Honoring a great president.

[David Floyd]

You put Lincoln in the same boat as Joe and Adolf?

Yeah, that'd be silly, right? Silly, as in, silly like your response.

Come on. Do you really think that a valid response to my points is to ask if I could do their job? Come on! And if you consider that a valid response, why do you not consider it a valid response on my part to ask if YOU could do the job of Hitler or Stalin?

Data,

Unfortunately not. Ask MtG, I first heard it from him, but he seems to have extension documentation. In any case, the point should be irrelevant, because neither attack involved the CSA.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd

No one wanted a dissolution of the US federal government.

The existence of the United States was never in doubt.

But the bottom line is simply this - your argument essentially seems to rest on the fact that the federal government has a right to defend itself, and the existence of the United States. But the fact is, the existence of the CSA did not dissolve either the US or the federal government.

So I were to break your CD player into two pieces, your CD player would still work?

[David Floyd]

So I were to break your CD player into two pieces, your CD player would still work?

You're changing the example, unless you believe the original 13 Colonies formed the United States in order to produce goods and services more efficiently.

And, by the way, the United States once existed with only 13 states. Surely you would not argue it was "broken" then, so why would you argue the US was "broken" when the total number of states still exceeded 13, in spite of some states seceding?

The plain fact is this - if Virginia secedes from the United States, Virginia is not destroying the United States. The US is built on certain principles, one of which is liberty, and another of which is limited federal government. One CERTAIN way to "break" the United States is to weaken or eliminate those two principles.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


You're changing the example, unless you believe the original 13 Colonies formed the United States in order to produce goods and services more efficiently.

And, by the way, the United States once existed with only 13 states. Surely you would not argue it was "broken" then, so why would you argue the US was "broken" when the total number of states still exceeded 13, in spite of some states seceding?

The plain fact is this - if Virginia secedes from the United States, Virginia is not destroying the United States. The US is built on certain principles, one of which is liberty, and another of which is limited federal government. One CERTAIN way to "break" the United States is to weaken or eliminate those two principles.

Whenver any state can secede from the United States just because it disagrees with the majority rule position on a specific issue, it inherently threatens United States itself.

Secession in the spirit of minority rule over majority rule would, in the end, have destroyed the United States.

[DinoDoc]

I take it your a "destroy the village to save it" kind of guy with the whitewash you like doing on Lincoln.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I take it your a "destroy the village to save it" kind of guy with the whitewash you like doing on Lincoln.

It's interesting how many creative ways others can distort one's position.

Where have I advocated for the destruction of the Southern states?

[DinoDoc]

You seem to support Lincoln's shreading of various parts of the Constitution.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You seem to support Lincoln's shreading of various parts of the Constitution.

You mean violating the Constitution by preserving majority rule over minority rule?

Or by declaring secession unjustified when states secede because they were angry with the results of a presidential election?

[David Floyd]

That's nice, MrFun, but other than stating your position, you haven't really proved anything.

As I recall, by the way, Lincoln didn't win a MAJORITY of the vote, nor did he even have enough support in some states to appear on the actual ballot in those states. A good chunk of the nation was essentially told by the plurality "If you don't like it, tough ****". And so they left.

But not all the eventual CSA states left. Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina - some of the most important states of the CSA in terms of manpower, economics, and industry/infrastructure, by the way - only left once the US government tried to raise an army to invade the states which had seceded. It appears that those four states didn't like the idea of invading other people, especially not for the mere reason that those people decided to leave the US.

And finally, you state the following:

just because it disagrees with the majority rule position on a specific issue,

You're either talking about Lincoln's election, which was NOT done with a majority but rather with 39.9% of the vote (less, by the way, than GW Bush got), or slavery. If you mean slavery, then I would be interested in you pointing to a vote - any vote, any national survey, anything - conducted at the time indicating that 50+% wanted to abolish slavery.

[David Floyd]

You mean violating the Constitution by preserving majority rule over minority rule?

Interestingly enough, part of the whole structure of the Constitution is built around the concept that the majority can't do anything it likes.

Or by declaring secession unjustified when states secede because they were angry with the results of a presidential election?

An election that did NOT elect a majority candidate, and, by the way, Lincoln didn't have the power to make a judicial ruling on secession anyway. The Supreme Court of the time could have, but that's probably not a place Lincoln wanted to go, not with Chief Justice Taney and the rest up there. Might also explain why Lincoln wanted to add a 10th Justice to the Court, too.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd

As I recall, by the way, Lincoln didn't win a MAJORITY of the vote, nor did he even have enough support in some states to appear on the actual ballot in those states. A good chunk of the nation was essentially told by the plurality "If you don't like it, tough ****". And so they left.

But not all the eventual CSA states left. Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina - some of the most important states of the CSA in terms of manpower, economics, and industry/infrastructure, by the way - only left once the US government tried to raise an army to invade the states which had seceded. It appears that those four states didn't like the idea of invading other people, especially not for the mere reason that those people decided to leave the US.

You're either talking about Lincoln's election, which was NOT done with a majority but rather with 39.9% of the vote (less, by the way, than GW Bush got), or slavery. If you mean slavery, then I would be interested in you pointing to a vote - any vote, any national survey, anything - conducted at the time indicating that 50+% wanted to abolish slavery.

The majority of the people in the Northern states obviously felt Abraham Lincoln was within his bounds due to the crisis of civil war, that they reelected him.

The states that seceded with Lincoln's call for troops were also unjustified. Just because the federal government wanted to defend its property in the seceded states, did not give justification for Virginia, and the others to secede.

[GePap]

MrFun: why are you arguing with DF? its like arguing with a wall, only less likely to work and more painful.

[David Floyd]

The majority of the people in the Northern states obviously felt Abraham Lincoln was within his bounds due to the crisis of civil war, that they reelected him.

Oh, so the people who elected him the first time re-elected him? That's sorta like saying that George W. Bush is gonna win in Texas

Besides, look who Lincoln ran against - McClellan. If you put up an unsuccessful general against the incumbent President in the middle of the war in which the general was unsuccessful, I guarantee you he isn't going to win. But in 1864, by the way, Lincoln only received 55% of the vote. Not much of a landslide, I'd say.

The states that seceded with Lincoln's call for troops were also unjustified. Just because the federal government wanted to defend its property in the seceded states, did not give justification for Virginia, and the others to secede.

If the federal government wanted to defend property, then the federal government could use federal troops, not try to make Virginia supply the troops. The property didn't belong to Virginia, and frankly Virginia didn't care about "federal property" any more than the federal government did. The "federal property" argument is a convenient excuse to mask the fact that Lincoln would have called for troops even if NO property was at stake.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by David Floyd Yeah, that'd be silly, right? Silly, as in, silly like your response.

There is always room for levity, but I was serious.

Originally posted by David Floyd Come on. Do you really think that a valid response to my points is to ask if I could do their job? Come on! And if you consider that a valid response, why do you not consider it a valid response on my part to ask if YOU could do the job of Hitler or Stalin?

I thought it was fair enough.

So, please indulge my question first.

Could you have handled the Civil war, with all it's attached racial strife, and still kept both Union and Constitution intact?

If Lincoln was such a flop, how would YOU have done things different?

That's the crux of my question.

[cinch]

Originally posted by MrFun
another memorable quote:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." Lincoln's 'House-Divided' Speech in Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858.

A George, divided against itself, CANNOT stand!