This video, with it's diluted information and undeniable bias is extremely objectionable. Please do your own research before you believe this propaganda or any other for that matter. Research will help you remain unsusceptible to narrowminded ranting contained in videos such as this one.
Wow .. thank the gods for YouTube. I have always felt that Lincoln was inherently tyrannical.
The states asserted their right to secede. A more well-financed military crushed the South as much as the United States crushed the native Americans with superior numbers and military technology.
I'm with Lysander Spooner. If slavery is inherently wrong, then so is tyrannically imposing gov't at the point of a gun.
Lincoln's hands rest perpetually on Fasci carved in granite. The timelessness of Fascism. When the President does the,"State Of The Union Address". He stands in the Senate,(Roman term of our Roman Law Government). He stands between two Fasci~The Axe with Rods tied around it. In Ancient Rome.Soldiers of the Circuit Court carried the Fasci. The convicted were sentenced to be beaten with a stated number of rods. Or after being struck with all the rods. Executed by Axe.
@Alexia8099 Abraham Lincoln was no fascists. He fought for equality and freedom. The suspension of habeas corpus was legal, and he had the right to go to war so that he would uphold the Constitution and the spirit of the Declaration.
A state should have more rights than it does now, but it does not and should not create laws that infringe upon the inalienable rights of another individual. Lincoln won threefold: militarily, constitutionally, and, most of all, morally.
@SPIDEERJOHN Lincoln also said that "much as I hate slavery, I would rather see it stay in place than to have the Union fall" (rough translation).
Lincoln was a pragmatist that combined with his passion. He did not see how it would benefit the slaves if the country was destroyed so he attempted to preserve the Union at first. Once he found that the Union was capable of stopping the rebellion, he did both: he saved the Union and freed the slaves as well.
@MrGreenPoop1000 "He did not see how it would benefit the slaves if the country was destroyed so he attempted to preserve the Union at first."
It's like when an airplane cabin loses pressure and the masks drop. You need to make sure you get YOUR mask secure first, and THEN help your child. Putting on your mask first doesn't mean you don't care about your child. If you pass out from lack of oxygen, you're no use to him.
"From 1861-1865, the damnyankee came down into Dixie and waged 'total war' on the Great South and committed brutal acts of violence against Southern civilians, soldiers, and slaves."
"For 4 years, Northern scum illegally invaded the Great South and terrorized and killed Southern civilians, soldiers, and slaves."
"For me, loyalty towards the Great South is stronger and runs much deeper than patriotism towards the Union. Screw the Union."
Also, the Morrill Tariff was too late to have a real effect. Although it could be argued the thought of it scared the southern states. BUT then why did the Declaration of Causes of Secession for the states not bring this up?! I am starting to lean towards maybe to Slavery was the main reason while the others were secondary. And explain the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens.
P.S-I was once 110% pro C.S these and more added doubt
I largely agree with what you said. I think the early Southern states that seceded did so mainly because of the blocking of the expansion of slavery in the West and what affect it would have on slavery in the future. Virginia, TN, AK, and NC seceded only after the Lincoln administration required them to involuntarily raise troops to invaded their southern neighbors. Lincoln invaded though mainly because of the collection of tariffs and wanting the Union to stay together
1. Why is it that Pro C.S people always rant on the Corwin Amendment, when in the C.S Constitution has the same thing as the Corwin Amendment.
2. If States' Rights was the cause why did the Declaration of Causes of Secession state they did not what Northern States nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act?
3. States' Rights for what?
4. Why rant on Lincoln suspending Habeas corpus when the C.S Constitution allows that, in fact Davis did it too!
P.S-I was once 110% pro C.S these and more added doubt
"they should have gone about it the right way, by going to the Supreme Court or through the AMERICAN people. Instead, they tried to bargain with Lincoln, who believed secession was illegitimate, and when that failed, they decided to use force." - Because Lincoln was planning to subvert the constitution with Executive Orders, and did.
@VirbiusMoon Preemptive strikes are not okay, especially when it's against your fellow citizens.
What assertions?
Supremacy Clause - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Only regarding laws that have been delegated to the federal government by the constitution in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. It doesn't expand the jurisdiction of the federal government, at the expense of the sovereign authority of the States. It doesn’t work that way. The constitution does not specifically delegate powers of State secession, nor even how a State COULD secede, because that is not a power delegated to the United States.
Ha... it wasn't preemptive if it was on their own land. And those fellow citizens were refusing to leave while planning to force and coerce them from their withdrawing their own land.
indeed, the U.S. government is a tyranny, whos lies know no bounds..and shamefully, americans have lapped it all up with blind foolishness.. some day brave men with freedom in their hearts will once again rise up to put down tyranny, and restore their freedom from the thieves of liberty.. the truth is right in front of you, if you only open your eyes
Abraham Lincoln was a radical Federalist. If not for his actions, the socialistic mind set of mis-guided altruism that permiates our society today. He standardized the American currency for greater manipulation and control of the economy which subsequently lead us towards the Modern Day Federal reserve system (the goal of reconstructionism)and the situation economically we are in today. In addition the app of the 14th amd of the BOR to the states has destroyed Freedom and rts not secured them.
The 14th Amendment created an entire new class of citizens, US citizens which did NOT exist before. We were state Citizens and entitled to the liberties within the declaration of independence and subsequently, the constitution. US citizens are entitled to civil rights, not unalienable liberties and are NOT entitled to the bill of rights. State Citizens are protected under both the DOI and const. Emancipate yourself from the corporation of the US and stop being their franchisee.
@TennesseeReb1862 I don't hate Americans. My heart bleeds for Americans. I don't know too much about this great man but what I have heard is enough to let me know that he cared about his country. Try not to walk into propaganda about him. This video is clearly bias against him and it's a good think that so few have seen it. Anyway you are either confused or intentionally trying to put rubbish out there on the net. Have a nice day anyway.
@heathey2 I personally grew up believing in Lincoln and the northern cause--It's hard not to in this culture. I only began to question the accepted opinion about the war as I grew to embrace libertarian philosophy and hence began to reexam everything from that new perspective. I sought out histories written by libertarians(Thomas Woods,Thomas Dilorenzo,etc)& have decided that Lincoln,along with Alexander Hamilton,Woodrow Wilson,the 2 Roosevelts,etc. helped to destroy America's liberty.
Here's something to ponder: The two main powers that the Constitution gives the President (the power of veto, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces) are the two main powers the Roman Senate gave Augustus, the first Roman Emperor. The Constitution was designed to give the President dictatorial powers when the nation was in crisis. It's what makes our government great.
@postalmeter "The most deranged lunatic in history."
That's a bit hyperbolic, and Lincoln was hardly a lunatic. He was a calculating political genius. An evil genius, maybe, but certainly the lesser of two evils.
Please research the American Bastille. Under Licoln, the same war crimes existed then which we have faced today, from Guantanimo Bay to the Patriot Act. Tyranny is nothing new. Revisionist history is like Photoshop; sure can make ugly look pretty.
I quite agree. It makes John Wilkes Booth's cry "sic semper tyrranis" " thus always the fate of tyrants" comprehensible .
But then I am not an american, and so have not been brainwashed to the same extent as americans on this one, and reading some history has destroyed my susceptibility to the myth.
he was a dictator and tyrant, and imperilaist and the American Bismark
what would all of you Lincoln haters would have done to save the union? he did was he have to do, that's the reason all of you are alive today. A man of his time for all times and the best man that this union ever made. How would you save a room in a burning house? by saving the house 1st, do you now understand why he did why he did, the room was slavery, the house was the union.
He let senator Jim Lane raid missouri and then didn't punish him.
He let southern prisoners freeze to death in the winter .
He refused to open up the prisoner exchange even when the union prisoners were starving because the union was blockading their port cities and the union armies were destroying their farms.The prisoners sent him petitions but he would not open the prisoner exchange. Then the north began taking away the prisoners friut so they got scurvy and died.
@mountrushcollymore it may seem one sided to you because you were taught wrongly or you just can't handle the truth. Fact is Lincoln was a piece of shit. The south seceding was actually the second American revolution. Unfortunately, it was a failed attempt. It would have been hard for the south anyway because Britain was knocking on the door to enter the war, and that would have been disastrous also. So the south was caught between a rock and a hard place.
@bluegrassreb1 Brother, you just summed it up as well as it can be done in one sentence, "What were the first two years about"! African Americans would hate to hear it, but they were actually a second thought used to gain public sentiment! Lincoln didn't do it for them, he did it for victory for the North. At least the end result was good!
Knowing what this "man" did to my people, even his own, is extremely disturbing. Hundreds of thousands died and suffered in inconcievable pain because of his evil. I hope he's rotting in hell.
@shtony2717 by whom do you mean your own ppl? if you are meaning black ppl, he free you! and if this is what you meann,. hundreds oof thousabds dide to just that!
"even his to own, is extremely disturbing"- look what your pres. is doing to the U.S. now!
Lincoln is scum and is deified by those that believe in a tyrannical federal government. This is what we have today because of Lincoln and the act of 1871. Today we are all slaves to the UNITED STATES. We must realize we are going into a communist tyranny that will when ready try to murder the White Christian remnant that know's its history and is still fighting for freedom. Death to Tyrants!!!
@LittleChicagoLiturgy Sorry, I didn't mean to be a bitch about it. As I said to individualautonomy, these quotes support the right of revolution and not the Calhounian doctrine of secession. But I guess you guys use the term revolution/secession interchangebly. Which is ok, but I have to respectfully disagree.
@LittleChicagoLiturgy Dude, I don't have to google anything. I have studied and read the voluminious writings of the Founding Fathers, and still do to this day, and not one of the leading founders supported the idea of secession. I just quoted James Madison, the father of the Constitution making the clear distinction between what the colonies did and what the South would do 20 years later. Secession is treason and should have been treated that way by "Tyrant" Lincoln.
Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Paine, etc supported secession as a concept
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and others made quotes in opposition to using force against a seceding state
Lincoln himself made quotes similar in the 40s which is in my video and you can google. Free association and secession are very libertarian concepts and the Confederacy is not the only example of secession and should be not be conflated.
@IndividualAutonomy Our fundamental disagreement comes to what we mean by secession then, because those quotes by Jefferson, Adams and Paine, I intepret them to be the Lockean conception of revolution. So I guess we can agree to disagree about the nature of secession/revolution. Second, yes, Lincoln did support the idea of secession, when individual rights are violated, so that is why I don't consider Lincoln to be a tyrant.
@Doc418 In Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address (1801), he declared, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Jefferson was defending the rights of free speech and of secession.
@Doc418 Yes he was and that was not the only time he did so. Read the Kentucky Resolution he wrote whereby he asserts a state's right to nullify federal laws it disagrees with. The states were sovereign entities and the union was a compact between states born of consent, not force.
@LittleChicagoLiturgy Incorrect, no founding father supported the idea of secession, and in particular James Madison, who wrote the 10th amendment, never wrote it to give the states the right to end the Union unilaterally. Neither did John Quincy Adams (who rejected Calhoun's thinking), or Alexander Hamilton who wrote in Federalist 15 that the Constitution created a union that was to last for ever. Lincoln supported right of revolution, something that is different from the treason of the south
@LittleChicagoLiturgy Secession isn't a constitutional principle, and it isn't protected under the 10th amendment..And no founding father, especially James Madison, supported the idea that one state can secede from the Union. Secession is a doctrine born out of the twisted logic of Calhoun not James Madison, James Wilson, Gouvernour Morris, or any other founding father responsible for the Constitution of the United States.
Firstly the US seceded from Great Britain. Secondly many "founding fathers" supported the idea of secession. Take a look at my video Founding Fathers: Secession is the Right of All Free People
@IndividualAutonomy Wrong, the United States didn't "secede" from Great Britain, the United States fought a revolution, and the reasons for that revolution and the right to revolution are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. No Founding Father supported the idea of secession, but the right of revolution which is necessary in the defense of individual rights. The South seceded, not to protect any rights but to continue in the violation of individual rights--protecting slavery.
A revolution and secession don't exactly have to be opposite. However, it was a secession and not really a revolution in the US. The British government was not overthrown in Britain or the other places it governed. The US just seceded from its domain and used British ideals and some Roman institutions etc for government. You are wrong about James Madison and the others you named. Take a look at the video I linked you where the quotes are and you can google them yourself.
@IndividualAutonomy You would be right, except, the United States fought a revolution. They established in this country the first Republican form of government and ended the idea that people can be governed by Lords, Barons and Kings and established by the Constitution of the United States the idea that sovereignty rests with the people at large. The United States did dissolve its political bands, but did so under the enlightenment ideals of revolution, Lockean revolution at work.
The US was not the first Republic though. Rome had a Republic as did the Netherlands before the US. The US was part of the British Empire, already had forms of representation and voting before the secession from Britain, and based their new form of government off mostly British ideas (Locke and others). Britain also had a Parliament by that time that had most of the power, not the King. For the quotes of secession for Madison and others see my video I linked and Google.
@IndividualAutonomy As I said, James Madison didn't support secession: "But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy." James Madison...He makes clear the difference between secession and revolution..revolution isn't what the South did.
However, he was also against invading a breakaway state which is what Lincoln did. However, the "founding fathers" had different views of secession but almost all, including Alexander Hamilton made quotes against coercing the states. Still, one doesn't need the founding fathers to be for secession since they themselves seceded from the British Empire and free association is an important libertarian concept with practical value as well.
@IndividualAutonomy The important libertarian principle is the right to revolution, not the right to secede to keep other human beings in slavery. A true libertarian would never support the secession of 13 states that wanted to protected such a vile institution like slavery. If Lincoln is a tyrant because he wanted to keep slavery from spreading, then you really need to understand something about freedom and tyranny.
Doc I don't know if you watched the video. I admit in this video and my problems with the Union and the Confederacy that the Southern politicans manily seceded, according to their own documents, because of wanting to EXPAND slavery into the Western Territories. However, according to Lincoln's actions and words, he invaded the South mainly to secure tariff revenue and keep the Union together, not to end slavery. One should not conflate secession with just the Confederacy.
@LittleChicagoLiturgy About whites and non whites never being equal doesn't take away from the fact that Lincoln believed that "there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the declaration of independence...I hold that he is much entitled to these as the white man." Second, South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter because they thought they had a right to commit treason. Lincoln had a duty to defend the United States as Commander in Chief.
@LittleChicagoLiturgy Lincoln believed that both races should be separated, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I said that Lincoln recognized that blacks had basic freedoms, something that Douglas mocked, the idea that slaves had the same rights as were found in the declaration of indpendence. Second, Lincoln didn't declare war, he defended the government of the United States after the firing of Fort Sumter which was his duty as President to repel sudden attacks.
@LittleChicagoLiturgy For the times Lincoln lived in, we can sure use our 20th&21st century epithet "racist" to describe his attitudes toward race. But Lincoln, unlike the slaveholders of the South, believed that Blacks had the basic freedoms of the Declaration of Independence which is the reason why Lincoln didn't compromise on the morality of slavery. As far as he violating the Constitution, Lincoln always informed Congress of his actions, something you won't see today by modern Presidents.
The truth is, Lincoln did not break one single law as President, and I ask anyone to bring up any of the so called "laws" he did break, and I prove to them using the Constitution that Lincoln was innocent.
Lincoln wasn't a tyrant. The only people who call him a tyrant are those that have a romantic view of the Confederacy that seceded, not because of tariffs, the protection of domestic manufactures over southern farmers, or any other nonsense, but to protect the institution of slavery because Abraham Lincoln wouldn't compromise on the view that slavery was morally wrong and its spread into the western territories of the United States would not happen so long as he was in a position of power.
@DALEMC37 Have not missed that one at all. That letter from Lincoln is always brought up by people that want to minimize the impact slavery had as the cause of the civil war. Lincoln always said and wrote that he had no power to end slavery where it existed, so if keeping slavery in the slaves states would have saved the union, then he would support the institution there. But he never once supported the idea of slavery of keeping the union together with slavery introduced in the west.
Hey, check out my Ron Paul vs Lincoln video. If you don't believe in secession, then you believe in slavery, for you are for enslaving people to a government that they want no part of:
Lysader Spooner was a great man and a shining individual during a time of growing nationalistic fervor. Libertarianism will always be the voice of reason whatever the political climate may be. Deny it and you deny individual liberty. Deny it and you accept slow suicide.
To apply 21th century beliefs and standards to a United States of America of 1858 and declare Abraham Lincoln a "racist" is a faulty formula that unfairly distorts Lincoln's true role in advancing civil and human rights. By the standards of his time, Lincoln's views on race and equality were progressive and truly changed minds, policy and most importantly, hearts for years to come.
@Zeeboe Wow! Your statement has absolutely no personal voice or character. You sound like a robot regurgitating inputs, and for this I doubt you actually believe what you say. If you do actually believe what you say then you are a man without a voice.
@Zeeboe Absolutely right about Abraham Lincoln's views of human rights. For the era, Lincoln's views on Slavery was far ahead of anyone of the political leaders, I would even argue far ahead Charles Sumner..
@Doc418 - Exactly. For example, the reason why Lincoln wanted to deport slaves was because he did not think white and black people could not live together in peace, and given all the violence that has gone on between them, he was right. It was after seeing white and black Union troops working together that Lincoln decided that he would work on helping the two groups learn to live together in peace.
On April 11, 1865 Lincoln delivered an address in which he became the first president to advocate extending voting rights to black men who fought for the Union when he stated, "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers." By this statement, Lincoln indicated his belief that African-Americans should have full political equality.
After seeing over 200,000 blacks volunteer & fight for the Union, Lincoln dropped his support for plans to colonize freed slaves to Africa. In a speech, Lincoln said, "there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, & clenched teeth, & steady eye, & well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it."
"I agree with Judge Douglas that he [a black] is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color — perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." - Abraham Lincoln
Now in that quote I just posted, despite his reference to differences in "intellectual and moral endowments," Lincoln shows his belief that both black and white were entitled to equal rights and protection under the Constitution.
The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is justified by the Constitution for the United States of America. The United States Constitution says the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended in time of foreign invasion or domestic rebellion, and if there ever was a case of domestic rebellion, it was the American Civil War.
President Lincoln was anything but a tyrant. He was one of the greatest leaders my country has seen. He was and still is highly misunderstood by some people. All the bad things some of you read about President Lincoln were written by his enemies. Many of the people who also hate President Lincoln do so for reasons other then politcial. Many are actually very racist, and they dislike President Lincoln because he made the U.S.A. finally a free country without the hypocrisy attached to it.
As Individualists you must understand that an "individual" cannot run or ruin a nation of individuals, only a nation of welfarists-beggars-unionists. The Leader-Villain complex extends from Atheism to Theism, from Gov't to Voter. The real villain is the individual consumer who votes, lobbies, pays taxes, and tolerates.
Slavery existed because of consumer-tollerance and abdication of self-rule (or a lack of understanding thereof).
Simple fact is, no matter how you try to say it isn't. The south seceded because they thought Lincoln was going to end slavery unilaterally which he had no intention of doing. They hid behind "states rights" which in reality was another way to bring up the slave issue without saying it directly. If they were so right and Lincoln so wrong then I suppose in your view the TERRORIST organization started by Nathan B. Forrest was a just, and benign little gathering of angered patriots. That's the KKK
All I can say is I wish the war was about slavery and not secession, if that were the case we would still be able to leave this abusive union today.
The troubler is the simple facts and words of the men who fought the war bare proof to the effect that the war was about suppressing the inalienably right of self-determination. The Exact same right upon which the very existence of every state in the United States and the united States as a whole justify's it's existence.
@kungfu2u2 THATS RIGHT THAT CLASS OF SOTHERNERS NEEDED SOME GOOD OLD TESTAMENT JUSTICE. KILL EVERY LAST SINGLE ONE OF THEM.MAN,WOMEN AND FUTURE SLAVE OWNERS(AKA CHILDREN) KILL THEM ALL!!!!!
@VirbiusMoon The only kind of constitutional secession is by consent. Unilateral secession is revolution. If the southern states themselves believed secession were constitutional, they would've gone to the Supreme Court, to get it established in common law, and to avoid war, but they didn't bother because they knew they'd lose 8-0. Maybe unilateral secession would be lawful if the states were sovereign, but they're not. The Supremacy Clause establishes that the federal gov't is the sovereign.
@KayBeeEee1983 "The only kind of constitutional secession is by consent."
Are you saying a State needs consent to leave the union? Nay, to say that a state can not leave the union without consent, is to imply that such union is not voluntary, and therefore the state could be considered a slave to central government.
@VirbiusMoon Yes, a state needs consent to leave the union. Texas v White. The union isn't voluntary. The original signing of the Constitution was voluntary, like a contract, but once it's signed, it's set in stone. That's why it took North Carolina and Rhode Island 2 years to ratify the constitution. If it were voluntary, they all would have joined immediately, and THEN debate about their rights, because they would have thought "well, if we don't get what we want, we can just leave anyway."
@KayBeeEee1983 - It is an unjust ruling then, made by the 'master' asserting that states are slaves... coincidentally, right after the civil war. I don't feel it's valid for that reason... the court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, but the Constitution wasn't to grant rights to states, but to enumerate FEDERAL powers while reserving any other power or right to the states and to the people respectively.
@KayBeeEee1983 - "because they would have thought "well, if we don't get what we want, we can just leave anyway."
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
@VirbiusMoon Yes, I copied and pasted a line from that to you. It proves that the founding fathers didn't believe states could secede on a whim ("light and transient causes"). What are YOU trying to say by using it? Don't gloss over the phrase "governments long established" either, by the way.
"In every country, in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty"
He says "priest", not the bible, and Jefferson's only one man. Are you trying to say the founding fathers weren't christians?
@KayBeeEee1983 - "It proves that the founding fathers didn't believe states could secede on a whim"
It says, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate" .... Personally I thought the fact that we both quoted that source proves it's truth, and correctness... without the need for law. We don't need law, PRUDENCE will DICTATE
"He says "priest", not the bible..."
Spouting verse to use here, on a discussion about government... I was implying that YOU are the priest in this case.
You're joking, right? Do you think the Founders were anarchists?
"PRUDENCE will DICTATE"
Prudence is "sound judgment". Changing long established governments for light and transient causes is not sound judgment.
"YOU are the priest in this case."
I'm not even a christian, but you're going to completely ignore the fact that virtually every Founder was a christian? How do you think they justified slavery while claiming to be fighting for life/liberty/happiness etc.?
I have a limited number of characters for each response, if you can't read between the lines, then I'm done here. We were talking about secession on a "whim"... you glossed over the first part that explains what they though... Prudence will dictate. Therefore I said, we don't need law TO KEEP STATES FROM SECEDING ON A WHIM, prudence will dictate.
@VirbiusMoon "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"
It's not saying Prudence, in general, will dictate law. It's specifically about revolution
You're right about not needing law to keep states from seceding on a whim, that's why it's not in the Constitution. It was common sense that secession on a whim was not a prudent action. So people who think that each state has the right to secede at any time are wrong.
@VirbiusMoon "they can secede anytime the causes are prudent"
Not legally. A state can't determine for itself if the causes are prudent. The southern states attempted secession and, more importantly, seized federal property without going to the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of secession
The Founders didn't want secession to be easy. One of the Federalist Papers is titled "The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation (i.e. the Articles of Confederation) to Preserve the Union"
@KayBeeEee1983 - "Not legally. A state can't determine for itself if the causes are prudent... ...without going to the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of secession"
But you just agreed, saying "You're right about not needing law to keep states from seceding on a whim, that's why it's not in the Constitution."
So where would the Supreme court find this 'constitutionality'?
@KayBeeEee1983 - "I'm not even a christian, but you're going to completely ignore the fact that virtually every Founder was a christian?"
No, but I believe most of them were Deists. Especially Jefferson, who may have very well been a closet atheist.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
@VirbiusMoon Believe what you want. The fact is the vast majority of the USA was bible-thumping Christian, and therefore, most of them based their morality on what the bible says. The bible says a perfect union is perpetual.
"Freedom is about trusting that individuals can make better choices thaN the government can make for us."
The USA isn't based on that principle. It's a republic, not a pure democracy. That's why the only federal officials chosen by the people were Representatives.
@KayBeeEee1983 "The bible says a perfect union is perpetual." ... So?
"The USA isn't based on that principle."
No I said that to maybe clarify my view, but you're misinterpreting it and going off topic with that... I'm quite aware we live in a Republic, thank you.
@VirbiusMoon So...As I already said, the vast majority of Americans based their morality on the bible. That's how they justified slavery, and that's why they believed the perfect union was perpetual.
How about before watching youtube videos, you read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution Ratification Debates. After reading those, I can't believe anyone could still support secession. Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution, so his opinion is not authoritative.
@KayBeeEee1983 - "So...As I already said, the vast majority of Americans based their morality on the bible. That's how they justified slavery, and that's why they believed the perfect union was perpetual."
But they also understood that "perfect" is entirely a subjective judgement.
@KayBeeEee1983 - "the Federalist Papers and the Constitution Ratification Debates."
That's strictly in regards to moral debate. You can feel that it's wrong if you want, but I think you reluctantly agree that it's not in the Constitution, and that such Constitution is not meant to grant rights to states or individuals, but to enumerate Federal powers, while reserving, and protecting, all other rights to the State and the people respectively. Including secession
@VirbiusMoon "That's strictly in regards to moral debate."
No it's not. The Federalist papers are the direct words of the most influential framers, and they were endorsed by the other Framers, plus Jefferson. If a state could secede from the Constitution any time it wanted, North Carolina and Rhode Island wouldn't have debated for 2 years before joining. As far as I know, there was no debate about secession at any of the ratification debates. It was assumed by everyone to be illegal.
@KayBeeEee1983 "there was no debate about secession at any of the ratification debates. It was assumed by everyone to be illegal."
Seems funny to me if they were essentially signing themselves into an union they supposedly couldn't get out of, secession would have been a big part of those debates.
@KayBeeEee1983 - Now for the big question... what gives central government the right to invade, subjugating and coercing a State, back under it's control, if it prudently declares to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...?
@VirbiusMoon "Now for the big question...what gives central government the right to invade...."
The fact that the South seized tons of weapons from federal arsenals, and usurped federal land and military forts. Then they used those stolen weapons to actually attack a federal fort. And then when an attempt was made to arrest the treasonous ringleaders, there were several armed skirmishes and 1 major battle that caused the deaths of 800+ Americans and thousands of injuries. That's mass murder.
@KayBeeEee1983 - "and usurped federal land and military forts."
And we're back full circle... after lawful secession it was no longer federal property, and they refused to leave. The North invaded to South. Simple truth Kay.
@VirbiusMoon Never mind KayBeeEee. He/she is an extreme Lincoln apologist and not for the love of the Union, but rather a deep hatred for the Confederates. Lincoln's tyrannical government absolutely trampled the U.S Constitution, unlike any U.S. President in history. Try as they might, no one with any sense of dignity or rationale could ever excuse the outrageous behavior of a supposed world leader, whose warmongering actions led to the death of nearly 650K of his fellow countrymen.
@VirbiusMoon Don't mind FastPonyGT. Being a bigot, he/she thinks my belief that secession is unconstitutional means that I hate the south and that I support Lincoln. In reality, I live in Maryland and all my family is from the south, though I'm not aware of any who fought in the civil war. I don't support Lincoln, I think he was a terrible military leader whose incompetent micromanaging of the war made it go on longer than it had to, which resulted in more death and destruction than was needed.
@VirbiusMoon By the way, why don't southerners quote any other Founder besides Jefferson? Jefferson was not the emperor of the Southern United States. He doesn't represent every southern politician. In fact, Washington was virtually a Federalist, and Madison co-wrote the Federalist Papers with Hamilton and Jay, and concurred with them on the interpretation of the Constitution.
@KayBeeEee1983 - He was more of just a champion of views commonly held by certain people I suppose. But I've given you a link to a video that quotes many others on the issue, that I think quite clearly spells out their views in support of my position.
@VirbiusMoon "I think it would have to, else we wouldn't be having this discussion."
The only reason there is EVER a discussion about this is because the person defending secession is ignorant of the Framers and the ratification debates. They don't understand the time and the mindset of 18th century Americans, or even 19th century Americans, because it's also pretty clear that not even the Southern Secessionists themselves believed unilateral secession was constitutional.
Btw... I think it's more prudent to look at the results of those debates. For example, Rode Island's ratification included this amendment... “The United States shall guaranty to each state its SOVEREIGNTY, freedom, and INDEPENDENCE, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution EXPRESSLY delegated to the United States.” (emphasis added) This is what was accepted without condition
@VirbiusMoon "This is what was accepted without condition"
What do you mean?
"So even if you view the Constitution as a "contract"...the "Union" found a way to breached it. Does this not invalidate said contract? And either way you look at it... Do you not think that subversion of the Constitution is prudent grounds to withdraw from the Union?"
Theoretically, yes, but that must be determined by an arbitrator, not one of the parties in the contract.
The ratifications had to be accepted by congress as valid and not under any condition conflict with the constitution. This was the 10th Amendment. They simply wrote what they felt their natural rights were... sovereignty and independence. Much like how James Madison (a moderate Federalist) argued against a Bill of Rights, not because he thought States or the people had any rights, but because he ASSUMED they had these rights.
@VirbiusMoon "The United States shall guaranty to each state its SOVEREIGNTY, freedom, and INDEPENDENCE, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution EXPRESSLY delegated to the United States"
That passage you quoted was just a proposed amendment.
I thought Madison proposed the bill of rights.
The United States isn't one of the parties that agreed to and signed the Constitution. The Supreme Court doesn't represent any of the parties in the Constitution.
@VirbiusMoon The 2nd part of that proposed amendment became the 10th amendment. They left out the 1st part about "sovereignty, freedom, and independence". That omission suggests the states are no longer sovereign, free, or independent.
Madison was a "Federalist" in the sense that he supported the Constitution, but he wasn't a member of the Federalist Party, like Hamilton and Adams were. Those are 2 different things.
I don't think that when people call it an "experiment" they mean that literally.
@KayBeeEee1983 "That omission suggests the states are no longer sovereign, free, or independent."
No, that was exactly what Madison worried about was that people would think that the Bill of Rights, are the ONLY rights, or would somehow limit them as you suggest. the 10th Amendment keeps the same ideas of sovereignty and independence, as well as laws, jurisdiction, etc. The Bill of Rights, doesn't "grant" rights, it "protects" natural rights.
@VirbiusMoon Southern secession was hardly peaceful. They seized federal arsenals. If the southern states wanted to secede peacefully, they would have gone to the Supreme Court. Secession has nothing to do with peace. The Revolutionary War was going on for over a year, with hundreds dead, before the USA declared independence. As I said, secession is just a formal declaration of revolution.
The southern states didn't just withdraw, they stole and destroyed federal property.
@KayBeeEee1983 “Secession has nothing to do with peace.“
Secession literally means “withdraw”. This implies neither war nor peace. Are you saying it's impossible to peacefully withdraw? If so, then we should look at those who refuse to allow peaceful withdraw, and who seek, by force, to undermine it. As Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable” It’s a moral question, and my answer is that the Union was wrong.
This video, with it's diluted information and undeniable bias is extremely objectionable. Please do your own research before you believe this propaganda or any other for that matter. Research will help you remain unsusceptible to narrowminded ranting contained in videos such as this one.
diglightdig 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow .. thank the gods for YouTube. I have always felt that Lincoln was inherently tyrannical.
The states asserted their right to secede. A more well-financed military crushed the South as much as the United States crushed the native Americans with superior numbers and military technology.
I'm with Lysander Spooner. If slavery is inherently wrong, then so is tyrannically imposing gov't at the point of a gun.
DaRyteJuan 2 weeks ago
Lincoln's hands rest perpetually on Fasci carved in granite. The timelessness of Fascism. When the President does the,"State Of The Union Address". He stands in the Senate,(Roman term of our Roman Law Government). He stands between two Fasci~The Axe with Rods tied around it. In Ancient Rome.Soldiers of the Circuit Court carried the Fasci. The convicted were sentenced to be beaten with a stated number of rods. Or after being struck with all the rods. Executed by Axe.
Alexia8099 2 weeks ago
@Alexia8099 Abraham Lincoln was no fascists. He fought for equality and freedom. The suspension of habeas corpus was legal, and he had the right to go to war so that he would uphold the Constitution and the spirit of the Declaration.
A state should have more rights than it does now, but it does not and should not create laws that infringe upon the inalienable rights of another individual. Lincoln won threefold: militarily, constitutionally, and, most of all, morally.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 weeks ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it" -Abraham Lincoln 1862
SPIDEERJOHN 2 weeks ago
@SPIDEERJOHN Lincoln also said that "much as I hate slavery, I would rather see it stay in place than to have the Union fall" (rough translation).
Lincoln was a pragmatist that combined with his passion. He did not see how it would benefit the slaves if the country was destroyed so he attempted to preserve the Union at first. Once he found that the Union was capable of stopping the rebellion, he did both: he saved the Union and freed the slaves as well.
MrGreenPoop1000 2 weeks ago
@MrGreenPoop1000 "He did not see how it would benefit the slaves if the country was destroyed so he attempted to preserve the Union at first."
It's like when an airplane cabin loses pressure and the masks drop. You need to make sure you get YOUR mask secure first, and THEN help your child. Putting on your mask first doesn't mean you don't care about your child. If you pass out from lack of oxygen, you're no use to him.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
@KayBeeEee1983 exactly.
MrGreenPoop1000 4 days ago
@Alexia8099 The fasces represents strength through unity; the individual rods being each state and the fasces being the Union.
The State of the Union address is given in the House, not the Senate.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's an axe in the American fasces.
KayBeeEee1983 1 week ago
Abraham Lincoln (THE GREAT SUBJUGATOR)
Abraham Lincoln (THE TREASONOUS TYRANT)
DISHONEST ABE
"I SPIT ON THE LEGACY OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN."
Texas82able 4 weeks ago
@Texas82able Why do you repeat yourself?
MrGreenPoop1000 2 weeks ago
"From 1861-1865, the damnyankee came down into Dixie and waged 'total war' on the Great South and committed brutal acts of violence against Southern civilians, soldiers, and slaves."
"For 4 years, Northern scum illegally invaded the Great South and terrorized and killed Southern civilians, soldiers, and slaves."
"For me, loyalty towards the Great South is stronger and runs much deeper than patriotism towards the Union. Screw the Union."
Texas82able 4 weeks ago
"Dishonest Abe and Northern scum destroyed and impoverished the Great South."
"Lincoln was a Southern traitor and American tyrant who murdered 260,000 Southern men and boys."
"I spit on the legacy of Abraham Lincoln."
Texas82able 4 weeks ago
"Be a Confederate!"
"It's not just the South...it's the Great South!"
"I was born and raised a Great Southern Loyalist in the beautiful and wonderful land of Dixie!"
Texas82able 4 weeks ago
Funny how Tariffs are the reason America underwent the GIlded Age.
Salvysahagun 2 months ago
This kind of sounds like "bitch bitch bitch...we lost the war...wah wah wah cry cry cry"
Slotten68 2 months ago
Also, the Morrill Tariff was too late to have a real effect. Although it could be argued the thought of it scared the southern states. BUT then why did the Declaration of Causes of Secession for the states not bring this up?! I am starting to lean towards maybe to Slavery was the main reason while the others were secondary. And explain the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens.
P.S-I was once 110% pro C.S these and more added doubt
SunofAusterlitz1805 5 months ago
@SunofAusterlitz1805
I largely agree with what you said. I think the early Southern states that seceded did so mainly because of the blocking of the expansion of slavery in the West and what affect it would have on slavery in the future. Virginia, TN, AK, and NC seceded only after the Lincoln administration required them to involuntarily raise troops to invaded their southern neighbors. Lincoln invaded though mainly because of the collection of tariffs and wanting the Union to stay together
AnglosphereAlliance 5 months ago
1. Why is it that Pro C.S people always rant on the Corwin Amendment, when in the C.S Constitution has the same thing as the Corwin Amendment.
2. If States' Rights was the cause why did the Declaration of Causes of Secession state they did not what Northern States nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act?
3. States' Rights for what?
4. Why rant on Lincoln suspending Habeas corpus when the C.S Constitution allows that, in fact Davis did it too!
P.S-I was once 110% pro C.S these and more added doubt
SunofAusterlitz1805 5 months ago
Go watch I am Kalinga! (I'm Gonna Git You Sucka) it's comedy but there is some truth in all comedy I hear .
mollymu1 6 months ago
"they should have gone about it the right way, by going to the Supreme Court or through the AMERICAN people. Instead, they tried to bargain with Lincoln, who believed secession was illegitimate, and when that failed, they decided to use force." - Because Lincoln was planning to subvert the constitution with Executive Orders, and did.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon Preemptive strikes are not okay, especially when it's against your fellow citizens.
What assertions?
Supremacy Clause - "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 “The Supremacy Clause ...”
Only regarding laws that have been delegated to the federal government by the constitution in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. It doesn't expand the jurisdiction of the federal government, at the expense of the sovereign authority of the States. It doesn’t work that way. The constitution does not specifically delegate powers of State secession, nor even how a State COULD secede, because that is not a power delegated to the United States.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "Preemptive strikes are not okay"
Ha... it wasn't preemptive if it was on their own land. And those fellow citizens were refusing to leave while planning to force and coerce them from their withdrawing their own land.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon It wasn't their land.
civilwarhome[DOT]com/sumterownership.htm
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
To the uploader, Lincoln held the view of colonization til the day he died. New found documents prove such information.
mugelerm 7 months ago
indeed, the U.S. government is a tyranny, whos lies know no bounds..and shamefully, americans have lapped it all up with blind foolishness.. some day brave men with freedom in their hearts will once again rise up to put down tyranny, and restore their freedom from the thieves of liberty.. the truth is right in front of you, if you only open your eyes
longfootbuddy 8 months ago
What is this song?
LetitRideOut87 8 months ago
Abraham Lincoln was a radical Federalist. If not for his actions, the socialistic mind set of mis-guided altruism that permiates our society today. He standardized the American currency for greater manipulation and control of the economy which subsequently lead us towards the Modern Day Federal reserve system (the goal of reconstructionism)and the situation economically we are in today. In addition the app of the 14th amd of the BOR to the states has destroyed Freedom and rts not secured them.
doobersmanster 8 months ago
The 14th Amendment created an entire new class of citizens, US citizens which did NOT exist before. We were state Citizens and entitled to the liberties within the declaration of independence and subsequently, the constitution. US citizens are entitled to civil rights, not unalienable liberties and are NOT entitled to the bill of rights. State Citizens are protected under both the DOI and const. Emancipate yourself from the corporation of the US and stop being their franchisee.
babybluesnowden 8 months ago
@TennesseeReb1862 I don't hate Americans. My heart bleeds for Americans. I don't know too much about this great man but what I have heard is enough to let me know that he cared about his country. Try not to walk into propaganda about him. This video is clearly bias against him and it's a good think that so few have seen it. Anyway you are either confused or intentionally trying to put rubbish out there on the net. Have a nice day anyway.
heathey2 8 months ago
@heathey2 I personally grew up believing in Lincoln and the northern cause--It's hard not to in this culture. I only began to question the accepted opinion about the war as I grew to embrace libertarian philosophy and hence began to reexam everything from that new perspective. I sought out histories written by libertarians(Thomas Woods,Thomas Dilorenzo,etc)& have decided that Lincoln,along with Alexander Hamilton,Woodrow Wilson,the 2 Roosevelts,etc. helped to destroy America's liberty.
sleedolfine15 8 months ago
Here's something to ponder: The two main powers that the Constitution gives the President (the power of veto, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces) are the two main powers the Roman Senate gave Augustus, the first Roman Emperor. The Constitution was designed to give the President dictatorial powers when the nation was in crisis. It's what makes our government great.
KayBeeEee1983 8 months ago
Abraham Lincoln what a great man and true US American.
heathey2 9 months ago
@heathey2
The most deranged lunatic in history.
postalmeter 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@postalmeter "The most deranged lunatic in history."
That's a bit hyperbolic, and Lincoln was hardly a lunatic. He was a calculating political genius. An evil genius, maybe, but certainly the lesser of two evils.
KayBeeEee1983 8 months ago
see on YT: "Republic of Missouri, the Change our Founders believed in" and see what Lincoln was really facing.
1tonykirk 9 months ago
Please research the American Bastille. Under Licoln, the same war crimes existed then which we have faced today, from Guantanimo Bay to the Patriot Act. Tyranny is nothing new. Revisionist history is like Photoshop; sure can make ugly look pretty.
caroljohnson168 10 months ago
@civilwarcow Thank You for acknoledging my recognition of YankeeDumb LIES.
ke4bss 10 months ago
@civilwarcow Sorry to tell yinz, dummy...Lincoln had a gay/fag/home US army Capt. Lover. It's a fact so know this one dummy.
ke4bss 10 months ago
think about it this way History is always told from the standpoint of the Winner Good Video
Renagadepatriot 11 months ago 3
I quite agree. It makes John Wilkes Booth's cry "sic semper tyrranis" " thus always the fate of tyrants" comprehensible .
But then I am not an american, and so have not been brainwashed to the same extent as americans on this one, and reading some history has destroyed my susceptibility to the myth.
he was a dictator and tyrant, and imperilaist and the American Bismark
Strefanasha 11 months ago
@Strefanasha Yes, Lincoln was not a saint, but he did what he had to do keep the country together. If that means breaking a few laws, then so be it.
BryantFinlay 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BryantFinlay - "he did what he had to do keep the country together. If that means breaking a few laws, then so be it."
It's scary that there are so-called American's that think this way
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
Honest Abe was an Honest peter puffing FAGGOT!
ke4bss 11 months ago
How many years have to go by before the southern racists get over it?
You Lost Because You Were Meant To!!
mrthebillman 11 months ago
what would all of you Lincoln haters would have done to save the union? he did was he have to do, that's the reason all of you are alive today. A man of his time for all times and the best man that this union ever made. How would you save a room in a burning house? by saving the house 1st, do you now understand why he did why he did, the room was slavery, the house was the union.
irvingm58 11 months ago
His face scares the hell out of me.
CliffordTrahanVEVO 1 year ago
@CliffordTrahanVEVO Lincoln was one ugly basterd.
cecobb12 11 months ago
My Mom told me Lincoln was Gay.Is what True or just a rumr.
Tyrik73 1 year ago
@Tyrik73 yes he was a homo.
cecobb12 1 year ago
Lincoln was an awful man.
He let senator Jim Lane raid missouri and then didn't punish him.
He let southern prisoners freeze to death in the winter .
He refused to open up the prisoner exchange even when the union prisoners were starving because the union was blockading their port cities and the union armies were destroying their farms.The prisoners sent him petitions but he would not open the prisoner exchange. Then the north began taking away the prisoners friut so they got scurvy and died.
cecobb12 1 year ago
@mountrushcollymore it may seem one sided to you because you were taught wrongly or you just can't handle the truth. Fact is Lincoln was a piece of shit. The south seceding was actually the second American revolution. Unfortunately, it was a failed attempt. It would have been hard for the south anyway because Britain was knocking on the door to enter the war, and that would have been disastrous also. So the south was caught between a rock and a hard place.
madmite 1 year ago
half a million died in "lincolns war" !!!
ALL AMERICANS
what a piece of shit lincoln was!!!
freed those he had no control over 2 years after the war began!
what were the 1st 2 yrs about? ???
lincoln=asshole
lincoln = murderer
bluegrassreb1 1 year ago
@bluegrassreb1 Brother, you just summed it up as well as it can be done in one sentence, "What were the first two years about"! African Americans would hate to hear it, but they were actually a second thought used to gain public sentiment! Lincoln didn't do it for them, he did it for victory for the North. At least the end result was good!
volsncards 10 months ago
Knowing what this "man" did to my people, even his own, is extremely disturbing. Hundreds of thousands died and suffered in inconcievable pain because of his evil. I hope he's rotting in hell.
shtony2717 1 year ago
@shtony2717 by whom do you mean your own ppl? if you are meaning black ppl, he free you! and if this is what you meann,. hundreds oof thousabds dide to just that!
"even his to own, is extremely disturbing"- look what your pres. is doing to the U.S. now!
enigma42177 11 months ago
Excellent video.
GrayGhost8 1 year ago
Lincoln is scum and is deified by those that believe in a tyrannical federal government. This is what we have today because of Lincoln and the act of 1871. Today we are all slaves to the UNITED STATES. We must realize we are going into a communist tyranny that will when ready try to murder the White Christian remnant that know's its history and is still fighting for freedom. Death to Tyrants!!!
doomsdaypreacher 1 year ago
What a one sided and biased video
MountRushCollymore 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy Sorry, I didn't mean to be a bitch about it. As I said to individualautonomy, these quotes support the right of revolution and not the Calhounian doctrine of secession. But I guess you guys use the term revolution/secession interchangebly. Which is ok, but I have to respectfully disagree.
Doc418 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy Dude, I don't have to google anything. I have studied and read the voluminious writings of the Founding Fathers, and still do to this day, and not one of the leading founders supported the idea of secession. I just quoted James Madison, the father of the Constitution making the clear distinction between what the colonies did and what the South would do 20 years later. Secession is treason and should have been treated that way by "Tyrant" Lincoln.
Doc418 1 year ago
@Doc418
See my video I linked with the quotes
Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Paine, etc supported secession as a concept
James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and others made quotes in opposition to using force against a seceding state
Lincoln himself made quotes similar in the 40s which is in my video and you can google. Free association and secession are very libertarian concepts and the Confederacy is not the only example of secession and should be not be conflated.
IndividualAutonomy 1 year ago
@IndividualAutonomy Our fundamental disagreement comes to what we mean by secession then, because those quotes by Jefferson, Adams and Paine, I intepret them to be the Lockean conception of revolution. So I guess we can agree to disagree about the nature of secession/revolution. Second, yes, Lincoln did support the idea of secession, when individual rights are violated, so that is why I don't consider Lincoln to be a tyrant.
Doc418 1 year ago
@Doc418 In Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address (1801), he declared, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." Jefferson was defending the rights of free speech and of secession.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@hungarygator That's incorrect, Jefferson was not defending the right of states to secede.
Doc418 1 year ago
@Doc418 Yes he was and that was not the only time he did so. Read the Kentucky Resolution he wrote whereby he asserts a state's right to nullify federal laws it disagrees with. The states were sovereign entities and the union was a compact between states born of consent, not force.
hungarygator 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy Incorrect, no founding father supported the idea of secession, and in particular James Madison, who wrote the 10th amendment, never wrote it to give the states the right to end the Union unilaterally. Neither did John Quincy Adams (who rejected Calhoun's thinking), or Alexander Hamilton who wrote in Federalist 15 that the Constitution created a union that was to last for ever. Lincoln supported right of revolution, something that is different from the treason of the south
Doc418 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy Secession isn't a constitutional principle, and it isn't protected under the 10th amendment..And no founding father, especially James Madison, supported the idea that one state can secede from the Union. Secession is a doctrine born out of the twisted logic of Calhoun not James Madison, James Wilson, Gouvernour Morris, or any other founding father responsible for the Constitution of the United States.
Doc418 1 year ago
@Doc418
Firstly the US seceded from Great Britain. Secondly many "founding fathers" supported the idea of secession. Take a look at my video Founding Fathers: Secession is the Right of All Free People
watch?v=BC-QfZd6T9Y
IndividualAutonomy 1 year ago
@IndividualAutonomy Wrong, the United States didn't "secede" from Great Britain, the United States fought a revolution, and the reasons for that revolution and the right to revolution are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. No Founding Father supported the idea of secession, but the right of revolution which is necessary in the defense of individual rights. The South seceded, not to protect any rights but to continue in the violation of individual rights--protecting slavery.
Doc418 1 year ago
@Doc418
A revolution and secession don't exactly have to be opposite. However, it was a secession and not really a revolution in the US. The British government was not overthrown in Britain or the other places it governed. The US just seceded from its domain and used British ideals and some Roman institutions etc for government. You are wrong about James Madison and the others you named. Take a look at the video I linked you where the quotes are and you can google them yourself.
IndividualAutonomy 1 year ago
@IndividualAutonomy You would be right, except, the United States fought a revolution. They established in this country the first Republican form of government and ended the idea that people can be governed by Lords, Barons and Kings and established by the Constitution of the United States the idea that sovereignty rests with the people at large. The United States did dissolve its political bands, but did so under the enlightenment ideals of revolution, Lockean revolution at work.
Doc418 1 year ago
@Doc418
The US was not the first Republic though. Rome had a Republic as did the Netherlands before the US. The US was part of the British Empire, already had forms of representation and voting before the secession from Britain, and based their new form of government off mostly British ideas (Locke and others). Britain also had a Parliament by that time that had most of the power, not the King. For the quotes of secession for Madison and others see my video I linked and Google.
IndividualAutonomy 1 year ago
@IndividualAutonomy I have read James Madison's voluminous writings on the Constitution and government, he never once favored secession of states.
Doc418 1 year ago
@Doc418
Doc take a look at the quote instead of giving account of other actions you have taken.
IndividualAutonomy 1 year ago
@IndividualAutonomy As I said, James Madison didn't support secession: "But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy." James Madison...He makes clear the difference between secession and revolution..revolution isn't what the South did.
Doc418 1 year ago
@Doc418
However, he was also against invading a breakaway state which is what Lincoln did. However, the "founding fathers" had different views of secession but almost all, including Alexander Hamilton made quotes against coercing the states. Still, one doesn't need the founding fathers to be for secession since they themselves seceded from the British Empire and free association is an important libertarian concept with practical value as well.
IndividualAutonomy 1 year ago
@IndividualAutonomy The important libertarian principle is the right to revolution, not the right to secede to keep other human beings in slavery. A true libertarian would never support the secession of 13 states that wanted to protected such a vile institution like slavery. If Lincoln is a tyrant because he wanted to keep slavery from spreading, then you really need to understand something about freedom and tyranny.
Doc418 1 year ago
@Doc418
Doc I don't know if you watched the video. I admit in this video and my problems with the Union and the Confederacy that the Southern politicans manily seceded, according to their own documents, because of wanting to EXPAND slavery into the Western Territories. However, according to Lincoln's actions and words, he invaded the South mainly to secure tariff revenue and keep the Union together, not to end slavery. One should not conflate secession with just the Confederacy.
IndividualAutonomy 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy About whites and non whites never being equal doesn't take away from the fact that Lincoln believed that "there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the declaration of independence...I hold that he is much entitled to these as the white man." Second, South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter because they thought they had a right to commit treason. Lincoln had a duty to defend the United States as Commander in Chief.
Doc418 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy Lincoln believed that both races should be separated, but that has nothing to do with what I said. I said that Lincoln recognized that blacks had basic freedoms, something that Douglas mocked, the idea that slaves had the same rights as were found in the declaration of indpendence. Second, Lincoln didn't declare war, he defended the government of the United States after the firing of Fort Sumter which was his duty as President to repel sudden attacks.
Doc418 1 year ago
@LittleChicagoLiturgy For the times Lincoln lived in, we can sure use our 20th&21st century epithet "racist" to describe his attitudes toward race. But Lincoln, unlike the slaveholders of the South, believed that Blacks had the basic freedoms of the Declaration of Independence which is the reason why Lincoln didn't compromise on the morality of slavery. As far as he violating the Constitution, Lincoln always informed Congress of his actions, something you won't see today by modern Presidents.
Doc418 1 year ago
The truth is, Lincoln did not break one single law as President, and I ask anyone to bring up any of the so called "laws" he did break, and I prove to them using the Constitution that Lincoln was innocent.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
Lincoln wasn't a tyrant. The only people who call him a tyrant are those that have a romantic view of the Confederacy that seceded, not because of tariffs, the protection of domestic manufactures over southern farmers, or any other nonsense, but to protect the institution of slavery because Abraham Lincoln wouldn't compromise on the view that slavery was morally wrong and its spread into the western territories of the United States would not happen so long as he was in a position of power.
Doc418 1 year ago
@Doc418 i think you missed the quote of lincoln where he said if i would not free any slaves if i could keep the union together by any other means.
DALEMC37 1 year ago
@DALEMC37 Have not missed that one at all. That letter from Lincoln is always brought up by people that want to minimize the impact slavery had as the cause of the civil war. Lincoln always said and wrote that he had no power to end slavery where it existed, so if keeping slavery in the slaves states would have saved the union, then he would support the institution there. But he never once supported the idea of slavery of keeping the union together with slavery introduced in the west.
Doc418 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, check out my Ron Paul vs Lincoln video. If you don't believe in secession, then you believe in slavery, for you are for enslaving people to a government that they want no part of:
youtube.com/watch?v=oiH_XnqnyHU
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
Lysader Spooner was a great man and a shining individual during a time of growing nationalistic fervor. Libertarianism will always be the voice of reason whatever the political climate may be. Deny it and you deny individual liberty. Deny it and you accept slow suicide.
CircleBastiat 1 year ago
To apply 21th century beliefs and standards to a United States of America of 1858 and declare Abraham Lincoln a "racist" is a faulty formula that unfairly distorts Lincoln's true role in advancing civil and human rights. By the standards of his time, Lincoln's views on race and equality were progressive and truly changed minds, policy and most importantly, hearts for years to come.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
@Zeeboe Wow! Your statement has absolutely no personal voice or character. You sound like a robot regurgitating inputs, and for this I doubt you actually believe what you say. If you do actually believe what you say then you are a man without a voice.
CircleBastiat 1 year ago
@Zeeboe Absolutely right about Abraham Lincoln's views of human rights. For the era, Lincoln's views on Slavery was far ahead of anyone of the political leaders, I would even argue far ahead Charles Sumner..
Doc418 1 year ago
@Doc418 - Exactly. For example, the reason why Lincoln wanted to deport slaves was because he did not think white and black people could not live together in peace, and given all the violence that has gone on between them, he was right. It was after seeing white and black Union troops working together that Lincoln decided that he would work on helping the two groups learn to live together in peace.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
On April 11, 1865 Lincoln delivered an address in which he became the first president to advocate extending voting rights to black men who fought for the Union when he stated, "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers." By this statement, Lincoln indicated his belief that African-Americans should have full political equality.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
After seeing over 200,000 blacks volunteer & fight for the Union, Lincoln dropped his support for plans to colonize freed slaves to Africa. In a speech, Lincoln said, "there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, & clenched teeth, & steady eye, & well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it."
Zeeboe 1 year ago
"I agree with Judge Douglas that he [a black] is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color — perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man." - Abraham Lincoln
Zeeboe 1 year ago
Now in that quote I just posted, despite his reference to differences in "intellectual and moral endowments," Lincoln shows his belief that both black and white were entitled to equal rights and protection under the Constitution.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is justified by the Constitution for the United States of America. The United States Constitution says the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended in time of foreign invasion or domestic rebellion, and if there ever was a case of domestic rebellion, it was the American Civil War.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
President Lincoln was anything but a tyrant. He was one of the greatest leaders my country has seen. He was and still is highly misunderstood by some people. All the bad things some of you read about President Lincoln were written by his enemies. Many of the people who also hate President Lincoln do so for reasons other then politcial. Many are actually very racist, and they dislike President Lincoln because he made the U.S.A. finally a free country without the hypocrisy attached to it.
Zeeboe 1 year ago
As Individualists you must understand that an "individual" cannot run or ruin a nation of individuals, only a nation of welfarists-beggars-unionists. The Leader-Villain complex extends from Atheism to Theism, from Gov't to Voter. The real villain is the individual consumer who votes, lobbies, pays taxes, and tolerates.
Slavery existed because of consumer-tollerance and abdication of self-rule (or a lack of understanding thereof).
Abraham Lincoln was not the devil nor the hero
OctoBox 1 year ago
Simple fact is, no matter how you try to say it isn't. The south seceded because they thought Lincoln was going to end slavery unilaterally which he had no intention of doing. They hid behind "states rights" which in reality was another way to bring up the slave issue without saying it directly. If they were so right and Lincoln so wrong then I suppose in your view the TERRORIST organization started by Nathan B. Forrest was a just, and benign little gathering of angered patriots. That's the KKK
Karlwootwoot 1 year ago
Had Captain Kirk known who this individual really was he would have never seen him as his favorite president.
bannedbyMusloons 1 year ago
All I can say is I wish the war was about slavery and not secession, if that were the case we would still be able to leave this abusive union today.
The troubler is the simple facts and words of the men who fought the war bare proof to the effect that the war was about suppressing the inalienably right of self-determination. The Exact same right upon which the very existence of every state in the United States and the united States as a whole justify's it's existence.
Monorprise 1 year ago
How about the fact that IT WASN'T A CIVIL WAR!
It was an INTERNATIONAL INVASION!
kungfu2u2 1 year ago 9
@kungfu2u2 THATS RIGHT THAT CLASS OF SOTHERNERS NEEDED SOME GOOD OLD TESTAMENT JUSTICE. KILL EVERY LAST SINGLE ONE OF THEM.MAN,WOMEN AND FUTURE SLAVE OWNERS(AKA CHILDREN) KILL THEM ALL!!!!!
MrHead1972 1 year ago
@kungfu2u2 AMEN to that, first International "TERRORIST" invasion DEO VINDICE
nathanforrest1 1 year ago
Comment removed
KayBeeEee1983 8 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - After lawful secession, it was no longer federal property, and they refused to leave. The North invaded the South. Simple truth Kay.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon The only kind of constitutional secession is by consent. Unilateral secession is revolution. If the southern states themselves believed secession were constitutional, they would've gone to the Supreme Court, to get it established in common law, and to avoid war, but they didn't bother because they knew they'd lose 8-0. Maybe unilateral secession would be lawful if the states were sovereign, but they're not. The Supremacy Clause establishes that the federal gov't is the sovereign.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "The only kind of constitutional secession is by consent."
Are you saying a State needs consent to leave the union? Nay, to say that a state can not leave the union without consent, is to imply that such union is not voluntary, and therefore the state could be considered a slave to central government.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon Yes, a state needs consent to leave the union. Texas v White. The union isn't voluntary. The original signing of the Constitution was voluntary, like a contract, but once it's signed, it's set in stone. That's why it took North Carolina and Rhode Island 2 years to ratify the constitution. If it were voluntary, they all would have joined immediately, and THEN debate about their rights, because they would have thought "well, if we don't get what we want, we can just leave anyway."
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 - It is an unjust ruling then, made by the 'master' asserting that states are slaves... coincidentally, right after the civil war. I don't feel it's valid for that reason... the court held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, but the Constitution wasn't to grant rights to states, but to enumerate FEDERAL powers while reserving any other power or right to the states and to the people respectively.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - "because they would have thought "well, if we don't get what we want, we can just leave anyway."
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon Yes, I copied and pasted a line from that to you. It proves that the founding fathers didn't believe states could secede on a whim ("light and transient causes"). What are YOU trying to say by using it? Don't gloss over the phrase "governments long established" either, by the way.
"In every country, in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty"
He says "priest", not the bible, and Jefferson's only one man. Are you trying to say the founding fathers weren't christians?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - "It proves that the founding fathers didn't believe states could secede on a whim"
It says, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate" .... Personally I thought the fact that we both quoted that source proves it's truth, and correctness... without the need for law. We don't need law, PRUDENCE will DICTATE
"He says "priest", not the bible..."
Spouting verse to use here, on a discussion about government... I was implying that YOU are the priest in this case.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon "We don't need law"
You're joking, right? Do you think the Founders were anarchists?
"PRUDENCE will DICTATE"
Prudence is "sound judgment". Changing long established governments for light and transient causes is not sound judgment.
"YOU are the priest in this case."
I'm not even a christian, but you're going to completely ignore the fact that virtually every Founder was a christian? How do you think they justified slavery while claiming to be fighting for life/liberty/happiness etc.?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - You're joking, right?"
I have a limited number of characters for each response, if you can't read between the lines, then I'm done here. We were talking about secession on a "whim"... you glossed over the first part that explains what they though... Prudence will dictate. Therefore I said, we don't need law TO KEEP STATES FROM SECEDING ON A WHIM, prudence will dictate.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes"
It's not saying Prudence, in general, will dictate law. It's specifically about revolution
You're right about not needing law to keep states from seceding on a whim, that's why it's not in the Constitution. It was common sense that secession on a whim was not a prudent action. So people who think that each state has the right to secede at any time are wrong.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - "You're right about not needing law to keep states from seceding on a whim, that's why it's not in the Constitution."
Then we agree
"It was common sense that secession on a whim was not a prudent action."
Then we agree again
"So people who think that each state has the right to secede at any time are wrong."
I disagree;, they can secede anytime the causes are prudent
Whim: "an odd or capricious notion or desire; a sudden or freakish fancy"
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon "they can secede anytime the causes are prudent"
Not legally. A state can't determine for itself if the causes are prudent. The southern states attempted secession and, more importantly, seized federal property without going to the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of secession
The Founders didn't want secession to be easy. One of the Federalist Papers is titled "The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation (i.e. the Articles of Confederation) to Preserve the Union"
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - "Not legally. A state can't determine for itself if the causes are prudent... ...without going to the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of secession"
But you just agreed, saying "You're right about not needing law to keep states from seceding on a whim, that's why it's not in the Constitution."
So where would the Supreme court find this 'constitutionality'?
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 - "Prudence is "sound judgment". Changing long established governments for light and transient causes is not sound judgment."
Yes it is... and surely long established governments wil not be changed for light or transient reason, because prudence will dictate.
Freedom is about trusting that individuals can make better choices that the government can make for us.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - "I'm not even a christian, but you're going to completely ignore the fact that virtually every Founder was a christian?"
No, but I believe most of them were Deists. Especially Jefferson, who may have very well been a closet atheist.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon Believe what you want. The fact is the vast majority of the USA was bible-thumping Christian, and therefore, most of them based their morality on what the bible says. The bible says a perfect union is perpetual.
"Freedom is about trusting that individuals can make better choices thaN the government can make for us."
The USA isn't based on that principle. It's a republic, not a pure democracy. That's why the only federal officials chosen by the people were Representatives.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "The bible says a perfect union is perpetual." ... So?
"The USA isn't based on that principle."
No I said that to maybe clarify my view, but you're misinterpreting it and going off topic with that... I'm quite aware we live in a Republic, thank you.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon So...As I already said, the vast majority of Americans based their morality on the bible. That's how they justified slavery, and that's why they believed the perfect union was perpetual.
How about before watching youtube videos, you read the Federalist Papers and the Constitution Ratification Debates. After reading those, I can't believe anyone could still support secession. Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution, so his opinion is not authoritative.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - I see that you avoided the question
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 - "So...As I already said, the vast majority of Americans based their morality on the bible. That's how they justified slavery, and that's why they believed the perfect union was perpetual."
But they also understood that "perfect" is entirely a subjective judgement.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - "the Federalist Papers and the Constitution Ratification Debates."
That's strictly in regards to moral debate. You can feel that it's wrong if you want, but I think you reluctantly agree that it's not in the Constitution, and that such Constitution is not meant to grant rights to states or individuals, but to enumerate Federal powers, while reserving, and protecting, all other rights to the State and the people respectively. Including secession
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon "That's strictly in regards to moral debate."
No it's not. The Federalist papers are the direct words of the most influential framers, and they were endorsed by the other Framers, plus Jefferson. If a state could secede from the Constitution any time it wanted, North Carolina and Rhode Island wouldn't have debated for 2 years before joining. As far as I know, there was no debate about secession at any of the ratification debates. It was assumed by everyone to be illegal.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 "there was no debate about secession at any of the ratification debates. It was assumed by everyone to be illegal."
"
"It was common sense that secession on a whim was not a prudent action."
Then we agree again
"So people who think that each state has the right to secede at any time are wrong."
I disagree;, they can secede anytime the causes are prudent
Whim: "an odd or capricious notion or desire; a sudden or freakish fancy"
"
I think it was assumed by everyone it was legal
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 "there was no debate about secession at any of the ratification debates. It was assumed by everyone to be illegal."
Seems funny to me if they were essentially signing themselves into an union they supposedly couldn't get out of, secession would have been a big part of those debates.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - Now for the big question... what gives central government the right to invade, subjugating and coercing a State, back under it's control, if it prudently declares to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...?
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon "Now for the big question...what gives central government the right to invade...."
The fact that the South seized tons of weapons from federal arsenals, and usurped federal land and military forts. Then they used those stolen weapons to actually attack a federal fort. And then when an attempt was made to arrest the treasonous ringleaders, there were several armed skirmishes and 1 major battle that caused the deaths of 800+ Americans and thousands of injuries. That's mass murder.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KayBeeEee1983 - "and usurped federal land and military forts."
And we're back full circle... after lawful secession it was no longer federal property, and they refused to leave. The North invaded to South. Simple truth Kay.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon Never mind KayBeeEee. He/she is an extreme Lincoln apologist and not for the love of the Union, but rather a deep hatred for the Confederates. Lincoln's tyrannical government absolutely trampled the U.S Constitution, unlike any U.S. President in history. Try as they might, no one with any sense of dignity or rationale could ever excuse the outrageous behavior of a supposed world leader, whose warmongering actions led to the death of nearly 650K of his fellow countrymen.
FastPonyGT 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon Don't mind FastPonyGT. Being a bigot, he/she thinks my belief that secession is unconstitutional means that I hate the south and that I support Lincoln. In reality, I live in Maryland and all my family is from the south, though I'm not aware of any who fought in the civil war. I don't support Lincoln, I think he was a terrible military leader whose incompetent micromanaging of the war made it go on longer than it had to, which resulted in more death and destruction than was needed.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "Don't mind FastPonyGT."
No worries. Actually I applaud you for keeping the discussion civil... I had no inclination that you were hateful.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon Do you know of ANY constitution in the history of the world that allowed secession?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - No, this would be the first in history, that is correct.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon By the way, why don't southerners quote any other Founder besides Jefferson? Jefferson was not the emperor of the Southern United States. He doesn't represent every southern politician. In fact, Washington was virtually a Federalist, and Madison co-wrote the Federalist Papers with Hamilton and Jay, and concurred with them on the interpretation of the Constitution.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - He was more of just a champion of views commonly held by certain people I suppose. But I've given you a link to a video that quotes many others on the issue, that I think quite clearly spells out their views in support of my position.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - Not to mention, he was the drafter of the founding document of this country
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon He drafted the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution
"you just agreed, saying 'You're right about not needing law to keep states from seceding on a whim, that's why it's not in the Constitution'"
A clause in the constitution saying "unilateral secession of a state is illegal" is not needed
"So where would the Supreme court find this 'constitutionality'?"
If their opinion is that the 10th amendment , or another clause doesn't include the right of unilateral secession
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "If their opinion is that the 10th amendment , or another clause doesn't include the right of unilateral secession"
I've addressed this Supreme court ruling already, I think
"A clause in the constitution saying "unilateral secession of a state is illegal" is not needed"
I think it would have to, else we wouldn't be having this discussion.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon "I think it would have to, else we wouldn't be having this discussion."
The only reason there is EVER a discussion about this is because the person defending secession is ignorant of the Framers and the ratification debates. They don't understand the time and the mindset of 18th century Americans, or even 19th century Americans, because it's also pretty clear that not even the Southern Secessionists themselves believed unilateral secession was constitutional.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
1/3 @KayBeeEee1983 "and the ratification debates."
Btw... I think it's more prudent to look at the results of those debates. For example, Rode Island's ratification included this amendment... “The United States shall guaranty to each state its SOVEREIGNTY, freedom, and INDEPENDENCE, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution EXPRESSLY delegated to the United States.” (emphasis added) This is what was accepted without condition
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon "This is what was accepted without condition"
What do you mean?
"So even if you view the Constitution as a "contract"...the "Union" found a way to breached it. Does this not invalidate said contract? And either way you look at it... Do you not think that subversion of the Constitution is prudent grounds to withdraw from the Union?"
Theoretically, yes, but that must be determined by an arbitrator, not one of the parties in the contract.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "What do you mean?"
The ratifications had to be accepted by congress as valid and not under any condition conflict with the constitution. This was the 10th Amendment. They simply wrote what they felt their natural rights were... sovereignty and independence. Much like how James Madison (a moderate Federalist) argued against a Bill of Rights, not because he thought States or the people had any rights, but because he ASSUMED they had these rights.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon "The United States shall guaranty to each state its SOVEREIGNTY, freedom, and INDEPENDENCE, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution EXPRESSLY delegated to the United States"
That passage you quoted was just a proposed amendment.
I thought Madison proposed the bill of rights.
The United States isn't one of the parties that agreed to and signed the Constitution. The Supreme Court doesn't represent any of the parties in the Constitution.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - "That passage you quoted was just a proposed amendment."
It became the 10th Amendment, and discloses what they felt were their natural rights.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon The 2nd part of that proposed amendment became the 10th amendment. They left out the 1st part about "sovereignty, freedom, and independence". That omission suggests the states are no longer sovereign, free, or independent.
Madison was a "Federalist" in the sense that he supported the Constitution, but he wasn't a member of the Federalist Party, like Hamilton and Adams were. Those are 2 different things.
I don't think that when people call it an "experiment" they mean that literally.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 "That omission suggests the states are no longer sovereign, free, or independent."
No, that was exactly what Madison worried about was that people would think that the Bill of Rights, are the ONLY rights, or would somehow limit them as you suggest. the 10th Amendment keeps the same ideas of sovereignty and independence, as well as laws, jurisdiction, etc. The Bill of Rights, doesn't "grant" rights, it "protects" natural rights.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon Why would they leave out that the states are sovereign, free, and independent.
The "natural" right of revolution isn't protected.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - "The "natural" right of revolution isn't protected."
Do you honestly think that a revolt by the people would be accepted as legal?
Section VIII of Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to call forth the militia to “suppress insurrections.”
- in·sur·rec·tion: an act or instance of rising in revolt
- Revolt: to break away from or rise against constituted authority
- Revolution: an overthrow or REPUDIATION, replacement of an established government.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon "Do you honestly think that a revolt by the people would be accepted as legal?"
That's why secession isn't in the Constitution. To 18th and 19th century Americans, secession was just a formal declaration of revolution.
"Revolt: to break away from or rise against constituted authority"
Sounds like the civil war to me.
"I've explained that... The Bill of Rights, doesn't "grant" rights"
It guarantees rights. Wouldn't they want to guarantee their most cherished rights?
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 - "To 18th and 19th century Americans, secession was just a formal declaration of revolution."
A peaceful formal declaration yes. To not respect such, would be (and was) no different than what King George himself did.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago
@VirbiusMoon Southern secession was hardly peaceful. They seized federal arsenals. If the southern states wanted to secede peacefully, they would have gone to the Supreme Court. Secession has nothing to do with peace. The Revolutionary War was going on for over a year, with hundreds dead, before the USA declared independence. As I said, secession is just a formal declaration of revolution.
The southern states didn't just withdraw, they stole and destroyed federal property.
KayBeeEee1983 7 months ago
@KayBeeEee1983 “Secession has nothing to do with peace.“
Secession literally means “withdraw”. This implies neither war nor peace. Are you saying it's impossible to peacefully withdraw? If so, then we should look at those who refuse to allow peaceful withdraw, and who seek, by force, to undermine it. As Kennedy once said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable” It’s a moral question, and my answer is that the Union was wrong.
VirbiusMoon 7 months ago