I have read a lot about him and from opposing viewpoints. He was not the president that common "wisdom" will have you believe. just because it is common does not mean it is correct.
Originally Posted by coolwhip
Lincoln was trying to keep the country from being split into two separate nations prone to being conquered by other countries. Slavery was used as a catalyst.
Originally Posted by cehs
In regard to DOMA it is not true that the government has chosen to ignore the law. It's not difficult to (once again) to actually read what the executive branch has stated. In part..
Now before you retort by saying that this refusal to defend a law is unconstitutional let's take a look at history.
Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive’s obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law’s constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised.
Justice Antonin Scallia (hardly a liberal ) stated in Freytag v. Commissioner (90-762), 501 U.S. 868 (1991)
(emphasis added by me)
Thus, it was not enough simply to repose the power to exe- cute the laws (or to appoint) in the President; it was also nec- essary to provide him with the means to resist legislative en- croachment upon that power. The means selected were various, including a separate political constituency, to which he alone was responsible, and the power to veto encroaching laws, see Art. I, 7, or even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional.
Also Ronald Regan refused to defend portions of a law he signed in 1984 called the Competition in Contracting Act.
Let me start with a general proposition that I believe to be uncontroversial: there are circumstances in which the President may appropriately decline to enforce a statute that he views as unconstitutional.
Now cehs don't be to troubled because your record of this thread being rebutted by a liberal is still untarnished. However the rebuttal portion I would say stands firmly.
the "civil war" was the transition from a country run by the people to a country run by government.
Lincoln was the most hated seated President in American history.
slavery was the propaganda to convince people to join the northern army.
...and even then, they told them that the blacks were going to be shipped away.
the fact is the south was making more money from cotton then the whole northern industry.
the government placed tariffs on the south and banned them from buying foreign goods.
the object was to send the cash up north, and the government was willing to break the Constitution to do it.
when the south seceded, which was legally expressed in some state constitutions like Virginia's, the north launched an invasion.
General Grant was the first President to base his cabinet solely on owed political favors.
the socialists who have destroyed our school system chose to turn Lincoln into a saint, ...because they don't want democracy, they want their judges telling everyone what they are going to do, and they want their wages extorted from the public. ...and Lincoln's Federalisation of the country made it all possible for them.
Since slavery was protected by the constitution at the time, repealing it would have been impossible since there were 15 slave states. Also, Lincoln freed slaves in the south only, and well into the war. The boarder states did not free slaves until much later.
Originally Posted by pdrake65
But the real reason is because the North had a long history of taxing the south in order to pay for things that benefited the North. Kind of like Britain did. What did we do, we split from them. Why wouldn't the south do the same? Also, the Republican party who Lincoln was a member of had just received a majority in the house and the senate. The Republican party at the time was not what it is today and was a Northern States party. So the North had just won all the power it could need in order to continue taxing the south to pay for whatever the north wanted.
Not to say this is the only reason or that slavery had no part, it just wasn't as big of a influence than is commonly thought/taught
And Lincoln wasn't an Angel, he ordered the killing of Americans and slaughter of many Indians.
This is why I stated that slavery was A catalyst and not THE catalyst to instigate a war. It wouldn't have mattered at all what kind of government the Northern States had if the Southern States were not a part of it. He needed the Country whole or both would fail to outside influences which many countries were anxiously waiting to happen in that time.
Originally Posted by dijit
So where does ALL THIS leave us NOW?
Those who dance, appear insane to those who do not hear the music.
Those who believe, appear ignorant to those who do not know God.