Bestest Presidents

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by David Floyd


slavery was awful, but that's no excuse for a war.

Yes it is.

an increasingly unpopular war.

Once the Emancipation Proclomation was issued, the war became a rallying cause and was very popular. The effectively destroyed any chance the South had left to win. This was the turning point in winning the politics of the situation.

The morality of slavery is irrelevant as to whether Lincoln acted in a Constitutional manner.

Your questionable argumentation over what was Consitutional or not is irrevelent considering most people agree he was one of the top 3 Presidents ever.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Your point? Stalin killed millions of people before Hitler even got started, does that make Hitler's actions OK? The Germans bombed London before the British/Americans leveled Dresden - does that make the destruction of Dresden OK? And so forth and so on.

We aren't talking about what the CSA did, we're talking about what Lincoln and the USA did. I fully admit that the CSA was not a freedom loving nation, either.

Since I don't see how a draft is a bad thing in time of a huge war like the Civil War, it did not matter which one first initiated it.


And my point was that you said the Union was the FIRST one to initiate the draft -- I merely corrected your mistake.

[David Floyd]

Since I don't see how a draft is a bad thing in time of a huge war like the Civil War, it did not matter which one first initiated it.

Then why bring up who first initiated it? My point was that the US draft was the first draft in US history. The CS draft was the first draft in Confederate history. The fact that the draft is unconstitutional aside, my statement was still correct from certain points of view, and in any case, you still see what I'm driving at.

Further, outside of the morality of a draft, it wasn't even a POPULAR draft - it was hugely unpopular in many areas of the US, and the Civil War was also increasingly unpopular as it went on.

[Kuciwalker]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15:

o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

implies the power of the federal government to prevent secession.

Also, what's the problem with the habeas corpus supsension?

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

This was pretty clearly rebellion - and the phrasing again implies secession is illegal.

[David Floyd]

Yes it is.

In that case, do you believe that the US should go to war with every nation that currently has or supports some form of slavery?

Once the Emancipation Proclomation was issued, the war became a rallying cause and was very popular. The effectively destroyed any chance the South had left to win. This was the turning point in winning the politics of the situation.

Dude, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued MONTHS prior to the most famous draft riots of the war in New York.

Your questionable argumentation over what was Consitutional or not is irrevelent considering most people agree he was one of the top 3 Presidents ever.

It isn't my argument, it's Chief Justice Taney's in Ex parte Merryman. Did you even bother to read the decision?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Then why bring up who first initiated it? My point was that the US draft was the first draft in US history. The CS draft was the first draft in Confederate history. The fact that the draft is unconstitutional aside, my statement was still correct from certain points of view, and in any case, you still see what I'm driving at.

Further, outside of the morality of a draft, it wasn't even a POPULAR draft - it was hugely unpopular in many areas of the US, and the Civil War was also increasingly unpopular as it went on.

Since when does popularity of something justify it?

Do you know that a politician would not get far if he made decisions that were only popular??

[David Floyd]

implies the power of the federal government to prevent secession.

Let's see, there was no law against secession, "insurrection" is not applicable against foreign nations, which the CSA became once it was formed from the seceding states, and the US invaded the CSA prior to the CSA invading the US.

Also, what's the problem with the habeas corpus supsension?

That power is not vested in the Executive Branch - if any branch has it (which I dispute anyway), it's the Legislative Branch.

This was pretty clearly rebellion - and the phrasing again implies secession is illegal.

Secession is not the same as rebellion, and HC was suspended prior to any invasion (actually, counter-invasion) of the US.

[David Floyd]

Since when does popularity of something justify it?

I would think that in a free country, if the people aren't in favor of fighting a war, they shouldn't be forced to do so, whether it's in their supposed interests or not.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Your questionable argumentation over what was Consitutional or not is irrevelent considering most people agree he was one of the top 3 Presidents ever.

Game, Set, Match.

And this is coming from someone who thinks that the world would be a better place with a seperate USA/CSA.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Let's see, there was no law against secession, "insurrection" is not applicable against foreign nations, which the CSA became once it was formed from the seceding states, and the US invaded the CSA prior to the CSA invading the US.

The US had not recognized the CSA as a foreign nation. And if the CSA was a foreign nation, then there's nothing unconstitutional about going to war with them.

That power is not vested in the Executive Branch - if any branch has it (which I dispute anyway), it's the Legislative Branch.

Ah, that was your problem, nm.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by David Floyd

In that case, do you believe that the US should go to war with every nation that currently has or supports some form of slavery?

The US should be taking some form of action.

But when there exists a formal institution within our own borders, hell yeah there should have been a war.

Dude, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued MONTHS prior to the most famous draft riots of the war in New York.

A bunch of poor (the poorest in the city) and racist Irish immigrants who hated blacks. A Democratic mayor who hated Lincoln. Yeah, I could see why they were pissed.

It isn't my argument, it's Chief Justice Taney's in Ex parte Merryman. Did you even bother to read the decision?

But you are using it.

And no I didn't read it. It's entirely too long. Perhaps you could point me to the Cliff Notes version.

[chequita guevara]

Only a libertarian would side with the greatest act of treason this country has ever known.

[David Floyd]

Game, Set, Match.

And this is coming from someone who thinks that the world would be a better place with a seperate USA/CSA.

As I pointed out, it isn't my opinion - it's an indisputable SCOTUS decision that Lincoln violated the Constitution, and it's also indisputable that Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court.

I don't ever recall stating the world would be better with a separate US/CSA, by the way.

Kuci,

The US had not recognized the CSA as a foreign nation.

Nor did Britain recognize the US as a foreign nation, prior to 1783. The only real difference was that the 13 colonies won their war for independence, while the CSA was conquered. I don't think that has any relevance on whether or not the CSA was a legitimate nation, though, given that secession was fully Constitutional.

And if the CSA was a foreign nation, then there's nothing unconstitutional about going to war with them.

I never claimed there was, although I do claim that a declaration of war is required before substantial military action is begun, in order for the war to be Constitutional (otherwise it would interfere with Congress's sole power to declare - or create - wars). The Constitutional violation stems, in this particular case, from Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (although he also violated it in other ways).

Ah, that was your problem, nm.

Huh? That was LINCOLN'S problem, and that's why what he did was unconstitutional.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Nor did Britain recognize the US as a foreign nation, prior to 1783. The only real difference was that the 13 colonies won their war for independence, while the CSA was conquered. I don't think that has any relevance on whether or not the CSA was a legitimate nation, though, given that secession was fully Constitutional.

Not at all. Secession is rebellion. A rebellion is only "legal" if it wins.

Huh? That was LINCOLN'S problem, and that's why what he did was unconstitutional.

I meant that was your problem with Lincoln's actions.

[David Floyd]

Ted,

But when there exists a formal institution within our own borders, hell yeah there should have been a war.

But it was not within US borders - it was in the CSA. If slavery existed within the US - and it did - then the proper mechanism for change was a Constitutional amendment.

A bunch of poor (the poorest in the city) and racist Irish immigrants who hated blacks. A Democratic mayor who hated Lincoln. Yeah, I could see why they were pissed.

I'd be pissed too, if I was told I had to go fight a war I didn't support. There were draft riots in many major US cities and states, not just in New York City.

But you are using it.

Yet I didn't create it - the Supreme Court did.

And no I didn't read it. It's entirely too long. Perhaps you could point me to the Cliff Notes version.

If you care to find it, you may do so - but in the meantime, don't post in ignorance about it.

che,

Only a libertarian would side with the greatest act of treason this country has ever known.

That's funny, "treason" is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States. Secession is something totally different.