Trump says Abraham Lincoln 'did good' for the Black community but that 'the end result' is 'questionable' (2434 hits)
Trump says Abraham Lincoln 'did good' for the Black community but that 'the end result' is 'questionable' By Sonam Sheth Jun 12, 2020, 2:28 PM
President Donald Trump claimed in a Fox News interview that he's done more for the Black community than any other president, including Abraham Lincoln.
"He did good, although it's always questionable, you know, in other words, the end result —" Trump said of Lincoln before Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner cut him off.
"Well, we are free, Mr. President, so I think he did pretty well," Faulkner, who is Black, said.
Lincoln is one of the most popular presidents in US history and widely revered for signing the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that all slaves would be freed.
"This may well be the president's most audacious claim ever," Michael Fauntroy, a professor of political science at Howard University, told The New York Times. "Not only has he not done more than anybody else, he's done close to the least."
President Donald Trump claimed in a Fox News interview with Harris Faulkner that he's done more for the Black community than any other president in history, including Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln is one of the most popular presidents in US history and widely revered for signing the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that all slaves would be freed. "So I think I've done more for the Black community than any other president, and let's take a pass on Abraham Lincoln because he did good, although it's always questionable, you know, in other words, the end result —" Trump said before Faulkner interjected.
President Donald Trump claimed in a Fox News interview that he's done more for the Black community than any other president, including Abraham Lincoln. "He did good, although it's always questionable, you know, in other words, the end result —" Trump said of Lincoln before Fox News anchor Harris Faulkner cut him off.
Now what did Trump mean "He did good, although it's always questionable, you know, in other words, the end result —"?
That's the point Ron. It's not clear what the President was saying but maybe like me he questions whether Lincoln was right to stop the secession of the Confederate States. It's obvious to me that Lincoln was wrong. You'll have to ask Trump if you think it's important but it's not.
I am saying Ron, Lincoln lacked Constitutional authority to prevent the Confederate states from leaving the Union. If I'm wrong I'm sure you can show what authority Lincoln relied on?
Supreme Court Justice Farber, he also makes a more specific case against the legality of secession, citing the structure of the Constitution and arguments made by James Madison in the Federalist Papers. He concludes, based on these sources, that once bound by the Constitution, individual states did not enjoy the unilateral right to withdraw from the Union.
Accordingly, on the legal merits (as well as on the battlefield), Farber makes clear that the correct party prevailed on the secession issue in the Civil War.
Monday, June 15th 2020 at 7:00PM
Dea. Ron Gray Sr.
Who is Supreme Court Justice Farber? Put it in context Ron.
Friday, July 18, 2003 For students of constitutional law and history, Abraham Lincoln is perhaps our most compelling president - for he wrestled, and forces us to wrestle, with some of the most fundamental, and momentous questions of constitutional law.
In his slender volume Lincoln's Constitution, Daniel Farber, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Minnesota, takes on these very questions.
Did the Southern States, like the Founding Fathers, have the right to secede? Farber says no, though he also contends that the case for secession was not frivolous.
Did Lincoln violate the Constitution when, in his efforts to preserve the Union, he suspended habeas corpus, and in taking certain actions without Congressional authorization? Farber argues that nearly all of Lincoln's actions were permissible under the Constitution. Moreover, when he did infringe the Constitution, his trespasses were, at least, not egregious.
In Lincoln's Constitution, Farber offers a concise synthesis of the pertinent history, extended discussion of Lincoln's reasons for his actions, and elegant analysis of the relevant issues. For these reasons alone, the book is worth reading.
But Farber also goes further, to address the potential contemporary relevance of some of the issues that Lincoln face. Thus, he gracefully integrates into his discussion recent cases raising similar questions concerning civil liberties, federalism, and separation of powers.
Especially with civil liberties issues repeatedly arising, now that the war on terrorism is in progress, it may be instructive to look back at the constitutional questions Lincoln confronted so long ago.
Steve, Why was the civil war fought? The Civil War was caused by three main reasons: economic differences, interpretation of the Constitution, and moral beliefs.
Now which one of these categories you say is WRONG?
The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–13, 1861) was the bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston, South Carolina by the South Carolina militia (the Confederate Army did not yet exist), and the return gunfire and subsequent surrender by the United States Army, that started the American Civil War.
No Steve Fort Sumter was "NOT" the reason for The Civil War.
The Civil War in the United States began in 1861, after decades of simmering tensions between northern and southern states over slavery, states’ rights, and westward expansion. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 caused seven southern states to secede and form the Confederate States of America; four more states soon joined them.
Let me HIGHLIGHT "SLAVERY," was one of the reason's why The Civil War was fought.
Off the top of my head, I can tell you 4 reasons why The Civil War was fought, and Fort Sumter near Charleston, South Carolina was "NOT" on the list.
The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–13, 1861) was the bombardment of Fort Sumter near Charleston, South Carolina by the South Carolina militia (the Confederate Army did not yet exist), and the return gunfire and subsequent surrender by the United States Army, that started the American Civil War.
Can you see the words, "that started the American Civil War?"
What you are doing is describing, just one place that the Civil War was fought and not the reason why The Civil War was fought.
Why was the Civil War being fought?
Steve, this A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict. A key issue was states' rights.
Steve, that is an issue that came up here in recent times, "STATE RIGHTS."
MONDAY, APRIL 15, 1861. BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, M Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the power vested in the marshals by law:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have though fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed.
The details of this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities trough the War Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.
I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union, and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the object aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.
