Posted on 12/15/2012 3:17:01 AM PST by IbJensen
My apologies for the insult to you. But you insulted a great American and defined his reelection as invalid without any evidence, as you have now admitted.
I responded out of frustration for those who make such statements without any evidence.
You claimed soldiers preferred McClellan, but in 1864 most of the states controlled by Republicans made provisions for soldiers to vote, while none of the states controlled by Democrats did. Which kind of indicates that they had a notion how the soldiers would vote if given the chance.
In modern times, Jeff Davis would have been executed. Lincoln was not prosecuted, but rather murdered, as noone in the country would have stood for someone who could retain the degree of liberty that he did, given a horrific insurrection launched for the horrific cause of slavery.
The murder of Lincoln was not a popular act, but rather, an acknowledgement that opposition to Lincoln was limited to a vanishingly small minority.
No, Jeff Davis was a tyrant. Jeff Davis had no constitutional justification for his acts. Jeff Davis never obeyed the pretended confederate constitution, never appointed even a single justice to their counterpart supreme court.
Rather, Jeff Davis sought to make war on the US to destroy the potential for liberty and self government. By the end of the war he had an insurrection against the Confederacy by the state of Georgia.
Rather, the War of the Great Rebellion was begin by the southern insurrection.
The Mexican American war was begun by Mexico, when the US annexed Texas. Mexico lost that one about as fully as the slave power lost their insurrection, for much the same reason: The losing governments were so corrupt and evil that noone would help them.
Germany declared war on the US in 1941. That is how we came to fight a war against Germany. Soviet Union had been an ally with Germany against Poland, just as Poland had been an ally with Germany against Czechoslovakia. Germany, in attacking Poland and USSR was attacking its allies. In attacking Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Luxembourg, they were attacking neutrals. In response to the German attack on Poland, (with whom Germany had a non-aggression pact) Britain and France declared war on Germany. In response to the German attack on USSR, US extended lend lease to USSR. It was hoped that it would be enough.
If they knew American history, they would call it “The War of the Great Rebellion”.
The insurrection of the south was a rebellion of the southern states against the Article 3 constitutional responsibility to resolve controversies at the supreme court.
Even with Taney as chief justice, the slave power knew they had no case, and instead, chose to violate their Article 3 responsibility, and resorted to violent rebellion.
And Taney was not arrested by Lincoln. The only primary source is by one person’s testimony, and that testimony was in a foolish book issued long after the war. No copy of the alleged arrest warrant has ever been offered.
The southern perspective on the War of the Great Rebellion is not valid. It was found to be invalid by supreme court case ‘Texas v. White’.
Secession would be legal, if pursued by constitutional amendment, or by federal law, or by supreme court case. It could be de facto valid if the slave power had won their war, and managed to wrangle a peace treaty, signed by the President, and ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate, but none of those methods but the last were achieved by the slave power.
Britain forged a non-aggression pack with Poland. Hitler invaded Poland. Britain declared war. The Ango-Pole pack was a British mistake as it caused them to enter the war much sooner than was healthy for them.
Before that, at the insistance of Secretary Hull and his master FDR, Britain abruptly cancelled its long-term peace and benefit agreement with Japan. Japan grew very angry as they knew who was behind the goading for the cancellation.
There the board is set.
When one examines the dirty deed foisted upon German at Versailles, it’s no difficult to see why Europe was once again at war.
One person’s opinion.
The total of books written on Lincoln is circa 16,000.
So it's hard to imagine that any actual facts about Lincoln are now unknown.
Of course the imaginations of Licoln-haters are endlessly creating new propaganda against him.
Stacked books on Lincoln:
Yes, I think it is fair to say the Mexican-American War was an extension of the Texas War of Independence, in that there was a dispute concerning the southern border of Texas. The Mexican government was unwilling to resolve the issue peacefully and, when pressed, would even deny the legitimacy of the Republic of Texas, claiming the whole area “still” belonged to Mexico.
There were also elements within Texas that were hot-headed, but the U.S. (under President Polk) was more even-tempered and offered to resolve the border in favor of Texas’ claim by buying the disputed area from Mexico. At the time, Mexico owed Britain and France huge amounts of money. It is possible we could have paid off Mexico’s foreign debt at a knocked-down rate, in return for the disputed area (and possibly other places). (I’m sorry, but as an economists, my tendency is to think can we reduce conflicts to a dollar figure and bargain our way out of war.)
Looking back, I think we would today sympathize with the claim of the Texans that the U.S. could not legitimately trade them to Spain in return for Florida. Nor that Spain, in accepting Mexico’s independence, could annex Texas to Mexico. (The Texans thought their first War of Independence was against Spain.) But, today, we are much more sensitive of self-determination than we were 200 years ago. hence, East Timor and Kosovo.
More fundamentally, I agree with you, the “cause” of the Mexican-American War was the corruption of the central government of Mexico. My goodness, talk about corrupt! The far-flung provinces of Mexico, from the states that became the republics of Central America north of Panama, to the Yucatan, to California, and to the so-called Republic of the Rio Grande (a place north of central Mexico and south of the Rio Grande), there were a series of rebellions. Texas wasn’t the only one, and wasn’t the only successful one.
Today, looking back, some things that stands out about the Mexican-American War that we should recognize are the patriotism of the Mexican people, the bravery of the Mexican soldiers, and the generalship of certain Mexican military commanders.
Another thing is the generous peace offer we made: We did not colonize the country; the parts we annexed, we paid for (whoever heard of the victorious power making an ‘indemnity payment’ to the defeated power?), we recognized the rights and property of all Mexican citizens in the annexed places, who could freely remain as citizens in those places or repatriate to Mexico; and, we protected the people of New Mexico from the Texans (who wanted to annex Santa Fe into Texas).
For good or evil, Lincoln is not guilty as alleged.
Our Founders wrote into their Constitution provisions for fighting rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasions and wars declared against the United States.
All Founders consistently opposed secession "at pleasure", meaning secession without mutual consent or material cause such as oppression and injury.
In the New England secession crisis of 1814, Founder and President Madison moved US troops from their wartime posts near Canada to Albany, NY, ready to oppose New England's secession.
In the Nullification crisis of 1832, President and Revolutionary War veteran Andrew Jackson wrote about a "right of secession":
Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression;
but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution or incur the penalties consequent on a failure."
Jackson also wrote to South Carolinians:
Point is: in opposing secession, insurrection, rebellion, "domestic violence", invasion and declared war against the United States, President Lincoln did nothing more than what was first established by our Founders and previous precedent.
So Lincoln was a child of the American Revolution, not its "stepfather".
So, already, in his first sentences, Dwyer starts in with the Neo-Confederate propaganda lies.
First, Lincoln did not decide to "reinforce Sumter".
What he sent was resupplies -- i.e., food -- with instructions there would be no reinforcements landed if there was no assault on Sumter.
And, Lincoln formally notified South Carolina's Governor Pickens.
But Pickens, by now in a state of war-frenzy, demanded the Confederate President assault Fort Sumter, and Davis issued necessary military orders.
The key point to grasp here is that, regardless of how constitutional or unconstitutional slave-state unilateral declarations of secession may or may not have been, they did not cause Civil War.
And, under any legal definition, the Confederacy's forceful seizure of Federal military properties such as Fort Sumter, were both unlawful and acts of war against the United States.
First of all, can we all recognize this argument as Alinsky's Rule #4?
Second, as with most propaganda, the allegation is false, because the Constitution specifically requires the President "...shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."
Those laws, referred to in Lincoln's "Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress, April 15, 1861" include: the 1790's era Militia Acts which specifically authorize actions to suppress:
Finally in context of this subject, we should probably also comment on
To be effective, these particular Neo-Confederate claims, that Lincoln acted unconstitutionally, depend on people not understanding that in the 1790s, Congress passed, and President Washington first used, the Militia Acts which President Lincoln referred to in his April 15, 1861 declaration.
Militia Act of 1792: "Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state
This most obviously applied in April 1860.
by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings
The Act obviously here was thinking of insurrection or riot, not secession duly endorsed by the state officials and most of the state's people. So Lincoln was here straining a point.
it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session (Which it was not.) to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary.
Except that there is a very good argument to be made that this Ac was not intended to apply to secession by an entire state, Lincoln thus acted in complete compliance with the law by which Congress had provided for calling for the Militia to suppress insurrections.
I know it seems to be a difficult concept for many to grasp, but Lincoln did not call out militia to oppose secession, regardless of how lawful or unlawful secession itself may have been.
Lincoln called out militia to suppress insurrection, rebellion and acts of war committed by secessionists against United States military property and officials.
These acts of war against the United States began simultaneously with, or even before, official declarations of secession.
They culminated in the Confederacy's formal declaration of war against the United States, on May 6, 1861.
The US Constitution specifically authorizes:
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in specific circumstances, while Congress was not in session.
When Congress returned, it debated those actions at length, but never seriously considered revoking or censuring what Lincoln did.
Eventually, Congress lawfully authorized Lincoln's actions.
The John Birch Society is lost. They should just move their headquarters from Appleton, Wisconsin to Brazil with the rest of the Confederados.
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.