Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


The Declaration of Independence - Other Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 07:58 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
61st Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

'They passed laws aganst slavery in the territories,
 
blocked the admission of new states which wanted to be slave-states;
 
and they refused to do anything about states that wouldn't allow slaves to pass through them,  
 
or  gave sanctuary to slaves that escaped into them.'
 
 
Which territories had laws against slavery?
 
Which territories wished to join as slave states and were instead forced to be free states?
 
What states prevented slaves from entering?
 

Who is this magical 'they' of whom you speak?
 
 
HankC



 Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 08:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
62nd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ThomasWashington wrote: HankC wrote: In what way did 'Republicans refuse to respect Dred Scot'?
 
You seem to confuse the words 'respect' and 'like'.
 
A person can disklike a law without breaking it...
 
 
HankC



But they can't contructively VIOLATE the law without breaking it, either directly or through act of omission.



I have no idea what you are trying to say...
 
 
How does one 'constructively violate' a law? Legally, one is either in violation or not.
 
How does one violate a law through an act of omission?
 
 
How does this tie in to your phrase 'refuse to respect Dred Scott'?
 
 
HankC
 



 Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 08:06 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
63rd Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ThomasWashington wrote: HankC wrote: In what way did 'Republicans refuse to respect Dred Scot'?
 
You seem to confuse the words 'respect' and 'like'.
 
A person can disklike a law without breaking it...
 
 
HankC



The Republican party's purpose behind this, was solely to pander to abolition-groups in order to gain congressional hegemony, with which to impose illegal taxes on the southern states.



That's quite a stretch.  Where did you divine this Republican strategy?
 
Even if your suppositions were accurate (which tit is not) why would such taxes be illegal? What taxes were levied on a only state or sectional basis?
 
 
HankC



 Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 08:19 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
64th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ThomasWashington wrote: It's clearly implied in the power and duties of the president-elect--

 

The Constitution details the duties of the president-elect?

 

 

Perhaps the most pertinent phrase is 'He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years' - not '4 years plus the the 4 months prior to inauguration'.

 

Out of curiosity, how would the powers of the president-elect fall in relation to the lame-duck president?

 

 

HankC



 Posted: Fri Nov 20th, 2009 08:29 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
65th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ThomasWashington wrote: The Constitution. As president-elect; Lincoln not only could call an emergency-session of Congress to convene on the day of his inauguration: but in fact he was REQUIRED to do so, if he intended to act in a manner requiring it.



By what constitutional language, is the president-elect 'required' to call Congress into emergency session?
 
If your Constitution requires the president-elect to take an action, why hold the sitting president to a different standard? Buchanan felt no need to call Congress to an emergency session while he dealt with the situation.
 
If think Lincoln was *required* to call Congress into session why are you so opposed to suspending habeas corpus when "in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may *require* it" as the Constitution so clearly says?
 
 
HankC



 Posted: Sat Nov 21st, 2009 02:04 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
66th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

 

 

 

How does one 'constructively violate' a law? Legally, one is either in violation or not.

And construction is one way to violate it, through acts which effectively violate the law through indirect means.

 

How does one violate a law through an act of omission?

By deliberately refraining from a duty that the law requires.
 

How does this tie in to your phrase 'refuse to respect Dred Scott'?


People obey laws, governments respect them. The Republicans refused to respect the law, but instead passed laws which violated it, and refused to pass or enforce laws which effected it.



 Posted: Sat Nov 21st, 2009 02:14 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
67th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

To answer your questions:

The Constitution was neither a suicide-pact, nor a "For Dummies" book; rather, it was a document of few and enumerated powers, not prohibitions on power-- see Amendents IX and X. Contrary to Lincoln's claim, the Federal government was empowered do to only that which the Constitution delegated to it-- NOT anything and everything other than what the Constitution expressly said it couldn't do.

Likewise, the federal government was not the judge of its own powers, but rather the People of each state were left ultimately to determine whether a federal law passed Constitutional muster, or otherwise was acceptable. The Constitution did not form or continue a single nation formed out of the states, but on the contrary each state was always a separate soveregn nation, and the Constitution only formed a federal republic of voluntary concessions and rules among them.

Lincoln clearly intended to force the same issue into his own hands, which Jackson had left to Congress, by simply overtepping Congress entirely, via acting in their absence and declaring it an "emergency" BECAUSE they were absent-- but not calling Congress into emergency-session. That's an unconstitutional usurpation of congressional powers right there, since they were only absent BECAUSE he didn't act as his intentions required, by calling Congress into emergency-session.
Again, that's an overthrow of the Constitution by constructive omission. He simply sat on his hands until his inauguration, and took congressional powers into his own hands, suspending habeas corpus, engaging in war and disempowring the judicial branch-- in essence making himself supreme imperial dictator; and of course his party backed him up, just like the Nazis backed Hitler, or the communist backed Stalin.

In contrast, Buchanan neither exercised any powers requiring congressional attendance during their absence, nor had ever intended to do so-- unlike Lincoln; likewise, only CONGRESS can suspend habeas corpus-- not the president-- and only during war or rebellion: but secession is neither, and thus the Constitution provides NO power to enforce laws against an entire state, nor relinquished the sovereignty of such.

In Germany, Hitler used the "Emergency Powers" doctrine of the Weimar government to seize power by declaring an emergency; in contrast, Lincoln did it by simply declaring NOTHING, and leaving Congress in recess when their presence was required in resoponse to his intended actions. Thus he clearly acted wth omissive intent to assume office with no word to Congress, despite an obvious duty to inform them that their presence was required by law.

Lincoln's actions therefore committed a federal coup d'etat to usurp imperial power over a federal republic of sovereign states, through partisan seizure of tripartite authority and totalitarian supression of the truth.



That's quite a stretch.  Where did you divine this Republican strategy?

Start with the Georgia Articles of Secession; then verify it... for a few years.

Even if your suppositions were accurate (which tit is not)

Interesting how you jump to a conclusion based on zero information, but continue to ask the question.
 

 why would such taxes be illegal?



The Constitution provides Congress with the power to levy taxes only for the common defense and the general welfare-- NOT for the redistribution of wealth from one state to another, or for protectionism of special interests against foregn competition.

The taxes passed by the North, clearly exceeded those enumerated terms-- amounting to theft by state-proxy in order to re-distribute wealth from the Southern states to the Northern ones. The Republican aim against slavery was likewse simply to acquire congressional hegemony in order continue their campaign of organized graft and rent-seeking, thus forcing the Southern minority-states to pay not only far more than their fair share, but for purposes that went far beyond either general welfare or common defense, right to corporate welfare and subsidized handouts.


What taxes were levied on a only state or sectional basis? 

Tariffs on imports that were purchased almost exclusively by the South, as well as protectionist tariffs on commercial goods manufactured exclusively in the North. Both of these types of taxes clearly exceeded the federal powers delegated by the Constitution, and deliberately strove to take advantage of superior numbers-- and to GAIN superior numbers-- in order to tax the South dry in a clear scheme of wealth-redistribution from southern to northern states via trade-restrictions and subsidies.

That's far worse than the "taxation without reprsentation" scenario which caused the states to leave England in the first place.

Last edited on Sat Nov 21st, 2009 10:27 am by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Sat Nov 21st, 2009 01:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
68th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

TW, may I suggest that perhaps President Lincoln actually took his oath of office seriously--"to preserve and protect the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC." Lincoln did indeed take some extralegal powers in the first month of his administration, however, they were enumerated and presented to the Congress when the came into session and all necessarily laws were all passed retroactively. As someone mentioned here earlier, the constitution is NOT a suicide pact. A lesser president (like J. Buchanan) would have allowed the nation to fall apart. May I suggest you carefully read "Tried by Fire" by James McPherson. Cheers!

-Mark



 Posted: Sat Nov 21st, 2009 02:54 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
69th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark wrote: TW, may I suggest that perhaps President Lincoln actually took his oath of office seriously--"to preserve and protect the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC."


And sovereign states are not enemies while neutral. International Law 101.

Accordingly, the Constitution provided NO federal authority to coerce a state militarily; and in fact expressly precluded this in Convention-- by none other than James Madison himself in fact.

As someone mentioned here earlier, the constitution is NOT a suicide pact.

He (meaning me) also said it's not a "For Dummies" book-- i.e. a layman's document.
He meant that the states did not give up their sovereignty by ratifying it, but that they didn't take pains to put that fact in layman's terms in the actual four corners of the Constitution itself;  it was perfectly-well sufficient that they didn't expressly relinquish their sovereignty-- in addition to ratifying only in response to express assurances of such retention in the Federalist papers. 
 

A lesser president (like J. Buchanan) would have allowed the nation to fall apart.

The Union was never a nation, and a greater man like Buchanan simply recognized this.
Lincoln, meanwhile, was perhaps the most deranged lunatic in world history, and mounted a federal coup d'etat with his party-- taking the power of God and country into his own hands, in order to usurp national authority where none existed-- at a human cost beyond the known measure of the era... not only in actual blood and treasure, but in raw unprecedented atrocity, which is only now beginning to emerge from the bonds of historical censorship.


May I suggest you carefully read "Tried by Fire" by James McPherson. Cheers!



You may not; citation is not argument, and I know McPherson too well to respect his  objectivity.

If you have a claim that the states were not individually sovereign, you must present your actual evidence to back up that claim. I wish you better luck than I've had in trying to find such, but at this point I'm quite certain that it simply doesn't exist.

Last edited on Sat Nov 21st, 2009 04:21 pm by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Sat Nov 21st, 2009 08:58 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
70th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ThomasWashington wrote:  How does one 'constructively violate' a law? Legally, one is either in violation or not.

And construction is one way to violate it, through acts which effectively violate the law through indirect means.

This rubbish means nothing. 

How does one violate a law through an act of omission?

By deliberately refraining from a duty that the law requires.
 
What 'duty' did Dred Scott require? Other than to obey it?
How does this tie in to your phrase 'refuse to respect Dred Scott'?


People obey laws, governments respect them. The Republicans refused to respect the law, but instead passed laws which violated it, and refused to pass or enforce laws which effected it.


Again, Dred Scott *was* the law. There is no need for more laws to enforce an existing law. What are examples where Republicans 'passed laws which violated it'?

 

HankC



 Posted: Sat Nov 21st, 2009 09:12 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
71st Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ThomasWashington wrote:


That's quite a stretch.  Where did you divine this Republican strategy?

Start with the Georgia Articles of Secession
similar to asking a fox to design a hen house ;) But I'll let you do your own research and present your own evidence.
What taxes were levied on a only state or sectional basis? 

Tariffs on imports that were purchased almost exclusively by the South, as well as protectionist tariffs on commercial goods manufactured exclusively in the North. Both of these types of taxes clearly exceeded the federal powers delegated by the Constitution, and deliberately strove to take advantage of superior numbers-- and to GAIN superior numbers-- in order to tax the South dry in a clear scheme of wealth-redistribution from southern to northern states via trade-restrictions and subsidies.

That's far worse than the "taxation without reprsentation" scenario which caused the states to leave England in the first place.

Excise taxes are agnostic; they apply to any purchaser, regardless of place of purchase.

The items most taxed via the excise were railroad iron and clothing. Do you claim that the South consumed more of these than the rest of the country?

Any imbalance in 'wealth-redistribution' was in old northwest where none of these commodities could be produced...


HankC



 Posted: Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 12:21 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
72nd Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 135
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

"and of course his party backed him up, just like the Nazis backed Hitler, or the communist backed Stalin.

In Germany, Hitler used the "Emergency Powers" doctrine of the Weimar government to seize power by declaring an emergency; in contrast, Lincoln did it by simply declaring NOTHING, and leaving Congress in recess when their presence was required in resoponse to his intended actions. Thus he clearly acted wth omissive intent to assume office with no word to Congress, despite an obvious duty to inform them that their presence was required by law."

Well, this thread has been officially Godwinned...

Last edited on Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 12:22 am by barrydancer



 Posted: Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 04:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
73rd Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

barrydancer wrote: "In Germany, Hitler used the "Emergency Powers" doctrine of the Weimar government to seize power by declaring an emergency; in contrast, Lincoln did it by simply declaring NOTHING, and leaving Congress in recess when their presence was required in resoponse to his intended actions. Thus he clearly acted wth omissive intent to assume office with no word to Congress, despite an obvious duty to inform them that their presence was required by law." Well, this thread has been officially Godwinned...


Sorry pal, Lincoln came first-- and set the example and precedent for Hitler's identical coup d'etat of the Third Reich, which he clearly patterned after Lincoln.

To wit:

"[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states."

--Mein Kampf

Lincoln seized power of all three federal branches under color of "national emergency," while likewise claiming national authority over separate nations as being all part of one nation in the same.
And Lincoln clearly PLANNED it that way, as proven by his prior statements and actions.

So I'm not comparing Lincoln to Hitler-- on the contrary, I'm comparing HITLER to LINCOLN... successfully, since Hitler clearly COPIED Lincoln in his formula and covert plan for seizing power in a dictatorial coup.
Translation: you lose.

Check. mate... and PWNED!

(Sheesh, next you'll cry "Godwin" if I claim that Hitler copied the salute from "HAIL CAESAR!")

Last edited on Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 05:56 am by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 06:24 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
74th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Excise taxes are agnostic; they apply to any purchaser, regardless of place of purchase.


They also apply to the EXPORTER by increasing the price of the goods, thereby lowering sales-volume, and therefore PROFIT. This shifts instead to Northern beneficiaries of the tax through subsidies, protectionism, and simply paying less than their fair share of the federal tax-burden.

Tariffs also don't apply to all goods equally-- and the South wanted to purchase more imports overall than the North did.
The items most taxed via the excise were railroad iron and clothing. Do you claim that the South consumed more of these than the rest of the country?
Non sequitur: 
1) the North manufactured most of the clothing they purchased, while the South didn't;
2) railroad iron was also largely produced domestically in the North, with tariffs being mainly protectionist for the benefit of northern iron and steel-industries,  and 
3) these items-- particularly pig-iron-- amounted to a fairly low percentage of total import-dollars.
So this claim makes the error of confusing numbers and percentages, as well as omitting special-interest beneficiaries.

Any imbalance in 'wealth-redistribution' was in old northwest where none of these commodities could be produced...


False. The South produced few or none of its purchased items, since it was far more cost-effective for them to invest in cash-crops. Therefore it imported most of its purchases from out-of-state, from either foreign or domestic manufacturers.
By taxing imports to finance subsidies and prevent competition-- as well as taxing southern-purchased goods disprportionately in order to shift the legal tax-burden unevenly onto the South-- the North deliberately and unconscionably used its superior numbers in order to constructively violate the express and implied terms of the Constitutional agreement-- and then tried to bureacratically stonewall the South from legal remedy, with Lincoln claiming that "Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case."

In other words, Lincoln was clearly playing a no-lose "catch-22" card-game with the Constitution against the Southern states, whereby he claimed that he could violate the spirit of the Constituiton, by cleverly maneuvering around the letter-- in addition to "stacking the deck" by changing the letter, to claim that the federal government was not limited to what the Constitution delegated that it could do, but on the contrary was only prohibited from doing what the Constitution expressly stated that it couldn't do... and finally, that the Federal Government was the final judge of what these "vital rights" were and weren't-- while likewise adding in his Address, that this judge wasn't the Supreme Court, other than in instant-cases before it.

Rather, Lincoln clearly held that the Congress and president were the final judge of their own powers-- and with the Congress conveniently absent, this defaulted to King Kong Lincoln himself.. or as he concluded regarding whether he was in the wrong: "But such is not our case."

So it's quite clear that under Lincoln's view of the Constitution, the South was damned if they did  or didn't pay the taxes imposed by the federal majority-- no matter how illegally this majority was obtained.

Again, this also shows that Hitler later copied Lincoln, by illegally using the Brownshirts to gain a majority vote for the Nazi party-- and then using that majority in order to illegaly seize complete power via federal coup.

Last edited on Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 06:45 am by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 07:17 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
75th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

HankC wrote: ThomasWashington wrote:  How does one 'constructively violate' a law? Legally, one is either in violation or not.

And construction is one way to violate it, through acts which effectively violate the law through indirect means.

This rubbish means nothing. 



 

You've never heard of "plausible deniablity?" Lincoln INVENTED it-- or at least, he sure did steal the patent.

How does one violate a law through an act of omission?

By deliberately refraining from a duty that the law requires.
 
What 'duty' did Dred Scott require? Other than to obey it?Isn't that enough?Again, Dred Scott *was* the law. There is no need for more laws to enforce an existing law. What are examples where Republicans 'passed laws which violated it'?


Administrative decisions and regulations, by which federal executive officials refused to obey Dred Scott by refusing to protect slavery in the territories, while continuing to prosecute and harass slave-owners  in the territories under existing federal laws that prohibited slavery there--  while state officials did likewise against those travelling with their slaves through free states, prosecuting and harassing them under state laws, while also refusing to protect them.

 This was a clear violation of habeas corpus, by which the state cannot arrest or detain a person without just cause-- and Dred Scott removed any such cause, as per the fundamental premise of judicial review over any law.
It also violated the right to due legal process.

Their main purpose was not even abolition, but was both simply to pander to abolitionists for their votes, while also keeping the territories free of slaves in order to admit new Free states into the Union-- while illegally blocking admision of new slave-states.

This was to gain congressional hegemony, in order to impose unfair, punitive and illegal taxation on the Southern states in a clear deliberate and unconstitutional scheme of wealth-redistribution-- as was the wont of the Republicans, particularly the former Whigs (of which Lincoln was 2nd in command under Henry Clay-- perhaps literally :P.
                                                       

This scheme is made clear in Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, when he states the following:


Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities... A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.


 Note the dual-example of slavery in the territories:  while Lincoln was generally saying that Congress was the judge of its own powers, he was doing so with particularity on this one issue.

Also, now note his statement "I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court;" and compare this back to Lincoln's original challenge to the South in his 1856 Fremont campaign-speech, where he stated the following:


I grant you that an unconstitutional act is not a law; but I do not ask and will not take your construction of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States is the tribunal to decide such a question, and we will submit to its decisions; and if you do also, there will be an end of the matter. Will you? If not, who are the disunionists--you or we?
So this "some" he mentioned, was in reference to himself and the Republican Party.

Thus as you can see, all of Lincoln's words were obviously written in "rubber ink."
He not only thumbs his nose at his promise AND at  Dred Scott, but he disclaims the entire judicial branch as anything other than simply trial and appeals-courts, essentially flushing the judicial branch's REAL power of Constitutional review and habeas corpus down the Lincoln Tunnel... with Lincoln even issuing an arrest-warrant for Chief Justice Taney when he crossed Big Ape's path. Basically, he effectively usurped the entire judicial authority.


Likewise, he usurped congressional authority during their absence-- and since they were his party, it made no difference since they backed him 100% on their return, after he got the war rolling-- along with the suspension of habeas corpus, so that the ol' Leviathan Juggernaut could just run right over and crush any pesky "Free Speech" idealists who got in their way... meanwhile the lapdog media got a golden Press Pass to become America's version of "Pravda."

Sound familiar? It should-- it was the modus operandi for all socialist dictatorships that followed in his wake during the 20th century-- including Wilson and FDR.

Last edited on Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 05:46 pm by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 02:22 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
76th Post
barrydancer
Member


Joined: Wed Apr 23rd, 2008
Location: Norwalk, Connecticut USA
Posts: 135
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

So I'm not comparing Lincoln to Hitler-- on the contrary, I'm comparing HITLER to LINCOLN... successfully, since Hitler clearly COPIED Lincoln in his formula and covert plan for seizing power in a dictatorial coup.
Translation: you lose.

I lose what?  I'm not wasting my time trying to debate you.  It's clear that you hold Lincoln about a half-step up from Lucifer, and I don't think me or anyone else is going to change your mind.

I was just pointing out that now that we've brought Nazi's into the discussion, perhaps it's time to move on.

Last edited on Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 02:44 pm by barrydancer



 Posted: Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 05:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
77th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

barrydancer wrote: So I'm not comparing Lincoln to Hitler-- on the contrary, I'm comparing HITLER to LINCOLN... successfully, since Hitler clearly COPIED Lincoln in his formula and covert plan for seizing power in a dictatorial coup.
Translation: you lose.

I lose what?  I'm not wasting my time trying to debate you. 

Good idea, after being pwned like that. :D
It's clear that you hold Lincoln about a half-step up from Lucifer, and I don't think me or anyone else is going to change your mind.


Only if you can present alternate facts to change that logical conclusion from the ones presented-- and which are all 100% supported by all verifiable history (as opposed to mainstream state propoganda). Pardon me if I prefer the objective and unadulterated truth.
I was just pointing out that now that we've brought Nazi's into the discussion, perhaps it's time to move on.


So you can't EVER mention Hitler or Nazis?
That should make discussing WWII quite interesting.... even ILLEGAL in some countries including Canada and most of Europe. Even talking about Seinfeld is off-limits.. at least those episodes containing the word "soup."

Wow, didn't know you were such a fan of censorship... but then if you support Lincoln, then it makes sense.

Last edited on Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 05:44 pm by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 05:49 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
78th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1502
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Enough already. Comparing Lincoln to Hitler is just hyperbolic rhetoric. The return of this thread started decently and then went downhill like it always does. The topic is the DoI, not Hitler and certainly not Seinfeld. You want to call that censorship, feel free.



 Posted: Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 07:42 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
79th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

Joined: Wed Nov 18th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 30
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I didn't compare Lincoln to Hitler, I compared Hitler to Lincoln-- as a COPYCAT.

It's NOT the same. My defense is Hitler's own words.

The DoI, as pertains to the War Between the States, clearly and expressly enumerated the union as  Free and Independent States-- not a singular state like Great Britain.

The Articles of Confederation and Paris Peace Treaty likewise affirmed this independent soveriegn status among the individual states-- while the Framers likewise affirmed and guaranteed the continued sovereignty of each state under the Constitution, even though it wasn't necessary in order for sovereign nations to expressly enumerate retention of their soveriegnty in order to do so-- like any  other sovereign nation: but the fact that they did enumerated such stipulations and assurances, places the matter beyond all doubt.

Lincoln, meanwhile, denied these facts and assurances, instead claiming that the Union was then and always a single nation, and that therefore Washington DC held supreme national authority over them, on the grounds that "perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all nations." 

Clearly the DoI differs, since the union was not a singular nation, but a federal republic of several individually separate nations.

Lincoln's usurpatory coup d'etat was therefore externally comparable to.... let's just say an unnamed 20th-century party-leader, who affirmed Lincoln's claim that the American states never had any sovereignty of their own-- and thus emulated Lincoln, via likewise claiming sovereign national authority over a groups of sovereign nations, ALSO via an order of force and censorship through faux-democracy and martial-law. 

Again: NO NAMES MENTIONED!

 Is everyone happy?

Last edited on Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 11:09 pm by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 03:37 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
80th Post
HankC
Member


Joined: Tue Sep 6th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 517
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Again, Dred Scott *was* the law. There is no need for more laws to enforce an existing law. What are examples where Republicans 'passed laws which violated it'?



"Administrative decisions and regulations, by which federal executive officials refused to obey Dred Scott by refusing to protect slavery in the territories, while continuing to prosecute and harass slave-owners  in the territories under existing federal laws that prohibited slavery there--  while state officials did likewise against those travelling with their slaves through free states, prosecuting and harassing them under state laws, while also refusing to protect them."

 

Again, I'd ask for examples, but I've come to realize that you have none...

HankC


 



 Current time is 05:41 pmPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.2741 seconds (15% database + 85% PHP). 39 queries executed.