Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Civil War Unconstitutional?

Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 1:58:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate

If the defining war of the USA was illegal, that is very important. Lincoln should be rank much lower in presidential rankings but most of all legal presidencies defined by the Civil War should be over turned.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2016 7:35:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 1:58:52 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate

If the defining war of the USA was illegal, that is very important. Lincoln should be rank much lower in presidential rankings but most of all legal presidencies defined by the Civil War should be over turned.

The legality of it is irrelevent. It doesn't have any tangible impact. Laws are created in order to foster the overall good of societies. Laws shouldnt be made to foster bad things, thats why breaking bad laws as an act of civil disobedience is good. If what Lincoln was doing was good, it ought to remain good regardless of the law. Even more so if the law was only violated as a silly technicality. Lincoln should not be ranked lower since breaking the law had no impact
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2016 11:29:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/12/2016 7:35:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:58:52 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate

If the defining war of the USA was illegal, that is very important. Lincoln should be rank much lower in presidential rankings but most of all legal presidencies defined by the Civil War should be over turned.

The legality of it is irrelevent. It doesn't have any tangible impact. Laws are created in order to foster the overall good of societies. Laws shouldnt be made to foster bad things, thats why breaking bad laws as an act of civil disobedience is good. If what Lincoln was doing was good, it ought to remain good regardless of the law. Even more so if the law was only violated as a silly technicality. Lincoln should not be ranked lower since breaking the law had no impact

You completely dodged his point. If the Constitution did not allow for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then he shouldn't have done so, and he would rank far lower than he currently is with various people if that was the case. The reason for the creation of the law is irrelevant in this case.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Philosophy101
Posts: 141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 1:58:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/13/2016 11:29:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:35:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:58:52 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate

If the defining war of the USA was illegal, that is very important. Lincoln should be rank much lower in presidential rankings but most of all legal presidencies defined by the Civil War should be over turned.

The legality of it is irrelevent. It doesn't have any tangible impact. Laws are created in order to foster the overall good of societies. Laws shouldnt be made to foster bad things, thats why breaking bad laws as an act of civil disobedience is good. If what Lincoln was doing was good, it ought to remain good regardless of the law. Even more so if the law was only violated as a silly technicality. Lincoln should not be ranked lower since breaking the law had no impact

You completely dodged his point. If the Constitution did not allow for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then he shouldn't have done so, and he would rank far lower than he currently is with various people if that was the case. The reason for the creation of the law is irrelevant in this case.

So let me get this straight, Lincoln should have conceded the Confederate succession because he was not allowed to do it--and this would make him a better president somehow?
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 4:55:33 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 1:58:18 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:29:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:35:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:58:52 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate

If the defining war of the USA was illegal, that is very important. Lincoln should be rank much lower in presidential rankings but most of all legal presidencies defined by the Civil War should be over turned.

The legality of it is irrelevent. It doesn't have any tangible impact. Laws are created in order to foster the overall good of societies. Laws shouldnt be made to foster bad things, thats why breaking bad laws as an act of civil disobedience is good. If what Lincoln was doing was good, it ought to remain good regardless of the law. Even more so if the law was only violated as a silly technicality. Lincoln should not be ranked lower since breaking the law had no impact

You completely dodged his point. If the Constitution did not allow for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then he shouldn't have done so, and he would rank far lower than he currently is with various people if that was the case. The reason for the creation of the law is irrelevant in this case.

So let me get this straight, Lincoln should have conceded the Confederate succession because he was not allowed to do it--and this would make him a better president somehow?

How was the Civil War within the limits of the Constitution?

Lincoln should have executed actions within his oath, to "defend the Constitution". If the Civil War was un-Constitutional then Lincoln clearly violated his oath of office, by invading the CSA without a congressional declaration of war.

Results can not justify means in a moral and just country, like America.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Philosophy101
Posts: 141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 5:17:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 4:55:33 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:58:18 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:29:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:35:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:58:52 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate

If the defining war of the USA was illegal, that is very important. Lincoln should be rank much lower in presidential rankings but most of all legal presidencies defined by the Civil War should be over turned.

The legality of it is irrelevent. It doesn't have any tangible impact. Laws are created in order to foster the overall good of societies. Laws shouldnt be made to foster bad things, thats why breaking bad laws as an act of civil disobedience is good. If what Lincoln was doing was good, it ought to remain good regardless of the law. Even more so if the law was only violated as a silly technicality. Lincoln should not be ranked lower since breaking the law had no impact

You completely dodged his point. If the Constitution did not allow for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then he shouldn't have done so, and he would rank far lower than he currently is with various people if that was the case. The reason for the creation of the law is irrelevant in this case.

So let me get this straight, Lincoln should have conceded the Confederate succession because he was not allowed to do it--and this would make him a better president somehow?

How was the Civil War within the limits of the Constitution?

Lincoln should have executed actions within his oath, to "defend the Constitution". If the Civil War was un-Constitutional then Lincoln clearly violated his oath of office, by invading the CSA without a congressional declaration of war.

Results can not justify means in a moral and just country, like America.

I'm sorry, but sitting on your hands while the country is falling apart is not very presidential.

If Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address and said "Four score and seven years ago our forfathers put forth a great nation, however constitutional scholars say that declaring war is unconstitutional and it's not technically an insurrection so we have to let half of the states leave this country without a battle," you would call him a great president. Come on be real.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 5:57:27 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 5:17:50 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 4:55:33 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:58:18 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:29:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:35:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:58:52 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate

If the defining war of the USA was illegal, that is very important. Lincoln should be rank much lower in presidential rankings but most of all legal presidencies defined by the Civil War should be over turned.

The legality of it is irrelevent. It doesn't have any tangible impact. Laws are created in order to foster the overall good of societies. Laws shouldnt be made to foster bad things, thats why breaking bad laws as an act of civil disobedience is good. If what Lincoln was doing was good, it ought to remain good regardless of the law. Even more so if the law was only violated as a silly technicality. Lincoln should not be ranked lower since breaking the law had no impact

You completely dodged his point. If the Constitution did not allow for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then he shouldn't have done so, and he would rank far lower than he currently is with various people if that was the case. The reason for the creation of the law is irrelevant in this case.

So let me get this straight, Lincoln should have conceded the Confederate succession because he was not allowed to do it--and this would make him a better president somehow?

How was the Civil War within the limits of the Constitution?

Lincoln should have executed actions within his oath, to "defend the Constitution". If the Civil War was un-Constitutional then Lincoln clearly violated his oath of office, by invading the CSA without a congressional declaration of war.

Results can not justify means in a moral and just country, like America.

I'm sorry, but sitting on your hands while the country is falling apart is not very presidential.

If Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address and said "Four score and seven years ago our forfathers put forth a great nation, however constitutional scholars say that declaring war is unconstitutional and it's not technically an insurrection so we have to let half of the states leave this country without a battle," you would call him a great president. Come on be real.

I am being real, and you appear to agree that the Civil War was unconstitutional.

Since Lincoln could not bring the south back into the union with Constitutional methods, maybe people should not consider him a great President.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Philosophy101
Posts: 141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 6:13:20 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 5:57:27 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 5:17:50 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 4:55:33 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:58:18 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:29:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:35:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:58:52 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate

If the defining war of the USA was illegal, that is very important. Lincoln should be rank much lower in presidential rankings but most of all legal presidencies defined by the Civil War should be over turned.

The legality of it is irrelevent. It doesn't have any tangible impact. Laws are created in order to foster the overall good of societies. Laws shouldnt be made to foster bad things, thats why breaking bad laws as an act of civil disobedience is good. If what Lincoln was doing was good, it ought to remain good regardless of the law. Even more so if the law was only violated as a silly technicality. Lincoln should not be ranked lower since breaking the law had no impact

You completely dodged his point. If the Constitution did not allow for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then he shouldn't have done so, and he would rank far lower than he currently is with various people if that was the case. The reason for the creation of the law is irrelevant in this case.

So let me get this straight, Lincoln should have conceded the Confederate succession because he was not allowed to do it--and this would make him a better president somehow?

How was the Civil War within the limits of the Constitution?

Lincoln should have executed actions within his oath, to "defend the Constitution". If the Civil War was un-Constitutional then Lincoln clearly violated his oath of office, by invading the CSA without a congressional declaration of war.

Results can not justify means in a moral and just country, like America.

I'm sorry, but sitting on your hands while the country is falling apart is not very presidential.

If Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address and said "Four score and seven years ago our forfathers put forth a great nation, however constitutional scholars say that declaring war is unconstitutional and it's not technically an insurrection so we have to let half of the states leave this country without a battle," you would call him a great president. Come on be real.

I am being real, and you appear to agree that the Civil War was unconstitutional.

Actually I don't agree, just ignoring that assumption.

Since Lincoln could not bring the south back into the union with Constitutional methods, maybe people should not consider him a great President.

Would you rather have an intact nation and a broken constitution or an intact constitution and an broken nation. BTW the nation's still strong and the constitution is alive and kickin today.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 6:25:04 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 6:13:20 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 5:57:27 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 5:17:50 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 4:55:33 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:58:18 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:29:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:35:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:58:52 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate

If the defining war of the USA was illegal, that is very important. Lincoln should be rank much lower in presidential rankings but most of all legal presidencies defined by the Civil War should be over turned.

The legality of it is irrelevent. It doesn't have any tangible impact. Laws are created in order to foster the overall good of societies. Laws shouldnt be made to foster bad things, thats why breaking bad laws as an act of civil disobedience is good. If what Lincoln was doing was good, it ought to remain good regardless of the law. Even more so if the law was only violated as a silly technicality. Lincoln should not be ranked lower since breaking the law had no impact

You completely dodged his point. If the Constitution did not allow for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then he shouldn't have done so, and he would rank far lower than he currently is with various people if that was the case. The reason for the creation of the law is irrelevant in this case.

So let me get this straight, Lincoln should have conceded the Confederate succession because he was not allowed to do it--and this would make him a better president somehow?

How was the Civil War within the limits of the Constitution?

Lincoln should have executed actions within his oath, to "defend the Constitution". If the Civil War was un-Constitutional then Lincoln clearly violated his oath of office, by invading the CSA without a congressional declaration of war.

Results can not justify means in a moral and just country, like America.

I'm sorry, but sitting on your hands while the country is falling apart is not very presidential.

If Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address and said "Four score and seven years ago our forfathers put forth a great nation, however constitutional scholars say that declaring war is unconstitutional and it's not technically an insurrection so we have to let half of the states leave this country without a battle," you would call him a great president. Come on be real.

I am being real, and you appear to agree that the Civil War was unconstitutional.

Actually I don't agree, just ignoring that assumption.

Then, explain how it was Constitutional.


Since Lincoln could not bring the south back into the union with Constitutional methods, maybe people should not consider him a great President.

Would you rather have an intact nation and a broken constitution or an intact constitution and an broken nation. BTW the nation's still strong and the constitution is alive and kickin today.

I would rather have an honest evaluation of history to prevent future unconstitutional acts. Maybe, Lincoln should not be held in such high esteem.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Philosophy101
Posts: 141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 6:38:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 6:25:04 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 6:13:20 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 5:57:27 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 5:17:50 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 4:55:33 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:58:18 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:29:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:35:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:58:52 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate

If the defining war of the USA was illegal, that is very important. Lincoln should be rank much lower in presidential rankings but most of all legal presidencies defined by the Civil War should be over turned.

The legality of it is irrelevent. It doesn't have any tangible impact. Laws are created in order to foster the overall good of societies. Laws shouldnt be made to foster bad things, thats why breaking bad laws as an act of civil disobedience is good. If what Lincoln was doing was good, it ought to remain good regardless of the law. Even more so if the law was only violated as a silly technicality. Lincoln should not be ranked lower since breaking the law had no impact

You completely dodged his point. If the Constitution did not allow for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then he shouldn't have done so, and he would rank far lower than he currently is with various people if that was the case. The reason for the creation of the law is irrelevant in this case.

So let me get this straight, Lincoln should have conceded the Confederate succession because he was not allowed to do it--and this would make him a better president somehow?

How was the Civil War within the limits of the Constitution?

Lincoln should have executed actions within his oath, to "defend the Constitution". If the Civil War was un-Constitutional then Lincoln clearly violated his oath of office, by invading the CSA without a congressional declaration of war.

Results can not justify means in a moral and just country, like America.

I'm sorry, but sitting on your hands while the country is falling apart is not very presidential.

If Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address and said "Four score and seven years ago our forfathers put forth a great nation, however constitutional scholars say that declaring war is unconstitutional and it's not technically an insurrection so we have to let half of the states leave this country without a battle," you would call him a great president. Come on be real.

I am being real, and you appear to agree that the Civil War was unconstitutional.

Actually I don't agree, just ignoring that assumption.

Then, explain how it was Constitutional.


Since Lincoln could not bring the south back into the union with Constitutional methods, maybe people should not consider him a great President.

Would you rather have an intact nation and a broken constitution or an intact constitution and an broken nation. BTW the nation's still strong and the constitution is alive and kickin today.

I would rather have an honest evaluation of history to prevent future unconstitutional acts. Maybe, Lincoln should not be held in such high esteem.

Whatever
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 6:50:37 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 6:38:58 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 6:25:04 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 6:13:20 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 5:57:27 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 5:17:50 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 4:55:33 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:58:18 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:29:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:35:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:58:52 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate

If the defining war of the USA was illegal, that is very important. Lincoln should be rank much lower in presidential rankings but most of all legal presidencies defined by the Civil War should be over turned.

The legality of it is irrelevent. It doesn't have any tangible impact. Laws are created in order to foster the overall good of societies. Laws shouldnt be made to foster bad things, thats why breaking bad laws as an act of civil disobedience is good. If what Lincoln was doing was good, it ought to remain good regardless of the law. Even more so if the law was only violated as a silly technicality. Lincoln should not be ranked lower since breaking the law had no impact

You completely dodged his point. If the Constitution did not allow for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then he shouldn't have done so, and he would rank far lower than he currently is with various people if that was the case. The reason for the creation of the law is irrelevant in this case.

So let me get this straight, Lincoln should have conceded the Confederate succession because he was not allowed to do it--and this would make him a better president somehow?

How was the Civil War within the limits of the Constitution?

Lincoln should have executed actions within his oath, to "defend the Constitution". If the Civil War was un-Constitutional then Lincoln clearly violated his oath of office, by invading the CSA without a congressional declaration of war.

Results can not justify means in a moral and just country, like America.

I'm sorry, but sitting on your hands while the country is falling apart is not very presidential.

If Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address and said "Four score and seven years ago our forfathers put forth a great nation, however constitutional scholars say that declaring war is unconstitutional and it's not technically an insurrection so we have to let half of the states leave this country without a battle," you would call him a great president. Come on be real.

I am being real, and you appear to agree that the Civil War was unconstitutional.

Actually I don't agree, just ignoring that assumption.

Then, explain how it was Constitutional.


Since Lincoln could not bring the south back into the union with Constitutional methods, maybe people should not consider him a great President.

Would you rather have an intact nation and a broken constitution or an intact constitution and an broken nation. BTW the nation's still strong and the constitution is alive and kickin today.

I would rather have an honest evaluation of history to prevent future unconstitutional acts. Maybe, Lincoln should not be held in such high esteem.

Whatever

Exactly.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Philosophy101
Posts: 141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2016 6:56:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/14/2016 6:50:37 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 6:38:58 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 6:25:04 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 6:13:20 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 5:57:27 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 5:17:50 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 4:55:33 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/14/2016 1:58:18 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/13/2016 11:29:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 10/12/2016 7:35:19 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/12/2016 1:58:52 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate

If the defining war of the USA was illegal, that is very important. Lincoln should be rank much lower in presidential rankings but most of all legal presidencies defined by the Civil War should be over turned.

The legality of it is irrelevent. It doesn't have any tangible impact. Laws are created in order to foster the overall good of societies. Laws shouldnt be made to foster bad things, thats why breaking bad laws as an act of civil disobedience is good. If what Lincoln was doing was good, it ought to remain good regardless of the law. Even more so if the law was only violated as a silly technicality. Lincoln should not be ranked lower since breaking the law had no impact

You completely dodged his point. If the Constitution did not allow for Lincoln to invade the Confederacy, then he shouldn't have done so, and he would rank far lower than he currently is with various people if that was the case. The reason for the creation of the law is irrelevant in this case.

So let me get this straight, Lincoln should have conceded the Confederate succession because he was not allowed to do it--and this would make him a better president somehow?

How was the Civil War within the limits of the Constitution?

Lincoln should have executed actions within his oath, to "defend the Constitution". If the Civil War was un-Constitutional then Lincoln clearly violated his oath of office, by invading the CSA without a congressional declaration of war.

Results can not justify means in a moral and just country, like America.

I'm sorry, but sitting on your hands while the country is falling apart is not very presidential.

If Lincoln gave the Gettysburg address and said "Four score and seven years ago our forfathers put forth a great nation, however constitutional scholars say that declaring war is unconstitutional and it's not technically an insurrection so we have to let half of the states leave this country without a battle," you would call him a great president. Come on be real.

I am being real, and you appear to agree that the Civil War was unconstitutional.

Actually I don't agree, just ignoring that assumption.

Then, explain how it was Constitutional.


Since Lincoln could not bring the south back into the union with Constitutional methods, maybe people should not consider him a great President.

Would you rather have an intact nation and a broken constitution or an intact constitution and an broken nation. BTW the nation's still strong and the constitution is alive and kickin today.

I would rather have an honest evaluation of history to prevent future unconstitutional acts. Maybe, Lincoln should not be held in such high esteem.

Whatever

Exactly.

Indubitably..
keithprosser
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2016 1:51:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Constitutions can be amended - what is right thing to do is fixed. Mindlessly following the letter of the law is a means of dodging personal moral responsibility and has no intrinsic merit. We'd never have heard of Nelson Mandela if he'd operated constitutionally.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2016 10:36:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 1:51:47 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Constitutions can be amended - what is right thing to do is fixed. Mindlessly following the letter of the law is a means of dodging personal moral responsibility and has no intrinsic merit. We'd never have heard of Nelson Mandela if he'd operated constitutionally.

So, more agreement on the unconstitutionality on the Civil War.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2016 11:09:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/10/2016 5:53:05 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war. Lincoln treated this question as a rebellion or insurrection, thus not requiring a declaration of war.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed. Not any of the states requested assistance.

Some say that South Carolina's attack on Fort Sumter was justification for the war, but that would have required congress to declare war.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that sussesion was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

I'd say technically it was unconstitutional. But these are just technicalities. Like in The Martian how Matt Damon was technically a pirate

It is not a mere technicality. It is vitally important. Otherwise the President can just go to war willy nilly, which is what they have been doing as of late, but that is because Congress isn'
t doing their job to resist it.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 4:21:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war.

Declarations of war by Congress were only required against nations that were recognized as legitimate. Lincoln didnt recognize the CSA as legitimate, and neither did Congress, since all the senators and representatives from the South left Congress when their states seceded, making it where no one could challenge that the CSA was illegitimate.

If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed.

It wasnt an insurrection though, since entire states were seceding from the union, not just guerilla armies who had captured the states and then declared independence.

I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that secession was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

It can also be argued that secession is illegal because 'states rights' is just a fraudulent excuse for the South to use to excuse their reasons for secession.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2016 4:23:18 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/22/2016 10:36:50 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/20/2016 1:51:47 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Constitutions can be amended - what is right thing to do is fixed. Mindlessly following the letter of the law is a means of dodging personal moral responsibility and has no intrinsic merit. We'd never have heard of Nelson Mandela if he'd operated constitutionally.

So, more agreement on the unconstitutionality on the Civil War.

Hes not agreeing it was unconstitutional dumbass
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 10:30:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 4:23:18 AM, imabench wrote:
At 10/22/2016 10:36:50 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/20/2016 1:51:47 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Constitutions can be amended - what is right thing to do is fixed. Mindlessly following the letter of the law is a means of dodging personal moral responsibility and has no intrinsic merit. We'd never have heard of Nelson Mandela if he'd operated constitutionally.

So, more agreement on the unconstitutionality on the Civil War.

Hes not agreeing it was unconstitutional dumbass

Since I am dumbass, maybe you can explain how the Civil War was Contitutional.

Prossor could not.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 10:36:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/26/2016 10:30:50 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/25/2016 4:23:18 AM, imabench wrote:
At 10/22/2016 10:36:50 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/20/2016 1:51:47 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Constitutions can be amended - what is right thing to do is fixed. Mindlessly following the letter of the law is a means of dodging personal moral responsibility and has no intrinsic merit. We'd never have heard of Nelson Mandela if he'd operated constitutionally.

So, more agreement on the unconstitutionality on the Civil War.

Hes not agreeing it was unconstitutional dumbass

Since I am dumbass, maybe you can explain how the Civil War was Contitutional.

Prossor could not.

Disregard did not see other post.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2016 10:46:51 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/25/2016 4:21:00 AM, imabench wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:56:00 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The War Civil War was never declared by congress as a war.

Declarations of war by Congress were only required against nations that were recognized as legitimate. Lincoln didnt recognize the CSA as legitimate, and neither did Congress, since all the senators and representatives from the South left Congress when their states seceded, making it where no one could challenge that the CSA was illegitimate.

Since, the CSA was not viewed as a nation, then how is using the US Army on citizens Constitutional? Arresting non-compliant citizens is a law enforcement issue, not a military issue.

A nation is decide by the people of the nation, not outsiders.


If the war was an insurrection, then the states would have had the responsibility to quell it, and could have requested assistance from the federal government if needed.

It wasnt an insurrection though, since entire states were seceding from the union, not just guerilla armies who had captured the states and then declared independence.

Correct


I can not find an argument that justifies the Civil War as constitutional. Most people will argue that secession was illegal implying that Lincoln could do anything to save the union, or people will use the modern day argument of ending slavery.

It can also be argued that secession is illegal because 'states rights' is just a fraudulent excuse for the South to use to excuse their reasons for secession.

Secession is not the question, the question is if the response was Constitutional. It is no difference than a murderer being released due to an illegal search, process matters.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.