Failed to understand " The grandest of these ideals is an American promise that everyone belongs"

Lordyaswas wrote:

..........."I was enjoying our dialog in the O tolerance policy thread.
I hope u will return to it."

Nah, when it comes to guns, you're an idiot who will never change his mind. . . .

If I were an idiot, then I 'd not be able to type, nor to read.
I will not change my mind because I am right.
U have surrendered because u cannot disprove what is correct,
however much u yearn to do so. Good sportsmanship requires that u ADMIT IT.
David

Any person who thinks about and glorifies guns most of the time, is either shooting his mouth off in the false hope that he will appear manly, like Oral Roy, has a serious ocd or fetish problem, or is an idiot.

You can goad and lure all you like, but the vast majority here see you as having a problem.

..........."I was enjoying our dialog in the O tolerance policy thread.
I hope u will return to it."

when it comes to guns, you're an idiot who will never change his mind. . . .

If I were an idiot, then I 'd not be able to type, nor to read.
I will not change my mind because I am right.
U have surrendered because u cannot disprove what is correct,
however much u yearn to do so. Good sportsmanship requires that u ADMIT IT.
David

Any person who thinks about and glorifies guns most of the time,
is either shooting his mouth off in the false hope that he will appear manly,

Oral Roy, has a serious ocd or fetish problem,

is an idiot.

Take your pick.

Americans (some of them) want everyone to be able to keep and bear arms because they are afraid of gunfire.

Idiotic, isn't it?

He was fighting to prevent the withdrawal of a large block of States from the USA. He said so.

Lincoln also redefined the Civil War as a struggle not just for the Union, but also for the principle of human equality.

Did he have CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY[/b] to do that, Oristar??
I don't believe that he did. If u disagree, then please cite to any part of Article II of the Constitution to obtain a definition of his power that supports your allegations. I look forward to seeing that.

I re-iterate: from the Big Bang until now,
no 2 men have ever been created equal (not even identical twins);
no matter WHAT Lincoln said. Differences however small
have existed between them, tho thay have also been alike in some aspects.

David

He was fighting to prevent the withdrawal of a large block of States from the USA. He said so.

Oh Dave, are you telling us that Lincoln had CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to say/define he was fighting to prevent the withdrawal of a large block of States from the USA, yet he didn't have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to redefine it as a struggle not just for the Union, but also for the principle of human equality?

you'd first show us the premise of your argument based on the Article II of the Constitution.

Lincoln also redefined the Civil War as a struggle not just for the Union, but also for the principle of human equality.

Did he have CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do that, Oristar??
I don't believe that he did.
If u disagree, then please cite to any part of Article II of the Constitution
to obtain a definition of his power that supports your allegations.
I look forward to seeing that.

I could not have imagined that your point of view could be so childish, Dave.

Think of it as a contract. Once signed, youj can't back out of it simply because it displeases you. It's a little late to try to restore the Confederacy, David.

Lincoln did the right thing. He was acting as commander in chief of the armed forces of the US to put down insurrection, rather like George Washington acted to put down Shay's Rebellion.

Lincoln settled it decisively.

I reaslly don't give a rat's ass whether David thinks Lincoln had authority to go to war
against the Confederacy or not. Lincoln did the right thing.

He was acting as commander in chief of the armed forces of the US to put down insurrection,
rather like George Washington acted to put down Shay's Rebellion.

Simply because it was on a larger scale doesn't make it less insurrection.

The question of whether or not a state could secede or not
was one of those ones which roiled the 19th century rpeatedly,
with constitutional arguments on both sides.



Lincoln settled it decisively.

Think of it as a contract.

Once signed, youj can't back out of it simply because it displeases you.

It's a little late to try to restore the Confederacy, David.

Lincoln used the slaves as his pawn to prevent the South from engaging in free trade. The US is famous for using people, killing people, torturing people, murdering children, preventing people from having freedom and democracy just to satisfy the US's greedy, rapacious ends.

MontereyJack wrote:

The question of whether or not a state could secede or not
was one of those ones which roiled the 19th century rpeatedly,
with constitutional arguments on both sides.
Lincoln settled it decisively.

Now here we see Jack employing some rhetorical trickery (presumably hoping that we will be too dum to detect it). He silently assumes that accurate Constitutional analysis will result in military conquest; i.e., that "might makes right".By that reasoning, the Workers' Paradise and the 1OOO Year Reich
were RIGHT when thay invaded n defeated Poland in 1939.
By that principle of reasoning, the Confederacy woud have been right,
in Jack's eyes, if only it had invented nukes before the Union did.

David

The American Civil War, also known as the War Between the States or simply the Civil War (see naming), was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 in the United States after several[3] Southern slave states declared their secession and formed the Confederate States of America (the "Confederacy" or the "South"). The states that remained were known as the "Union" or the "North". The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery, especially the extension of slavery into the western territories.[4] Foreign powers did not intervene. After four years of bloody combat that left over 600,000 soldiers dead and destroyed much of the South's infrastructure, the Confederacy collapsed, slavery was abolished, and the difficult Reconstruction process of restoring national unity and guaranteeing rights to the freed slaves began.

In the 1860 presidential election, Republicans, led by Abraham Lincoln, opposed the expansion of slavery into United States' territories. Lincoln won, but before his inauguration on March 4, 1861, seven slave states with cotton-based economies formed the Confederacy. Outgoing Democratic President James Buchanan and the incoming Republicans rejected secession as illegal. Lincoln's inaugural address declared his administration would not initiate civil war. Eight remaining slave states continued to reject calls for secession. Confederate forces seized numerous federal forts within territory claimed by the Confederacy. A peace conference failed to find a compromise, and both sides prepared for war. The Confederates assumed that European countries were so dependent on "King Cotton" that they would intervene; none did and none recognized the new Confederate States of America.

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter, a key fort held by Union troops in South Carolina. Lincoln called for each state to provide troops to retake the fort; consequently, four more slave states joined the Confederacy, bringing their total to eleven. The Union soon controlled the border states and established a naval blockade that crippled the southern economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

In that case, there wouldn't have been the emancipation of American blacks, JTT. The mission had completed and the slaves should come back to their toils for Lincolns.

But facts speak louder than words [eloquence]. There is no slave in today's USA. It is a strong rebuttal against your argument.

Please read this, Dave:

I did so, Oristar. David

The American Civil War, also known as the War Between the States or simply the Civil War (see naming), was a civil war fought from 1861 to 1865 in the United States after several[3] Southern slave states declared their secession and formed the Confederate States of America (the "Confederacy" or the "South"). The states that remained were known as the "Union" or the "North". The war had its origin in the fractious issue of slavery, especially the extension of slavery into the western territories.[4]

More to the specific point, the war resulted from the secession
of the Southern States from the Union.
If not, then Y wait until thay withdrew??

Do u advocate the point of view that if non-slaveholding States
had left the Union, then Lincoln woud have cheerfully let them go in peace???
Their can be NO room for doubt that slavery gave rise to very intense
emotions on both sides of the war, but that war was to prevent the
loss of territory. Do u allege that if the South had remained in the Union,
then the North still woud have militarily invaded to liberate the slaves??
Is there evidence of that??

Foreign powers did not intervene. After four years of bloody combat that left over 600,000 soldiers dead and destroyed much of the South's infrastructure, the Confederacy collapsed, slavery was abolished, and the difficult Reconstruction process of restoring national unity and guaranteeing rights to the freed slaves began.

In the 1860 presidential election, Republicans, led by Abraham Lincoln, opposed the expansion of slavery into United States' territories. Lincoln won, but before his inauguration on March 4, 1861, seven slave states with cotton-based economies formed the Confederacy. Outgoing Democratic President James Buchanan and the incoming Republicans rejected secession as illegal. Lincoln's inaugural address declared his administration would not initiate civil war. Eight remaining slave states continued to reject calls for secession. Confederate forces seized numerous federal forts within territory claimed by the Confederacy. A peace conference failed to find a compromise, and both sides prepared for war. The Confederates assumed that European countries were so dependent on "King Cotton" that they would intervene; none did and none recognized the new Confederate States of America.

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter, a key fort held by Union troops in South Carolina. Lincoln called for each state to provide troops to retake the fort; consequently, four more slave states joined the Confederacy, bringing their total to eleven. The Union soon controlled the border states and established a naval blockade that crippled the southern economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

It is a lie that the son of a slave is born to be a slave, while the son of a slaveowner
is born to be an owner. They are born to be equal.
It is a true voice in the deep heart of humanity; it is a song that rings from sea to shining sea.

Quote:

In that case, there wouldn't have been the emancipation of American blacks, JTT. The mission had completed and the slaves should come back to their toils for Lincolns.

The emancipation of slaves was done to break the South. It was a propaganda ploy used by the North.

Quote:

But facts speak louder than words [eloquence]. There is no slave in today's USA. It is a strong rebuttal against your argument.

The vicious manner in which Blacks were treated for the next 100 plus years tells the story about how important emancipation was to Americans as a whole.

As Vice President while speaking from Gettysburg on May 30, 1963 (Memorial Day), at the centennial of the Emancipation Proclamation, Johnson connected it directly with the ongoing Civil Rights struggles of the time saying "One hundred years ago, the slave was freed. One hundred years later, the Negro remains in bondage to the color of his skin. ...In this hour, it is not our respective races which are at stake--it is our nation. Let those who care for their country come forward, North and South, white and Negro, to lead the way through this moment of challenge and decision....Until justice is blind to color, until education is unaware of race, until opportunity is unconcerned with color of men's skins, emancipation will be a proclamation but not a fact. To the extent that the proclamation of emancipation is not fulfilled in fact, to that extent we shall have fallen short of assuring freedom to the free."[82]

As Vice President while speaking from Gettysburg on May 30, 1963 (Memorial Day), at the centennial of the Emancipation Proclamation, Johnson connected it directly with the ongoing Civil Rights struggles

More to the specific point, the war resulted from the secession
of the Southern States from the Union.
If not, then Y wait until thay withdrew??

Do u advocate the point of view that if non-slaveholding States
had left the Union, then Lincoln woud have cheerfully let them go in peace???
Their can be NO room for doubt that slavery gave rise to very intense
emotions on both sides of the war, but that war was to prevent the
loss of territory. Do u allege that if the South had remained in the Union,
then the North still woud have militarily invaded to liberate the slaves??
Is there evidence of that??

David

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. 12
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? 13
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." 14
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 15
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
---Lincoln

All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. 22
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.