Comments on: Abraham Lincoln: Tyrant, Hypocrite or Consummate Statesman http://www.historynet.com/abraham-lincoln-tyrant-hypocrite-or-consummate-statesman.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:03:40 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Bob Bird http://www.historynet.com/abraham-lincoln-tyrant-hypocrite-or-consummate-statesman.htm/comment-page-1#comment-117325 Bob Bird Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:05:34 +0000 #comment-117325 D'Souza's arrogant and dismissing claims that secession was unconstitutional flies in the face of easily verifiable reality: NY, RI and VA all joined the union on the condition of unilateral withdrawal should they find the new Constitution tyrannical; in Jefferson's First Inaugural, he invites discontented states to withdraw peacefully; the Hartford Convention of 1814 seriously contemplated secession for New England; and most obvious: if Lincoln was so valiantly defending the Constitution, willing to sacrifice untold lives, treasure and blood, you would think that the SPECIFIC CLAIM OF PERPETUAL UNION would be in writing, that the mechanics of secession would be well spelled out, like the Presidential Oath or the 10th Amendment. Instead, D'Souza merely uses his own self-suited logic, as did Lincoln, in formulating and espousing imagary constitutional principles that are not on paper but merely within a man's own head, heart and soul. D’Souza’s arrogant and dismissing claims that secession was unconstitutional flies in the face of easily verifiable reality: NY, RI and VA all joined the union on the condition of unilateral withdrawal should they find the new Constitution tyrannical; in Jefferson’s First Inaugural, he invites discontented states to withdraw peacefully; the Hartford Convention of 1814 seriously contemplated secession for New England; and most obvious: if Lincoln was so valiantly defending the Constitution, willing to sacrifice untold lives, treasure and blood, you would think that the SPECIFIC CLAIM OF PERPETUAL UNION would be in writing, that the mechanics of secession would be well spelled out, like the Presidential Oath or the 10th Amendment. Instead, D’Souza merely uses his own self-suited logic, as did Lincoln, in formulating and espousing imagary constitutional principles that are not on paper but merely within a man’s own head, heart and soul.

]]> By: Patricio Bridges http://www.historynet.com/abraham-lincoln-tyrant-hypocrite-or-consummate-statesman.htm/comment-page-1#comment-97814 Patricio Bridges Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:25:16 +0000 #comment-97814 Lincoln argued that the South had no right to secede — that the Southern states had entered the Union as the result of a permanent compact with the Northern states....Where was that written or agreed upon? Didn't Virginia have the option to secede before she joined the union? In a voluntary union a state should have the ability and right to leave that union if the citizens of that state so wish. Lincoln argued that the South had no right to secede — that the Southern states had entered the Union as the result of a permanent compact with the Northern states….Where was that written or agreed upon? Didn’t Virginia have the option to secede before she joined the union? In a voluntary union a state should have the ability and right to leave that union if the citizens of that state so wish.

]]> By: Terry http://www.historynet.com/abraham-lincoln-tyrant-hypocrite-or-consummate-statesman.htm/comment-page-1#comment-32153 Terry Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:50:53 +0000 #comment-32153 "Of course the Southerners objected that they should not be forced to live under a regime that they considered tyrannical, but Lincoln countered that any decision to dissolve the original compact could only occur with the consent of all the parties involved. Once again, it makes no sense to have such agreements when any group can unilaterally withdraw from them and go its own way." I believe the purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to unite groups of people (in their own various sovereign states) under the umbrella of a representative government. The States preceded the construction of the Union and have the right to leave said union, "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." “Of course the Southerners objected that they should not be forced to live under a regime that they considered tyrannical, but Lincoln countered that any decision to dissolve the original compact could only occur with the consent of all the parties involved. Once again, it makes no sense to have such agreements when any group can unilaterally withdraw from them and go its own way.”

I believe the purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to unite groups of people (in their own various sovereign states) under the umbrella of a representative government. The States preceded the construction of the Union and have the right to leave said union, “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

]]> By: Bubba http://www.historynet.com/abraham-lincoln-tyrant-hypocrite-or-consummate-statesman.htm/comment-page-1#comment-31921 Bubba Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:59:59 +0000 #comment-31921 You say Lincoln "never acknowledges black inferiority"... Well... September 18, 1858... "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." You say Lincoln “never acknowledges black inferiority”…
Well… September 18, 1858…

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

]]>