nancyzatanna #wingnut #pratt

nancyzatanna #wingnut #pratt deviantart.com

(Submitter Note: I give up on this guy…)

Davis' home state was Mississippi.

So, you're saying that the northeastern states are TRAITORS for threatening to secede?

The Articles of Confederation were abandoned with the ratification of the United States Constitution; it is no longer the law of the land. The Constitution was ratified by ELEVEN states and only those states became part of the United States. It says that ONLY those states ratifying the Constitution would be part of the United States. South Carolina didn't join for six months. Rhode Island held out for a year. If it was a "perpetual union" a majority would have bound the rest to the agreement. Read the constitution: It says that it's a compact ONLY between the states that ratify it. So much for your "perpetual union".

The Constitution was created BY THE STATES. It's a compact BETWEEN THE STATES.

If any of what you wrote is true, why didn't Lincoln put any of this to the test? He's supposed to be a lawyer, after all. Why didn't his successors put it to the test if they were in the right? They would have been aware of these cases and could have used them against Davis and anyone else they wished to try. Instead, they forced "special taxes", back taxes, new laws, land confiscation, corrupt governments and military occupation. All this resulted in the creation of the KKK and after a government investigation, it was decided BY YANKEES that the "reconstruction" (To reconstruct the south to be like the north) was a disaster and a deal was made to end it by South Carolina using her electoral college votes to elect the Republican presidential candidate and later, the Posse Comitatus act.

Once again, WHY DIDN'T LINCOLN NEGOTIATE?

Six states had formed their own country and Texas joined them. This was a disaster! Why didn't present (Like a good lawyer should) his evidence to the south, or to the Supreme Court and Congress? Instead, this "great man who did everything to avoid war" immediately decided that WAR was the best option.

4 comments

Uhhh… what?

I’m not 100% sure what he’s saying, other than he appears to be inventing his own meanings for certain words.

In addition, this was during an era when the US did not have undeclared wars. Congress declares the beginning and end of wars, the president only leads them. I don’t know to what extent Lincoln negotiated (the South seceded ~~a month~~ 4 months before he took office! the war didn’t start until ~~5 months after the succession though~~ 1 month after he took office though) but it wasn’t really up to him.

[Edit: corrected due to Peacemonger343 pointing out my timeline was a bit off, I forgot that presidents didn’t always take office in January]

Six states had formed their own country and Texas joined them. This was a disaster! Why didn't present (Like a good lawyer should) his evidence to the south, or to the Supreme Court and Congress?

No amount of evidence would have prevented the South from secceding, because they were bound and determined to get out of the Union, because their leaders wanted slavery more than anything else.

Instead, this "great man who did everything to avoid war" immediately decided that WAR was the best option.

After the South had already fired the first shots.

@Zinnia #109430

Actually, Presidents didn’t take office until March back then, its’ wasn’t until the 1930s when we switch that to January

My reply to them:

And that proves... what? that states take a while to ratify the thing? They're still bound to it regardless, and it doesn't matter how long it take TWO states to ratify the constitution they signed it and as such they are bound to it, those aformentioned court cases did just that and made it painfully clear that no state had a legal right to secede, north or south. Not to mention the constitution has parts of it that deals with future states joining the Union after it was fully ratified, they still bound to it.

uh because the South violently seceded and spark a brutal conflict that killed hundreds of thousands of people on both sides? Why would it NOT be the case that the South would be under military rule for a couple years? ANY region in ANY nation is going to do the same thing when a violent attempt secession occurred, how many times times do I have to mention that?

Ok, one, Lincoln wasn't even president yet when the south was seceding, all he did was WIN AN ELECTION, and election that he DIDN'T APPEAR IN SEVERAL SOUTHERN STATES, frankly that puts the South in far more negative light then positive as if their reaction to an election is to SECEDE and VIOLENTLY at that like a spoil child that didn't get their way so they throw a temper tantrum instead. And if anyone is to blame its' James Buchanan was to blame for that and even then he didn't do a damn thing to try and suppress a secession he deemed illegal anyway, going so far as to blame the North for the South's secession "intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States," which all it did was pissed off both the North and the South for a number of reasons and ontop of that he did try to meet with Southern secessionists only to be told fuck off essentially. Hell Buchanan did everything he could to prevent the conflict in the first place but the South were the ones who chose to fight and spill hundreds of thousands of peoples blood in the process... And turn around and act like they're the victims once they lost a war they thought they would win in order to ease their bruised egos.

The south didn't seem to be willing to negotiate