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: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 03:52 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
81st Post
HankC
Member


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

  back to top

"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."

For some one claiming that slavery was not a cause of the Civil War, you sure bring it up a lot...


"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 "

William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Daniel Webster, Milliard Fillmore and Winfield Scott may be surprised at your promotion of Lincoln...

 

HankC



 Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 02:08 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
82nd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Again, I'd ask for examples, but I've come to realize that you have none...
Oh, but he does, Hank, you'll find them in his statement, "Because I say so."

Ole



 Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 03:15 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
83rd Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

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

  back to top

HankC wrote: 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


 



What more proof do you need, than a straight-out admission in Lincoln's own First Inaugural Address?



All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. 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.
...
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. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism.


There you have it-- right from the horse's mouth.
He's plainly saying that a congressional majority could constitutionally do these particular things, since the Constitution didn't "expressly say" it couldn't -- and that there wasn't a damned thing that the southern states could do about it.


HankC wrote: For some one claiming that slavery was not a cause of the Civil War, you sure bring it up a lot...

I'm sorry... is that supposed to be an argument? It isn't.
The war was caused, because the Union attacked the Confederate states after denying their sovereignty, and demanding that they roll over and pay tribute.

Last edited on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 03:20 pm by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 05:00 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
84th Post
HankC
Member


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

  back to top

One last try... Do you have any examples of the following:
 
1.regulations, by which federal executive officials refused to obey Dred Scott by refusing to protect slavery in the territories,
 
2. prosecutions of slave-owners  in the territories under existing federal laws that prohibited slavery there, and,
 
3. Prosecutions by state officials against those travelling with their slaves through free states, prosecuting and harassing them under state laws, while also refusing to protect them.
 
 
HankC



 Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 05:15 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
85th Post
barrydancer
Member


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

  back to top

ThomasWashington wroteThere you have it-- right from the horse's mouth. He's plainly saying that a congressional majority could constitutionally do these particular things, since the Constitution didn't "expressly say" it couldn't -- and that there wasn't a damned thing that the southern states could do about it."

Well, that is how a representative democracy works, isn't it?  For good or ill, if the majority has the votes, they can pass the laws.  As the North's population grew, the South lost a great deal of it's power and influence in Congress.   Couple that with the (irrational) fear that they would soon be losing billions of dollars in human property, and they decided to take their ball and go home.

What he's saying makes perfect sense to me.  The constitution gives congress the power to legislate for the territories.  It doesn't address slavery, as he says, in any way, or any other specifics for that matter.  Like many other powers listed in the constitution, the framework is laid, and later law is to flesh it out.  If a majority in congress vote to exclude slavery from a territory, which congress is given the authority to govern, is that not constitutional?


As for returning fugitive slaves, he is again correct.  The constitution itself doesn't say who is to return a fugitive, only that he/she must be returned.  Again, the framework is laid, and a number of acts expanded upon this.  Does the Federal government have the power to mandate that all states must return fugitives, regardless of state law?  What about personal liberty laws?  Which were trampled on by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850?  If the states are all sovereign entities, don't they have that right?   Or is sovereignty only exercisable by the South, when laws are passed that they don't like?

Do you see the problem here?  If all 13, 25, 50, 100 states are individual, sovereign nations, then the Federal government and the constitution itself are a meaningless farce.  How can any law or regulation be binding if every state reserves the right to ignore it based on their own sovereignty, or leave the Union whenever it likes?  I maintain that when they ratified the Constitution each state gave up its claim to be a separate nation.  Georgia, New York, etc. could have said "No thank you" and gone on their merry way.  By agreeing to become part of the whole, however, they gave up that status as a nation unto themselves.  They retained sovereignty over their domestic affairs, those not specifically prohibited by the Constitution.  They HAD to give up status as a separate nation, otherwise the Constitution doesn't work.  How could the Constitution prohibit Alabama or Connecticut from negotiating their own separate treaties with Russia or France, for example, if each state retained all the status and powers of a sovereign nation?
 That's how I see it.  Your mileage may (and obviously does) vary. 

HankC wrote: For some one claiming that slavery was not a cause of the Civil War, you sure bring it up a lot... I'm sorry... is that supposed to be an argument? It isn't. The war was caused, because the Union attacked the Confederate states after denying their sovereignty, and demanding that they roll over and pay tribute.

I'm sure that would be news to Robert Anderson and the garrison at Sumter.  And what tribute are they being demanded to pay?  The taxes and tariffs that are required of them by federal law?

Last edited on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 05:25 pm by barrydancer



 Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 06:22 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
86th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

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

  back to top

barrydancer wrote:
 And what tribute are they being demanded to pay?  The taxes and tariffs that are required of them by federal law?
The Constitution only permits Congress to levy taxes for the common defense and general welfare-- anything else is TRIBUTE.

These tariffs were for protectionism and wealth-redistribution. and were exceeded the terms of constitutional agreements between the states.


ThomasWashington wroteThere you have it-- right from the horse's mouth. He's plainly saying that a congressional majority could constitutionally do these particular things, since the Constitution didn't "expressly say" it couldn't -- and that there wasn't a damned thing that the southern states could do about it."

Well, that is how a representative democracy works, isn't it? 

The Union wasn't a "representative democracy" with absolute carte blanche, but a federal republic of sovereign nations. Each state was the sovereign arbiter of whether the other states were abiding by the Constitution-- and the Southern states clearly held that the others weren't.

And they were right, as is clear from the facts.


Do you see the problem here?  If all 13, 25, 50, 100 states are individual, sovereign nations, then the Federal government and the constitution itself are a meaningless farce. 


You've got it backwards-- if the federal government has carte blanche, then the Constitution is a meaningless farce, since it can claim that the Constitution says (or means) anything it wants.

And if the minority states don't like it, their only resort is to start a leaflet campaign to sway the others, or they can just "go fish." 
Or they can, as you will probably say, try to "settle it on the battlefield" against a numerically superior majority; in which case the issue is settled simply by brute force, as well as which leader is CRAZIER-- and Lincoln clearly won the fruitcake-prize, being certfiably insane even by contemporary standards of the era.

Obviously, NO state would subscribe to such a "District of Columbia House" plan of "get 13 states for a penny: you just have to  pay the required taxes forever... tax-amounts to be announced later; and if you don't pay, we'll murder your sons, rape your daughters and steal your lands."

And anyway I'm not quibbling over whether state sovereignty was a "good idea" or not-- I'm stating the fact that each state was, and is, a sovereign nation under the Constitution.  When you have facts that prove otherwise,  then you can counter; but I'm really not interested in your opinion regarding whether or not you personally approve of each state being sovereign.

Last edited on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 06:55 pm by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 06:29 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
87th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

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

  back to top

HankC wrote: One last try... Do you have any examples of the following:
 
1.regulations, by which federal executive officials refused to obey Dred Scott by refusing to protect slavery in the territories,
 
2. prosecutions of slave-owners  in the territories under existing federal laws that prohibited slavery there, and,
 
3. Prosecutions by state officials against those travelling with their slaves through free states, prosecuting and harassing them under state laws, while also refusing to protect them.
 
 
HankC




 Irrelevant. The South claimed that the other states were doing it, and Lincoln admitted it;  there's really no need to quibble over and delve into minutiae, when the issue is right there in black and white.

Last edited on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 06:56 pm by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 08:04 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
88th Post
barrydancer
Member


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

  back to top

"And anyway I'm not quibbling over whether state sovereignty was a "good idea" or not-- I'm stating the fact that each state was, and is, a sovereign nation under the Constitution.  When you have facts that prove otherwise,  then you can counter; but I'm really not interested in your opinion regarding whether or not you personally approve of each state being sovereign."

Given that all you've done so far on CWI is to present your own opinions and interpretations of Lincoln and international law as incontrovertible fact, talked down to anyone who questions you or suggests you check out a different source, refused to provide examples to back up any of your claims when repeatedly asked by people (Such as Hank and Ole), and certified that any information contrary to what you claim is "state propaganda," I can't see how this or any other thread you are involved in is going to go anywhere but to Hell in a really fast hand-basket.

I'm here to discuss the American Civil War, not listen to the gospel according to ThomasWashington.  There's nothing to be gained from attempting to engage zealots in debate.

Last edited on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 08:25 pm by barrydancer



 Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 08:56 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
89th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

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

  back to top

barrydancer wrote: "And anyway I'm not quibbling over whether state sovereignty was a "good idea" or not-- I'm stating the fact that each state was, and is, a sovereign nation under the Constitution.  When you have facts that prove otherwise,  then you can counter; but I'm really not interested in your opinion regarding whether or not you personally approve of each state being sovereign."

Given that all you've done so far on CWI is to present your own opinions and interpretations of Lincoln and international law as incontrovertible fact, talked down to anyone who questions you or suggests you check out a different source, refused to provide examples to back up any of your claims when repeatedly asked by people (Such as Hank and Ole), and certified that any information contrary to what you claim is "state propaganda," I can't see how this or any other thread you are involved in is going to go anywhere but to Hell in a really fast hand-basket.

I'm here to discuss the American Civil War, not listen to the gospel according to ThomasWashington.  There's nothing to be gained from attempting to engage zealots in debate.


 

"Talking down?" You reap what you sow.
You're the one name-calling-- along with Ole's insults, which put him on the "ignore" list. Likewise, Hank hasn't asked any relevant material questions, just evasive ones-- which I did answer with conclusive material evidence, though not to his fancy.

If you have any relevant questions, I haven't seen them. I'm here to discuss the actual issues behind the war-- not answer idle questions about moot and irrelevant details regarding them--- when the issues themselves were recognized and admitted by all sides concerned. My burden is only to prove, not covince.

Last edited on Wed Nov 25th, 2009 12:23 am by ThomasWashington



 Posted: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 10:34 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
90th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Waaaaaah!=+-

This is the way this will end. Our new troll will likely be shunned or ejected. In a way, that makes me sad because we have had a few days of excitement here. Javal REALLY doesn't like banning, but he REALLY, REALLY doesn't like discord and conflict. Brian lives on discord and insult. Sooner or later, he will infect every serious thread with toxic screeds on state soverignty. Discuss the relative merits or demerits of, say, Sheridan, and Li'l Phil will soon be a tool of a fanatic despot dedicated to subjugate and make slaves of every southern citizen.

I've gone through more than one of his re-incarnations. Old-timers, like Unionblue, have been through more than that. The end is the same.

Anyone interested in continuing the discussion sanely? What is the subject, anyway? See what I mean?

Ole 

PS. Guess that makes me a stalker?

Last edited on Mon Nov 23rd, 2009 10:36 pm by ole



 Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 03:41 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
91st Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

To All,

"Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on the most serious distresses."

[Quote by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.]

I credit the finding of this quote to my friend, trice, over at CivilWarTalk.

Sincerely,

Unionblue



____________________
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.


 Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 05:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
92nd Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ThomasWashington wrote: And anyway I'm not quibbling over whether state sovereignty was a "good idea" or not-- I'm stating the fact that each state was, and is, a sovereign nation under the Constitution.  When you have facts that prove otherwise,  then you can counter; but I'm really not interested in your opinion regarding whether or not you personally approve of each state being sovereign.


There were a few who felt state sovereignty was NOT a "good idea."

From a speech by John Quincy Adams at the Jubilee of the Constitution:

"...It has been my purpose, Fellow-Citizens, in this discourse to show:

1. That this Union was formed by a spontaneous movement of the people of the thirteen English Colonies; all subjects of the King of Great Britain - bound to him in allegiance, and to the British empire as their country.  That the first object of this Union, was united resistance against oppression, and to obtain from the government of their country redress of their wrongs.

2. That failing in this object, their petitions having been spurned, and the oppressions of which they complained, aggravated beyond endurance, their Delegates in Congress, in their name and by their authority, issued the Declaration of Independence - proclaiming them to the world as one people, absolving them from their ties and oaths of allegiance to their king and country - renouncing that country; declared the UNITED Colonies, Independent States, and announcing that this ONE PEOPLE of thirteen united independent states, by that act, assumed among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them.

3. That in justification of themselves for this act of transcendent power, they proclaimed the principles upon which they held all lawful government upon earth to be founded - whic principles were, the natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights of man, specifying among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the institution of government is to secure to men in society the possession of those rights: that the institution, dissolution, and reinstitution of government, belong exclusively to THE PEOPLE under a moral responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe; and that all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.

4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth.

5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves.  But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy.

6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority.

7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty, was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them.

8. That the tree was made known by its fruits.  That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution.

9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people.  That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE.

10. That this Constitution, making due allowance for the imperfections and errors incident to all human affairs, has under all the vicissitudes and changes of war and peace, been administered upon those same principles, during a career of fifty years.

11. That its fruits have been, still making allowance for human imperfection, a more perfect union, established justice, domestic tranquility, provision for the common defense, promotion of the general welfare, and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty by the constituent people, and their posterity to the present day.

And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide."

Adams entire speech may be viewed at the following website:

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/misc/1839-jub.htm

Notice how Adams ties the Declaration of Independence in with the Constitution, both of which are the will of the people?

Sincerely,

Unionblue

Last edited on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 06:35 am by Unionblue



____________________
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.


 Posted: Tue Nov 24th, 2009 10:38 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
93rd Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Irrelevant. The South claimed that the other states were doing it, and Lincoln admitted it;  there's really no need to quibble over and delve into minutiae, when the issue is right there in black and white.
In other words, why bother with facts when they've already been pronounced?

Ole



 Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 02:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
94th Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ole,

Herein lies the perils of taking period speeches and quotes out-of-context from the entire, original document.  One never gets the true meaning of the intent of the original author. 

And on top of that, to discourage in any way a look at the source materal, other than from the view of someone else's personal agenda, it simply an attempt to discourage anyone's attempts at understanding the source documents/speeches for themselves.

Why not simply post the portions of Lincoln's speeches one feels proves a view or point and THEN post a site that lists the entire document so that others may see those portions in context?  It's more honest and it tends to show one is very secure that his views can be supported by providing the entire speech or document.

Research is never a waste of time and showing an entire document in context is far more honest than hoping no one will question the source or the context of the material one uses to support a view.

IMO.

Sincerely,

Unionblue



____________________
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.


 Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 02:42 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
95th Post
ThomasWashington
Banned
 

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

  back to top

[Post deleted by admin - poster banned]



 Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 03:02 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
96th Post
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1503
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

ThomasWashington - You've shown as much disrespect to other members as I'm going to tolerate. You're out of here.



 Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 03:12 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
97th Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ole,

Why don't we try looking at the ENTIRE speech, or what we have of it, in context with the fragment given us above in another post?

Lincoln's 1856 Freemont campaign speech, given on July 23, 1856, at Galena, Illinois.

LINCOLN ON DISUNION.

"Hon. "ABRAHAM" "LINCOLN" hits the nail on the head every time, and in this instance it will be seen, he has driven it entirely out of sight,---if we succeed as well as we anticipate in re-producing from memory his argument in relation to "Disunion."

Mr. "LINCOLN" was addressing himself to the opponents of "FREMONT" and the Republican party, and had referred to the charge of "sectionalism," and then spoke something as follows in relation to another charge, and said:

"You further charge us with being Disunionists.  If you mean that it is our aim to dissolve the Union, for myself I answer, that is untrue; for those who act with me I answer, that it is untrue.  Have you heard us assert that as our aim?  Do you really believe that such is our aim?  Do you find it in our platform, our speeches, our conversations, or anywhere?  If not, withdraw the charge.

"But, you may say, that though it is not your aim, it will be the result, if we succeed, and that we are therefore Disunionists in fact.  This is a grave charge you make against us, and we certainly have a right to demand that you specify in what way we are to dissolve the Union.  How are we to effect this?

"The only specification offered is volunteered by Mr. Fillmore, in his Albany speech.  His charge is, that if we elect a President and Vice President both from the Free States, it will dissolve the Union.  This is open folly.  The Constitution provides, that the President and Vice President of the United States shall be of different States; but says nothing as to the latitude and longitude of those States.  In 1828, Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, were elected President and Vice President, both from slave States; but no one thought of dissolving the Union then, on that account.  In 1840, Harrison of Ohio, and Tyler of Virginia, were elected.  In 1841, Harrison died, and John Tyler succeeded to the Presidency, and William R. King, of Alabama, was elected Acting Vice-President by the Senate; but no one supposed that the Union was in danger.  In fact, at the very time Mr. Fillmore uttered this idle charge, the state of things in the United States disproved it.  Mr. Pierce of New Hampshire, and Mr. Bright of Indiana,---both from Free States,---are President and Vice President; and the Union stands, and will stand.  You do not contend that it ought to dissolve the Union, and the facts show that it won't; therefore, the charge may be dismissed without further consideration.

"No other specification is made, and only one that could be made is, that the restoration of the restriction of '87, making the United States territory free territory, would dissolve the Union.  Gentlemen, it will require a decided majority to pass such an act.  We, the majority, being able constitutionally to do all that we propose, would have no desire to dissolve the Union.  Do you say that such restriction of slavery would be unconstitutional and that some of the States would not submit to its enforcement?  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?  We, the majority, would not strive to dissolve the Union; and if any attempt is made it must be by you, who so loudly stigmatize us as disunionists.  But the Union, in any event, won't be dissolved.  We don't want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it, we won't let you.  With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury in our hands and at our command, you couldn't do it.  This Government would be very weak, indeed, if a majority, with a disciplined army and navy, and a well-filled treasury, could not preserve itself, when attacked by an unarmed, undisciplined, unorganized minority.

"All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug---nothing but folly.  We "WON'T" dissolve the Union, and you "SHAN'T"

Those of you will note the small fragment given to us in another post emboldened and at an inclination.

Now, what was Lincoln talking about?  When his entire speech is shown with the fragment in context, what is he trying to get across to his listeners?

With the viewing of the entire speech, each of us can make up our own minds for ourselves.

(The article above with Lincoln's speech may be viewed at the following website: )

http://www.thelincolnlog.org/view/1856/7


IMO. :)

Sincerely,

Unionblue


Last edited on Wed Nov 25th, 2009 03:25 am by Unionblue



____________________
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.


 Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 03:14 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
98th Post
ole
Member


Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 2027
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

But don't let the rest of us stop discussing some really interesting topics.

Barrydancer: I agree with your interpretation of the excerpt of Lincoln's speech. Lincoln wasn't all saying what the poster's take on it implied.

Ole



 Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 04:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
99th Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

To All,

I'm sorry, but my memory is not what it used to be and I can't seem to find the post on previous posts, but didn't someone say that the Declaration of Independence was the music and the Constitution was the lyrics?

Sounds like the best explanation yet of what the two documents represent to the rest of us in this nation.

I'd appreciate knowing who said the above to thank them for the words.

Sincerely,

Unionblue



____________________
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.


 Posted: Wed Nov 25th, 2009 06:05 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
100th Post
Unionblue
Member
 

Joined: Mon Nov 23rd, 2009
Location: Columbus, Ohio USA
Posts: 56
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

To All,

In an effort to bring this particular thread back on topic, I would like to repost part of post #1 by Bama46:

"What is the purpose of Government?

To secure our unalienable rights...nothing more.

Now this document was written with an eye towards putting George III on notice that we were a free and independent people, and no longer interested in being British subjects, but fast forward to 1860.  Which sections of this document did not apply to the secessionists?  Why not?

If these men believed as did their grandfathers, that they had the right to throw off an oppressive government, who is to say they did not?  Seems to me they had a duty to do so.  If not, why not?

Is this document a historic relic with no meaning in today's society?  If so, why?"

Perhaps we should take another look at what the Declaration of Independence actually says.  We can view it in its entirety at this website:

http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html

I suggest we look at the first question asked above, which, as I read it, is "Which sections of this document did not apply to the secessionists?  Why not?"

Looking at the Declaration, I see the following statement.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed,---That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."

Now I suggest we go through each of the complaints, the "history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States," one-at-a-time, and see if the South suffered from the same type of 'Tyranny' from the North or federal government of 1860-61. 

The first complaint reads:

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

What evidence can be provided that the North was refusing 'assent to laws' to the South necessary for its public good?

Comments?  Evidence? 

Sincerely,

Unionblue

Last edited on Wed Nov 25th, 2009 06:08 am by Unionblue



____________________
Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence.


 Current time is 02:43 amPage:  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 0.4748 seconds (10% database + 90% PHP). 35 queries executed.