Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Gents

If this is kept civil, I will - an an "outsider" - be really interested to hear American views on this subject. I know very little about the US Civil War ...

Didn't Europe have officers and ambassadors observing that conflict for both its military and political edification?

Didn't one such Prussian officer call the American Civil War a riot between two opposing rabbles, or words to that efffect?

quote:

At the end of the civil war the United States had the most advanced most powerful army in the world. Unmatched and could stand toe to toe with any nation in the world and win. When did the US become a world power? The minute the UK agreed to pay war damages to the US government after the civil war for building ships for the confederacy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Gents

If this is kept civil, I will - an an "outsider" - be really interested to hear American views on this subject. I know very little about the US Civil War ...

Didn't Europe have officers and ambassadors observing that conflict for both its military and political edification?

Didn't one such Prussian officer call the American Civil War a riot between two opposing rabbles, or words to that efffect?

At the end of the civil war the United States had the most advanced most powerful army in the world. Unmatched and could stand toe to toe with any nation in the world and win. When did the US become a world power? The minute the UK agreed to pay war damages to the US government after the civil war for building ships for the confederacy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SLAAKMAN

quote:

At the end of the civil war the United States had the most advanced most powerful army in the world. Unmatched and could stand toe to toe with any nation in the world and win. When did the US become a world power? The minute the UK agreed to pay war damages to the US government after the civil war for building ships for the confederacy.

Oh those Gumbys! Did they actually pay it to those cretins in Washington??! No wonder the US is so doomed. Too bad I wasnt there & in charge of the Confederate Navy. That bogus blockade wouldve been crushed!

quote:

Also, I want to be appointed American Playboy Ambassador to the Playboy mansion! And I want a million, no a billion NO TEN BILLION DOLLARS.

quote:

IF, IF, I agree to your appointment as all High Lord Dictator of the Unite States of Amerika, will you agree to leave the Bill of Rights alone??????

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

“Preserved The Union”

Suggest secession justified war would be like saying that the US withdrawing from the UN would be an act of war , in 1861 no law existed in terms of prohibiting secession………..none

Lincoln clearly committed treason according to his oath and the limits the architects of the Republic put of the office , if a modern President sent the military door to door to confiscate weapons as Lincoln did there be a revolt, not to mention the endless list of other unconstitutional crimes he imposed on citizens. ……there was a reason the Republic was drawn up as “These” United States and not “The” United States which is becoming more obvious and increasingly relevant every day.

Well I can't win you over on that line of thinking.

So would be happier if there were a dozen or so little Amerikas carved out of the USA??

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Perhaps good sir you have a picture of Washington in your latrine....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sarge

“Preserved The Union”

Suggest secession justified war would be like saying that the US withdrawing from the UN would be an act of war , in 1861 no law existed in terms of prohibiting secession………..none

Lincoln clearly committed treason according to his oath and the limits the architects of the Republic put of the office , if a modern President sent the military door to door to confiscate weapons as Lincoln did there be a revolt, not to mention the endless list of other unconstitutional crimes he imposed on citizens. ……there was a reason the Republic was drawn up as “These” United States and not “The” United States which is becoming more obvious and increasingly relevant every day.

Well I can't win you over on that line of thinking.

So would be happier if there were a dozen or so little Amerikas carved out of the USA??

I wasn’t responding to present day “what if’s” hypotheticals, I was pointing out the ironic idolization many in the States have with Lincoln’s presidency ……………

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727
Most Americans don't understand that the Republican Party back then was and is more like the Democratic Party today. He did what he had to do to save the union..

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727
Based on the fact the southern state succeeded for no other reason than slavery with the pretense of states "rites" behind it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

It's like having an argument with a rock....

quote:

ORIGINAL: parusski

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727
It's like having an argument with a rock....

A very hard rock.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

I can't take seriously the Supreme Court in 1861... Pro slaverly and almost all appointed by democrats ......in all honesty it was war.... The southern states the aggressor . Slavery our national guilt and sin. They had an election in 1864 the people spoke and what we think today is right or wrong was clearly the right thing to back then. We are a better country for it.

quote:

I can't take seriously the Supreme Court in 1861... Pro slaverly and almost all appointed by democrats ......in all honesty it was war.... The southern states the aggressor . Slavery our national guilt and sin. They had an election in 1864 the people spoke and what we think today is right or wrong was clearly the right thing to back then. We are a better country for it.

quote:

1) Is secession unconstitutional? I think so, but will conceed that the constitution is not explicit on the matter. 2) If secession is unconstitutional, who gets to decide that "the public safety may require" the suspension of the writ? 3) where is it OK to suspend the writ?
Anyone else care to take up the debate on these grounds?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Gents

If this is kept civil, I will - an an "outsider" - be really interested to hear American views on this subject. I know very little about the US Civil War ...

Didn't Europe have officers and ambassadors observing that conflict for both its military and political edification?

Didn't one such Prussian officer call the American Civil War a riot between two opposing rabbles, or words to that efffect?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy
Call him a dictator if you want and quote legal law all you want but I bet there is a lot of black people in the South that like him a lot better than they like you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

I can't take seriously the Supreme Court in 1861... Pro slaverly and almost all appointed by democrats ......in all honesty it was war.... The southern states the aggressor . Slavery our national guilt and sin. They had an election in 1864 the people spoke and what we think today is right or wrong was clearly the right thing to back then. We are a better country for it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

I notice that to date, no one has attempted to actually justify Lincoln's actions or positions. I hereby pick up that guantlet.

First, the question of the constitutionality of secession. Lincoln made his case against it based on two facts: 1) the Articles of Confederation were expressly declared to be a perpetual union. 2) Although the constitution contained no such statement, one of the objectives (as stated in the preamble) is "to form a more perfect union". Since a non-perpetual union is less perfect than a perpetual union, the inference is that the constitution is a perpetual union. Speaking for myself, I find this logic convincing enough that I believe secession is and always was unconstitutional. Keep that statement in mind as you read the next paragraph.

Next, the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Lincoln based his case for that on the language of the Constitution. As quoted by him in a letter to Erastus Corning and others (The Portable Abraham Lincoln, edited by Andrew Delbanco, pages 274 to 283), the constitution states "the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it". IF you, like me, believe that secession is unconstitutional, then the attempt constitutes a rebellion. In the same letter, Lincoln submitted for the consideration of Mr. Corning a case in which General (later President) Jackson refused to honor a writ of Habeas Corpus shortly after the Battle of New Orleans. Apparently, Congress later (30 years later, according to the letter) voted to refund the principle and interest on a fine which Jackson paid for this action. This indicated a belief that the suspension of the writ was acceptable in the then-prevailing circumstances (an invasion by the UK).

Therefore, I consider that there are 3 points of reasonable debate. 1) Is secession unconstitutional? I think so, but will conceed that the constitution is not explicit on the matter. 2) If secession is unconstitutional, who gets to decide that "the public safety may require" the suspension of the writ? 3) where is it OK to suspend the writ?

In Ex Parte Milligan, the Supreme Court accepted that the suspension was constitutional, but stated that in places in which civilian courts were operating, military tribunals could not be used to try civilians. The Supreme Court decision is something I would weigh heavily in considering the suspension, even though I don't worship the court nor consider it to be infalible. Heck, even the Pope is only infalible when speaking "Ex Cathedra", if you are one of my fellow Catholics, and not even then if you aren't.

Anyone else care to take up the debate on these grounds?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Just read this very interesting...



‎"What brought about the hanging of 38 Sioux Indians in Minnesota December 26, 1862 was the failure "again" of the U.S. Government to honor it's treaties with Indian Nations. Indians were not given the money or food set forth to them for signing a treaty to turn over more than a million acres of their land and be forced to live on a reservation.

Indian agents keep the treaty money and food that was to go to the Indians, the food was sold to White settlers, food that was given to the Indians was spoiled and not fit for a dog to eat. Indian hunting parties went off the reservation land looking for food to feed their families, one hunting group took eggs from a White settlers land and the rest is history.

Information below tells how President Lincoln and Minnesota Governor Alexander Ramsey set out to exterminate Indians from their home land.

Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.

So, on December 26, 1862, the Great Emancipator ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota."

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Dresden was out of order..no need for it at all and a War Crime..but War Crimes are only crimes if you lose the war.

I think it's a pointer that maybe we shouldn't idolise these past leaders so much. Lincoln probably wasn't the great upholder of human rights, he probably was a racist as everyone else was back then, blimey it's only in recent years that racism wasn't the norm throughout society. Which brings us to the fact you can't judge people from the past with our own standard of ethics and morals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

Just read this very interesting...



ý"What brought about the hanging of 38 Sioux Indians in Minnesota December 26, 1862 was the failure "again" of the U.S. Government to honor it's treaties with Indian Nations. Indians were not given the money or food set forth to them for signing a treaty to turn over more than a million acres of their land and be forced to live on a reservation.

Indian agents keep the treaty money and food that was to go to the Indians, the food was sold to White settlers, food that was given to the Indians was spoiled and not fit for a dog to eat. Indian hunting parties went off the reservation land looking for food to feed their families, one hunting group took eggs from a White settlers land and the rest is history.

Information below tells how President Lincoln and Minnesota Governor Alexander Ramsey set out to exterminate Indians from their home land.

Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.

So, on December 26, 1862, the Great Emancipator ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota."

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

The south was the aggressor??the country of south carolina fired on ft.sumter after it fired at them for firing at a resuppy and reinforcment fleet illegally sailed into charleston harbor.the north invaded the country of virginia and was repulsed at the 1st battle of bull run.
the only examples of southern agression was antietam and the invasion of peensylvania which culminated with gettysburg.
the north attacked the south over and over again.
i knew i would be called a racist somehow and the dancing around comment proves it what better way to end a debate but throw in the race card
plllease

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

I can't take seriously the Supreme Court in 1861... Pro slaverly and almost all appointed by democrats ......in all honesty it was war.... The southern states the aggressor . Slavery our national guilt and sin. They had an election in 1864 the people spoke and what we think today is right or wrong was clearly the right thing to back then. We are a better country for it.