The American Dictatorship

[Lex Concord]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The presidential oath of office contains a pledge to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, and by implication the liberties of the American people that the document is intended to preserve. In light of this, can you name which of the delegated powers in the U.S. Constitution allow the president to invade his own country, mass murder his own American citizens, and bomb, burn and plunder their cities? Can you explain how such acts would be consistent with protecting the constitutional liberties of those unfortunate citizens? If you think you can, then congratulations, you are a “Lincoln Scholar.” If not, do not despair. You are in decent company, including the five living past presidents as of 1861, namely, Martin Van Buren, John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan. Lincoln’s predecessor, President James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, stated the truth when he said the following:[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw . . . from the Confederacy [of states]? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection, I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the federal government (Senate Journal, 36th Congress, 2nd Session, 4 December 1860, 15–16).[/FONT]
​

Read the rest...

 

[varasha]

Worth the read thanks a lot for posting..don't be lazy kids do your reading..:P

 

[SavageEagle]

Definitely paints a whole new light on the subject... Thanks for the early morning read.

 

[wtfd661]

Sorry but it reads like a bunch of

 

[Kw55018]

Very good read, interesting.

 

[RCB]

While I can't agree with the decision to have made war against the south, I can't imagine what would have become of WWII had the US been divided.

I think eventually, slaves would have been freed anyhow. But who knows how long. It could have resulted in situations like Rhodesia.

In fact, that is many terrorists groups largest goal, to split the US. Not destroy all its people, but a political goal to break the US into less powerful entities that can do less around the world.

While many people envision the Confederate States to be a champion of person freedom, they were marked by some of the largest and most powerful Oligarchies in America at the time. In fact, it was largely their financial well being and lobbying that brought the states to secede.

It was a bad event all around. Many, many resources were squandered not to mention the tears shed and lives lost.

 

[CulpeperMM]

good read. thanks

 

[rich8483]

although i can see the point of it being unconstitutional to a degree, i dont think it woud have worked out much better any other way. had the southern states removed them selves from the union, forming two countries, we would have slaves escaping to the northern country much like we have border problems with mexico today. we may have gone to war anyhow. but when it ended we would be two separate weaker nations making us more vulnarable in the future. like both world wars and current confllicts.

 

[Lex Concord]

Sorry but it reads like a bunch of

I'd be interested to read your perspective, relative to the linked article in the OP.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Lincoln was a pansy who rescinded habeas corpus...

*gloveslap*