Jump to content

Mandatory Military enlistment


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

More Historical FACTS, on Lincoln.

Jaguar said that Lincoln was not against slavery until AFTER the Civil War started. That's quite odd, considering that in 1837 (more than 20 years before the war) Lincoln condemned slavery saying that slavery was "founded on both injustice and bad politics, but the promulgation of abolitionist doctrine tends rather to increase than abate its evil."

In 1846 Lincoln also supported the Wilmot Proviso which excluded newly aquired western territories from allowing slavery.

Lincoln ALSO put forth a proposal for the complete ABOLISHMENT of slavery at that time, but it never got very far. What he wanted was the emancipation of all children born into slavery after 1850.

In 1854, the Kansas-Missouri act prompted Lincoln to become a VOCAL and FORCEFUL anti-slavery leader. In October of that year he said "The Missouri Compromise forbade slavery to go north of 36┬░30'. Our government breaks down that restriction and opens the door for slavery to enter where it could not go. This is practically legislating for slavery, recognizing it, extending it."

He ALSO said, "It is said that the slaveholder has the same political right to take his Negroes to Kansas that a freeman has to take his hogs or his horses. This would be true if Negroes were property in the same sense that hogs and horses are. But is this the case? It is notoriously not so."

And went on to say: "When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man—that is despotism. If the Negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that 'all men are created equal,' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another."

This was SEVEN YEARS before the war.

Oh, and Lincoln didn't win a SINGLE electoral vote in the southern states. Slavery or tariffs? Silly question.

In fact, even BEFORE the election, the south was threatening to secede if Lincoln was elected.

Yes, during his inaugural address Lincoln stated that he did not intend to abolish slavery because he had no political or legal right to do so. This was his stance from the beginning, however, and the reason why he never worked with extremist abolishonist organizations. He wanted to do everything legally.

Jaguar said this:

quote:


And I will say again, the civil war was not about slavery, it was turned into that by Lincoln, Lincoln promised in his inaugural address that he would not touch that peculiar institution.

That's fine that he said he wouldn't do that, but apparantly your time line is totally screwed up.

All except one state seceded by February 1st, 1861. Lincoln's inaugural address was made on MARCH 4th, 1861. In other words, his inaugural address had NOTHING to do with the state's decision or reassurances thereof because the state's were already gone.

quote:


Sorry Aramike, we will never agree on this, I have studied this in depth and most Civil War historians would agree with me.

This is interesting because it's apparant that it's untrue. Most historians would look at the facts.

Jaguar said that Lincoln only used slavery as a moral justification. Funny, though, how I've just PROVED that slavery was a MAJOR issue for Lincoln LONG before the war.

I seriously suggest that you check this issue out a little more. Research never hurts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Norway we have mandatory enlistment. Some benefits from this are:

1.Since everyone have to serve, you meet a lot of different persons that you otherwise would not meet.

2.Because of the above you learn how to deal with different persons that you otherwise would despise and “hate”.

2.You get an army where you have people from every class in society and where nobody is better than the next.

3.Everyone is taught how to handle a weapon and gain respect as to how powerful a gun is.

Norwegian soldiers are in my opinion not professional enough and not as trained as for

example American or British troops. This comes to surface when Norwegian troops join in

some international crisis where NATO are involved.

But when this is said, I have been in exercises where American and British special forces have gotten their “asses kicked” by Norwegian soldiers. This may come from:

1.These exercises have been in winter time, and some of the regions in Norway can be extremely cold. Norwegian soldiers are used to it, and have equipment which is made for such conditions.

2.Those exercises have been in Norway. We know our country best (or so I hope).

3.Survival of a war has a lot to do (at least when you are a private) with luck. What I mean by this is that you can practically stand on top of someone in camouflage without seeing him. Someone can shoot you from over 1 km away, and because of the above you wouldn’t have a chance of seeing it in advance.

Lately though, the government has cut down on the military budget. This has resulted in less people serving in the army. VERY scary if you ask me.

When it comes to guns, I am VERY happy that we are not allowed to carry a gun here. Even the police don’t carry a gun. They have it locked down in their car (I think), and must have permition from someone (can’t remember who) to carry a gun or to get it from their car. But there are practically no policemen injured because of guns, or for that sake, there a almost no shooting accidents or murders with guns. AND before you ask. YES, there are a lot of people who have guns in their homes, and even assault rifles. Usually these guns are hunting rifles, or guns used in competion. In the latter case those guns belong to the army, and those people are part of a branch who is a kind of a leftover from WWII’s freedom fighters in Norway. There are a lot of people in this branch, and you are basically placed there after a couple of years after you’ve served in the army.

There are very strict rules for just owning a gun, and personally I believe that the less people carrying weapons the less uncontrollable violence you’ll get.

P.S. Before you tell me to fix my sig. My sys.profile are extreme minimum requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

In Norway we have mandatory enlistment.

Same here. I think mandatory service is quite common in small countries, where there simply wouldn't be enough volunteers.

And yes, it's funny to hear that USA has 'special forces' for winter-time operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Switzerland also has mandatory military service, but go to any bar in a town during bootcamp and the place is full of them. Most guys I know say the only thing they learnt was how to smoke dope and gamble .

There is talk of switching over to a fully professional, volounteer-only armed force. Whether the Swiss electorate will agree to that is another thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Aramike,

The civil war was not based on slavery, it was a states rights and the soveriegn rights of the states.

Sorry Aramike, Slavery was NOT the main issue and NEVER was until Lincoln made it so.

Yes, he was antislavery, but he said that it was not within his power to abolish it.

Also, AGAIN, read the emancipation proclamation again, IT DID NOT free ONE slave!!!

Lincoln made the issue slavery with that proclamation, before that it was NOT the MAJOR issue for the war!!!

You have studied from the north's view of the war, the south did NOT fight the war over slavery, it was an issue, BUT NOT the MAIN issue.

I have studied it Aramike, with ORIGINAL documents from the war, Diaries etc....

The South's view on the war was on STATES RIGHTS, and had LITTLE to do with SLAVERY!!!

By the way, the Southern States had EVERY right to secede from the Union, the civil war was an atrocity that should have never happened.

Lincoln was a traitor to the constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna throw in some stuff on the Civil War. The North had very little support during the war from foreign countries because it was a "War to preserve the Union" which frankly they didn't give a damn about. Lincoln had one weapon up his sleeve : The Emancipation Proclamation. What was it? It basically made the war into a war to free slaves, something the English DID care about as they had freed slaves long before and it was on of the stigmas attached to supporting the Confederacy. Unfortunately for Lincoln he needed a victory to show the foreign nations that he would be able to win because the Emancipation proclamation would have been an empty promise as Lincoln's boys got their ass handed to them nearly every battle. Finally - Antietam, I think the TRUE turning point in the war, because it prevented a major incursion into the North and allowed Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation days after the battle, forever depriving the South of military assistance from Britain and France. If Lincoln had not issued the proclamation - England would have been more inclined to join against the North.

quote:

Oh, and btw, give historical examples of Lincoln betraying the Constitution along with what Ammendments/Articles he betrayed. I just did that for the Confederate States, but I guess the Constitution only applies to whatever side you want to hold it against.


I'm going to bite. Lincoln violated the constitution by imprisoning without trial several state governors and a supreme court justice who found his actions unconstitutional.

The South had a right to secede in my opinion, and in fact, Lincoln using armed troops to pacify the South was a violation of the Posse Commitatus laws, but they came about after the war. What also came about after the war was the Supreme Court ruling Lincoln's actions unconstitutional.

I'm not complaining though, I think that things turned out good because there is no telling where we would be had America been divided during the World Wars.

About Slavery aramike, I think that immediately preceding the war you are correct, but take a look at our american issues throughout the 19th century and the disagreements the South had about representation. The South was a smaller area population wise and felt cheated by the tax laws and import taxes imposed by the North. The election of 1860 was just the straw that broke the camels back, and slavery was just the issue of the day. Slavery had much less to do with it than your argument suggests, and state's rights more to do with it.

It's easy to reach that assumption however just looking at that one period of time from 1850-1860, but start around 1820 and see the other problems that led up to it. The Civil War itself is more deeply rooted than the issue of slavery, that didn't become a major issue until immediately before. (Lincoln) The issue was : does the federal government have a right to supersede state law - according to Article 10 of the constitution that you so dutifully quote - No.

Both sides were in the wrong however and there are constitutional questions on both sides - but the North was not blameless, and in fact instigated most of the hatred throughout the early 19th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks $iLk,

And Aramike, I will always say and ALWAYS believe that the Civil War was based on States Rights, Slavery was an issue, no doubts of that, BUT IT WAS NOT THE MAIN ISSUE!!

Lincoln needed the moral high ground after all the uncontitutional things that he did before and during the war, so he used the Emancipation Proclamation to create that moral high ground. and if you read it, it did NOT free ONE slave. It was an empty document to create the impression that the war was about slavery, when in fact it was not.

If a state has a soveriegn right to join the union, then it also has the soveriegn right to secede from that union at any time it chooses, especially if the federal government breaks it's contract, as in, goes beyond the powers as stated in the constitution.

This was the issue, there were many issues, slavery being a minor one, but states rights was the MAIN issue that created and fed the civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, let's talk about the cause of secession from the perspective of the people that seceeded.

Read the Declaration of Secession from the states that withdrew.

First paragraph, State of Mississippi:

quote:


Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery
-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature,
none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun
. These products have become necessities of the world, and
a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization
. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

First paragraph, Georgia:

quote:


The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation.
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

Read the parts in bold.

Now, you were saying?

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: aramike ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The constitution LIMITS FEDERAL POWER!!! PERIOD, it does NOT limit state power except where those state laws might interfere with the Bill of Rights!!

The constitution does not restrict a states rights!! The state must comply with the constitution, that is it's only limitation, and no where does it say ANYTHING about not being able to secede from the Union, NO WHERE!!!

And Georgia is a bad example, AGAIN, slavery was a minor issue!!! HELLO, it was minor, it was major for 2 or 3 states, but MOST states were angry over states rights. AGAIN, Slavery was a MINOR issue of the war, Lincoln was the one that decided to make it THE major issue. And as far as the states were concerned slavery was a state issue, again, states rights, HELLO!!!!!

STATES RIGHTS and what occurred within the border of those states were thier business, taxes and unfair tariffs and the flaunting of federal power is what caused the civil war, also the ignoring of the constitution by the federal government as in the federal government went beyond it's intended powers under the constitution.

SLAVERY WAS A MINOR ISSUE!!! MINOR!!! For the majority of the states in the confederacy it was a states rights and the unfair taxation and tariffs of the southern states by the norhtern states, through the power of the federal government.

I am not going to argue with you anymore about it Aramike, Slavery was an issue, I have said that all along, but it was NOT the MAIN cause nor issue that created the war. It was minor, STATES RIGHTS was the main issue that caused the war.

If Slavery had been the Major issue you make it out to be, the war would never have been fought. When the industrial Northern states began using the federal government to tax and tariff the southern states unfairly, they got angry, that is what caused the civil war, the southern states fought and fought in congress and the senate to change it, they were ignored and voted down, they then decided that the only action available to them was to secede.

Now, onto other facts, that back me up and not your argument that the civil war was all about slavery.

Lincoln campaign was financed by industrialists in the north, who needed the south for it's cotton and other goods, which the North needed for it's factories. They told Lincoln in no uncertain terms that he MUST NOT allow the secession to succeed, for it would raise the costs of thier materials due to the fact that they would be paying more money for it due to the increased cost of doing business with another country.

Now, let's look at another quote, this is a quote by Lincoln about his goals for the civil war.

quote:

it was "Not either to save or to destroy Slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Sounds like slavery was a real big thing to Lincoln, NOT!!!

The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in all territories in rebellion, about 3,000,000, which at that time he had no power over, But, it DID NOT free the slaves held in Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri, over 4,350,000, because these states remained within the union during the civil War!! He hoped that by making this proclamation, that the slaves in the South would rise up and rebel, making his job that much easier.

After declaring this though, if the North won, slavery would have to end, even though the majority of slaveholders and owners lived within the UNION!!! The 13th amendment was necessary due to the fact that the emancipation Proclamation DID NOT prevent the southern states, on readmission to the union, from reinstituting slavery!!

Yeah, sure you betcha, The civil War was about slavery!! Sorry, no dice!!

Also, I do not have the exact quote here, but Lincoln, while a lawyer, said MANY, MANY times that any state had the right to get out of the union at any time and for any reason. The states were soveriegn entities that voluntarily came into the union, and could voluntarily remove themselves as well. I will find you the quote.

The civil War WAS NOT about slavery, slavery was a minor issue and Lincoln only used it to try and get the slaves of the south to revolt and help him defeat the South.

If slavery had been the important matter that you make it out to be, then why did he not free the majority of slaves that were there within the union as well?

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

That document is IRRELEVENT, for the last time, considering that it was written LONG after the war had begun. The document wasn't designed to free slaves. Why? BECAUSE THE SLAVES WERE UNDER CONFEDERATE AUTHORITY.

Duh.

and

quote:

2: there was no slavery under Union states at the time.

Yes there was.

Aramike, you sound kind of cynical in your arguments, and am sorry if the Civil War brings up some bad nerves with you, however you neglect the 3 or 4 slave states STILL in the Union.

Slaves were NOT freed until the end of the war.

So in essence, yes the Emancipation Proclamation did nothing but spout some good intentions while not freeing the slaves STILL in the Union.

I live down here, and spent most of 8th grade through 11th grade reading basically every book I could get my hands on that even vaguely referenced the Civil War. I have had to refute several misperceptions about the Civil War and my ancestors in order to keep their names clean.

I don't see how slavery was such a big deal considering that most people down here didn't even own slaves. And less than 20% of the people down here could afford them and did own them.

As Jaguar has pointed out, most states didn't care one way or the other. Some people did - RICH people who owned slaves.

But anyway let me get back on track..

quote:

Please show reference to the specific event.

Besides any documented history book? Lincoln threw several governors of border states and legislators in jail WITHOUT trial. Lincoln threw a supreme court justice who supported the South's position in jail without trial. That's the specific events. It's on the historical record, what more do you need?

quote:

For one, the south was CLEARLY in violation of the 9th Ammendment of the Constitution by using slavery. I don't believe that it is morally justifiable to secede from a government simply in order to allow the violation of that government's laws.


Isn't it interesting that the Confederate flag NEVER flew over a slave ship? But Old Glory did.

So your argument pertains to the Union as well.

quote:

For another, the 10th Ammendment LIMITS the rights the states have. Abiding the Constitution is a requirement for all states; anything that doesn't fall under federal powers falls to states powers. The Constitution is the ultimate federal power.


No actually the Bill of Rights limits the Federal Governments power. It says that all powers not enumerated in the constitution fall to the states or to the people. That just isn't the way things have worked out.

quote:

That isn't open to debate, unless you want to call the Constitution wrong, too.

The constitution doesn't say anything about NOT seceding either. In fact the whole issue IS open to debate because there is still no provision AGAINST secession.

quote:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;"

Apparantly, according to the SAME Constitution that YOU condemn Lincoln for, the states had NO RIGHT to secede.


I think the states left the Union so that they COULD form a Confederation. Once they left the Union, in their eyes they were no longer obligated to follow it's rules.

You still haven't quoted anything that says "states shall not secede"

quote:

And the Confederate States were GREATER traitors. I thought you said you studied this...

Or do you just choose to ignore one part of the Constitution over another?

Oh, and btw, give historical examples of Lincoln betraying the Constitution along with what Ammendments/Articles he betrayed. I just did that for the Confederate States, but I guess the Constitution only applies to whatever side you want to hold it against.

Sounds liberal to me.


ACtually you haven't shown anything that the Confederate States had done against the constitution. You just interpreted away all kinds of things, while not realizing that once those states LEFT the Union they were no longer part of it. Therefore, once they entered into a Confederation - there was no law against it. I suppose it was illegal for the 13 colonies to form into a confederation after the American Revolution... sure.

quote:

He didn't use armed troops BEFORE the secession. Furthermore, the Constitution EXPRESSELY forbid the south from secession.

Why is that being ignored in favor of other Constitutional problems? Sounds like a liberal tactic...


No need for calling people liberals either. I've drawn my line in the sand and refuted all your arguments. Now instead of name calling lets try to be Civil and discuss this like Gentlemen.

quote:

The Texas/California/New Mexico issue was the driving point that led division. Lincoln's election and stance on slavery is what DIRECTLY led to secession.

Go back further.

quote:

The north did give FURTHER justification, but slavery incited the secession.

Please go back further and study from 1819-1860

quote:

Wrong. The Constitution FORBIDS this. Yet again, you ignore the Constitution in favor of your argument then employ other parts.

The Constitution is the ONLY limiter of state powers, and it limited that power.


The Bill of Rights was designed to limit the federal government, not the states. You can get that in any history book about why they wouldn't approve the constitution without a bill of rights in case you need documentation.

quote:

Yet again, no historical documents, quotes, precedence, etc. Any empty argument. And, you IGNORED the questions I asked that placed your argument on the ropes. How conveiniant.

If slavery wasn't the common denominator, then why, pray tell, did only SLAVE-HOLDING STATES secede?

This argument is getting near ridiculous. I've pointed out historical facts, quotes, Constitutional articles, etc.

You've just said essentially "you're wrong".


And slave holding states DID stay in the Union, something you neglected to mention, however, instead of just saying "you're wrong" I have pointed out and corrected for you above.

I'm not going to deny that slavery was a major issue, but you could also argue that "only agricultural states joined the confederacy, while the industrial states stayed in the Union"

Maybe slavery is an issue because slaves were not needed in Industrial States, who favored High taxation of southern ports, while the Agricultural Southern States, felt all their money going to federal coffers. There are other ways to look at this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few things.

1. You know that slavery was a main/major part of the problem for one simple reason. If slavery did not exist, the civil war would not have happened.

2. It would not have happened because the South would not have had a reason to feel threatened by the North's abolitionist movement (and the insurrection into Kansas? by a group of them), and the Dread-Scott decision would not have happened, thus the ties would not have been strained or broken.

The states did not have a right to secede:

1. The constitution refers to the PEOPLE joining the Union, not the STATES. So, the states can't secede as they did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

A few things.

1. You know that slavery was a main/major part of the problem for one simple reason. If slavery did not exist, the civil war would not have happened.


Not when it did. I believe that the issue of state's rights versus federal rights would have come up sometime. It was a major straining point of the two ideologies, the federalists and the anti-federalists.

So while I agree that had slavery not existed, the civil war would not have happened when it did, I disagree because slavery was not the underlying issue. Slavery was the visible, easy to grasp reason for those who don't bother to look beneath for the true underlying issues. Intellectually it's always facinating to look at all the reasons it happened, as it is part of our struggle even today for representation of minorities.

quote:

2. It would not have happened because the South would not have had a reason to feel threatened by the North's abolitionist movement (and the insurrection into Kansas? by a group of them), and the Dread-Scott decision would not have happened, thus the ties would not have been strained or broken.


The South was threatened by the increasing power of the federal government and a loss of bargaining power in Congress. They were recieving most of the taxes while the Northern States were enjoying the wealth. The South was sick of being exploited by the North for reasons it felt were unconstitutional.

quote:

The states did not have a right to secede:

1. The constitution refers to the PEOPLE joining the Union, not the STATES. So, the states can't secede as they did.


Try not to make blanket statements like that, especially when it was STATES that ratified the Constitution, and the STATES that make up the REPUBLIC. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that allows for secession. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession.

Therefore, you have to use common sense. Common sense would tell you that, if an organization you join becomes destructive to you, don't you have a right to quit?

If states can join, why can't they leave? After all, they don't have a right to join, and they don't HAVE to join. So you can't neccessarily make them stay can you? I suppose if you trample on the constitution like Lincoln, you can. The South did NOTHING against the constitution. Basically the Civil War was the federal government telling other people how to live their lives and force government on them. That's tyranny. That's not what this country was about. Every civilized country in the world ended slavery on their own. Are you telling me the United States was unable and had to fight a war to do it?

All this bashing over slavery is nonsense. Like I said:

No Confederate flag EVER flew over a slave ship. Old Glory DID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rest of those points I've thoroughly addressed, but I wanna stress this one:

quote:


No Confederate flag EVER flew over a slave ship. Old Glory DID.

Doesn't matter. The Confederates were only created to preserve slavery. They didn't have a navy capable of transporting slaves, and during the war, they hardly had the resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whew, I guess I 'm not as conservative on military

issues as I thought I was. I think some of you are missing the point of living in a free society.

Some of Ideas I heard passed around reminded me of the kind of countries we are always coming to rescue. I do believe in mandatory service to our country , but not military service. Everyone isn't cut out to serve and protect.The most dangerous attitude that can creep into a fighting force is the idea that " I don't belong here"

Having served my country in USAF for 5 years , the last person I want watching my back is the guy

or girl forced to be there. I enlisted ! I accepted that I may not come home and was resigned to it. I also knew I might be called to kill or be killed and I was okay with that to . It was a privlege to serve my counrty , not a

responsibility. The world needs ditchdiggers too.

As well as cooks , socialworkers,plumbers and

landscapers. There are plenty of ways we can serve this country and earn our citizenship.

Peacecorps , a rejuvinated Civilian Concservation Corps and vollunteers to work with those less fortunate than ourselves are all honorable ways to pay the price for freedom. I laud $ilk for enlisting and for taking a strong stand on being

a citizen of this country , but we must also allow for the dissident who doesn't share our

patriotism because that what separates us from

Bin Ladens of the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vixef:

quote:

In Norway we have mandatory enlistment. Some benefits from this are:

1.Since everyone have to serve, you meet a lot of different persons that you otherwise would not meet.

2.Because of the above you learn how to deal with different persons that you otherwise would despise and “hate”.

2.You get an army where you have people from every class in society and where nobody is better than the next.

3.Everyone is taught how to handle a weapon and gain respect as to how powerful a gun is.

Very good points. Thanks for the contribution.

Cur:

quote:

Same here. I think mandatory service is quite common in small countries, where there simply wouldn't be enough volunteers.

Good as well. Thanks

Paddy Gregory

quote:

Switzerland also has mandatory military service, but go to any bar in a town during bootcamp and the place is full of them. Most guys I know say the only thing they learnt was how to smoke dope and gamble .

Ouch. Hehe.

Slavery debate; did either side have mandatory military enlistment?

Hey, gotta make some pretense of keeping this thing on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For reading:

Abraham Lincoln : America's Greatest War Criminal

A good essay, though the writer is a little harsh, he gets his point across.

Here are reasons given why Abraham Lincoln sucks:

[*]Unilaterally declared war on the South, usurping the authority of the Senate.

[*]Unilaterally allocated public funds for his war, usurping legislative authority.

[*]Unilaterally suspended the right of habeas corpus.

[*]Dissenters, who had broken no laws, were arbitrarily arrested on Lincoln's orders.

[*]Wrote an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the United States, Roger Taney, who had ruled unconstitutional Lincoln's suspension of the right of habeas corpus.

[*]Arrested Maryland legislators who opposed his war against the South.

[*]Shutdown newspapers that opposed the war.

More about Lincoln:

In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery."

The first scare of secession:

"A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests. "

"Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the US. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures." [me - it also allowed for slavery]

The Whole Article : What was the real reason for the Civil War? - Jewish World Review

Quotes by Lincoln:

quote:

When asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?"

Lincoln replied:
"I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?"

quote:

In order to coalesce the forces in the North, Lincoln had to stage an incident to inflame the populace, which he did. The firing on Sumter was, by his own admission, a setup for just such action. Lincoln was aware that provisioning Sumter could provoke a war.

Lincoln's letter to Gustavus Fox on 1 May, 1861, makes it clear that he was pleased by the result of the firing on Ft Sumter... "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."


quote:

Abraham Lincoln said the following on September 18, 1858 in a speech in Charleston, Illinois:

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [applause]: that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -- Reply by Abraham Lincoln to Stephen A. Douglas in the first joint debate, Ottowa, IL; 21 Aug 1858


So Lincoln was a RACIST.

quote:

"I have never seen to my knowledge a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social or political, between Negroes and white men." Opening speech, fourth joint debate with Douglas, Charleston, IL; 18 Sep 1858

quote:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit." -- Abraham Lincoln


quote:

On August 14, 1862, Lincoln received a deputation of free Negroes at the White House to which he said,
"But for your race there could not be war... It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated".
He advocated colonization in Central America and promised them help in carrying out the project.

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races."
From a speech in Springfield, IL; 17 July 1858

"Such separation ... must be effected by colonization ... to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."
- From a speech delivered in Springfield, IL; 26 June, 1857

"The [Emancipation] proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification except as a war measure."
- Letter to Sec. of Treas. Salmon P. Chase; 3 Sep 1863

"The suspension of the habeas corpus was for the purpose that men may be arrested and held in prison who cannot be proved guilty of any defined crime."

"
Arrests," wrote President Lincoln to that Albany committee of Democrats, "are not made so much for what has been done as for what might be done. The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered (by arrest, imprisonment, or death) he is sure to help the enemy."

Under Lincoln's definition, silence became an act of treason.

"Much more, if a man talks ambiguously, talks with 'buts' and 'ifs' and 'ands' he cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered (by imprisonment or death) this man will actively commit treason. Arbitrary arrests are not made for the treason defined in the Constitution, but to prevent treason."

Lincoln supported his home state's law, passed in 1853, forbidding blacks to move to Illinois. The Illinois state constitution, adopted in 1848, called for laws to "effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state."

Lincoln blamed blacks for the Civil War, telling them, "But for your race among us there could not be a war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another."

Lincoln claimed that "the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white."

[-Lincoln is starting to sound like Hitler!]

Repeatedly over the course of his career, Lincoln urged that American blacks be sent to Africa or elsewhere.

In 1854, Lincoln declared his "first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia - to their own native land." In 1860, Lincoln called for the "emancipation and deportation" of slaves.

And, while prosecuting the war to "free the slaves," Lincoln said: "I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization...in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race." Annual message to Congress; 1 Dec 1862

In his State of the Union addresses as president, he twice called for the deportation of blacks. In 1865, in the last days of his life, Lincoln said of blacks, "I believe it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves."


"The Supreme Court having ruled on March 6, 1857 that the Constitution of the United States allowed slavery, and that the American Declaration of Independence was incorrect when it stated on July 4, 1776 that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,"

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS BY LINCOLN:

"Constitutional Problems under Lincoln," James G. Randall, 1951, Urbana: University of Illinois Press:

"Among the unconstitutional and dictatorial acts performed by Lincoln were initiating and conducting a war by decree for months without the consent or advice of Congress; declaring martial law; confiscating private property; suspending habeas corpus; conscripting the railroads and censoring telegraph lines; imprisoning as many as 30,000 Northern citizens without trial; deporting a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, after Vallandigham - a fierce opponent of the Morrill tariff -- protested imposition of an income tax at a Democratic Party meeting in Ohio; and shutting down hundreds of Northern newspapers."

The Confederate War, Gary Gallagher, 1998, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press:

"The Emancipation Proclamation caused a desertion crisis in the United States Army. At least 200,000 Northern soldiers deserted; another 120,000 evaded conscription; and another 90,000 Northern men fled to Canada to evade the draft, while thousands more hid in the mountains of central Pennsylvania 'where they lay beyond the easy reach of enrolling officers.'"

Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.,: Rutgers University Press:

"Send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit this."

"Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men," Jeffrey Rogers Hummel; Laissez Faire Books

"The Lincoln Administration imprisoned at least 14,000 (Northern) civilians throughout the course of the war. ... The federal government simultaneously monitored and censored both the mails and telegraphs. ... It also suppressed newspapers. Over three hundred, including the Chicago Times, the New York World, and the Philadelphia Evening Journal, had to cease publication for varying periods."

Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men," Jeffrey Rogers Hummel; Laissez Faire Books

Former Democratic Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, running for governor, "delivered a speech in May 1863 that accused the President of unnecessarily prolonging the conflict. The Union commander in Ohio" -- never a war zone -- "rousted Vallandigham from his home at night and jailed him. A military court handed down a sentence of confinement for the war's duration, but public indignation forced Lincoln to commute the sentence to exile behind Confederate lines."

--------------------------------

So anyway that clears up the Northern and Southern part of the conflict, that the driving force behind the North was to "Preserve the Union" and the driving force behind the South was "States Rights"

It was NOT ;

North "Free Slaves"

South "Keep Slaves".

Now that we've cleared that up, and obviously slavery was not a core issue of the war - which we have stated.

Slavery however WAS an issue in starting the war.

And you have only showed (and I could only find through searching) that a couple of states talked about slavery in their declarations of secession. Hardly "all the southern states" like you claimed.

While we are on secession, here is a quote from Jefferson Davis:

"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever."

- Jefferson Davis Farewell Address to U.S. Senate, 21 Jan. 1861

Therefore whether or not it was declared legal or illegal, it is a NATURAL right. Just like if guns were declared illegal tommorow. It's a natural right to be able to defend yourself, and it would be wrong for the government to enforce.

"many Southerners believe secession is illegal because the Southern States were forced to renounce and repeal their secession ordinances under the duress of military occupation during the Reconstruction era. However, the right of secession is nothing more than the right of sovereign states to recall the powers they delegated to the federal government when they ratified the constitution. This right cannot be renounced because the right to liberty and self-determination is an inalienable right given by God. Therefore, secession is not illegal or unconstitutional. Secession is still a practical alternative to the further dissolution and chaos of a virtually ungovernable union."

"A Justification for Secession

Although proslavery forces are usually identified with a strong statesÔÇÖ rights position, the legislature of Wisconsin adopted (1859) resolutions defending state sovereignty after the Supreme Court overruled the Wisconsin courts and upheld the conviction of an abolitionist editor for violating the fugitive slave law. Ultimately the proslavery states used statesÔÇÖ rights doctrines to justify their secession. Eleven Southern states seceded in 1860ÔÇô61 and formed the Confederacy, in which, fittingly, the doctrine of statesÔÇÖ rights was upheld by such governors as Joseph E. Brown and Zebulon B. Vance. This undoubtedly contributed to the Confederate defeat in the Civil War, just as the disposition of some of the Thirteen Colonies to act in complete independence of the Continental Congress had hampered the American Revolution. "

--------------------------------

What you are arguing about Aramike is the cause that sparked the civil war, and I'm telling you that slavery was the straw that broke the camels back. But the very idea of state's rights was prevalent ever since the constitution was written.

It is those rights which were violated, and since states ARE sovereign entities, why should they not be allowed to secede?

So while I'm saying, YES slavery was involved, and YES slavery was the main issue during the election of 1860, secession was threatened before and NOT over slavery. The underlying causes were not ABOUT slavery but about the rights of the states over the right of the federal government to interfere.

[AFTER EDIT - cleaning and highlighting]

Lincoln seemed very much the Nazi. And obviously didn't care one way or the other about slavery.

So the war was NOT being fought over slavery, but started because of slavery. Slavery was the match that ignited the powder keg of states rights.

Secession was threatened before over TAXES.

Think about that, read, and go back to your previous posts and see if they have that same umph.

*$iLk does his little kooky dance and mimics throwing a football down in the endzone after scoring a touchdown.

[ 12-14-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Yes they did Charles. First it was volunteers until the South handed Lincoln's ass to him. Then came conscription on both sides.


Yeah, I found that out. I just finished the world book article on the civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks $iLk for getting that info together, I have read all of that stuff and it bounces around in my head, but I can never find it when I need it. Like I have time!!

Thanks for making the points, and thanks for understanding the underlying and actual reasons for the civil war and why Lincoln was a traitor to the constitution.

States rights was the driving issue of the civil war, slavery was minor, and as you said, it was just the straw that broke the camels back.

And by the way, Article 1 section 10, as read by me with my pocket constitution, which I keep with me by the way, says NOTHING about secession, it says a lot about treaties and other things, but if a state seceded, they would no longer be liable to that specific article and section.

I have read the constitution and studied it thoroughly, that is why I got a little confused when you said that the bill of rights limited states, when in fact it does the exact OPPOSITE!! It limits the federal government. THe states would not join the union until those 10 articles of the bill of rights were ratified and put into the constitution.

Time for movies, Rush Hour 2!! Should be fun, talk to you all tomorrow!!

[ 12-15-2001: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...