Posted on 02/18/2009 12:37:27 PM PST by LibertyandGrace
This past week, America celebrated the 200th birthday of President Abraham Lincoln. Republicans all over the country held Lincoln Dinners lauding the man they herald as the founder of their party. A plethora of verbose speeches telling of the greatness of our 16th President were offered by elected officials from coast to coast and on both sides of the isle. I have to admit, I literally cringe whenever I hear politicians, pastors, teachers, and media-types sing the praises of Honest Abe.
If it werent for his outspoken belief in white supremacy, I could possibly understand the Lincoln-worship by those on the left. After all, Lincoln was a life-long proponent of big-government who supported a national bank, high protective tariffs, and federal subsidization of internal improvements in the states. What is completely incomprehensible is how neither the former nor the latter are enough to dissuade conservatives from hailing Lincoln as a standard bearer for their cause.
Yes, Lincoln was... read more at: http://libertyandgrace.com/blog1/2009/02/14/tipping-a-sacred-cow/
(Excerpt) Read more at libertyandgrace.com ...
And the point of mine was to say that it's deceptive to say that without mentioning that slavery was already legal on the federal level, and that the proposed amendment did not guarantee slavery in the territories, which was the main issue Lincoln ran and won on. All the amendment did was guarantee the slave states that there'd be no federal action to abolish the peculiar institution.
The point of the post was to show that Lincoln endorsed the national legalization of slavery through an Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Slavery was already legal nationally.
Actually no. But I’m listening. I will google as well.
Great. Let’s begin here. Did you know that Lincoln ordered a naval mission to Charleston that set sail around a week before Ft. Sumter received fire?
Yes, I am aware of the ships that were sent to Sumter by Lincoln, to provision the fort, the leadup to the battle, the bombardment, etc. Where do you believe Lincoln congratulated someone for starting the war? Do you have a link?
“When I was younger
“I used to tip cows for fun, yeah,
“Actually I didn’t do that
“’Cause I didn’t want the cow to be sad...”
Do you recall that Lincoln put a civilian in charge of the entrance into Charleston? His name was Gustavus Fox.
Here is the action record from the “Official Records”:
http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/recordview.cfm?content=/001/0011
On April 11, 1861, Union ships instituted a temporary blockade-the first Act of War against the Confederacy.
A blockade is the placement of a naval force posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from ports.
The United States Navy ships standing off Charleston Harbor in the late evening hours, and early morning hours of April 11-12 were attempting to interrupt and establish a barrier to shipping in Charleston Harbor specifically for the purpose of military actions, and without regard to International Law.
After being fired upon by the US Navy vessel Harriett Lane, the commercial steamer Nashville remained outside the bar at the entrance to Charleston along with other commercial ships that had arrived.
From the panorama of the bridge of the Union flagship, Baltic, Gustavus Fox wrote the following record of the event:
(from the Official Records) “The steamer Nashville from New York [merchant steamer] and a number of merchant vessels reached the bar and awaited the result of the bombardment, giving indications to those inside of a large naval fleet off the harbor.” He failed to mention in this document that the Harriet Lane had fired on the Nashville the night before and that she had decided not to run the blockade.
Not only did the Federal fleet obstruct the passage of the Nashville and other commercial vessels, one privately owned vessel was seized by the Union military as documented in the following military communiqué: (from the Official Records)
STEAMER BALTIC,
New York, April 19, 1861.
SIR: I sailed from New York in this vessel Tuesday morning, the 10th instant, having dispatched one steam-tug, the Uncle Ben, the evening previous to rendezvous off Charleston. The Yankee, another chartered tug, followed us to the Hook, and I left instructions to send on the Freeborn .
We arrived off Charleston the 12th instant, at 3 a.m., and found only the Harriet Lane. Weather during the whole time a gale. At 7 a.m. the Pawnee arrived, and, according to his orders, Captain Rowan anchored twelve miles east of the light, to await the arrival of the Powhatan....
However, the Powhatan and tugs not coming, Captain Rowan seized an ice schooner and offered her to me, which I accepted, and Lieutenant Hudson, of the Army, several Navy officers, and plenty of volunteers agreed to man the vessel, and go in with me the night of the 13th .
I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
G. V. FOX.
In firing on the Nashville, the Union ships demonstrated the intent of domination of the harbor. In seizing the civilian ice schooner, the Union had effected a blockade of Charleston harbor, the first serious breech of internationally accepted rules of engagement, and the first act of war.
5/1/1861 In a letter to Gustavus Fox, President Lincoln said,
“You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft. Sumter, even if it had failed; and it is no small consolation not to feel that our anticipation is justified by the results.” From the “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln",
The results were the beginning of the war. It was Fox's expedition that caused the beginning of the conflict. Had the fleet never arrived, then the fort would have been peacefully surrendered. Lincoln would have no justification for any action more than Buchanan had had.
Seward said, “The Sumter expedition failed of its ostensible object, but it brought about the Southern attack on that fort. The first gun fired there effectively cleared the air... and placed Lincoln at the head of the united people..” What the public was not told was that the first gun to fire was from the deck of the Harriet Lane.
5/9/1861 President Lincoln appointed Gustavus Fox to a senior position in the Navy Department. Fox wrote his wife,
“Under no circumstances is any mention of the mission whatever to get into the papers.”
So, what’s your point?
Why don't you tell us why he approved of the Corwin amendment, but rejected the Crittenden compromise which included the same guarantee.
According to this eyewitness, the "Nashville" had turned back from Charleston because of the bombardment when challenged by the "Harriet Lane."
Lincoln supported the 1861 Corwin amendment to the Constitution that would legalize slavery.
That is the truth and the fact stands.
So you deny that slavery was legal before 1861?
Now, are you saying the Nashville turned back because of the bombardment over Ft. Sumter, or the challenge fire of the Harriet Lane?
I said what I said.
I'm saying that, according to that account, which is most detailed I've seen, the Nashville turned back from Charleston because of the bombardment and only then was challenged by the Harriet Lane. Have you seen a more detailed account?
Is it your position that the bombardment of Sumter was only commenced because the South Carolinians became aware of the challenge to the Nashville?
Color me surprised. You can't bring yourself to admit that the only thing the Corwin amendment did was to say that something that was already legal was legal. Care to address the reasons why the Crittenden compromise was rejected by Lincoln when it had the same guarantee?
I think you are seriously mistaken on what the Corwin amendment provided. It did not provide a National legalization. It simply said that Congress had no power to make slavery illegal where it was already legal. It would have changed nothing. States that wanted slavery could have it and states that did not want it would not have it. It was totally redundant because aside from a few real outliers such as Lysander Spooner, no serious student of the law believed that slavery could be overturned by anything short of a constitutional amendment, and in 1861, anyone who could count knew that there was absolutely no possibility of that happening.
The South (or at least the Slave Power in the South) knew damn well that neither Lincoln or the North could take their slaves away. They did however tell horror stories to the poor whites in the South about how Lincoln was going to free the slaves and all the horrors that would follow just as the modern day Democrats scare the ignorant masses about what the Republicans are going to do to them.
The only issue on the table at the time was the expansion of slavery, and the Corwin amendment did absolutely nothing to address that. The Slave Power needed expansion to keep the value of slaves high and the North and Lincoln opposed expansion for both moral and social/economic grounds. They wanted a West populated by small farmers while the south saw it as a place for more large slave plantations.
You are incorrect in saying that Lincoln 'endorsed' the Corwin amendment somehow implying that he approved it or was uncaring about slavery. That is not the case. He simply said that if it could prevent war and secession, he was not opposed to it. He had never promised to end slavery in the South and had repeatedly told the South that he had no intention to interfere with their institution. His only pledge was to stop the spread of slavery into the territories.
Lincoln did believe that if slavery could be isolated, it would eventually crumble under it's own weight but he was thinking in terms of decades.
Detailed or not, your source is nothing more than an undocumented or attributed blog. Go ahead and find the article from the âSunâ and we will discuss that.
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.