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 weren’t 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 ...
Very simply put, the Corwin Amendment forbade the Federal government from legislating or forcing slavery out of existence, thus allowing its legality to remain unquestioned.
And contrary to your opinion, Lincoln did endorse the Amendment to permanently legalize slavery.
And your evidence is what? I can’t recall any.
What miscreations? Name what I've said that was false. You're the one who has misstated the truth, saying the Lincoln favored legalizing slavery. That implies that slavery was illegal. Slavery was already legal. All Corwin did was promise the south that there'd be no constitutional amendment to end it in their states. Why are you so afraid to discuss what Corwin and Crittenden were all about?
Hey, Rustbucket, do you happen to have any 1897 New York Suns in your collection?
Thanks for the post. As can be seen by some of the uneducated posts on this thread, the real Lincoln needs exposing.
Greetings to both of you.
The New York Sun is on microfilm at my local library. I'll look for the article the next time I get downtown (might be weeks or months, sorry). I've looked at a microfilm of the 1865 NY Sun. The microfilm was a negative (white lettering on a black page) and somewhat blurry. That combination made it a real pain to read. I don't know if the library has a microfilm of the 1897 Sun and if they do whether it has negative or positive images.
Perhaps the microfilm reader will automatically print a positive image from a negative image. Some microfilm readers do that. Saves toner, I guess.
If you know of photo processing software that will convert images from negative to positive, I'd like to know about it. I could take a digital photo of a negative image on the microfilm reader screen and convert it to a positive image with the photo processing software. Then I could more easily read the articles. Perhaps some scanners can make this conversion as well.
“Perhaps some scanners can make this conversion as well.”
Yes, scanners can do that.
I'd say that most Constitutional scholars would disagree with that assessment of 'permanent'. No amendment or even clause in the constitution is "permanent.' Any part can be amended, albeit only with great difficulty and super majority agreement.
But at any rate, the prevailing view of the legality of slavery in 1861 was that from the Federal level, it was a perfectly legal institution. Lacking an amendment to the constitution to the contrary, the Federal government had no power to either compel states to allow it or forbid states from allowing it.
Understanding that, to say as you do that the Corwin amendment prohibited a theoritical amendment to end slavery was meaningless since in 1861, there was zero possibility of such an amendment being adopted by 2/3 of congress, let alone 3/4 of the the states. Constitutional abolition of slavery was not even imaginable in 1861. Walking on the moon would have been a better possibility then.
Please note, that even today with our 50 states, a constitutional amendment to ban slavery, or any other amendment, could not be ratified if 15 states (the number of slave states then) opposed it.
Lincoln totally agreed that it was a state issue and only the states could ban it.
Thus, the Corwin amendment only said what was already universally accepted as fact. It was a meaningless amendment passed by a congress that did not know what else to do to placate the Fire Eaters who could not be placated on any terms.
And contrary to your assertion, Lincoln only said that he did not oppose it, not that he supported or endorsed it.
As a personal note to you. I don't really have a problem with your Lincoln Derangement Syndrome. We're all allowed to have our historical hang ups. What I don't appreciate is the intentional distortion of our common history. Disagree with Lincoln all you want, call him any name you want, I really don't care. But don't go around saying he did things that he didn't do. You are not really dissing Lincoln at that point. You are distorting history, and I have seen enough of that crap from the radical left BS artists to last a lifetime. Have any opinion you want, but get the damn history right.
< End Rant >
You are asking for evidence of what?
My point is that you're being deceptive when you trumpet that Lincoln favored an amendment legalizing slavery, when in fact that amendment was pretty much meaningless because slavery was already legal on the federal level
Would you like to point out the errors.
Have you thought of doing that?
I did check the Charleston Courier for April 10-15, 1861, for mention of the Nashville. This is what I found:
In consequence of the bombardment of Fort Sumter, which was kept up all day yesterday, there were no arrivals or departures. Three vessels of war are supposed to be off the bar, the Harriet Lane and Pawnee being two of them, and the third unknown. The steam ship Nashville was seen off the bar yesterday forenoon, also several sailing vessels, but the heavy firing in the harbor will probably induce them to go to Savannah.
Last night we received a dispatch from Savannah, which states that the Nashville has not arrived at that port, neither has she been heard from.
I don't doubt that a Confederate battery might have shot across the bow of any unflagged ship entering Charleston Harbor at 4 AM when they knew Lincoln had sent an armed fleet to enter South Carolina territorial waters. They had just fired warning shots a few days earlier at an ice schooner, the Rhoda Shannon. Basically , unidentified unflagged ships weren't permitted into Charleston Harbor at that dangerous point in time.
On April 10, 1861, General Beauregard sent a note to the commander of Sullivan's Island warning that Union barges might slip past the batteries at night. The Nashville looked very similar to the Harriet Lane, which they knew was coming. Here is a picture of them both: Harriet Lane firing on the Nashville
I read somewhere that after the Harriet Lane left, the Nashville hoisted a Confederate flag (probably a Palmetto flag at that point) and entered Charleston Harbor on April 14. I did confirm that she was later sold to the Confederate government for $100,000 like the article posted above said.
FYI, Texas forces later captured the Harriet Lane in 1863 using two little cottonclad bayou steamers.
Thanks, Rustbucket.
This is in response to posts 10, 29, 32, and 37.
Rustbucket: Thanks for your research into Bubba's blogger and his article on the Harriet Lane and Nashville. I too could not find any reference to any article from the "Sun" that he quotes.
Bubba, I did locate a number of facts that seem to refute the bulk of the posting you showed us.
To begin, the Harriet Lane was ordered by the Union Naval command on April 5, 1861 to proceed to a position off the Charleston bar, "ten miles from and due east of the light house on the morning of April 11th, and to await the arrival of the troop transports" (Baltic, Pawnee). here
The Harriet Lane did arrive on the appointed day, the 11th of April, and "hove to" about 15 miles outside the harbor. She was spotted out there that afternoon by a Charleston boat, and that information was transmitted to the Charleston military authorities. here
Meanwhile, the Nashville, a civilian passenger/cargo steamer was making its regular run from New York to Charleston. A local newspaper reported on the morning of the 11th, that it was 12 hours late at that point, probably due to an offshore storm. As it eventually approached the harbor that evening, it was seen by the Harriet Lane.
From the US Coast Guard history page:
"Not long after her arrival there on April 11th, recalled the famous Civil War correspondent, G. S. Osbon, who had been aboard the cutter (Harriet Lane) at the time:
". . . an incident occurred, which I have never seen recorded, but which seems to me worthy of note. A vessel suddenly appeared through the mist from behind the Bar, a passenger steamer, which was made out to be the Nashville. She had no colors set, and as she approached the fleet she refused to show them. Captain Faunce ordered one of the guns manned, and as she came still nearer turned to the gunner. 'Stop her!' he said, and a shot went skipping across her bows. Immediately the United States ensign went to her gaff end, and she was allowed to proceed. The Harriet Lane had fired the first shotted gun from the Union side."
At this point on the 11th, the Harriet Lane is documented as operating just outside Charleston Harbor, firing on incoming civilian shipping.
Early the next morning (April 12) at 3 a.m., (from the Official Records, Union Navy) the Union operations leader, G. V. Fox, aboard the Baltic, arrived off the bar in Charleston, and found the Harriet Lane on that station. They anchored "close to the bar". here
Mr. Fox's records were detailed and clear. According to these official records, there is no description of any action between the Harriet Lane and the Nashville at 4 a.m. as the blogger asserted.
There is no record of the Morris Island batteries firing on the Nashville either. A few days earlier, this battery had fired on an ice schooner trying to enter the harbor. It is likely that the author had these two events confused.
And to all, Rustbucket gave us a link to the great painting of the event we are discussing. I have a print in my office. There are at least four errors in the painting. Can anyone point them out?
Regards
PeaRidge
- The revenue cutter flag flown by the Harriet Lane is supposed to have 5 red bars below (i.e., to the right in the painting) the revenue eagle, not 4. The switch to 4 red bars below the eagle did not happen until 1867-68. [Link]
I wondered what the pennant flown at the top of the left mast was. The linked site above shows variants of the pennant and calls them commissioning pennants.
- From the muzzle flash next to the bow of the Lane, it looks like the Lane just fired its gun. But the cannon ball has already hit in front of the Nashville.
- The sea was supposed to be very rough, with large swells that prevented the high draft Union ships from entering the harbor. Indeed, the Baltic temporarily grounded on the bar. The painting shows pretty mild seas.
- What time of day was this supposed to have happened. in the dark or during the day? I've seen other paintings of this event that show a dark sky (stormy or at night). Are the clouds in the painting consistent with the storm that prevented the ships from entering the harbor?
FYI, an April 12th Confederate report from Morris Island in the Official Records (Series I, Volume I, page 306) says a shot from a heavy gun at sea was heard shortly before noon and one of the Union ships went over to a merchant steamer and then left. Maybe this refers to the Lane firing on the Nashville.
I forgot that one of the Union ships also fired on an ice cutter and then commandeered it. Perhaps that was what the offshore shot heard on the 12th referred to. A little checking in the Official Records might show when the ice schooner was taken, but I’ve got to go out for a while.
cutter = schooner
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.