America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 3 years ago by Mr. Jones. 80 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Fascism alive and well.
RayR Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,796
The constitution.only allows Federal troops to be deployed to a state on the request of the governor or the state legislature. Then again, when does the federal government ever obey the original intent of the constitution? Hmmm?
The Democrats and Republicans are no different.
borndead1 Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,215
It's OK for the Feds to disappear people, as long as they are people who I disagree with politically.
frankj1 Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
calm last night, no feds.
wassup tonight?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
RayR wrote:
The constitution.only allows Federal troops to be deployed to a state on the request of the governor or the state legislature. Then again, when does the federal government ever obey the original intent of the constitution? Hmmm?
The Democrats and Republicans are no different.


The head of the US Department of Homeland Security has said: "I don't need invitations by the state, state mayors, or state governors to do our job. We're going to do that, whether they like us there or not."

The federal government has a right to protect federal property - and a 2002 law (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315) details that federal officers can be deployed for "the protection of property owned or occupied by the federal government".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52893540
RayR Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,796
DrMaddVibe wrote:
The head of the US Department of Homeland Security has said: "I don't need invitations by the state, state mayors, or state governors to do our job. We're going to do that, whether they like us there or not."

The federal government has a right to protect federal property - and a 2002 law (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/1315) details that federal officers can be deployed for "the protection of property owned or occupied by the federal government".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52893540


The question posed by Abrignac was, "Does the Constitution provide the President an avenue to deploy Federal troops during unrest? I’m not looking to debate appropriateness, just whether the Constitution allows such."

The answer is clearly no, you can read the Constitution for yourself and any constitutional scholar will affirm it that the answer is no.
As Judge Andrew Napolitano said, "The federal government can't do what it doesn’t have the authority to do. And it shouldn’t do anything without the coordination of the locals. And if the mayor for whatever sound or perverse reason he may have does not want the feds and his streets, and if the governor doesn’t ask for them or the legislature doesn’t ask for them ... this is the Constitution,"

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 only allows for "officers and agents for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property."

So if some moron is damaging federal property or violently attacking someone who is on federal property, the federal officers have the right to arrest the perpetrator(s). That does not give them any authority to run around on the streets arresting protestors or rioters who have not committed crimes on federal property. In order to do that would require a request by the governor or state legislature.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
I showed where the Constitution can and has been bypassed by Federal law enacted in 2002. Not the 1st time either.

It clearly pertains to why they're there and why they extended their perimeter.

I'm all for the Federal government pulling out of the the city and the county. ALL OF IT. Every service and office shut down until law and order can be maintained.
RayR Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,796
DrMaddVibe wrote:
I showed where the Constitution can and has been bypassed by Federal law enacted in 2002. Not the 1st time either.

It clearly pertains to why they're there and why they extended their perimeter.

I'm all for the Federal government pulling out of the the city and the county. ALL OF IT. Every service and office shut down until law and order can be maintained.


Nationalists have been working at circumventing the original meaning of the Constitution since day one, starting with Alexander Hamilton and his ring of cronies, whittling away at the system of federalism as it was intended to be in the Constitutional Republic and replacing it with a centralized authority in the capitol and transforming it into a Nation State.
It follows the the boiled frog metaphor, gradual changes and usurpation of powers through the generations so that most people don't even notice or understand what happened.
This happens not only at the level of the general government but also at the level of state governments, the US Constitution as ratified by the original 13 sovereign states guaranteed each state a republican form of government but at various speeds each state has been destroying their republican form of government from within.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
RayR wrote:
Nationalists have been working at circumventing the original meaning of the Constitution since day one, starting with Alexander Hamilton and his ring of cronies, whittling away at the system of federalism as it was intended to be in the Constitutional Republic and replacing it with a centralized authority in the capitol and transforming it into a Nation State.
It follows the the boiled frog metaphor, gradual changes and usurpation of powers through the generations so that most people don't even notice or understand what happened.
This happens not only at the level of the general government but also at the level of state governments, the US Constitution as ratified by the original 13 sovereign states guaranteed each state a republican form of government but at various speeds each state has been destroying their republican form of government from within.



In certain instances it's not a bad thing. Hamilton while educating the colonists as to how and why we would become a nation with the Federalist Papers would've made a terrible President.

While adhering to the letter and the intent of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence is paramount, politicians are prostitutes. There is no honor nor virtue amongst them. Expecting them to do otherwise is an exercise in futility. Of course they will take broad swipes, generalizations and public opinions as just causes to do what they want forgetting why they were elected in the 1st place. To say we've "destroyed" the original intent of this nation's bond with it's citizens is to say the will of the people will not be heard. We have added to the Bill of Rights because as the Founding Fathers understood and showed that as a nation we did have the ability to change.

This nation does a poor job of educating. The men that created these documents were learned men. Most spoke several languages. They also understood that serving in government wasn't an occupation. We have current politicians that swore an oath to the Constitution and then on the floor have uttered words that would've had them removed in shackles during the time of drafting the words forming it! Most people won't even take the time to read the Federalist Papers. I've ran across people that didn't even know it existed yet want to tell me the intent of the birth of this nation.

I'll end with this though, imagine a United States without the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Read his Cooper Union speech and it almost resonates today but for different reasons. Read Confederate Vice President's Stephens' Cornerstone Address for stark contrast. What would this nation have become without him acting to suspend Habeus Corpus? Is that a nation you would want to even live in?
Mr. Jones Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,359
A.T.T.E.N.T.I.O.N.
ALL CBID SHEEPPLES...

FACISM IS ALIVE AND WELL...

SINCE "911"..

THE PATRIOT ACT was all it took...

Then the massive injection of BLACK BUDGET DOLLARS INTO HOMELAND SECURITY , JSOC AND THE LITTLE KNOWN FBI "SPECIAL SURVEILLANCE GROUP DIVISION"...

CURRENTLY KNOWN ON HERE AS THE "SSG"

THE SSG WEARS NO UNIFORM, THEY DRESS LIKE GRUBS AT A STATE PARK, HOUSEWIVES, THE UNDER 21 GROUP,
LIBRARIANS, SHOPPERS, CRIPPLES, OLD FOSSILS, BLACK, WHITE, CHINESE, HISPANIC...ON AND ON AND ON...
YOU NAME IT...THE SSG HAS ONE OR TWO OF THEM ON EVERY "200 PERSON TEAM" IN AMERICA...just waiting for marching orders and a new 18 month GaNGSTALKInG assignment...they can't wait to hop on the the super underground maglev rail to a new destination and decend on some poor INNOCcENT sap like they did to me...except my assignment was 5 + years and over 9 murder attempts,
2 druggings at bars, a bogUs setup DUI CHARGE ($8 K in costs), constant harassment day in day out with bored housewives neighborhood crime watch brown shirt Nazi's
Paid in CASH NO.10 BIDNESS enVeLoPes....

FACISM IN AMERICA = THE FBI - SSG DIVISION
Mr. Jones Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,359
Re Elect El Duche' in 2020...
RayR Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,796
DrMaddVibe wrote:
In certain instances it's not a bad thing. Hamilton while educating the colonists as to how and why we would become a nation with the Federalist Papers would've made a terrible President.

While adhering to the letter and the intent of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence is paramount, politicians are prostitutes. There is no honor nor virtue amongst them. Expecting them to do otherwise is an exercise in futility. Of course they will take broad swipes, generalizations and public opinions as just causes to do what they want forgetting why they were elected in the 1st place. To say we've "destroyed" the original intent of this nation's bond with it's citizens is to say the will of the people will not be heard. We have added to the Bill of Rights because as the Founding Fathers understood and showed that as a nation we did have the ability to change.

This nation does a poor job of educating. The men that created these documents were learned men. Most spoke several languages. They also understood that serving in government wasn't an occupation. We have current politicians that swore an oath to the Constitution and then on the floor have uttered words that would've had them removed in shackles during the time of drafting the words forming it! Most people won't even take the time to read the Federalist Papers. I've ran across people that didn't even know it existed yet want to tell me the intent of the birth of this nation.

I'll end with this though, imagine a United States without the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. Read his Cooper Union speech and it almost resonates today but for different reasons. Read Confederate Vice President's Stephens' Cornerstone Address for stark contrast. What would this nation have become without him acting to suspend Habeus Corpus? Is that a nation you would want to even live in?


This is a rule to live by—Whenever a political figure is beloved on all sides, he's always a scoundrel.
So it is for Alexander Hamilton and his political heir Abraham Lincoln since they both have their acolytes on the left and the right.
Abrignac Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,217
RayR wrote:
This is a rule to live by—Whenever a political figure is beloved on all sides, he's always a scoundrel.
So it is for Alexander Hamilton and his political heir Abraham Lincoln since they both have their acolytes on the left and the right.


If I understand you correctly you feel a person is unworthy if they are seeking compromise. Yet, the Bill of Rights is the result of compromise.

Please explain your position as it relates to my statement
RayR Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,796
Abrignac wrote:
If I understand you correctly you feel a person is unworthy if they are seeking compromise. Yet, the Bill of Rights is the result of compromise.

Please explain your position as it relates to my statement


No, you completely misunderstand.
It means if there is a politician that is admired or even deified by both the left and the right, the Republicans and the Democrats, that should give you reason to pause and reflect as to why. You usually find that politician to be much less than honourable.
Now it could be that the only concept of history that many people have is partisan myths that they've been told that massages a narrative to make them believe something about a politician that supports their ideological leanings and indoctrination, but really doesn't jive with real history at all. That's a common thing with characters like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln. They have their own acolytes on the right and the left, and those acolytes both try to take ownership of their hero by any means available including making up BS.

Now take an action like when Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended Habeus Corpus (only Congress has that authority in the most extreme circumstances). Now Lincoln committed other criminal unconstitutional acts as President, but you find those on the left and the right who deify Lincoln for whatever reason and will nonetheless construct highly dubious and ahistorical excuses as to why those acts were necessary and right and not clearly impeachable offences.

Now you mentioned "imagine a United States without the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln" OK am I suppose to guess at what might have happened? Well since Lincoln wouldn't have been in office and he wouldn't have made his thinly veiled threat in his 1st Inaugural Address "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." This alone prompted more states to leave the union and join the Confederate States of America. Maybe without Lincoln then the war wouldn't have happened and the butchery of 620,000-800,000 (who knows really?) men, women and children, white black and native American would have been prevented. What do you think?
Other than his 1st Inaugural Address being winding and long winded as they typically were, the speech was actually one of his strongest pro-slavery speeches. Lincoln never ever threatened to invade anywhere to abolish slavery, he wasn't an abolitionist, slavery still existed in parts of the North during the war. He was a white supremacist as most people were and he was an advocate for most of his life until his death of deporting blacks and colonizing them away from N. America.
All wars are about political power and money and not about some moral crusade and Lincolns war was definitely about power and cha-ching above anything else!
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-economy-stupid/
delta1 Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
cons will not like the Lincolnian blasphemy you just posted...


whacha trying to do...start another Civil War?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
RayR wrote:
No, you completely misunderstand.
It means if there is a politician that is admired or even deified by both the left and the right, the Republicans and the Democrats, that should give you reason to pause and reflect as to why. You usually find that politician to be much less than honourable.
Now it could be that the only concept of history that many people have is partisan myths that they've been told that massages a narrative to make them believe something about a politician that supports their ideological leanings and indoctrination, but really doesn't jive with real history at all. That's a common thing with characters like Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln. They have their own acolytes on the right and the left, and those acolytes both try to take ownership of their hero by any means available including making up BS.

Now take an action like when Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended Habeus Corpus (only Congress has that authority in the most extreme circumstances). Now Lincoln committed other criminal unconstitutional acts as President, but you find those on the left and the right who deify Lincoln for whatever reason and will nonetheless construct highly dubious and ahistorical excuses as to why those acts were necessary and right and not clearly impeachable offences.

Now you mentioned "imagine a United States without the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln" OK am I suppose to guess at what might have happened? Well since Lincoln wouldn't have been in office and he wouldn't have made his thinly veiled threat in his 1st Inaugural Address "The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere." This alone prompted more states to leave the union and join the Confederate States of America. Maybe without Lincoln then the war wouldn't have happened and the butchery of 620,000-800,000 (who knows really?) men, women and children, white black and native American would have been prevented. What do you think?
Other than his 1st Inaugural Address being winding and long winded as they typically were, the speech was actually one of his strongest pro-slavery speeches. Lincoln never ever threatened to invade anywhere to abolish slavery, he wasn't an abolitionist, slavery still existed in parts of the North during the war. He was a white supremacist as most people were and he was an advocate for most of his life until his death of deporting blacks and colonizing them away from N. America.
All wars are about political power and money and not about some moral crusade and Lincolns war was definitely about power and cha-ching above anything else!
https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-economy-stupid/



You didn't even bother to read the speeches I referenced above. If you had you wouldn't have gone where you did.

Seriously...you call yourself a Libertarian? You're not even a Librarian. Just another Lib in fake clothes.

PS: ALL wars were created due to DEBT! ALL OF THEM!
RayR Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,796
delta1 wrote:
cons will not like the Lincolnian blasphemy you just posted...


whacha trying to do...start another Civil War?


It's seems I'm always at war with neocons and leftists, not much difference between the two either. I've been told it's like talking to a brick wall.Brick wall
RayR Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,796
DrMaddVibe wrote:
You didn't even bother to read the speeches I referenced above. If you had you wouldn't have gone where you did.

Seriously...you call yourself a Libertarian? You're not even a Librarian. Just another Lib in fake clothes.

PS: ALL wars were created due to DEBT! ALL OF THEM!


Yikes! I must have triggered somebody.Eh?
Ya, the Cooper Union speech and Stephens' Cornerstone Address, I've read them before.
So how about you telling me how Lincolns Cooper Union speech "almost resonates today but for different reasons" and the contrast with Stephens' Cornerstone Address. I can't read minds so when I don't know where you're going with this, so I don't go there.

You know that Lincoln, God he was boring with that speech, I know he was a Whig corporate lawyer and all, and he must have been able to put a jury to sleep or in a comatose state with all that meandering prose and supposed history.Sleep The thirty-nine, the thirty-nine, the bloody thirty-nine!
He sounds just like one of Alexander Hamilton's fanciful interpretations of the Constitution, that of "implied powers", instead of the Constitution specifying only specific enumerated powers allowed to the federal government as the document does, he turns things upside down and claims if the Constitution doesn't specifically forbade the federal government from doing something then that means they can do it. Amazing!
I wish he could have just skipped all that fumbling BS and just got to the point that he never did, what was the REAL REASON that he and other member of the Republican Party didn't want slavery extended into the Western territories? Inquiring minds want to know.Anxious

PS: ALL wars create debt and corpses too...lots of it!
Mr. Jones Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,359
I am broke and I'm not starting any WARS...
frankj1 Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
...and the google machine is working overtime!

Hey Ray. I'll probably agree with some stuff, disagree with some stuff, but I will consider you a must read as you come prepared with a philosophy based on history and stuff, as opposed to a lot of last second research postings trying to prove what one wishes is better.

I never have learned anything new from those with whom I already agree.
frankj1 Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
Mr. Jones wrote:
I am broke and I'm not starting any WARS...

things could change...
Mr. Jones Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,359
BWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Good one BOO BOO !!!
frankj1 Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
HA!
Mr. Jones Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,359
You guys think tooooo much...


On here...

I am simple man...
With simple thoughts...

A simpleton...

but

SMHHHAAATTT LIKE A FOX & A Y.O.G.I.

JUST ASK ANY D.I.S.-GRUNTLED FBI-SSG AGENT WITH A NEW LIFELONG NICKNAME THAT I GAVE THEM...

that they get called everyday...

By their coworkers...

Since 2013...

until the day they perish and go STRAigHt to a well desERveD eteRnitY in HAdES...
RayR Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,796
frankj1 wrote:
...and the google machine is working overtime!

Hey Ray. I'll probably agree with some stuff, disagree with some stuff, but I will consider you a must read as you come prepared with a philosophy based on history and stuff, as opposed to a lot of last second research postings trying to prove what one wishes is better.

I never have learned anything new from those with whom I already agree.


Frank, you are only allowed to disagree with me if you can provide rock solid evidence to prove me wrong.BigGrin

You're right that you never learn anything new if you are stuck in an echo chamber, and the powers that be, the ones that want to control you, want you stuck in their echo chamber.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,301
RayR wrote:
Yikes! I must have triggered somebody.Eh?
Ya, the Cooper Union speech and Stephens' Cornerstone Address, I've read them before.
So how about you telling me how Lincolns Cooper Union speech "almost resonates today but for different reasons" and the contrast with Stephens' Cornerstone Address. I can't read minds so when I don't know where you're going with this, so I don't go there.

You know that Lincoln, God he was boring with that speech, I know he was a Whig corporate lawyer and all, and he must have been able to put a jury to sleep or in a comatose state with all that meandering prose and supposed history.Sleep The thirty-nine, the thirty-nine, the bloody thirty-nine!
He sounds just like one of Alexander Hamilton's fanciful interpretations of the Constitution, that of "implied powers", instead of the Constitution specifying only specific enumerated powers allowed to the federal government as the document does, he turns things upside down and claims if the Constitution doesn't specifically forbade the federal government from doing something then that means they can do it. Amazing!
I wish he could have just skipped all that fumbling BS and just got to the point that he never did, what was the REAL REASON that he and other member of the Republican Party didn't want slavery extended into the Western territories? Inquiring minds want to know.Anxious

PS: ALL wars create debt and corpses too...lots of it!


You didn't "trigger" anyone. All you did to me was show that you lack the ability to reason and read. You employ a snippet mentality that is pervasive amongst most of society today. That is where your wannabee "Libertarian" structure based on a house of rolling papers shows. There are several Libertarians here on this site and you are not even close to what they post. They actually make sense, make clear points and read opposing viewpoints of further education.

The 39 was a driving point that obviously stuck out to you but you don't have the ability to move past the number.

You didn't read it at all. Here.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

And here is Stephens speech.

https://www.owleyes.org/text/the-cornerstone-speech/read/text-of-stephenss-speech#root-10


Lincoln clearly dictated with utter clarity what the South and the Confederacy meant to survival of the USA.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote LaFayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States.

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it.

But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.


Stephens clearly showed that the Confederacy myth of "states rights" was a veiled disguise only to keep slavery.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other — though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

One was a campaign speech, the other was from a conspirator of a rebellion.

As for your war comment. You know you're wrong. There have been bloodless wars. As for your debt remark...only for the losers. Only for the losers.
RayR Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,796
DrMaddVibe wrote:
You didn't "trigger" anyone. All you did to me was show that you lack the ability to reason and read. You employ a snippet mentality that is pervasive amongst most of society today. That is where your wannabee "Libertarian" structure based on a house of rolling papers shows. There are several Libertarians here on this site and you are not even close to what they post. They actually make sense, make clear points and read opposing viewpoints of further education.

The 39 was a driving point that obviously stuck out to you but you don't have the ability to move past the number.

You didn't read it at all. Here.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm

And here is Stephens speech.

https://www.owleyes.org/text/the-cornerstone-speech/read/text-of-stephenss-speech#root-10


Lincoln clearly dictated with utter clarity what the South and the Confederacy meant to survival of the USA.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote LaFayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States.

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it.

But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.


Stephens clearly showed that the Confederacy myth of "states rights" was a veiled disguise only to keep slavery.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other — though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

One was a campaign speech, the other was from a conspirator of a rebellion.

As for your war comment. You know you're wrong. There have been bloodless wars. As for your debt remark...only for the losers. Only for the losers.



OK, I'll let Prof. Brion McClannahan dissemble Lincolns Cooper Union speech. Lincoln was deceptive and clearly made stuff up in his speeches, he was a hack. https://youtu.be/XJGoe7TfnxQ

At least with Stephens you understood exactly where he was coming from. He was a white supremacist like most people in the North and South and a pro-slavery guy. But so was Lincoln from his writings and speeches, and famously in his 1st Inaugural Address.
Did you know Stephens voted against secession because he judged “slavery more secure in the Union than out of it.”??
https://fee.org/articles/the-question-of-slavery/

"conspirator of a rebellion" Ooooo....how sinister sounding. You forgot "traitors" too, that's another one. I guess the right of secession as laid out in The Declaration of Independence was a conspiracy of rebellion! Those damn colonist rebels, King George should have hung them all.Cursing

But that still doesn't answer the question...what were THE REAL REASONS that Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to keep slavery out of the Western Territories?
HockeyDad Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,065
RayR wrote:


But that still doesn't answer the question...what were THE REAL REASONS that Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to keep slavery out of the Western Territories?



They didn’t want the slaves to take the Mexicans’ jobs?
RayR Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,796
HockeyDad wrote:
They didn’t want the slaves to take the Mexicans’ jobs?


You're getting close, but no cigar for you.
Speyside Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I don't always agree with Doc, but I do respect his point of view and learn from it. You on the other hand seem no more than a sound byte.
Mr. Jones Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,359
See #73
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12