Posted on 12/03/2009 7:45:40 AM PST by mkboyce
From the start of his political career, Obama seems to have modeled himself on Lincoln. Both were born in other states - Hawaii for Obama, Kentucky for Lincoln - before settling in Illinois. Each became a lawyer then served in the state legislature before serving a single term in Congress. Each rocketed onto the national political stage with powerful speeches and became commander-in-chief without any military experience.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
No, that would be the 13th Amendment which was passed out of Congress with Lincoln's considerable support and which was ratified by about 20 states before Lincoln was murdered.
caught me
Lincoln had no authority to free slaves in the CSA. The CSA had legally succeeded from the Union. That’s like saying France has mandated that all workers in Spain will now receive double their wages. They have no authority to make such a mandate over another Sovereign State. It was a trick statement...just like Lincoln’s Proclamation. I can’t take credit for finding it. I was surprised when a Black History Professor told my class, that it was what had changed his entire perspective about the Civil War.
He freed slaves in the rebellious parts of the U.S.
The CSA had legally succeeded from the Union.
No they had not. Not legally.
Prove it. Use documents such as the Constitution c. 1860 and the Federalist papers. That way I can prove the professor wrong with facts. Could be fun.
OK, start with the fact that none of the Federalist Papers support the idea of unilateral secession. Madison in his writings dismissed the idea of secession without the consent of the states as ridiculous. And as for the Constitution, states cannot join without the consent of the other states as expressed through a vote in Congress. Once allowed in they cannot combine with other states, split into two or more states, or change their border by a fraction of an inch without the consent of the other states as expressed through a vote in Congress. Clearly state cannot join or take any action which impacts the interests of the other states without approval from Congress. Why should leaving be any different, and by implication it is not.
Now your turn. Please quote the Federalist Paper that clearly says states may leave unilaterally. Point to the clause in the Constitution that allows a state to take any action that can negatively impact their neighboring states without first needing Congressional approval. Could be fun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.