Honest Abe...???

Very good post: But the Fort Sumter Garrison was being re enforced,thats why it was a provoked fight.Slavery was an issue,but the real issue was the North Eastern Bankers did not want to yield their power over the Southern States which produced great wealth from farming.Its a fact that slavery was on the way out because as the slaves aged,there was no replacement do to the anti-slavery laws.My family never owned slaves,and had no reason to own another human.But the so called civil war was a War of Northern Aggression.We attacked Fort Sumter to clear out the U.S. troops,which were stationed on S.C. Sovereignty. If your from the North, I am sure you think the South was wrong(ya'll wrote the history)...If we had won the war,you would have been taught that States Rights Trump Federal law(Jefferson).Why is it the United States? Why not the Federal Republic of North America? Thats the way we are governed......??.When the United States called, I answered,if the South calls, I will answer...

 

I agree with the details but the reality of the situation is that you cannot have states leave whenever they disagree, no nation could survive. Jefferson didn't write the Constitution his proxy Madison wrote the original 13 points and suggested the Convention. I would argue that Hamilton had as much to do about the result as any. All Presidents deviated from your premiss and took power from the states, Jefferson and Madison too. As for the Government, WE are the government, even when we disagree, to hate the government is to hate each other and I'm not having that. Times are hard, lets put away petty differences and compromise on solutions, secession is a tired idea who's day is gone.

 

The reality is when a government becomes hostile to the very people that employes it,its time for Revolution or Secession by the States that are being held hostage.The South is still paying reparations for the loss of the War of Northern Aggression....yes,our nation as a hold is in a rare state of disrepute,but if an when the ship is righted only the National Election will tell. The thread is (was) about if Abe was honest,and he wasn't....his biggest legacy is the fact he was assassinated..

 

Abe was honest actually. He planned to be very easy on the South and work toward conciliation. I doubt the whole carpet bagger thing would have happened, shooting Abe was the worst thing the South could do. As I said before, we are the government, we elected them so they are the face of our reality.

 

Supremacy Clause, US Constitution Article VI, Clause 2:


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


Therefore, the State laws and courts CANNOT nullify Federal law:


The Constitution and the Theory of Nullification
[edit] Provisions of the Constitution

The Constitution does not contain any clause providing that the states have the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional.

Supporters of nullification have argued that the states' power of nullification is inherent in the nature of the federal system. They have argued that before the Constitution was ratified, the states essentially were separate nations. The Constitution is a contract, or "compact," among the states by which the states delegated certain powers to the federal government, while reserving all other powers to themselves. The states, as parties to the compact, retained the inherent right to judge compliance with the compact. According to supporters of nullification, if the states determine that the federal government has exceeded its delegated powers, the states may declare federal laws unconstitutional. Nullification supporters argue that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional not only is inherent in the concept of state sovereignty, but also is one of the powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

This view of the Constitution has been rejected by the courts. The courts consistently have held that under the Constitution, the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional lies with the federal judiciary, not the states. The courts have found that the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws. The courts have rejected the compact theory, finding that the Constitution is a form of law established by the people and binding on the states, rather than a compact among the states. Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution and federal laws adopted in pursuance thereof are the "supreme law of the land" and are superior to state law. Federal laws therefore cannot be negated by the states, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Determining whether a federal law is consistent with the Constitution requires interpretation of the law, which is inherently a judicial function. The federal judicial power granted by Article III of the Constitution gives the federal courts authority over all cases arising under the Constitution and federal laws. The federal courts therefore have the power to determine whether federal laws are constitutional, with the Supreme Court having final authority.

Thus, the prevailing view is that under the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and does not lie in the states. The states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.

source: Wiki



On that basis, the States do not have the right of secession.

 

Just like I said...its not in the Constitution......The North(Abe) bullied the South into a war of Northern Aggression!650,000 men died because of Abe...The reason Abe wanted reconciliation was he needed the South to pay for the war,and do something with the Negroes..

 

You can repeat the same myths over and over again but it's not going to change anything. The Constitution and the Supreme Court have said there is no legal basis for secession.

 

South Carolina voted to secede right after Lincoln was elected, he didn't have time to bully anyone, he put out conciliatory feelers immediately after elected, he did not want war. This being said, he would not shy away from war to save the Union. Federal outposts in many states were beleaguered and Virginia allowed rebel troops in their state hence the first battle of Manassas. It was only the states with slaves that seceeded. The Confederacy wanted a war and they got it, they were foolish to start one they could have won in court if Taney allowed cert, Taney openly admitted he supported their opinion of the Constitution. He was riding circuit when the war broke out. Arrogance cometh before a fall.

 

All part of the plan,Lincoln used the absence of the court.Lincoln knew that war and only war was the salvation of the North.The Northern Bankers conspired with Lincoln to make the South subserviant,and to Lincoln's credit,he succeeded. But didn't live to reap the glory..As all war mongers,they are left to their own fates.

 

The North won because God was on our side, not yours.

 

Was God on your side at birth?Must have been,because of what was given life birth...

 

We won - to the victors go the spoils.

 

Well, I was born in New York and raised in Queens and then we moved to New Jsy.

Not sure whtthat has to do with Honest Abe, but surely I eo need to get offa the narcs,. what5 with my broekn ankle and all.

Yours Truly,

ALady named ASHEN

 

The Pride of New Jersey:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UHp3QOOJmQ"]Uncle Floyd at the Piano 2009 - YouTube[/ame]

 

What was the basis for killing hundreds of thousands of people and wrecking various economies in order to prevent people from exercising their right of free association?

It seems that if the Constitution allows for that, perhaps it is not a document to be praised nor are it's agents and their opinions people to be held up as laudable or worthy of our respect and honor.

 

Mr. BS! You have been seen backing up to the mail box....This site needs money...not honey!

 

The war mongers were in the south, they alone advocated war. There was no conspiracy by banks to neuter the south, the south was well on the way to doing it to itself. For once I would have to say that moral outrage over slavery was the driving force in the North not politics. The south incorrectly believed that the Constitution provided them with cover and that the North could not summon the courage to sustain a war. I said Lincoln did not want war, but he did want a Union and the war saved that. In these hard times we should come together, not fight losing battles over past mistakes. This is a polarizing debate not good for both sides.

 

Again,this was MR. Lincoln's war! This was not about slavery! Slavery was used as a reason for fighting it.Do you really believe the people of the North were fighting this war over Slavery? Even Lincoln himself said it wasn't about slavery!Who do you think financed the war? John Brown didn't....Lincoln used slavery to meet the ends of his aggression....We lost two banks this week to Northern aggression of financial institutions.This war still goes on through reparations...when will we ever pay them off?...Its all about money!

 

Slavery was the moral cause to the war and also the sticking point in political debates in Congress. The South defended it and wanted more slave states equal in number. The Missouri-Kansas conflict(s) brought the issue to resolution. Had the South a legitimate and moral reason for slavery the war would not have happened, they did not. Saying "states rights" allows them to secede because they wanted to expand slavery and it was their right is a stain on the South that exists today and anyone who defends slavery should bow their head in shame.

 

see,


http://www.politicalforum.com/history-past-politicians/232179-honest-abe-2.html#post1060888579

the US Supreme Court decided that issue a long time ago

 

AS far as extending slavery,it was for the purpose of political equality! Slavery was and now is wrong in my opinion,but so is Federal laws that keep states from exercising their rights...Each State is a nation unto itself,if that wasn't the case,just federalize all the states and have one national constitution.

 

Telling a State that slavery is wrong and must be ended is the absolute right and responsibility of any Federal government, any state that perpetuates the institution is is immoral and doesn't deserve the right to govern even the smallest entity-human rights trump all rights. The debate on what is actually state rights will always be an issue and we do need opposing views to control an over-reaching Federal government. In the end, though, it is the popular vote and the Supreme Court that decides many of these issues and as you noted, the Federal Government is getting stronger. Some of this wrong, some of it is necessary in a world economy and a changing world.

 

If you don't like particular state law,move to a state that has laws you like!Diversity is all about separate states and their laws.Why should I live in a state that promotes unemployment when I can live in one that doesn't?Thats the reason of having different states,so you can choose the one that fits your best situation.For example,Florida has no income tax law...Alabama does.....so if I choose to live in Alabama,I choose to pay state tax..if I don't like it,I can move.Because of different situations,some states have the "Right to work law"...some don't.Either move,vote it out,or live with it...Thats "States Rights"The Federal government should be in charge of the Military and National Security,not what a sovereign state does...Courts should only go as high as state law.Water seeks its own level and the other laws would balance out.

 

Extending slavery promotes political equality for slaves? States do not have the right to have or extend slavery. Read the US Constitution and the supremacy clause as well as the 13-15th Amendments.

 

The government you describe is called "The Articles Of Confederation"-they were superseded by the US Constitution, a living document that is constantly being interpreted by the Supreme Court in the light of our growing and maturing nation. It is the nature of people to fear change and no one group will be completely satisfied. I could move to a conservative state like Montana or Idaho and freeze my huevos off, or move to wacko (not such a bad thing, at least it's interesting) Florida and sweat my huevos off, or choose to make a great living in California where the weather is uniformly wonderful. This state is full of ex-Texans and ex-New Englanders who whine about all things California and never leave. A lot of folks do do well here because they don't have the work ethic of the Mexican's and have trouble keeping jobs.