Replies

And that included the part which said that the Constitution and laws made under it was the supreme law of the land, regardless of what any state law, state constitution, and, yes, ratification document may say. So unless the method in which they left the Union was allowed under the Constitution then their actions were illegal. And arbitrary secession is not allowed.

Then the Constitution is invalid because the original framers lied. Contracts signed under false pretenses are invalid.

Their actions did not constitute blockade since they made no threats and did not take any hostile action.

Their actions did constitute an attempt to blockade. There was no other legitimate purpose for the move. They couldn't even defend themselves in Fort Sumpter until the expected reinforcements arrived. Fort Moultrie, pardon my bad, was a customs house ensuring continued collection of tariffs against a sovereign entity, South Carolina.

Lincoln did not initiate a war. You conduct war with other nations, not rebellious sections of your own country.

Lincoln invaded seceded sections of North America. It's quite quaint that because he successfully trampled the rights of those states that you can now claim that they had never seceded in the first place, but the simple fact remains, he did invade.

In any case, the south fired first, not the North, and it was the south which issued a declaration of war, not the North.

Firing first is a legitimate form of self-defense under many circumstances. Ft. Sumpter was one of them.

Lincoln never deported a dissenting congressman, trampled over the Bill of Rights, or arrested an entire state legislature and I would be obliged if you would provide proof that he did any of this.

"Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government," says Roberts. This is certainly a strong statement, but in fact Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus; launched a military invasion without consent of Congress; blockaded Southern ports without declaring war; imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln's own attorney general thought was unconstitutional; ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections; deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln's unconstitutional behavior; confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

-- Fighting Facts With Slander by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

He had the state legislature of Maryland arrested to prevent their secession. When it comes to actual acts, not the purported reasons behind them, history can be a stickler.

Then the Constitution is invalid because the original framers lied. Contracts signed under false pretenses are invalid.

Oh, my. I think that if Alexander Hamilton were alive, he'd attempt to kill you in a duel over that slander.

There was no "lie." For it to be a lie, it would have to have been done in order to trick people -- it requires subterfuge and a hidden agenda.

As it happened, however, the Constitution was created and debated in convention, discussed (you've no doubt heard of the Federalist Papers?), adjusted, sent to the states, debated, voted on, and ratified.

There was no secret, and certainly no attempt to mislead. At worst, the Constitution represents a recognition of the true fact that the Articles of Confederation did not work, and could not be fixed. Rather than letting all of the states go their own ways -- which nobody wanted -- they decided to try a different approach.

Finally, no state was force to ratify it. It could have been rejected. But it was not.

It was and is a valid contract.

Then the Constitution is invalid because the original framers lied. Contracts signed under false pretenses are invalid.

And just how did they lie? The Constitution was there for the states to read prior to ratification.

Their actions did constitute an attempt to blockade.

In what way? How did they interfere with shipping into and out of Charleston at any time? They were in Sumter for a little over three months. Are you saying that no ships entered or left the harbor because of Sumter? And as to Fort Moultrie, it was, in fact, a fort. The Customs House was, and still is, located on East Bay Street right near where the docks used to be. What possible sense does it make to put the Customs House miles away from where the duties would be collected? And faced with a hostile mob and in a fort like Moultrie which could not be defended from the landward side then it makes every sense to move your command to somewhere safer. Major Anderson would be derelict in his duties had he not done so.

Lincoln invaded seceded sections of North America.

How does one invade ones own country? Lincoln acted to put down a rebellion, nothing more and nothing less.

Firing first is a legitimate form of self-defense under many circumstances. Ft. Sumpter was one of them.

Firing on Sumter was also the quickest way to start the war that Jefferson Davis needed. In that he succeeded.

-- Fighting Facts With Slander by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Read the post on DiLorenzo's article and you will see why I would have a hard time accepting him as gospel. For example, in the very quote you posted he claims that Lincoln created three states illegally. The fact that Kansas became a state on January 29, 1861, a little over a month before Lincoln was inagurated seems to have escaped DiLorenzo. The 'congressman from Ohio' was, in fact, an ex-congressman named Valandigham. Lincoln did not suspend habeas corpus illegally regardless of what DiLorenzo said. In short, the accuracy of DiLorenzo's work is so poor that it doesn't merit serious discussion. If you can provide a source other than DiLorenzo to support his crap then please do so.

He had the state legislature of Maryland arrested to prevent their secession. When it comes to actual acts, not the purported reasons behind them, history can be a stickler.

It can, especially when one looks for accuracy. Lincoln did not have the Maryland legislature arrested and I would be interested in seeing what evidence you have that he did.

in fact Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus

Not true. A lie, in fact. A real stinker of a lie, to be precise.

Article I, Section 9 of 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.

The only way Lincoln's act was illegal is if the Union was not confronted with rebellion or invasion.

If the secession was illegal, then Lincoln did in fact have a rebellion on his hands.

On the other hand, if secession was legal, then the Confederate incursions into Union states represented an invasion.

Either way, Lincoln had explicit Constitutional backing for suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies; arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses; censored all telegraph communication;

All of them nice, quiet, peace- and Union-loving folk, no doubt. In reality, these were people actively supporting the South -- which is treason, as defined in Article III, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.