Lincoln as mass murderer?

[dogtowner]

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.

1. Yes.
2. Unjust. More significantly, unnecessary.
3. Wrong question really. Adn it was the killing of all those Americans on either side of the Mason Dixon line in uniform and out.

 

[BigRob]

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.

Who is going to be the final decision on that? I would imagine a state would have to sue the United States for declaratory judgment...which would never come because the United States cannot be sued without its consent.

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.

I do believe the government derives its power from the consent of the governed...I take that to mean what powers the Federal government has, not its existence entirely.

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.

Come on...a non-binding Senate resolution is meaningless, and does absolutely nothing to do anything you just outlined.

If the state truly did not give its consent to be governed, it could at least make the resolution actual law and go from there, instead of just writing a feel good resolution.

 

[dogtowner]

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

Lincoln sent reinforcements to Sumpter while negotiating a peaceable trasnsition. Or at least claiming to do so. It was his doing and for sickening reasons.

 

[Apathy]

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?

Yes they did, the constitution was silent on secession it is a simple states rights issue.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

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

Is an unjust war an example of mass murder?

The only consistent answer would be "yes" "unjust" and "yes".

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.

Im liking the consistency but lord knows the posters on this site aren't known for that so I'm a bit skeptical.

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.

Im not big on giving different name to the same actions depending on the perpetrator. Say an individual would declare war on his neighbors and slaughter them. Would that not be murder even though he declared war?

The answer is clearly that act was in fact murder.

Now say the individual is US and the neighbor is now Iraq. Should the answer change? The consistent answer would be no.

 

[Dr.Who]

Im not big on giving different name to the same actions depending on the perpetrator. Say an individual would declare war on his neighbors and slaughter them. Would that not be murder even though he declared war?

The answer is clearly that act was in fact murder.

Now say the individual is US and the neighbor is now Iraq. Should the answer change? The consistent answer would be no.

Yea, no...

I still see that last part as weak. By your logic all wars would be mass murder and I just don't see just wars as examples of mass murder. A murder by definition must be illegal and a just war by definition is legal.

 

[BigRob]

Lincoln sent reinforcements to Sumpter while negotiating a peaceable trasnsition. Or at least claiming to do so. It was his doing and for sickening reasons.

This is one of the most absurd things I have ever read...Let's take a look at a real time line shall we?

Dec. 1860 - South Carolina convention passes ordinance of secession.
Dec. 1860 - South Carolina troops occupy Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney.
Dec. 1860 - South Carolina seizes the Charleston Arsenal.
Jan. 1861 - South Carolina seizes Fort Johnson, in Charleston Harbor.
Jan. 1861 - Shots fired at the Star of the West as it enters Charleston Port with supplies and reinforcements.
Feb. 1861 - Washington Peace conference held. Lincoln is present only at final day and offers to evacuate Fort Sumter if the Virginia secession convention adjourns.
April 1861 - Fort Sumter attacked.

So, according to you...South Carolina occupying forts, seizing weapons, and firing at relief ships... all before Lincoln even took office mind you... is irrelevant, and it was Lincoln who caused/started the war?

 

[Dr.Who]

I am enjoying and learning from the debate on the right to secede. I doubt we will be able to completelyh sort out such a complex issue though.

For me I will accept GenSenica's statement as best:


"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. "

Does anyone think that the states do not have the right to nullify any Federal law at all?

 

[BigRob]

I am enjoying and learning from the debate on the right to secede. I doubt we will be able to completelyh sort out such a complex issue though.

For me I will accept GenSenica's statement as best:


"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. "

Does anyone think that the states do not have the right to nullify any Federal law at all?

We have to be careful with terminology here.... nullification is not the same as secession.

 

[GenSeneca]

I do believe the government derives its power from the consent of the governed...I take that to mean what powers the Federal government has, not its existence entirely.

What is the legal, peaceful, avenue for states to withdraw consent for a federal government that has assumed power beyond constitutional authority?

Bear in mind, I'm not talking about secession but a way for the states to stand up, declare the federal government has overstepped it's bounds, and put a check on federal power.

Do the states have any such power, can they be used to check federal authority, or are they just slaves to the federal government?

 

[Dr.Who]

We have to be careful with terminology here.... nullification is not the same as secession.

First things first.

First lets find out if you think the states have the right to nullify certain federal laws.

 

[BigRob]

What is the legal, peaceful, avenue for states to withdraw consent for a federal government that has assumed power beyond constitutional authority?

Bear in mind, I'm not talking about secession but a way for the states to stand up, declare the federal government has overstepped it's bounds, and put a check on federal power.

Do the states have any such power, can they be used to check federal authority, or are they just slaves to the federal government?

I would argue that nullification laws would need to be passed in each state, and then when an issue arose, they would need to settle the dispute in federal court.

And I am not talking about some feel good non-binding resolution that is not worth the paper it is written on... it must be a binding law that passes both chambers of a state legislature.

In the absence of that, I don't think the states are really going to get anywhere on this argument... and they may not even with that in place.

Additionally, in absence of all of these measures.. the proper venue for disputes in this country are the courts.

 

[BigRob]

First things first.

First lets find out if you think the states have the right to nullify certain federal laws.

I think that depends on what the federal law is, and how it has been crafted.

 

[Gipper]

In Federalist Paper 45, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, explains, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.” Other founders gave similar assurances about the limitations that the constitution set on the federal government. If our founders could see today’s federal government, it would be unrecognizable to their vision. In fact, their vision has been turned upon its head, so that the powers of the state governments are “few and defined” and those of the federal government “are numerous and indefinite.”
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/12/whos-to-blame

It is apparent that the Federal government is NOT following the Constitution. They are doing many things that they have no authority to do. As such, the States must assert their power as outlined in the Constitution.

If the Federal government will not limit its power to that which is outlined in the Constitution, then it must be stopped by any means possible.

 

[Apathy]

Yea, no...

I still see that last part as weak. By your logic all wars would be mass murder and I just don't see just wars as examples of mass murder. A murder by definition must be illegal and a just war by definition is legal.

A just war? Now there is an oxymoron.

 

[GenSeneca]

...they would need to settle the dispute in federal court.

Just to be clear, you're saying that if a state feels the FEDERAL government has overstepped it's bounds their only recourse is FEDERAL court. Do you not see the problem with this argument?

I don't think the states are really going to get anywhere on this argument...

Do states have Rights? It would appear from your argument that states do NOT have Rights, only privileges subject to the whims of the federal government.

And I do agree, the resolutions should be binding. The non-binding resolutions have the right spirit but lack the necessary balls to back it up.