"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[rob63]

He was kinda a tyrant. The circumstances were dire. Suspending habeas corpus was merely on the list of many tyrannical actions not justified by the circumstances. It looks to me like it was to punish political enemies as much as to get them out of the way. He could easily be Joe Biden’s favorite Republican just for that reason.

But, two things can be right at the same time. Lincoln was a bit of an unnecessary tyrant. The primary cause of the South was to save slavery for the aristocracy. They effectively convinced the poor Southern Whites to make it an issue of pride and fight for their cause.

The suspension of habeas corpus is a perfect example of what I meant. The bill began in the House and was modified in the Senate. Lincoln signed it into law and instituted it later, but only in the area between D.C. and Philadelphia. However, military authorities took it and ran with it in areas where it wasn't authorized. Yes, I don't agree with Lincoln's actions, but it is ignoring reality to portray him as a tyrant acting by himself. Congress's Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War was a hotbed of Radical Republicans always pushing the war effort to be more strident.

 

[spencer rifle]

The extremism of unfettered Radical Republicans led to the backlash of Jim Crow and the KKK. Lincoln would likely have restrained them - only he had the will and political stature to head off what would later be know as Versailles in WW1. Because he not around to help curb the radical's cries for vengeance, the North imposed a Versailles on the south, and the result was just as predictable.

 

[jamil]

The suspension of habeas corpus is a perfect example of what I meant. The bill began in the House and was modified in the Senate. Lincoln signed it into law and instituted it later, but only in the area between D.C. and Philadelphia. However, military authorities took it and ran with it in areas where it wasn't authorized. Yes, I don't agree with Lincoln's actions, but it is ignoring reality to portray him as a tyrant acting by himself. Congress's Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War was a hotbed of Radical Republicans always pushing the war effort to be more strident.

No, he wasn’t acting unilaterally, but imprisoning your political enemies is what tyrants do. That he didn’t act alone only makes the appropriate word for that plural. I think it’s fair for people to call him a tyrant even if but one among tyrants.

But, I think we could agree the application was within a narrow scope. It’s not like he went full rogue like the current president. There are degrees of tyrant I guess.

 

[HoughMade]

No, he wasn’t acting unilaterally, but imprisoning your political enemies is what tyrants do. That he didn’t act alone only makes the appropriate word for that plural. I think it’s fair for people to call him a tyrant even if but one among tyrants.

But, I think we could agree the application was within a narrow scope. It’s not like he went full rogue like the current president. There are degrees of tyrant I guess.

Um....the Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus.

“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.”

Before Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (in a limited way) on April 27, 1861, many states had declared that they had seceded (7), those states declared a provisional government and put a constitution for the confederacy in place....stormed several federal facilities, taking the weapons and fired on Fort Sumpter.

If that isn't a case of rebellion, there has never been one. "Political opponents"....sure, but more importantly, traitors to the United States and possible enemy combatants.

 

[Magyars]

Sorry, but I disagree.

I certainly agree that there are people in this thread who appear to believe what they want regardless of the facts. However, there are at least some of us that study, evaluate ALL of the information available, and then reconsider our opinions.

I once bought into the whole "Lost Cause" narrative hook, line, and sinker, but it could not stand up to honest evaluation of the facts. Secession was entirely about saving slavery, end of story.

Lincoln was faced with tough choices. I don't agree with all of them, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore reality and buy into the tyrant nonsense. He was hardly running a dictatorship; he was often responding to public pressure and advice from others. He tended to be the moderate voice, not the extreme one.

I still maintain ( and you gave no valid reason not to )
why anyone who thinks ANYBODY is going going to be swayed by this discussion is delusional

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I still maintain ( and you gave no valid reason not to )
why anyone who thinks ANYBODY is going going to be swayed by this discussion is delusional

What are you on about, man? Nobody's forcing you to read this thread; if we're wasting our time it's our time to waste.

Rob63 literally gave an example of how he himself was swayed and eventually changed his mind based on the type of discussion and research being presented in this thread, how is that not a valid reason?

And even if nobody is really changing their mind entirely based on this online thread alone, there's been quite a bit of great discussion in this thread, and I for one have already had a great deal of opportunity to learn knew things, brush up and re-read things I haven't read for quite a while, and consider new perspectives, as well as shift and develop my own.

 

[jamil]

He’s just saying.

 

[JettaKnight]

I think it’s that some people want to ignore certain facts that tend to disprove the thing their ideology tells them to believe. There are plenty of facts that put the virtue of Lincoln in question. I don’t think he deserved the veneration he gets. Too many verifiable facts exist that debunks the “war of aggression” narrative.

Southern states did not give a **** about States’ rights other their own, especially to protect and extend Slavery as an institution. They spent plenty of legislative effort trying to limit Northern states’ rights. Look at the speeches of legislators arguing various bills. The causes of the civil war were many, the primary cause was Slavery. One must ignore too many facts to conclude otherwise.

Some? We all do that to some degree. The first step to beating that tendency is to acknowledge that it exist and look for our blind spots.

 

[JettaKnight]

He’s just saying.

Someone say something about trains running on time?

 

[BigRed]

History vs Lies – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

Saying lincoln "saved the union" is like the abusive husband whom, upon learning his wife was leaving him, killed her and then claimed to preserve the marriage.

Contrary to popular myth, lincoln freed no slaves. He did kill a union of consent and substitute a union by force.

Little wonder centralizers hold this piece of **** up as a shining example of a great executive.

 

[MinuteManMike]

History vs Lies – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

Saying lincoln "saved the union" is like the abusive husband whom, upon learning his wife was leaving him, killed her and then claimed to preserve the marriage.

Contrary to popular myth, lincoln freed no slaves. He did kill a union of consent and substitute a union by force.

Little wonder centralizers hold this piece of **** up as a shining example of a great executive.

Communist Party Convention, Chicago, 1938

 

[MinuteManMike]

America showed them the way.

 

[MinuteManMike]

That's really stretching the 10th.



That's the same illogical argument being used to say abortion is a right afforded by the constitution.

You're dead wrong on both points.

The 10th protects the rights of the STATES and the PEOPLE.
The STATES wanted to leave the USA. There was nothing stated in the founding documents, ratification documents, or the US. Const. itself forbidding succession. Therefore, it was illegal to force them to stay.

The US C is silent on abortion. Therefore, the federal government should have nothing to say on the issue. Overturning Roe V Wade merely returned the issue back to the states. This year, SCOTUS only removed the ability of the federal government to stop states from regulating on the issue.

So you can say in THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION and abortion (until this year) that the will of the people was being squashed by evil feds in both instances.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

You're dead wrong on both points.

The 10th protects the rights of the STATES and the PEOPLE.
The STATES wanted to leave the USA. There was nothing stated in the founding documents, ratification documents, or the US. Const. itself forbidding succession. Therefore, it was illegal to force them to stay.

The US C is silent on abortion. Therefore, the federal government should have nothing to say on the issue. Overturning Roe V Wade merely returned the issue back to the states. This year, SCOTUS only removed the ability of the federal government to stop states from regulating on the issue.

So you can say in THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION and abortion (until this year) that the will of the people was being squashed by evil feds in both instances.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on both points.

If I sign a contract with you saying that I am giving you permission to use a certain parcel of land that I own, for instance, I don't also have to specify in the contract that I don't have the power to revoke the contract at any point I choose with or without your consent. It's inherent in the nature of a contract that it is binding, and if it doesn't specify a particular method by which it can be nullified, then a contract can only be done away with by the consent of all parties bound by it. I can't just randomly one day say, "Oh, you can't use that land anymore. No, the contract hasn't expired yet, but the contract also doesn't say that I can't revoke it at any point, so clearly I'm allowed to."

The Constitution, similarly, delegated certain powers to a federal government. It didn't also have to have a separate clause saying that those powers can't be revoked, because that's the nature of what the Constitution is. If it's really true that the states could always pull out at any moment, then the Constitution was and still is utterly meaningless.

If you will answer only one question for me, tell me this: What meaning does a contract, or law, or Constitution, even have, if all parties bound by it are free to just start ignoring it at any point they choose?

As for abortion, I know this is an unpopular opinion, and one that most lawyers, including originalists, would disagree with me on, but the fifth amendment says "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Note that is says person and not citizen. IMO, Abortion quite clearly deprives a human person of life without due process of law (at least I've never see a per-born child go on trial for any crime) and I would argue that many abortions are also a violation of the eighth amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.

 

[MinuteManMike]

Your abortion argument is a different argument than the one I made. It doesn't disprove my comments about the 10th at all.

Now I actually think you make an excellent POV to take for the pro-life argument. I'm surprised I've never heard it put forth.

Especially with ultrasounds, we know they're people. But the argument will then become "when does it become a person". I say conception but we have judges that say they're not people until birth.

 

[MinuteManMike]

But you make a bad argument about Lincoln. Look at the ratification documents. Most of them reserved the right to leave. They'd just "left" GB. They were justly worried about new tyranny. New England threatened to secede decades before and no one made the argument that they couldn't legally do so. And no one made that argument when the South tried to leave.

And your "contract" argument is completely ignoring half of the contract.

The ratification documents matter as much as the text of the US C. itself. The "escape clauses" of the "contract" were in the ratifications. There are two parties: the states and the confederation of the USA.

And again, no power to keep states IN is listed an any of the articles. Everything the feds do is supposed to be an enumerated power, explicitly in there. The 10th matters, even if it's largely ignored.

Everything about the North's actions was immoral and illegal.

And NO ONE was ever tried for treason after the North murdered their way to victory. Gee.... I wonder why?

Lincoln was a sick, corrupt, murderous (REDACTED) and he didn't want to lose his cash cow w/ the tariffs on the Southerners' exports. That's why they didn't just let the South go.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

But you make a bad argument about Lincoln. Look at the ratification documents. Most of them reserved the right to leave. They'd just "left" GB. They were justly worried about new tyranny. New England threatened to secede decades before and no one made the argument that they couldn't legally do so. And no one made that argument when the South tried to leave.

And your "contract" argument is completely ignoring half of the contract.

The ratification documents matter as much as the text of the US C. itself. The "escape clauses" of the "contract" were in the ratifications. There are two parties: the states and the confederation of the USA.

And again, no power to keep states IN is listed an any of the articles. Everything the feds do is supposed to be an enumerated power, explicitly in there. The 10th matters, even if it's largely ignored.

Everything about the North's actions was immoral and illegal.

And NO ONE was ever tried for treason after the North murdered their way to victory. Gee.... I wonder why?

Lincoln was a sick, corrupt, murderous (REDACTED) and he didn't want to lose his cash cow w/ the tariffs on the Southerners' exports. That's why they didn't just let the South go.

I might need a refresher in my memory on this one; but I think upthread someone mentioned the text of the ratification documents, and I had expressed some interest in hearing more details on this argument, but had to admit my ignorance of the text itself. If I recall, I did a quick search, but for some reason seemed to be having trouble finding the actual ratification documents.

Are there any particular states whose ratification documents you would recommend looking at first, and if so, a recommendation on a source to find them at?

 

[HoughMade]

 

[BigRed]

Communist Party Convention, Chicago, 1938
View attachment 230673

Makes sense.

Karl Marx and his followers were fans of lincoln as noted in his letter from January of 1865.

 

[BigRed]

If I sign a contract with you saying that I am giving you permission to use a certain parcel of land that I own, for instance, I don't also have to specify in the contract that I don't have the power to revoke the contract at any point I choose with or without your consent. It's inherent in the nature of a contract that it is binding, and if it doesn't specify a particular method by which it can be nullified, then a contract can only be done away with by the consent of all parties bound by it. I can't just randomly one day say, "Oh, you can't use that land anymore. No, the contract hasn't expired yet, but the contract also doesn't say that I can't revoke it at any point, so clearly I'm allowed to."

A relevant example would be you make a contract with an agent. The agent then, through his actions, breaches the contract. You are now no longer bound to the contract breached by the agent.