Posted on 09/07/2010 12:43:35 PM PDT by gjmerits
The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history...the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination - that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at wolvesofliberty.com ...
Context, Bubba.
By the way, I never bother clicking on posts to Youtube videos.
I'll remember that.
Telling me to link to a video to get it is just sad and shows a lack of imagination.
Only sad and unimaginative to you, Bubba. What it shows is that I like music.
BTW, The song @ the link is Eric Clapton's, "Willie and the Hand Jive."
But the actions were by definition 'statist' were they not? The government in Richmond did control whole industries. They did seize private property without compensation. They did impose centralized rule in place of states rights in areas where Lincoln never dreamed. However, you will ignore these in the confederacy or justify them was 'necessary war efforts' and pretend that all would have been better had the confederacy only won. The statist policies of Davis would immediately have ceased, small government would triumph, the rule of law would suddenly be respected, and all would be right with the world. One has to wonder why anyone would expect that to happen? After all, winning the war would not have reduced the threat. The Union would still have been there, and it's easy to see how someone like Jefferson Davis and the confederate congress would have used that as an excuse. Having seized power in such sweeping terms, why should Davis suddenly drop it? Having ignored their constitution at will during the war, why should we expect a sudden respect for it after the war? You don't destroy your constitutions and trample on your freedoms and then suddenly say, "Oops. My bad." Having gone down that statist path during the war, there is no reason to believe it would have changed once peace broke out.
Speaking of "tyranny," I don’t remember Bensel saying much about Lincoln’s assumptions of congressional and judicial powers in addition to his executive powers, particularly in the first months of his administration
I believe you exaggerate that a bit, and ignore the fact that Davis was taking the law into his own hands much later in the war.
Lincoln bypassed Congress by spending money on things other than what Congress had appropriated the money for (unconstitutional). He expanded the regular army, something in the purview of Congress by the Constitution.
I believe you're mistaken in both of those.
He suspended habeas corpus, historically the protection by a legislative body against arrest without charges by the executive.
An act allowed by the Constitution under specific circumstances.
The Senate asked Lincoln whether it had anything important to tell them before they adjourned. He said no. On the same day the secret orders to resupply/reinforce Fort Sumter, something that would very probably lead to a shooting war, were drafted; they were secretly issued the next day. The probability of war, of course, was not important enough to tell the Congress about, what with it being their responsibility to declare war, not the president’s? After Sumter, Lincoln did not convene the Congress until July, effectively keeping them out of the loop enabling him to assume their function.
Again, a combination of exaggeration and opinion.
As Bensel says, "… the Confederate experience of suspension of the writ and martial law was considerably less statist than the administrative structure and implementation in the North...In the South, Jefferson Davis was comparatively less assertive than Lincoln in several respects. For one thing, the Confederate president never suspended the writ without first getting and receiving congressional approval for this authority. For another, even when granted this power, Davis never used suspension as sweepingly or with as much overt political purpose."
It appears Bensel was mistaken. As Mark Neely noted in "Southern Rights", it was the confederate military and their series of shadow courts and their Habeas Corpus Commissioners who were the real threat to Southern liberties. These were established as part of the Habeas Corpus act the rebel congress passed in October 1862, and their activities of arresting and questioning people suspected of disloyalty continued long after the habeas corpus suspension expired. As Neely details, "...when the Congress refused to extend authority for the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus; the work of the War Department's shadow courts was never suspended, for there were always political prisoners in the Confederacy." In his book, Neely says he has identified by name over 4,100 political prisoners, and evidence of even more. This means that on a per-capita basis one was more likely to be locked up in a Jeff Davis confederacy than an Abe Lincoln Union. And as Neely also points out, this was for white citizens only. Denial of rights of the black citizens, free and slave, is impossible to detail because legally they had no rights to begin with.
Bensel notes only two examples of newspapers closed in the South...I have found documentation of over 100 newspapers suppressed by the Lincoln administration...
In all fairness, shouldn't you be comparing the number of newspapers suppressed by Lincoln with the number suppressed by Davis. In the introduction of his book, Neely relates the story of Lawrence H. Matthews, a Pensacola newspaperman, who was ordered arrested by Braxton Bragg for the crime of printing news about the construction of a battery outside of town. How many other newspaper reporters and editors were cowed by the threat of arrest in the confederacy? It seems fairly widespread, for McPherson quotes a Richmond diarist on page 434 of his "Battle Cry of Freedom" saying various editors had told him that they feared having their offices closed if they printed what they really felt. It's clear that press suppression existed throughout the South, perhaps not to the extent claimed in the North but it did exist.
Bensel notes that the South failed to provide a Supreme Court, but also points out that the Confederate district courts filled in the gap by issuing writs, etc., and followed the law and precedents established before the war in the US.
But what you persist in ignoring is the fact that a supreme court was required by their own constitution. It was not optional, and the refusal to establish one was a deliberate, calculated violation of the constitution. You can dismiss this by saying that local courts "filled in the gap" but wouldn't it also be true that other judged "filled in the gap" for those judges you claim Lincoln oppressed? At the end of the day it's a question of respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Lincoln had it, Davis did not.
Well it does prove one thing, Non-Sequitur has a sense of humor like a goat.
I honestly don't really care. The fact remains he is a submissive type. My comment just drove him to order another porn movie. That's fine, I'm sure they need business too. Another fact: the picture central_va posted is currently been duplicated by Non-Sequitur. One for his fridge and the other for his lunchbox.
Post it all you want Non-Sequitur. You'll always be my little yankee Bi'otch.
Ah, you must mean Eric Clapton's inferior cover of Johnny Otis's "Willie and the Hand Jive. The original's a lot more fun.
The original is fun:) This is one of the very few songs that I prefer the remake over the original. Now that you;ve mentioned Otis, I'm gonna have to see if I can pull that one up on youtube:)
Since it's such a fun song I just have to ask, are ya using your feet on the keyboard too?! LOL!
IMO you and NS and the rest of the coven are Nazi's and fascists. There is no nice way to put it, it's true. I point out blatant hypocrisy and you ignore it. Knowing the Coven is as close as I ever hope to come to real evil, it is truly scary. All of you demonstrate a rigidity of thinking that equals only that of concentration camp wardens and the Imams of Persia.
I'm a huge fan of that period of Rhythm and Blues--Louis Jordan, Joe Liggins, Amos Milburn, Buddy Johnson (and his sister Ella). I've got a ton of that stuff. If you're a fan, check out BE BOP WINO DONE GONE. The guy there regularly posts free downloads of rare, out-of-print R&B vinyl.
Yeah, so you've said many times before. I realize that loyalty to one's country and to the rule of law can seem that way to someone who has none.
“Can you provide some details on these crises? The original Nullification Crisis was over by March 1833 and I’m not aware of any ones after that. Enlighten us all if you please.”
Strictly speaking the Nullification Crisis was not about secession at all. But it did however begin talk about secession, talk that continued until 1860.
It is talked that you asserted did not exist, in asserting that the secession was unilateralism by your definition of unilateral. As apposes to the other possible definition which requires getting the consent of the oppressing side, before you withdraw from their power to oppress you.(absolutely insane as i called you in assuming that definition)
Here is just one example of that discussion as it spawned out of the nullification crisis: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch3s14.html
in it James Madison talking to his political ally condemned South Carolina’s nullification of the Federal tariff for simply being too high, and according to South Carolina unfairly hurting the south.
But at the same time he confirmed that secession is just anther name for revolution.
“But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy. “
Madison only condition being that the State feels the oppression is intolerable. consistent with the nature of politically convoluted arguments this distinction is problematic in the issue of who defines what oppression is intolerable. If it is the rest of the “union” then no oppression by the oppressing faction(majority in democratically controlled union) may ever be regard as intolerable.
Therefore the matter of what oppression is intolerable must be one defined excursively by the party being oppressed.
This in practice like in the American revolution of 1776, has the effect of leaving the oppressor in disagreement that their actions were even oppressive.
IN short the natural laws of reason preclude the practical application of Mister Masons politically driven objection.
The next time the welfare deadbeat majority votes to rob you of your wealth and force you to labor for their good. Don’t come complaining to me. You agreed to a union with them under a constitution which they presumed to have the excursive power to interpret and enforce.
Under that presumption THEY ARE making a slave of you, and so long as you cannot leave the domain of their power you will continue to be their slave.
The Right of secession/revolution is and must be forever inalienable to protect the rights of the protective minority from the tyranny of the majority.
And if the Confederacy hadn't have lost the war, the tyranny and oppressions of the CSA would not have gotten the historical loser's pass that it has received from so many.
Yeah, but it was such great comedic timing. Idabilly made that remark and three posts later central_va posted the picture. link
And you believe that the south would have been any different, any better off with the slipshod POS government they threw together? Even if it lasted more than a few months? A government based on deceit and contempt for the rule of law and dedicated to the proposition of the ownership of other human beings?
OK, I won’t come complaining to you LOL.
I wasn't aware that goats had a sense of humor. Lost causers obviously don't.
The fact remains he is a submissive type.
And you're a whips and chains kind of guy?
My comment just drove him to order another porn movie.
One shudders to think what it drove you to.
Remember duplicity and hypocrisy with these folks and you’ll seldom go wrong.
Madison also wrote, "The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains." So Madison is clearly stating that the oppression is not intolerable, the compact is not broken merely because one side says it is.
Madison went on to ask, "An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them." So let me ask you this, is he right? Do states have the right to turn another state out of the Union against its will? If not, why not? What part of the Constitution prevents it?
Therefore the matter of what oppression is intolerable must be one defined excursively by the party being oppressed.
And what was the intolerable oppression that the Southern states were facing?
“And you believe that the south would have been any different, any better off with the slipshod POS government they threw together? Even if it lasted more than a few months?”
It lasted for about 4 years under constant external siege.
” A government based on deceit and contempt for the rule of law and dedicated to the proposition of the ownership of other human beings?”
O boy...*rolls eyes*
“OK, I won’t come complaining to you LOL.”
live and let live. Too bad Lincoln wasn’t so enlighten.
“Madison also wrote, “The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains.”
So Madison is clearly stating that the oppression is not intolerable, the compact is not broken merely because one side says it is.”
I don’t see how you can draw the conclusion that secession is illegal from what he said here... Just because the compact is between equal party’s and not just between a government and the governed, doesn’t mean that the minority has not the right to declare it in violation.
“Madison went on to ask, “An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them.” So let me ask you this, is he right?”
Yes he is right.
“Do states have the right to turn another state out of the Union against its will?”
By the means he described yes of course they do. But technically they are all just leaving the union and forming a new one independently. Just as he described.
“If not, why not? What part of the Constitution prevents it?”
No part of the Constitution prevents it, nor can any part of any constitution prevent it.
The only thing the federal Constitution prevents is an amendment to the existing constitution which allows States to be deprived of their equal representation in the senate without their consent.
Something the 17th Amendment did anyway.
“Suppose that the property of this Texan you mention adjoins Mexico. Would he be free to join that country? Could the Mexican government, in fact, purchase large tracts of land along the border, declare them seceded, then declare them to be part of Mexico?”
From Mexico’s point of view the State of Texas DID do that, only the other way around. If you say a territory can’t do that then we got to give Texas back to Mexico, and thats not going to sit too well with us Texans.
“What about the case in which, say, ten properties whose owners wish to secede surround an eleventh who does not? What protection does he have? “
There are actually several instances in the history of the world where you have similar situations to this developing one way or the other. You should look at a world map closely, usually its small but sometimes you got large disconnected areas in the middle of other countries/states.
The Confederacy’s actions made their war effort more effective. Bensel noted, as I quoted, that their war mobilization of controlling some industries, transportation, and manpower was not unlike that of the US in WW II. If you want to get hot and bothered about that, go right ahead.
… and pretend that all would have been better had the confederacy only won.
I never made any comment about whether things would get better had the Confederacy won. Whatever happened would have no doubt been better for the South than the "reconstruction" imposed by vengeful Northerners.
Having seized power in such sweeping terms, why should Davis suddenly drop it?
One major reason … he wasn’t Lincoln.
Having ignored their constitution at will during the war, why should we expect a sudden respect for it after the war? You don't destroy your constitutions and trample on your freedoms and then suddenly say, "Oops. My bad.
You are talking about Lincoln, I presume.
I believe you exaggerate that a bit, and ignore the fact that Davis was taking the law into his own hands much later in the war.
No exaggeration. Next you will try to have us believe Lincoln didn't admit to taking actions that were unconstitutional.
I believe you're mistaken in both of those. [Lincoln spent money for things that Congress hadn’t authorized and expanded the army also not authorized by Congress.]
I figure your Google skills are adequate enough to bring up the text of the Constitution so that you can check what it says. In case that doesn't work, here is Daniel Farber in his book, Lincoln's Constitution:
"... money was spent and the military expanded without the necessary authority from Congress...."
Congress later indemnified Lincoln for his transgressions of the Constitution and approved the expenditures and expansion. However, Congress doesn't have the authority to authorize anyone to violate the Constitution. Their duty should have been to impeach the offender, but we are talking about Republicans of that time and age. They didn't do it.
An act [suspending habeas corpus] allowed by the Constitution under specific circumstances.
Your statement is true but not responsive. The specific circumstances were that Lincoln had to get Congress's approval first. If Lincoln had the right to suspend habeas corpus without congressional approval, why did Congress authorize him to do it in 1863? Here is a long series of quotes from judges and government officials about Congress being the entity that authorizes suspension [Link]. And, of course, there was the New York ratifiers' statement of original intent:
That every Person restrained of his Liberty is entitled to an enquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful, and that such enquiry and removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when on account of Public Danger the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
[me]: The Senate asked Lincoln whether it had anything important to tell them before they adjourned. He said no. On the same day the secret orders to resupply/reinforce Fort Sumter, something that would very probably lead to a shooting war, were drafted; they were secretly issued the next day. The probability of war, of course, was not important enough to tell the Congress about, what with it being their responsibility to declare war, not the president's? After Sumter, Lincoln did not convene the Congress until July, effectively keeping them out of the loop enabling him to assume their function.
[you]: Again, a combination of exaggeration and opinion.
From the Congressional Globe, March 28, 1861, page 433:
Mr. Powell, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States and inform him that, unless he nay have any further communication to make, the Senate is now ready to close the present session by an adjournment, reported that they performed the duty assigned them, and that the President replied that had no further communication to make. … The President pro tempore declared the Senate adjourned without day.
In looking up a reference for the order to prepare the Sumter expedition, I discovered in the book, Lincoln Takes Command, by John Shipley Tilley, that Lincoln asked Fox to prepare the order on March 27, the day before the Senate adjourned. I read elsewhere that the draft was presented to Lincoln on the 28th. The order was actually issued on March 29. Earlier Lincoln's cabinet and military officers had warned that Fox’s plan would lead to a shooting war, which it did. Lincoln had kept Congress in the dark about this risky plan that would probably lead to war.
Lincoln did not convene his Congress until July 4. Between the time of the attack on Sumter and Congress reassembling in July, Lincoln issued a call for troops to invade the South (resulting in four more states seceding), proclaimed a blockade of Southern ports, expanded the army and spent funds for items unauthorized by Congress. Congress, not being in session, couldn't stop him from doing the risky Sumter expedition, the call for troops, the blockade, the army buildup, the spending spree unauthorized by Congress, and enmeshing the country in war.
In contrast, Davis convened his Congress in April a couple of weeks after Sumter.
As Mark Neely noted in "Southern Rights", it was the confederate military and their series of shadow courts and their Habeas Corpus Commissioners who were the real threat to Southern liberties.
I won’t pass judgment on Neely's book without having read it. I don’t know whether it is a whitewash or a hatchet job. I take it Neely disagrees with Bensel's conclusions.
In all fairness, shouldn't you be comparing the number of newspapers suppressed by Lincoln with the number suppressed by Davis.
That would be 100+ to 2 (or maybe 5 or 6 if you include Southern papers immediately before the war). I’m talking of cases where presses were destroyed, newspaper editions confiscated for pro-Southern views, editors, publishers, reporters, and newspaper boys arrested, papers prohibited from using the mails, etc. Neely has apparently found one newspaper reporter arrested in the South for publishing sensitive military information. It is to laugh. This is a case of David (the South) versus Goliath (the North) in numbers of physical suppression of newspapers.
I found the following site tonight that mentions the 300 newspapers suppressed by the North. See: Link. I have one of the reference books the site mentions, Lincoln and the Press by Harper, 1951. It describes a huge number of suppressions. I have not finished tabulating how many were mentioned in the book – it became a back shelf project for me after I reached 100 papers suppressed by the North – I've got too many other things to do. I asked you once to list Southern papers that were suppressed. You listed the few that are in Blue and Gray in Black and White, but I pointed out a number of problems with those cases.
But what you persist in ignoring is the fact that a supreme court was required by their own constitution. It was not optional, and the refusal to establish one was a deliberate, calculated violation of the constitution. You can dismiss this by saying that local courts "filled in the gap" but wouldn't it also be true that other judged "filled in the gap" for those judges you claim Lincoln oppressed? At the end of the day it's a question of respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. Lincoln had it, Davis did not.
I’ve discussed this with you until I am blue in the face (or maybe gray). You usually claim Davis was responsible the failure to form a Confederate Supreme Court. Back in 2003 I posted Davis’ call for the Congress to do their duty to form the court, as proscribed in the Confederate Constitution. You have yet to provide any information showing that Davis worked against the formation of the court.
Judges that I claim Lincoln oppressed? Not Lincoln personally, but his army did the oppressing. Here is a web site that describes the arrest of Judge Richard B. Carmichael. Here's some information about Judge Merrick. Here’s some information about Judge Garrison that I posted to you before. Lincoln had respect for the law? Who knew?
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.