Posted on 02/12/2024 11:09:57 AM PST by Rummyfan
Today is the anniversary of the birth of America’s great or greatest president, Abraham Lincoln. As a politician and as president, Lincoln was a profound student of the Constitution and constitutional history. Perhaps most important, Lincoln was America’s indispensable teacher of the moral ground of political freedom at the exact moment when the country was on the threshold of abandoning what he called its “ancient faith” that all men are created equal.
In 1858 Lincoln attained national prominence in the Republican Party as the result of the contest for the Senate seat held by Stephen Douglas. It was Lincoln’s losing campaign against Douglas that made him a figure of sufficient prominence that he could be the party’s 1860 presidential nominee.
At the convention of the Illinois Republican Party in June, Lincoln was the unanimous choice to run against Douglas. After declaring him their candidate late on the afternoon of June 16, the entire convention returned that evening to hear Lincoln speak. Accepting the convention’s nomination, Lincoln gave one of the most incendiary speeches in American history.
Lincoln electrified the convention, asserting that the institution of slavery had made the United States “a house divided against itself.” Slavery would either be extirpated or become lawful nationwide, Lincoln predicted, provocatively quoting scriptural authority to the effect that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Demonstrating how it “changed the course of history,” Harry Jaffa calls it “[t]he speech that changed the world.”
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
Notice that 10 miles east means to be outside South Carolina's "sovereign territorial waters".
Apparently by accident, you stated something that is true. Are there any other states that have sovereign territorial waters in the Atlantic ocean?
As for United States territorial waters, they extend twelve miles off shore.
And, yet again, the important point about Fort Pickens is that Jefferson Davis had already ordered CSA Gen. Bragg to assault and take the fort when he was ready.
The important point is your quoted material contains no order to assault or take Fort Pickens, and Bragg made no such assault.
Those orders to Fox were written to say reinforce Ft. Sumter, if necessary.
Your personal imaginary addition to the actual orders is not appreciated.
April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de CampThis will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.
Signed: Winfield Scott
The below lie was transmitted to South Carolina Governor Pickens by Robert S. Chew of the State Department:
O.R. Series 1, Vol. 1, Part 1, page 291
APRIL 8, 1861."I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the fort."
The above was communicated to us on the evening of April 8 by Robert S. Chew, esq., of the State Department in Washington, and Captain Talbot stated that it was from the President of the United States, as did Mr. Chew, and was delivered to him on the 6th instant at Washington, and this was read in their presence and admitted.
F. W. PICKENS.
- - - - - - - - - -
As documented by Official Records, Lincoln's special messenger, Mr. Robert S. Chew of the State Dept., delivered Lincoln's lie on April 8, 1861.
As documented by Official Records, military orders had already been issued to reinforce Fort Sumter (and Pickens).
The message delivered by Mr. Chew was a documented lie. Lincoln subsequently repeated that to Congress.
Lincoln 4 Jul 1861 special message to Congress p>
It is thus seen that the assault upon, and reduction of, Fort Sumter, was, in no sense, a matter of self defence on the part of the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the Fort could, by no possibility, commit aggression upon them. They knew—they were expressly notified—that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison, was all which would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more.
Below are the rather elaborate plans to deliver bread.
Official Records, Operations in Charleston Harbor, S.C., Series 1, Volume 1, Page 236.
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY Washington, D.C., April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. Henry L. Scott, A.D.C. [Aide de Camp], New YorkSIR: This letter will be handed to you by Capt. G.V. Fox, ex-officer of the Navy, and a gentleman of high standing, as well as possessed of extraordinary nautical ability. He is charged by high authority here with the command of an expedition, under cover of certain ships of war, whose object is to re-inforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about two hundred, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with a competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence. A large surplus of the latter — indeed, as great as the vessels of the expedition can take — with other necessaries, will be needed for the augmented garrison of Fort Sumter.
The subsistence and other supplies should be assorted like those which were provided by you and Captain Ward of the Navy for a former expedition. Consult Captain Fox and Major Eaton on the subject, and give all necessary orders in my name to fit out the expedition, except that the hiring of vessels will be left to others.
Some fuel must be shipped. Oil, artillery, implements, fuses, cordate, slow-match, mechanical levers, and gins, &c., should also be put on board.
Consult, also, if necessary, confidentially, colonel Tompkins and Major Thornton.
Respectfully, yours,
Winfield Scott
- - - - - - - - - -
Official Records, Navy, Ser. I, Vol. 4, pg 107
Cooperation of the Navy in the relief of Fort Pickens, April 12 and 17, 1861.Order of General Scott, U. S. Army, to Colonel Brown, U. S. Army, appointed to command Department of Florida, regarding reenforcement of Fort Pickens.
Headquarters of the Army,
Washington, April 1, 1861.
Sir : You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reenforce and hold Fort Pickens, in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed with the least possible delay to that place, and you will assume command of all the land forces of the United States within the limits of the State of Florida. You will proceed to New York, where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged, and, putting on board such supplies as you can ship, without delay proceed at once to your destination. The engineer company of sappers and miners; Brevet Major Hunt's Company M, Second Artillery; Captain Johns's Company C, Third Infantry; Captain Clitz's Company E, Third Infantry, will embark with you in the first steamer. Other troops and full supplies will be sent after you as soon as possible.
Captain Meigs will accompany you as engineer, and will remain with you until you are established in Fort Pickens, when he will return to resume his duties in this city. The other members of your staff will be Assistant Surgeon John Campbell, medical staff; Captain Rufus Ingalls, assistant quartermaster; Captain Henry F. Clarke, assistant commissary of subsistence ; Brevet Captain George L. Hartsuff, assistant adjutant-general, and First Lieutenant George T. Balch, ordnance offtcer.
The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known. The naval officers in the Gulf will be instructed to cooperate with you, and to afford every facility in their power for the accomplishment of the object of the expedition, which is the security of Fort Pickens against all attacks, foreign and domestic. Should a shot be fired at you, you will defend yourself and your expedition at whatever hazard, and, if needful for such defense, inflict upon the assailants all the damage in your power within the range of your guns.
Lieutenant-Colonel Keyes, military secretary, will be authorized to give all necessary orders and to call upon the staff department for every requisite material and transportation, and other steamers will follow that on which you embark, to carry reenforcements, supplies, and provisions for the garrison of Fort Pickens for six months. Captain Barry's battery will follow as soon as a vessel can be fitted for its transportation. Two or three foot companies will embark at the same time with the battery. All the companies will be filled up to the maximum standard, those to embark first from the recruits in the harbor of New York. The other companies will be filled, if practicable, with instructed soldiers.
You will make Fort Jefferson your main depot and base of operations. You will be careful not to reduce too much the means of the fortresses in the Florida Reef, as they are deemed of greater importance than even Fort Pickens. The naval officers in the Gulf will be instructed to cooperate with you in every way in order to insure the safety of Fort Pickens, Fort Jefferson, and Fort Taylor. You will fully communicate with them for this end, and will exhibit to them the authority of the President herewith.
The President directs that you be assigned to duty from this date according to your brevet rank in the Army.
With great confidence in your judgment zeal, and intelligence, I remain, respectfully,
WINFIELD SCOTT.
Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U. S. Army,
Washington, D. C.April 2, 1861.
Approved:
Abraham Lincoln.[Enclosure.]
Executive Mansion, Washington, April 1, 1861.
All officers of the Army and Navy to whom this order may be exhibited will aid by every means in their power the expedition under the command of Colonel Harvey Brown, supplying him with men and material, and cooperating with him as he may desire.
Abraham Lincoln.
I should add....no it isn't. There is nothing in the 14th amendment about it.
Quotes from Lincoln regarding his faith:“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.” — Abraham Lincoln 3
“I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.” — Abraham Lincoln 12
“I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man”
Try finding any of that crap in the 9-volume Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Try real quotes.
It most certainly does. Go read it!
Secretary of State Seward certified the 14th Amendment as ratified on July 20, 1866.
The whole process was highly irregular and very questionable. The ratification of the 16th Amendment has similarly been questioned. Joseph B. James in The Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Mercer University Press, 1984, at page 303 states:
For over a century the Fourteenth Amendment has been in force as law. Its validity was questioned during the reconstruction period because it was ratified amidst improper procedures and highly irregular actions; it cannot be said to have given cause to question its status today. Long usage and general acceptance by all branches of government has made any theoretical objection impractical. The Fourteenth Amendment has altered too many relationships in a highly complex society to ever be reversed. Despite the questionable history and theory of its ratification, it is now firmly and irrevocably established in the organic law of the United States.
Once an Amendment is certified, its ratification is beyond judicial review. The only way to get rid of it is by another Amendment repealing it.
The below tongue in cheek review of the passage of the 14th Amendment is very old and I have no idea who wrote it so I cannot give credit. The passage went something like this:
Passage of the Fourteenth AmendmentThe fourteenth amendment to the constitution has arguably the most sweeping and important. It is the due process of law amendment that has caused so many to question our legal system. But, few know the story of the fourteenth and how the egg of "due process" was hatched.
At the Civil War's end Lincoln granted amnesty to nearly all and "with malice towards none", all the southern states were soon functioning again in a legal and proper manner. Because the war was over his emancipation proclamation was effectively ended and so the need of the thirteenth amendment to abolish slavery. There were 36 states in the union and the necessary 3/4 to pass the constitutional amendment was accomplished easily when 10 of the southern states voted for ratification.
Then came the 39th congress in December of 1865. Article 1 of the constitution states that a majority of the either house can deny the seat to any member of its respective house of congress. The Senators and Representatives of the 25 northern states voted to deny seats to the newly elected congressmen from 11 southern states. This meant that the seated congress had 182 of a possible 240 representatives, and only 50 of the rightful 72 senators. There were 36 recognized states in the union. (Keep in mind that in the 38th congress the southern representatives were allowed to vote and have their state votes count in passage of the 13th amendment).
In the beginning of the 39th congress came resolution #48 which sponsored the fourteenth amendment. The amendment was especially important to northern liberals as it's privileges and immunities clause would sweep power from states and hand it to the federal government. The sponsors of the amendment needed a two-thirds majority of each house to submit the amendment to the states for ratification, and remember, the house is short 58 representatives from the southern states and senate 22 senators as well! The constitution states amendments need the vote of "two-thirds of both houses". Does this mean of the seated members or the available seats? Well, it depends on who is counting the votes. At the time there were 33 senators in favor of the resolution #48 which was, 23 short of 2/3rds of the full compliment and 1 short of being 2/3rds of the 50 seated members. Either way you count it, passage is doomed.
NO PROBLEM. Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was elected by a plurality and not a majority vote and was seated to the senate, he was against the fourteenth. A plurality was all that was needed by New Jersey law, and other states as well, however, Stockton's seat was taken from him (after being seated) by the senate majority because he had not received a majority vote and the 33 affirmative voting senators comprised a two-thirds majority of the remaining 49 seated senators. In the house there were 120 of the 182-seated members in favor of the amendment, 2 short of the necessary two-thirds.
NO PROBLEM. Because 30 members abstained, their numbers were not recognized at all, meaning only 152 votes were recognized and 120 is well over two-thirds of the number that voted yes or no. I remind you that the full house compliment was 240 members and that 120 is 1/2 of 240 not 2/3.
Hang on, we are only half way there but it gets better.
Now the amendment must be passed by three-fourths of the states and Nebraska has been admitted meaning 28 states must ratify the 14th amendment. By March, 1867 10 states said no and 17 said yes. California then took no action on the amendment, which was the same as a no vote, meaning there could be at most 26 yes votes when all the states were counted. Then, Oregon which had voted yes with the help of two legislative members later held not to be duly elected changed its vote to no when those two state representatives were replaced by two legitimate representatives, sure doom?
NO PROBLEM. The US Congress recognized the first Oregon vote and discarded the second even though two members of the Oregon state government were not legally able to vote and replaced by the state of Oregon, remember Senator Stockton of New Jersey? The US Congress unseated him (a no vote) because it questioned his validity as a Senator, but recognized the yes votes of State representative held to be illegitimate.
Now the 39th congress passes the Reconstruction Act that placed military occupation on 10 of the 11 southern states and denied the congressional seats to those states until they passed the 14th amendment. Many northern states began to have second thoughts about the manner and validity of these federal moves, after all, what can be done to one state can later be done to yours. California now took a stand and voted no on the 14th. Maryland, Ohio and New Jersey who first voted yes, changed to no. 16 of the 37 states now said no and 3/4ths or 28 were needed to win approval and there was at most only a possible 21 yes votes when all the remaining states voted.
NO PROBLEM. 6 of the southern states that originally voted against the amendment had their legislative bodies forcibly removed by the military occupation resulting from the Reconstruction Act and changed into yes votes. Recall that the 13th amendment was passed by the 38th congress with the original and proper representatives from the southern states. Those congressmen were recognized when voting yes to 13 but thrown out when voting no on 14. Now, what to do about those states that voted yes and then changed to no?
NO PROBLEM. The congressional leaders simply recognized the original yes votes and ignored the no votes, claiming the yeses were already resolved. In other words, the states that voted no and then forced to vote yes had their new votes recognized, those who voted yes then no did not. When all states had voted, congress and Secretary of State William H Seward recognized 28 affirmative votes for ratification.
This is how the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and made a part of our constitution on July 9, 1868. The Fourteenth is known as our "due process" and "equal protection of the law" amendment.
No it doesn't. I've read it.
Excellent summary. They played all kinds of BS games wrt the ratification by Oregon and Ohio.
Then there is the matter of the Southern states. They fought the war on the basis of their claim that these states never rightfully left the union. They accepted their ratification of the 13th amendment after the war.
THEN when they rejected the 14th amendment, they turned around 180 degrees and claimed these states were somehow “out” and needed to ratify the 14th amendment to get back “in”. They imposed occupation governments in these states even though there is no provision to do so in the Constitution. They also disenfranchised the vast majority of the voters in the Southern states even though once again, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government or other states have the right or the power to determine who gets to vote in a particular state.
The votes for the 14th amendment’s ratification by Oregon, Ohio and every Southern state are invalid. Without those votes, it simply doesn’t pass. Yes, I’m well aware that it was imposed by force and that it has been recognized as legitimate ever since. That does not however mean I have to say it was legitimately ratified when it clearly was not....not under the US Constitution....not by lawful means or with the consent of the governed.
I’m from downstate Illinois... Lincoln. One glaring oddity about the town is that it was named for Abraham Lincoln, by- Abraham Lincoln, with a qualifier.
Local proprietors chose the name and sometime later, Lincoln performed the christening, using the juice of a watermelon.
THAT’S RACIST! lol
<><><>
EXCERPT:
History
The town’s standard history holds that it was officially named on August 27, 1853, in an unusual ceremony. Abraham Lincoln, having assisted with the platting of the town and working as counsel for the newly laid Chicago & Mississippi Railroad which led to its founding, was asked to participate in a naming ceremony for the town. On this date, the first sale of lots took place in the new town. Ninety were sold at prices ranging from $40 to $150. According to tradition Lincoln was present. At noon he purchased two watermelons and carried one under each arm to the public square. There he invited Latham, Hickox, and Gillette, proprietors, to join him, saying, “Now we’ll christen the new town,” squeezing watermelon juice out on the ground.[4] Legend has it that when it had been proposed to him that the town be named for him, he had advised against it, saying that in his experience, “Nothing bearing the name of Lincoln ever amounted to much.” The town of Lincoln was the first city named after Abraham Lincoln, while he was a lawyer and before he was President of the United States.[5][6]
Despite that story, newspaper reports make it clear that the city’s name of Lincoln had been chosen at least several weeks before the August 27 date.[7][8][9] The new site of Lincoln was about three-quarters of a mile from the small settlement of Postville.[10] “The position is fine and commanding, and if it does not make a big city, we have no doubt it will soon arrive at the dignity of a flourishing and respectable town,” the Illinois State Register wrote. “We will also add that the town was named by the proprietors, of whom our enterprising citizen, Virgil Hickox, is one, in honor of A. Lincoln, esq., the attorney of the Chicago and Mississippi Railroad Company.”[10]
<><><>
Lincoln, Illinois
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln,_Illinois
I believe that you are thinking of New Salem, which is to the north by northwest of Springfield, IL, in the countryside, near the Sangamon River.
<><><>
Lincoln’s New Salem 1830-1837
https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/newsalem.htm
Lincoln’s New Salem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%27s_New_Salem
Welcome to Lincoln’s New Salem
https://www.lincolnsnewsalem.com/
One might look elsewhere in their writings to determine this, but the fact remains they deliberately chose not to make the Declaration about slavery, or to even mention it beyond the reference to "he has incited domestic insurrections among us".
My point remains. Abraham Lincoln making the Declaration about slavery is dishonest. It is deliberately misleading. The declaration was about the very thing he was actively opposing, which was independence for states which wanted it.
They had opened the door to different interpretations of what “men” or “a people” were.
I have long said that Jefferson's inclusions of those words in the Declaration did more to advance abolition of slavery than any other single act by any other person in history.
He created the framework for questioning the idea as acceptable. Everything else descended from that.
They had also opened the door to the idea that revolution and violent wars of independence would always be justified, though I don’t believe that they intended that.
They did not argue for violent war. They argued for a principle that people had a right to be independent and to self government.
Presumably they believed any government founded on such an idea would respect that same principle when others sought to invoke it.
To think otherwise would by hypocrisy.
I could suggest you add one more to the list. I recall seeing a telegraph message in March from Washington DC to the Southern authorities warning them that ships were being prepared to attack them. If I recall, it was signed "a friend."
I ran across it a long time ago, and I now no longer know where to find it. I think that with your search skills, you might be able to find it.
It shows the confederates were well aware of what Lincoln was planning long before the fleet was launched.
Perhaps the telegraph was even sent by Lincoln's agents as a means to make them think the expedition was intended to be violent, thereby prompting them to respond with force.
Lincoln was known for playing dirty tricks like this.
All of them? I think you have mentioned Virginia previously, and perhaps another state, but what about the rest?
You keep trying to ignore that the veto is a part of the text.
I'm pointing out that if only 1 veto was necessary, than there was no further need for the rest to object. 1 would do it, and they had 2.
You are trying to make it look like all the other states were against Georgia and South Carolina, when in fact they were very likely in agreement with them, though they remained silent on the point.
I happen to think the colonies who made legislative attempts speaks a little louder.
Well one of them was Virginia, and Virginia clearly did not ban slavery when they had the power to do so. As for the others, can you give examples of other colonies who made legislative attempts to ban it?
Now bear in mind, that banning the importation of slaves is not the equivalent of banning slavery itself.
And it still stands as an open question as to why is this so important to you that you’ll go to such great lengths.
It is a detail that changes the entire outlook of what the Declaration was intended to be. You want it to be an anti-slavery document, and I am pointing out that they had no intention of making it into an anti-slavery document, they intended that it be a justification for their own secession, and that is the sole purpose they intended for it.
Are you forgetting that the Union government tried to sneak in troops and munitions with the Star of the West?
Firstly, the ship's orders (obviously made their way into the hands of the confederates) said that they would use force.
Secondly, the government had already tried to sneak more forces into the fort, and had been caught been deceptive.
Thirdly, when they launched their invasion of Fort Pickens, they had said they weren't going to do that, and yet they did. When they were caught (as woodpusher pointed out in the messages he posted above) they said, to paraphrase Harry Reid, "Well it worked, didn't it?"
Trusting the government is foolish. Safer bet is that they are lying.
Still true today.
Hard to confuse you with woodpusher. While you both post massive amounts of information, his is usually relevant, while yours is usually not.
1) Abraham Lincoln making the Declaration about slavery is dishonest. It is deliberately misleading. The declaration was about the very thing he was actively opposing, which was independence for states which wanted it.
2) I have long said that Jefferson's inclusions of those words in the Declaration did more to advance abolition of slavery than any other single act by any other person in history.
You don't see it? You probably never will.
Lincoln didn't "make the Declaration about slavery." He suggested that the principle invoked in the Constitution could be applied to slavery, making that institution morally problematic. Jefferson's words had had an effect on him.
They argued for a principle that people had a right to be independent and to self government. Presumably they believed any government founded on such an idea would respect that same principle when others sought to invoke it.
That's impossible to say, but presumably some of them, if they were still alive almost a century later, would have recognized that the situation of the slave states in 1860 did not resemble the situation of the colonies in 1776 (who were already at war, and didn't start one) and would have counseled compromise and conciliation.
Anyway, you aren't going to be convinced so there's no point in taking this further.
There is no contradiction. The Declaration was *NOT* about slavery. No intent was there by the representatives to make it about slavery. The sole intent was to make it about Independence.
*LATER* people started seeing the words as contradictory to the existence of slavery. After the fact. Subsequent to it.
The viewing of the Declaration as a statement on slavery was a later day phenomena, not associated with 1776 at all.
Lincoln didn't "make the Declaration about slavery." He suggested that the principle invoked in the Constitution could be applied to slavery, making that institution morally problematic.
This is called "burying the lede", if you know what that means. (You emphasize a minor part above that of the major part in terms of importance.)
The Document's true and correct purpose was to justify secession, and Lincoln is trying to make it into an anti-secession event.
It flips the truth topsy turvey to what it really was.
And if you think i'm wrong for noticing this, I will point out that H.L. Mencken noticed the same thing about a 100 years ago.
That's impossible to say,
That's wishful thinking. Lincoln himself believed in exactly the same principle in 1848, and in 1852. He said so. Clearly the dominant mindset from 1776 to 1861 was that states had a right to leave. Even Massachusetts and Connecticut said so at the Hartford convention of 1814.
As someone amusingly pointed out, the Southern states at the time called them "traitors."
Of course as they were talking about going back to the British, this is more traitorous than simply forming your own independent country, so maybe the Southern states had a point.
How anyone who gets schooled in the subject by a man(Bro Joe K) clearly qualified to expounded on subject can be so willfully refusing of the lesson of the history of this subject speaks volumes to your intellectual obstinacy.
No it most certainly did not. I'll put my knowledge of that era up against yours any day. How anyone thinks BroJoeK "schools" anybody on that subject speaks volumes about your lack of intellect.
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.