• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abraham Lincoln - Right or Wrong?

ChezC3 said:
Your missing the point that the CSA denounced the "legality" of what you claim and instituted its own government, created its own legality. That was the entire purpose. The secession was tearing Union's authority away and implimenting its own authority. Any argument of legality is futile if the particpants don't recognize the authority. Also, many nations still traded and did business with the CSA. That there is a form of recognition.
Click to expand...

You cannot have it both ways. Not that I care about the legalism's involved in the Civil War, but you cannot on the one hand argue the legitimacy of the Southern Confederacy on the basis of its mere existence and assertion to legitimacy, and obviate the Union's claims of illicit rebellion on the basis of illicit trade with European powers. It is fantastically inconsistent.
 
Oh for the love of Christ. Self-determination is not in and of itself the holiest of holy causes. It also matters why and what you are fighting for. If the Founding Fathers had decided to take up their muskets in the name of defending their rights as slave owners from a 'tyrannical' Britain they would have richly deserved to be suppressed. People have advocated for terrible causes with terrible outcomes before, and the Confederacy was just such a case. I don't care what the State Legislature of Virginia or Alabam had to say about secession it was for an immoral cause and would have undermined Republican rule and the strength of America for all time. I'm glad it was crushed, I'll be damned if some plantation politicians and aristocratic state legislators were going to wrench America apart, sap us of our unity and strength, and discredit the notion popular rule.
 
Sherman123 said:
You cannot have it both ways. Not that I care about the legalism's involved in the Civil War, but you cannot on the one hand argue the legitimacy of the Southern Confederacy on the basis of its mere existence and assertion to legitimacy, and obviate the Union's claims of illicit rebellion on the basis of illicit trade with European powers. It is fantastically inconsistent.
Click to expand...

Seperate issues under seperate contexts...
 
Sherman123 said:
Oh for the love of Christ. Self-determination is not in and of itself the holiest of holy causes. It also matters why and what you are fighting for. If the Founding Fathers had decided to take up their muskets in the name of defending their rights as slave owners from a 'tyrannical' Britain they would have richly deserved to be suppressed. People have advocated for terrible causes with terrible outcomes before, and the Confederacy was just such a case. I don't care what the State Legislature of Virginia or Alabam had to say about secession it was for an immoral cause and would have undermined Republican rule and the strength of America for all time. I'm glad it was crushed, I'll be damned if some plantation politicians and aristocratic state legislators were going to wrench America apart, sap us of our unity and strength, and discredit the notion popular rule.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. It's called freedom and liberty. What you don't seem to catch on to with this tirade is the lasting implications. No one today in their right mind finds slavery acceptable or wants to bring it back. It is childish to even suggest the notion. What's further, the slave issue was resolved, the Corwin Amendment solved it, no nation was being crushed to end slavery. THe CSA was attacked because a of a tyrant's wish. Read the thread for the evidence, I shall not represent it.
 
Last edited:
ChezC3 said:
No, that's an absurd analogy. This wasn't an individual flouting the law
Click to expand...
You're right, it was a GROUP of individuals flouting the

(a law which you've still failed to produce, and can't because there was none)
Click to expand...
I shouldn't need to produce the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling means that secession is not permitted by the Constitution.

This is about Sovereign States of a Union no longer recognizing the Federal authority it allowed itself to be subject to. The authority, again, is given and had from the consent of the governed. When elected representives of any given state have their populations approval to disjoin, than that consent is revoked and any "legality" is null and void.
Click to expand...

The US isn't a confederation of states, that's why the Articles were repealed. It started that way but people realized that was stupid.
 
Thrilla said:
well I like that Lincoln waged a war that ultimately ended slavery.... that sort of tyranny should be ended by any means necessary.

I dislike that he waged a war to keep the union whole.... that sort of tyranny should not be allowed to exist.

had he went to war and ended slavery, but allowed the South to enjoy their self determination by allowing the CSA to exist and continue, I would be more pleased with him.

he is both a slayer of tyranny, and a tyrant....there's something for everyone to like about him, and dislike.
Click to expand...

He did not "go to war." The South attacked first.
 
Sherman123 said:
You cannot have it both ways. Not that I care about the legalism's involved in the Civil War, but you cannot on the one hand argue the legitimacy of the Southern Confederacy on the basis of its mere existence and assertion to legitimacy, and obviate the Union's claims of illicit rebellion on the basis of illicit trade with European powers. It is fantastically inconsistent.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure I understand. I think I'd agree with you but I don't really comprehend the inconsistency you are claiming to be there.
 
Sherman123 said:
Oh for the love of Christ. Self-determination is not in and of itself the holiest of holy causes. It also matters why and what you are fighting for. If the Founding Fathers had decided to take up their muskets in the name of defending their rights as slave owners from a 'tyrannical' Britain they would have richly deserved to be suppressed. People have advocated for terrible causes with terrible outcomes before, and the Confederacy was just such a case. I don't care what the State Legislature of Virginia or Alabam had to say about secession it was for an immoral cause and would have undermined Republican rule and the strength of America for all time. I'm glad it was crushed, I'll be damned if some plantation politicians and aristocratic state legislators were going to wrench America apart, sap us of our unity and strength, and discredit the notion popular rule.
Click to expand...

I think the Slavic nationalism at the end of the 20th century is a good example of this. Yugoslavia was divided so the different little ethnic groups could determine their own fate, and then they started killing each other.
 
MadLib said:
You're right, it was a GROUP of individuals flouting the


I shouldn't need to produce the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling means that secession is not permitted by the Constitution.



The US isn't a confederation of states, that's why the Articles were repealed. It started that way but people realized that was stupid.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is mum on secession or leaving the union. It does tell how new states will be allowed to enter. But I wonder, since seceding is not mention in Article I section 10 the section that state exactly what the states cannot do, perhaps seceding would fall under the tenth amendment. That is one of the powers reserved to the states or the people.

But you say the SCOTUS ruled secession was illegal, so does that mean even during the civil war the entire south was still considered part of the untion?
 
MadLib said:
You're right, it was a GROUP of individuals flouting the


I shouldn't need to produce the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling means that secession is not permitted by the Constitution.




The US isn't a confederation of states, that's why the Articles were repealed. It started that way but people realized that was stupid.
Click to expand...

If you wish to ignore historical evidence that overwhelmingly denies your claim, you've every right, however this doesn't mean you are right.

Yes, you're claiming that a law was broke, I asked for you to show where it was explicitly laid out. Law does need to be explicit lest you have sophistry exclusively, which is what the SCOTUS engaged in.

For there to be a "more perfect union" you must be uniting something, what was that something? seperate and sovereign States.
 
ChezC3 said:
Yes it is. It's called freedom and liberty. What you don't seem to catch on to with this tirade is the lasting implications. No one today in their right mind finds slavery acceptable or wants to bring it back. It is childish to even suggest the notion. What's further, the slave issue was resolved, the Corwin Amendment solved it, no nation was being crushed to end slavery. THe CSA was attacked because a of a tyrant's wish. Read the thread for the evidence, I shall not represent it.
Click to expand...

The Corwin Amendment: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." Your solution to the problem of Slavery is an amendment forbidding it's abolition. Wonderful. Moreover no, I'm perfectly willing to smash Southern 'freedom & liberty' because of the truly awful cause they chose to affix to that standard and the terrible results it would have reaped. Not every rebellion is justified merely by being a rebellion.
 
MadLib said:
I'm not quite sure I understand. I think I'd agree with you but I don't really comprehend the inconsistency you are claiming to be there.
Click to expand...

He cannot invent legal rationale out of thin air for his own purpose. He argues essentially that the South had legal rights on the basis that it declared its existence of its legal rights. They don't have to kowtow to the rule and laws of the Republic because they said they don't want to anymore. Why? Unwritten laws of freedom and all that jazz presumably. One would think that the North would reject Southern 'liberties' on this same basis and proclaimed right. He concludes by saying arguments of legality are futile in the face of the rejection of authority. That is all fine, it removes the legal question by substituting it for a trial of ideology and arms. But you can't turn around and then say "But nations traded with the south and thats kind of like recognition" it's as he said, irrelevant.
 
Perotista said:
The Constitution is mum on secession or leaving the union. It does tell how new states will be allowed to enter. But I wonder, since seceding is not mention in Article I section 10 the section that state exactly what the states cannot do, perhaps seceding would fall under the tenth amendment. That is one of the powers reserved to the states or the people.

But you say the SCOTUS ruled secession was illegal, so does that mean even during the civil war the entire south was still considered part of the untion?
Click to expand...

Legally it still was.
 
ChezC3 said:
If you wish to ignore historical evidence that overwhelmingly denies your claim, you've every right, however this doesn't mean you are right.

Yes, you're claiming that a law was broke, I asked for you to show where it was explicitly laid out. Law does need to be explicit lest you have sophistry exclusively, which is what the SCOTUS engaged in.

For there to be a "more perfect union" you must be uniting something, what was that something? seperate and sovereign States.
Click to expand...

The States were not allowed to form coalitions with other states or raise armies. Something that is perfect cannot be broken up.
 
MadLib said:
The States were not allowed to form coalitions with other states or raise armies.
Click to expand...

while they remain members of the union.

Something that is perfect cannot be broken up.
Click to expand...

Something that is perfect cannot unable to be broken up.
 
Henrin said:
I already explained it. The problem is you got caught up in term usage and completely shut down.
Click to expand...

You explained nothing. But prove me wrong - in which post was your explaination?
 
Sherman123 said:
The Corwin Amendment: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." Your solution to the problem of Slavery is an amendment forbidding it's abolition. Wonderful. Moreover no, I'm perfectly willing to smash Southern 'freedom & liberty' because of the truly awful cause they chose to affix to that standard and the terrible results it would have reaped. Not every rebellion is justified merely by being a rebellion.
Click to expand...

Oh God and dear sweet baby Jesus, read the thread, put your next post into the correct context and than I shall respond. You've jumped in with your smash this and deny that and you've not a clue as to the argument that has been presented.
 
MadLib said:
The States were not allowed to form coalitions with other states or raise armies. Something that is perfect cannot be broken up.
Click to expand...

Something that is per.....wha?

I asked for explicit evidence. You've provided none.

I will wait...
 
ChezC3 said:
Could have? No, No, should have...
Click to expand...

Wouldn't have been possible. That's a myth perpetrated by the apologists of slavery.

People ask "Why couldn't Lincoln let them go in peace?" Nobody ever asks why the South couldn't come back in peace because everybody knows that they were completely willing to fight. If it wasn't Ft. Sumter, it would have been something else. Lincoln had a vital national security interest in seeing the Union preserved - If Maryland and Delaware followed the other slave states, that would have left Washington completely surrounded by a hostile nation. As it was, the only thing separating DC from the Confederacy was the Potomac.

Simply put, a peaceful separation was impossible.
 
ChezC3 said:
Again, so says the Tyrant
Click to expand...

Just because the south wanted Ft. Sumter didn't make it theirs. It was the property of the United States military, as in, they held the title.

Should the Union have just abandoned their property rights because South Carolina asked?
 
haymarket said:
You explained nothing. But prove me wrong - in which post was your explaination?
Click to expand...

I explained very clearly the way people react to property in nature and society and how the existence of government does nothing to change this. Ownership is about control and the person that owns something has full control of whatever it might be and when this is breached in nature or society the very foundation of property is violated. It's very easily explained by using any analogy I could imagine be it an apple, a house, land, a business, a toothbrush, whatever. All property functions in the same exact fashion be it collectively owned or privately owned. It's all about control and whoever owns the property has the exclusive right to control such property. When this is breached violence must be done towards this person and with it the control picture must be changed. What this means is that the control picture of the property has been altered and ownership has been assumed by an outside body be that government or a random thief in society or nature. The law in question says that the owner can not control access to his or her property which is the most fundamental element of any type of property. The law you support inflicts violence on the property owner, assumes ownership of property already owned, and violates property rights.
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
Legally it still was.
Click to expand...


Okay, so legally the south was still part of the Union. If that is so, then the formation of the state of West Virginia was illegal and unconstitutional. Reference Article IV. Section 3 which states: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union: but no new State 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.

I am sure the part about congress was met, but I guarantee the legislature of Virginia didn’t consent to having part of their state torn away from them. If the SCOTUS ruled that Virginia was still part of the union, then West Virginia was formed and added to the Union illegally and unconstitutional.
 
Henrin said:
I explained very clearly the way people react to property in nature and society and how the existence of government does nothing to change this. Ownership is about control and the person that owns something has full control of whatever it might be and when this is breached in nature or society the very foundation of property is violated. It's very easily explained by using any analogy I could imagine be it an apple, a house, land, a business, a toothbrush, whatever. All property functions in the same exact fashion be it collectively owned or privately owned. It's all about control and whoever owns the property has the exclusive right to control such property. When this breached violence must be done towards this person and with it the control picture must be changed. What this means is that the control picture of the property has been altered and ownership assumed by an outside body be that government or a random thief in society or nature. The law in question says that the owner can not control access to his property which is the most fundamental element of any type of property. The law you support inflicts violence on the property owner, assumes ownership, and violates property rights.
Click to expand...

Your error is in looking as property rights as something which is not bound by the normal balance with other rights in society. Your phrase - exclusive control - does not exist in a society with millions of other people.
 
haymarket said:
Your error is in looking as property rights as something which is not bound by the normal balance with other rights in society. Your phrase - exclusive control - does not exist in a society with millions of other people.
Click to expand...

Violating the rights of people is not covered by property rights. However, controlling access to your property is not violating anyones rights as they have no right to use the property in question.

As I said in a thread a few days ago, if I was to build a dam on my property and it puts my neighbors house under water that would be violating his or her property rights and would not be protected behavior. However, simply saying no to someone that wants to use my property is not violating their rights as I have the right to control access to my property.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Violating the rights of people is not covered by property rights. However, controlling access to your property is not violating anyones rights as they have no right to use the property in question.

As I said in a thread a few days ago, if I was to build a dam on my property and it puts my neighbors house under water that would be violating his or her property rights and would not be protected behavior. However, simply saying no to someone that wants to use my property is not violating their rights as I have the right to control access to my property.
Click to expand...

Again, you make the same fundamental mistake: you are only considering property rights and not others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom