[Scamp]

I would like to list many of the crimes committed by Lincoln and his Administration.

Also 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.

I apologize up front for truthful, accurate, factual posts here that may hurt any Lincoln fan's feelings...

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.

Lincoln should have been hanged for his war crimes and violations of the Constitution. Instead he was shot.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

[Smilin' Dave]

Well on the plus side you've learnt not to post back to back...

Lincoln should have been hanged for his war crimes and violations of the Constitution. Instead he was shot.

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

As I've previously pointed out to you, John Wilkes Booth didn't care about the constitution. And complaining about Union 'terrorism' while cheering on a terrorist act like assassination is completely hypocritical.

Hypocritical. Like all your posts on HiFo about slavery in the northern states, while refusing to discuss slavery in the south.

[The Immortal Goon]

Lincoln reasonably drew precidence from the fact that there had been several pledges of association and union that predate the Constitution.

Secondly, and more importantly, the South attacked the North. Yes, you can say supplying a fort was so aggressive the South couldn't help itself and had to attack. But you'd be wrong.

The South was full of cowardly bullies that inflated themselves up on their own egos. You lost. Get over it.

[Scamp]

Secondly, and more importantly, the South attacked the North.

Yes the South did attack the North, at Gettysburg Pennsylvania. Two years after the North invaded the South.

But Yankee sympathizers are always trying to divert from the truth about their war to prevent Southern Independence.

[Wolfman]

Are you still spamming this silly nonesense?

[Scamp]

Are you still spamming this silly nonesense?

Wolfman, Are you still stalking my posts? And dude please check your spelling

The truth is heavy. Therefore, Yankee sympathizers refuse to carry it.

[The Immortal Goon]

Two years after the North invaded the South.

You must have not heard of Fort Sumpter then. The South attacked it.

Look, if the Southern delegates in DC had stood up and done something, said something, declared something, then maybe you could make an argument.

Instead they cowardly ran away, declared a bunch of nonsense that has the legal bearing of kids in a treehouse making a fort, and then are appalled at "Yankee aggression" when the cowardly kids start firing on the United States military. You lost.

And this nonsense about the Federal Government being too strong as the Neo-Confederats like to pretend is garbage. Your whole movement was based on needing a stronger Federal Government to force everyone to participate in your lazy degenerate insistance on having slaves:

We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely: the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.

The Confederate Constitution reserved the right of the central authority to come in and meddle with whatever the states were doing in a far more aggressive manner than was done in the North.

When (surprise) people reared on the desire to force other people to serve them were too weak to take on factory workers and a modern industrial power, you lazily claimed tyranny of the feds after the fact.

A tyranny, by the way, that continues today by the North tyrannically putting a lot of money into the system for you to take out and grow obese about.

So you can be adult babies that can't take care of yourself, we'll just pay for it instead of having you force Africans to be your slaves to do it.

And still you complain. You embarrass us, but since we're the adults we'll continue to take care of you while you whine and complain about a war you were stupid enough to start, and weak enough to lose.

[Scamp]

Secondly, and more importantly, the South attacked the North.

You must have not heard of Fort Sumpter then. The South attacked it.

Yes I heard of it, its spelled "Sumter" and its not in the North, its in South Carolina.

And this nonsense about the Federal Government being too strong as the Neo-Confederats like to pretend is garbage. Your whole movement was based on needing a stronger Federal Government to force everyone to participate in your lazy degenerate insistance on having slaves:

So since the North had slavery for 200 years, are you going to likewise call them "lazy and degenerate" for their insistence on having slaves?

[dgun]

Funny.

Lincoln's reluctance to make the war about "slavery" at first (recall it was to preserve the union) was based on the constitution's recognition of slavery, the 4th amendment, and the Dred Scott case.

In other words, it was Lincoln’s respect for the constitution that kept him from giving in to the abolitionists. Lincoln was not an abolitionist, at least not until the emancipation proclamation, or at latest the drafting of the 13th amendment. The emancipation proclamation further highlights the point, as only the slaves from confederate states were emancipated, Lincoln’s opinion being that he had the constitutional authority to do so, based on Presidential authority to put down the insurrection and the fact that slaves were used in the Confederate war effort.

Neo-confederates trash Lincoln over the constitution yet praise and often quote Jefferson to justify the Civil War. Yet the Louisiana Purchase is the most obvious case of a President ignoring the constitution in American history.

[Wolfman]

Dgun, I wouldn't bother responding to him. All of this has been brought up and discussed ad nauseam on HiFo and none of it has sunk in.

[The Immortal Goon]

Yes I heard of it, its spelled "Sumter" and its not in the North, its in South Carolina.

Blame it on auto-correct, and I never said it was in the north. But they were pathetic spoiled children shooting at soldiers that whine that the soldiers fought back.

So since the North had slavery for 200 years, are you going to likewise call them "lazy and degenerate" for their insistence on having slaves?

The north did have slaves. The time was over. It had been for a long time. You still refuse to take care of yourselves so just take our tax dollars and whine about your oppression. Nobody cares.

Also, I suppose you acknowledge that the "Federal oppression" meme isn't true since you're not even bothering to acknowledge it anymore.

[Rich]

I would like to list many of the crimes committed by Lincoln and his Administration.

Also 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.

I apologize up front for truthful, accurate, factual posts here that may hurt any Lincoln fan's feelings...

No need to apologise, its wonderful to hear how Lincoln pissed on the Constitution, that's what made him a great man. It strikes me that the long lasting negations of the Constitution were committed after Lincon's death when the Constitutional amendments were unconstitutionally pushed through.

[Smilin' Dave]

its not in the North, its in South Carolina.

The American Civil War was not started over geography. The north didn't go to war as 'the north' but as the Union, for a reason.

So since the North had slavery for 200 years, are you going to likewise call them "lazy and degenerate" for their insistence on having slaves?

Way to miss the point Captain Confederacy. TIG is noting the irony of the Confederates esssentially wanting their own government not out of some desire to protect the limitations set in the constitution but a desire to have a strong state that would enforce slavery. Since the Union never forced anyone to have slaves and compared to the South was well on track towards abolition/emancipation, I guess that somewhat exempts them from the lazy and degenerate label.

[Scamp]

Scamp wrote: Its not in the North, its in South Carolina.
The American Civil War was not started over geography. The north didn't go to war as 'the north' but as the Union, for a reason.

Scamp wrote: So since the North had slavery for 200 years, are you going to likewise call them "lazy and degenerate" for their insistence on having slaves?
---------------

Smilin' Dave wrote: Way to miss the point Captain Confederacy. TIG is noting the irony of the Confederates esssentially wanting their own government not out of some desire to protect the limitations set in the constitution but a desire to have a strong state that would enforce slavery. Since the Union never forced anyone to have slaves and compared to the South was well on track towards abolition/emancipation, I guess that somewhat exempts them from the lazy and degenerate label.

It was the Union that made slavery legal in the first place.

It was the Union who started slavery.

It was the Union who still had slavery after all the Confederate slaves were free.

It was the Union who still had slavery after the Civil War was over.

But it is Union sympathizers like Smilin' Dave who moronically believe the Union is exempt from the lazy and degenerate label of having slavery.

[Spouter]

I love it when people who lose wars whine about the fact that their opponent won. The only thing that stopped the Confederacy from using these "unconstitutional" tactics is that they didn't have the power to do it. For example, the blockade of ports. If the South had had the naval power to support a blockade of Northern ports, do you think they would have refrained from doing this out of some high-minded ideal? If so, then they were even bigger losers than I thought.

[Scamp]

I love it when people who lose wars whine about the fact that their opponent won. The only thing that stopped the Confederacy from using these "unconstitutional" tactics is that they didn't have the power to do it. For example, the blockade of ports. If the South had had the naval power to support a blockade of Northern ports, do you think they would have refrained from doing this out of some high-minded ideal? If so, then they were even bigger losers than I thought.

This thread is about Lincoln trashing the Constitution that he swore to uphold.

Thank you for agreeing.

This makes Lincoln a liar and a traitor.

[Suska]

You seem kind of like a whacko to me honestly. I do have some sympathy for your argument though. Lincoln changed the nature of the union. We can do that. We did do that. The union changed. It's not voluntary anymore. It would be nice once in a while to meet someone who can object to that and not be really easy to call a southern lunatic. It would be nice to have a discussion in this country about how every disagreement we have had since then has become a war of Americans versus Americans - and how that makes us feel and function. Just as it would be nice to meet a nationalist who can admit that strong federalization has some typical problems associated with it, serious problems. And then of course we should have a really nice talk about it, about what must be a local affair and what can be nationally decided.

[Smilin' Dave]

It was the Union that made slavery legal in the first place.

The Union when it included what would become the Confederate states. It's quite likely that had the south somehow not been part of the original union of colonies, that slavery would not have been the major legal issue it became.

It was the Union who started slavery.

Actually I'm pretty over on HiFo you argued that it was actually started by the European powers who sponsored the colonies in the new world.

And in the end, even in the Union started slavery, it was the south that implemented it on large scale.

It was the Union who still had slavery after all the Confederate slaves were free.

In states where gradual abolition/emancipation was already happening. The northern states did not require a war to end slavery in their states. Why exactly couldn't the southern states do this?

But it is Union sympathizers like Smilin' Dave who moronically believe the Union is exempt from the lazy and degenerate label of having slavery.

Yes, you're right. I am more sympathetic to the Union than the Confederacy... because being sympathetic towards a construct whose primary purpose was to protect a slave economy deserves no sympathy from me.

[Suska]

Wow, you sound really upset about slavery. I haven't even thought that way about the civil war since grade school. Oh, I remember now. It was when I first started reading history books that I realized that the matter was more complex than that.

"If I could free all of the slaves and save the Union, I would, and if I could free some of the slaves and save the Union, I would also do that, and if I could free none of the slaves and save the Union I would do that, too." -Lincoln

[The Immortal Goon]

Oh, I remember now. It was when I first started reading history books that I realized that the matter was more complex than that.

"If I could free all of the slaves and save the Union, I would, and if I could free some of the slaves and save the Union, I would also do that, and if I could free none of the slaves and save the Union I would do that, too." -Lincoln

It's true that Lincoln didn't come into office deciding to ban slavery.

That does not mean that the south didn't overreact, declare independence by themselves. That is to say, they never bothered to use their representatives in DC to start a dialogue or declare independence that would have been from a Constitutional framework in anyway whatsoever. This may have been an interesting debate to have, but we didn't since they decided to just start shooting at soldiers instead. Then, of course, whine that the Union attacked them for just murdering their people.

The South attacked the North because they were afraid that Lincoln was going to attack slavery (which, as you notices, he wasn't going to do).

I already presented the "big government" theory.

As for the Confederacy fighting to preserve slavery, you don't have to take my word for it. They said more than enough on their own:

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 the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used 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 idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.