincoln open wide the doors through which every progressive since has walked. Theodore was but one of them!

[INVAR]

...you are no conservative...rather...you are a seditionist and a traitor.

Blah, blah, blah..... you Trump fanatics declared me a traitor last year, in whom who your fellows warned would will hunt, hang and shoot for treason because I refused to vote for your prince.

So I remain unmoved by your declaration.

I await you to do something about it if you are stupid enough.

[EasyAce]

@EasyAce

Yes indeed!  Lincoln open wide the doors through which every progressive since has walked. Theodore was but one of them!

@Bigun
Which may be true enough, but wasn't exactly the point of what I was trying to say.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, he strengthened the role of the Federal government and restrained the right of the states to revolt and dismember the Union itself.

King George did not have such a right.  Why should Lincoln have such a right?   

And thank god he did so, or we'd either be living in a world dominated by German-Japanese victory...as the isolated states of the US could never have opposed these forces in union...or the ensuing Soviet menace would have consumed the planet. While a stronger central government is not without problems, a string of isolated states would have left each to "hang separately" in the face of the threats of the 20th century. 

So your argument to justify the deaths of nearly 3 million people and the destruction of the original compact of our government was because 80 years in the future the Germans and the Japanese might conquer us? 

Ignoring the probability that had we stayed out of World War I,  (thanks Wilson)  there never would have been a third Reich or probably even an Imperialistic Japan,   how can you justify past atrocities on the basis of future possibilities?   

This is partially true. He was willing to tolerate slavery in the South if it facilitated maintaining the Union, but he clearly opposed it as an institution. Once the rebellion started, he made clear in private that he would end this ignoble institution in the South as soon as it was feasible...but he wanted a clear military victory before moving forward.   

Well that's one theory,   but there is another one that makes more sense.   Had Lincoln simply stopped the South's lawful Independence and kept everything else as it was,   the economic and electoral power of the South would thereafter be permanently turned against him,  his government,  his backers,  and all the other states that sent armies to subdue them.   

They wouldn't use New York shippers,  they wouldn't use New York banks,  New York Insurance,  or anything else.   They would bite the bullet and start concentrating their economic power within their own sphere.   Since they produced the bulk of all International trade in 1860,  this would bite the North East right in the pocket book.   


How to solve this problem?  Bankrupt them.  Destroy their economics.   Give the former slaves the right to vote, and deny it to the conquered people in the South.    Tell everyone you did it for moral reasons.   


MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY!   

3 million people died because southern states rose in rebellion against the Union...and in advocacy for their economic-social interests AND for the continuance of the horrific institution of human slavery.   

When the Colonists rebelled against King George it was a rebellion.   English law had no precedent which allowed people to throw off the rule of the King. 

Once the founders established the principle that any state who wishes to be independent has a natural law right to do so, the paradigm was changed.   States becoming independent was consistent with our own founding Principle,  because we had declared it to be so.   

Therefore the person who "rebelled"  against the Nation was those who would deny this fundamental right to others.    Those who exercised the right to independence were in fact true to the nation's principles.   


Also you ignore the fact that "the horrific institution of human slavery" was going to continue indefinitely in the USA.   It would have remained and persisted as a UNION institution  but for Lincoln breaking even more of the constitution to get his own way.   

No, he in no way revoked the right of individuals to freedom...and nowhere in either the Declaration nor the Constitution, are individual states guaranteed "independence" from the Union.

The Declaration of Independence articulates a collective right of "the people"  to be independent.  It is the basis on which we claimed moral legitimacy to be independent of the United Kingdom,  and if it was powerful enough to break a 1000 year old governance,  it was certainly  up to the task of breaking one that was only "four score and seven years"  old.   

ALL of the states consented to the formation of the Union. Nowhere in the constitution, is there an "out" clause or a guarantee that states have a right to "independence".

There did not need to be.  The Constitution was written 11 years after the Declaration of Independence,  and the Declaration was absolute in it's claim that the right of independence is given by God.   

No one of the time would have given credence to the argument that the Constitution can bind states together involuntarily.    If it was entered into by consent,  it could be left by the withdrawal of consent. 


"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."

[DiogenesLamp]

@Bigun
Which may be true enough, but wasn't exactly the point of what I was trying to say.

The arc of governance always bends towards more control.    What it never does is limit control.   We thought ours did,   but we were mistaken.   Of course some people in the founding era were more perceptive and rightly recognized what might happen. 

From Anti-Federalist paper number 29. 


"Thirdly, the absolute command of Congress over the militia may be destructive of public liberty; for under the guidance of an arbitrary government, they may be made the unwilling instruments of tyranny. The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly."


Army of Pennsylvania marching into Virginia.   Man oh man did they see that coming!   

[Bigun]

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

 Abraham Lincoln, 1847

"We do heartily accept this doctrine, believing it intrinsically sound, beneficent, and one that, universally accepted, is calculated to prevent the shedding of seas of human blood. And, if it justified the secession from the British Empire of Three Millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."

 Horace Greely, December 17,1860

"....many incidents both preceding and following the War support the proposition that the Southern States did have the right to secede from the Union. Instances of nullification prior to the War Between the States, contingencies under which certain states acceded to the Union, and the fact that the Southern States were made to surrender the right to secession all affirm the existence of a right to secede...."

 Newcomb Morse, Stetson Law Review

"What would have been the point of the foregoing proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting or limiting the right of secession if under the Constitution the unfettered right of secession did not already exist? Why would Congress have even considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?"

Chief Justice John Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden

[DiogenesLamp]

Big Gun,  You showed me a couple I hadn't seen before.   Let me give you another to add to your list. 



Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.



Abraham Lincoln,  1852.   


And people talk about Trump being unprincipled.   

[EasyAce]

The arc of governance always bends towards more control.    What it never does is limit control.   We thought ours did,   but we were mistaken.   Of course some people in the founding era were more perceptive and rightly recognized what might happen.

And others tried, almost right out of the chute once the Constitution was ratified, to unlimit control,
little by little. Just ask the Congress that passed, and the President Adams who was foolish enough
to sign, the original Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. For openers.

[DiogenesLamp]

And others tried, almost right out of the chute once the Constitution was ratified, to unlimit control,
little by little. Just ask the Congress that passed, and the President Adams who was foolish enough
to sign, the original Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. For openers.

Anyone in power instinctively tries to gain more power.  It's just how humans are wired.   It is an odd sort,  like Calvin Coolidge,   that has the willingness to hold back the use of power. 


I think much insight on American history can be gained if we look at much of it as conflicts between the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians.

[Bigun]

Big Gun,  You showed me a couple I hadn't seen before.   Let me give you another to add to your list. 



Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.



Abraham Lincoln,  1852.   


And people talk about Trump being unprincipled.

I have more as well!

"The supremacy of the Union in all those points that are thus transferred, and the
sovereignty of the state in all those which are not transferred, must therefore be
considered as two co-ordinate qualities, enabling us to decide on the true mode of giving
a construction to the constitution."

A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
United States of America.
BY WILLIAM RAWLE, LL.D.
SECOND EDITION.
PHILADELPHIA:
PHILIP H. NICKLIN, LAW BOOKSELLER,
NO. 175, CHESTNUT STREET.
1829.

[jmyrlefuller]

ALL of the states consented to the formation of the Union. Nowhere in the constitution, is there an "out" clause or a guarantee that states have a right to "independence".

Tenth Amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement that states joining the union must stay in it forever, and thus because of that, the right to repeal its agreement to join is indeed reserved for the states.

The Articles of Confederation did state perpetual union, but that only applies to the 13 signatory states.

[Bigun]

"If the cotton states shall become satisfied that they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go in peace…We hope never to live in a Republic whereof one section is pinned to another by bayonets."

Horace Greeley, editorial, New York Tribune, November 8, 1860

 "The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."

Karl Marx, 1861

And there is plenty more if anyone still wishes to argue!

[EasyAce]

Anyone in power instinctively tries to gain more power.  It's just how humans are wired.   It is an odd sort,  like Calvin Coolidge,   that has the willingness to hold back the use of power. 

I admit that it would have been tempting, if my state had the write-in vote last November (we have only
"none of these candidates," a vote I cast with no regret or apology), to write in Calvin Coolidge. As
Artemus Ward once said, if you can't find a live man who amounts to anything, by all means find a first
class corpse.

[Bigun]

Tenth Amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement that states joining the union must stay in it forever, and thus because of that, the right to repeal its agreement to join is indeed reserved for the states.

The Articles of Confederation did state perpetual union, but that only applies to the 13 signatory states.

The Articles of Confederation were overthrown by a rump convention and replaced with the Constitution.

[INVAR]

Careful guys - all these facts about Lincoln and the start of the Civil War and it's reasons will deem you a seditionist and traitor among those whom have already declared some of us to be so simply because we refused to vote the way they demanded last year.

[Bigun]

Careful guys - all these facts about Lincoln and the start of the Civil War and it's reasons will deem you a seditionist and traitor among those whom have already declared some of us to be so simply because we refused to vote the way they demanded last year.

Truth is Truth and will forever remain truth! 

[libertybele]

The truth is the truth and you can never hide from it, because it will eventually catch up to you.

[Mesaclone]

You've presented no new information thus far...these are old, failed arguments proclaiming that states can rebel and secede. This dispute was resolved in 1865, and to be frank...the issue must always be resolved via instruments of power when one side is set on sedition and revolt. Individual rights come from the divine, states rights and powers as per the constitution are essentially those not granted therein...but there is another stricture, that of real power and realpolitic. We had the right to revolt from the British because we, in the end, had the power to do so...and yes, a position of moral high ground makes the power easier to accumulate and direct. Put directly, states cannot secede because...well...states will not be allowed to do so AND because we did not write a mechanism into our governing document to allow them to establish any moral high ground in such an effort. Nor is the operation of our government so onerous as to grant sufficient moral authority to once again engage the nation in savage and brutal civil war.

Lincoln understood that the Union must be preserved at almost any cost. He also knew that he had the moral high ground, as the southern states were clinging to slavery...which was not the immediate cause of the war, but make no mistake, its underlying structure was precisely the social construct that led the nation...almost inevitably...into civil conflict. In fact, for Lincoln, the ending of slavery was only subordinate to the necessity of keeping the Union intact...and until rebellion broke out, he had been willing to endure the lesser evil to stifle the greater.

I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.
--March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.
--March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
--March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address

The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
--March 4, 1861 Inaugural Address

[Bigun]

Lincoln's sophistry is well known and documented!