The Abraham Lincoln Myth...

Lincoln did what he had to do in order to defeat the Traitors of the South. The emancipation proclamation had to be done because Lincoln needed to destroy the economy of the South which obviously was fueled by free labor provided by "guest workers" we in the North called slaves. So what if Lincoln did not like Blacks and did not believe in integration of the races he did set in motion the order that led to the end of silvery.

We also need to consider the time in history that this happened in. We cannot and should not judge or measure the tines of Lincoln or his motives by our standards or our reality. We likewise should not judge Harry Truman for ordering the dropping of the atomic bombs. Truman did what he had to do just like Lincoln.

My thinking is that most if not all of those who putting down Lincoln and calling him names and claiming that he violated the Constitution will not do the same when POTUS Trumpfo violates the Constitution. Or for that matter when Reagan or Nixon violated the Constitution.

 

When Lincoln trashed the Constitution by waging war upon the South without Congressional approval, he allowed Union States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky Missouri, and New Jersey, to keep slavery as long as they stayed loyal to the Union. Then later he illegally made West Virginia a new Union State. And they could keep slavery also.

 

So you would rather have had the Southern traitors win and destroy thus nation. We never would have been great and the Southern Confederacy would have become the 3rd world country after the slaves rebelled by 1898 if not sooner. Mexico would attack Texas and the Confederacy would have been embroiled in continuos war. Eventually the Confederacy would become a colony of Britain again.

 

He did what what he had to do and he had not done what he did the Trumpocity would not be able to claim that he will make America great again because if it was for Lincoln America never would have achieved greatness to start with.

Japan would have colonized the West coast and we never could have purchased Alaska and the Russian Imperialists would have invaded Canada and we would have had the Evil a Empire at our throats and we would have been destroyed. We would not have been strong enough to beat Germany so Hitler would have been running Europe and GB and controlled North Afrika and the oil of the ME. The Japanese would have invaded and controlled all land West of the Mississippi.

Maybe I need to get back to writing my novel and change it from Zombies toAlternative Dystopian history.

I am getting depressed just thinking about how those of you who wished that Lincoln failed are the ones who really must hate our country because if Lincoln failed America and the world would have failed.

 

Were you constitutionally literate, you'd know the author of that post hasn't the wherewithal to accomplish that.

 

You just admitted that you lied. The word "secession" is NOT in the 1)0th amendment you just added that word in your post. Are you 12years old? Well we are not and we also read the Bill of Rights.

If the founders had wanted to put the right of secession into the Constitution it would have been there in words such as " a sovereign state can withdraw from the Union of States after giving due notice". The Constitution does not say that now does it. The word secession only exists in your fraudulent version of the 19th.

 

You know you lost when you attacked the OP and me.

Winners speak to the topic.

 

That is how I saw things when the homosexuals claimed the 14th covered them.

But this nation was founded on secession. For it to suddenly end, when states had carved out many many rights, makes no sense.
Abe is an outlaw president.

 

We could have kept Mexico and probably at some point also taken over Canada and since we did not, would you say we are great for not gaining more land?

It pains me to see posters defend the president who had he not taken office, 630,000 more Americans may never have perished from the face of Earth.

 

No, you lost when you bought into the lies you quoted.

 

It's amazing what politicians (even famous ones like Abraham Lincoln) will say to try to get votes. Just look at Hillary now.
Lincoln was just saying that to try to placate the Southern voting block, and it didn't work. They attempted to secede from the Union rather than accept him as president. He was not seen as pro-slave enough. Even President Zachary Taylor, 11 years prior to Lincoln, who was a slave owner, is suspected by many historians to have been poisoned by a conspiracy of Southerners who were angry that he did not take a more hard line pro-slave position.

 

No, it was your attack that cost you dearly

 

You read my post wrong. Since secession is not prohibited by the Constitution, it is Ok based on the 10th Amendment. The US Supreme Court finally ruled on Secession in 1869 in Texas v White. But that was well after the war was over.

 

Absolutely, if secession was prohibited, shucks I guess we are still ruled by England, right?

 

No, it was founded by secession. There never was, and never will be, a nation founded on secession, for reasons that should be obvious.

Well then I guess I'm just lucky to be too dumb to feel pain.

Seriously though, should you find the stones to present an argument affirming the constitutionality of unilateral secession, rest assured that I am both genially willing and more than able to expose its intellectual bankruptcy with reckless abandon.

 

Easy peasy. First by and on are transposed is all. No real difference.

I won't argue your point since it is congruent to my point.

It takes no stones to say the South was correct. [MENTION=36186]yguy[/MENTION].

Much of the time when reading the constitution, I look for the part saying states must never secede. Can you show me that statement in the Constitution?

 

The Emancipation Proclamation was a war tactic. Nothing more. Then Confederacy was dependent on the sale of cotton to England and France to support their war efforts. That cotton industry was dependent upon slaves. In order to stifle that industry, Lincoln signed the proclamation. This freed the slaves held in Confederacy occupied territories only. This distinction is important because there were states that fought for the Union that were also slave owning states. Two were Maryland and Delaware. If the Emancipation Proclamation had included Union territories, then these two states would have joined the Confederacy, and Washington, DC would have been in surrounded by the Confederacy. Washington would have fallen, and the Confederacy would have won.

So, the Emancipation Proclamation was not about being against slavery. It was about ending the Confederacy's ability to fund their war efforts. The actual freeing of the slaves was led bay the Republicans in Congress. All 115 Republicans in the Congress and Senate voted in favor of the 13th Amendment. As opposed to 14 Democrats. There were 50 Democrats that voted against the Amendment, and 8 that did not vote. So, as you can see, it was the Republicans that eventually freed the slaves. Not the Democrats or Lincoln.

 

We had founders speaking up prior to the constitution speaking on this very issue.

I believe I am correct that Thomas Jefferson spoke of governments lasting but 20 years and becoming corrupt then needing changing.

The link is not about Jefferson yet contains valuable information.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/histor...government/resources/survival-us-constitution

 

It's not in there. How can secession of States be prohibited when we seceded from England to become a country? But the 10th Amendment says anything not covered by the Constitution is up to the States or the people. The Confederate States voted fair and square to secede from the Union.

 

Why isn't that truth taught in public schools???

There is so much myth about Government that is accepted at face value by Democrats.

For instance, the Constitution created a weak president. He was only powerful over the military. Congress was the body doing the heavy work. And the Supreme Court had no role in picking over domestic laws and claiming they are legal or not.

We got a republic and it appears we and our ancestors did not keep it.

 

You know, in modern days, Kosovo became Kosova due to the muslim takeover. This take over of a part of the former Yugoslavia is applauded by Democrats. They voted out of Serbia.

Where is the war to force them back?

Crimea voted to join Russia. This the Democrats detest and they rant and rave over Putin.

This country has to restore freedom or fail.

Yes the South voted to depart the Union. But voting is the democratic way. They realized who became president and voted again to reject him. I see nothing wrong with that. It did not impact on the North. The south still would have done business with the North. But the South would have freed itself of a government who simply lost interest in protecting the South.

 

I remember that case. It has been a few years, but over 15 years back, I did an indepth study of that case. It was decided by the winning side. LOL

 

This is gibberish.

No one who believes this has a clue as to what a nation is.

If you're posting from a psych ward I wanna know now.

Obviously not. Look at you.

Certainly that's a standard approach for constitutional illiterates.

Why would I, when I never claimed any such statement exists?

 

War determined if secession was legal. Lincoln left 300,000 dead Yankee soldiers laying in Southern dust. The South lost the war of attrition.

 

I urge you put in the rest of today trying to learn correct debate.

Tip #1 Debate is not a forum where you attack posters
Tip #2 Stick to the topic

- - - Updated - - -

And of course the Supreme Court has always been totally correct. LMAO

(Dred Scott being such a case) Actually due to the constitution. That ruling was correct. But I speak of the moral issue of slavery.