TakeYouToTasker Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 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] Which has not a damn thing to do with anything being argued about here, you nitwit. No one, litterally no one, has argued that the Confederacy wasn't slave holding. Next will you post about how Confederate soldiers breathed air?
Magox Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) 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? And why did he suspend it? What caused that to happen? Would the court that ruled on the Dredd Scott side with Lincoln? Context matters. And the precedence of only congress being able to suspend habeus corpus was after Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, not before. I don't dispute what Lincoln did was technically unlawful, but he did it for what the vast majority of American's and just about anyone else that is familiar with the Civil War would consider to be noble. So again, would you trust the judgement of this court knowing that they ruled that African American's are inferior and not worthy of citizenship? I've answered your questions, now please answer mine. Edited June 25, 2015 by Magox
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 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? It doesn't matter if he disagreed with the Court's decision. He didn't have the Constitutional authority to reject them. Further, as I've already demonstrated in this thread, Lincoln wasn't against the institution of slavery, neither morally nor conceptually. He did not believe blacks to be equal to whites. He did not want them living amongst whites. Nor did he support their political equality. He wanted to put them all on boats and send them to South America. So again, would you trust the judgement of this court knowing that they ruled that African American's are inferior and not worthy of citizenship? ... Again, Lincoln himself did not believe blacks to be equal to whites, and exactly zero interest in allowing them citizenship. "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).
FireChan Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) And why did he suspend it? What caused that to happen? Would the court that ruled on the Dredd Scott side with Lincoln? Context matters. And the precedence of only congress being able to suspend habeus corpus was after Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, not before. I don't dispute what Lincoln did was technically unlawful, but he did it for what the vast majority of American's and just about anyone else that is familiar with the Civil War would consider to be noble. So again, would you trust the judgement of this court knowing that they ruled that African American's are inferior and not worthy of citizenship? I've answered your questions, now please answer mine. And why did he suspend it? Unrest in Maryland, and the presence of political enemies. What caused that to happen? The legal secession of the South. Would the court that ruled on the Dredd Scott side with Lincoln? Does that matter? Presidents can tell the court to screw off if they don't like it? Sounds like an absolute monarchy. And the precedence of only congress being able to suspend habeus corpus was after Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, not before. Suspensory powers were explained in the Article I, which explained Congress' powers. If Lincoln's suspension was legal, why did Congress try 3 times to approve it? I don't dispute what Lincoln did was technically unlawful, but he did it for what the vast majority of American's and just about anyone else that is familiar with the Civil War would consider to be noble. And Obama is noble to try to get every American health insurance. Do you approve of him circumventing Congress to achieve this end, if he did? If not, you're a hypocrite. Again, living in the morally subjective world of Magox is not how our government works. So again, would you trust the judgement of this court knowing that they ruled that African American's are inferior and not worthy of citizenship? Would you trust a doctor about your cancer if he was racist to Chinese people? Would you trust a renowned economist about infaltion if he hated vegans? The courts made the right decision, it doesn't matter if I trust them or their past decisions. This is irrefutable. Giving President's carte blanche to suspend the basic foundation of our country is patently moronic. No matter how noble you or he thinks. Edited June 25, 2015 by FireChan
Magox Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 And why did he suspend it? Unrest in Maryland, and the presence of political enemies. What caused that to happen? The legal secession of the South. Would the court that ruled on the Dredd Scott side with Lincoln? Does that matter? Presidents can tell the court to screw off if they don't like it? Sounds like an absolute monarchy. It does matter. We aren't talking about an Obamacare ruling, we are talking about a court that considers other human beings to be inferior and not worthy of citizenship status. This in my view, disqualifies this court in making any decisions moving forward. Specially considering that the court was made up of a bunch of Jacksonian cronies who supported the secession, supported the rights of slaveholders to continue to own slaves and that these human's, were inferior and not worthy of citizenship status. That's pretty much the crux of it all. So you can go on and try to make the comparisons to Obama and I'm sorry, I'm going to believe that such comparisons are absurd. No offense.
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 It does matter. We aren't talking about an Obamacare ruling, we are talking about a court that considers other human beings to be inferior and not worthy of citizenship status. This in my view, disqualifies this court in making any decisions moving forward. Specially considering that the court was made up of a bunch of Jacksonian cronies who supported the secession, supported the rights of slaveholders to continue to own slaves and that these human's, were inferior and not worthy of citizenship status. That's pretty much the crux of it all. So you can go on and try to make the comparisons to Obama and I'm sorry, I'm going to believe that such comparisons are absurd. No offense. Another appeal to your feelings...
FireChan Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 It does matter. We aren't talking about an Obamacare ruling, we are talking about a court that considers other human beings to be inferior and not worthy of citizenship status. This in my view, disqualifies this court in making any decisions moving forward. Specially considering that the court was made up of a bunch of Jacksonian cronies who supported the secession, supported the rights of slaveholders to continue to own slaves and that these human's, were inferior and not worthy of citizenship status. That's pretty much the crux of it all. So you can go on and try to make the comparisons to Obama and I'm sorry, I'm going to believe that such comparisons are absurd. No offense. Fine. We'll concede you think the separation of powers and the Constitution is not paramount. What justification did Lincoln have to suspend habeus corpus?
bbb Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Ok, things have officially gone too far: http://www.epictimes.com/2015/06/general-lee-from-dukes-of-hazzard-will-lose-its-confederate-flag/ What's next, they're going to rename it the Harriet Tubman? They just better not outlaw Daisy Dukes
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 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. Census data doesn't bear that out.
K-9 Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 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). Well-read students of history understand the full context of Lincoln's stance on the issue of slavery and African-Americans and how it evolved, both from a political as well as a personal context. The quotes you provide don't come close to illustrating that evolution, but they do serve as a backdrop to just how profound that evolution was, at least from a political standpoint. Lincoln was nothing if not politically expedient. Especially early on in his career. From a personal standpoint, his own history suggests he didn't agree with the practice. Both his parents were abolitionists, after all. We can pretend that what he said earlier in his career is the sum total of his belief on a particular subject, but that's intellectually dishonest at best. To do so dismisses entirely a much larger body of available information.
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Well-read students of history understand the full context of Lincoln's stance on the issue of slavery and African-Americans and how it evolved, both from a political as well as a personal context. The quotes you provide don't come close to illustrating that evolution, but they do serve as a backdrop to just how profound that evolution was, at least from a political standpoint. Lincoln was nothing if not politically expedient. Especially early on in his career. From a personal standpoint, his own history suggests he didn't agree with the practice. Both his parents were abolitionists, after all. We can pretend that what he said earlier in his career is the sum total of his belief on a particular subject, but that's intellectually dishonest at best. To do so dismisses entirely a much larger body of available information. Of course Lincoln didn't agree with it. It is important to note, though, that the Republican Party Platform he ran under focused on secession much more than it did slavery. Likewise, the Democratic Party's of 1856 (their 1860 platform basically says "ibid.") focuses more on states' rights than slavery...though using slavery as an example of states' rights.
Rob's House Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 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. Conventional wisdom isn't the same thing as basic historical knowledge, and you and others are either too stubborn or too stupid to grasp the distinctions that are being presented. For me, it isn't that I'm not familiar with the information you're presenting or the position you're advancing; it's that I also understand "the rest of the story." But your desperate need to cling to the yankee version of history that was apparently spoonfed to you by your government schools reminds me of fanboys who desperately need to believe their favorite player is the best.
Magox Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 Fine. We'll concede you think the separation of powers and the Constitution is not paramount. What justification did Lincoln have to suspend habeus corpus? We are talking past each other. I understand what you are saying, but considering all the conditions around the events that took place, Lincoln's actions were justified. Very few people will consider his actions to be tyrannical considering the deplorable forces they were up against. History has rightfully judged Lincoln as a great man, and that history will stand the test of the time moving forward. We will just have to agree to disagree. I'm just truly awestruck that the sentiment shared by some on this board is that the Civil War was not a war that produced great actions and results for African Americans and the country. I truly am dumbfounded.
FireChan Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) We are talking past each other. I understand what you are saying, but considering all the conditions around the events that took place, Lincoln's actions were justified. Very few people will consider his actions to be tyrannical considering the deplorable forces they were up against. History has rightfully judged Lincoln as a great man, and that history will stand the test of the time moving forward. We will just have to agree to disagree. I'm just truly awestruck that the sentiment shared by some on this board is that the Civil War was not a war that produced great actions and results for African Americans and the country. I truly am dumbfounded. You're using the wrong definition of tyrant. I used the word tyrant to express that the use of Lincoln's power was oppressive to the rights of his citizens and the rules of his government. It was. You even admit it was. Justification notwithstanding, he went over the Constitution and the other branches of government. He may have been a benevolent tyrant, but he was one. Personally, I think that sets a poor precedent, but I digress. Again, I'd like to ask you why the suspension of habeus corpus was justified. Not the War. Not the eventual emancipation. The suspension. Edited June 25, 2015 by FireChan
K-9 Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Of course Lincoln didn't agree with it. It is important to note, though, that the Republican Party Platform he ran under focused on secession much more than it did slavery. Likewise, the Democratic Party's of 1856 (their 1860 platform basically says "ibid.") focuses more on states' rights than slavery...though using slavery as an example of states' rights. I don't disagree with any of this. Especially because we all know or should know that if it meant no secession and the Union could be preserved without a war even if it meant not a single slave was made free, Lincoln and most others would have gladly signed on to that. But we continue to pussyfoot around the subject. States' rights for what? Secession for what? Let's all stop pretending we don't know what the central theme of the day was about. Let's not ignore the volumes of written words and speeches, especially by the politicians of the south at the time. Let's pretend the very 'Constitution of the Confederate States of America" didn't specify the what. Let's not pretend the founders themselves didn't foresee what the central "come to Jesus" issue was going to be about either. Seems people BEFORE, DURING, and SHORTLY after didn't pussyfoot around the grand issue. Why we insist on doing that today is an interesting study into the human psyche. I have my theories. Edited June 25, 2015 by K-9
Magox Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Again, I'd like to ask you why the suspension of habeus corpus was justified. Not the War. Not the eventual emancipation. The suspension. Because everything that led up to the war, the actions and provocations from the south, the court they knew they were up against, my guess is that he wanted to take out the rebellion of the south, and justifiably so. In other words an indirect declaration of war. Edited June 25, 2015 by Magox
Rob's House Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) 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? If you're familiar with Magox then you know he's a pragmatist and that's basically his position on everything. Edited June 25, 2015 by Rob's House
FireChan Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Because everything that led up to the war, the actions and provocations from the south, the court they knew they were up against, my guess is that he wanted to take out the rebellion of the south, and justifiably so. In other words an indirect declaration of war. How did it help take out the rebellion? Why was it a rebellion and not a legal secession? What came first, Ft. Sumter or your "indirect declaration of war?" If you're familiar with Magox then you know he's a pragmatist and that's basically his position on everything. Had no idea, thanks. Edited June 25, 2015 by FireChan
Rob's House Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) And why did he suspend it? What caused that to happen? Would the court that ruled on the Dredd Scott side with Lincoln? Context matters. And the precedence of only congress being able to suspend habeus corpus was after Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Corpus, not before. I don't dispute what Lincoln did was technically unlawful, but he did it for what the vast majority of American's and just about anyone else that is familiar with the Civil War would consider to be noble. So again, would you trust the judgement of this court knowing that they ruled that African American's are inferior and not worthy of citizenship? I've answered your questions, now please answer mine. If you think Lincoln went to war because he was morally opposed to the slavery of blacks who he saw as equal then you're not only ignorant, you're !@#$ing stupid. Edited June 25, 2015 by Rob's House
FireChan Posted June 25, 2015 Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) I don't disagree with any of this. Especially because we all know or should know that if it meant no secession and the Union could be preserved without a war even if it meant not a single slave was made free, Lincoln and most others would have gladly signed on to that. But we continue to pussyfoot around the subject. States' rights for what? Secession for what? Let's all stop pretending we don't know what the central theme of the day was about. Let's not ignore the volumes of written words and speeches, especially by the politicians of the south at the time. Let's pretend the very 'Constitution of the Confederate States of America" didn't specify the what. Let's not pretend the founders themselves didn't foresee what the central "come to Jesus" issue was going to be about either. Seems people BEFORE, DURING, and SHORTLY after didn't pussyfoot around the grand issue. Why we insist on doing that today is an interesting study into the human psyche. I have my theories. The Constitution of the USA gave states the right to secede no matter what. It wasn't a "right to secede, only if you aren't doing bad stuff." Both sides in the Civil War were wrong. Even if the Union did some good things along the way. Edited June 25, 2015 by FireChan
Recommended Posts