Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
Another thing to consider is that Lincoln, while maintaining his belief in the inferiority of the negro to the white man, Freed Them, "because no man should earn his bread by the sweat of another man's face". Indeed, a remarkable man. To this day we see a very large population of the people freed by Father Abraham (as they called him) surrounding Washington DC, because they flocked to be near him when the War Between The States ended.
And finally, I think that all debates in this thread would be moot, if only Honest Abe had been able to complete his second term.
IMHO
Do you deny that Lincoln and the Union goverment thought it was illegal? Otherwise, why would they be fighting? Since the Confederates lost, their interpretation of the law is moot.
Before I get into all that, we need to agree on a fundamental understanding of tariff collection.
I posed this to you on another thread and you gave a flip answer. Let me try again.
Maybe you have a diamond ring on your hand. It was mined in South Africa and sold to a New York diamond merchant who cut and sold it to someone who sold it to you.
The U.S. Government charges an import tax on the diamond, maybe 15%. Who paid that tariff?
“Do you deny that Lincoln and the Union goverment thought it was illegal?”
You can’t apply the concept of “legal” or “illegal” to war, it simply makes no sense. Laws apply to individual men, while it is nations (or similar bodies of men) that go to war. That’s why there is no law on the books against war, because it wouldn’t make any sense, because you can’t prosecute a nation.
You could talk about whether a war is “just” or not, but not whether it is “legal” or not.
Now, there are certain modern treaties that define circumstances where its member states can go to war and penalties for going to war outside those circumstances. In those cases, you could talk about an “illegal war”, but those treaties aren’t applicable here, because this war predates them.
“A fraction of the people in the United States decided that they were going to strip the United States of a large proportion of its territory. They decided to do so without the consent of the sovereign people of the United States as a whole.”
No, some of the states which voluntarily entered the union decided to voluntarily leave that union, and took with them their territory, which they had brought into the union with them.
It seems to me you must have some backwards conception of rights, as if you think they flow downwards, from the federal government, to the states, and then to the people. It’s the other way around. The states only hold territory because the people who occupy that territory consent to be governed by the state. The union only holds territory because the states who govern that territory consent to enter into the union. That consent, just like the fundamental rights it is enmeshed with, flows upwards from the people, and not downwards from the federal government.
So it’s impossible for the people of one state to have any say in matters of consent for the people of another state. Just as they cannot be forced to enter into the union, they cannot be kept in the union by force, or the union ceases to be a union, and transforms into another political entity entirely, which is what happened, unfortunately.
Sorry. The power already did flow from the bottom up. Our independence was won by the whole united body of the people, and the Constitution was ratified by We the People of the United States, which formed one nation, one unified constitutional free republic, under God.
You don’t get to arbitrarily destroy that whenever you want. Especially for wicked, selfish, tyrannical reasons.
Their analysis is long on rhetoric and short on logic.
Laws that presumed any black person was to be considered a fugitive until proven otherwise were clearly unconstitutional, and also violated even older common law principles presupposed in the Constitution.
No, that's not quite right.
Yes, there is a Supremacy Clause - but only for valid federal laws. Meaning laws “made in pursuance” of this Constitution.
That includes amendment IX and X. And Article IV, Section 2 if you must have it.
You ignore the phrase “made in pursuance thereof”; you and I both know why. In that way you can ignore the concepts of dual sovereignty and powers not delegated.
However, you have one argument that is persuasive: the toeboard clause of the federal Constitution. You'll find it right next to right-to-abortion clause and the men-marrying-men clause in the Constitution.
"1910.23(e)(4)A standard toeboard shall be 4 inches nominal in vertical height from its top edge to the level of the floor, platform, runway, or ramp. It shall be securely fastened in place and with not more than 1/4-inch clearance above floor level. It may be made of any substantial material either solid or with openings not over 1 inch in greatest dimension."
Without the toeboard clause, rebellious states could adopt toeboards with 3/16th clearance above floor level. Or no mandatory toeboards at all. And that would be disasterous. Right?
Would you consider an act illegal if it was specifically prohibited in the US Constitution? Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution specifically addresses Treason. It says “”Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” I think that the South’s action would safely fall under the “levying war” part of this article. Now if you want to quibble and say the war was not illegal, only the actions of those people waging (or “levying” to use the words of the Constitution)it, go ahead, but it’s the same thing.
I think it's very safe to say that no one who signed the Declaration of Independence believed that everyone has a God-given unconditional right to replace existing governments. Obviously, you have a right to leave, but the secessionists weren't leaving. Instead, they were trying to replace the existing government in the Southern states. They were trying to strip their neighbors of the rights they possessed as citizens of the United States. They were trying to strip their neighbors of their United States citizenship. And, for what? Slavery? Isn't that what they said? And, if God afforded these folks a divine right to a government that protected their interest in owning slaves, why would they have stooped to relying upon a twisted interpretation of a phrase in the Declaration of Independence?
It seems that, somehow, you have become so unhappy with life in America and feel so alienated from our institutions that you can convince yourself of anything that you think might assist you in escaping your misery. I suggest again that you consider the possibility that your profound dissatisfaction with your circumstances has nothing to do with government or politics. Very few Americans feel any obligation to create a government designed to cater to your personal whims. Government cannot make you feel happy. Look elsewhere for happiness. It's out there.
I am not interested in trying to decipher your rationalized gobbledygook.
I'm getting to the point where I find very few of you even worth the trouble to read. You won't get the sequence of events right. You won't get the philosophical underpinnings right. You won't comprehend the Zeitgeist of the periods in discussion. You simply have a position and you insist on espousing it despite contradictory information.
By the way, you ought to frame your sentence up above. That one is a real keeper. I can think of no better advertisement to others regarding your inability to comprehend the matter, then that sentence of yours. I stopped reading right there. It would be a favor to everyone else to let them stop reading right there too.
Do everyone a favor. Start your messages with that sentence.
The official name of the war is The War of the Rebellion, not the Civil War, not War between the states, or the War of Northern Aggression for that matter.
As in yet one more snippet from his First Innaugural:
" In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
“The official name of the war is The War of the Rebellion, not the Civil War, not War between the states, or the War of Northern Aggression for that matter.”
Are you are saying Lincoln was rebelling against the principles of the U. S. Constitution?
Lincoln was Rebelling against the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
RE: The official name of the war is The War of the Rebellion
Who gave that official name?
Maybe you've forgotten, but it was you who pinged me to this thread (see your post 13 above). ;-)
Someday, if you ever get a chance, maybe you could explain what underlies your desire to separate us as Americans. Specifically, what has caused you to feel so alienated from the USA? I feel so lucky to have been born here. I have had so many opportunities here that just don't exist elsewhere. Have you found nothing good here in this country? Has it all been a failure for you?
I've seen enough of other parts of the world to find it truly amazing that you could so detest this country that you want to chop it up because of some vague hope (an irrational hope, I think) that you might somehow find something marginally better for you than what you've got here and now. No one agrees with everything about America, but you're never going to find a place where that's not true. And, because nearly everyone understands that, you're not likely to find many other people who will share your secessionist dreams anytime soon.
But, I wonder - how did things get so bad for you? And, do you really think it's completely our fault?
You didn't say anything so silly prior to today. There's a lot of that going around lately.
Someday, if you ever get a chance, maybe you could explain what underlies your desire to separate us as Americans.
Not quite right per my motivation, but I "get" what you're asking.
It's about money and the fact that ours is based on vaporware. It's about the fact that the Nation is not being ruled by sane people, and indeed has engineered the system to favor the election of irrational kooks.
All signs appear to indicate that we are heading towards some sort of major financial/social crash, and the only possibility of survival will require the separation of the dead weight. Of the Insane. Of the Irresponsible and Irredeemable.
The nation wasn't created as a Democracy. The founders *HATED* Democracy. The Nation was founded as a Republic with significant and reasonable constraints regarding who could select it's leadership.
Now we have nuts, kooks, and thieves electing the leadership, and thereby creating a corresponding craptacular of Government insanity and corruption.
How on Earth do you see this thing as recoverable? What sort of Rose colored glasses are you wearing? Have you even been keeping up with what is going on in this country today? Are you familiar with the Nazis? Well, they're running things now, and you ask me why I would want to chop ties with such a lovely system?
In another thread, a brilliant Freeper wrote:
In terms of human bondage, it is my understanding the Confederates were fighting to preserve the Confederate constitution which permitted the peculiar institution.
And the federals were fighting to preserve the U. S. Constitution which permitted the peculiar institution.
Did you know both sides were fighting for constitutional governments that permitted human bondage?
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.