The Ghost Of George Washington

ChChoda said:
Your history is all twisted homie...

The southern states seceded...that was unconstitutional, according to the Constitution. If you think it was a Constitutional action, prove it. Otherwise, you're wrong about Washington. Lincoln and Washington were peas in a pod. And Lincoln was right. Washington would have been on the side of right. :eyesmoke:
Click to expand...

You are the one with twisted history ChChoda........:wall:


The Undeniable Legality of Secession

At the most fundamental and basic level of our political belief system as Americans rests the idea that men ought to be free to determine their own form of government. Our Declaration of Independence states this fact clearly:
...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...
Few Americans would deny that our founders in 1776 had among other inalienable rights the justification and right to assert a form of government "most likely to effect Safety and Happiness". With such a strong sense of the rights of the people inherent in our most foundational of beliefs, it is amazing that Americans so easily view these concepts as applicable only to another time and place.
Secession is legal under natural law, biblical law and in accordance with the State-Federal compact theory of government.
 
Mindmelted said:
You are the one with twisted history ChChoda........:wall:


The Undeniable Legality of Secession

At the most fundamental and basic level of our political belief system as Americans rests the idea that men ought to be free to determine their own form of government. Our Declaration of Independence states this fact clearly:
...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...
Few Americans would deny that our founders in 1776 had among other inalienable rights the justification and right to assert a form of government "most likely to effect Safety and Happiness". With such a strong sense of the rights of the people inherent in our most foundational of beliefs, it is amazing that Americans so easily view these concepts as applicable only to another time and place.
Secession is legal under natural law, biblical law and in accordance with the State-Federal compact theory of government.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read Abraham Lincolns first inaugural address? If you haven't, you should have. If you want to have this discussion, that is...

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm

excerpt-

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "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." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.

excerpt-

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
 
ChChoda said:
Have you ever read Abraham Lincolns first inaugural address? If you haven't, you should have. If you want to have this discussion, that is...

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm

excerpt-

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "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." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.

excerpt-

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Click to expand...

The above is a presidential lie on par with, I did not have sex with that woman.
 
ChChoda said:
Have you ever read Abraham Lincolns first inaugural address? If you haven't, you should have. If you want to have this discussion, that is...

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm

excerpt-

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "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." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.

excerpt-

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Click to expand...


This has nothing to do with you saying succession is and was illegal.

And see where lincoln went with that huh.
 
Mindmelted said:
This has nothing to do with you saying succession is and was illegal.

And see where lincoln went with that huh.
Click to expand...

Secession, as it was attempted, was unconstitutional.

Lincoln preserved the Constitution. "That all men are created equal."
 
ChChoda said:
Secession, as it was attempted, was unconstitutional.

Lincoln preserved the Constitution. "That all men are created equal."
Click to expand...

So even though it is in the declaration you still view it as illegal.

Is that not kinda shallow minded.I am all for the union,but not by force.

What does the word union mean(It does not mean staying by force)
 
Mindmelted said:
So even though it is in the declaration you still view it as illegal.

Is that not kinda shallow minded.I am all for the union,but not by force.

What does the word union mean(It does not mean staying by force)
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional, without the consent of the Congress, or the amending of the Constitution by the states.

The preservation of the Union was the only option he had, Constitutionally speaking.

It refers to the union of states that make up The United States of America.

Constitution_Signatures.jpg
 
First Inaugural Address

March 4, 1861
Washington, D.C.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm

excerpt-

One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections, than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all, by the other.

Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.
 
excerpt-




In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
 
Mindmelted said:
Up yours buddy.
No body was saying slavery was right you fucking moron.
So have a nice :finger: Day.

You should read the book the real lincoln.So you can see how your hero really was.
Click to expand...

No thanks. Your recommendations carry little weight with me...:lol:
 
ChChoda said:
No thanks. Your recommendations carry little weight with me...:lol:
Click to expand...

You must be one of those idiots who thinks that 90% of the south fought for the 10% that owned slaves.You are a mighty ignorant person if you actually belive that.And your info is nothing but yankee dribble.
 
Mindmelted said:
You must be one of those idiots who thinks that 90% of the south fought for the 10% that owned slaves.You are a mighty ignorant person if you actually belive that.And your info is nothing but yankee dribble.
Click to expand...

I'm this, and you're that? And because I'm this, I'm also the other? Wow, that's deep. :wall:
 
wait how about this tho guys you didnt mention that if washinton was alive during the civil war would he want his prised virginia to leave the union they fought so hard and died for?


somthing to ponderbongsmilie



1209336946626.jpg.%5Broflposters.com%5D.myspace.jpg




 
Big P said:
wait how about this tho guys you didnt mention that if washinton was alive during the civil war would he want his prised virginia to leave the union they fought so hard and died for?


somthing to ponderbongsmilie



1209336946626.jpg.%5Broflposters.com%5D.myspace.jpg
Click to expand...

He led Americans to victory once before...against Virginian tories (Virginians still loyal to Britain), too, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CunningCanuk
Open letter from Heather Cox Richardson. Boston College history professor.
Replies
3
Views
354
DIY-HP-LED
DIY-HP-LED
DIY-HP-LED
Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’
6 7 8
Replies
142
Views
6K
Fogdog
Fogdog
Carne Seca
Scary Stories for the Halloween Month
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
Carne Seca
Carne Seca
negrodamusCBG
NDAA mass dox
Replies
0
Views
2K
negrodamusCBG
negrodamusCBG
bsemaj
James E. Barber Sr. v. City of Vancouver et.al.
Replies
5
Views
2K
bsemaj
bsemaj
Back
Top