Lincoln And The Death Of The Constitution

Wolves of Liberty ^ | 9/7/2010 | gjmerits

[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.

[rustbucket]

Every president has dictatorial powers during a war. And the tiny number of treason trials never reached the vast, unreprentant planter elites that really started the war.

The president does not have powers that violate the Constitution. Remember that quote I posted to you from ex parte Milligan (1866):

The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. [Justice Davis, ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, (1866)]

IMO, Lincoln declaring people who had exercised their reserved power under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution to withdraw from the Union to be traitors would itself be an unconstitutional act. Lincoln argued that states didn't have the right to secede, but I think his argument was bogus.

The South's secession was consistent with what the New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island ratification documents said the Constitution meant. It would be Lincoln versus Hamilton, Jay, Madison and Marshall who voted for and in some cases wrote the ratification documents. Lincoln would lose that argument.

Besides, if Lincoln had declared the Confederates to be traitors and their land forfeit, there would have been no incentive for the Confederates to surrender. There would have been guerrilla warfare for years. Lincoln did not want that, nor did Southern generals like Lee. Lincoln wanted to end the war and incorporate the South back into the Union as soon as he could.

You mentioned "vast, unrepentant planter elites." From my reading of the old newspapers, many owners of large plantations did not wish war or secession. They felt they had a better chance of preserving their slaves if the South did not secede.

I would be unrepentant too if the North used force to prevent my state from legally seceding and had subsequently burned my plantation house and farm buildings, stole my personal valuables and family momentos, insulted and sometimes outraged the women and slaves of the plantation. But that's just me.

[mstar]

I would be unrepentant too if the North used force to prevent my state from legally seceding and had subsequently burned my plantation house and farm buildings, stole my personal valuables and family momentos, insulted and sometimes outraged the women and slaves of the plantation. But that's just me.

Very well said, a timeless truth for this hour.

[Non-Sequitur]

IMO, Lincoln declaring people who had exercised their reserved power under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution to withdraw from the Union to be traitors would itself be an unconstitutional act. Lincoln argued that states didn't have the right to secede, but I think his argument was bogus.

As that same court found in Texas v White. Chief Justice Chase did disagree with Lincoln's position that states could not secede under any circumstances when he said that it was possible with the consent of the states.

The South's secession was consistent with what the New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island ratification documents said the Constitution meant. It would be Lincoln versus Hamilton, Jay, Madison and Marshall who voted for and in some cases wrote the ratification documents. Lincoln would lose that argument.

That would be the same Madison who said, "A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it?"

I would be unrepentant too if the North used force to prevent my state from legally seceding and had subsequently burned my plantation house and farm buildings, stole my personal valuables and family momentos, insulted and sometimes outraged the women and slaves of the plantation. But that's just me.

Then my suggestion would be don't secede illegally, don't initiate an armed conflict to further your aims, and if you do then at least do something to protect your borders so your opponent doesn't go marching through your plantation houses and farm buildings. But that's just me.

[LS]

We differ on this. I wouldn’t take Justice Davis’s word for what the Constitution said any more than I would take Breyer’s. And, no, you will not find any responsible historical source that would say that the planters did not want secession. They were the fuel of secession. If anything, virtually all the social history says that the non-planters opposed it. In my book, the southerners were all traitors. So we disagree and will have to leave it at that.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

Statism is something your side gets all 'hot and bothered' about. "Statist" is a term your compatriots love to toss around as a slur against Lincoln and his policies. Statest is defined as an ideology advocating the use of states to achieve goals, both economic and social. The question is were they statist or not? Is that not what Davis did with his controlling of industries, suppression of rights, and accumulation of powers that should properly have been held by the states? The wouldn't Bensel be right when he described the actions as statist?

Whatever happened would have no doubt been better for the South than the "reconstruction" imposed by vengeful Northerners.

That would most likely depend on what shade your skin was. Or whether you had been tossed in jail without trial. Or whether your property had been seized without compensation. Or...

One major reason … he wasn’t Lincoln.

No, he was Jefferson Davis. The man who ignored his constitution at will. Who said that an act was constitutional if it did what he wanted it to do. Who called for the execution of POWs. Davis the statist. Davis the tyrant. No, he wasn't Lincoln. He was much, much worse.

You are talking about Lincoln, I presume.

You know I'm not. And you know I'm right.

No exaggeration. Next you will try to have us believe Lincoln didn't admit to taking actions that were unconstitutional.

I would love to see the quotes you have, in context, where he admitted as much.

Congress later indemnified Lincoln for his transgressions of the Constitution and approved the expenditures and expansion.

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 impeachable offense would have been nice. Farber himself admits that while Lincoln's shifting of funds from one department to another may have been unconstitutional, he does admit that Lincoln had no precedent to guide him. Lincoln had the power to call up the militia on his own if Congress was not in session per the various militia acts. He did that. Lincoln could not appropriate money to pay for this expansion. He did not do that. He did transfer existing appropriations as a stopgap pending the recall of Congress and while this may appear to violate the spirit of Article I, Section 9 it may not violate the letter of it. A Supreme Court ruling on that would be helpful.

Your statement is true but not responsive. The specific circumstances were that Lincoln had to get Congress's approval first.

A statement not necessarily supported by the Constitution, as justices as recent as William Rehnquist have admitted. The fact is that the question has never been definitively answered.

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.

Actions that are not illegal because you say they are.

In contrast, Davis convened his Congress in April a couple of weeks after Sumter.

And after he deliberately plunged the confederacy into war. A act which I believe that the confederate constitution also required congressional approval for. Not that Davis ever let his constitution stand in his way.

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.

I highly recommend you do so. Neeley's similar study on Lincoln's administration and it's actions won him the Pulitzer for history in 1992.

That would be 100+ to 2 (or maybe 5 or 6 if you include Southern papers immediately before the war).

A hundred-plus papers shut down? Or suppressed? Which one is it? Because if it's suppressed then I posted some information showing suppression of journalists under Davis and widespread fear of what might happen to them if they stepped out of line among the rebel press. If it's 100-plus shut down then I'd like to see a list. In his history of journalism during the rebellion, "Blue & Grey in Black & White: Newspapers in the Civil War", Brayton Harris seems to have missed the overhwelming majority of those closed. Must be poor research on his part. </sarcasm>

I found the following site tonight that mentions the 300 newspapers suppressed by the North.

But, perhaps not surprisingly, nobody can come up with the 300+ names of those newspapers. Like oh so many Southern stories, this one seems to keep growing in the telling.

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.

And yet no such court was ever established. Not that that stops you from trying to justify this clear and unquestionable constitutional violation until you're blue (or grey) in the face. Blame it on the rebel congress and claim Davis was blameless if you want, the fault lies with both parties. Davis didn't stop the court, but he did nothing to get it established, either. A clear constitutional requirement was ignored. One of a number of such examples of the contempt the rebel government had for their own constitution. And there is no reason to believe that this contempt would not have continued had the south won their rebellion.

[central_va]

I would be unrepentant too if the North used force to prevent my state from legally seceding and had subsequently burned my plantation house and farm buildings, stole my personal valuables and family momentos, insulted and sometimes outraged the women and slaves of the plantation. But that's just me.

You might not be a Southerner by birth, but you sure do talk a good game.

[central_va]

Then my suggestion would be don't secede illegally,

Knock it off their is no LEGAL or ILLEGAL way to secede. The concept of legality doesn't exit in this case.

Trying to preserve the Union, forcing a state(s) back into the Union, is like a mother trying to re-birth a child back to the womb. It is a stupid and sick idea.

[Non-Sequitur]

Knock it off their is no LEGAL or ILLEGAL way to secede. The concept of legality doesn't exit in this case.

Why not?

Trying to preserve the Union, forcing a state(s) back into the Union, is like a mother trying to re-birth a child back to the womb. It is a stupid and sick idea.

Nothing would have been forced anywhere had the Southern states not chosen armed rebellion to achieve their aims. Unsuccessful armed rebellion.

[rustbucket]

We differ on this. I wouldn’t take Justice Davis’s word for what the Constitution said any more than I would take Breyer’s.

What do you feel about what ratifiers said the Constitution meant?

And, no, you will not find any responsible historical source that would say that the planters did not want secession.

Newspaper reports of their not wanting it are irresponsible? It's been ages since I found those quotes. I'll have to try to track them down again sometime. My thousands of newspaper articles and photographs are not indexed.

In my book, the southerners were all traitors. So we disagree and will have to leave it at that.

I gathered as much when you were not summarizing Bensel correctly. Bye.

[rustbucket]

You might not be a Southerner by birth, but you sure do talk a good game.

Some consider Texas to be southern, particularly the part of Texas where I was born and raised. Went to high school in the Deep South though. Went right back to Texas after grad school.

[rustbucket]

As that same court found in Texas v White. Chief Justice Chase did disagree with Lincoln's position that states could not secede under any circumstances when he said that it was possible with the consent of the states.

Yes, we've been through that before. An ipse dixit opinion about secession by a Chief Justice who served in Lincoln's cabinet fighting against the South's secession, who dealt with the Texas bonds when he was in the cabinet, and who, when nominated, was the tenth justice on a Supreme Court court that had been packed to guard against embarrassing decisions against Lincoln doesn't carry much weight with me.

That would be the same Madison who said, "A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it?"

You forgot to emphasize "or an abuse of the compact." The unconstitutional Northern laws that prevented the return of many fugitive slaves weren't sufficient enough abuse against the South? The fact that Texas had to pay its own forces to protect against armed invasions by Mexicans and Indians when the US failed to protect the state as required by the Constitution wasn't enough? The fact that the Congress passed tariffs and partial legislation that enriched the North at the expense of the South wasn't enough abuse?

You would have us believe the abusers get to decide whether an abused state can leave or not.

[Non-Sequitur]

Yes, we've been through that before. An ipse dixit opinion about secession by a Chief Justice who served in Lincoln's cabinet fighting against the South's secession, who dealt with the Texas bonds when he was in the cabinet, and who, when nominated, was the tenth justice on a Supreme Court court that had been packed to guard against embarrassing decisions against Lincoln doesn't carry much weight with me.

Yes, we've heard it all before. Your opinion carries little weight with me as well. But what you cannot dispute is that the decision was handed down. And agree or disagree as you will, secession as practiced by the Southern states is unconstitutional and will remain so until the Constitution is amended or a future court overturns or modifies the White decision.

You forgot to emphasize "or an abuse of the compact." The unconstitutional Northern laws that prevented the return of many fugitive slaves weren't sufficient enough abuse against the South? The fact that Texas had to pay its own forces to protect against armed invasions by Mexicans and Indians when the US failed to protect the state as required by the Constitution wasn't enough? The fact that the Congress passed tariffs and partial legislation that enriched the North at the expense of the South wasn't enough abuse?

No need to. Because as 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." You say that the compact was abused. The Northern state say it wasn't. What makes you right and them wrong? Or them right and you wrong for that matter?

You would have us believe the abusers get to decide whether an abused state can leave or not.

And you would have us believe they were abused merely because they said they were. Considering the power the South wielded in Congress, the laws passed to support their slave ownership, and the court decisions handed down which overturned every law passed that was meant to hinder the abduction of runaway slaves from free states, not to mention the abuse of a state's right to run their own affairs, then your claims of abuse is nonsense.

[mstar]

I am sure you have seen much of this, but will send it on anyway.

With the coven's usual comic book history lessons filled with vast numbers of demon spawn planters, along with their partners in crime, the dreaded secession warlords, I thought some actual names and faces might be fun, plus I'm bored.

Proud to say Col Jackson's is "family", so secession fever runs hot in my blood. Enjoy!


February 9, 1928, page 1, col. 1-3 -Chesterfield County First in State to Secede; New Evidence Found.

An important historical document has been found that settles a question which has for some time been agitated in Chesterfield as to when ??? secession meeting was held here. Mr. W. D. Craig of Chesterfield ??? ended all the while that it ??? held here before that memorable meeting held on “Magazine Hill”, now known as “Secession Hill”, in Abbeville, although Abbeville claims to have held the first secession meeting of the state which was on November 22, 1860.
Gen. Craig attended the Confederate Soldiers’ Reunion held in Abbeville a few years ago and while there he discussed the time of the Secession meeting with some of the men who were leading figures in that important event. However, Mr. Craig did not remember the exact date of our meeting, but knew it was held before the one in Abbeville and those Confederate men there admitted to him that they believed he was right.
The United Daughters of the Confederacy coming upon the scene and desiring to be loyal to their motto to “Keep History Straight”. Became active on the question and after numerous efforts a true copy of the Secession meeting held in Chesterfield was found in the Charleston Mercury, filed in the Public Library in Washington, D. C. and below is an account of that historic meeting as it appeared in the Charleston Mercury of November 24, 1860.
“The State of Public Feeling in Chesterfield” (Our Cheraw Correspondence) Cheraw, SC Nov. 19, 1860.
“Knowing the deep solicitude you and many of your readers feel in the movements of the people of the State ??? this momentous period. I have ??? inform you and them of the events in Chesterfield in the last few days. Last Thursday there was a parade for the upper battalion, there was quite a large turnout. After the parade the people were addressed by the Hon. J. W. Blakeney, our Senator and our Representatives Colonels MacFarlan and Prince, and also by Col. S. Jackson. At the close of Col. Jackson’s speech he submitted the question of submission, or resistance by immediate Secession to a vote of the battalion, and requested all in favor of the latter to advance four paces, the whole battalion advanced four paces leaving not a solitary man for submission. The course of our Senator and Representatives was unanimously and most enthusiastically endorsed. Saturday last was parade day for the lower battalion. I had the pleasure of being present. The same speakers with Major A. McQueen and F. M. McIver, Esq., addressed the people. The addresses were received with enthusiastic applause. After the speaking the military spectators were requested, if they approved the action of the Legislature in calling a convention, to make their approbation known by advancing four paces to the front, a unanimous forward movement was the response. Immediate separate Secession, and a Southern Confederacy were vociferously demanded. At both the upper and lower battalion the lone star flag graced the fields.

I this evening returned from our Court House where one of the largest meetings ever assembled in the District was held today. The object of the meeting was to nominate candidates for delegate to the convention. The meeting was organized by the appointment of Hon. J. W. Blakeney, Chairman, a committee of twenty-four, three from each beat, were appointed to nominate a ticket, the committee retired, and after due deliberation returned having unanimously agreed upon a ticket, and reported the following ticket: Hon. John A. Inglis, Col. Stephen Jackson, Henry McIver, Esq. During the absence of the committee the meeting was most ably addressed by Cols. Prince and Macfarlan. At the conclusion of Col. Macfarlan’s remarks, the committee made their report, whereupon the nominees were severally called out in the following order: Col. Jackson, H. McIver and Chancellor Inglis. All the nominees in the most emphatic language declared themselves in favor of immediate separated Secession. The whole question was fully discussed in a clear and forcible manner, and with a clear and forcible manner, and with a fervency and eloquence that could only have been inspired by a due sense of its vast importance. At the conclusion of the speeches of the nominees, the nominations were submitted to a vote of the meeting, and it was unanimously concurred in. The Honorable J. W. Blakeney, Col. A. M. Lowery, and Gen. E. B.C. Cash were then called upon to address the meeting. Their remarks though brief were to the point. They fully endorsed the action of the Legislature in calling a convention, believing the immediate separate Secession was the only remedy, and that nothing short of that could save the honor, and protect the rights and interests of the State. The meeting was not only the largest and most enthusiastic, but also one of the most harmonious ever held in the District. The people, including beardless youths and grayheaded grandfathers, were eager and interested listeners from an early hour in the day ‘till a late hour in the evening, and for the first time in my recollection, a goodly number of the fair sex graced with their interesting presence, and encouraging smiles, a political meeting in Chesterfield District. The ticket nominated will certainly be elected without opposition. For talent, integrity and firmness of purpose it will not be surpassed by that of any other District. Our delegates will represent a District that is a unit in opposition to Black Republican domination, and in favor of immediate State Secession. Indeed we have but one party in the District. Ex-Senator Chesnut and Mr. Mullins of Marion among others were invited to attend and address the meeting, and our people were greatly disappointed that neither attended. A neatly gotten up flag of medium size, having on it a Palmetto tree with a rattlesnake curled around it, with its rattles sprung and in the attitude of striking, a lone star in one corner, and the inscription, “Immediate State Action,” floated over the public square. After the adjournment of the meeting the whole concourse of ladies and gentlemen assembled under it and saluted it with three deafening cheers. Altogether it was one of Chesterfield’s most glorious days. Her citizens a unit in their stern resolve to resist to the death the domination of Black Republican fanaticism - to die free rather than to live slaves” - Charleston Mercury, Nov. 24, 1860.
It is not our desire to take away from Abbeville the glory and distinction which she feels she rightly deserves for she is to be highly commended on her forward movement. Our motive was to get the facts and history straight.
If Abbeville, believing they had held the first Secession meeting can erect such a handsome monument in commemoration of the event there as they have done why can we not erect a monument here in Chesterfield in commemoration of this famous meeting held here when we know we held the first one in the State? We can and must do honor to those noble patriots who soon after this meeting marched away to the front and proved their allegiance and devotion by freely giving their lives for the “Lost Cause.”
Today this noble band of men who wore the gray are conspicuously few and let us show our loyalty and devotion to them while we can.


March 23, 1961, page 1, col. 4: Chesterfield County in the Confederacy by W. Bernette Burch, Killarney, Florida.

Chesterfield County was a leader in the days of Secession and shared a prominent place in those stirring days a hundred years ago. The world knows that South Carolina was first to break away from the Union by declaring her independence on Dec. 20, 1860 by her Ordinance of Secession, but few know that Chesterfield County was ahead of the state by a full month (November 19, 1860) with a Secession Resolution. There is a monument on the Court House grounds commemorating this event. If any one man can claim to have been the first to secede from the Union, that man would be Colonel Stephen Jackson. The records say that “At the close of Col. Jackson’s speech he submitted the question of submission, or resistance by immediate Secession to a vote”. Others speaking were: Gen. James White Blakeney, who was the present Senator, Colonels McFarland and Prince, members of the Legislature, Col. H. McIver, Chancellor Inglis, Gen. E. B. C. Cash, and Ex-Senator Col. Alfred Lowry (Gen. Blakeney was Col. Jackson’s uncle, and Col. Lowry was Col. Jackson’s brother-in-law).
Chancellor John A. Inglis, Henry McIver and Stephen Jackson were delegates to the State Convention and signed the Ordinance of Secession at Charleston, Dec. 20, 1860.
Gen. J. W. Blakeney, Senator and Allen McFarland and W. L. T. Prince, Representatives, were members of the Legislature which, in November 1860, authorized the Secession Convention.
John A. Inglis was Chairman of the convention’s committee to draft all ordinances to be voted on by the convention, and presented the Ordinance of Secession to the Convention, although he was its author. (JCP note: probably meant although he was not its author.)
Chancellor Inglis was a fugitive from Sherman’s Army, with a price of $10,000 on his head.
Henry McIver was a captain of a troop of cavalry.
Maj. J. C. Coit commanded the Chesterfield Battery.
E. B. C. Cash was Colonel of Eighth Regt. SC Infantry.
Stephen Jackson was State Treasurer and Tax Collector during the War, he was Sheriff of Chesterfield County before the War, member of the Legislature for 10 years, serving his last term after he was 70 years of age, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners for 10 years. He was an extensive landowner and owned 60 slaves. Col. Jackson’s lithographed copy of the Ordinance of Secession is now owned by his great grandson, Dewey Burch, Cheraw. A biography and picture of Col. Jackson is carried in “South Carolina Secedes” by John Amassa May and Joan Reynolds Faunt. This book is just off the press and may be obtained by sending $4.00 to University of SC press, Columbia


An example of the evil secession political mob bosses are;

Henry McIver

Henry McIver was born September 25, 1826 in Society Hill, Darlington District, South Carolina, the son of Alexander M. McIver and Mary Hanford. He married June 7, 1849, Caroline Harrington Powe (August 4, 1829 - January 2, 1902, daughter of Thomas E. Powe and Charlotte H. Harrington). They are the parents of seven children: Eleanor Harrington McIver, who married Edwin F. Malloy; Mary Hanford McIver who married James D. Harden; Henry McIver, Jr.; Thomas Powe McIver, who married Susan R. Duvall; Edward McIver; Charlotte Harrington McIver, who married Richard C. Watts; and Caroline McIver.
Alexander McIver relocated his family to Cheraw around 1826. Henry graduated in 1846 from the South Carolina College and was admitted to the Bar. In 1852, he was Solicitor for the Judicial Court. In July of 1850, after his father's death, he was appointed Circuit Solicitor in which position he served until 1865. He was present when the Chesterfield County Secession meeting was held and was sent as a Delegate from Chesterfield County to the South Carolina Secession Convention.
During the war, he first served as a 2nd Lieutenant in Company A 4th Regiment Cavalry South Carolina Volunteers and was promoted to Captain on June 25, 1863. He was wounded at the Battle at Hawes Shop Virginia. He was discharged in Greensboro, North Carolina at the close of service.
After the war he continued his law practice and on May 18, 1877 was elected Associate Justice of the State Supreme Court. He was named Chief Justice on December 1, 1891, and died in office January 12, 1903.
In his obituary it is stated ‘he was one of the ablest Jurist in America, the Chief Justice of Alabama once said “ I regard the legal opinions of Judge McIver to be the best written and the ablest of any Judge on the bench and I have tried for years in writing my opinion to use his as models.” ‘
He and his wife are buried at Old Saint David's Cemetery in Cheraw, Chesterfield County, South Carolina


Stephen Jackson of Chesterfield Co., South Carolina

Hon. Stephen Jackson Died at Chesterfield Court House, at an early hour on the morning of the 16th of November, Hon. Stephen Jackson. Although for several months his family and intimate friends had been admonished that the powers of his vigorous constitution were declining, yet the illness which terminated his life was sudden and of short duration. He was confined to his room only a few days. Although he would never admit that he was seriously ill, his friends and physicians were alarmed at the very commencement of the attack. He was in Charleston during the festivities of the Gala week, and exposed himself a good deal. He contracted a violent and deep seated cold, which, accompanied by a high grade of catarrhal fever, racked his whole system to a degree that was too much for one who glanced at the clergy... [illegible]
Although he lacked but three months of being eighty years of age, he was very erect, and moved with the firmness and agility of a man of thirty. He was fond of out door sports, and, as he remarked but a few weeks before his death, could ride after a pack of hounds as long as a fox could run before them.
The deceased was the son of Henry Jackson, and a grandson of Stephen Jackson of Revolutionary fame, who moved from Virginia to South Carolina before the Revolution of 1776. His mother, who was a sister of the late General J. W. Blakney, lived to the age of ninety-four, and was able to ride about the neighborhood on horse-back till within a few months of her death.
Col. Jackson was in many respects a remarkable man. Besides his powerful physical conformation, he was endowed by nature with more than ordinary intellectual powers, which, though added to some extent in development, were never subjected to the influence of liberal educational privileges- except so far as he supplied them himself. He had a quick and active mind, was a close observer of men and measures: and with just and discriminating powers, he generally arrived at correct conclusions and always stuck to them with a tenacity that smacked of Roman firmness. He was thoroughly honorable and high toned, full of public spirit, loved his country and State and was ever ready by word and deed to promote the public weal. Col. Jackson during his long life had the entire confidence of the people.
He never sought popularity, yet he was always popular; firmness of purpose, promptness and energy of execution and independence of the vague and fluctuating opinions of others, after he had once deliberately formed his own, were among his predominate characteristics. To these valuable traits, fitted rather to secure the suffrages of the understanding rather to win the sympathies of the heart, he added the warm and generous affections which delighted in the intimacy of personal friendship, and which found solace and joy amid the endearments of home. He dearly loved his family, and was under all circumstances true to his friends. Col. Jackson had filled all the highest and most important offices of trust and profit in the county of Chesterfield. He was Sheriff, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners, represented the County several times in the Legislature; and was with Judge Inglis and Judge McIver, a signer of the ordinance of Secession.
ONE WHO KNEW HIM WELL
Obituary published in “The Cheraw Reporter” 22 November 1887.
Obituary contributed by Albert Jackson and Elizabeth R. Goins

John Auchincloss Inglis

John Auchincloss Inglis was born about 1813, in Baltimore, Maryland. He married Charlotte Laura Prince (born about 1811 in South Carolina, daughter of Lawrence Prince and Charlotte Benton). They were the parents of six children: William Cowper Inglis; John A. Inglis, Jr.; Lawrence Charles Inglis, who married Meta McIver; James Henry Inglis; John H. Inglis; and Laura Prince Inglis. Before 1845, he relocated to Cheraw in Chesterfield District, South Carolina. There he was ordained an Elder in the Presbyterian Church and was Principal of the Cheraw Academy. He shared an office with fellow lawyer Judge Henry McIver at one time on Front Street. He was one of the three Delegates from Chesterfield County to attend the South Carolina Secession Convention and was the Chairman of the committee who adopted the Ordinance and submitted it for the approval on his fellow Delegates. During the war, Chancellor Inglis served four years in the Confederate government of a Junior Associate Justice of the State Court of Appeals. When Sherman and the U.S. troops were in Chesterfield County, because of their belief that he authored the Ordinance (which he denied) a Bounty of $10,000 was placed on him dead or alive. He had fled with his daughter before the arrival of the Union Army which left General Sherman so angry he sent his men to burn down the Inglis family summer house located about one miles south of Cheraw. In 1868, Inglis returned to Baltimore, Maryland where he died in 1878.

Gleaned from the Chesterfield County, SC Genelogical Service, James C. Pigg

[rustbucket]

The question is were they statist or not? Is that not what Davis did with his controlling of industries, suppression of rights, and accumulation of powers that should properly have been held by the states? The wouldn't Bensel be right when he described the actions as statist?

I think I already answered the question. I do not have a biography of Jefferson Davis to see what you are talking about. Maybe you could give me some specifics. What are you talking about?

That would most likely depend on what shade your skin was. Or whether you had been tossed in jail without trial. Or whether your property had been seized without compensation. Or...

Like the former slaves who were tossed in jail by the Federal troops in Galveston in June 1865 because they might have some work for them to do in the future? Or the freedmen who had been promised 40 acres and a mule if they would vote for the new Southern state constitutions? Or the reconstruction governments that raised taxes on ex-Confederates forcing them to sell their land? Or the more than 100 ex-Confederates and ex-slaves who were killed in 1865 after the war ended to keep them from testifying against the actions of Unionists and the Tennessee government under Brownlow?

I would love to see the quotes you have, in context, where he admitted as much.

I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensabale means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.

That excuses any unconstitutional action Lincoln took? You could excuse anything by such a claim.

An impeachable offense would have been nice. Farber himself admits that while Lincoln's shifting of funds from one department to another may have been unconstitutional, he does admit that Lincoln had no precedent to guide him.

That's the equivalent of Gore's "no controlling legal authority" argument. How about following the Constitution or convening Congress if you need their necessary approval?

Actions that are not illegal because you say they are.

From the Congressional Globe found by nolu chan:

Mr. President, in the State of Missouri, there was no "Law of the United States opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed by combinations of men too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." Indeed, sir, there was no resistance of any United States law. Yet Missouri, peaceful and law abiding, without cause, against law and in defiance of the Constitution , was invaded by United States troops, by troops from Illinois, by troops from Iowa, and by troops from Kansas. Indeed, sir, it seems that from the very moment in which the administration resolved upon this policy of coercion, the State of Missouri was marked as a victim for sacrifice, for invasion, and subjugation. [Mr. Polk, July 11, 1861, page 64]

The joint resolution would seem, upon the face of it, to admit that the acts of the President were not performed in obedience to the Constitution and the laws. If that be true, I should be glad to hear some reasons assigned by gentlemen showing the power of the Congress of the United States, by joint resolution, to cure a breach of the Constitution or to indemnify the President against violations of the Constitution and the laws. If, in any respect that officer has violated the laws, he has also violated the Constitution; because one clause of that instrument declares that "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." It confers on him the power to see that they are executed; but no power to violate them. [Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, page 137]

I deny, Mr. President, that one branch of this Government can indemnify any other branch of the Government for a violation of the Constitution or the laws. The powers conferred upon the General Government by the people of the States are the measure of its authority. Those powers have been confided to different departments, and the boundaries of those departments determined with perfect exactitude. The President has his powers and rights conferred on him by the Constitution; the legislative authority its powers and rights; the judicial authority its powers and rights; the judicial authority its powers and rights; and I deny that either can encroach upon the other, or that either can indemnify the other for a usurpation of powers not confided to it by the Constitution. Sir, Congress, by a joint resolution, has no more right, in my opinion, to make valid a violation of the constitution and the laws by the President, than the President would have by an entry upon the executive journal to make valid a usurpation of the executive power by the legislative department. Congress has no more right to make valid an unconstitutional act of the President, than the President would have to make valid an act of the Supreme Court of the United States encroaching upon executive power; or than the Supreme Court would have the right to make valid an act of the executive encroaching upon the judicial power. [Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, pp. 137-8]

It is proposed, sir, to approve and make valid the act of the President in enlisting men for three and five years. I ask you by what authority of Constitution or law he has done this act? The power is not conferred in the constitution; it has not been granted by the law. It is, therefore an unconstitutional and illegal act of executive power. The President, of his own will -- and that is one of the acts enumerated in this joint resolution which is proposed to approve and ratify -- has added immensely to the force of the regular Army. The Constitution says that Congress shall raise armies, and a law now upon your statute book limits the number of the regular force, officers and men. Hence, sir, that is an act in derogation both of the Constitution and of the laws. [Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, pp. 138]

The President has added immensely to the Navy of the United States. The Constitution says that Congress shall provide and maintain a navy; and there is now a law upon the statute book limited the number of men to be employed in the Navy. That, like the rest, sir, will not bear argument. I doubt if an attempt will be made to defend it upon constitutional or legal grounds. I pronounce it a usurpation. [Mr. Breckinridge, July 16, 1861, pp. 138]

If it's 100-plus shut down then I'd like to see a list. In his history of journalism during the rebellion, "Blue & Grey in Black & White: Newspapers in the Civil War", Brayton Harris seems to have missed the overhwelming majority of those closed. Must be poor research on his part.

I've cited my sources before. I'm not going to give away copyrighted material such as their lists of papers suppressed, destroyed, etc. Buy the books and tabulate those cases yourself. My sources included Lincoln and the Press by Robert S Harper, Appleton's American Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events for the various war years (no longer under copyright), Lincoln's Wrath, Fierce Mobs, Brilliant Scoundrels and a President's Mission to Destroy the Press by Manber and Dahlstrom, and Blue and Gray in Black and White, Newspapers in the Civil War by Brayton Harris. The most thorough one of them all is Lincoln and the Press.

I even posted a link for you once to one of the no-longer-under-copyright Appleton lists of papers destroyed, etc., and posted its list of such papers for 1864. I tracked down the original Appletons in a local library and made my own photographic copies of their Freedom of the Press articles. You can now download the Appleton's wartime editions from the web yourself. No need to buy a copy or track them down in a library.

By limiting yourself to one source, you greatly underestimate the number of papers destroyed, editors, publishers, and reporters jailed, papers prevented from using the mail, papers prohibited from being sent into a city or state, etc.

The one case you cite of a reporter arrested by the South was for publishing military information that would aid the enemy. Possibly that might have deterred other Southern reporters from publishing similar military information, troop movements and preparations that would help the enemy. If so, good. Certainly the North took actions against newspapers for some similar offenses, and I have no problem with those actions. Destroying papers and arresting and threatening many editors, etc., for publishing opinions about the right of secession or criticizing Lincoln's policies or for hoping that the war would end is another matter entirely.

[rustbucket]

No need to. Because as 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." You say that the compact was abused. The Northern state say it wasn't. What makes you right and them wrong? Or them right and you wrong for that matter?

Madison referred to the Constitution as a compact a gazillion times. Yet you found a place where he doesn't call it a compact?

During the Virginia ratification delegates worried repeatedly about being in a Union where there were seven Northern states and six Southern ones. Virginia and the South would be outnumbered and possibly oppressed and injured as a result. Consequently, Virginia put in its ratification document, a document written by Madison, Marshall, and three other Federalists, the right to resume its governance.

And you would have us believe they were abused merely because they said they were. Considering the power the South wielded in Congress, the laws passed to support their slave ownership, and the court decisions handed down which overturned every law passed that was meant to hinder the abduction of runaway slaves from free states, not to mention the abuse of a state's right to run their own affairs, then your claims of abuse is nonsense.

Modern DNA excluded, a woman who says a guy raped her is more believable than the rapist who says he did not do the crime.

The South protested various Northern personal liberty laws as being unconstitutional over a twenty year period. The North looked the other way and claimed they weren't. Yet when the Southern states started seceding, all of a sudden a number of Northern states started repealing or amending their heretofore "constitutional" laws. They knew they were unconstitutional, but they didn't do anything about them for years. By suddenly repealing and amending them, they admitted that the South's claims were not "nonsense" and that the Southern states had a right to protest unconstitutional laws in Northern states. What was it those distinguished Massachusetts lawyers called their personal liberty laws? Oh, yeah, "conspicuous and palpable breaches of the national compact by ourselves" possibly leading to a breakup of the Union.

[rustbucket]

I wouldn’t take Justice Davis’s word for what the Constitution said any more than I would take Breyer’s.

That's your prerogative. As you probably know, Justice Davis was appointed to the Court by Lincoln, was a close personal friend of Lincoln's, was Lincoln's campaign manager in 1860, and was an administrator of Lincoln's estate. Davis delivered the unanimous ex parte Milligan opinion of the Court that was very critical of Lincoln's wartime actions.

[LS]

I summarized Bensel exactly correctly. I know the man, we’ve talked many times, and I know exactly how he feels about the tyrannical Confederacy.

[cowboyway]

What you ignore is that often the mightier side is also the right side.

A typical NS non-answer.

Thus was the case with the Southern rebellion.

What Southern rebellion?

[cowboyway]

But hey, for our NS "might is right" for any price, even if that price is the sacrifice of high moral standards. Welcome to the wonderful world of a professional "sell out".

All the coven are sellouts. For instance, if oblowme is successful in transforming America to a socialist state and a few states say, "The hell with this! We're leaving!", you can rest assured that NS and the coven will stand shoulder to shoulder with obonga to 'preserve the union' even if that union means a socialist dictatorship.

[cowboyway]

But what you cannot dispute is that the decision was handed down

NS is a staunch believer in 'might makes right'.