Amazing story - Page 2 - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Scamp
Lincoln was so against slavery that he married into a prominent slave owning family, the Todds.
Lincoln as a lawyer went to court and argued to have a runaway female slave and her children returned to their rightful slave owner. (Matson slave trial). ;)
By wat0n
Scamp wrote:I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
...Abe Lincoln

Yes, he recognized he wasn't above the Constitution - which did not ban slavery at the time.

It was the South which did not abide by the Constitution, by refusing to accept Lincoln's election, by refusing to recognize the right of the Federal government to decide the status of slavery in territories under its direct jurisdiction and by eventually seceding and militarily attacking Federal property.
By late
Scamp wrote:I guess [usermention=41202]

@late[/usermention] is so ignorant that he didn't know that secession of states was legal.

That is something people have been arguing about for a couple centuries.

The reality (come visit sometime) is that the Civil War settled it.
User avatar
By Mike12
late wrote:That is something people have been arguing about for a couple centuries.

The reality (come visit sometime) is that the Civil War settled it.

User avatar
By Scamp
So for you people who are saying that the South was wrong for seceding from the Union, do you also say that the USA should go back to British rule. :lol:
User avatar
By Scamp
wat0n wrote:No.
So how was secession Constitutional?

Secession was not prohibited by the Constitution. The 10th Amendment says that anything not covered by the Constitution was left up to the States or the people. The Southern states voted for secession.
But Lincoln the Tyrant trashed the 10th Amendment. Among many others.
By wat0n
The Constitution also mentions that its goal is to create a "more perfect union". The Articles of Confederation had made that union perpetual, so that carries over.
User avatar
By Scamp
Tainari88 wrote:Ulysses Grant was a drunkard and sucked too. There are plenty of bad presidents. For me Herbert Hoover sucked too. Haha.

Yes Grant was a drunk and also an anti-Semite. His general orders #11 expelled all Jews form his military district which was areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky. Grant's decree was “the most sweeping anti-Jewish regulation in all of American history.
User avatar
By Scamp
Mike12 wrote:
“As time passes, people, even of the South, will begin to wonder how it was possible that their ancestors ever fought for or justified institutions which acknowledged the right of property in man.”
― Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant: All Volumes

Strange thing about that quote by Grant, since he himself at one time was a slave owner. Define hypocrisy.
User avatar
By Scamp
late wrote:That is something people have been arguing about for a couple centuries.

The reality (come visit sometime) is that the Civil War settled it.

Settled Lincoln also.
User avatar
By Scamp
late wrote:Save your Dixie cups, the South will rise again.

I'm just guessing, the next US Civil War will not be North vs South.
User avatar
By BlutoSays
Scamp wrote:I'm just guessing, the next US Civil War will not be North vs South.

Republicans would lose to democrats if that happened. Republicans would be beaten to death with dildos and bongs.
User avatar
By Godstud
The bong is mightier than the sword? :?:
Scamp wrote:Look how good our country was doing with a lifelong businessman as President.
Look how fast our country went down the toilet with a lifelong politician as President.

Lmao, god damn you are stupid.
Secession is possible and always was possible, but the way it happened resulted in a majority of the states and the majority of its population, North and South included, disagreeing on the manner in which it occurred.

The Founders envisioned the Constitution and its amendments being capable of resolving differences between the states. A culture war existed between abolitionists and the Southern states which operated on slave-based economies. The South gradually lost that culture war and the political war. There were myriad "compromise" agreements which gradually led to slavery not being expanded into new states and territories. Instead of operating through the laws and governmental mechanisms of the states, the Southern states unilaterally seceded because they didn't get their way.

The Founding Fathers absolutely did not intend for individual states to be temporarily governed by people who would secede from the Union if they didn't get something they wanted. That impacts the military, interstate commerce and logistics, travel, and more. Secession of individual states should have been discussed in open Congress and put to a vote. Ironically, had that been done and those states, demanding to secede because their values and cultural way of life no longer allowed for integrated coexistence, were voted against, there would have at least been a justification for armed rebellion. In any case, the idea of states being allowed to secede on a whim for any reason is absurd and not even the Founders would think that makes sense.

Instead, the Southern states were led by little more than thugs who made no serious effort to exhaust their legal recourses and, if they genuinely desired to secede, attempt to proceed in good faith. Each state was led by individuals who, like any lawless band of authoritarians, effectively seized power over their domains and didn't do so in a Constitutional manner.

I can't stress that enough. Instead of bringing forward motions of secession for Congress to decide on (even if they would rebel after an unsuccessful attempt) to legally secede, state governments seized land, federal property, and set about rewriting laws and arming themselves for war.

Ultimately this was a very big tantrum by babies who couldn't handle losing on the slavery issue.

What does that have to do with the price of tea i[…]

I'd be very weary of happiness surveys. And the di[…]

The Taiwan Policy Act

"As China becomes increasingly fixated on its[…]

Balkan and Elections

You occupiers' servant You want Putin to oc[…]