Church Shooting

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Lincoln was a tyrant.

 

I think you and I have differing definitions of what a tyrant is. Why do i feel like i'm debating with a Klansman?

 

Probably because I am.

Edited June 25, 2015 by joesixpack

[FireChan]

 

I think you and I have differing definitions of what a tyrant is. Why do i feel like i'm debating with a Klansman?

 

Probably because I am.

Calling me a racist already?

 

Explain to me how suspending the writ of habeus corpus is not a tyrannical act. Furthermore, if Lincoln didn't recognize the secession of the South as legitimate, explain how suspending habeus corpus for your own citizens is not tyrannical.

Edited June 25, 2015 by FireChan

[Rob's House]

 

I think you and I have differing definitions of what a tyrant is. Why do i feel like i'm debating with a Klansman?

 

Probably because I am.

Nice. Call anyone who doesn't accept your bull **** a racist like a good little liberal.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I think you and I have differing definitions of what a tyrant is. Why do i feel like i'm debating with a Klansman?

 

Probably because I am.

 

...

 

ALOL...

 

That's the most predictable thing that possibly could have happened.

 

Disagree with a liberal, regardless of the merits of your argument, and you're a racist.

[Rob's House]

 

...

 

ALOL...

 

That's the most predictable thing that possibly could have happened.

 

Disagree with a liberal, regardless of the merits of your argument, and you're a racist.

It's their way of waving the white flag with defiance.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You clowns are sadly mistaken if you think I'm a liberal.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

It's their way of waving the white flag with defiance.

 

I liked it more when he was trying to use the backwards application of future laws to determine past legality.

 

Using that logic he could have just droped the mic and walked off stage with a huge win with his first post in this thread had he just sourced the 13th Amendment proving that slavery was illegal in the Jamestown Colony in 1619.

You clowns are sadly mistaken if you think I'm a liberal.

 

 

You certainly argue like one; and on that note why not respond to my last reply to you at the bottom of page 26 so that I can keep kicking the **** out of you.

Edited June 25, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker

[FireChan]

Please respond to me as well. Maybe you've checked the definition of a tyrant and realized you're incorrect. The suspense is killing me.

[Magox]

Calling me a racist already?

 

Explain to me how suspending the writ of habeus corpus is not a tyrannical act. Furthermore, if Lincoln didn't recognize the secession of the South as legitimate, explain how suspending habeus corpus for your own citizens is not tyrannical.

 

You mean the same habeus corpus that was decided by the same court that ruled that African Americans were inferior and that couldn't be considered as citizens?

 

So what you are saying is that Lincoln is the tyrant because he did not accept the ruling that African Americans were indeed not worthy of citizenship status and he rejected their judgement on the matter of habeus corpus.

 

Some things are worth fighting for, this was one of them.

 

And I can't !@#$ing believe I'm actually discussing this.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Magox

[FireChan]

 

You mean the same habeus corpus that was decided by the same court that ruled that African Americans were inferior and that couldn't be considered as citizens?

 

So what you are saying is that Lincoln is the tyrant because he did not accept the ruling that African Americans were indeed not worthy of citizenship status and he rejected their judgement on the matter of habeus corpus.

 

Some things are worth fighting for, this was one of them.

 

And I can't !@#$ing believe I'm actually discussing this.

That is not why Lincoln suspended habeus corpus.

 

Lincoln suspended h.b. to illegally detain protestors and political enemies.

[K-9]

 

I'm in agreement with the last three paragraphs of this post, but the bolded section isn't historically accurate. 1/4th of all African slaves were brought across the Atlantic after 1808, the slave trade -- and by extension the institution of chattel slavery -- was increasing exponentially during the 19th century. It took the civil war, specifically the Union victory, for Brazil and Cuba to shut down their ports to slavers. It took war to bring an end to slavery in the western hemisphere. There's little historical data that supports the institution was dying out in the Confederacy, even less in regards to the institution as a whole across the Americas.

 

Would slavery have died out eventually? Possibly. But it would have been set back a century or more had the Confederacy "officially" reopened the trans Atlantic trade -- which is what they would have likely done.

I can't believe some of the things I'm reading in this thread so thanks for this post.

 

All I can say is, if you take the very words from the principals involved at the time, from speeches to letters, to official government records; when you read their Constitution and the op-eds from the leading Southern newspapers of the era, you can only draw one conclusion about the South's intentions and reasons for seceding. It was their manifest destiny, if you will, to obtain new territories in North and Central America, Cuba and the Caribbean, either through purchase or otherwise, for the purpose of establishing new slave states. This is irrefutable unless one thinks Confederate leaders were lying about their intentions at the time.

 

They were right to be worried about slavery being outlawed, too. The young Republican party, formed only six years prior to having its first president elected to office, drew progressives and liberals like moths to a flame and they weren't shy about their anti-slavery ambitions. Many campaigned on that very platform.

 

The Southern leadership saw the writing on the wall and chose their course. They saw slavery dying and were intent on doing something about it that couldn't be done against the rising current against it without establishing new laws in a new country. And they were quite obviously willing to fight and die for that, if necessary.

Edited June 25, 2015 by K-9

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I can't believe some of the things I'm reading in this thread so thanks for this post.

 

All I can say is, if you take the very words from the principals involved at the time, from speeches to letters, to official government records; when you read their Constitution and the op-eds from the leading Southern newspapers of the era, you can only draw one conclusion about the South's intentions and reasons for seceding. It was their manifest destiny, if you will, to obtain new territories in North and Central America, Cuba and the Caribbean, either through purchase or otherwise, for the purpose of establishing new slave states. This is irrefutable unless one thinks Confederate leaders were lying about their intentions at the time.

 

They were right to be worried about slavery being outlawed, too. The young Republican party, formed only six years prior to having its first president elected to office, drew progressives and liberals like moths to a flame and they weren't shy about their anti-slavery ambitions. Many campaigned on that very platform.

 

The Southern leadership saw the writing on the wall and chose their course. They saw slavery dying and were intent on doing something about it that couldn't be done against the rising current against it without establishing news laws in a new country. And they were quite obviously willing to fight and die for that, if necessary.

 

I never thought I'd live to see the day I'd agree with one of your posts, but the lack of BASIC historical knowledge in this thread is unfathomable.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

You mean the same habeus corpus that was decided by the same court that ruled that African Americans were inferior and that couldn't be considered as citizens?

 

So what you are saying is that Lincoln is the tyrant because he did not accept the ruling that African Americans were indeed not worthy of citizenship status and he rejected their judgement on the matter of habeus corpus.

 

Some things are worth fighting for, this was one of them.

 

And I can't !@#$ing believe I'm actually discussing this.

 

Lincoln, in his own words, from the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln:

 

"Free them [blacks] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We can not then make them equals." (CW, Vol. II, p. 256).

 

"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races" (CW, Vol. II, p. 405).

 

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races" (CW, Vol. II, p. 521).

 

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary." (CW, Vol. III, p. 16).

 

"I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . . I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people . . ." (CW, Vol, III, pp. 145-146).

 

"I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes." (CW, Vol. III, p. 146).

 

"Senator Douglas remarked . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too." (CW, Vol. II, p. 281).

 

"I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery . . . because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so." (CW, Vol. III, p. 460).

 

"I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive slave law." (CW, Vol., III., p. 40).

 

"[T]he people of the Southern states are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave Law." (CW, Vol. III, p. 41).

[FireChan]

I can't believe some of the things I'm reading in this thread so thanks for this post.

 

All I can say is, if you take the very words from the principals involved at the time, from speeches to letters, to official government records; when you read their Constitution and the op-eds from the leading Southern newspapers of the era, you can only draw one conclusion about the South's intentions and reasons for seceding. It was their manifest destiny, if you will, to obtain new territories in North and Central America, Cuba and the Caribbean, either through purchase or otherwise, for the purpose of establishing new slave states. This is irrefutable unless one thinks Confederate leaders were lying about their intentions at the time.

 

They were right to be worried about slavery being outlawed, too. The young Republican party, formed only six years prior to having its first president elected to office, drew progressives and liberals like moths to a flame and they weren't shy about their anti-slavery ambitions. Many campaigned on that very platform.

 

The Southern leadership saw the writing on the wall and chose their course. They saw slavery dying and were intent on doing something about it that couldn't be done against the rising current against it without establishing news laws in a new country. And they were quite obviously willing to fight and die for that, if necessary.

I'd like to clear a few things up. I'm only arguing from a Constitutional and legal viewpoint. My posts are not tantamount to saying that Lincoln was unjustified, or that slavery shouldn't have ended. I don't know if you specifically meant me, but this conversation is spiraling in a couple different directions.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I never thought I'd live to see the day I'd agree with one of your posts, but the lack of BASIC historical knowledge in this thread is unfathomable.

 

Yes. Yours.

[FireChan]

 

I never thought I'd live to see the day I'd agree with one of your posts, but the lack of BASIC historical knowledge in this thread is unfathomable.

Because you've been spoonfed the "Lincoln went to war as a great Liberator," narrative.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

Yes. Yours.

 

From the Confederate constitution:

 

Article IV Section 3(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.^[32]

[Magox]

That is not why Lincoln suspended habeus corpus.

 

Lincoln suspended h.b. to illegally detain protestors and political enemies.

 

That's not what I said, I said he rejected the courts judgement on the matter. And why shouldn't they, they were largely comprised of a bunch of Jacksonian Disciples that supported slavery, that supported the secession and would never be in agreement with Lincoln.

 

Would you trust the judgement of a court that ruled that African Americans were inferior and not worthy of citizenship status?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Except that the economics of the slave trade and the Royal Navy's anti-slavery activities both were effectively shutting down the trans-Atlantic slave trade even before the Civil War. By 1850, most American slaves were born slaves, not imported as slaves.

 

It may have continued past 1890 or so...but less as "trade" than as "illegal smuggling."

 

This, as I've detailed in other posts, is just not historically accurate. The trans Atlantic slave trade increased after the British outlawed the practice in 1807 despite the Royal Navy's efforts. Over 1/4 of the total amount of slaves from Africa came over after 1808 which is staggering when you consider the trade started three hundred years prior. The British could not search merchant vessels flying certain nation's flags, including American merchants, which allowed countries such as Russia, Mexico, Argentina, and many others safely continue to make their fortune selling African slaves in the New World. While the British patrolled off the coast of Africa, America refused to let them patrol American waters (for obvious reasons) and only committed SIX warships to the cause of stopping slavers. It was a meager effort by any measure. Of the roughly 2,000 slavers seized between 1808 and the end of the trade (5 years after Appomattox), only 68 of those were stopped by American Navy vessels. The rest were British or French. Only 2,000 ships were stopped in nearly 70 years of trying to enforce the ban, tens of thousands more continued their practice unabated.

 

The Royal Navy's effort was valiant, but not nearly enough. Handcuffed by America's less than staunch support of the cause, the trans Atlantic slave trade showed no signs of stopping, Cuba and Brazil were actively accepting African slaves, and the numbers show theirs was an increasing appetite until the Union victory assured America was going to get serious about stopping the trade.

 

While the number of "African" slaves decreased in the south after 1850, domestic slave trading was a booming, and increasing market. There is very little reliable, or reputable, historical evidence to suggest the institution of chattel slavery was dying of natural causes in the south before the war. Many historians have tried to make that case, none have done so successfully -- because it just isn't what happened.

[FireChan]

 

That's not what I said, I said he rejected the courts judgement on the matter. And why shouldn't they, they were largely comprised of a bunch of Jacksonian Disciples that supported slavery, that supported the secession and would never be in agreement with Lincoln.

 

Would you trust the judgement of a court that ruled that African Americans were inferior and not worthy of citizenship status?

He suspended it first. Congress was not in court to sanction his supsenion of US citizens' liberties. It was challenged and appealed because only Congress can suspend habeus corpus. This is a clear standard, no matter if it is supported by bigots.

 

You realize you're using the argument that it's okay to oppress the rights of your citizens if you have a really good reason, I hope. I hope I only have to point out the fallacies of such an argument once, and how it has been used to defend the actions of tyrants for years. I also hope you note the similarities to President Obama. He's circumventing Congress because he thinks it's a benevolent end, no need to obey the separation of powers, right? Or only if your personal and subjective moral standard agrees?

Edited June 25, 2015 by FireChan