Lincoln as mass murderer?

[Dr.Who]

When the various states volunteered to be a part of the Union we call the United states did they retain their right to secede from that union?

Would a war to stop the secession be just or unjust?

Is an unjust war an example of mass murder?

If the answers to those there are: "yes", "unjust", and "yes" then Lincoln would be a mass murderer for the unjust killing of confederate soldiers.

I think that of the three the last one is the weakest. Killing soldiers in a declared war even an unjust one is probably not murder. It would be a different kind of injustice.

 

[BigRob]

When the various states volunteered to be a part of the Union we call the United states did they retain their right to secede from that union?

Maybe you can argue that under the Articles of Confederation, but once the Constitutional framework was in place, that argument seems to lose merit...and certainly now, it has been settled that states do not have the right to secede.

Would a war to stop the secession be just or unjust?

It would be rebellion, and stopping it would be just.

Is an unjust war an example of mass murder?

No.

If the answers to those there are: "yes", "unjust", and "yes" then Lincoln would be a mass murderer for the unjust killing of confederate soldiers.

I think that of the three the last one is the weakest. Killing soldiers in a declared war even an unjust one is probably not murder. It would be a different kind of injustice.

Why are we blaming Lincoln? The war started because the South rebelled. Lincoln did not start the war.

 

[Dr.Who]

Maybe you can argue that under the Articles of Confederation, but once the Constitutional framework was in place, that argument seems to lose merit...and certainly now, it has been settled that states do not have the right to secede.



It would be rebellion, and stopping it would be just.



No.



Why are we blaming Lincoln? The war started because the South rebelled. Lincoln did not start the war.

To a degree I am playing devil's Advocate here. But I still do not understand and am not familiar with the idea that it is settled that the states do not have the right to secede. Can you explain it to me? I would consider that in the formation of the Union we stated that the people had the right to dissolve their connection with England.

And while I am not perfectly versed in Civil War history I think the South fired the first shot but only after Lincoln blockaded their ports.

 

[Dr.Who]

Why are we blaming Lincoln?

If we make the BEST case we can against Lincoln (and others) and on another thread we make the BEST case we can for Stalin and STILL Lincoln is the better man we can safely put to rest the notion that American Presidents are worse or as bad as Stalin.


But if we are lilly-livered in our attack on Lincoln or excessively brutal in our attack on Stalin it can always be said that we are merely engaging in patriotic bias.

 

[BigRob]

To a degree I am playing devil's Advocate here. But I still do not understand and am not familiar with the idea that it is settled that the states do not have the right to secede. Can you explain it to me? I would consider that in the formation of the Union we stated that the people had the right to dissolve their connection with England.

The Supreme Court ruled in Texas V. White that states do not have the right to secede.

If they want to rebel and win the battle that ensues, then I imagine they can do whatever they want.

And while I am not perfectly versed in Civil War history I think the South fired the first shot but only after Lincoln blockaded their ports.

Yes... that is accurate, but before that numerous states seceded and were therefore in an open state of rebellion.

 

[BigRob]

If we make the BEST case we can against Lincoln (and others) and on another thread we make the BEST case we can for Stalin and STILL Lincoln is the better man we can safely put to rest the notion that American Presidents are worse or as bad as Stalin.


But if we are lilly-livered in our attack on Lincoln or excessively brutal in our attack on Stalin it can always be said that we are merely engaging in patriotic bias.

Fair enough.

 

[Rick]

Cite the part of the constitution that allows secession. Be convincing.

 

[Gipper]

Interestingly the Great Walter Williams just spoke about this issue on Rush's show today.

He said the issue of succession was settled violently by the War Between the States. He said if the states can't succeed, the Fed gov can pretty much do as they wish. He gave the analogy of a marriage were neither party can divorce. Resulting in the husband/wife doing as they wish, since their spouse can't divorce them.

It was well known that the States had the right to secede prior to the War.

No doubt prior to the war, Lincoln did not want or intend to prosecute a four year war resulting in unbelievable suffering, death, and destruction. But, in the end, he did.

IMO one of the many unfortunate consequences of the War, was the increase in the power of the Federal government.

 

[Rick]

Interestingly the Great Walter Williams just spoke about this issue on Rush's show today.

He said the issue of succession was settled violently by the War Between the States. He said if the states can't succeed, the Fed gov can pretty much do as they wish. He gave the analogy of a marriage were neither party can divorce. Resulting in the husband/wife doing as they wish, since their spouse can't divorce them.

That's "secede" and "secession".

It was well known that the States had the right to secede prior to the War.

It was?? Where is the authority in the constitution?

No doubt prior to the war, Lincoln did not want or intend to prosecute a four year war resulting in unbelievable suffering, death, and destruction. But, in the end, he did.

When you invent a casualty-free war, don't keep it a secret.

IMO one of the many unfortunate consequences of the War, was the increase in the power of the Federal government.

Has always seemed to happen in war.

 

[steveox]

You see backin those days you didnt have CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN or MSNBC. And Democrats were not liberals and the Media wasnt biased nether. I want yall go to college and enter class called journalism 101. And you ask those students ""What are you here for?"" They will say,, I WANNA CHANGE THE WORLD!! Thats not what journalism is! Its report what you saw,, Let me give you an example,,Lets say you live in a small village and theres a big event happening 100 miles from your village. You travel there watch the event,,You write all what you saw and you come back tell your people what you saw. Thats how Liberalism ruined this country why we have Liberals like Pelosi,Reid,Boxer,Obama and Barney Frank. Its The Media who will tell their biased story about the democratic candidate. You watch these TV News Ancormen. THey say to themselves"" ILL DO ANYTHING GET THAT CANDIDATE ELECTED!!!"" Thats why you have Biased liberal brodcasters who are one sided like CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN and MSNBC. Thats one of the reasons why why America is dead! Another reason is BLACK PEOPLE!! They will vote Democratic no matter what. It goes all the way back to those Martin Luther King civil rights days. Democrats stood up to them and gave them freedom. Ever wonder why Obama got elected? Its not just CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN and MSNBC were biased and blame George Bush its 95% Blacks who voted for him. The Tea Party is the only hope for restoring America. They sent a very Powerful Message to Washington. Listen to us or were kick your asses out. And Democrats got their asses kicked in november And in 2012 they gonna kick them square in the ass again!!

 

[Dr.Who]

Cite the part of the constitution that allows secession. Be convincing.

I did some poking around and this is what I found:

The way to phrase the question is where in the Constitution is it said that they do not have the right to secede. All powers not given to congress are retained by the states. They do not need to be listed. But the powers of the Fed are listed.

The Federal government is based on the Declaration that states that the people have a right to dissolve the bonds between them ad the government:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

Several states wrote in their acceptance of the Constitution specific statements that they were allowed to secede. Some have argued that if a few states had the right then all must.

The supreme court decision quoted by BigRob was a 5-3 decision so three of the supreme court justices thought the states had a right to secede. Those in favor of secession could argue that it was the 5 judges who were in error rather than the 3. An in the final decision all the justices wrote that there was a right to secede under certain circumstances: "through revolution, or through consent of the States"

(In the name of balance I will state that the argument against secession is that when the states chose to form a constitutional government rather than a Federation it is claimed that they all knew it would be permanent) Which is of course called into question because several of the states wrote that they expected the right to secede.

When Texas was accepted into the US it was while it was seceding from Mexico. Therefor the US accepted that Texas had the right to secede from Mexico.

It was commonly held before the civil war that the states did have the right to secede. The Supreme court decision saying that the right did not exist was in 1869 and the civil war was in 1861. Therefore while one might argue that states do not now have the right to secede it is a much harder case to make that at the time of the civil war they did not have the right.

(While I may be wrong about the legality of states rights to secede I personally think they should have the right and would add that if they do not it goes contrary to many of the foundational principles of our country.)

But, more back to the topic of the thread, if the states do have the right to secede that furthers the case that Lincoln was wrong. If they do not have the right then Lincoln was not wrong. It goes without saying that we decide if states have that right not based on how we wish Lincoln to be viewed but for other reasons.

 

[Dr.Who]

You see backin those days you didnt have CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN or MSNBC. And Democrats were not liberals and the Media wasnt biased nether. I want yall go to college and enter class called journalism 101. And you ask those students ""What are you here for?"" They will say,, I WANNA CHANGE THE WORLD!! Thats not what journalism is! Its report what you saw,, Let me give you an example,,Lets say you live in a small village and theres a big event happening 100 miles from your village. You travel there watch the event,,You write all what you saw and you come back tell your people what you saw. Thats how Liberalism ruined this country why we have Liberals like Pelosi,Reid,Boxer,Obama and Barney Frank. Its The Media who will tell their biased story about the democratic candidate. You watch these TV News Ancormen. THey say to themselves"" ILL DO ANYTHING GET THAT CANDIDATE ELECTED!!!"" Thats why you have Biased liberal brodcasters who are one sided like CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN and MSNBC. Thats one of the reasons why why America is dead! Another reason is BLACK PEOPLE!! They will vote Democratic no matter what. It goes all the way back to those Martin Luther King civil rights days. Democrats stood up to them and gave them freedom. Ever wonder why Obama got elected? Its not just CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN and MSNBC were biased and blame George Bush its 95% Blacks who voted for him. The Tea Party is the only hope for restoring America. They sent a very Powerful Message to Washington. Listen to us or were kick your asses out. And Democrats got their asses kicked in november And in 2012 they gonna kick them square in the ass again!!

This has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[steveox]

This has nothing to do with this thread.

It Has everything do with it. Why didnt the Media critize lincoln? Well They did under George Bush!! And Hes a Republican! And guess what?? Lincoln was a Republican too!!! Now show me one newspaper blasted Abe Lincoln on the civil war,, Show me one!! Oh Remember this

Tell me one Democrat blasted Abe Lincoln on the civil war.

 

[Rick]

I did some poking around and this is what I found:

The way to phrase the question is where in the Constitution is it said that they do not have the right to secede. All powers not given to congress are retained by the states. They do not need to be listed. But the powers of the Fed are listed.

Poke around more. All powers not given to congress are retained by the states >>>>WITHIN THE POLITY OF THE UNITED STATES<<<<. By claiming rights under an agreement that is by the same act dissolved, you are indulging in a logical self contradiction.

The Federal government is based on the Declaration that states that the people have a right to dissolve the bonds between them ad the government:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"

The Declaration of Independence is not part of the constitution.

When Texas was accepted into the US it was while it was seceding from Mexico. Therefor the US accepted that Texas had the right to secede from Mexico.

That was during the era of "manifest destiny", when the US was seizing all kinds of lands by force - hardly a legal argument.

But, more back to the topic of the thread, if the states do have the right to secede that furthers the case that Lincoln was wrong. If they do not have the right then Lincoln was not wrong. It goes without saying that we decide if states have that right not based on how we wish Lincoln to be viewed but for other reasons.

No, I base it on the fact that there is no right to secede in the constitution.

 

[GenSeneca]

The Supreme Court ruled in Texas V. White that states do not have the right to secede.

Unilaterally... The SP ruled that states do not have the constitutional right to unilaterally secede from the Union but in the case of revolution or consent of the other states, a single state, or multiple states, can secede from the Union.

As one who believes in 'government deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed', there must, therefore, be a legal and peaceful avenue for states to withdraw their consent to the federal government.

Georgia: On April 1, 2009, the Georgia State Senate passed a resolution 43-1 that affirmed the right of states to nullify federal laws. The resolution also included the assertion that if Congress took certain steps, including restricting firearms or ammunition, the United States government would cease to exist.

Every state should pass such a resolution to ensure that the federal government has some limits placed on its power. Clearly the constitution no longer limits the power of federal government, so it is up to the states to ensure that any law passed on the federal level has the consent of those it governs.