Lincoln as mass murderer?

[pocketfullofshells]

Lincoln, were he alive today, would find much to like with the current occupant of the White House. Both are statists and prepared to do whatever is necessary to reach their TYRANNICAL goals.

The consequences of the Civil War resulted in destruction of half the nation, terrible death and suffering, and caused southern racism with one party rule which lasted over 100 years. And, all to impose a F**KING tariff to generate revenue for the Federal Government. Sad. Very sad.

people like you love to throw around the Tyranny lable so easily...you should move to someplace with real tyranny...learn what it is...hint..its not the US...just because you don't agree with a law does not make it tyranny.

 

[AugustineJurnior]

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.

There are 3 errors in this.
1) AFTER the seceding states returned we had a ruling that it would be hypocritical for them to ignore
White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.
2) Since every citizen in US has dual citizenship, the state and the federal, unless every single person in your seceding state agrees, then you have deprived them of their federal protections. And this happened very often. It was considered horrible even when Loyalists were just mistreated during the American Revolution and after the Treaty of Paris. I doubt you could give any justification for it, yet it is the same situation.
3) Many brothers fought against brothers are you calling BOTH of them murderers? Both !! Fact is, if you knew the two inaugural speeches you'll know he explicitly rejected what you say "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices." And then the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter. So you are wrong wrong wrong.

 

[AugustineJurnior]

Lincoln, were he alive today, would find much to like with the current occupant of the White House. Both are statists and prepared to do whatever is necessary to reach their TYRANNICAL goals.

The consequences of the Civil War resulted in destruction of half the nation, terrible death and suffering, and caused southern racism with one party rule which lasted over 100 years. And, all to impose a F**KING tariff to generate revenue for the Federal Government. Sad. Very sad.

YOU MAKE NO POINT AT ALL, All the seceding states that re-entered have the clearest possible sign that if they ever did that again they woould be shown as cowardly liars, for shortly after re-admission we had :
White, (1869), U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

Whatever the value of your argument for pre-1869 law, it is utterly gone in light of the SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Phoenix68]

.
THEY WERE ALREADY DEAD!!!!!
.

.​

 

[mark francis]

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.

I believe Lincoln's actions proved to be extremely beneficial to the world community as a whole as well as to all America

 

[AugustineJurnior]

I believe Lincoln's actions proved to be extremely beneficial to the world community as a whole as well as to all America

The states didn't , many had extra-legistlative bodies set up for ratification of the Constitution
I agree with your conclusion but it is a 'liberal' canard to refer to State ratification.

"The founders set the terms for ratifying the Constitution. They bypassed the state legislatures, reasoning that their members would be reluctant to give up power to a national government. Instead, they called for special ratifying conventions in each state"