Distortions of truth and history: Lee, a better friend of slaves than Lincoln

[Imran Siddiqui]

If it's a question of warranted action, Congress is clearly in the right to call up the militias, and the states are expected, constitutionally, to comply.

Sometimes... in the War of 1812, the NorthEast ignored the federal government's order to use the militia against the Brits.

[Sava]

hehehe I know Lincoln... I love you too

I don't love jimmy though, well, naw, I take it back, I love him just like I lvoe uhh I dunno something I don't love... oaky I'm officially cutting myself off right now because I'm just randomly spamming...

[David Floyd]

Boris,

You just made a mistake.
If this is true:

And notice how it's the federal government's responsibility to arm them.

Then the 2nd Amendment can't possibly refer to militias as the only people allowed to bear arms, otherwise the 2nd Amendment would be redundent.

Original intent matters, but is very hard to discern, and you will be hard pressed to find a consistent point of view from the Founding Fathers on issues. It's a matter of opinion and who one choosed to look to for their intent.

Then I'll thank you not to use original intent arguments to tell me that secession is wrong, because if you do, I have a just as good or better argument based on original intent that says gun control is wrong.

Texas aside, most states not in the original 13 were Federal territority before becoming states. They were the recipient of millions in Federal dollars and largesse. In this light, one can view the granting of statehood and all of its benefits as also a bit of largesse from America. Then, should the state secede, it is, in effect, stealing territory that was property of the American people.

Incorrect. Once a territory becomes a state, all applicable states rights apply to that state, including the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment overrides any federal laws or extra-constitutional federal claims. Further, you assert that, essentially, because a state received federal monies, it was in essence federal property. That also is incorrect, found nowhere in the Constitution, but also makes no SENSE, because the people of that state paid into the federal government in various forms of taxes, excises, duties, etc.

Further, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were all independent before they became states. Those 5 Confederate states formed a large part of the CSA's power, and included the Confederate seat of government, and supplied more troops to the CSA armies than the rest of the states combined. It sounds like you're admitting those 5 states at least could secede, which is a step in the right direction.

And let's not forget that in many of those states, you can't speak for the free will of the people, as only the will of white male voters was being considered,

It was the same in the US, so let's not go down this road. What, you want me to admit slavery was wrong? OK, damn, you got me there

and even that was not unanimously in favor of of secession.

No one's claiming it was unanimous.

What about the ardently Unionist areas of Alabama, Florida, N. Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, where it was dangerous to travel during the war if you were a Confederate?

What about them?

What about E. Tennessee, where the confederates had to occupy it by force to prevent it from following w. Virginia in sticking with the Union? All over the South refused to accept secession. What about Winn Parish, LA, or Winston County, AL, or Jones County, MS? What about their free will?

Is your point that the CSA wasn't run by angels either? Duh, I'll certainly grant you that. But the problems with the CSA are not the discussion here, but I readily admit there were plenty.

Insurrection is simply a rising up against established authority.

No, insurrection is an illegal rising up against authority. Secession was not illegal, and thus not insurrection.

The Federal Government was the established authority, superior to the state government.

Again, only in matters where Constitutional federal laws conflicted with state laws. Secession is not covered by the Supremacy Clause.

Firing on Ft. Sumter and seizing arsenals was indeed insurrection.

It couldn't have been insurrection if the state had already seceded.

And I disagree. AFAIK, the U.S. secures the territory of embassies (and possibly bases, I don't know) via treaty/agreement with the nation it is in, and that nation agrees the land is sovereign U.S. soil. That's why people can claim asylum when they breech the U.S. embassy compound. I don't know how Italy works, but in the above scenario if it were the U.S. instead, I don't think Germany would have any legal right to demand the personal leave the embassy any more than they could demand I leave New York. Realistically, the U.S. would probably (depending on the situation) acquiesce anyway, but should it choose to refuse, it would be within it its rights to do so. Should Germany seize the Embassy by force then, it would be an act of war.

Treaties can be legally dissolved in the US, an example would be the ABM treaty. There's no reason to assume another nation doesn't have the same ability to nullify or withdraw from a treaty it no longer agrees with.

At any rate, the states willfully entered into the Union, and in doing so willfully and deliberately ceded some of their sovereign territory to the federal government, and there is no provision to make this revocable. It was part of the deal of becoming a state that such land would cease to be theirs. It was not on lease or loan, as there are seperate provisions the Federal government undertakes for leasing state land. That land was the U.S. Government's, and the South committed an act of insurrection/war when attacking it.

The CSA had a right to demand that the US military withdraw from within its borders, the same as any other sovereign nation.

But no, I don't think blockading it would be legal, either. It is still an attack, albeit perhaps indirect, on, Federal property. And wouldn't they have to attack Federal ships attempting to break the blockade?

Wouldn't the US fleet have to first enter CSA territorial waters in order to break the blockade?
And besides, by your own argument blockading it wouldn't be illegal, because starting 1 inch outside of Ft Sumter, all waters and territory belongs to South Carolina, right?

I was referring to the Oath, wherein all those guys who voted for secession had previously sworn, "bound by Oath of Affirmation," to support the Constitution.

How were they not supporting the Constitution by acting within it?

There therefore had no legal ability whatsoever to vote for secession, as it would be illegally removing themselves from that Oath. I don't accept poo-pooing of the Oath, as some do, as a mere formality that they could just toss aside.

The oath is only valid if the Constitution is effective with regards to the person who took the oath. The oath doesn't prohibit secession, in fact, the oath swears one to protect and defend the Constitution. This oath was not broken by acting within the Constitution, but once a person was not a citizen of the US, neither the Constitution nor the oath meant anything with regards to them. If a Congressman, for example, emigrates to another country, he is not anymore bound by the oath, wouldn't you agree?

Sava,

the mass graves do exist, unfortunately for you (and Western propaganda) they are populated with the bodies of able bodied men that were killed in combat. The very few that are women and children were collateral damage from conflicts in which the Serbians were not the aggressors.

Hmmmm, and how about SLobo. Has he been convicted of anything? No... Why? Because they can't prove jacksh!t because they are flat out wrong. NATO f*cked up and they want to keep the story quiet. Funny how he's kind of fallen out of the media in the last year, isn't it?

I agree.

[David Floyd]

By the way, I think that Lincoln was justified in putting down the rebellion.

There was no rebellion, because one sovereign entity cannot "rebel" against another one.

[Sava]

hoyl **** I must relly be drunk nwo!

[Lincoln]

"Funny how he's kind of fallen out of the media in the last year, isn't it?"

Milosovic has embarrassed the court on many occassions if you read the transcripts. I think they would prefer that no one knows that he has a case as well as the prosecution. The victors get to write the history so it has to come out right. I really have not decided what the actual truth is but he is certainly making a case that the media does not advertise very much.

[Sava]

yeah ive laughed at the stuf he's doned....

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


Whoever started the war comes down to legal semantics. It's that simple.

That is stonewalling. Hiding from the truth to avoid the facts.

Yes... You don't seem to understand what anarcho-syndicalism (the prevalent doctrine in Catalonia at the time) is. Look it up.

No. See below.

You never defined what you think a government is. You seem to be touchy about that kind of stuff. I think they definitely had a government.

You also think who starts a war is irrelevant rather than a way to decide where responsibility lies. So I can't go on what you think.

Ever hear of a city called Barcelona, you know the capital of Catalonia? Catalonia was the most industrialized area of Spain.

Yes I have heard of it.

1. That depends upon the definition of government.
2. I don't think you understand what anarchism is in the least.

I think you may have a peculiar definition.

The only online link I can recall is the the Anarchist FAQ (look it up in google). I believe it covers all three, as well as other examples.

No thanks. I asked for link. I would like one to some slightly less biased source on top of it. You didn't even supply a biased one. I give links when asked or say that I can't find one. I don't blow off such requests as you just did.

I never said I never insult. I don't consider it a civil response, but some times it's warranted in the case of *******s such as yourself.

Now that we have that out of the way just keep your bad attitude in mind. I gave to you what you give to me. Frequently. Don't expect me to tolerate it from you either.

I was pointing out that insulting without reason is a far more idiotic than ignoring an assinine assertion. Particularly when you obviously are completely ignorant about what you're insulting.

Anarchy is to nearly everyone on the face of the Earth a condition of no government. It is not my fault if you and a few others choose to call something else by the word.

I made NO assnine assertions. Anarchists have earned insults many times in the past. If you choose to call yourself one you should accept the results of your actions. It looks remarkably like the sort of thing kids do to annoy their parents and for no other reason.

What are you on about now? Did some Southerner rape you when you were a kid?

What is YOUR problem? I only said Lincoln can't pass laws till he is in office.

Think about what you're reading and what you're writing for a minute.

Pot. You didn't think at all before that remark above. Not one tiny bit.

All I'm saying is that if Lincoln didn't invade the South, Southern farmers wouldn't be subsidizing industrialists in the short term.

That isn't what you said. You not only didn't think about what I wrote you didn't think about what you wrote.

Lincoln didn't invade the South untill AFTER the South started a war. If they hadn't been so set on a violent solution then Lincoln would have had a hard time in justifying his LATER attack on the rebelling states.

It is no mere technicality about who started the war. It places resposibility. It places it on the South.

And I'd find it very unlikely that the US would allow another state to peacefully secede.

Another? When was there a first?

I see it very likely that Texas would try to secede from the South, given that it would industrialize later (and slavery would die out later, given the large supply of land) than the rest of the South. However, I see it far more likely that the CSA would forcefully prevent secession than not.

Now that would really balkanize the South. Especially since secession was an explicit right in the CSA constitution.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo


Nowhere does it say the PRESIDENT has the authority to suspend habeas corpus.

No where does it say it is not the President that makes the decision. When ambiguity arises it falls to the President or the Supreme Court to make the decision. Since the Supreme Court did NOT overturn the Presidents actions then his actions were legal.

9th and 10th Amendments.

They don't mention seccession.

Yes you were. I mentioned that the Lincoln didn't oppose the Fugitive Slave Act, and you said that was because it was legal. I was wondering how.

A law was passed by Congress. That is the usual way.

If you are wondering how it was passed; hmm lets see. Someone introduced a bill in one house or the other. The bill was passed in that house. It went to the other house. It was passed there. It went to the President for his signature. The President signed it or he didn't and two houses overroad the veto. It wasn't overturned by the Supreme Court. It wouldn't be overturned by the Supreme Court because insterstate trade is the responsibility of the Federal Government.

And you claimed I wasn't thinking before posting.

Why does only the President have such authority? That doesn't make sense.

Fremont was under the President. He was not a legal authority. His action was not aproved by the man that did have the responsiblilty, Lincoln.

Surely rebels under martial law are under the authority of the general who captures them. Why does the general need Presidential authority for every decision?

He doesn't. Neither is Lincoln obligated to support him on all decisions. It is the Presidents perogitive to set the guidlines. Fremont should have ASKED first on that. Without at least some indication from the President he was acting without authorization of any kind. Lots of Presidents would have slapped him down for a such a decision. It was a politcal action that Fremont took. Not one about keeping order and seeing that laws weren't violated.

So? Fremont was involving himself with rebels in Missouri.

Covered above.

And you didn't address Halleck.

Frankly, I wasn't sure what you are referring to. Looking back farther into the thread I would have to say that Halleck was doing the opposite of Fremont. If one was wrong in Lincoln's view then the other would most likely be right. It was up to Lincoln to decide how to handle the slaves in the South unless Congress should pass a law covering it. After all no one had overturned local laws yet. When in doubt enforcing the local laws seems like a good idea to me. After Lincoln issued the Emancipation Prolamation that gave the Generals a reason to act differently than the local laws.

Missouri was not a rebelling state and the Constitution requires a court action to take property without paying for it. Anyone in that state was still subject to the Constitution, including the Generals.

Why is that relevant? Not all slave systems involved buying and selling. Raiding exclusively among hunter-gartherers, for instance.

Its hard to sell when you don't have any sort economic system. Conscription is kind of dificult without one.

So? There were slave systems where this wasn't true either.

They aren't what most people call slavery. Indentured servant is the term. Serfdom is close to slavery but it too isn't quite slavery. So its serfdom. We have hundreds of thousands of words Ramos. Use the one suited for the task. Slavery almost always is used to mean the actual ownership of human beings.

I'm not redefining anything. Look, from dictionary.com:

quote:

slave Pronunciation Key (slv)
n.
One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.




That's the first definition, BTW.

Yes and it goes against your claim that conscription=slavery. The government is in no way a household or a person. Thank you for your help in showing the error of your ways.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
back to lightheartedness--

lee wasn't evil. sherman was, for torching atlanta, but he did atlanta a small favor, one which now should be repeated~

I am wondering where Jimmytrick saw someone call Lee evil?

Here is the time he started this thread.

03-09-2002 15:19

Here is the time I made a post in responce to his remarks that included a quote about Lee.

03-09-2002 10:47

I sure didn't say Lee was evil in that. What I did say:

Robert E. Lee was descended from an ape. Look at those short legs. Especially him.

That was in responce to General Pickett's objection to the idea that humans have apes for ancestors. I think that was set Jimmy off but maybe there was another thread. I know it wasn't this one based on the time.

In responce to the Jimmy calling General Robert E. Lee Bobby Lee(yeah I know he was called that sometimes, this was a joke)

You make him sound like a 50's pop singer.

Bobby Lee and Sandra Dee together again in:

Bandy Legged Ape-Men Surf Hawaii While Enslaving the Natives.

Hear Bobby Lee sing:

My Old Jungle Home

As We Were Marching Through Wai Ki Ki

Trixie

and of course

It Was Good Enough For Moses Malone

I just thought that should be seen by others. I was looking for an excuse to slip it in here.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You are on drugs right? NOTHING to do with states' rights? They had EVERYTHING to do with states' rights. They are the definition of it.

I am devastated by the strenght of that rebuttal. Truly claiming that I must be on drugs is by far the most forceful and effective rebuttal I have ever been subjected to.

So by your logic, the Emancipation Proclamation was unconstitutional and thus merely symbolizism that did nothing. I've said Lincoln wasn't a masterful politician.

Thats YOUR illogic not mine. The Emancipation Proclamation was fully constitutional as it had no force in areas where the Constitution was in force.

Game. Set. Match. Thanks for playing, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Oh dear such delusions. You think you can win simply by saying something that is wrong and claiming its my logic? No way.

Saying that Congress can suspend it is no where near the same thing as saying the President can suspend it.

It doesn't mention Congress.

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.

I think that your claim of game set and match does apply quite well here. No mention of Congress. A clear mention of rebellion. Lincoln acted legaly. The Supreme Court agreed as well.

How much of an extent was slavery not the real issue and merely the facade .

You can't argue that it was one and not the other. No way, no how. It was both slavery and states' rights that caused the Civil War and both overlap.

I can't? Because you say so? There sure is no other reason. Since nearly every single mention of States Rights in the Seccession were about the rights of slave owners over humans rights it is exceedingly clear that slavery WAS the primary issue. Every alleged state right was a slave related right.

The history of the United States (and why it is different from most other countries) is the history of Federalism. The law of the land is essential to US History, and one of the first things you learn about in Law School is the unique system of Federalism. It defines the US more than slavery does. Federalism was with us in the past, is with us today, and will be with us until the US collapses.

There would be no US as it exists today without the slave issues. Even the revolution had to deal with them long before there was ANY form of federal government.

With Federalism there will ALWAYS be the states' rights issue. How much power should the states' hold vis a vis the Federal Government. EVERY issue is a subset of this main question. Slavery is a question dealing with states' rights, not the other way around.

Slavery was an issue of human rights. State rights are going to diminish over time as the US becomes more and more a single coherent whole through the interstate commerce clause. I am sure the framers of the Constitution would be surprised by the power inheirent in that one clause but it follows from it that as trade between the States increased the Federal government had to gain more power and the states lose some. As long as slaves remained in slave states the Feds had no say in the matter except for the matter of imporation in the first place.

The union itself was formed with states' rights being the main contention. Look at the Constitutional Convention. The debates all revolved around states' rights, and NOT simply because of slavery. New Jersey and New York delegates had bitter arguments over representation and neither were slave states.

The US history is not limited to the time since the Constitutional Convention. Slavery has been an issue since the Declaration of Independence. The nation wasn't really a single Nation until after the Civil War. Prior to that it was to a large extent a collection of states many of which thought of themselves as sovereign rather than part of a single nation. After the Civil War all that changed.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

So how is it that the Feds have been going after people in California who are acting legally under the state's laws? Oh wait...Federal drug laws override the state laws.

I haven't figured out the legal basis for that one. The pot is grown in California. It wasn't sold by any corporation that is in multiple states. Its a plant that grows easily in California and since the whole thing was carried out in the State and by citizens of the State and was legal by State law I don't see how there is any way for the Feds to stick their noses in.

Its one of the few areas where it is so clear cut that the interstate comerce clause could not be applied. Maybe I missed something in the drug laws. Does anyone know?

I am not asking for political polemic just what the legal justification was.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava
The Republicans of that era would be the Democrats of today. Comparing the neo-fascist right wing organization known as the GOP to the Republicans of the mid to late 19th century is false. They share little more than a name.

Almost every one of your posts is a gem Sava. Would you care to explain exactly how the republican party is a neo-fascist organization? Your claim carries about as much weight as the far less common charge that the democrats are pinkos. You are at least as deluded in your reverence for the republicans of the last century. They were corrupt in almost every conceivable way, and they acted with about as much foresight and statesmenship as the out of control "class of 1974" in congress, who managed to drag our reputation, our economy, our military, and our international clout to new lows, and also managed to drag president Carter along for the ride. Those who hate Reagan should keep in mind just what sort of environment put him into power.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by David Floyd


In the case of the War of 1812, yes, Congress can declare war, but states may also secede.

Since when can states secede. There has been only one instance. It failed. States cannot secede.

The Russian Embassy does not belong to the United States, yet the United States can force Russia to vacate the embassy, and if Russia refuses the US can force Russia to vacate it.
You will of course say that that is entirely different, I'm going to disagree totally, and this will go nowhere.

Actully you are part right. However I won't just disagree I will say why.

Russia is a Nation. The CSA was NOT a nation. It may have thought it was but the US did not recogonize it like it does Russia.

Embassies are in fact based on long tradition and treaty obligations. Same for the federal government owning military instalations. If the CSA wanted to claim that land it had to negotaite for it. Not simply take it.

As I pointed out a number of instalations were ILEGALY siezed by states that hadn't even gotten around to claiming they had seceded. Thats was definitly an act of rebelion even if you think seccession was legal which I do not.

The 13th Amendment doesn't ban slavery. It bans involuntary servitude. But that means slavery is illegal, because it is a type of involuntary servitude. Thus, involuntary servitude and slavery are related. Conscription is, at the least, involuntary servitude, but quite frankly, everyone knows damn well what we mean when we say slavery, and arguing with semantics will get you nowhere, anyway. OK, I admit that conscription isn't exactly the same as slavery, but it IS exactly the same as involuntary servitude. Woohoo, great victory for you - now you're just supporting involuntary servitude

Amendment XIII
(1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Well clearly Congress doesn't agree with you. It has chosen to pass laws FOR conscription not against it.

And it clearly DOES specificly ban slavery. You should look these things up first. I should do it more often myself.

That would be the United States - the CSA wanted to live in peace. The US wanted to make a land grab.

So why did the CSA and the states that seceded GRAB land belonging the US Federal government? Why did THEY start the shooting at Ft. Sumter? If the CSA had wanted to live in peace it should have gone the negotiation route. Instead IT not the US started the violence and the land grabbing. The US did nothing untill AFTER the South acted in a violent manner.

Says you.

Me and lots other people including Serbs and the victims.

OK, fine. By driving Russian civilians out of their homes, and in many cases killing them, Hitler was just trying to get the war over with quickly. Sure, he may have gone a little bit overboard, but that's not genocide.

Hitler started the war. As did the South. Sherman was just ending it. Genocide entail the deliberate extermination of a race or ethnic group. Ten per cent of the population is the UN trigger point. Sherman was killing American rebels and not a specific ethinic or racial group. So while he clearly went overboard he wasn't engaged in genocide.

Oh wait, actually that isn't genocide. Who's talking about genocide? I'm talking about war crimes, you're bringing up genocide.

You chose to use examples of people engaged in genocide. Be more careful in your examples.

Questionable if you can't read the 10th Amendment, I suppose.

I can read it just fine. Show me where it says anything regarding states leaving the Union.

I have looked a number of times and I still can't find it there.

Granted, but the US had no right to maintain military installations within the border of a sovereign country.

There was no sovereign country.

That's right, he had no power to ban slavery in a state of the Union without an amendment.
But wait, by his own argument, the CSA were still states in the Union, and even though they were rebelling, the Constitution still doesn't provide for arbitrary seizures of property.

It does in the instance of rebellion. So it wasn't arbitary.

And on the other hand, the southern states legally seceded according to their 10th Amendment powers, and after secession formed a sovereign nation, meaning that Lincoln couldn't issue orders within the CSA's boundaries anyway.

There is no such right in the 10th Amendment.

So whichever way you want to look at it, the Emancipation Proclamation had no legal force.

Funny how the slaves were emancipated and the Supreme Court held it legal. It most certainly did have legal force.

Incorrect, the CSA was sovereign by virtue of the fact that independent entities that were formerly US states came together and formed a nation. Granted, they lost their sovereignty immediately following an aggressive war by the USA, but that doesn't mean they weren't sovereign.

Only a few of the secceeding states 'came together and formed a nation'. Almost all of them were carved out of US territory. Only Texas was ever truly sovereign. The few that did help form the Nation went from being colonies to being members of the Continental Congress at nearly the same time. Indeed it was exactly the same time.

You'll have to show me that in the Constitution. Of course, you can't because it isn't there.

I can't even find a reference to Martial Law but it has been enacted a number of times in the US.

Allow me to quote Article I, Section 9:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Article I, Section 9 deals with powers denied to Congress. Hence, Congress may suspend Habeas Corpus, on two conditions. First, there has to be a rebellion or an invasion, and second, the public safety must require it.
So, there were Constitutional (but not moral) grounds for Congress to suspend habeas corpus, depending on your defintion of public safety. I would argue that even during CSA invasions (which in any case were caused by the US pushing an aggressive war against a sovereign nation) or rebellions inside the US, the public safety was never really at risk, so in that sense even Congress could not have suspended habeas corpus.
But in any case, the President may not suspend it under ANY circumstances.

That simply says the Congess may not pass laws that suspend Habeus Corpus. It doesn't require that it be the Congress that suspends it.

There was a rebellion. Public safety is vague enough to let Bush use that one should he decide to but he doesn't have an invasion or a rebellion.

Now if the Supreme Court had agreed with you I would say you had a very good point.

The 10th Amendment doesn't only imply that a state may secede, it says that a state may secede,

It neither implies it nor does it in any way say it.

by virtue of the fact that the 10th specifically states that any power not granted to Congress or denied to the States is reserved to the States and people. Because secession is not denied to the States, the 10th Amendment clearly allows secession.

By that thinking since it doesn't say the States can't assinate the President then they may do so. What a state does internally is covered by the 10 Amendment. Secceeding is inherently an action that involves the whole Nation. Of course so would assasinating the President.

Neither was Virginia - it wasn't a state at all.

Only if it won the war.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by David Floyd



Wrong, federal drug laws are unconstitutional and hold no legal power.
The federal government itself has already de facto admitted that it cannot Constitutionally pass law regarding the drinking age, so what in hell makes you think they can pass laws regarding drug use?

Well there is a way. I forgot about it earlier regarding pot.

Buying or selling pot was not made illegal at least when the feds first acted to ban its sale. Someone in the US government came up with a rather clever scheme. A stamp tax was instituted on marijuana. Then the stamp was never issued so it was impossible to sell it legaly by paying the tax. However I don't know if that gimmick still holds especially in regards to the California situation.