Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (348130)	1/27/2003 5:53:38 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

[Lincoln] also said [slavery wasn't the start of the war]. Message 18492051; Read this statement again and you will see Lincoln never once claimed slavery was not the start of the war. He only stated his motive for fighting the war. Southerners started the war ultimately to protect their right to slavery - just as southern leaders themselves stated repeatedly in the historical record. Lincoln, on the other hand, fought the war to stop the Southerners from breaking the Union. It is a common logical error made by neo-confederates to define the southern cause by referencing Northern leaders. We ought to avoid it. What was [Lincoln's] true mind? Who knows? We know this much because he told us flatly. All we need to do is read him without projecting our wishful thinking upon him. He did run on the ticket of the anti-slavery party. That's what the Republican Party was about. That's why it was formed. And Lincoln wished to end slavery. But he was no radical abolitionist. He wished to end slavery slowly, and while he was obviously willing to press for legislation to end it, he was unwilling to fight a war purely about it. He was the right man at the right time. Had he been radical, he never would have been elected. Had he been less anti-slavery, slavery would not have ended when it did. Lincoln, was God's gift to America - unquestionably amongst the top two greatest Presidents in our history, if not THE greatest. And had abolition gotten in the way of [Lincoln's wish to save the Union], he may very well have reformed the Union with slavery still legal under federal law. Slavery was always legal under federal law, even during the Civil War. That is why border states like Maryland were allowed to keep slaves. It was also why Lincoln legally freed only southern slaves and not border slaves. Slavery was always legal and would have remained legal in the South. Lincoln only wished to see slavery's westward expansion halted. Expansion was really the issue sparking the war. Lincoln was adamant that slavery not expand across America. But who knows? We know this much because he clearly wrote it for us to see. ...at the time the Confederacy was formed, the states that formed it were no longer members of the Federal Union, so how could they be bound by its Constitution? False. Lincoln understood that no contract could be broken unilaterally. He made it clear that unilaterally breaking the Union contract (known as the Constitution, which was formed to make "a more perfect union,") was impossible. And he was right. You cannot validly break a contract merely by saying its broken. AND Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights states, "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." Because there is nothing written in the Constitution denying the states the right to secede, legally, the states could secede... False. You pervert the Tenth here. That Amendment applies not to disunion but to union.. It gives states rights within the federal contract. As Lincoln himself understood, there is no reserved power to unilaterally break contracts in the U.S. Constitution. Such a thing is nonsense. Article VI states very clearly that the Constitution itself is a legally binding contract upon all the states, binding the states to Federalism. State law is free only inasmuch as it does not trump the federal contract. That means no state can break the Constitution unilaterally. This article was one of the chief impediments of the formation of our country. But the Founders insisted upon it because they knew without it there would be no Constitution. And as long as the Supremacy Clause exists and has been ratified by the states (which it does and has), it is the Law of the Land, any state Constitution or law to the contrary notwithstanding it. And let me point out it was the NORTHERN states who first brought the subject of secession in American history: Well this is entirely irrelevant. Merely because some Northerner wished to separate from the South has no bearing on this issue at all. Undoubtedly many wish the same today. That certainly has no import as to the legality of secession. The Southern states did in fact notify the federal Secretary of State of their secession. Hehe. Well then in that case you should just ipso facto notify your banker of your decision to break your contracts with him. (grin)