Posted on 11/19/2018 9:27:11 AM PST by harpygoddess
Everyone has posted the speech itself (and it's included here), but the background information is also interesting - not only the situation in America at the time, but also the extent to which the structure of the speech mimics (draws from?) Thucydides' account of Pericles' 430 B.C funeral oration at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War.
Today is the anniversary of President Lincoln's delivery of his few "brief remarks" at the dedication of the new national cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, only four or so months after the great Civil War battle there that emerged as "the high-water mark of the Confederacy."
At the time, the final issue of the war was still in some doubt, and Lincoln received second billing to a lengthy speech by Dr. Edward Everett, then president of Harvard University and reputedly America's greatest orator.
Everyone's familiar with the Gettysburg Address - didn't we all have to memorize it in grammar school? But in these troubled times, its mere 272 words remain well worth reading again.
I would point out that the Declaration of Independence makes it quite clear that people have a right to independence if they want it, because it is a right given by the laws of nature and of nature's God.
The Constitution was written 11 years after the Declaration, and the convention was held in the very same city of Philadelphia. Many of the people involved were also involved in the creation of the Declaration, and to assert that they meant one thing in 1776, and the very opposite in 1787 is not plausible.
Had the writers of the Constitution intended to prohibit states from leaving, not withstanding the absolute contradiction this would be with what was written in the Declaration, they would have said so explicitly in the Constitution.
Furthermore, both New York and Virginia stated explicitly in their ratification documents that they had the right to reassume the powers they were granting to the Federal government, and there are no recorded objections to their statements of a right to reassume their previous powers.
So we have zero evidence the Constitution forbade it, and some evidence that the founders accepted that states could leave.
Additionally we have the Hartford convention in which the NORTHERN states had asserted the right to secede from the Union! Nothing came of it, but much is said by the fact that they believed they had the right to do so, and at a time when many of the founders were still alive!
Insurrections and rebellions have nothing to do with secession. Secession is not rebellion, and we even have the explicit words to this effect from Chief Justice Salmon P Chase!
If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion..
Lincoln lied in calling secession "Rebellion". He deliberately claimed it was that which it was not so that he could unleash the war powers he needed to stop it. Had he truthfully called it an orderly breakup and the "dissolving of political bonds" he would not have been able to stop it, so he lied, and called it "Rebellion."
Just as the articles of Confederation state that it was a perpetual Union when they made the constitution to “make a more perfect union”, they didn’t drop the perpetual part.
The articles that created the US Confederacy weren't perpetual. They did not in fact last very long at all. They certainly weren't as perpetual as the thousand year old United Kingdom, from which we broke, but somehow this Union of "four score and seven years" had stronger bonds than the loyalty owed to the Union of the Crowns?
That doesn't even make sense.
And yes, they did in fact drop the "perpetual" part. It isn't in the US Constitution.
Here, do a word search. The word "Perpetual" isn't in there.
Show me in the constitution the procedure for a state to leave the union.
They didn't waste words in the Constitution. The information about leaving had already been written in the Declaration of Independence. 11 years later, no one in 1787 had forgotten it.
Free Republic certainly could make good use of an up or down function type button.
Your comment is profound and has me thinking.
Thank You.
You have the question backwards. The feds don’t have the power to stop it. Not in constitution which spells out and limits federal powers
It is a resupply mission. Warships accompanied them because the Confederates had already fired on an unarmed supply ship.
Davis knew what the orders to the ships were. They would not fire if the supply mission proceeded without opposition. firing on it would mean war. He also knew allowing the fort to be resupplied would cause him a political firestorm of outrage. As early as the 8th of April Davis had already decided that he would not allow a resupply of Fort Sumter. Davis had already decided there would be war if Lincoln attempted to resupply the fort.
Lincoln had a Constitutional obligation to defend Federal property and resupply Federal troops. Davis was under not such obligation. Lincoln knew that if he allowed Sumter to surrender without a fight it would also cause a political firestorm of outrage.
That is a juvenile argument. The UK was not a union of States but united Kingdoms that were an Empire.
Why was it a sacred duty to keep together the young Union that was only "four score and seven years" old, and it was also George Washington's sacred duty to break the Union that was 1 thousand years old?
GW did no such thing. The Colonies were an adjunct to the Empire. The division came due course for lack of representation. T. Payne outlines this quite well in 'Common Sense'.
He made it clear that he wasn't going to allow the South to trade directly with Europe outside of Washington DC's control and collection of money on it.
This was to prevent the South from gaining military support from England.
If you mean by "confederates", the cadets at the Citadel who had no orders to do so by the Confederate authorities, than yes. But the fact remains, One does not send several armed warships unless you expect to fire cannons from them. Sending warships and calling it a "resupply" mission is deliberately and intentionally deceptive. Lincoln set up his propaganda early. He sends a war mission and calls it a "resupply" and the people in the North who have no idea of the real character of it don't know any better.
Davis had already decided there would be war if Lincoln attempted to resupply the fort.
Funny, virtually all of Lincoln's cabinet had told Lincoln the same thing. Lincoln did it anyway.
It's not really a hard prediction. You send a war force with equipment and troops to a place where the presence of troops was already resented, and yeah, you will very likely start some sh*t.
Lincoln had a Constitutional obligation to defend Federal property and resupply Federal troops.
Again, once the states seceded, real property within their dominion was no longer Federal Property. The state had reassumed it's powers given to the Federal government by the Constitution.
And that's if we just ignore the fact that 75-85% of *ALL* Federal property was paid for by the Southern states.
Ireland was a state. Wales was a state. Scotland was a state. England was a state. These were all "States" in the sense that they were former independent nations that had been United into a Union.
Calling them an "Empire" means nothing. They were a collection of independent nations that had been United into a single Kingdom. You don't want to recognize that they were a "Union" because it is uncomfortably familiar in discussing the American war of Independence in Civil War terminology.
GW did no such thing. The Colonies were an adjunct to the Empire. The division came due course for lack of representation. T. Payne outlines this quite well in 'Common Sense'.
Yet the founders articulated in the Declaration of Independence that Independence was a right given by nature and nature's God, and that the only requirement to claim independence was the belief that the existing government did not serve the interests of the people it ruled.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
This was to prevent the South from gaining military support from England.
So it may have been subsequently claimed, but the actual truth is that the South produced 75-85% of all European trade, and the national laws had been gimicked to funnel almost all of this trade through New York, where the powerful men of New York and Washington DC could take out their cuts.
With the South trading directly with Europe, 200 million dollars per year would leave the New York/Washington DC economy, and move to Charleston, New Orleans, and various other southern port cities.
Because the Southern states would no longer have to adhere to the "Navigation act of 1817", they would see an immediate increase in their profits of about 40%, and probably even more as a consequence of greater trade spurred by the drastic reduction in costs to Europeans wanting to trade European products for Southern goods, which dominated the export trade anyways.
Even worse, the movement of 200 million dollars per year from New York to Southern port cities would have spurred greater investment and quite likely a greater diversity in investment, and the factory owners in the North would likely soon be competing with similar factories newly financed in the South.
It gets worse still. Existing markets in the Midwest would have been supplied by European goods shipped through Southern ports and up the Mississippi to displace more expensive goods manufactured in Northern states to be sent to the Midwest.
The money men of the North would lose 200 million per year in European trade, Gain competition from Southern states, and have their existing markets slowly taken from them by lower cost European goods.
The financial losers in this situation were the power men of New York and Washington, and coincidentally, these are the same people who at that time had control of the armed forces of the US.
Now if you had an Army that could stop you from going into financial ruin, what would you do?
Well you would pretend it's about "The Union!" or "Slavery!" and you would blockade the Southern ports first, to stop that financial trade before it even got started. Once it got started, it would be extremely difficult to dislodge European interests when they had tasted the greater profits they would have acquired from trading directly with the South at greatly reduced costs.
Lincoln made sure that the Europeans didn't get much of a taste of those greater profits.
No, they were not. They were kingdoms brought under the British crown to form the UK and the British Empire. A union implies equality, the Irish and Scots had no such standing, even after Bannockburn and Loudoun.
Calling them an "Empire" means nothing. They were a collection of independent nations that had been United into a single Kingdom. You don't want to recognize that they were a "Union" because it is uncomfortably familiar in discussing the American war of Independence in Civil War terminology.
Their union was to create an Empire and that had very specific meaning, especially during that epoch. The colonies were never an independent nation, nor did they ever have equal standing in Britain. We sought independence because of this.
Yet the founders articulated in the Declaration of Independence that Independence was a right given by nature and nature's God, and that the only requirement to claim independence was the belief that the existing government did not serve the interests of the people it ruled.
Correct, a right that was denied by the Crown.
Lincoln made sure that the Europeans didn't get much of a taste of those greater profits.
Excellent points all, but still does nothing to alter the fact that the North did not want the South to have a military alliance with GB. That alliance would most certainly have cost the North the war. The US would have been split into 2 nations and the fledgling Union would have been torn. I don't believe it would have dissolved away, but the country that was being built would have had much greater difficulty in maintaining its emerging power on the world stage.
To further the initial point, our independence from the UK did nothing to their existence. They continued to exist and expand, they were simply forced to recognize the US as an equal in world affairs. Lincoln saw the US as a cohesive nation that was stronger together than divided. Unfortunately, the war ended the prominence of the State as master of its own fate.
His speech was related to keeping the Nation whole.
“Because the Southern states would no longer have to adhere to the “Navigation act of 1817”, they would see an immediate increase in their profits of about 40%
How would they increase their profits by about 40%.
The separation from the British monarchy was the creation of a form of self-government "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
In 1863, that form of government, the only one in the world, was threatened with "perish[ing] from the earth" by the unilateral secession of the Confederate states. The preservation of "government of the people, by the people, for the people," was the issue. That meant the preservation of the Constitution and the compact it represented.
The political bonds in the two situations were by no means similar.
It’s either in the Constitution or it isn’t in the Constitution.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lurker, lol, I can see you’ve led a comfortable life far from the courthouse. Congratulations!
As a developer for 47 years, I’ve fought the Liberals in a liberal Austin courtroom scores of times. Along the way millions were spent by both sides on attorney’s fees and costs. One case lasted 15 years with two trips to the state Supreme Court. Lol, I can tell you with CERTAINTY that the Constitution is just a piece of toilet paper to a Liberal plaintiff or Judge or attorney or private citizen funding the Liberals with bags of money. They could care less about The Constitution. Moreover, in the appellate process in Texas, the Constitution doesn’t mean a damn thing either. Only how much money you have to buy the right lawfirm matters and it will get you the verdict you want every damn time regardless of The Constitution.
The separation from the British monarchy was the creation of a form of self-government "conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
Except no one at the time interpreted that statement to mean that slaves should be free. Not even the guy who wrote it freed his slaves. To claim it meant that the founders intended for slaves to be free is just dishonest.
The focus of 1776 was independence from the United Kingdom, but Lincoln bent the meaning of the Declaration of Independence to pretend it was about freedom for slaves. Very dishonest.
The political bonds in the two situations were by no means similar.
How were they at all different? All 13 colonies were slave states in 1776. Every single one of them. The United Kingdom was a Union of Kingdoms, formed by Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England.
The British offered freedom to any slave that would join them in suppressing the rebellion, and the declaration even noted that the British were attempting to foment slave rebellions.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
These "domestic insurrections" are a fancy way of saying "slave rebellions."
The Colonies formed a "Confederacy", and their armies were led by a slave holding General from Virginia.
How is it not similar? In fact, how is it not exactly the same?
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.