# Think Tank > History >  Which Lincoln book is better?

## RileyE104

The Real Lincoln or Lincoln Unmasked

----------


## TruthisTreason

The Real Lincoln.

----------


## Stary Hickory

Reading the Real Lincoln now. I was dismayed to learn that Stonewall Jackson could have sacked Washington DC at the very first battle but Jefferson Davis told him not to take the capital.

Great book, I sure wish Stonewall would have taken DC when he had the chance.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

The Real Lincoln is the best and I would also contact the author as he is a great guy and very approachable and he is "one of us" so to speak. The reason Jackson was told no was because it would have been suicide. D.C. was filled to the brim with troops and munitions and Jackson would not have had proper support to laucnh an assault upon D.C. The Union could resupply in no time flat due to the railroads yet the Confederacy had much less infrastructure to work with and Jackson for all intents and purposes would have been stranded and had others come to his support they would have been decimated and the war would have essentially been over. I do not envy Lee and Davis for having to keep control of Jackson since cooling his enthusiasm was a full time job.

----------


## foofighter20x

Trick question.

----------


## BuddyRey

I haven't read either one, because I wasn't sure how much overlap there might be between the two.  Should someone read both, or is it really only important to read the one that's considered to be definitive anti-Lincoln volume (which seems, at least from the responses gathered herein, to be _The Real Lincoln_)?

----------


## Akus

> The Real Lincoln or Lincoln Unmasked


I personally was always into Town Cars.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

> I haven't read either one, because I wasn't sure how much overlap there might be between the two.  Should someone read both, or is it really only important to read the one that's considered to be definitive anti-Lincoln volume (which seems, at least from the responses gathered herein, to be _The Real Lincoln_)?


You should really read both. There is some overlap but it is presented from different angles. I would also suggest you check out a book called "the South was Right" by the Kennedy Brothers. They have several books which might be of interest to you and are a great beginners guide to information they did not teach you in school.

----------


## Wiserphil

> You should really read both. There is some overlap but it is presented from different angles. I would also suggest you check out a book called "the South was Right" by the Kennedy Brothers. They have several books which might be of interest to you and are a great beginners guide to information they did not teach you in school.


Myths of American slavery is the best of the Kennedy Brothers books.

----------


## TruthisTreason

Lincoln Unmasked is sort of part 2 revisited to The Real Lincoln, in my eyes.

He deals with some of the criticism of the Real Lincoln and adds a few things in Lincoln Unmasked.  So, I think it would be strange to read Unmasked first.   Buy them both, unmasked is a short read.

----------


## SovereignMN

> You should really read both. There is some overlap but it is presented from different angles. I would also suggest you check out a book called "the South was Right" by the Kennedy Brothers. They have several books which might be of interest to you and are a great beginners guide to information they did not teach you in school.


Agreed.  "The South Was Right" was a book I read about 10 years ago.  It really helped open my eyes.

----------


## Erazmus

Read both.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Reading the Real Lincoln now. I was dismayed to learn that Stonewall Jackson could have sacked Washington DC at the very first battle but Jefferson Davis told him not to take the capital.
> 
> Great book, I sure wish Stonewall would have taken DC when he had the chance.


The natural law declared by our Founding Fathers will never perish and needs no defense.  So, as we can never suffer defeat from such a Truth, as that Truth is what we desire, why would we desire to venture away from it?

----------


## KCIndy

> You should really read both. There is some overlap but it is presented from different angles. I would also suggest you check out a book called "the South was Right" by the Kennedy Brothers. They have several books which might be of interest to you and are a great beginners guide to information they did not teach you in school.


Hey, there's a lot of truth in the ol' saying "the winners write the history."

I would be willing to bet that 90% of Americans (if not more) would be slack-jaw flabbergasted if they could go back in time and witness the *real* history of the United States.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Hey, there's a lot of truth in the ol' saying "the winners write the history."
> 
> I would be willing to bet that 90% of Americans (if not more) would be slack-jaw flabbergasted if they could go back in time and witness the *real* history of the United States.


The natural law declared by our Founding Fathers established a self evident and unalienable Truth; furthermore, in turn, the Truth established for the American people a Civil Purpose; moreover, in turn, the People's Civil Purpose supercedes all legal precedence, all _past traditions_, and every future event yet to occur. 
As "theory" is the method used today in modern science, "natural law" was the method in use in the *natural sciences during the time of our Founding Fathers.  As modern science uses artificial means today to declare that theoretical truths exist beyond that which can be seen directly with our senses in the deep theoretical realm, likewise, our Founding Fathers used the sixth sense of their collective consciences to declare that a Truth lays beyond what they could see directly with their senses in the deep theoretical realm.  Meanwhile, tyranny, the cruel reality that they directly observed with their senses, became a deception to beware.   

*There existed no such thing as the cognitive sciences during the time of our Founding Fathers as Immanuel Kant, the father of epistemology, was a peer living at the time.

----------


## KCIndy

> The natural law declared by our Founding Fathers established a self evident and unalienable Truth; furthermore, in turn, the Truth established for the American people a Civil Purpose; moreover, in turn, the People's Civil Purpose supercedes all legal precedence, all _past traditions_, and every future event yet to occur. 
> As "theory" is the method used today in modern science, "natural law" was the method used in the *natural sciences during the time of our Founding Fathers.  As modern science uses artificial means to declare that theoretical truths exist beyond what can be seen directly with our senses in the deep theoretical realms, our Founding Fathers used the sixth sense of their collective consciences to declare that a Truth lays beyond what can be seen directly with our senses in the deep theoretical realms.  Meanwhile, the cruel reality that they perceived directly with their senses becomes a deception.   
> 
> *There existed no such thing as the cognitive sciences during the time of our Founding Fathers as Immanuel Kant, the father of epistemology, was a peer living at the time.




..... uh....
.....................okay..........

----------


## low preference guy

^ agree. a bunch of words, but not much meaning.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> ..... uh....
> .....................okay..........


While it is possible for me to be an idiot (client) to legal precedence, I cannot be a client (an idiot) to my Civil Purpose (the Truth).  So, there is no reason for me to condescend by saying anything else.  As Americans, we can just go fishing.  Rather than legislate many tables, we can just hold our peace sitting at one national dinner table eating and enjoying the food and the beverage.  As a child at the table, I don't need to understand all the "necessary promiscuity" going on to smile at the beauty.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> ^ agree. a bunch of words, but not much meaning.


The meaning of these words are self evident and unalienable as they become a natural law.   As "these truths" narrow to one, so do the "unalienable natural rights" also reduce.  As the king did not understand this self evident Truth with his unalienable human soul, he was deemed a tyrant fit to divorce.  Our Founding Fathers then replaced him with "a more perfect union," "a necessary tyranny, or, what I just described in the prior post as, "a necessary promiscuity."

----------


## teamrican1

> The Real Lincoln is the best and I would also contact the author as he is a great guy and very approachable and he is "one of us" so to speak. The reason Jackson was told no was because it would have been suicide. D.C. was filled to the brim with troops and munitions and Jackson would not have had proper support to laucnh an assault upon D.C. The Union could resupply in no time flat due to the railroads yet the Confederacy had much less infrastructure to work with and Jackson for all intents and purposes would have been stranded and had others come to his support they would have been decimated and the war would have essentially been over. I do not envy Lee and Davis for having to keep control of Jackson since cooling his enthusiasm was a full time job.


Pursuing the Federals would have been a daunting task given the condition of the Southern troops after the battle, but the Federals were in worse shape and I don't think it is so clear cut as to what the right call would have been.  And the real divide between Jackson and the rest wasn't so much tactical as strategic.  Jackson believed the South needed to raid the North and burn their crops and cities to the ground in Old Testament style retribution until they called off their invasion.  Lee and Davis believed the South should retain a more "honorable" position of constant defense so that they could keep the moral high ground.  I think history has proven that Jackson's approach was the correct one, and maintaining the high ground got the Confederacy absolutely nothing and by the time they were willing to go on the defensive it was too late.

----------


## Bucjason

oooooh let us mourn the loss of the confederacy , and with it a potentially GREAT Tyrant...



YouTube - Jefferson Davis--- Quotes on Slavery

Try reading "A new Birth of Freedom" by Harry Jaffa. Very philosophical , and a tough read , but totally worth it for gaining an understanding of the differing philosophies of Davis and Lincoln. I think it would also be good for alot of you to see another perspective , rather than just lapping up all the Confederate apologist Kool-Aid.

----------


## RileyE104

> I think it would also be good for alot of you to see another perspective , rather than just lapping up all the Confederate apologist Kool-Aid.


I'm not "lapping up" anything by Confederate apologists.. 
I just wanted to read up more on Lincoln. 
Idk about others on here, but I don't like Davis either.. I hate them both.

----------


## jdmyprez_deo_vindice

> Pursuing the Federals would have been a daunting task given the condition of the Southern troops after the battle, but the Federals were in worse shape and I don't think it is so clear cut as to what the right call would have been.  And the real divide between Jackson and the rest wasn't so much tactical as strategic.  Jackson believed the South needed to raid the North and burn their crops and cities to the ground in Old Testament style retribution until they called off their invasion.  Lee and Davis believed the South should retain a more "honorable" position of constant defense so that they could keep the moral high ground.  I think history has proven that Jackson's approach was the correct one, and maintaining the high ground got the Confederacy absolutely nothing and by the time they were willing to go on the defensive it was too late.


The Union troops were whipped however D.C. was packed with fresh troops and ringed with fortifications. There is no way that the Confederates could have supplied troops to the front at the same rate that the Union could have and Lee and Davis both knew it. The decision to remain in a more defensive position throughout the war was not done purely for honorable reasons but was also seen as strategically vital. Those in charge of the Confederate forces were very well aware of their limitations and knew their only chance was to hold tight and let the Union slaughter men until the public grew eary enough to either vote Lincoln out (which was a very real possibility at one point) or rise up to demand an end to the war (also a very real possibility at several points). I admire Jackson very much but his "give them the cold steel" mentality was prone to backfire when their level of manpower and munitions was taken into consideration. After First Manassas, Jackson counter proposed taking the anthracite coal mines in PA which would have greatly limited the rail transportation possibilities of the Union and would have effectively stamped out any type of blockading ability on the part of the U.S. Navy. Lee and Davis and others were against the plan for the simple reason that they had no way to guarantee a continual supply train through Union territory, they knew the price in blood would be higher than they could afford and they risked reigniting the spirit of the Union citizens who would now feel as if they were the ones suffering an invasion. Davis even expressed his concern that the people of the Confederacy would grow weary of seeing their sons coming home in coffins (if they came home at all) while not defending their homeland. There was also a major concern that an assault upon D.C. or anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line would cause some Southern Governors to restrict the use of their troops. Davis had already had numerous quarrels with Governors Brown and Vance over the use of state troops for a centralized purpose and he was desperate to not increase those hostilities.

Lee and Davis were proven correct in their initial theories when they put Jackson's original plan into effect after his death. Now it can be argued all day how the outcome might have been different had Jackson not been killed at Chancellorsville and was available for duty at Gettysburg. Gettysburg was planned to be the battle point as early as 1861 at which point the Confederate forces would have split with half moving north to the coal mines and the other half heading towards Baltimore (to free the city) and then on to D.C. 

Their initial fears were proven correct because from the moment they crossed the Potomac there were tremendous supply line problems. In fact the artillery assault that preceeded Pickett's Charge mainly failed because they ran out of ammunition due to their supply trains getting attacked, lost and stuck. There is no way even at the high point of the Confederacy that they could have sustained an assault in enemy territory near long enough to bring victory within their grasp through this method. It would have failed and they knew it to begin with. That is not to say that Jackson was a failure, he was brilliant but he had to have someone like Lee and Davis ahead of him to keep him in control or he could have very well destroyed the entire army by the end of 1862.

----------


## demolama

> Try reading "A new Birth of Freedom" by Harry Jaffa.


Are you really trying to defend Lincoln by using the works of a neocon on this forum?

----------


## Bucjason

> Are you really trying to defend Lincoln by using the works of a neocon on this forum?


Not at all . I think it's a fact that you'll find many more neocons in the south that support the Confederacy then vice-versa.

Jaffa is a professor. He was once a speech writer for Barry Goldwater and suggested the line , "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is not a virtue." He has debated *conservatives* at the National Review.
He is not a neocon, just a strong defender of natural rights  .

Open your mind. You can't read *only* Lincoln hit pieces, and think you are getting a history lesson - the same as you can't get one from reading *only* a middle school text book.

----------


## demolama

I'm quite aware of Jaffa's professional background.  My point was that being an admitted Straussian shows bias.  All historians have a bias of some kind and it is usually the ones that do not admit theirs that are the most dangerous. To take a neocon at face value you begin to wonder what information was admitted or ignored to come to his conclusion.  Even DiLorenzo must be questioned upon his bias as a "libertarian" author and non-professional historian.

As a historian in training I am full aware of the notion of using more than one or two authors on the subject to gather all you can on the subject.  A full historiography on the subject is much prefered.  

Personally as a liberty-minded individual I just don't understand how anyone can be taken seriously when they can justify the use of terror on the citizens of the south by Sherman and make Lincoln come out squeaky clean and justifed for that action.  That is the type of bias that neocons thrive on and as a liberty-minded individual should be fearful.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> oooooh let us mourn the loss of the confederacy , and with it a potentially GREAT Tyrant...
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Jefferson Davis--- Quotes on Slavery
> 
> Try reading "A new Birth of Freedom" by Harry Jaffa. Very philosophical , and a tough read , but totally worth it for gaining an understanding of the differing philosophies of Davis and Lincoln. I think it would also be good for alot of you to see another perspective , rather than just lapping up all the Confederate apologist Kool-Aid.


Great video.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> oooooh let us mourn the loss of the confederacy , and with it a potentially GREAT Tyrant...
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - Jefferson Davis--- Quotes on Slavery
> 
> Try reading "A new Birth of Freedom" by Harry Jaffa. Very philosophical , and a tough read , but totally worth it for gaining an understanding of the differing philosophies of Davis and Lincoln. I think it would also be good for alot of you to see another perspective , rather than just lapping up all the Confederate apologist Kool-Aid.


"A new Birth of Freedom" doesn't quite get you where you want to go because "liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than bondage."  We should be talking about an "American Movement" here as our Founding Fathers under fellowship had their focus on the Apostle Paul, while he as God's chosen vessel, in turn, had his focus on the New Covenant of the Lord Jesus Christ.  So, as we return to revere the self evident truths and unalienable rights declared by our Founding Fathers, we return ultimately to the Truth of the New Covenant that our Lord Jesus Christ spoke as His loving Gospel to the slaves with these, in turn, being the worthless multitudes of souls.  These "Gentile nations," in turn, were represented by the faceless prostitutes (a face represents authority).  
Lincoln is not a Founding Father as he spoke of our returning to the Founders and the Truth they declared.  This was his justification in saving the Union while serving as president, a necessary tyrant.  Gandhi had great appreciation for Lincoln's saving the Union as he also tried saving a divided India.  Wow!  To capture lightning in a bottle once is a great feat, to recapture it in a bottle twice elevates Lincoln as the greatest of all American philosophers.
As Lincoln was an engineer of an American Movement, so was Ralph Waldo Emerson who shown a light on the Declaration of Independence distinguishing Americans from Europeans.  
If you don't understand this simplicity, then you need an uneducation.

----------


## The Patriot

> I'm not "lapping up" anything by Confederate apologists.. 
> I just wanted to read up more on Lincoln. 
> Idk about others on here, but I don't like Davis either.. I hate them both.


Jefferson Davis was far more noble a man than Lincoln.

----------


## Bucjason

> Personally as a liberty-minded individual I just don't understand how anyone can be taken seriously when they can justify the use of terror on the citizens of the south by Sherman and make Lincoln come out squeaky clean and justifed for that action.  That is the type of bias that neocons thrive on and as a liberty-minded individual should be fearful.


The claims that Strauss was the 1st "neocon" have already been debunked in other great books I can give you , if you'd like.

As for not taking a "liberty-minded" person seriously , simply because they don't place the "state's right" to enslave certain citizens over thier natural human rights....I think you should not be taken seriously if you think OTHERWISE, and thinking that alone does NOT make you a "neocon".

FACT: Most of the south seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated .This means nothing was done to them , they just didn't like or trust him . You have a right to revolution if a government is violating your natural rights, but you do NOT have a right to just QUIT a Union based on Republicanism ( and basically a contract signed at the ratification) because you don't like the outcome of a free election. That is not a republic . If the loser of every election in a republic just leaves the republic , all you really have is anarchy.

----------


## Bucjason

> Jefferson Davis was far more noble a man than Lincoln.


This is laughable .

----------


## Bucjason

> "A new Birth of Freedom" doesn't quite get you where you want to go because "liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than bondage."


Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than bondage??

I simply don't agree with that.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than bondage??
> 
> I simply don't agree with that.


Try hitting an apple in a tree by aiming directly at an apple in a tree.  Such ideals as liberty are just prerequisite means to a greater end with that higher purpose being our Civil Purpose.  While those bantying about legal precedence like to make us do things in the name of civil rights, we are free by natural right meaning that we as Americans need no further political manipulation.
As the Almighty's New Covenant now supercedes the ten commandments, the people's Civil Purpose now supercedes all legal precedence, every past tradition, as well as every future event yet to occur.

----------


## The Patriot

> This is laughable .


No it isn't, he wasn't a warmonger, corporatist, or anti-constitutionalist like Abraham Lincoln.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Jefferson Davis was far more noble a man than Lincoln.


Based on what?  Davis's racist quotes about black people?  If you think pro-slavery quotations are pro-liberty, then you have a serious problem and are running with the wrong crowd.

----------


## demolama

Whether the Straussian ideas are a neocon philosophy or not is not the point.  Just as I really don't think the question of slavery is the issue here either. To side track the topic onto these weak issues and ignore the fact that Lincoln was not justified in killing his own brethren in order to keep any union together is just sad. 

First off I don't know anyone who would justify the institution of slavery as either a necessary evil or a positive good. Any state that would enslave any race for their own benefit is unjust and for that I agree the south was in the wrong, however, I dont think anyone here is arguing for the souths right to keep another man in bondage.  The argument here is whether bloodshed was justified to either free these people or to keep a state in the union that did not want to be a part of the union anymore.

I am arguing that declaring an all out war on every single southern person living in the south as a means to an end is not only horribly misguided tactic but inherently evil way to treat your own brethren.  No amount of justification can change the fact that killing women and children was the policy that northern armies took upon entering southern cities.  No honorable military officer would ever consider treating women as prostitutes; nor condone raping, pillaging, and plundering southern homes.  Officers caught doing such things usually lose their commission not applauded.  What do you think would have happened if British General Howe or Cornwallis took up the tactic of terrorizing colonial women and children in order to force a colonial surrender?  Would they have been glorified? Of course not. Yet Sherman and Lincoln are glorified for allowing this?  Just does not make sense.





> FACT: Most of the south seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated .This means nothing was done to them, they just didn't like or trust him.


Im quite aware of the facts... I dont need them to be pointed out to me, but to insist that they just up and left the union only because Lincoln was elected and they didnt like the results is just silly.  A long train of abuses took place that forced the southern states to consider secession; Lincolns election just was the final nail in the coffin because of his political promises to use force on the southern states.




> You have a right to revolution if a government is violating your natural rights, but you do NOT have a right to just QUIT a Union based on Republicanism ( and basically a contract signed at the ratification) because you don't like the outcome of a free election.


I think forcing people to accept a monopoly of inferior northern goods via a protective tariff was one of the reasons for the American Revolution when the British gave a monopoly on tea to the British East India Company resulting in several tea parties around the colonies.  I guess those silly colonies should have just accepted the monopoly and shut up.

----------


## Bucjason

> No it isn't, he wasn't a warmonger, corporatist, or anti-constitutionalist like Abraham Lincoln.


No . Instead he was a a tyrant , a racist , a *warmonger* , and a anti-Declaration of Independence person. 

None of the states could have achieved thier independence without the help of the others. A bond was formed then , and it was expressed in our Declaration of Independence . If Jefferson Davis's claim to a superiority over other races and a right to slavery was true , then it means the ONLY basis for our claim for indepence , that " all mean are created equal and endowed by thier creator with certain rights" is false. 

If this is false , then not only is the South not soveriegn , but they still belong to England , and should be paying taxes levied by Parliment. 

This hypocrisy could not stand in a society supposedly founded on liberty and freedom.

----------


## teamrican1

Lincoln was the most vile warmonger of the 19th Century and belongs right beside Hilter, Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin in terms of modern history's worst tyrants.  To suggest that Jefferson Davis (a man of peace who never ordered the murder of anyone) is anywhere close to Lincoln in terms of moral depravity is insane.  Political compacts are voluntary agreements.  Either party has the right to walk away whenever they want.  Same thing with slavery.  Blacks would have been perfectly justified in walking away from their masters or starting a revolt.

----------


## demolama

oh the poor women who also were ignored by the Declaration of Independence... I guess the whole U.S. still belongs to Britian.

Using 21st century ideals of equality upon 18th and 19th white men is just silly.

----------


## SovereignMN

> You have a right to revolution if a government is violating your natural rights, but you do NOT have a right to just QUIT a Union based on Republicanism ( and basically a contract signed at the ratification) because you don't like the outcome of a free election. That is not a republic . If the loser of every election in a republic just leaves the republic , all you really have is anarchy.


I disagree with this.  A state has the right to secede for whatever reason they deem necessary.  It isn't up to you to decide what is legitimate.

----------


## Bucjason

> I’m quite aware of the facts... I don’t need them to be pointed out to me, but to insist that they just up and left the union only because Lincoln was elected and they didn’t like the results is just silly.  A long train of abuses took place that forced the southern states to consider secession; Lincoln’s election just was the final nail in the coffin because of his political promises to use force on the southern states.
> 
> 
> 
> I think forcing people to accept a monopoly of inferior northern goods via a protective tariff was one of the reasons for the American Revolution when the British gave a monopoly on tea to the British East India Company resulting in several tea parties around the colonies.  I guess those silly colonies should have just accepted the monopoly and shut up.


Long train of abuses on the southern states ?? Nonsense, this boiled down to slavery.  You are studying history , so I'm sure you're aware of all this , but let me refresh your memory. 

NO WHERE in the republican platform did they claim to want to *force* abolition on existing states. NEVER did Lincoln say he planned to do so during his campaign. In fact, he said he would " prefer to live with the evil of slavery, in order to avoid a greater evil, dissolution of the Union" Lincoln's only immediate goal was to prohibit slavery in the NEW TERRITORIES, and then hope the rest of slavery simply died a slow death on it's own. The South refused to agree to this , even though it did not harm thier particular states soveriegnty....and why?? They also worked to have the Missouri Compromise repealed in 1854 . The fact is there was an ongoing effort by the south to expand slavery , and it was the MAIN reason for thier secession and dislike of Lincoln.

But don't take my word for it. Listen to James Buchanon in his last State of the Union address in 1860 , right before Lincoln took office:

"All agree that under the Constitution slavery in the States is beyond the reach of any human power except that of the respective States themselves wherein it exists. May we not, then, hope that the long agitation on this subject is approaching its end, and that the geographical parties to which it has given birth, so much dreaded by the Father of his Country, will speedily become extinct? Most happy will it be for the country when the public mind shall be diverted from this question to others of more pressing and practical importance. Throughout the whole progress of this agitation, which has scarcely known any intermission for more than twenty years, whilst it has been productive of no positive good to any human being it has been the prolific source of great evils to the master, to the slave, and to the whole country. It has alienated and estranged the people of the sister States from each other, and has even seriously endangered the very existence of the Union. Nor has the danger yet entirely ceased. Under our system there is a remedy for all mere political evils in the sound sense and sober judgment of the people. Time is a great corrective. Political subjects which but a few years ago excited and exasperated the public mind have passed away and are now nearly forgotten. But this question of domestic slavery is of far graver importance than any mere political question, because should the agitation continue it may eventually endanger the personal safety of a large portion of our countrymen where the institution exists."

So Buchanon says the oncoming war is due to anti-slavery agitation . He claims the only way to save the Union , is to just make the people who so heartily disagree with Slavery SHUT UP. But how, in a nation based on free speech and free elections , can you ask people not to express and fight for thier heart felt beliefs?? How ironic that not ONCE does he suggest the evil of slavery itself as being a problem. Not ONCE does he mention the agitation by the South of the abolitionists by such things as the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 ! 

Let's not re-write history here. The south did not simply sit back and get innocently surprise attacked. If anything they instigated the entire event , because Lincoln would *never* have used force, except when forced to deal with a crisis of Union. Instead, he was forced to walk into a huge $#@!-storm on his 1st day of office, created by Buchanon's enabling and a tyrannical south who refused to accept the results of an election . 

No one in the south was having thier natural rights stripped from them before the war (except slaves). So why secede?? Why not simply work toward the next election, and changing minds through debate?? Isn't that exactly what this country has done after every other hotly debated election?? ( and there has been many) Isn't this what a Republic is supposed to do , if it is to be a viable sustainable form of government?? If not , we'd be better off annointing a King...

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Lincoln was the most vile warmonger of the 19th Century and belongs right beside Hilter, Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin in terms of modern history's worst tyrants.  To suggest that Jefferson Davis (a man of peace who never ordered the murder of anyone) is anywhere close to Lincoln in terms of moral depravity is insane.  Political compacts are voluntary agreements.  Either party has the right to walk away whenever they want.  Same thing with slavery.  Blacks would have been perfectly justified in walking away from their masters or starting a revolt.


South Carolina violated Lincoln's property rights, when they fired on federal property at Fort Sumpter.  Lincoln is an enforcer of property rights.

----------


## Bucjason

> South Carolina violated Lincoln's property rights, when they fired on federal property at Fort Sumpter.  Lincoln is an enforcer of property rights.


Yes , the "war monger" didn't even fire the 1st shot...

----------


## demolama

> South Carolina violated Lincoln's property rights, when they fired on federal property at Fort Sumpter.  Lincoln is an enforcer of property rights.


Yet, when the south offered to buy federal property, meet with Lincoln so that hostilities would not happen, and wanted to go peacefully, Lincoln ignored each and every one of these.

I wonder had the British kept forts within the boundaries of the United States would the new independent states willingly allow them to stay?

----------


## demolama

> Long train of abuses on the southern states ?? Nonsense, this boiled down to slavery.  You are studying history , so I'm sure you're aware of all this , but let me refresh your memory.


I love the rehashing of history for me but you completely missed any of my points.  No where in my response did I say that the Republicans wanted to end slavery in the south.  I just said they refused to allow it to expand into the west and thus cut off southern influence in Congress by suffocation.  So that entire history lesson was all for not.   If slavery was the only reason for secession why then after Corwin amendment passed the House, which disallowed the federal government to deal with slavery within the states, did the southern states not return?   Why secede and confine slavery to only the Confederate States when you could stay in the Union and continue to fight for expansion? There was no hope to expand slavery with secession.



> Let's not re-write history here. The south did not simply sit back and get innocently surprise attacked. If anything they instigated the entire event , because Lincoln would *never* have used force, except when forced to deal with a crisis of Union. Instead, he was forced to walk into a huge $#@!-storm on his 1st day of office, created by Buchanon's enabling and a tyrannical south who refused to accept the results of an election .


Conveniently you ignore the fact that Lincoln ran on enforcing the Morrill Tariff in any state that refused to collect, which increased taxes on imports substantially.  His entire platform was about protecting American industries.  Southern states, like they did in the past in 1828, took it upon themselves to nullify these hurtful tariffs and unlike Jackson, Lincoln was forefront about his intentions to use force. But why then didn't they stay and change the hearts and minds like you suggest?

In order to change policy you need a majority to agree with you.  If laws are passed that benefit one section of the nation over the other and that section in power uses it to stay in the majority how can the minority ever gain power or influence?  That was the conundrum the southern states were in; they couldnt expand influence and thus could never gain power to protect themselves from policy benefiting the north at the expense of the south.




> No one in the south was having thier natural rights stripped from them before the war (except slaves). So why secede?? Why not simply work toward the next election, and changing minds through debate?? Isn't that exactly what this country has done after every other hotly debated election?? ( and there has been many) Isn't this what a Republic is supposed to do , if it is to be a viable sustainable form of government?? If not , we'd be better off annointing a King...


You say no one had their natural rights stripped of them I think the right to barter and trade for items you want rather than items you are forced to buy is a right.  The federal government with its northern influences conducted protective tariff policies to force southerners to pay for northern goods over much prefered foriegn goods.  Monopolies created by government were also a fighting issue for the colonist during the American Revolution.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Lincoln was under no obligation to sell the federal property.  Nor was he under any obligation to meet with anyone.  You simply don't respect property rights.

----------


## Bucjason

> I love the rehashing of history for me but you completely missed any of my points.  No where in my response did I say that the Republicans wanted to end slavery in the south.  I just said they refused to allow it to expand into the west and thus cut off southern influence in Congress by suffocation.



Whoa , stop right there! I have read enough.

How is refusing to allow slavery( which is a barbaric human rights violation) in NEW territories , a violation on an *existing* states soveriengty ?? How is it a legitimate reason to secede??

HAHA that is a pathetic retort .You are grasping at straws if you think the Union was the one at fault for trying to keep slavery from EXPANDING ,and you are NOT a liberty lover.


If that's the best you can do , I declare myself the winner of this debate...

----------


## Bucjason

> I disagree with this.  A state has the right to secede for whatever reason they deem necessary.  It isn't up to you to decide what is legitimate.


Wrong , we already know what is legitimate. It is expressed in our Declaration of Independence. It is when the government becomes destructive to the ends of an individual's life ,liberty , and pursuit of hapiness.

So... lets say Kentucky decides to secede , because they want to declare themselves a Christian nation. They also want the ability to commit genocide on all the Jews in that state, and deny them all due process in the determination of Jew-dom.
Should we , as fellow americans , be forced to stand by and allow this to happen to our brethren ??  I think not . 
We have a right , due to our compact (a.k.a 14th amendment, and DOI) , to compel them to STOP . I think Thomas Jefferson would agree :

"It has been said so often, as to be generally believed, that Congress have no power by the Confederation to enforce anything, e.g. contributions of money. It was not necessary to give them that power expressly; they have it by the law of nature. When two nations make a compact, thier results to each a power of compelling the other to execute it . " - Thomas Jefferson

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> HAHA that is a pathetic retort .You are grasping at straws if you think the Union was the one at fault for trying to keep slavery from EXPANDING ,and you are NOT a liberty lover.


That is a great point.  Your pathetic opponent thinks that expanding slavery is a pro-liberty position.

----------


## The Patriot

> No . Instead he was a a tyrant , a racist , a *warmonger* , and a anti-Declaration of Independence person. 
> 
> None of the states could have achieved thier independence without the help of the others. A bond was formed then , and it was expressed in our Declaration of Independence . If Jefferson Davis's claim to a superiority over other races and a right to slavery was true , then it means the ONLY basis for our claim for indepence , that " all mean are created equal and endowed by thier creator with certain rights" is false. 
> 
> If this is false , then not only is the South not soveriegn , but they still belong to England , and should be paying taxes levied by Parliment. 
> 
> This hypocrisy could not stand in a society supposedly founded on liberty and freedom.


Jefferson Davis was not a tyrant. He didn't wage total war on the North, he didn't jail writers, deport dissenters, or get rid of Habeas Corpus. I could care less if he was a racist, so was Lincoln. Secession from tyranny is always valid and is a Natural Right. The States formed the Union, not the other way around. They have a right to withdraw from the union they entered, if they don't, than states don't exist. Jefferson Davis was just carrying on the tradition of our founders who seceded from England. By your perspective, since secession is wrong, than we should still be part of the commonwealth. 

The Declaration of Independence secures the South's right to Secession. And founders like Madison and Jefferson supported the right of States to secede, that is a documented fact. The North had slavery until the end of the war. The South seceded over unfair tariffs, corporatism and an encroaching Federal Government. Much like the founders seceded over high taxation and concentration of power in the British Parliament.

----------


## The Patriot

The North committed the first act of war be resupplying troops in the CSA. Moving troops and supplies into another sovereign nation is an act of war.

----------


## demolama

I love the fact you guys simply come to a predetermined conclusion that Im defending the south based upon a statement about the expansion of slavery that neither condoned nor condemned the expansion of slavery into the territories. You said that I was saying the Republicans were looking to end slavery which a false statement on your part.  I was simply pointing to the correction that they were anti-expansionists and that some of the south viewed the lack of expansion as an act to keep them in the minority. 

With that said the points I laid out, which you conveniently ignored, have nothing to do with slavery.  So please keep playing the one tune over and over because as we all know everything has only one reason for the course of action.  

If you want to declare yourself the victor over an unarmed man on vacation with no sources have at it congrats

My opinion still stands.  I can not understand why anyone is willing to defend a man who killed his own people just to force them to adhere to a social contract that they no longer felt worked for them.  You use the Declaration of Independence as the cornerstone of why people have a right to secede but what happens when the people no longer consent??  Isnt that what the south was doing?  Refusing to adhere to the federal government that they felt no longer had their interest at heart?  The southern men in convention all agreed that the federal government no longer adhered to the general will but merely the majority.   It is the men in convention that ratified the constitution and these men can also unmake the very thing they created.

The slavery is an evil institution and no one in their right mind would defend it but Id rather defend those willing to seek a peaceful solution over those willing to kill others to force them to adhere to a government that no longer has their consent.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Jefferson Davis was not a tyrant. He didn't wage total war on the North, he didn't jail writers, deport dissenters, or get rid of Habeas Corpus. I could care less if he was a racist, so was Lincoln. Secession from tyranny is always valid and is a Natural Right. The States formed the Union, not the other way around. They have a right to withdraw from the union they entered, if they don't, than states don't exist. Jefferson Davis was just carrying on the tradition of our founders who seceded from England. By your perspective, since secession is wrong, than we should still be part of the commonwealth. 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence secures the South's right to Secession. And founders like Madison and Jefferson supported the right of States to secede, that is a documented fact. The North had slavery until the end of the war. The South seceded over unfair tariffs, corporatism and an encroaching Federal Government. Much like the founders seceded over high taxation and concentration of power in the British Parliament.


Jefferson gave a list of reasons why secession was just.  The secession of the South was unjust, and did not measure up to the requirements of Jefferson.

----------


## Erazmus

> Jefferson gave a list of reasons why secession was just.  The secession of the South was unjust, and did not measure up to the requirements of Jefferson.


What is written below is under the understanding that you're referencing Thomas Jefferson and not Jefferson Davis. Please correct me if I have this wrong.

Please provide how the South's secession was unjust please, according to Jefferson that is.

This appears to support secession, by Jefferson.



> "Let's look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"


Source: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1543

As far as I'm concerned a sovereign (nation or person) can secede for any reason. Can you imagine a wife who was told she wasn't allowed to divorce her abusive husband? Suppose she wasn't abused and was just unhappy. Should she be denied?

You, sir, have just defended your position using Jefferson. Please support this with actual quotes by the man. To exercise a right doesn't need permission, or even a set of criteria. All it requires, in this case, is the will of the people.

Note: Could we refrain from childish banter, like, "pathetic opponent" and such, and keep this line of discourse respectable? *Edit* This last note wasn't directed at you, Galileo Galilei.

----------


## nf7mate

"My Lord, I can touch a bell on my right hand and order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio. I can touch a bell again and order the imprisonment of a citizen in New York. And no power on earth except that of the President can release them. Can the Queen of England do so much?" 

Secretary of State under Lincoln, William Seward, to Lord Lyons, British Minister

----------


## Erazmus

> "My Lord, I can touch a bell on my right hand and order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio. I can touch a bell again and order the imprisonment of a citizen in New York. And no power on earth except that of the President can release them. Can the Queen of England do so much?" 
> 
> Secretary of State under Lincoln, William Seward, to Lord Lyons, British Minister


Wow, I've never seen that. Thanks for posting this. Yikes!

----------


## SovereignMN

> So... lets say Kentucky decides to secede , because they want to declare themselves a Christian nation. They also want the ability to commit genocide on all the Jews in that state, and deny them all due process in the determination of Jew-dom.
> Should we , as fellow americans , be forced to stand by and allow this to happen to our brethren ??  I think not . 
> We have a right , due to our compact (a.k.a 14th amendment, and DOI) , to compel them to STOP.


Nice strawman.  When the day ever comes that State proposes this then ask me then.  But since this was not even close to what the Confederacy was aiming for, try again.

----------


## The Patriot

> Nice strawman.  When the day ever comes that State proposes this then ask me then.  But since this was not even close to what the Confederacy was aiming for, try again.


Isn't also odd that he is trying to besmirch Kentuckians as a bunch of evangelical fascist anti semites? Considering the fact their electorate is one of the most receptive to the Liberty message of all the states?(Just look at Rand Paul's lead in the polls)

----------


## Erazmus

> Nice strawman.  When the day ever comes that State proposes this then ask me then.  But since this was not even close to what the Confederacy was aiming for, try again.


Agreed. 

Id like to add that for someone to declare a right (secession) in order to violate another's right (to life) is a logical inconsistency. In this particular absurd scenario, Kentucky decides to secede. That part is good. The genocide part is a violation of rights, and is not okay.

Secession has nothing to do with genocide. To link them is an incredible violation of logic. I feel dirty for even entertaining the notion.

----------


## Bucjason

> Id rather defend those willing to seek a peaceful solution over those willing to kill others to force them to adhere to a government that no longer has their consent.


Your argument fails again, because apparently you never thought of asking the SLAVES where thier consent lies.

You can not have a legitimate claim to self-government when you are denying true representation.


The peaceful solution was easy, and I already told you what it was ...allow Lincoln to prohibit slavery in new territories, and keep your own backward tyrannical laws in your OWN state. Why this wouldn't be agreeable to the south if they truly wanted to avoid war, I have no CLUE....

----------


## Galileo Galilei

Wow!  There's a lot of statists here, and not many who defend individual liberty.

----------


## The Patriot

> Your argument fails again, because apparently you never thought of asking the SLAVES where thier consent lies.
> 
> You can not have a legitimate claim to self-government when you are denying true representation.
> 
> 
> The peaceful solution was easy, and I already told you what it was ...allow Lincoln to prohibit slavery in new territories, and keep your own backward tyrannical laws in your OWN state. Why this wouldn't be agreeable to the south if they truly wanted to avoid war, I have no CLUE....


What about the consent of the slaves in the Northern States. Even by your own standard, the North had no right to force a Union on the Southern states.

The point is the war wasn't about slavery, Lincoln's paramount goal was to slave the Union, he said he would preserve slavery in order to preserve the Union if it was in his interests. He only mentioned the faux emancipation proclamation to discourage French and British involvement on the side of the South and legitimize his tyrannical war. 

The Colonials seceded from Britain for much less. The South accounted for 87% of all US Tariff Revenues and 80% of US Tariff Revenues were spent on Northern Industries and Public Works.

----------


## The Patriot

Writing in December of 1861 in a London weekly publication, the famous English author, Charles Dickens, who was a strong opponent of slavery, said these things about the war going on in America:

     The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to
     conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.

http://www.ashevilletribune.com/arch...%20Tariff.html

----------


## Bucjason

> Nice strawman.  When the day ever comes that State proposes this then ask me then.  But since this was not even close to what the Confederacy was aiming for, try again.


It's not a strawman at ALL...You claimed a state can secede for whatever reason it pleases. So I gave you a hypothetical reason , and you can't answer it honestly .

The fact is , if a state can secede whenever it fancies , you don't have a Republic at all . The Union becomes nothing more than a rope of sand. Anytime there is a disagreement of any kind , it will dissolve into factions , and dissolve again , until you are left with nothing but 100's of small , unstable , weak quarelling nations.

Under the Articles of Confederation you would be correct. The Articles had no real national government . It was basically a treaty between 13 different nations of alliance. The only way to enforce laws of the treaty was through the cooperation of the state. The current Constitution changed that . No longer were we only a "federal" government , in the originial sense of the word "federal" ( treatsies between multiple nations). After the COnstitution we became a country with a government that was both "federal and national"...meaning all parties agreed to accept dual soveriegnty. Soveriegnty of the state , and soveriegnty of the national government they were putting in place. Both are equally soverign , and responsible to each other to HONOR the compact they entered into together ...until which time one begins to violate the others natural rights. The only party here that can lay claim to that is the slaves.

----------


## Bucjason

> Wow!  There's a lot of statists here, and not many who defend individual liberty.


It is scary , isn't it Galileo ?? These people are nuts , lol.

----------


## The Patriot

> It is scary , isn't it Galileo ?? These people are nuts , lol.


Is Ron Paul nuts?
YouTube - Ron Paul Speaks Out About Lincoln And The War For Southern Independence

People running to insults when they can no longer defend their specious arguments is a sign they have lost the debate.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Your argument fails again, because apparently you never thought of asking the SLAVES where thier consent lies.
> 
> You can not have a legitimate claim to self-government when you are denying true representation.
> 
> 
> The peaceful solution was easy, and I already told you what it was ...allow Lincoln to prohibit slavery in new territories, and keep your own backward tyrannical laws in your OWN state. Why this wouldn't be agreeable to the south if they truly wanted to avoid war, I have no CLUE....


A failed argument does not make one rational just as an idiot antagonist character doesn't make the protagonist smart.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Is Ron Paul nuts?
> YouTube - Ron Paul Speaks Out About Lincoln And The War For Southern Independence
> 
> People running to insults when they can no longer defend their specious arguments is a sign they have lost the debate.


As this nation was founded on a natural law and the Truth, there is no argument.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> It is scary , isn't it Galileo ?? These people are nuts , lol.


While the Ten Commandments established legal precedence, the New Covenant, the one commandment that the Lord Jesus gave to the disadvantaged slaves, establishes a Civil Purpose.  In declaring all legal precedence in contempt of the people's Civil Purpose, our Founding Fathers found justification in divorcing our nation out from under tyranny.  As the Apostle Paul wrote most of the New Testament while focussing on the New Covenant, our Founding Fathers established our nation while focussing on the Apostle Paul.  This is why we are blessed.  
But the Almighty does have a social agenda.

----------


## Bucjason

Patriot ,  go back and read my arguments , which no one has been able to effectively counter. A good place to start woukld be post #41.

I'm not going to repeat all my same arguments again , simply because you didn't have the desire to comprehend them to begin with , or worse, are just to dense to grasp the concept that a human's indivdual rights of sovereignty comes before the STATE'S rights of sovereignty. I did not invent this concept , the Declaration did.

The fact that you think otherwise and claim you suppport liberty shows me that , yes , you are nuts  . Sorry.

----------


## SovereignMN

> The fact is , if a state can secede whenever it fancies , you don't have a Republic at all . The Union becomes nothing more than a rope of sand. Anytime there is a disagreement of any kind , it will dissolve into factions , and dissolve again , until you are left with nothing but 100's of small , unstable , weak quarelling nations.
> 
> Under the Articles of Confederation you would be correct.


If a State is not allowed to leave when it feels the union is no longer beneficial to its interests then it isn't a Union at all, it is Coercion.  Plus your note about the Articles would technically not be correct since the Articles says it intends to create a "perpetual" union.  

Like I said, I'm not defending slavery of the Confederacy.  But at the time of the war the Union allowed slavery in Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Washington DC, Delaware and New Jersey.  Many of their "Free" states like Oregon, Illinois and Massachusettes either forbide free blacks from moving there or said that blacks who stayed more than 3 days were subject to flogging.  The point is that the Union was NOT in the morally superior position of the Confederacy on the issue of treatment of blacks.

----------


## The Patriot

> Patriot ,  go back and read my arguments , which no one has been able to effectively counter. A good place to start woukld be post #41.
> 
> I'm not going to repeat all my same arguments again , simply because you didn't have the desire to comprehend them to begin with , or worse, are just to dense to grasp the concept that a human's indivdual rights of sovereignty comes before the STATE'S rights of sovereignty. I did not invent this concept , the Declaration did.
> 
> The fact that you think otherwise and claim you suppport liberty shows me that , yes , you are nuts  . Sorry.


I agree, individual sovereignty is the most important issue, however, fighting for localism and states' rights is the best way to bring power back to the individual from centralized power. However, slavery, is a moot issue. Both sides practiced slavery, neither side had the moral high ground on the issue, while on every other issue the South did and had every right and reason to secede. They seceded for far more than the Colonials did. If state or national sovereignty is irrelevant because and the secessionists are immoral because they practice slavery, than our Founders had no right to secede. By your standards, we should be part of the Commonwealth. Secession is a natural right, and the author of the Declaration of Independence, believed in this notion.

----------


## Bucjason

> I agree, individual sovereignty is the most important issue, however, fighting for localism and states' rights is the best way to bring power back to the individual from centralized power. However, slavery, is a moot issue. Both sides practiced slavery, neither side had the moral high ground on the issue, while on every other issue the South did and had every right and reason to secede. They seceded for far more than the Colonials did. If state or national sovereignty is irrelevant because and the secessionists are immoral because they practice slavery, than our Founders had no right to secede. By your standards, we should be part of the Commonwealth. Secession is a natural right, and the author of the Declaration of Independence, believed in this notion.


Secession is a natural right , if and when there is a violation of your natural rights. This wasn't the case before the civil war. Our secession from Britian was legit , because we were not allowed any representation in the government that was ruling over us. That is the definition of tyranny. A president who wanted to forbid the expansion of slavery to NEW territories fits NO definition of tyranny.

Most of the southern states seceded before Lincoln even took office , so how can you claim it was due to his oppression? You can't secede just becuase you are pissed you lost an election. If you can then a Republican form of government can NEVER work ! You would need a King !

It's a fine balancing act . A government can't be so strong that has the ability to inhibit the liberties of it's people , but at the same time , it can not be so small that it can't even sustain itself against local in-fighting and disagreements on issues. If it is , all you end up with is anarchy. Our founders new this , and that's why they re-wrote the constitution in the 1st place !

----------


## Erazmus

> Secession is a natural right , if and when there is a violation of your natural rights.


?

This is a paradox, is it not? I mean, do I not have the freedom of speech until my freedom of speech is violated? Do I not have the freedom to arm myself until I am attacked?

Rights are not conditional. If your point is that the act of secession is a conditional act, then you need to revise that sentence.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> If a State is not allowed to leave when it feels the union is no longer beneficial to its interests then it isn't a Union at all, it is Coercion.  Plus your note about the Articles would technically not be correct since the Articles says it intends to create a "perpetual" union.  
> 
> Like I said, I'm not defending slavery of the Confederacy.  But at the time of the war the Union allowed slavery in Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Washington DC, Delaware and New Jersey.  Many of their "Free" states like Oregon, Illinois and Massachusettes either forbide free blacks from moving there or said that blacks who stayed more than 3 days were subject to flogging.  The point is that the Union was NOT in the morally superior position of the Confederacy on the issue of treatment of blacks.


First off, African American slaves were worth more here than they were in their indigenous homeland of Africa.  The going rate the Portuguese paid to transport them to the New World was a single horse for 12 human souls.  If African Americans weren't worth more here, then they wouldn't be here.  Now, let me ask you, why would people there treat someone better when they valued them less and worst here when they valued them more?  Seems to me like someone is trying to sell us an empty box of goods.
As this nation was founded on the Truth, the only way to leave it is by following after deceit.  So, a state doesn't have to leave.  All we have to do to fail as a Union is follow a false movement away from our Founding Fathers and the Truth they declared.  
But the Almighty is on our side for as His New Covenant now supercedes the Ten Commandments, the people's Civil Purpose now supercedes all legal precedence, every past tradition, and every future event yet to occur.
As a Texan, I believe my state furthered the social contract laid out so beautifully in The Declaration of Independence when, in a little masterpiece of a performance, our Founding Fathers acted on the behalf of the lowly "commoner" people.  In Texas, tyranny wasn't defeated by war alone, but was corrupted by a yellow rose -- a prostitute.  So, it is here that we have all the characters necessary to further the performance, the social contract, to tweak that which our Founding Fathers and every great Founder prior to them have so long suffered to acheive.  
"All men are created equal having been born with the same exact business agenda, whether he be an ordained king sitting on the throne as the owner of all things, or she be a prostitute trespassing on his land as the owner of nothing."

----------


## demolama

> It's not a strawman at ALL...You claimed a state can secede for whatever reason it pleases. So I gave you a hypothetical reason , and you can't answer it honestly .
> 
> The fact is , if a state can secede whenever it fancies , you don't have a Republic at all . The Union becomes nothing more than a rope of sand. Anytime there is a disagreement of any kind , it will dissolve into factions , and dissolve again , until you are left with nothing but 100's of small , unstable , weak quarelling nations.
> 
> Under the Articles of Confederation you would be correct. The Articles had no real national government . It was basically a treaty between 13 different nations of alliance. The only way to enforce laws of the treaty was through the cooperation of the state. The current Constitution changed that . No longer were we only a "federal" government , in the originial sense of the word "federal" ( treatsies between multiple nations). After the COnstitution we became a country with a government that was both "federal and national"...meaning all parties agreed to accept dual soveriegnty. Soveriegnty of the state , and soveriegnty of the national government they were putting in place. Both are equally soverign , and responsible to each other to HONOR the compact they entered into together ...until which time one begins to violate the others natural rights. The only party here that can lay claim to that is the slaves.


The federal government can not exist without the states but a state can exist without the federal government... how then is the federal government sovereign?

----------


## Erazmus

> The federal government can not exist without the states but a state can exist without the federal government... how then is the federal government sovereign?


Agreed. I think people forget the fact that the states (read: the people) created the federal government, not the other way around.

----------


## Bucjason

> The federal government can not exist without the states but a state can exist without the federal government... how then is the federal government sovereign?


The federal government can't exist without the states?? Uhhh... want to make a bet?? If not closely watched, the federal government could easily swallow up the states , and make them nothing but arbitrary boundries by which to elect represenatives. Some claim it's already happened.

When the states ratified the new Constitution , they created a TRUE national government , which previously did not exist, with power to enforce enumerated powers granted it between the states. When the states did this , they WILLINGLY gave up some of thier sovereignty under the Artilces , and took on a Dual sovereignty with the National body.

Dual soveriegnty is a tough concept to understand , but it really is the basis of our constitution, and what makes it work. Otherwise all we really have is a treaty of alliance between 50 small nations , in which no one is compelled to fufill ANY of it's obligations. It would be about as inept as the United Nations is....

----------


## Bucjason

> ?
> 
> This is a paradox, is it not? I mean, do I not have the freedom of speech until my freedom of speech is violated? Do I not have the freedom to arm myself until I am attacked?
> 
> Rights are not conditional. If your point is that the act of secession is a conditional act, then you need to revise that sentence.


Wrong, because the right of revolution stems from your natural right of self-preservation , or self-defense.

For example , you have the right to self-defense , but you can't kill someone for no reason and then claim self-defense...
Likewise; to secede for no reason and claim the right of revolution , is ridiculous. When a compact is made you have an obligation to the other members of the compact, unless there is a breach of that agreement by one party. Losing a free election( one in which you even tried to cheat and leave Lincoln off the ballot in many southern states) does not qualify , my friend.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Is Ron Paul nuts?
> YouTube - Ron Paul Speaks Out About Lincoln And The War For Southern Independence
> 
> People running to insults when they can no longer defend their specious arguments is a sign they have lost the debate.


I've seen this and agree with Ron Paul:  Lincoln is bad.

That doesn't mean the South is good or was right about the civil war.

----------


## Erazmus

> Wrong, because the right of revolution stems from your natural right of self-preservation , or self-defense.
> 
> For example , you have the right to self-defense , but you can't kill someone for no reason and then claim self-defense...


 LOL!!!!

Right of revolution? 

OOOOOk, moving on.

So you arbitrarily come up with scenarios that state the obvious, and this somehow justifies your position? This is non-sequitur at best. Of course you can't kill someone for no reason. That would be a violation of their body (property) and consequently their rights. You do not have a right to violate someone else’s rights. This is a paradox. Rights come from who owns the property. You own your body, so you have the right to do with it as you see fit. Someone else doesn’t have the “right” to end your life. Yes, you can defend it if someone tries to end your life, by lethal force if necessary. But this isn’t a condition for exercising a right, it’s a condition in someone trying to *violate* your right! A subtle yet important distinction!

Putting your logic into perspective for a moment. 




> _For example , you have the right to a stereo that you purchased, but you can't steal someone's stereo for no reason and then claim it was yours..._


You see how silly that sounds? Seriously, you need to determine the difference between rights and privileges. Rights are not conditional. Again, you are confusing a specific scenario of rights-violation with an actual right.

Please, read Bastiat, or Locke, or Rothbard, or Jefferson! Just read!

----------


## Bucjason

No one is nuts for thinking Lincoln was a bad president. I realize many states rights advocates( including Paul) do. I just think it's ridiculous with some of the hyberbole people engage on here, calling him a "murderer" and a "tyrant" and "evil". 

I happen to think Lincoln was great , not perfect , but great. I stand by that , and I can defend this opinion with the research i've done...

----------


## Bucjason

> LOL!!!!
> 
> Right of revolution? 
> 
> OOOOOk, moving on.
> 
> Please, read Bastiat, or Locke, or Rothbard, or Jefferson! Just read!


You've never heard of the "right of revolution" and you claim to have read Jefferson??

Wow , someone just revealed how ignorant they truly are. Please don't throw out names like "Jefferson" when you have not truly studied them. I have.

----------


## Erazmus

> You've never heard of the "right of revolution" and you claim to have read Jefferson??
> 
> Wow , someone just revealed how ignorant they truly are. Please don't throw out names like "Jefferson" when you have not truly studied them. I have.


Way to dodge my whole post. I would argue that revolution isn't a right in that it is merely en extension of other rights. For example, since rights come from property, being consistent, I don't know what property revolution can be derived from. You do however have a right to your body, and a right to your land, and so on. If a government violates these rights, then yes, a revolution seems not only necessary but a responsibility. Being consistent, I can't call it a right as it is merely an act. Just as I wouldn't call making a sandwich a right. I own the bread, meat, and mustard, but the process of making the sandwich is merely an extension of exercising my rights over the goods that I own.

Please, explain where I am wrong. I'm so eager to see. To quote Jefferson.




> "As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1803. FE 8:256


As you can see, he doesn't say revolution is a right, because it's merely an act. He does however say you do have a right to use revolutionary instruments (IE: derived from property) an important yet subtle distinction.

----------


## Erazmus

Just wanted to add to my previous post a quote from the declaration of independence.




> That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,


Of course, again, Jefferson isn't talking about revolution here (as not only is revolution an act, it's also an abstraction in that revolution is also a paradigm shift in the thinking of the people), he's talking about abolishing a system that the people created. If you create something, you own it, and you have the right to destroy it.

----------


## The Patriot

> Secession is a natural right , if and when there is a violation of your natural rights. This wasn't the case before the civil war. Our secession from Britian was legit , because we were not allowed any representation in the government that was ruling over us. That is the definition of tyranny. A president who wanted to forbid the expansion of slavery to NEW territories fits NO definition of tyranny.
> 
> Most of the southern states seceded before Lincoln even took office , so how can you claim it was due to his oppression? You can't secede just becuase you are pissed you lost an election. If you can then a Republican form of government can NEVER work ! You would need a King !
> 
> It's a fine balancing act . A government can't be so strong that has the ability to inhibit the liberties of it's people , but at the same time , it can not be so small that it can't even sustain itself against local in-fighting and disagreements on issues. If it is , all you end up with is anarchy. Our founders new this , and that's why they re-wrote the constitution in the 1st place !


Whenever a Government loses the consent of the Governed, like the people of the southern states, secession is justified. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, believed in Secession in all cases, he believed that States had a right to leave the union whenever they were dissatisfied with the Feds. 

The South left over Tariffs, northern corporatism, and encroaching Federal Government. The South was dealt far more oppressive taxes than those levied on the Colonials by the British. The South accounted for 87% of all US Tariff Revenues and 80% of US Tariff Revenues were spent on Northern Industries and Public Works.  And the social commentators of the time, whether they be Charles Dickens or Karl Marx, said the war was a tariff war.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Whenever a Government loses the consent of the Governed, like the people of the southern states, secession is justified. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, believed in Secession in all cases, he believed that States had a right to leave the union whenever they were dissatisfied with the Feds. 
> 
> The South left over Tariffs, northern corporatism, and encroaching Federal Government. The South was dealt far more oppressive taxes than those levied on the Colonials by the British. The South accounted for 87% of all US Tariff Revenues and 80% of US Tariff Revenues were spent on Northern Industries and Public Works.  And the social commentators of the time, whether they be Charles Dickens or Karl Marx, said the war was a tariff war.


According to doughface James Buchanan, that wasn't the case in the South in 1860.  So the South was not following the principles of Jefferson.

----------


## The Patriot

> According to doughface James Buchanan, that wasn't the case in the South in 1860.  So the South was not following the principles of Jefferson.


Let's look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1543

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Let's look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"
> 
> http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1543


Only one New England federalist, Tim Bigelow, voted for secession in 1814.  That's it.  One person from one state legislature.

You people twist the facts beyond all recognition.

There was no "attempt to secede" as you claim.  The New Englanders were mostly upset that the Mississippi river was being opened up to free trade.

----------


## Erazmus

> Only one New England federalist, Tim Bigelow, voted for secession in 1814.  That's it.  One person from one state legislature.
> 
> You people twist the facts beyond all recognition. 
> 
> There was no "attempt to secede" as you claim.  The New Englanders were mostly upset that the Mississippi river was being opened up to free trade.


I'm having a hard time following your logic. The Patriot explains to you why the south seceded, and provides the clause in the Declaration of Independence (written by Jefferson) why the southern secession was just (not that they really needed a reason being a sovereign state.)

You then invoke Jefferson's name again with no quote to support your position. 




> According to doughface James Buchanan, that wasn't the case in the South in 1860. So the South was not following the principles of Jefferson.


He responds with another quote by Jefferson that shows he supported secession of sovereign states. Then you come back with a vote in New England from 1814? Aren't we talking about 1860? Here's a link to a unanimous post from 1860 South Carolina that supported secession.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> I'm having a hard time following your logic. The Patriot explains to you why the south seceded, and provides the clause in the Declaration of Independence (written by Jefferson) why the southern secession was just (not that they really needed a reason being a sovereign state.)
> 
> You then invoke Jefferson's name again with no quote to support your position. 
> 
> 
> 
> He responds with another quote by Jefferson that shows he supported secession of sovereign states. Then you come back with a vote in New England from 1814? Aren't we talking about 1860? Here's a link to a unanimous post from 1860 South Carolina that supported secession.


The New England federalists never attempted to secede in 1814.  This was a response to a claim that is factually wrong.  Only one member of the Hartford Convention of 1814 supported secession (Tim Bigelow), and the final report report had nothing to do with secession, it only recommended a few amendments.

As for Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, the reasons cited for secession by South Carolina do not come even close to the reasons that justify secession according to Jefferson.  You are deliberately confusing what is just with what is Constitutional.  Jefferson did not believe in secession just for the heck of it.

As for James Buchanan, Buchanan noted in his memoirs that the South got the benefit of the doubt on every major issue leading up to the civil war, from Dred Scott, to the Missouri Compromise, etc.  Buchanan said it was stupid for the South to secede.  Of course, Buchanan has been under attack by the neocons and liberals for 150 years now, but I think he was a good president.

----------


## The Patriot

> Only one New England federalist, Tim Bigelow, voted for secession in 1814.  That's it.  One person from one state legislature.
> 
> You people twist the facts beyond all recognition.
> 
> There was no "attempt to secede" as you claim.  The New Englanders were mostly upset that the Mississippi river was being opened up to free trade.


There was a Hartford Convention for Secession. It doesn't matter if it wasn't successful in the end, Jefferson supported their right to secede, which is a documented fact.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> There was a Hartford Convention for Secession. It doesn't matter if it wasn't successful in the end, Jefferson supported their right to secede, which is a documented fact.


You got your facts wrong.  Only one member of the Hartford convention (out of 26 delegates) supported secession; Timothy Bigelow, a state legislator form Massachusetts.  That's it.

----------


## The Patriot

> You got your facts wrong.  Only one member of the Hartford convention (out of 26 delegates) supported secession; Timothy Bigelow, a state legislator form Massachusetts.  That's it.


No I didn't. The fact that Secession failed to pass a vote doesn't negate the fact that Jefferson supported their right to secession, that is a documented fact. It is indisputable evidence

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> There was a Hartford Convention for Secession. It doesn't matter if it wasn't successful in the end, Jefferson supported their right to secede, which is a documented fact.


The right to secede is obvious from the text of the Constitution.  You again confuse what is just with what is Constitutional.  The Hartford Convention was one of the most bogus assemblies ever convened in US history.

----------


## The Patriot

> The right to secede is obvious from the text of the Constitution.  You again confuse what is just with what is Constitutional.  The Hartford Convention was one of the most bogus assemblies ever convened in US history.


All Secession is just. As Jefferson says in the Declaration of Independence, when the Government loses the Consent of the Governed, the people have the right to separate from that government. The Union lost the consent of the Southern States, therefore, they had the right to break bonds with that union and form their own government. The Colonials seceded for far less, the South had a much more burdensome set of taxes levied on it than the Colonies did. As I said before, 87% of all federal Revenues from tariffs came from the southern states and 80% of those revenues went to Northern Industry and Public Works. That is corporatism, that is central planning, and it is unjust.

But go ahead, defend the guy who waged an illegal war on the south, the guy who got rid of Habeas Corpus, the guy who closed down dissenting newspapers and deported copperheads, the guy who endorsed total war, the guy who supported fiat money and national banks, and the guy who levied the first income tax in American history. I will take the other side.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> No I didn't. The fact that Secession failed to pass a vote doesn't negate the fact that Jefferson supported their right to secession, that is a documented fact. It is indisputable evidence


I never said that States don't have the right to secede.  They do, just look at the Constitution.

But States, after a war is duly declared, do NOT have the right to deal with and aid the enemy, which is what happened in the war of 1812.  They either abide by the result of the voting and Constitutional process or get out.

The Hartford was convened to discuss the war of 1812 and plot treasonous activites, and propose amendments.  No one associated withn it supported secession except Tim Bigleow.  I believe one NE newspaper supported secession as well.

You bring up the secession bull$#@! at the Hartford Convention because you have been duped by those who claim that the war of 1812 was unpopular.  When in fact, the war of 1812 was the most popular war in US history, and the Hartford convention led to the extinction of the Federalist Party.  It was the Hartford Convention that was unpopular, while the war of 1812 produced 6 presidents of the United States (Monroe, JQ Adams, Jackson, WHH, Tyler, & Taylor).

The Hartford Convention was in effect a secret meeting that plotted a _coup d'etat_.

----------


## Erazmus

> The New England federalists never attempted to secede in 1814.  This was a response to a claim that is factually wrong.  Only one member of the Hartford Convention of 1814 supported secession (Tim Bigelow), and the final report report had nothing to do with secession, it only recommended a few amendments.


Maybe I missed where someone brought this up, but it certainly wasn't in the post you were quoting.




> As for Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, the reasons cited for secession by South Carolina do not come even close to the reasons that justify secession according to Jefferson.  You are deliberately confusing what is just with what is Constitutional.  Jefferson did not believe in secession just for the heck of it.


Couple things here, unless you can quote Jefferson on what you're talking about, then you need to stop invoking him. We have given you at least 2 quotes supporting secession according to Jefferson, you haven't provided any. Is it your position that when any sovereign joins a group (union) they cannot leave without the consent of the union? This is collectivist at its core, if this is your contention. The bottom line is, if a sovereign people (state) voluntarily joins a union, then they can also voluntarily leave. To state otherwise is tyranny. Also, the Constitution is a document of negative liberties. The states created it, and consequently created the federal government / union. Therefore it is consistent and stands to reason that they can also dissolve the union.

For example, if I were to join a book club, I can leave for ANY reason without the consent of the book club. This is a right I have because I am the sole authority of myself. The state (meaning the people of the state) are the sole authority of themselves. Also, being a document of negative liberties, the federal government only has the powers the Constitution delegates to it. Since there is no provision in the Constitution for secession, this is a obviously a right reserved to the states, in accordance not only to natural law, but the 10th amendment.




> As for James Buchanan, Buchanan noted in his memoirs that the South got the benefit of the doubt on every major issue leading up to the civil war, from Dred Scott, to the Missouri Compromise, etc.  Buchanan said it was stupid for the South to secede.  Of course, Buchanan has been under attack by the neocons and liberals for 150 years now, but I think he was a good president.


Someone's opinion that something is "stupid" doesn't negate the authority or right to do something. I think it's stupid for someone to purposely break their Ipod after buying it. This doesn't mean they don't have a right to it. It is theirs afterall.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> All Secession is just. As Jefferson says in the Declaration of Independence, when the Government loses the Consent of the Governed, the people have the right to separate from that government. The Union lost the consent of the Southern States, therefore, they had the right to break bonds with that union and form their own government. The Colonials seceded for far less, the South had a much more burdensome set of taxes levied on it than the Colonies did. As I said before, 87% of all federal Revenues from tariffs came from the southern states and 80% of those revenues went to Northern Industry and Public Works. That is corporatism, that is central planning, and it is unjust.
> 
> But go ahead, defend the guy who waged an illegal war on the south, the guy who got rid of Habeas Corpus, the guy who closed down dissenting newspapers and deported copperheads, the guy who endorsed total war, the guy who supported fiat money and national banks, and the guy who levied the first income tax in American history. I will take the other side.


Not all secession is just.  That's why when it is done, the reasons for it are cited.  If there aren't any good reasons to do it, then it is not just.

----------


## Erazmus

> Not all secession is just.  That's why when it is done, the reasons for it are cited.  If there aren't any good reasons to do it, then it is not just.


Listen, we can end this right now. Do you agree or not agree that secession is a right? If you believe it is, then you do not need permission, stipulations, or reasons to exercise it. If you don't believe it's a right, then I would like to hear your explanation as to why.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Maybe I missed where someone brought this up, but it certainly wasn't in the post you were quoting.
> 
> 
> 
> Couple things here, unless you can quote Jefferson on what you're talking about, then you need to stop invoking him. We have given you at least 2 quotes supporting secession according to Jefferson, you haven't provided any. Is it your position that when any sovereign joins a group (union) they cannot leave without the consent of the union? This is collectivist at its core, if this is your contention. The bottom line is, if a sovereign people (state) voluntarily joins a union, then they can also voluntarily leave. To state otherwise is tyranny. Also, the Constitution is a document of negative liberties. The states created it, and consequently created the federal government / union. Therefore it is consistent and stands to reason that they can also dissolve the union.
> 
> For example, if I were to join a book club, I can leave for ANY reason without the consent of the book club. This is a right I have because I am the sole authority of myself. The state (meaning the people of the state) are the sole authority of themselves. Also, being a document of negative liberties, the federal government only has the powers the Constitution delegates to it. Since there is no provision in the Constitution for secession, this is a obviously a right reserved to the states, in accordance not only to natural law, but the 10th amendment.
> 
> 
> ...


You can secede, but you don't have the right to drag others with you.  Only the people who actually voted for the secession of South Carolina were bound by the decision.  The people who didn't vote for secession have the right to secede from the secession.  You are arguing like statist.  Individuals have rights.  The government has no rights.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Listen, we can end this right now. Do you agree or not agree that secession is a right? If you believe it is, then you do not need permission, stipulations, or reasons to exercise it. If you don't believe it's a right, then I would like to hear your explanation as to why.


Governments don't have rights.  Only people have rights.  Governments have powers.  Under the US Constitution, the States have powers they have not delegated to the federal government.

----------


## The Patriot

> Not all secession is just.  That's why when it is done, the reasons for it are cited.  If there aren't any good reasons to do it, then it is not just.


Yes, all Secession is just. When a government loses the consent of the governed, the people have the right to separate. And the South seceded for much more than the 13 Colonies did.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Yes, all Secession is just. When a government loses the consent of the governed, the people have the right to separate. And the South seceded for much more than the 13 Colonies did.


No it isn't.  The secession of the South dragged millions of innocent people into a civil war and caused 600,000 deaths.  The South had no right to enslave black people.  The Declaration of Independence says all people are created equal.  The South violated that.  You are a pro-military statist.

The Southern states also had rigged legislatures that barred free whites who did not own slaves from power, another flagarantly unjust practice.

----------


## Erazmus

> You can secede, but you don't have the right to drag others with you.  Only the people who actually voted for the secession of South Carolina were bound by the decision.  The people who didn't vote for secession have the right to secede from the secession.  You are arguing like statist.  Individuals have rights.  The government has no rights.


I think we're getting somewhere. Let's get a few things ironed out. Secession isn't statist as it is not the forming of government, it is the removal from government. It is moving toward liberty, not away from it. Secondly, you're talking about universal consent, when every single person must accept in a secession. Now, if your position is zero government. I actually agree. But this isn't what we are talking about.

If we are to apply your logic here, then no law could ever be passed, no government would have ever been formed, and the US couldn't have seceded from Britain because they didn't get every single person's approval. There were loyalists to the crown (tories) in the US. So clearly universal consent was impossible. Also, the state of South Carolina has a state government if they seceded or didn't. I don't see how removing from the union (a larger government) could be construed as statist. As it removed SC from bigger government. Since the state government (which more represents the people than the national government). I would argue that forcing people to stay in a union who don't want to be is tyrannical.

The last point I want to make is the state of SC when in the union had state government as representatives. If they could make laws in the union and had the Constitutional authority to remove from the union, how can you argue they only have this authority if they stay in the union. This seems like a paradox to me. I know you are arguing about absolute individuality, which I agree with. However, the Constitution formed a union and doesn't require unanamous individual consent. It requires votes from representatives of the people. The states are the same way. So in my opinion you're trying to argue how our current system is to work, but with theory, not within its own framework, which isn't how it is written.

The states don't get their power from the national government. The states (and their representative government that predated the union) get their power from the consent of the people. But again, if you are arguing for universal consent of the people, then I can only derive that you are for no government, because universal consent is impossible.

If you are for zero government, then I am with you, But your arguments above seem inconsistent to me.

----------


## Erazmus

> Governments don't have rights.  Only people have rights.  Governments have powers.  Under the US Constitution, the States have powers they have not delegated to the federal government.


Correct, however governments were supposed to act as representatives of the people. Since the state (the people) have a right to secede, the representatives were the ones to vote on this. See my above post. 

Note: I'm going to be away from the computer for most of the day, but I look forward to continuing this discussion later.

Thanks.

----------


## The Patriot

> No it isn't.  The secession of the South dragged millions of innocent people into a civil war and caused 600,000 deaths.  The South had no right to enslave black people.  The Declaration of Independence says all people are created equal.  The South violated that.  You are a pro-military statist.
> 
> The Southern states also had rigged legislatures that barred free whites who did not own slaves from power, another flagarantly unjust practice.


They didn't have the right to enslave people, but they had the right to secede. The North didn't have the right to enslave people, and didn't have the right to wage a war and prohibit the natural right of secession. And it wasn't a civil war, it was a war for independence. The South seceded and defended their homeland form northern aggressors.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> They didn't have the right to enslave people, but they had the right to secede. The North didn't have the right to enslave people, and didn't have the right to wage a war and prohibit the natural right of secession. And it wasn't a civil war, it was a war for independence. The South seceded and defended their homeland form northern aggressors.


Once the South seceded, it is none of their business whether the North follows the Constititon or not.

The Constitution was formed by both the people and the states to protect them from foreign invasion.

The South made a choice; a very bad choice.  When they left the Union, they were susceptable to a brutal foreign dictator attacking them.  It didn't take long, Abe Lincoln started the war only a month after he took office.

----------


## The Patriot

> Once the South seceded, it is none of their business whether the North follows the Constititon or not.
> 
> The Constitution was formed by both the people and the states to protect them from foreign invasion.
> 
> The South made a choice; a very bad choice.  When they left the Union, they were susceptable to a brutal foreign dictator attacking them.  It didn't take long, Abe Lincoln started the war only a month after he took office.


No, that is incorrect, Southern Secession doesn't mean the North can violate the Constitution they are still tied to.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> No, that is incorrect, Southern Secession doesn't mean the North can violate the Constitution they are still tied to.


How would the South be able to tell another country what to do?  You forgot about the Law of the Jungle.

----------


## The Patriot

> How would the South be able to tell another country what to do?  You forgot about the Law of the Jungle.


They wouldn't, no one said they would. You are creating straw men arguments and deconstructing them to justify the unconstitutional and brute aggression of the North. All you are saying is might makes right, and because the North won, their war on the South was justified.

----------


## Sic Semper Tyrannis

> YouTube - Jefferson Davis--- Quotes on Slavery


That video was made by "12FlyMe" one of "RonPaulHatesBlacks" many Youtube accounts. "RonPaulHatesBlacks" is a notorious anti-Ron Paul spammer. This all seems a little fishy to me....

----------


## Sic Semper Tyrannis

> Based on what?  Davis's racist quotes about black people?  If you think pro-slavery quotations are pro-liberty, then you have a serious problem and are running with the wrong crowd.


Have you ever read Lincoln's personal opinions of black people? I mean damn... Or how about his reasons for opposing the expansion of slavery/immigration of black people? It wasn't for liberty reasons I can tell you that. The reason why he was fine with slavery where it existed was because he pretty much thought the land had already been ruined by having black people on it. The reasons why he opposed the expansion of slavery was because he just opposed the expansion of black people period, slave or free. That's why he was instrumental in passing black codes in his native state. He said he only liked "white labor".

----------


## Sic Semper Tyrannis

> Open your mind. You can't read *only* Lincoln hit pieces, and think you are getting a history lesson - the same as you can't get one from reading *only* a middle school text book.


I'm pretty sure everyone here is already well read on slavery in the South, so spare us the repetitive history lesson, please. If we wanted to know more about that all we would have to do is attend any school, read any book, or watch any tv documentary on the war. The federal government's viewpoint has already been well taught. It's the opposing viewpoint that's oppressed, and it's only through the liberty movement that you'll hear it.

To quote the great Tom Woods speaking of DiLorenzo's critics:

"It doesn't exactly take an awful lot of courage ... to condemn the Confederacy in 2010. Gee, they're upset at a government everyone has been taught to loathe -- how visionary. DiLorenzo doesn't say the Confederacy was "right" in the sense that everything it did could be defended. Why would DiLorenzo support the military draft, paper money inflation, etc.? That's just a p.c. caricature of his position. 

His point, rather, is that according to a great many authorities there was indeed a constitutional right of secession. The South was invaded. Yes, its government was guilty of the usual run of outrages of governments at war. No sensible person disputes that. But it's kind of relevant to note that they were in fact invaded."

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Have you ever read Lincoln's personal opinions of black people? I mean damn... Or how about his reasons for opposing the expansion of slavery/immigration of black people? It wasn't for liberty reasons I can tell you that. The reason why he was fine with slavery where it existed was because he pretty much thought the land had already been ruined by having black people on it. The reasons why he opposed the expansion of slavery was because he just opposed the expansion of black people period, slave or free. That's why he was instrumental in passing black codes in his native state. He said he only liked "white labor".


I don't like Lincoln one bit, and yes I've read his racist comments in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Lincoln only starts to look good when I have to listen to the pro-slavery drivel in this forum.  Just because Lincoln was bad, doesn't mean the South was right.

----------


## Erazmus

> I don't like Lincoln one bit, and yes I've read his racist comments in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
> 
> Lincoln only starts to look good when I have to listen to the pro-slavery drivel in this forum.  Just because Lincoln was bad, doesn't mean the South was right.


Who is pro-slavery?

----------


## Bucjason

> Just wanted to add to my previous post a quote from the declaration of independence.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, again, Jefferson isn't talking about revolution here (as not only is revolution an act, it's also an abstraction in that revolution is also a paradigm shift in the thinking of the people), he's talking about abolishing a system that the people created. If you create something, you own it, and you have the right to destroy it.



"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence

"When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality." --Thomas Jefferson to M. deStael, 1807. ME 11:282 

"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." --Thomas Jefferson: his motto. 

"The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548 

"As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane


I could go on.

Seriously , next time you laugh and roll your eyes when someone mentions the "right of revolution" , don't mention Thomas Jefferson in the next breath. It's an insult to Jefferson

..and finally , another qoute that I think can be  applied to the Civil War quite well:

"It is unfortunate that the efforts of mankind to recover the freedom of which they have been so long deprived, will be accompanied with violence, with errors, and even with crimes. But while we weep over the means, we must pray for the end." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois

----------


## Sic Semper Tyrannis

> who is pro-slavery?


+1776

----------


## Bucjason

> That video was made by "12FlyMe" one of "RonPaulHatesBlacks" many Youtube accounts. "RonPaulHatesBlacks" is a notorious anti-Ron Paul spammer. This all seems a little fishy to me....


They are all  qoutes from Jefferson Davis . It matters not who posted it , these are not opinions , these are words straight from your hero... LOL

----------


## Bucjason

> Who is pro-slavery?


If you think your state or local government has the right to do anything it wants , including enslave you , then by default you have taken a pro-slavery position.

----------


## Bucjason

> I don't like Lincoln one bit, and yes I've read his racist comments in the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
> 
> Lincoln only starts to look good when I have to listen to the pro-slavery drivel in this forum.  Just because Lincoln was bad, doesn't mean the South was right.


Directly from the Lincoln-Douglas debates : and pretty much sums up Lincoln's view:

"I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, *he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man*.[19]  


 This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. *I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites*-causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest "


This stance is pretty honorable , and light-years ahead of the mentality of tyrants like Jefferson Davis .

For the 1850's , Lincoln was WAY ahead of his time as far as the belief that " all men are equal" For this he is to be praised , IMO.

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> I'm not "lapping up" anything by Confederate apologists.. 
> I just wanted to read up more on Lincoln. 
> Idk about others on here, but I don't like Davis either.. I hate them both.


North was not the direction which encouraged a wretched whore to stand in faith and to walk in faith, to cross a fathomless ocean in search of a new world, but it was a narrow and precious, self evident and unalienable Truth that ultimately divorced her from the tyranny that owned her so that she could then be remarried to a more perfect husbandry.

----------


## Erazmus

> "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence
> 
> "When patience has begotten false estimates of its motives, when wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality." --Thomas Jefferson to M. deStael, 1807. ME 11:282 
> 
> "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." --Thomas Jefferson: his motto. 
> 
> "The oppressed should rebel, and they will continue to rebel and raise disturbance until their civil rights are fully restored to them and all partial distinctions, exclusions and incapacitations are removed." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548 
> 
> "As revolutionary instruments (when nothing but revolution will cure the evils of the State) [secret societies] are necessary and indispensable, and the right to use them is inalienable by the people." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane
> ...


Your post is incredibly sad, and I mean that in the most sincere way. The concepts I am talking about are incredibly subtle, so I understand the confusion, and perhaps I haven't explained them very well. The sad part is that you've quoted Jefferson, so the answer is right in front of you and you just don't see it. I've been wracking my brain on how to explain this to you, so I'll try one last time. We'll see how it goes. 

Basically you have two forms of revolution, a peaceful one in which the minds and attitudes of the people shift. Then you have the violent one. Now, the importance here comes from causality and how you define the terms. But it breaks down into two components. If we look at a micro example it becomes clear. If someone defends their life (a Right) and uses lethal force which ends in another's death (not a right) we can now see the two components. Since rights come from property, we can see that no one has a right to kill someone else or initiate violence. Let's call them A and B. 

Component A - is self defense (a Right) 
Component B - is lethal force (not a Right) 

Now, in a vacuum we also can see that lethal force isn't a right. However, when based on component A, we can see that B is just. If we take this clear example to the macro level, we can see that the same is true of violent revolution. Violent revolutions have happened numerous times throughout history. Many of them were not just, and in a vacuum we can see that they are not a right. It is merely the use of force at the macro level (many people). However, when governments abuse people's rights, suddenly it becomes just as a reactionary measure. 

Component A - is self defense (the peoples' Right to protect themselves) 
Component B - violent revolution (not a Right) 

So it is when violent revolution occurs on behalf of a right of self defense against government that it becomes just. Your confusion to Jefferson's quotes now becomes obvious. Jefferson from the Declaration of Independence that you used as your first quote is talking about the abolishment of government that the people created. If you own something (thus created it) then yes you do have a Right to destroy it. He isn't talking about violent revolution here. It is a subtle yet important distinction. 

So yes, maybe it was improper for me to have rolled my eyes and laugh. As I have done this philosophical exercise, I sometimes forget others may not have. If nothing else, perhaps I have made you think. Again, if you are not able to grasp what I have outlined above, then perhaps we should just shake hands and part ways,  because I'm not sure I can explain this concept a better way.

----------


## Erazmus

> If you think your state or local government has the right to do anything it wants , including enslave you , then by default you have taken a pro-slavery position.


I'm not sure if you are saying this in general terms, or if you are directing this comment toward me. If the latter is true, then you haven't been reading my posts.

----------

