A. Lincoln, on Dred Scott
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
What was he supposed to say in that era? And was that from an earlier campaign? I think his actions pretty clearly speak volumes about where he stood.
So, Thor, then why exactly did 7 southern states secede due to Lincoln being elected but prior to his inauguration?
They seceded because they thought he was a threat to thier "right" to own slaves. As has been said at least twice in this thread. That has nothing to do with our conversation. Secession is not an act of aggression.
If you think that question is some kind of trump card for Lincoln, he said it, not me. That's his direct quote and only lends credence to the fact that he was a hypocrite and said what ever he thought the audience at hand wanted to hear.
Also, if you are not persuaded about the legality of secession you're just choosing to take a view point irregardless of facts presented. Which is fine. You nor anyone else has presented facts while asking me to do so. You only deflect once I provide them. It's pretty evident in the Declaration that it was a right we were founded on. If you want to toot the nationalist horn be my guess.
I haven't presented facts? That's hilarious. The "facts" you presented were from some crackpot who supposes he's more of a Constitutional scholar than perhaps the greatest Constitutional scholar of the last quarter to half century, and doesn't even understand Scalia's point and apparently fails to reckon the fact that Scalia was writing an informal letter to a layman explaining a point. Then the guy tops it off by citing Jhon C Calhoun as a point of reference ,
I like you, you're a smart guy, and you like good whisky, but you've got a kind of sickness or obsession as regards Lincoln.
I like you, you're a smart guy, and you like good whisky, but you've got a kind of sickness or obsession as regards Lincoln.
But isn't that how it always goes? Disagree with the mainstream and you're a crackpot. Kevin Gutzman, Thomas Woods, Don Livingston. All crackpots I suppose. This is the same approach liberals take. If you disagree you must be a crackpot so I must discredit you.
Scalia is correct IMO when he says that without original intent you have no limitations on government. It's an excellent point I've brought up here when slamming the progressive living breathing document bullshit on here. What that mantra really means is the constitution means whatever those in power want it to mean.
That said, Scalia has engaged in activism. McDonald v City of Chicago is an example. The bill of rights was never intended to apply to the states. It was a limitation on the federal government. The 14th was never intended to incorporate anything other than the due process amendments. If it was, that very same congress would not have debated an amendment separating church and state and applying it to the states. Yet, Scalia supported the ruling. Sorry, that's inconsistent with his supposed beliefs.
You asked me to show you where secession was authorized in the constitution. Please show me where it is not. The federal government only has the powers delegated to it by the states. Article 1 section 8 does not state that the people cannot break thier bonds and establish new government. However, the 9th amendment says enumeration is not to be construed to deny rights. The 10th adds that those not delegated are reserved to the people or the states respectively. Secession is not denied therefore it is legal. Not to mention that the United States is plural and referred to as their or them not it or its in the constitution. This hints again at a plurality of states not a single state.
I realize that my penchant for slamming Lincoln worship can be a little obsessive. But so is the constant adoration he receives.
Scalia is correct IMO when he says that without original intent you have no limitations on government. It's an excellent point I've brought up here when slamming the progressive living breathing document bullshit on here. What that mantra really means is the constitution means whatever those in power want it to mean.
That said, Scalia has engaged in activism. McDonald v City of Chicago is an example. The bill of rights was never intended to apply to the states. It was a limitation on the federal government. The 14th was never intended to incorporate anything other than the due process amendments. If it was, that very same congress would not have debated an amendment separating church and state and applying it to the states. Yet, Scalia supported the ruling. Sorry, that's inconsistent with his supposed beliefs.
You asked me to show you where secession was authorized in the constitution. Please show me where it is not. The federal government only has the powers delegated to it by the states. Article 1 section 8 does not state that the people cannot break thier bonds and establish new government. However, the 9th amendment says enumeration is not to be construed to deny rights. The 10th adds that those not delegated are reserved to the people or the states respectively. Secession is not denied therefore it is legal. Not to mention that the United States is plural and referred to as their or them not it or its in the constitution. This hints again at a plurality of states not a single state.
I realize that my penchant for slamming Lincoln worship can be a little obsessive. But so is the constant adoration he receives.
Sidebar: speaking of whiskey. Have you had Greenspot Irish Whiskey? I saw it for the first time in Conifer. Plan to buy it as a celebratory whiskey in the near future. Any good?
This idea is the equivalent of blaming the WWI detente for the holocaust. I tend blame the racist for racism not the specific historical context that is used to justify that racism. If some guy kidnaps a redheaded woman and gets put in jail, ruining his family and his son's childhood, do you blame the criminal justice system for his son's poor relations with redheaded women later on in life?
Race relations in the South prior to the Civil War were whites thought that blacks were subhumans that they had a right to own. How could those relations get worse?
If Sherman committed war crimes blame him for war crimes, but it is hard to see how you can blame him for racist attitudes that existed for years before the war.
Almost immediately after the Civil War blacks were made equal under the law and were winning elections in the south. You are telling me that the states that seceded in order to protect their right to slavery would go from chattel slavery to equal rights in one fell swoop and skip apartheid all together?
No doubt that white supremacy was wide spread. For some it was an opinion but it was a core part of the south's identity. That said, I completely understand your Lincoln beef. It is unfortunate for you that the war to decide nature of the constitution also had slavery involved. Makes it really hard to have a clean discussion of the nature of the constitution.
Last edited:
Missed this somehow. YES! It's really good; maybe a bit over-priced. I don't rate it as highly as Redbreast, but it's pretty close. It's a little sweeter than Redbreast.
Happens all the time pilt. How often is the criminal justice system blamed for black communities being poor and forced into a life of crime because laws are racially biased? It is the criminal justice system's fault that so many have records and are unable to get better paying jobs. It's not because they actually committed crimes.
Not what I said. I said I didn't know but that an argument could be made that it could have occurred much sooner than 1964 and that the hatred could have been significantly reduced.
It wasn't just an opinion. It was legislated by states. Oregon and Indiana had the below written into their constitution.
"No free negro, or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall ever come, reside, or be within this state, or hold any real estate, or make any contract, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such free negroes and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the state, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or employ or harbour them therein."
The state of Illinois required that any Africans post a $1,000 bond in order to just enter the state. White supremacy was pretty well engrained into American culture as a whole.
Is that reasonable?
All I am saying is that such an argument would have a high burden of proof given the evidence that history has provided.
Fair enough. Oregon and Indiana seemed to let go of that part of their culture pretty freely compared to states like Arkansas and Mississippi.
Might I add that this is the best use of the 24/7 politics board. It's been fun reading this back and forth without any name calling.
Please continue.
Please continue.
I'm am late to re-joining the party, but I have a question for those that don't believe secession was an option for the states:
Would you support your state or country joining any group of states or countries that would never allow you to leave the alliance and would be willing to militarily invade your country to prevent the breakup?
Would you support your state or country joining any group of states or countries that would never allow you to leave the alliance and would be willing to militarily invade your country to prevent the breakup?
I was going to post what Inky29 said...consider myself pretty savvy in history (especially War Between The States and WWII), but you guys have brought up some things that have never heard. Excellent, I need to do some research.
Bitter Creek, I wouldn't.
Bitter Creek, I wouldn't.
It was always my impression that Britain and France didn't recognize the confederate states, not because of slavery, but because the Union pretty much said if they recognized them or assisted them in any way it would be looked at as an act of war. I don't think either one of them really wanted to jump back into another war as they'd both been involved in conflicts off and on with each other and as allies for the better part of the last 60 years. Jumping in a boat and sailing across the Atlantic to fight another war probably wasn't high on their list. France strongly considered it because the lack of imports hurt their economy but when GB didn't join France decided not to join as well. Merchants in both France and GB tried to get their governments to join the side of the confederates but ultimately they refrained because they wanted to remain neutral. The slavery issue didn't seem like a big deal so even with succession I'm not sure the south gets rid of slavery until they were given a better option. The mechanical cotton picker didn't start getting major play until the 1940's I believe. In the 1800's folks weren't near as political correct as they are today. Eventually slavery would have gone away but it would have been much longer down the road then when it did.
Similar threads
