Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 22 Nov '12 13:13 / 1 edit
    Happy Thanksgiving everyone. In 1863 Abraham Lincoln passed a law making Thanksgiving a national holiday. Previous to this, the holiday was only celebrated in the Northeastern states.

    Most would say that the true meaning of Thanksgiving is to give thanks, however, Licoln's motive was to use the holiday in order to bring together a country that was divided and to subdue those who opposed federal rule in Washington.

    So what caused this divide and was this divide lawful?

    Most would say that slavery was the cause of the divide. However, Lincoln and Congress were pushing the Corwin Amendment, that basically would have added to the Constitution the protection of slaves states to remain slave states. In fact, Lincoln wrote the governors of each Southern state personally stating that he was more than willing to preserve slavery in order to avoid any more talk of succession.

    So the question begs, if the South had been given the oppurtunity to preserve slavery via the Constitution, what was all the fighting about? It seems to me that the South simply wanted to be free from federal rule from Washington. However, this legal dilemma was never heard before the Supreme Court because Lincoln forbad it from ever reaching SCOTUS. Why? Could it be to avoid people like Chief Justice Roger B Taney? Taney swore Lincoln into office, but later became one of his greatest critics. Taney proclaimed Licoln's actions as illegal, unconstitutional, and criminal. Here are a list of the allegations.

    1. Violation of the Constitution and his oath of office by invading and waging war against states that had legally and democratically withdrawn their consent from his government, inaugurating one of the cruelest wars in recent history.

    2. Subverting the duly Constituted governemnts of states that had not left the union, thereby subverting their constitutional right to "republican form of government".

    3. Raising troops without approval from Congress and expending funds without appropriation.

    4. Suspending the writ of habeas Corpus and interfering with the press without due process, imprisoning thousands of citizens without charge or trial, and closing courts by military force where no hostilities were ocurring.

    5. Corrupting the currency by manipulation and paper swindles unheard of in US history.

    6. Fraud and corruption by appointees and contractors with his knowledge and connivance.

    7. Continuing the war by raising ever larger bodies of troops by conscription and hiring foreign merceneries and refusing to negotiate in good faith for an end to hostilities.

    8. Confiscation of millions of dollars of civilian property by his agents in the South, especially cotton, without any legal proceedings.

    9. Waging war against women, children, civilians, and civilian property as the matter of policy e.g. Sherman's March.


    In short, what is the price of the union? Is the price1,030,000 causualties, 620,000 deaths, and 10,500 battles? Is the price suspending Constitutional rights and trampling the rule of law so long as it is done in the name of preserving the union? Would it have been OK if Licoln and Congress passed the Corim Amendment to make slavery Constitutional for the Southern states? If so, why?
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Nov '12 14:38 / 1 edit
    http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/277396-abraham-lincoln-trial.html

    http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/264088-abraham-lincoln-on-trial.html

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1756386/replies?c=41

    etc. etc.
  3. Standard member vivify
    rain
    22 Nov '12 14:59
    Lincoln was also a racist:

    http://sublimeburst.com/the-founding-fathers-dont-matter/
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    22 Nov '12 16:57
    Originally posted by whodey
    Happy Thanksgiving everyone. In 1863 Abraham Lincoln passed a law making Thanksgiving a national holiday. Previous to this, the holiday was only celebrated in the Northeastern states.

    Most would say that the true meaning of Thanksgiving is to give thanks, however, Licoln's motive was to use the holiday in order to bring together a country that was divide ...[text shortened]... ed the Corim Amendment to make slavery Constitutional for the Southern states? If so, why?
    Roger Taney probably was more the cause of the civil war than any other individual with his infamous Dred Scot decision. For him to criticize Lincoln about the war is ironic.
  5. 22 Nov '12 17:03
    Originally posted by whodey
    Happy Thanksgiving everyone. In 1863 Abraham Lincoln passed a law making Thanksgiving a national holiday. Previous to this, the holiday was only celebrated in the Northeastern states.

    Most would say that the true meaning of Thanksgiving is to give thanks, however, Licoln's motive was to use the holiday in order to bring together a country that was divide ...[text shortened]... ed the Corim Amendment to make slavery Constitutional for the Southern states? If so, why?
    Whether by design or not, the reason federal forms of governments endure (when they do) is that individual States cannot secede. A constitutional process needs to be defined in the original or by amendment. None was. I do not believe the framers wanted it to be so easy for a state to opt out.
  6. 22 Nov '12 19:13
    Originally posted by sh76
    Roger Taney probably was more the cause of the civil war than any other individual with his infamous Dred Scot decision. For him to criticize Lincoln about the war is ironic.
    Further to this I would favor a constitutional amendment that requires the same approvals for secession as are required for an amendment, plus of course the official approval of the individual state(s) seeking to secede by whatever means it has instituted into state law for that purpose.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    22 Nov '12 20:47
    Originally posted by JS357
    Further to this I would favor a constitutional amendment that requires the same approvals for secession as are required for an amendment, plus of course the official approval of the individual state(s) seeking to secede by whatever means it has instituted into state law for that purpose.
    Why would the states pass that sort of Amendment now?
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 Nov '12 21:47
    The name of the agreement between the States that preceded the Constitution was "The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union". The Constitution self-declared that it was meant to "form a more perfect union" and greatly enhanced central government power. The idea that secession was allowable was fanciful and had been affirmatively disputed by the US government for many decades before the Civil War. To allow States to secede merely because they didn't like the results of an election or for any reason has claimed by Southern apologists would make the entire system of Constitutional government a mockery.
  9. 23 Nov '12 00:16
    Originally posted by sh76
    Why would the states pass that sort of Amendment now?
    I don't think they would. I think rather that the individuals who wished to have a government that iis not part of the usa would be encouraged to self-deport.
  10. 23 Nov '12 03:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The name of the agreement between the States that preceded the Constitution was "The Articles of Confederation and [b]Perpetual Union". The Constitution self-declared that it was meant to "form a more perfect union" and greatly enhanced central government power. The idea that secession was allowable was fanciful and had been affirmatively disputed by by Southern apologists would make the entire system of Constitutional government a mockery.[/b]
    Central power has been greatly enhanced since the Founders, so much so that I dare say they would not recognize the country today. Now we have a Congress with only a 13% approval rating and these people keep getting reelected. The states should be given back their powers.

    If that is not enough for ya, Ben Barnanke says we are headed for a fiscal cliff. It almost seems like they are puposefully orchastrating another crisis just so they can screw us around again like they did taking our money to give to corporate America during the credit crisis. I just can't wait to see what they have in store for us this next year.
  11. 23 Nov '12 03:55
    Originally posted by JS357
    I don't think they would. I think rather that the individuals who wished to have a government that iis not part of the usa would be encouraged to self-deport.
    The original intent of Federalism was to allow states to govern as they pleased. That way citizens could choose to move to a state to their liking. But now it's one size fits all. It's a collectivist Disneyland.
  12. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    23 Nov '12 04:50
    Originally posted by vivify
    Lincoln was also a racist:

    http://sublimeburst.com/the-founding-fathers-dont-matter/
    The argument in the article you quote couldn't be weaker. No one ever held that the Founding Fathers were angels descended from heaven who were without sin. What they did give us was a lasting, sustainable government, a nation of laws, instead of men, peaceful transfers of power, and a way to change our form of government as times changed.

    This is the black/white view of the world that you people believe in. Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi were immaculately conceived and born without sin; every Republican in this country is evil incarnate. Your worldview does not allow for moral complexities, we are greedy, corrupt, selfish, and rotten to the core; you wish to do good on behalf of the Great Unwashed and are therefore morally virtuous and beyond reproach. Our skin is thick and scaly, and we are of cold blood; you are soft, downy, cute and cuddly.

    You need to stop pretending you can remake the world as you believe it should be, and start dealing with the world as it is. You'll be much happier - and far more effective.
  13. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    23 Nov '12 04:51
    Originally posted by whodey
    The original intent of Federalism was to allow states to govern as they pleased. That way citizens could choose to move to a state to their liking. But now it's one size fits all. It's a collectivist Disneyland.
    Liberals hate federalism, hate states' rights, and hate self-determination.
  14. 23 Nov '12 05:25
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Liberals hate federalism, hate states' rights, and hate self-determination.
    Yes, but it is all for our collective good.
  15. 23 Nov '12 09:15
    Originally posted by vivify
    Lincoln was also a racist:

    http://sublimeburst.com/the-founding-fathers-dont-matter/
    What? Obama wasn't even alive back then and even if he was, why would Lincoln vote for him when Lincoln wanted to be president himself. Obamacare didn't exist then either so he couldn't have opposed it. I just don't get how the great emancipator could have crossed the racist line given the contemporary definition or racism.