Obama As The New Lincoln

[Matt Collins]

nice ... so you are admitting that no state has the soveriegn right to enslave you ??

States don't have rights, they only have powers.

You have proved my point . It matters not who frees you at this point. Your cause would still be just.

Just and legal are not one in the same. Arguing that the federal government can override the State governments on matters that are not enumerated in the Constitution will result in the UN being able to do the same.

So you can realize how ridiculous your argument is, let me summarize it for you:
An "unjust law is no law at all ", but it is UNLAWFUL for anyone to free you from this non-existing law except yourself, because that law is sovereign.

Would it be ok if China invaded and occupied California in order to stop the Californian government from overtaxing its residents?

 

[Matt Collins]

Actually, the states 1st declaration of sovereignty from Great Britian was declared as a UNION.

WRONG!

The 1783 Treaty of Paris is where King George declared the colonies "to be free sovereign and independent states". He wasn't recognizing a country or a confederation. He was recognizing independent countries.

No single state would have ever had the power to gain it's independence without the help of the other .

Very true. But that didn't abdicate their sovereignty in the process. Can you show me anywhere written down where the independent and free states acknowledge that they are no longer sovereign?

The 1st line of the Declaration of Independence says, " The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen UNITED States of America ". There would be NO independence without the Union, and for that we have a responsibility to each other.

That's a leap in logic again. Being voluntarily united does not mean that each state is bound by some sort of responsibility in perpetuity. And the states can still be united or in agreement, but still retain their sovereignty as they have.

The 13 states formed a compact, which is the same as the "contract" you mention , and a contract cannot be broken without just cause.( I can't believe you would suggest otherwise)

Yes and no. Normally contracts have exit clauses. Since there was none there was no methodology for exiting which was unjust of itself. If terms of the contract were broken then the parties are free to walk away since there is no instrument for dealing with breaking the terms of the cotnract.

No violation of the contract took place because of Lincoln's election.

Probably not, but there were contract violations taking place prior to that. Lincolns election made the Southern states realize that there was no hope of recourse so their best solution to preventing a war was to simply walk away. Unfortunately Lincoln was willing to kill over half a million Americans (black and white) to prove his point.

He was elected using the rules laid out in the agreement for electing the executive- ratified by every state.. That is NOT grounds for secession ! Even Alexander Stephens , the Vice President of the Condefederacy , admitted this in the Georgia debates for secession, which I posted a qoute for you to read. The only grounds for a just revolution were laid out in clear terms in our own Declaration of Independence:
"that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it "
None of these natural rights were violated because Lincoln was elected. The south was claiming it's right to abolish, but ignoring the PREMISIS for it !

I never claimed that they States left because of Lincoln's election but because of the abuses prior to Lincoln's election that would undoubtly get worse with Lincoln as President. And the South was not trying to abolish the government, they were simply trying to walk away from an agreement which had become unjust, which was their natural right to do.

What makes a "state" this magically powerful soveriegn that ALONE has the right to be tyrants and/or enslave people , while no one else can??

The States can not act tyrannical or enslave people. That is unjust just as much as when the federal government does it.

When two nations make a compact, there results to each a power of compelling the other to execute it. "
-Thomas Jefferson

Of course, but both nations must be holding up their end of the bargain, acting in good faith, etc. The North clearly was not doing that.

.

 

[Matt Collins]

Article 1 section 9 of the constitution:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

Article 1 - the powers delegated to CONGRESS!!!!

The President can't unilaterally do this, it must be an act of CONGRESS!

Please, try to keep up.

When you cede away many of your powers to another body , you are automatically giving up some of your sovereighty .

The States didn't abdicate "many" powers to the federal government, only very few enumerated ones. Everything else was reserved to the States.

And "loaning" a few powers to the federal government is not the same as giving up sovereignty.

...how, after willingly ratififying that ( among other things) , can you claim you are not voluntarily giving up some soveriengty and taking on the DUAL soveriengty that Madison suggested?? LOL

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as it applies to what's in the Constitution. Everything outside of the Constitution falls back to the States. The Constitution is not all encompassing.

 

[Bucjason]

WRONG!


I never claimed that they States left because of Lincoln's election but because of the abuses prior to Lincoln's election that would undoubtly get worse with Lincoln as President. And the South was not trying to abolish the government, they were simply trying to walk away from an agreement which had become unjust, which was their natural right to do.


The States can not act tyrannical or enslave people. That is unjust just as much as when the federal government does it.

Of course, but both nations must be holding up their end of the bargain, acting in good faith, etc. The North clearly was not doing that.

.

It doesn't matter if you claim they left because of Lincoln or not , it is the truth .
I've posted proof of this , and I can post more if you need further convincing . Just let me know.


As far as the North not holding up thier end of the bargain : Cite an example of constitutional rights violations imposed on the South . You can't, because there are none. The only ones NOT holding up thier ends of the bargain was the south , by ignoring the results of a free election. An election who's rules were pre-determined in the Constitution they ratified.

But Lincoln can describe his position more eloquently than I ever could. READ , and actually try to learn :



"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, IS THE ONLY TRUE SOVEREIGN OF A FREE PEOPLE. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. "
-Lincoln , 1st inaugural address


You can not sucessfully counter this argument and call yourself someone who believes in a republican form of government. Period.

 

[Bucjason]

and by the way Matt...the South knew EXACTLY what they were getting in to , so stop trying to paint them as innocent unsuspecting victims. Stephens even predicted in his argument against secession that it would end in war, and an attempt at emancipation. He also said slavery was safer inside the Union , than out. How right he was....

You can defend these dirt-bag tyrants like Jefferson Davis, and make excuses for them all you want . The real defender of liberty and natural rights in this tale is Lincoln , as much as you hate to admit it.

"I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor or degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy"
-Lincoln, in a letter in response to Joshua Speed.

 

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - SA@TAC - Confused Confederates

 

[Matt Collins]

The real defender of liberty and natural rights in this tale is Lincoln , as much as you hate to admit it.

Are you a troll or an imbecile incapable of critical thought? I'm having a hard time deciding.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

Are you a troll or an idiot incapabale of critical thought? I'm having a hard time deciding.

Probably a little bit of both.

 

[Matt Collins]

stop trying to paint them as innocent unsuspecting victims.

You can defend these dirt-bag tyrants like Jefferson Davis, and make excuses for them all you want .

I don't know that much about Jefferson Davis to be honest but I do know that Lincoln needlessly killed 600,000 Americans, invaded and occupied a sovereign country, ignored the Constitution, and trampled liberty. And of course those who owned and advocated the institution of slavery were just as bad. But while I'm at it, didn't Lincoln start a draft or conscription to invade the Southern states? Isn't that the same as slavery?


.

 

[Aratus]

the art of waging the war by both sides nearly destroyed the peace thereafter...

matt collins ---thomas jefferson almost won the vote that would have contained slavery in the late 1800s,
and i do admit as a guy who spoke for tobacco farmers, he did not forsee what the cotton gin would do
for our textile industry. our civil war has several handshaked on promices and compromises broken by
southerners tacitly concerning the eventual phasing out of slavery gradually & quietly. its the addition
of new territories and a basic taney court changing of the rules that was one of the major flare points.

 

[Bucjason]

I don't know that much about Jefferson Davis to be honest but I do know that Lincoln needlessly killed 600,000 Americans, invaded and occupied a sovereign country, ignored the Constitution, and trampled liberty. And of course those who owned and advocated the institution of slavery were just as bad. But while I'm at it, didn't Lincoln start a draft or conscription to invade the Southern states? Isn't that the same as slavery?


.

You don't know much about Jefferson Davis , yet you are claiming I am the imbecile ?? You have just admitted you are ignorant, and not nearly as well versed on this topic, if you aren't even familiar enough with the Confederacy to intelligently debate thier idiot President, Jefferson Davis.

Once again ...I asked you to name one single Constitutional right the Union violated against the south in order to justify thier secession , and you couldn't do it. Of course you couldn't , because the vice president of the Confederacy couldn't name one either.

Then I explained to you why , if you believe in the "rule of Law" and "republican form of government" why you have to be able to enforce the Compacts made between states , and the outcome of free elections. A minority who refuses to accept the outcome of a free election that is not in violation of thier natural rights , has gone a long ways towards proving they are unfit to govern themselves , and need a tyrant.

You are hard-headed, Matt. Whether you realize it or not , you percieve equality as an attribute of the STATES. The citizens of a state , according to you , derive thier equality not from the sovereignty of individual persons under the "laws of nature" , but from the constitutional equality of the states within the Union. This means that the states' equality derives from itself , not from the people who compose it . Can your "critical thinking " brain comprehend what this boils down to?? Yours is a collective soveriegnty , in the same sense that the soveriegnty of Marx's proletariat is collective , and is in no way connected to antecedant rights of individuals .

Why, as a "critical thinker" , don't you understand Lincoln when he explains why election results must be upheld if you believe Republics can work?

"Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, IS THE ONLY TRUE SOVEREIGN OF A FREE PEOPLE. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. "

Why, as a "critical thinker", aren't you able to understand Thomas Jefferson when he says that, by the laws of nature , two sides entered into a contract have the right to compel the other to fufill his agreed to obligation ...otherwise all that is left is a complete break down of the "rule of law"?

You can't grasp any of this because you AREN'T a crictical thinker. That is why, rather than name me all of these awful usurpations of the North, that caused the South to secede before Lincoln even took office , you call me a "troll" . That is why you can't argue the facts I laid out proving that the reason the South seceded , was not because of state soveriengty violations , but because of the Republican desire to prevent slavery in the NEW TERRITORIES. Instead , you resort to childish comments like , " well Lincoln murdered 600,000 people".

This argument is over because you are wasting my time. WOW...it's no wonder the Republican party kicked you out of leadership position....

 

[Aratus]

be nice to matt collins... we all know how karl rove got him vice-chair ejected!!!

Bucjason --- honest abe knew jeff davis was not a stupid man, and they both had their critics.
in our history books we do have andrew johnson not measuring up to honest abe's high ideals
as he sometimes allows sec' of war stanton a full hand behind the scenes. was the last guy
to have habeas corpus suspended thusly jefferson davis? if young matt collins sounds like
he'd perfer a southern regiment were he to be a re-enactor, then yes... the g.o.p is still the
party of honest abe to a 99.9 percentile even though most modern Democrats neither think
the same way or even chaw tobacco the same way as the guys around andy jackson once did...

 

[Bucjason]

matt collins ---thomas jefferson almost won the vote that would have contained slavery in the late 1800s,
and i do admit as a guy who spoke for tobacco farmers, he did not forsee what the cotton gin would do
for our textile industry. our civil war has several handshaked on promices and compromises broken by
southerners tacitly concerning the eventual phasing out of slavery gradually & quietly. its the addition
of new territories and a basic taney court changing of the rules that was one of the major flare points.

Aratus , don't bring up the facts , like the repealing of the Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska Act , Dred Scott, etc. Don't bring up this evidence that the south was not only concerned with protecting thier soveriegnty , but insuring the spread of slavery into the New Territories also.

Little Matty would rather just call names.


Question : If the south really believed in complete soveriegnty , why did the south have such a problem with the "personal liberty laws" that some northern states inacted , within THIER own soveriegn borders?? The 'personal liberty laws' compelled a slave catcher to furnish corroborative proof that his captive was a fugitive and frequently accorded the accused the rights to trial by jury and appeal. OMG , this is so AWFUL !!!! Those poor infringed upon Confederates!!

 

[Matt Collins]

You don't know much about Jefferson Davis , yet you are claiming I am the imbecile ??

Knowledge and the ability to think critically are not one in the same.

You have just admitted you are ignorant, and not nearly as well versed on this topic, if you aren't even familiar enough with the Confederacy to intelligently debate thier idiot President, Jefferson Davis.

I know what I know and I also know what I don't know. You however don't seem to have any limits


And I am not debating Davis because I don't know much about him. But I can talk about Lincoln all day long.

Yours is a collective soveriegnty , in the same sense that the soveriegnty of Marx's proletariat is collective , and is in no way connected to antecedant rights of individuals .

Incorrect, don't confuse federalism, libertarianism, and Constitutionalism. They are not one in the same.

This argument is over because you are wasting my time. WOW...it's no wonder the Republican party kicked you out of leadership position....

Tell me, where do you live? Where were you born? Where is your family from?


.

 

[Bucjason]

You obviously don't know much about Lincoln if you've never bothered to discover the role his chief advisary Jefferson Davis played in his life story, and the role thier fundamental disagreements played in that context.

You still fail to answer what constitutional usurpations the Republican Party imposed on the south, in order to justify them seceding, simply because Lincoln was elected.

You fail to answer why the south , who supposedly believed in state soveriegnty , were against the "personal liberty" laws of the free states.

You fail to answer why the south was actively working to repeal compromises, like the Missouri compromise , and expand slavery outside thier states and into the territories.

You fail to answer any important questions.

So, once again, since you are ill-equiped, I'll allow the Vice President of the Confederacy, ALexander Stephens , to speak for himself:

"Shall the people of the south secede from the union in consequence of the election of Mr. Lincoln to the presidency of the United States? My countrymen, I tell you frankly , candidly , and earnestly , that I do NOT think they ought. In my judgement , the election of no man, constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause for any state to seperate from the Union. But it is said Mr. Lincoln's policy and principles are against the Constitution, and that if he carries them out it will be destructive of our rights. Let us not anticipate a threatened evil. If he violates the constitution, then will come our time to act..."
-Alexander Stephens

Now Lincoln , in a letter responding to Stepens address:

"My dear Sir

Your obliging answer to my short note is just received( in the note Lincoln asks for a transcript of the speech), and for which please accept my thanks. I fully appreciate the present peril the country is in, and the weight of responsibility on me.

Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.

The South would be in no more danger in this respect, than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.

Yours very truly

A. LINCOLN"


Hmmm, doesn't sound like the reply of a man bent on "murder" .... Matt Collins , I truly am growing tired of schooling you.