Was Lincoln a Racist?

[Bakes]

TC and Bake,
                    This is one of the most stimulating and intellectual debates despites the few invectives thrown at one another. Keep it going though.If  TT needs new politician I would certainly recommend all yuh. The one thing about Lincoln setting a bad precedent for habeus corpus and as it relates to Bush. Rightly or wrongly Bush used the fear of terrorist threat which indeed happen on 9/11 to suspend rights. But Lincoln was facing a genuine split of the country. And the country did split and had one of the bloodiest cicvil wars in history.Is this a case of "the ends justifies the means".

Deeks, outside ah de invectives I'm happy to see that you could distill that one simple fact.  The Constitution allows for suspension of habeas corpus under special circumstances.  For those like you who were reading and who might be confused about this habeas thing and why it's a big deal... essential if arrested, a writ of habeas corpus forces the authorities to bring you before a judge and justify your detention to that judge.  So if habeas corpus is suspended, the government then could lock you up indefinitely and not even charge you with a crime or explain what crime yuh commit (sounds familiar?).

You hit it spot on... according to the Constitution during times of rebellion habeas can be properly suspended... because as you said "the end justifies the means" during emergency times.  The only question is who has the authority to suspend it and the issue is muddied by the fact that both Congress and the Executive have War Powers.  Lincoln was treading new territory (because no one else had ever Presided during a rebellion to have to suspend habeas corpus before) and so the issue of him doing it was controversial.  In fact it remained so controversial that the question remained unanswered until 4 yrs ago when Hamdi sued the US government to justify his detention as a US citizen not caught up in the hostilities.  The Supreme Court ruled then that only if Congress grants special dispensation to the President, can he unilaterally suspend habeas corpus.  

So if you apply today's laws to Lincoln's actions of course what he did then was against the law today, but we know that that isn't how the law works... in fact even the US Constitution prohibits the adoption of post facto laws: meaning you can't charge a man with a crime for doing something, which at the time he did it wasn't illegal.  Bush on the other hand, had neither the special dispensation from Congress to suspend habeas corpus... nor was there rebellion in the US to justify its suspension.  What Bush and dem try was what we in Trinidad would call ah "smart ting"... in the wake of 9/11 Congress was very deferential towards Bush because nobody wanted to rock the patriotic boat.  Whatever Bush asked for many in Congress gave.  In 2001 they passed an emergency resolution called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (the AUMF, yuh could look it up)... this single act is what caused America to be where it is today, because 8 years later Bush used that as an excuse to do all manner ah fukkery including suspending civil liberties and trampling over others, all in the name of these "emergency powers".  Now mind you the AUMF never authorized half the shit that Bush did, it only authorized foreign use of military force to battle the Taliban and Al Qaeda... but Bush (really CheneyRumsfeldfRice, he puppet masters) argue that because this is ah special kinda war and it have sympathizers here in the US they have to use emergency powers domestically as well.  Lincoln never did any such thing, he only applied powers which he either legitimately had, or which he honestly felt he was legitimately entitled to.

That Hamdi case was just the first of many steps this country have to take in undoing the fukkery that Bush do.  It have others, the Supreme Court slap him down in Hamdan v. Bush as well... and just last October one of my mentors, ah man who write ah recommendation fuh me, US District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina (could look him up too), ruled that the Bush Administration had to free the Uighurs who were being held in detention illegally.  7 yrs they hold dem people and never charge dem with a crime.  Right now that decision is on appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  So is not like I doh know what ah talking about, it have thing that simply wouldn't be properly explained to you on the internet, yuh have to dig inside the case to understand what went on/going on.

[WestCoast]

So if you apply today's laws to Lincoln's actions of course what he did then was against the law today, but we know that that isn't how the law works... in fact even the US Constitution prohibits the adoption of post facto laws: meaning you can't charge a man with a crime for doing something, which at the time he did it wasn't illegal.  Bush on the other hand, had neither the special dispensation from Congress to suspend habeas corpus... nor was there rebellion in the US to justify its suspension.  What Bush and dem try was what we in Trinidad would call ah "smart ting"... in the wake of 9/11 Congress was very deferential towards Bush because nobody wanted to rock the patriotic boat.  Whatever Bush asked for many in Congress gave.  In 2001 they passed an emergency resolution called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (the AUMF, yuh could look it up)... this single act is what caused America to be where it is today, because 8 years later Bush used that as an excuse to do all manner ah f**kkery including suspending civil liberties and trampling over others, all in the name of these "emergency powers".  Now mind you the AUMF never authorized half the shit that Bush did, it only authorized foreign use of military force to battle the Taliban and Al Qaeda... but Bush (really CheneyRumsfeldfRice, he puppet masters) argue that because this is ah special kinda war and it have sympathizers here in the US they have to use emergency powers domestically as well.  Lincoln never did any such thing, he only applied powers which he either legitimately had, or which he honestly felt he was legitimately entitled to.

That Hamdi case was just the first of many steps this country have to take in undoing the f**kkery that Bush do.  It have others, the Supreme Court slap him down in Hamdan v. Bush as well... and just last October one of my mentors, ah man who write ah recommendation fuh me, US District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina (could look him up too), ruled that the Bush Administration had to free the Uighurs who were being held in detention illegally.  7 yrs they hold dem people and never charge dem with a crime.  Right now that decision is on appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  So is not like I doh know what ah talking about, it have thing that simply wouldn't be properly explained to you on the internet, yuh have to dig inside the case to understand what went on/going on.

Whole heartedly Concur

[Deeks]

Bakes and TC
                     Thanks for the insight. It is certainly valuable. Didn't Eric had use this suspension of habeus corpus to imprison some of the union leaders in 1970 when we had the Black power riots and the Army mutiny at the same time.

[Bakes]

Bakes and TC
                     Thanks for the insight. It is certainly valuable. Didn't Eric had use this suspension of habeus corpus to imprison some of the union leaders in 1970 when we had the Black power riots and the Army mutiny at the same time.

I honestly doh know nuh Deeks back when ah read Raffique Shah book on de mutiny ah was still ah yute and didn't have ah grasp or understanding of what happen.  But I wouldn't be surprised doh, both US and Trini law has a foundation in English law and habeas has been recognized in England forever.  So my guess is that the circumstances (rebellion) under which it could be suspended would be in the same tradition.

[pecan]

...   Whatever Bush asked for many in Congress gave.  In 2001 they passed an emergency resolution called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (the AUMF, yuh could look it up)... this single act is what caused America to be where it is today, because 8 years later Bush used that as an excuse to do all manner ah f**kkery including suspending civil liberties and trampling over others, all in the name of these "emergency powers".  Now mind you the AUMF never authorized half the shit that Bush did, it only authorized foreign use of military force to battle the Taliban and Al Qaeda... but Bush (really CheneyRumsfeldfRice, he puppet masters) argue that because this is ah special kinda war and it have sympathizers here in the US they have to use emergency powers domestically as well.  Lincoln never did any such thing, he only applied powers which he either legitimately had, or which he honestly felt he was legitimately entitled to.

That Hamdi case was just the first of many steps this country have to take in undoing the f**kkery that Bush do.  It have others, the Supreme Court slap him down in Hamdan v. Bush as well... and just last October one of my mentors, ah man who write ah recommendation fuh me, US District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina (could look him up too), ruled that the Bush Administration had to free the Uighurs who were being held in detention illegally.  7 yrs they hold dem people and never charge dem with a crime.  Right now that decision is on appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  So is not like I doh know what ah talking about, it have thing that simply wouldn't be properly explained to you on the internet, yuh have to dig inside the case to understand what went on/going on.

Bakes and TT

What is your take on the argument for the Prosecution of George Bush for Murder?  If you and TT addresses it, just point me to the post as I have not read all the posts in this thread.

The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder

[WestCoast]

...   Whatever Bush asked for many in Congress gave.  In 2001 they passed an emergency resolution called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (the AUMF, yuh could look it up)... this single act is what caused America to be where it is today, because 8 years later Bush used that as an excuse to do all manner ah f**kkery including suspending civil liberties and trampling over others, all in the name of these "emergency powers".  Now mind you the AUMF never authorized half the shit that Bush did, it only authorized foreign use of military force to battle the Taliban and Al Qaeda... but Bush (really CheneyRumsfeldfRice, he puppet masters) argue that because this is ah special kinda war and it have sympathizers here in the US they have to use emergency powers domestically as well.  Lincoln never did any such thing, he only applied powers which he either legitimately had, or which he honestly felt he was legitimately entitled to.

That Hamdi case was just the first of many steps this country have to take in undoing the f**kkery that Bush do.  It have others, the Supreme Court slap him down in Hamdan v. Bush as well... and just last October one of my mentors, ah man who write ah recommendation fuh me, US District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina (could look him up too), ruled that the Bush Administration had to free the Uighurs who were being held in detention illegally.  7 yrs they hold dem people and never charge dem with a crime.  Right now that decision is on appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.  So is not like I doh know what ah talking about, it have thing that simply wouldn't be properly explained to you on the internet, yuh have to dig inside the case to understand what went on/going on.

Bakes

What is your take on the argument for the Prosecution of George Bush for Murder?  If you and TT addresses it, just point me to the post as I have not read all the posts in this thread.

The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder

Pecan, after hearing the Bush speech he talks about here, my wife and I sent off emails to my step family in the USA telling them that he was lying and he was drawing the USA into an illegal war and they responded by saying that our informtion was "Canadian Propaganda"....how right we were....sad....VERY SAD
You know, now that I think of it, I am going to ask my three step brothers if THEY sent their sons off to Irag?
ya see what Bakes write here....

Bush on the other hand, had neither the special dispensation from Congress to suspend habeas corpus... nor was there rebellion in the US to justify its suspension.  What Bush and dem try was what we in Trinidad would call ah "smart ting"... in the wake of 9/11 Congress was very deferential towards Bush because nobody wanted to rock the patriotic boat. 

is the same thing my brothers said......"he is a patriot"

[pecan]

Pecan, after hearing the Bush speech he talks about here, my wife and I sent off emails to my step family in the USA telling them that he was lying and he was drawing the USA into an illegal war and they responded by saying that our informtion was "Canadian Propaganda"....how right we were....sad....VERY SAD
....

is the same thing my brothers said......"he is a patriot"

How is that Canadian Propaganda?  Vincent Bugliosi is a US citizen and the Former Deputy DA Los Angeles  and the hearings are taking place in the USA.

[WestCoast]

Pecan, after hearing the Bush speech he talks about here, my wife and I sent off emails to my step family in the USA telling them that he was lying and he was drawing the USA into an illegal war and they responded by saying that our informtion was "Canadian Propaganda"....how right we were....sad....VERY SAD
....

is the same thing my brothers said......"he is a patriot"

How is that Canadian Propaganda?  Vincent Bugliosi is a US citizen and the Former Deputy DA Los Angeles  and the hearings are taking place in the USA.

no...sorry.....I have to clarify.........Bush made a speech 7 years ago, that Bugliosi mentions in the video that I gave a link of, that I am talking about (the speech)

[Bakes]

Bakes and TT

What is your take on the argument for the Prosecution of George Bush for Murder?  If you and TT addresses it, just point me to the post as I have not read all the posts in this thread.

The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder

Pecan it's not as easy as it seems... "honest but reasonable" goes a long way in the criminal justice system.  Bush is not an intelligence expert (some would even argue that no such thing as "White House intelligence" existed the last 8 yrs, lol)... and any decisions he made was made on the advice of underlings.  He can make a fairly convincing case that any mistake he made was done an honest but reasonable mistake made in reliance on the word of his advisors. It would be far easier... and proper if you ask me, to prosecute those who deliberately manipulated the intelligence information delivered to the White House by the CIA and military... manipulated it in order to make the case for war.

The civil liberty infractions... not sure that's something that he can be prosecuted for.  On all of this though I only have a slightly fairer idea than you guys what can/might happen... and even so, it's still a guess.  Qualified immunity may shield many of these public officials, short of any showing of malfeasance or breach of duty etc.

[truetrini]

WHAT MADE SECCESSION A TREASONABLE ACT?

tHE us cONSTITUTION?

tHE SAME ONE THAT WAS WRITTENA ND ADOPTED BY SECCESSIONISTS?

STEUPS

So what de ass does that say?  Because they self adopt the law they should be allowed to break it??  Since dey knew exactly what the law states then they shouldn't quarrel when dey get jail fuh breaking it.

I am not trying to discredit your education, you were the one to tout your education and attempt to discredit mine.

Fella you's ah kinda c**t or what?  Yuh real practising hard Mr. Revisionist Historian.  YOU is de one who felt de need to start talking about yuh "Masters degree" like some f**kkin li'l chile bragging how dey daddy car nicer.  So I had to remind you that I ent just talking out my ass I going to school and learning juss as well.  I never said what form of education it was but yuh felt the need to talk about me being wanna-be lawyer and denigrating the school I attend.  Real li'l boy thing.  I know what I know and I never shy to share it... but one thing you never see me do is talk about oh I graduate from dis or dat school or I have dis degree or training fuh dat degree.  Dai'z imbecile talk... but it fits you.

You say that I am not refute the 'rest'  please.

You have not addressed half of my points.

What points did I NOT address?  I even took my time and put numbers and colors next to every point so that it would be easier fuh yuh to follow along.  And apparently yuh still lost.  Feel free to show the points I didn't address and I'll shoot dem down just like I did the rest.  I not trying to act like I know everything, but one thing you cannot argue with me is the application of the law.

Lincoln broke the law, you say he did not.

You jump down Bush's throat and Lincoln was the precedent setter.

Please!

What law did Lincoln break?  I did NOT just say he didn't break the law, I explained what the law is and showed how his actions were legal.  I jump down Bush throat because Bush is ah damn idiot bordering on ah criminal.  He too facking dunce to understand the foreign policy issue he was drowning in so he allowed Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al to hijack the facking political process and lead the country into a deadly, costly, disastrous war.  If Bush was a bit more pragmatic and level-headed he would have listened to voices other than the ones constantly singing the war chant in his ears... voices like Colin Powell and Dick Armstead who were advocating diplomacy.

Don't even try and compare Lincoln to Bush.

You said Bush and Nixon and possibly Clinton were the ONLY ones to break the law...yuh forget that?  That yuh jes discuss that with yuh law professors and dem say, or allyuh come to de conclusion....eh eh  yuh memory failing yuh.

additonally, noone is comparing Lincoln to bush, this whole discourse came about because you say that there were parallels to lincoln and Obama, I rushed to dispute that!

Yuh deny Lincoln broke any laws that he had the power as president to seize people propery, illegally detain dem etc.  de whole war powers act etc.

Lincoln set the precendent for other presidents..including Bush.

bush's premise rightly or wrongly is we at war and I have sweeping powers...jes de same claim Lincoln made.

[Bakes]

You said Bush and Nixon and possibly Clinton were the ONLY ones to break the law...yuh forget that?

No... what I said is that Nixon and Clinton were the only two to try and abuse their Executive Powers and den argue Presidential immunity.  Nixon tried to use that immunity to shield his private conversations from congressional scrutiny during the Watergate affair.  Clinton tried to use it to say that Paula Jones couldn't sue him while he was a sitting President.  The Supreme Court denied both claims.

Technically Nixon was the only one to actually break the law because he lied under oath and was well on the way to impeachment when he resigned.  Lincoln didn't break any laws by suspending Habeas Corpus.  If you say he suppressed individual liberties then by all means bring it... me eh no Lincoln expert so I can't say yea or nay.  However many of Lincoln's detractors level these accusations, conveniently forgetting the the circumstances under which he was acting.  Laws aren't silent in times of war, but use of martial law is legitimate under certain circumstances.

[Bakes]

additonally, noone is comparing Lincoln to bush, this whole discourse came about because you say that there were parallels to lincoln and Obama, I rushed to dispute that!

Yuh deny Lincoln broke any laws that he had the power as president to seize people propery, illegally detain dem etc.  de whole war powers act etc.

Lincoln set the precendent for other presidents..including Bush.

bush's premise rightly or wrongly is we at war and I have sweeping powers...jes de same claim Lincoln made.

Since yuh edit I'll respond tuh de rest...

YOU self was the one who on at least two occasions compared Lincoln's actions to Bush... I doh even need to go back and find it because it right there fuh yuh to see.  Lincoln didn't set no precedent for Bush... what Bush and dem tried was unprecedented, there simply is no precedent for it in US history...NONE!

Lincoln was constitutionally authorized to suspend habeas corpus... doh know how many other ways to say it.  The conditions WITHIN the country, namely rebellion, made it applicable.  There's no way to rationalize what Bush did... it simply doesn't compare.  A better comparison would be Bush to FDR who denied habeas (didn't suspend it) to foreign enemy combatants captured on US soil... Ex Parte Quirin.  Incidentally, the reason why the case name is "ex parte" Quirin (or "on behalf of Quirin) and not Quirin v. United States or sumting so is because dey did done hang he c**t by de time de case reach de Supreme Court, lol  So de action had to be brought on his behalf posthumously.

[pecan]

Bakes and TT

What is your take on the argument for the Prosecution of George Bush for Murder?  If you and TT addresses it, just point me to the post as I have not read all the posts in this thread.

The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder

Pecan it's not as easy as it seems... "honest but reasonable" goes a long way in the criminal justice system.  Bush is not an intelligence expert (some would even argue that no such thing as "White House intelligence" existed the last 8 yrs, lol)... and any decisions he made was made on the advice of underlings.  He can make a fairly convincing case that any mistake he made was done an honest but reasonable mistake made in reliance on the word of his advisors. It would be far easier... and proper if you ask me, to prosecute those who deliberately manipulated the intelligence information delivered to the White House by the CIA and military... manipulated it in order to make the case for war.

The civil liberty infractions... not sure that's something that he can be prosecuted for.  On all of this though I only have a slightly fairer idea than you guys what can/might happen... and even so, it's still a guess.  Qualified immunity may shield many of these public officials, short of any showing of malfeasance or breach of duty etc.

awright .. thanks man

[Bakes]

Bakes and TT

What is your take on the argument for the Prosecution of George Bush for Murder?  If you and TT addresses it, just point me to the post as I have not read all the posts in this thread.

The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder

Pecan it's not as easy as it seems... "honest but reasonable" goes a long way in the criminal justice system.  Bush is not an intelligence expert (some would even argue that no such thing as "White House intelligence" existed the last 8 yrs, lol)... and any decisions he made was made on the advice of underlings.  He can make a fairly convincing case that any mistake he made was done an honest but reasonable mistake made in reliance on the word of his advisors. It would be far easier... and proper if you ask me, to prosecute those who deliberately manipulated the intelligence information delivered to the White House by the CIA and military... manipulated it in order to make the case for war.

The civil liberty infractions... not sure that's something that he can be prosecuted for.  On all of this though I only have a slightly fairer idea than you guys what can/might happen... and even so, it's still a guess.  Qualified immunity may shield many of these public officials, short of any showing of malfeasance or breach of duty etc.

awright .. thanks man

No scenes... just my opinion.   But to clarify something ah say, when ah said "those who deliberately manipulated the intelligence information delivered to the White House by the CIA and military" I ent talking about CIA and military officials eh... ah talking Bush administration people who either sat on that info or manipulated it to suit their needs.

Add fellas like Al Gonzales and John Yoo as well... dem is de bastards who were actively searching for loopholes in Geneva to make the case that it was okay (against the vehement objections of the military) to use torture as part of the interrogation process.

[truetrini]

ok understood.
Now lets debate this point.

1.  Slaves were chattel, personal property.

2.  Cars are personal property


Suppose Obama was to pass a law today banning the use of all cars becasue of the damage they did to the environment due to their emissions, without compensation to all the people who own cars...would that be an illegal seizure of your property?

Lincoln essentially did the same things when he announced the Emancipation Proclamation!


Bakes I have researched Lincoln in the past, extensively.  I can assure you that my knowledge of this man did not come from google.  He was a brilliant man, From his fatalism derived some of his most lovable traits.  His comapssion, his tolerance, his willingness to overlook mistakeds.  I have always admired him, but I hold no illusions.  His beliefs did not lead him to lethargy nor dissipation , but like all other calvanists who believed in predestination, , it propelled him to wrok indefatigably for a better world....not just for himself, but for his family and his nation.  "My policy is to have no policy." was his motto, a motto that infuriated the sober, intellectuals around him, those same doctrinaire persons who were compelled to think that he has no principle either.

lincoln offended his critics, and was a polarizing figure, even among his own backers and cabinet.  

[Bakes]

ok understood.
Now lets debate this point.

1.  Slaves were chattel, personal property.

2.  Cars are personal property


Suppose Obama was to pass a law today banning the use of all cars becasue of the damage they did to the environment due to their emissions, without compensation to all the people who own cars...would that be an illegal seizure of your property?

Lincoln essentially did the same things when he announced the Emancipation Proclamation!


Bakes I have researched Lincoln in the past, extensively.  I can assure you that my knowledge of this man did not come from google.  He was a brilliant man, From his fatalism derived some of his most lovable traits.  His comapssion, his tolerance, his willingness to overlook mistakeds.  I have always admired him, but I hold no illusions.  His beliefs did not lead him to lethargy nor dissipation , but like all other calvanists who believed in predestination, , it propelled him to wrok indefatigably for a better world....not just for himself, but for his family and his nation.  "My policy is to have no policy." was his motto, a motto that infuriated the sober, intellectuals around him, those same doctrinaire persons who were compelled to think that he has no principle either.

lincoln offended his critics, and was a polarizing figure, even among his own backers and cabinet.  

Dred you back on this 'polarizing figure' talk?  I done concede de point long time... if yuh want to call him de archangel Gabriel as well, good fuh you.


Now fuh dis personal property talk... I don't know what about the concept so hard to understand.  The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution guaranteed that all men are free.  There is nothing in the US Constitution that says there's a right to own slaves... why?  Because they knew it was immoral, they just didn't have he balls to write it into the Constitution.  Article II, Section 8 even goes as far as to sy that Congress couldn't stop the importation of slaves into the US until 1808... as a concession to the slaveowners.  But nothing expressly said slaves were property or not citizens of the US.  Dred Scott said that, but not the Constitution.

So again, slaveholders were engaging in an act that was immoral, and constitutionally, even if not statutorily wrong at the time.  Lincoln freeing the slaves only took from the slaveowners something which they weren't entitled to anyways.  You analogy with cars fail because people are entitled to car ownership.  All Lincoln did was extend to the slaves the freedom guaranteed them by the Constitution... it was constitutionally wrong to keep them in captivity.  As I said earlier, Shelley v. Kraemer established that courts cannot enforce rights that are illegal.  Granted this was nearly a hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation, but the principle is the same.

[truetrini]

Bakes you keep saying Lincoln had the right to suspend the writ of liberty.

What gave him that right?  

Even NY city wanted to secede many times an they felt that they ahd the legal rights.  New England wanted to secede in 1913!  1813 yuh know!  Thomas Pickering who was washington's own doctor and served with him in Delaware was leading New Hampshire secessinists at the time.

The leader of the New England secessionists was Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who had served as George Washington’s chief of staff, his secretary of war and secretary of state, as well as a congressman and senator from Massachusetts. "The principles of our Revolution [of 1776] point to the remedy – a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of he East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government," announced Senator James Hillhouse. Similar sentiments were expressed by such prominent New Englanders as Elbridge Gerry, John Quincy Adams, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy, and Joseph Story, among others.

The New England secession movement gained momentum for an entire decade, but ultimately failed at the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814. Throughout this struggle, wrote historian Edward Powell in Nullification and Secession in the United States, "the right of a state to withdraw from the Union was not disputed."

[/b]

Did states have the right to secede?  

Lincoln himself said this : July 4, 1848  "“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution.” .

I see nothing in the constitution that prohibited secession until AFTER the Civil War!  ...According to The U.S. Supreme Court, in The Case of Texas Vs White - 1866, "Secession is Constitutionally impossible...Texas had never ceased to be a state in The Union........The Constitution , in all of its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states...The fact that Texas had temporarily given up her rights and privileges of membership in The Union did not alter the fact that she could sever the constitutional ties that bound her to the Union." Mr. Chief Justice Chase.

As Grant said, the right of secession was not settled by law but by the point of a bayonet. Northern states use the threat prior to the War.

and if according to Thomas Jeffersonb that

"Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed."[quote/] Therefore, if the southern states wanted to secede,it appears that then they had a clear right to do so.  Ent?

"If military force is used," the Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860, then a state can only be seen "as a subject province and can never be a co-equal member of the American union."

In fact what Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession when they were students at West Point was that if states were denied teh right of secession that it "would be inconsistent with teh principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."  

Remember the slaves were NOT citizens of the US, were not even considered full humans as evidenced by the 2/3's compromise.  So there is no legal argument that the southern states were violating the constitutional rights of its citizens by enslaving them!

While the Constitution remains silent on the issue of slavery and secession....the declaration of Independence which Lincoln used to supersede the Constitution....in an attempt to make his war legal....says:  The Constitution remains silent on the issue, but the Declaration of Independence is filled with information.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."  based on this alone it seems that the intent of the framers while attempting to create a 'more perfect union," also expected secession as an option..or so it can be argued.

Lincoln used the Declaration to justify the emancipation proclamation by saying it proclaims all men are created equal, but slaves/black people were NOT even citizens or full persons until after his victory in the civil war!!!!

[truetrini]

Now fuh dis personal property talk... I don't know what about the concept so hard to understand.  The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution guaranteed that all men are free.  There is nothing in the US Constitution that says there's a right to own slaves... why?  Because they knew it was immoral, they just didn't have he balls to write it into the Constitution.  Article II, Section 8 even goes as far as to sy that Congress couldn't stop the importation of slaves into the US until 1808... as a concession to the slaveowners.  But nothing expressly said slaves were property or not citizens of the US.  Dred Scott said that, but not the Constitution.

So again, slaveholders were engaging in an act that was immoral, and constitutionally, even if not statutorily wrong at the time.  Lincoln freeing the slaves only took from the slaveowners something which they weren't entitled to anyways.  You analogy with cars fail because people are entitled to car ownership.  All Lincoln did was extend to the slaves the freedom guaranteed them by the Constitution... it was constitutionally wrong to keep them in captivity.  As I said earlier, Shelley v. Kraemer established that courts cannot enforce rights that are illegal.  Granted this was nearly a hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation, but the principle is the same.

So if Article II section 8 allows for the importation of slaves until 1808, does that not mean that slavery was LEGAL and sanctioned by the US Government?

The framers ALL owned slaves!   They wrote a document that allowed slaves to be bougth and sold, indeed they bought and sold slaves themselves, yet you say that the slave owners were not entitled to the property they paid money for?

Makes NO SENSE AT ALL!

It is OBVIOUS that since slavery was legal, then the right to own slaves was legal also!  So how could the slave holders then have no right to THEIR PROPERTY?

You buy a cow, you bought a slave you owned them both, they were both chattel and had no legal rights.

Slavery in the United States was governed by an extensive body of law developed from the 1640s to the 1860s. Every slave state had its own slave code and body of court decisions. All slave codes made slavery a permanent condition, inherited through the mother, and defined slaves as property, usually in the same terms as those applied to real estate. Slaves, being property, could not own property or be a party to a contract. Since marriage is a form of contract, no slave marriage had any legal standing. All codes also had sections regulating free blacks, who were still subject to controls on their movements and employment and were often required to leave the state after emancipation.

And YES dred scott said exactly that.  THE SUPREME Court upheld the belief that slaves were none persons...how can you argue that then the oweners had no rights over their property.

Morally perhaps but legally not at all!

Post facto yuh preaching they breds!

Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants[2]—whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States, and that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that slaves could not sue in court, and that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process.

So Lincoln made people lose their property without compensation!

[Bakes]

Bakes you keep saying Lincoln had the right to suspend the writ of liberty.

What gave him that right?  

Even NY city wanted to secede many times an they felt that they ahd the legal rights.  New England wanted to secede in 1913!  1813 yuh know!  Thomas Pickering who was washington's own doctor and served with him in Delaware was leading New Hampshire secessinists at the time.

The leader of the New England secessionists was Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who had served as George Washington’s chief of staff, his secretary of war and secretary of state, as well as a congressman and senator from Massachusetts. "The principles of our Revolution [of 1776] point to the remedy – a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of he East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government," announced Senator James Hillhouse. Similar sentiments were expressed by such prominent New Englanders as Elbridge Gerry, John Quincy Adams, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy, and Joseph Story, among others.

The New England secession movement gained momentum for an entire decade, but ultimately failed at the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814. Throughout this struggle, wrote historian Edward Powell in Nullification and Secession in the United States, "the right of a state to withdraw from the Union was not disputed."

[/b]

Did states have the right to secede?  

Lincoln himself said this : July 4, 1848  "“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution.” .

I see nothing in the constitution that prohibited secession until AFTER the Civil War!  ...According to The U.S. Supreme Court, in The Case of Texas Vs White - 1866, "Secession is Constitutionally impossible...Texas had never ceased to be a state in The Union........The Constitution , in all of its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states...The fact that Texas had temporarily given up her rights and privileges of membership in The Union did not alter the fact that she could sever the constitutional ties that bound her to the Union." Mr. Chief Justice Chase.

As Grant said, the right of secession was not settled by law but by the point of a bayonet. Northern states use the threat prior to the War.

and if according to Thomas Jeffersonb that

"Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed."[quote/] Therefore, if the southern states wanted to secede,it appears that then they had a clear right to do so.  Ent?

"If military force is used," the Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860, then a state can only be seen "as a subject province and can never be a co-equal member of the American union."

In fact what Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession when they were students at West Point was that if states were denied teh right of secession that it "would be inconsistent with teh principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."  

Remember the slaves were NOT citizens of the US, were not even considered full humans as evidenced by the 2/3's compromise.  So there is no legal argument that the southern states were violating the constitutional rights of its citizens by enslaving them!

While the Constitution remains silent on the issue of slavery and secession....the declaration of Independence which Lincoln used to supersede the Constitution....in an attempt to make his war legal....says:  The Constitution remains silent on the issue, but the Declaration of Independence is filled with information.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."  based on this alone it seems that the intent of the framers while attempting to create a 'more perfect union," also expected secession as an option..or so it can be argued.

Lincoln used the Declaration to justify the emancipation proclamation by saying it proclaims all men are created equal, but slaves/black people were NOT even citizens or full persons until after his victory in the civil war!!!!

1. I never said he had a right to suspend the writ of liberty... I said he had a right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus

2. States have a right to secede, but there is a process and that process is via the legislative process.  Just like prospective states have a right to petition to join the union.  But you don't see Puerto Rico and the V.I. (assuming they want to join) taking up arms.  You didn't see Hawai'i and Alaska waging war in order to be part of the Union.  The Southern States decided to secede by waging war... aka rebellion.  Once rebellion broke out habeas corpus was fair play.  And even so... you going on and on and on and on about this.  The suspension was limited to just Maryland, and just the western part of Maryland at that, where the union was most vulnerable to influences by Virginia and West Virginia, two staunchly Confederate states.  Maryland was a pivotal state in Civil War b/c the seat of gov't was in DC... landlocked between Md. and Va.  It was a military necessity that Md. be kept out of Confederate hands.

3. "Remember the slaves were NOT citizens of the US, were not even considered full humans as evidenced by the 2/3's compromise.  So there is no legal argument that the southern states were violating the constitutional rights of its citizens by enslaving them!"

This is jingoistic nonsense, frequently regurgitated by black militants whenever they want to rail against "the man".  Slaves were not citizens only because the men who were running the government declined to recognize them as such.  There is nothing in the constitution that mentions slavery or slaves.  The constitution only makes implications about the existence, but there is nothing expressly written into it because the framers didn't want slavery staining dey lovely document about liberty and rights and thing.  Slavery was more tolerated (because of the southerners) than endorsed... as is your suggestion.

Yuh slipping again... is not de "2/3's compromise"... is de 3/5's compromise.  And you and I know full well that that language had nothing to do with the humanity of slaves.  The framers weren't saying that slaves were 3/5s of a person (as has often been interpreted) they were saying "nah, we cyah give de south all dat voting power" b/c votes in congress were allocated based on population.  The southern bastards didn't want to recognize the rights of slaves as humans, but wanted to count them for purposes of congressional seats/votes.  The larger a State's population the more congressional power it had.  So the compromise was struck to limit the political impact of the slaves in the slave-holding southern states that every five slaves would count as 3 people (voting citizens, not humans).  The compromise was a limitation on their impact, NOT a referendum on their humanity.

[Bakes]

So if Article II section 8 allows for the importation of slaves until 1808, does that not mean that slavery was LEGAL and sanctioned by the US Government?

No it does not. 

It simply means that slavery was tolerated by the government of the United States.  To tolerate something and to sanction it (throw your support behind it) are two completely different things.  To the layperson this may seem parsing of words, but legally it's of tremendous significance.  If the government sanctioned slavery then that means that it would have been legal to own slaves anywhere in the US... but we both know that that was not the case, there were states such as Wisconsin where slavery was illegal.

The framers ALL owned slaves! 

Nonsense. Some did, many did not.  How many slaves did John Adams own?

They wrote a document that allowed slaves to be bougth and sold, indeed they bought and sold slaves themselves, yet you say that the slave owners were not entitled to the property they paid money for?

Makes NO SENSE AT ALL!

don't misconstrue my statements... that might work with the others yuh used to arguing with.  I said they were not CONSTITUTIONALLY entitled to that property... I deliberately framed my statements in light of the constitution b/c we all know that men in this country claimed many entitlements, to which they were not constitutionally entitled.

It is OBVIOUS that since slavery was legal, then the right to own slaves was legal also!  So how could the slave holders then have no right to THEIR PROPERTY?


You buy a cow, you bought a slave you owned them both, they were both chattel and had no legal rights.

Slavery in the United States was governed by an extensive body of law developed from the 1640s to the 1860s. Every slave state had its own slave code and body of court decisions. All slave codes made slavery a permanent condition, inherited through the mother, and defined slaves as property, usually in the same terms as those applied to real estate. Slaves, being property, could not own property or be a party to a contract. Since marriage is a form of contract, no slave marriage had any legal standing. All codes also had sections regulating free blacks, who were still subject to controls on their movements and employment and were often required to leave the state after emancipation.

And YES dred scott said exactly that.  THE SUPREME Court upheld the belief that slaves were none persons...how can you argue that then the oweners had no rights over their property.

Morally perhaps but legally not at all!

Post facto yuh preaching they breds!

Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants[2]—whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States, and that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that slaves could not sue in court, and that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process.

So Lincoln made people lose their property without compensation!

I see you love ah long talk...

Even if for argument's sake I were to concede you the point that slavery was legal and these men were legally entitled to their property, this is a 'right' that isn't constitutionally guaranteed... as I keep telling you.  And even then there is no absolute right to property, if there is a greater state need that is in conflict with that property right, under limited circumstances that property right will be circumscribed.  If you don't believe me then just look up "eminent domain" and see what you find.

Of course I dun three steps ahead of you... so when you come with the 'just compensation' talk I'll just remind you that:
a) slaves weren't freed under the doctrine of eminent domain, so just compensation wouldn't automatically apply
b) There was no seizure of property.

The most you can argue is that the slaveowners were denied the right to use their "property" as they wanted... but that goes on all the time, even today.  Zoning laws etc. prevent people from using their property as they want all the time... same for Covenants and Restrictions.  The principle is well-established, there is no absolute right to property, it's one of the prices we pay for being part of a greater community, some individual rights must be sacrificed in favor of the whole.

Slavery was a moral stain on the fabric of America and so the slaveholders had to sacrifice that for the country to survive and move forward.

[truetrini]

Bakes you keep saying Lincoln had the right to suspend the writ of liberty.

What gave him that right?  

Even NY city wanted to secede many times an they felt that they ahd the legal rights.  New England wanted to secede in 1913!  1813 yuh know!  Thomas Pickering who was washington's own doctor and served with him in Delaware was leading New Hampshire secessinists at the time.

The leader of the New England secessionists was Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who had served as George Washington’s chief of staff, his secretary of war and secretary of state, as well as a congressman and senator from Massachusetts. "The principles of our Revolution [of 1776] point to the remedy – a separation," Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for "the people of he East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government," announced Senator James Hillhouse. Similar sentiments were expressed by such prominent New Englanders as Elbridge Gerry, John Quincy Adams, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy, and Joseph Story, among others.

The New England secession movement gained momentum for an entire decade, but ultimately failed at the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814. Throughout this struggle, wrote historian Edward Powell in Nullification and Secession in the United States, "the right of a state to withdraw from the Union was not disputed."

[/b]

Did states have the right to secede?  

Lincoln himself said this : July 4, 1848  "“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution.” .

I see nothing in the constitution that prohibited secession until AFTER the Civil War!  ...According to The U.S. Supreme Court, in The Case of Texas Vs White - 1866, "Secession is Constitutionally impossible...Texas had never ceased to be a state in The Union........The Constitution , in all of its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states...The fact that Texas had temporarily given up her rights and privileges of membership in The Union did not alter the fact that she could sever the constitutional ties that bound her to the Union." Mr. Chief Justice Chase.

As Grant said, the right of secession was not settled by law but by the point of a bayonet. Northern states use the threat prior to the War.

and if according to Thomas Jeffersonb that

"Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed."[quote/] Therefore, if the southern states wanted to secede,it appears that then they had a clear right to do so.  Ent?

"If military force is used," the Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860, then a state can only be seen "as a subject province and can never be a co-equal member of the American union."

In fact what Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession when they were students at West Point was that if states were denied teh right of secession that it "would be inconsistent with teh principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed."  

Remember the slaves were NOT citizens of the US, were not even considered full humans as evidenced by the 2/3's compromise.  So there is no legal argument that the southern states were violating the constitutional rights of its citizens by enslaving them!

While the Constitution remains silent on the issue of slavery and secession....the declaration of Independence which Lincoln used to supersede the Constitution....in an attempt to make his war legal....says:  The Constitution remains silent on the issue, but the Declaration of Independence is filled with information.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."  based on this alone it seems that the intent of the framers while attempting to create a 'more perfect union," also expected secession as an option..or so it can be argued.

Lincoln used the Declaration to justify the emancipation proclamation by saying it proclaims all men are created equal, but slaves/black people were NOT even citizens or full persons until after his victory in the civil war!!!!

1. I never said he had a right to suspend the writ of liberty... I said he had a right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus

2. States have a right to secede, but there is a process and that process is via the legislative process.  Just like prospective states have a right to petition to join the union.  But you don't see Puerto Rico and the V.I. (assuming they want to join) taking up arms.  You didn't see Hawai'i and Alaska waging war in order to be part of the Union.  The Southern States decided to secede by waging war... aka rebellion.  Once rebellion broke out habeas corpus was fair play.  And even so... you going on and on and on and on about this.  The suspension was limited to just Maryland, and just the western part of Maryland at that, where the union was most vulnerable to influences by Virginia and West Virginia, two staunchly Confederate states.  Maryland was a pivotal state in Civil War b/c the seat of gov't was in DC... landlocked between Md. and Va.  It was a military necessity that Md. be kept out of Confederate hands.

3. "Remember the slaves were NOT citizens of the US, were not even considered full humans as evidenced by the 2/3's compromise.  So there is no legal argument that the southern states were violating the constitutional rights of its citizens by enslaving them!"

This is jingoistic nonsense, frequently regurgitated by black militants whenever they want to rail against "the man".  Slaves were not citizens only because the men who were running the government declined to recognize them as such.  There is nothing in the constitution that mentions slavery or slaves.  The constitution only makes implications about the existence, but there is nothing expressly written into it because the framers didn't want slavery staining dey lovely document about liberty and rights and thing.  Slavery was more tolerated (because of the southerners) than endorsed... as is your suggestion.

Yuh slipping again... is not de "2/3's compromise"... is de 3/5's compromise.  And you and I know full well that that language had nothing to do with the humanity of slaves.  The framers weren't saying that slaves were 3/5s of a person (as has often been interpreted) they were saying "nah, we cyah give de south all dat voting power" b/c votes in congress were allocated based on population.  The southern bastards didn't want to recognize the rights of slaves as humans, but wanted to count them for purposes of congressional seats/votes.  The larger a State's population the more congressional power it had.  So the compromise was struck to limit the political impact of the slaves in the slave-holding southern states that every five slaves would count as 3 people (voting citizens, not humans).  The compromise was a limitation on their impact, NOT a referendum on their humanity.

1.  For all your learning, the writ of Habeas Corpus is otherwise known as the writ of Liberty!

2.  it was Lincoln who rejected the peace envoys and while it is true that the rebels seized Fort Sumner, Lincoln was the one who declared war.

3. Yes if yuh read meh other post yuh would see I said 3/5ths....anyway I was correct, they were NOT counted in teh census as they were not deemed citizens, the compromise illustrates this significantly!  Theywere ONLY counted to bring parity into the electorate system and then only as 3/5ths of a human, thus a refrendum of their humanity.  Besides it was the north who did NOT want to count them, the South were quite content to have them counted!!!

4. It is applicable to the discussiona s slaves were bought and sold as if they were cattle, white men were not suffering that fate!  Slaves were inhuman to the slave holders, the framers were ALL slave holders and while you are right that they did not want the issue of slavery to stain their document, they nonetheless allowed slavery and Article II section 8 allowed for the continued importation of slaves until 1808!   If the Constitution which is the highest LAW OF THE LAND allowed slavery that is tacit approval for the slave trade and gives it legality!


What you failed to mention about article II section 8 is that CONGRESS TAXED the importation of slaves!

[Bakes]

1.  For all your learning, the writ of Habeas Corpus is otherwise known as the writ of Liberty!

For all your supposed learning you still apparently can't read.  I said nothing of the "writ of Liberty". 

2.  it was Lincoln who rejected the peace envoys and while it is true that the rebels seized Fort Sumner, Lincoln was the one who declared war.

And Lincoln declaring war means what??  The War had already started when Fort Sumter was attacked by the rebels.  Words don't wage war, actions do... and is the South who struck the first note. I'm also not sure where "Fort Sumner" is, but den again me ent have learning like you, fuh all my learning dey never teach me about dey.  Never teach mih about de 2/3s compromise either.

3. Yes if yuh read meh other post yuh would see I said 3/5ths....anyway I was correct, they were NOT counted in teh census as they were not deemed citizens, the compromise illustrates this significantly!  Theywere ONLY counted to bring parity into the electorate system and then only as 3/5ths of a human, thus a refrendum of their humanity.  Besides it was the north who did NOT want to count them, the South were quite content to have them counted!!!

I'm not sure what your point is.  It's a very superficial and silly argument that the North didn't see the slaves as human... but if that's what you want to argue then be my guest... this whole silly circular argument is growing tired.

4. It is applicable to the discussiona s slaves were bought and sold as if they were cattle, white men were not suffering that fate!  Slaves were inhuman to the slave holders, the framers were ALL slave holders and while you are right that they did not want the issue of slavery to stain their document, they nonetheless allowed slavery and Article II section 8 allowed for the continued importation of slaves until 1808!   If the Constitution which is the highest LAW OF THE LAND allowed slavery that is tacit approval for the slave trade and gives it legality!


What you failed to mention about article II section 8 is that CONGRESS TAXED the importation of slaves!

Actually that would be Article II Section 9... yuh juss following blindly and ent even ketch dat.  And it didn't say that Congress taxed the importation of slaves... it says the importation of such could be taxed...up to $10 a head.  All that shows, as I've stated all along is that slavery was tolerated with a wink and a nod... far different from being endorsed or approved.

The Constitution by it's silence and implication allowed for slavery to continue... it didn't make slavery legal.  If it gave it legality as you so unintelligently claim then a slave owner could rightly own slaves in Wisconsin and claim it as his Constitutional right.  But Wisconsin was one of many states that outlawed slavery, so of course we know that's an argument without legs... there simply was no Constitutional right to own or keep slaves.

[truetrini]

whatever fella, I KNOW I right slavery was leagl and even the framers owned slaves..so much for not knowing their intention!

If the constitution, the highest law makes it ok to hold slaves and import slaves how yuh could come up with argument that slavery was illegal?  They evn tax de damn ting.

so it was section 9, whoo dee doo

They had the right to tax...dey does tax illegal imports?  That woulda be ah fine.

STATUTE II.

(March 2, 1807: Act of March 22, 1794, ch.11. Act of May 10, 1800, ch. 51. Act of Feb. 28, 1803, ch. 10. Act of April 20, 1818, ch. 91. Act of May 15, 1820, ch. 113, sec. 4, 5.)
CHAP.XXII.-- An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight. (See notes to act of March 22, 1794, chap.11, vol. i. 347.)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, it shall not be lawful to import or bring into the United States or the territories thereof from any foreign kingdom, place, or country, any negro, mulatto, or person of colour, with intent to hold, sell, or dispose of such negro, mulatto, or person of colour, as a slave, or to be held to service or labour.

[truetrini]

Further the 5th amendment is very important to this discussion....


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Dred Scot versus Sanford deemed Dred Scott to be personal property and used the 5th amendment to uphold Snaford's right to own him!

until the The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color or previous condition of servitude" (i.e., slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

The FACT that the thirteenth amendment made slavery illegal illustrates that before that SLAVERY was LEGAL!

[Bakes]

whatever fella, I KNOW I right slavery was leagl and even the framers owned slaves..so much for not knowing their intention!

If yuh "KNOW" yuh right... then why yuh even bother arguing?

As for this shit argument about "the framers owned slaves"... you keep repeating that shit as if to convince yuhself that what yuh saying makes sense.  SOME of the framers owned slaves, MOST did not.  So clearly they weren't all of the same mind where the issue was concerned... they certainly didn't all share the same intent.

If the constitution, the highest law makes it ok to hold slaves and import slaves how yuh could come up with argument that slavery was illegal?  They evn tax de damn ting.

Where in the Constitution did it say it was okay to own slaves?  I feel like I'm arguing with a 4-year old.  If the Constitution made it legal to own slaves as YOU and YOU alone assert... then how could STATE LAW trump the "supreme law of the land"?  States would NEVER be able to outlaw slavery if it was allowed by the Constitution... THAT is the argument.  You'd have to be a fukkin dunce to not see that state law cannot supercede a constitutional right.  The Constitution as drafted was DELIBERATELY vague so as to allow for flexibility to adapt later on down the line, this is why slavery was not enshrined within the document... it was a dying institution.

so it was section 9, whoo dee doo

They had the right to tax...dey does tax illegal imports?  That woulda be ah fine.

Back then isn't the same as now... if they wanted to tax something that was wasn't legal then that's what they would have done to get the signatures on the Constitution.  Besides I never said it was illegal, I said it was unconstitutional...there's a difference.  Discrimination based on race is unconstitutionaly, yet for nearly two-hundred years it was legal in many parts of the US.

STATUTE II.

(March 2, 1807: Act of March 22, 1794, ch.11. Act of May 10, 1800, ch. 51. Act of Feb. 28, 1803, ch. 10. Act of April 20, 1818, ch. 91. Act of May 15, 1820, ch. 113, sec. 4, 5.)
CHAP.XXII.-- An Act to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eight. (See notes to act of March 22, 1794, chap.11, vol. i. 347.)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, it shall not be lawful to import or bring into the United States or the territories thereof from any foreign kingdom, place, or country, any negro, mulatto, or person of colour, with intent to hold, sell, or dispose of such negro, mulatto, or person of colour, as a slave, or to be held to service or labour.

^^^ I'm not sure what you trying to show by posting that.  That is a Congressional act, not the Constitution.

[Bakes]

Further the 5th amendment is very important to this discussion....


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Were slaves taken "for public use"?  why yuh doh hush yuh ass when yuh find yuhself out ah yuh dept?  I glad that I have you looking deeper into the Constitution and what not, education is a wonderful thing.  But as I tell you, I dun three steps ahead of you.  The "Takings Clause" as that is known refers to the doctrine of Eminent Domain... since slaves weren't 'taken' there was no 'just compensation' required.  I said that since yesterday

Of course I dun three steps ahead of you... so when you come with the 'just compensation' talk I'll just remind you that:
a) slaves weren't freed under the doctrine of eminent domain, so just compensation wouldn't automatically apply
b) There was no seizure of property.

Dred Scot versus Sanford deemed Dred Scott to be personal property and used the 5th amendment to uphold Snaford's right to own him!

Dred Scott was erroneously decided by a Supreme Court dominated by Southern sympathizers.  The opinion was written by a man (Taney) who himself was a slaveowner.  The Court eventually repudiated Dred Scott in  The Slaughterhouse Cases... you simply cannot hold no argument with me on this.  The rationale relied on the 5th Amendment, but as I showed you, and the Court subsequently held, this was not a 5th Amendment case.  The decision was wrong.

until the The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color or previous condition of servitude" (i.e., slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

The FACT that the thirteenth amendment made slavery illegal illustrates that before that SLAVERY was LEGAL!

You stuck on this slavery was legal talk... I dun addressed that already.  Slavery was not the law of the land, it was tolerated as a compromise to state's rights, some states asserted the right to make slavery legal so they did.  A majority of states decided slavery was not legal so slavery was made unconstitutional.  At not time was slavery ever codified into federal law.  Federal law on constitutional issues trumps state laws.  There was no constitutional right to owning slaves and so Lincoln broke no laws in declaring the slaves free... Congress violated no one's constitutional rights when the 13th Amendment was passed.

I'm done arguing the issue with you... you "KNOW" that you're right... good for you.  I in the profession, I actually know what I talking about rather than just mouthing an opinion.

[truetrini]

I glad you in de profession..so was The Supreme court who validated ownership rights of slave holders.

talk done!

[pecan]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ranking_presidents

Lincoln ranked best president by historians

 

By NATASHA T. METZLER, Associated Press Writer Natasha T. Metzler, Associated Press Writer – Sun Feb 15, 2:05 pm ET


WASHINGTON – Just days after the nation honored the 200th anniversary of his birth, 65 historians ranked Abraham Lincoln as the nation's best president.

Former President George W. Bush, who left office last month, was ranked 36th out of the 42 men who had been chief executive by the end of 2008, according to a survey conducted by the cable channel C-SPAN.

Bush scored lowest in international relations, where he was ranked 41st, and in economic management, where he was ranked 40th. His highest ranking, 24th, was in the category of pursuing equal justice for all. He was ranked 25th in crisis leadership and vision and agenda setting.

In contrast, Lincoln was ranked in the top three in each of the 10 categories evaluated by participants.

In C-SPAN's only other ranking of presidents, in 2000, former President Bill Clinton jumped six spots from No. 21 to 15. Other recent presidents moved positions as well: Ronald Reagan advanced from No. 11 to 10, George H.W. Bush rose from No. 20 to 18 and Jimmy Carter fell from No. 22 to 25.

This movement illustrates that presidential reputations are influenced by present-day concerns, said survey adviser and participant Edna Medford.

"Today's concerns shape our views of the past, be it in the area of foreign policy, managing the economy or human rights," Medford said in a statement.

After Lincoln, the academics rated George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman as the best leaders overall. The same five received top spots in the 2000 survey, although Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt swapped spots this year.

Rated worst overall were James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison and Warren G. Harding.

The survey was conducted in December and January. Participants ranked each president on a scale of one, "not effective" to 10, "very effective," on a list of 10 leadership qualities including relations with Congress, public persuasion and moral authority.

[Bakes]

I glad you in de profession..so was The Supreme court who validated ownership rights of slave holders.

talk done!

...and what does that say?  Another Supreme Court ruled that segregation was okay as long as facilities were "separate but equal" in Plessy v. Ferguson... and yet another Court ruled that segregation was wrong in Brown v. Board of Education.

You simply running out of arguments to make so yuh talking fuh talking sake now.

[truetrini]

I glad you in de profession..so was The Supreme court who validated ownership rights of slave holders.

talk done!

...and what does that say?  Another Supreme Court ruled that segregation was okay as long as facilities were "separate but equal" in Plessy v. Ferguson... and yet another Court ruled that segregation was wrong in Brown v. Board of Education.

You simply running out of arguments to make so yuh talking fuh talking sake now.

not at all.  You are the one looking to argue that slavery was unconstitutional!  It was not, it was perfectly legal during Lincoln's time.

When one court makes a ruling is it not law until another court overturns that rling?

steups..look who arguing.