Abraham Lincoln vs Bahir Assad. Who Is Bloodier?

My side? I'm from New England.

Lol. You need to take your meds.

2ndly, it's a FACT that Lincoln went around the constitution, it's not a theory, it's not a question, it's a fact of history. That's all we're saying. No one is saying they WANT slavery or hate black people (you keep saying we think that, so please cite the instances someone has said that in this thread), we're MERELY pointing out that Lincoln disregarded the constitution and revoked liberties. It's a fact. Get over it

 

I could say the same of you. You dont understand the DOI or the constitution

The right to self determination . The original 13 states were 13 sovereign nations not states as we look at them today. At first they joined in a Confederation but then when they met to amend it instead wound up writing the constitution. The constitution is but 1 of many of our founding documents and does not stand by itself. Like ive said do they even teach civics anymore?

 

Once again, you can not quote on sentence in the US Constitution authorizing or allowing sedition. You don't even try. That's the fact. "Get over it."

 

Again, you don't understand how law and Constitutions work. However, obviously you do support judicial activism where judges and officials can just ignore the Constitution and look to other "documents" to do the opposite. That is exactly what you are doing. Once again, not ONE sentence in the US Constitution allows sedition. It does create specific federal powers and duties to that federal power applicable to everyone. There is no "unless you don't want to" exceptions.

As you noted, they replaced the "Confederation" with a "Constitution."

 

And you cant quote one saying they could not leave

Lincoln's Violations of the US Constitution.

The Presidential oath of office that Lincoln swore to was "to preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the US.


Secession of states was not prohibited by the US Constitution at that time. And there were no laws against it. Therefore it was completely legal...

#1 Lincoln himself, orders the calling up of 75,000 troops to invade the South.

Only Congress can do that. This is a clear violation of the US Constitution.


#2 Lincoln ordered the military blockade of Southern ports.

This an act of war.

Only Congress can do that.

At that time Lincoln certainly violated the US Constitution.


#3 Lincoln ordered hundreds of Northern newspapers who dared to speak out against him to be shut down. And their owners and editors were arrested for disloyalty.

This is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution that Lincoln swore to uphold.

#4 Lincoln ordered the arrest of Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham for the crime of speaking out against him. Another clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

#5 Ex parte Merryman,

Chief Justice of the US Roger Taney, sitting as a judge of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, ruled that Lincoln had violated the US Constitution when he illegally suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

After hearing this Lincoln signed an arrest warrant to have the Chief Justice of the US arrested.

#6 US Constitution Article lll...

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them.

Lincoln committed treason.

Lincoln waged war upon his own country. Unless one considers secession legal and the Confederacy was a sovereign nation.

April 25 1861, When it looks as though Maryland may secede from the Union, Lincoln sends a letter to General Winfield Scott giving him permission to bombard Maryland's Cities.

This war criminal Lincoln couldn't wait to bombard innocent civilians. We call that Terrorism these days.

#7 Lincoln sent Union troops door to door in areas of Maryland, a Union state, to confiscate weapons.

This is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

Many Constitutional violations against Maryland...

'Maryland my Maryland' was published calling Lincoln a tyrant and a despot and a vandal.

Lincoln as already mentioned, trashed the Constitution by suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus and sending troops door to door confiscating weapons in areas of Maryland.

Maryland was a Union state.

Lincoln ordered the arrest of thousands Marylanders for the crime of 'suspected Southern sympathies'.

#8 Lincoln ordered the arrest of US Congressman Henry May representing Maryland.

Lincoln also had arrested...

#9 Most of the Maryland State Legislature.

#10 Most of the Baltimore city council

#11 The police commissioner of Baltimore

#12 The mayor of Baltimore

#13 Thousands of prominent Maryland citizens.

These people were arrested and held in Military prisons, without trial, some of them for years.

This war criminal Lincoln couldn't wait to bombard innocent civilians. We call that Terrorism these days.

#14 Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation.

This is a direct violation of the US Constitution and the US Supreme Courts decision on the matter.

#15 The Lincoln administration allowed the taking of private property for public use without just compensation or due process of law.

This is a clear violation of the 5th Amendment.

#16 The Lincoln Administration routinely used water torture against the thousands of Union prisoners arrested and jailed without trail.

This violates the 8th Amendment,

"Cruel and unusual punishment".

#17 Lincoln was Commander-in-Chief of an Army whose invasion of the South resulted in the deaths of 50,000 Southern civilians.

#18 Lincoln allowed his Generals to wage war upon civilians of the South. Union soldiers burned down civilians barns, houses, fields of crops, destroyed farm animals, and poisoned wells. They even burned down churches, towns and entire cities. We call that Terrorism now days.

 

Since the South wasn't a legitimate country all the claims about war do not apply. He was commander in chief.
Suspension of habeas corpus was upheld by the Supreme Court.
War resulting in civilian deaths isn't a war crime, though I gather you claim the US military has engaged in war crimes for every war it was in.
Burning and destroying the material resources of the opposing army isn't a war crime and isn't prohibited any rules of engagement in world history nor in USA military policy now.

The richest men in the South were not content with being the richest of all Americans and the ability to treat people in any sadistic ways they wanted to, they each wanted their own slave empire for which each one would be supreme leader. For this, they went to war figuring they were so wealthy and Europe so needed their cotton they could pull it off. They failed.

The civility of war tactics and the attitude of the North was unprecedented in humanitarianism. West Point officers and students, even officers of the Army, were not imprisoned, but allowed to leave to fight for their cause. The low level of casualties - other than Southerners killing blacks - estimated at 25% - were unprecedently low, unheard of before in any prior war. The leaders and generals of the defeated South were not executed and even Jefferson Davis was given a presidential pardon.

You can cry and sob all you want, the losers lamenting and raging and tears, but your side lost 150 years ago. You can't have what you want. Not then. Not now. Not ever.

The moral of the story: Don't start a war to get what you want unless you are prepared for the consequences of losing it.

People posting messages like you are think it is clever to blame the government for everything. Blame the USA for WW2. Blame the USA for the Civil War. Blame the USA for all the woos in the world. You believe that finding excuses and blaming others somehow has value, when it has none whatsoever. Your messages are no different that blacks who blame their lives now on that same past. You have the exact same belief there is value in blaming the past and people you'll never meet and long since dead.

Such is the nature of malcontent personalities. To kill time it can be fun to debate you to rage your furious self pity - as that's what it boils down to. But it all really is pointless.

Why not, instead, let's debate of the injustices of Southerns or all Americans against Native Americans? I suspect you have some justification for that, don't you? On that, might makes right and the Indians weren't perfect, isn't that your view? And this does 100% contradict everything you posted. OR you could post white people all should leave and give the USA back.

 

Or we could pick an equally now relevant topic, such as was Alexander the Great justified in invading Persia? What say you on that? That past also effects your current life.

 

The president can not declare war on his own especially back then. It seems you have a total lack of the founding of this nation and the documents concerning it. Maybe Obama should suspend habeous corpus so he can do as he likes

The richest men were in the North where they didnt have to worry about the tariffs that only affected the South for the most part

 

Lincoln deserves all the adulation he has received for 150 years.

 

Clearly your message claims are a strong support of ISIS. Please link to your messages critical of and raging of the USA's military actions against them.

ISIS also is a popular uprising armed insurrection. How they treat people makes them virtually humanitarians compared to how the South treated a huge percentage of their population, that could be worked, tortured, raped or murdered at will.

Statistics:

Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five.

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

Slavery was VERY profitable. That is what the South was fighting to preserve. The South was outraged that Northerners were sheltering and helping slaves to escape. The South also knew the increasingly greater anti-slavery Northerners would increasingly pass laws to end slavery thru such as tariffs and others. there was a LOT of MONEY at stake.

The Civil War was one of the most just wars in all of human history as it ended that last of slavery in the Western world and saved 6,000,000+ and the generations that followed - the 50% not murdered at birth - from slavery and the horrors of it.

 

A 2015 poll, administered by the American Political Science Association among political scientists specializing in the American presidency, had Abraham Lincoln in the top spot, with George Washington, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Bill Clinton, Andrew Jackson, and Woodrow Wilson cracking the top 10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

 

Sobbing over the South losing their insurrection and the slavery based society is

 

Then you have not paid much attention to the things I post. I have repeatedly said in many threads That not only do i not favor Judicial activism but that SCOTUS does no5t have the power of Judicial Review under the constitution, its simply not there just like there is no mention of session

Your showing a total lack of knowledge here. The constitution one last time does not stand on its own. SCOTUS constantly looks to the DOI in many of its decisions. There is a think in law called precedent

http://www.cato.org/us-constitution

Like I said it looks like they no longer teach civics or you slept through the course

 

Clearly you opposed the American revolution

The argument can be made it made things worse for blacks your only stating your opinion. Seems you favor we go invade all the nation in Africa where blacks are being killed by the millions by Muslims. Just war my ass. On top of that its not why he fought the war. It was to save the Union. In other words greed and power

- - - Updated - - -

No one is sobbing were just calling a spade a spade

 

The DOI is merely a written oratory. Looking for precedents outside the Constitution is exactly what judicial activism is. It is citing precedents that has lead to massively more power for federal courts than allowed in the Constitution. I agree with Thomas Jefferson on that.

Admit there is NO allowance for sedition in the Constitution and instead make your pro-Confederacy/pro-ISIS claims.

 

The American Revolution was not a right. It was an exercise in power rich and influential colonialists, a gamble for power that paid off. The government now is massively more oppressive over Americans than was the English government. The Southern rich made the same gamble, and lost.

Sedition isn't a right, it is only a question of whether there is the power to pull it off.

 

http://www.nccs.net/1998-06-the-declaration-of-independence-part-of-american-law.php

Looks like their referring to you as misconstruing

 

Except I would favor going to war to stop genocide in African, even if they aren't my people. I was all for the first Gulf War as Saddam Hussein was evolving to a rolling genocidal army and there was increasing genocide in North Africa. But then Bush 1 didn't finish it and didn't follow thru. With the recent collapse of the USSR, the USA was the unquestionable military, economic and even social power of earth. We could have wiped out every mass murderous tyrant on earth for "we the ordinary people of the world" before they obtained weapons of mass destruction or had organized. But Bush 1 bailed.

The mass atrocities against millions of blacks is something that you were just fine with then and just fine with now. I'm not. But claiming some super rights you have for being white is a bunch of crap. YOU have a right to armed insurrection for money, but armed action to end mass attrocities, rape and murder isn't a right? That's rather amoral and making more of a big deal of your race that you deserve.

 

OK you do oppose it at least you consistent

Sedition is not session is

 

Quoting profs back and forth of opposing views is worth exactly nothing.

BUT the DOI also supports my position:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The South was an unimaginable diametric opposite of that DOI language. Of course, you absolutely HATE that language of the DOI, don't you?

The Civil War FINALLY came to enforce that language. The DOI says your side was in the wrong as "self evident truth" and according to God. This is what foremost made the Civil War right and just.

Again, no language in the Constitution authorizes sedition. No language prevents the President from putting down an armed insurrection. Severance from the union was in direct violation of the Constitution. It also was treason under the law, though the North essentially pardoned everyone of that crime.

 

OK we got it your a war monger

Is it only blacks you defend. How about all the Christians being murdered by Muslims? Are you going to invade most of the ME? The founders thought we should mind our own business other than to trade

 

I never denied that and its why we finally set them free because as you just showed the DOI says so not the constitution that came later after the war

No it says Im right. That if you feel your government is not representing and abusing your rights you have the right and the duty to overthrow that government. The south didnt even want to do that . They simply wanted to go back to being independent States as they were before the signing. It was gentlemens agreement to them not a promise of till death do us part. Again you can not show me anywhere in it that says session is not allowed. That means according to the 10th amendment its a state matter and right

 

I strongly favor states rights as controlling, but there are exceptions as in the Constitution. I strongly oppose armed insurrection. The Constitution provides for non-violent revolution - called elections. The South engaged in sedition and insurrection as a war against democracy with the election of Lincoln.

I don't have a problem with the backwoods folks around here flying a Confederate flag, get along with them fine. There is a tad of racism for it for some, nothing not in a do-anything sort of way. They mostly fly it as a statement of opposition to government trying to dictate their lives, the billion laws and rules, and to protest the constant trashing of white people as evil and sneering ways. I'm ok with all of that.

But slavery was so unthinkably horrific, so unimaginably evil beyond what people grasp, and was what the institutions and economics of the South had become entirely about, that if the South has not attacked Fort Sumter I would have favored it if Lincoln did start the war. That is how far apart we are. It is not just Lincoln has a right to fight to keep the Union together - which is an issue entirely of itself as wars to create stronger central governments is worldwide historic and essential to any peoples for survival, but that the South HAD to be CRUSHED.

The only regrettable thing about Lincoln was that he was assassinated as he favored full reconciliation AND would likely have lead an evolution that didn't cause another 100 years of oppression against blacks, though not as cruel as slavery.

 

None that disallows session. That would be pretty hypocritical of them. Was the DOI a one time shot?
As I have stated in the past the assassination of Lincoln was the worst thing that could have happened to them other than the war who had found god and finally gone on the right path after the death of his son

 

We're just going in circles now.I cited specific duties towards the federal government stated in the Constitution. Sedition violated those. However, I will have stated in a way I wouldn't care if not. The goal of creating 11 new slave-nations is something that should have been crushed - and it was.

How do you address: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”

Inherently, the attack on Fort Sumter was an "insurrection" as was sedition in general. That is what an "insurrection" is. Or do you erase that from the Constitution claiming the DOI as proof?