On this date in 1864 President Lincoln receives a Christmas gift.

[Bull Snipe]

"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.

[rockrr]

Regarding secession, this is what I consider to be the correct understanding of the natural right of secession:

"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. This is a most valuable,—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. 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."

Do you agree, or disagree?

I agree with what Lincoln wrote. But I don't believe it means what you believe it means.

Reasonable, honorable, and prudent people seek resolution to problems. Intemperate or dishonest people seek advantage. Lincoln's invocation of our natural rights is tempered with the recognition that reasonable people exhaust all avenues before they resort to rebellion. He also acknowledges the reality that such ventures do not have guaranteed outcomes and that opposing parties may be willing to exercise their natural rights as well.

In other words, on the doctrine of secession they promoted a "Living Constitution."

Wrong.

May as well throw the Constitution in the trash can. May as well throw the Constitution in the trash can.

No thanks.

[Bull Snipe]

“It was part of the spiel to keep Britain and France from coming into the war on the side of the South.”

It worked.

[jeffersondem]

“It worked.”

It continues to work.

The thing is like a treble hook. Once it is swallowed by the unsuspecting, it is hard to let go.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "you can expect to hear many contend that in some way Lincoln was “fighting to free the slaves” - - and even that the war was fought for high moral purposes."

Well... "The John Brown Song" was first played & sang at a flag raising ceremony in Fort Warren near Boston on May 12, 1861.
That date is most significant because it is just six days after the Confederate congress formally declared war on the United States.
The unit which wrote & sang is said to be the Massachusetts militia's Second Infantry battalion, aka "Tiger Battalion".

Congress began dealing with slavery in August 1861 with the Confiscation Act addressing "Contraband of War".

Julia Ward Howe first heard soldiers of Company K of the 6th Wisconsin singing "The John Brown Song" near Washington, DC, in late 1861.
Julia's husband, Samuel Howe was one of John Brown's Secret Six, so for her, it had always been "all about slavery".

Her version of the song, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" was published in early 1862.

So there is no doubt that Civil War was indeed "all about slavery" for some Northerners from Day One.
By war's end it was a major war aim for virtually all Northerners, hense the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.

I think we should all here seriously acknowledge that it pains our dear FRiend jeffersondem to the soul of his heart to hear that there was anything in any small way moral, noble or uplifting about Unionists in "the War of Northern Aggression" against Southern Freedom Fighters, but sadly, the facts are still facts, regardless of how much jeffersondem hates and denies them.

;-)

[Who is John Galt?]

That the constitution was adopted by all the people, not a subset of people in a state. Where did this idea come from? It came from the Constitution where it states “We the people...”. It came from the writings of the founders at the constitutional convention. This view was also upheld by the U.S. Supreme court as early as 1821 in the Cohens vs Virginia decision;
“The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.” [19 U.S. 264] 1821

This idea of the "whole body of the people" has obviously assumed a mystical (almost religious) significance with some Americans, including some judges. However, it is not based on the specific, written provisions of the Constitution, or on historical fact. Please find below a concise summary (excerpted from a more recent opinion):

---

Our system of government rests on one overriding principle: all power stems from the consent of the people. To phrase the principle in this way, however, is to be imprecise about something important to the notion of "reserved" powers. The ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole.

The ratification procedure erected by Article VII makes this point clear. The Constitution took effect once it had been ratified by the people gathered in convention in nine different States. But the Constitution went into effect only "between the States so ratifying the same," Art. VII; it did not bind the people of North Carolina until they had accepted it. In Madison's words, the popular consent upon which the Constitution's authority rests was "given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."

When they adopted the Federal Constitution, of course, the people of each State surrendered some of their authority to the United States (and hence to entities accountable to the people of other States as well as to themselves). They affirmatively deprived their States of certain powers, see, e.g., Art. I, §10, and they affirmatively conferred certain powers upon the Federal Government, see, e.g., Art. I, §8. Because the people of the several States are the only true source of power, however, the Federal Government enjoys no authority beyond what the Constitution confers: the Federal Government's powers are limited and enumerated. In the words of Justice Black, "[t]he United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source."

In each State, the remainder of the people's powers-- "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States," Amdt.10--are either delegated to the state government or retained by the people. The Federal Constitution does not specify which of these two possibilities obtains; it is up to the various state constitutions to declare which powers the people of each State have delegated to their state government. As far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, then, the States can exercise all powers that the Constitution does not withhold from them. The Federal Government and the States thus face different default rules: where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power--that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication--the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it.

These basic principles are enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, which declares that all powers neither delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." With this careful last phrase, the Amendment avoids taking any position on the division of power between the state governments and the people of the States: it is up to the people of each State to determine which "reserved" powers their state government may exercise. But the Amendment does make clear that powers reside at the state level except where the Constitution removes them from that level. All powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State.

To be sure, when the Tenth Amendment uses the phrase "the people," it does not specify whether it is referring to the people of each State or the people of the Nation as a whole. But the latter interpretation would make the Amendment pointless: there would have been no reason to provide that where the Constitution is silent about whether a particular power resides at the state level, it might or might not do so. In addition, it would make no sense to speak of powers as being reserved to the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole, because the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it. The Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation. Thus, the amendment provision of Article V calls for amendments to be ratified not by a convention of the national people, but by conventions of the people in each State or by the state legislatures elected by those people. Likewise, the Constitution calls for Members of Congress to be chosen State by State, rather than in nationwide elections. Even the selection of the President--surely the most national of national figures--is accomplished by an electoral college made up of delegates chosen by the various States, and candidates can lose a Presidential election despite winning a majority of the votes cast in the Nation as a whole. See also Art. II, §1, cl. 3 (providing that when no candidate secures a majority of electoral votes, the election of the President is thrown into the House of Representatives, where "the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote"); Amdt. 12 (same).

In short, the notion of popular sovereignty that undergirds the Constitution does not erase state boundaries, but rather tracks them…

Justice Clarence Thomas, US Term Limits v Thornton, 1995

[OIFVeteran]

That’s the best you got, a decision from 1995? When the one I cited is from 1823?

And I noticed you didn’t address at all what James Madison, the father of the constitution said about the Constitution being permanent.

From James Madison to Alexander Hamilton

N. York Sunday Evening [20 July 1788]

My Dear Sir

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

James Madison

[BroJoeK]

Nice work, thanks!

[Bull Snipe]

If he was looking for Supreme Court pronouncements a little closer to the times in question, maybe he should cite Texas v White. 1869.

[Who is John Galt?]

That’s the best you got, a decision from 1995? When the one I cited is from 1823?

Obviously, you can’t dispute the facts, as summarized by Justice Thomas. The nature of the constitutional provisions he discussed have not changed:

”…amendments to be ratified not by a convention of the national people, but by conventions of the people in each State or by the state legislatures…”

” Members of Congress to be chosen State by State, rather than in nationwide elections…”

”Even the selection of the President… is accomplished by an electoral college made up of delegates chosen by the various States…”

”…when no candidate secures a majority of electoral votes, the election of the President is thrown into the House of Representatives, where ‘the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote’…"

Simple facts – not one of which you can dispute. Where’s your “whole body of the people”, my friend? Apparently they’re busy herding unicorns, or assisting Santa’s elves, because they are most assuredly not involved in the functioning of the US Constitution…

And I noticed you didn’t address at all what James Madison, the father of the constitution said about the Constitution being permanent.

And I noticed YOU “didn’t address at all what James Madison, the father of the constitution said”, as quoted in the opinion by Justice Thomas (guess I won’t hold my breath, waiting on that ;>).

As it happens, I just hadn’t got around to it yet, my friend. I love referencing James Madison, but his views obviously changed with time, and may also have depended somewhat on his audience (i.e., the views he expressed in correspondence did not always agree with his own official public statements). In any case, I believe you were referring to the term “for ever” in this phrase:

The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.

First, what would Mr. Madison’s “for ever” union look like, if it actually existed? As he observed in his 1799 Report on the Virginia Resolutions, it would NOT have been a union where the Supreme Court was (as you claim) “the final arbiter on what is constitutional or unconstitutional in our system of government". Specifically:

“However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other [federal] departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the [States as] parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped [federal] powers, might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”

Clearly, Mr. Madison did not view the Supreme Court as “the final arbiter on what is constitutional or unconstitutional in our system of government".

In addition, Mr. Madison clearly did not recognize any union as “perpetual”, even when the union actually made such a claim, in writing. In Federalist No. 43 he notes:

”What relation is to subsist between the nine or more States ratifying the Constitution, and the remaining few who do not become parties to it[?]… In general it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States [i.e., between ratifying and non-ratifying States], yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and above all the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to re-union, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain MODERATION on one side, and PRUDENCE on the other.”

Please note – at the time Mr. Madison made these comments, the States were still parties to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. Yet Madison himself here states that a self-described “perpetual” union would cease to exist (no longer “subsist”), once the first nine States ratified the Constitution. He restates that conclusion by referring to “obstacles to reunion” – clearly, there can be no “reunion” without there first being disunion. And if a “perpetual” union is not “for ever”, then certainly no such claim can be made for our constitutional union – the Constitution nowhere claims to be “perpetual” (and would likely never have been ratified, had it done so).

Furthermore, the Constitution nowhere prevents three-fourths of the States from terminating the compact entirely, via the described amendatory process. That's simply a fact, my friend.

(But perhaps you were quoting Mr. Madison in support of some kind of mystical “moral” union, which would certainly by in keeping with your equally amorphous “whole body of the people”… ;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

I will volunteer to come out of retirement and grab an M-4 and teach you the error of your ways.

Feel free to pick one of the humorous responses below (either one works):

1) "Isn't that precious!"

2) "Well, pilgrim, only after you eat the peanuts out of my shee-itt!"

(If you would prefer a more serious response, get back to me… ;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

If he was looking for Supreme Court pronouncements a little closer to the times in question, maybe he should cite Texas v White. 1869.

The court issued its decision in Texas v. White after the war - it therefore could have no influence on (i.e., was not relevant to) the actions of the seceding States, or those of the federal government (unless you believe the folks of that era had ESP ;>). The opinion was also largely irrelevant, in terms of any effect on States considering secession in the future - the 14th Amendment had already been ratified, and whether intended or not, that amendment appears to prohibit State secession (barring any future amendment with applicable provisions),,,

[OIFVeteran]

I was speaking the truth, if a state or states attempted to leave the Union because they don’t like who was elected President in an election I would volunteer. Though there is some hyperbole there. I was up for Major prior to retiring and so I imagine if I was returned to active duty I would be promoted and put on a Battalion or Brigade staff so I would not be actually firing a weapon.

[Who is John Galt?]

Glad you made it to retirement! I think those who serve, having sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, can often provide valuable ‘food for thought’ to other Americans. That’s probably especially true today, with 2nd Amendment ‘sanctuaries’ in the news, etc...

[Kalamata]

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Not a living constitution but there certainly is implied powers within the constitution."

All implied powers belong to the states and the people. The powers authorized by the Constitution to the general government are few and defined.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Stare Decisis is not a usurpation but has been a part of our English common law and our legal system from prior to the adoption of the US Constitution, the same as judicial review."

Our Constitution is not common law. Stare Decisis is another way of saying, "The Supreme Court is the Constitution," which is the same as saying, "The Constitution is a Living Constitution!"

I am reminded of the time Chief Justice Rehnquist whined about the majority of the court voting against him by watering down the oppressive RICO statute. Believe it or not, Rehnquist supported his minority opinion to the press by stating, "This law was not TOO unconstitutional!" There was also the time Souter claimed a law was unconstitutional, but he was supporting it anyway for "Labor Peace!"

Yes, both "justices" ignored the Constitution, and admitted it. If that is not an example of a high crime and misdemeanor, nothing is; and if such arrogant men in powerful positions are not completely and totally bound by the chains of the Constitution, there is no constitution. Yet nothing was done to them by the Congress, and few people are even aware of their crimes.

As a strict constructionist, I am continuously reminded of George Washington's warning against usurpation:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." [George Washington, "Farewell Address." 1796]

But that carries little weight if the people do not know what is and is not a usurpation. Tyrants tend to rewrite history to support their power grabs; and the eloquent ones, like the trial lawyer Lincoln, can make their power grabs seem lawful and just. A perfect example is the Gettysburg Address, which is loaded with historical lies and myths.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "I do believe in a natural right to rebellion. It is what the founding fathers did in our revolution. However, they were under no delusion that what they had legal authority under the British system and expected to be hanged if it failed."

The Founding Fathers seceded from the British nation; but they had to go to war to make it successful since they had no lawful power to secede. For that reason, the states gave themselves, via their Constitution, the power to secede from the union they – the states – created. For that reason, Lincoln could prevent the secession only via usurpation. His actions against the seceding states made Lincoln a rebel, and a traitor.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Yes, I agree the Lincoln quote you posted. However, there is one big caveat in that quote that I have bolded and underlined for you. >>OIFVeteran quoting LIncoln: "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. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Abraham Lincoln."

Are you claiming Lincoln spoke out of both sides of his mouth? Of course he did. He was, after all, a ruthless trial lawyer.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Now just because you have a natural right doesn't mean you will use it for a good purpose. People can rebel for good or bad reasons and we, as moral creatures, can look at the reasons they rebelled and decide for ourselves if it was for a good cause or not."

You are mischaracterizing secession as rebellion.

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Your wrong. The constitution was adopted by all the people and no subset of the people can break it. The Supreme Court ruled on this as early as 1821. >>OIFVeteran quoting the Supreme Court: "The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.” [19 U.S. 264] 1821"

That was another attempted usurpation of power by the Marshall Court. The Constitution gives the courts no power to redefine original intent. We must go back to the debates to determine intent, as Jefferson explained:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." [To Justice William Johnson, 1823, Monticello, June 12, 1823, in Thomas Jefferson, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol 15." Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, p.449]

*****************

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "James Madison, the father of the constitution, did say that. He also said this in a letter to Alexander Hamilton. >>OIFVeteran quoting Madison: "From James Madison to Alexander Hamilton N. York Sunday Evening [20 July 1788] >>My Dear Sir >>"Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness. >>James Madison

That conversation had nothing to do with the retained power of secession. The ratification conventions of the states of both Madison (Virginia) and Hamilton (New York) included clauses declaring the right of their states to secede, as did Rhode Island. This is Hamilton at the New York convention speaking of the right to secede:

"[T]o coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves ' What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself—a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible." [Alexander Hamilton at the Debates in the Convention of the State of New York, June 17, 1788, in Jonathan Elliot, "The Debates in the Several State Conventions Vol II." 1888, pp.232-233]

Of course, Hamilton never dreamed a snake as evil as Abraham Lincoln would raise his ugly head in American politics.

In any case, the conditional ratifications of those three states, which clarified the retained power of secession by the states, were accepted, and the Constitution was adopted.

Absent the retained power of secession by the states, tyrants, like Lincoln, could lawfully do as they please. But since that power was retained, and not specifically forfeited to the general government, Lincoln committed treason against the United States by making war against it.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "Regarding secession, this is what I consider to be the correct understanding of the natural right of secession", and then quoted Lincoln. >>Kalamata wrote: "Do you agree, or disagree?"
>>rockrr wrote: "I agree with what Lincoln wrote. But I don't believe it means what you believe it means."

Those are Lincoln's words when he was a lowly congressman:

"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. This is a most valuable,—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. 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." [Speech in United States House of Representatives: The War with Mexico, January 12, 1848, in Roy P. Basler, "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 1." Rutgers University Press, 1953, p.438]

Those words mean exactly what they say, but they do not say what Lincoln meant. Lincoln's definition of "power" was the way Lincoln defined the word at the time.

*****************

>>rockrr wrote: "Reasonable, honorable, and prudent people seek resolution to problems. Intemperate or dishonest people seek advantage. Lincoln's invocation of our natural rights is tempered with the recognition that reasonable people exhaust all avenues before they resort to rebellion. He also acknowledges the reality that such ventures do not have guaranteed outcomes and that opposing parties may be willing to exercise their natural rights as well."

Lincoln had no respect for anyone but himself. A million lives killed and/or ruined testify to his supreme arrogance and lust for power.

*****************

>>Kalamata wrote: "In other words, on the doctrine of secession they promoted a "Living Constitution."
>>rockrr wrote: "Wrong."

My words are absolutely correct, and you cannot present anything that proves them wrong.

*****************

>>Kalamata wrote: "May as well throw the Constitution in the trash can. May as well throw the Constitution in the trash can."
>>rockrr wrote: "No thanks."

It appears you already have.

Mr. Kalamata

[rockrr]

It appears you already have.

No, but it is obvious that you have. It must suck to hate this nation the way you do. Why don't you go find some shithole more to your liking?

[jeffersondem]

“Well... “The John Brown Song” was first played & sang at a flag raising ceremony in Fort Warren near Boston on May 12, 1861.
That date is most significant because it is just six days after the Confederate congress formally declared war on the United States.
The unit which wrote & sang is said to be the Massachusetts militia's Second Infantry battalion, aka “Tiger Battalion”.
Congress began dealing with slavery in August 1861 with the Confiscation Act addressing “Contraband of War”.
Julia Ward Howe first heard soldiers of Company K of the 6th Wisconsin singing “The John Brown Song” near Washington, DC, in late 1861.
Julia's husband, Samuel Howe was one of John Brown's Secret Six, so for her, it had always been “all about slavery”.
Her version of the song, “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” was published in early 1862.
So there is no doubt that Civil War was indeed “all about slavery” for some Northerners from Day One.
By war’s end it was a major war aim for virtually all Northerners, hense the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.
I think we should all here seriously acknowledge that it pains our dear FRiend jeffersondem to the soul of his heart to hear that there was anything in any small way moral, noble or uplifting about Unionists in “the War of Northern Aggression” against Southern Freedom Fighters, but sadly, the facts are still facts, regardless of how much jeffersondem hates and denies them.”

For the purpose of this post, let's stipulate that the purpose of Lincoln's war was, indeed, to free the slaves.

That's a problem for anyone that claims to support the original United States Constitution.

Although some will occasionally deny it, the original U.S. Constitution included slavery. The founders provided an amendment process to peacefully change the Constitution but did not provide a mechanism for the President to use troops to violently overthrow the Constitution and its slavery provisions.

After the House Divided speech many southerners believed Lincoln, if elected, would use the U.S. military to attack the South and to violently overthrow the United States Constitution.

Maybe he did.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "For the purpose of this post, let's stipulate that the purpose of Lincoln's war was, indeed, to free the slaves.
That's a problem for anyone that claims to support the original United States Constitution."

Which is why Union defenders like Bull Snipe, OIFVeteran & others are happy to agree with Lincoln's August 1862 words to Horace Greeley saying,

"I would save the Union.
I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution.
The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.”
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them.
If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery..."

That seems pretty clear, and people who focus on these words usually ignore Lincoln's last sentence:

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."

The fact is that by August 1862 many Unionists, including Lincoln himself, saw Civil War to restore the Union as also an opportunity to abolish slavery lawfully (via Proclamation) and Constitutionally (13th, 14th & 15th amendments).

I think I "get" where this can drive our pro-Confederates like jeffersondem to craziness, but still, it is what it is.

[Who is John Galt?]

...to hear that there was anything in any small way moral, noble or uplifting about Unionists in "the War of Northern Aggression" against Southern Freedom...

On several threads here at FreeRepublic, I've asked a simple question: "Should government be bound by law, or by morality?" (Thanks again to rockrr, who was nice enough to reply on one of those occassions!)

It can be a troubling question - government officials are human beings; humans should consider morality (IMHO), to some extent, when making decisions; but a free society has thousands or millions of decision makers , and therefore, it might be that each of us answers that question in a different way.

However (to cut to the chase), most Freepers seem to suggest that government should be bound by law. The reason may be obvious enough - Ronald Reagan's morality based decision would not be the same as Bill Clinton's. Morality varies from person to person: one government official might shut down a kiddy-porn ring, another might shut down a Christian bakery.

We could (no doubt ;^) launch another endless debate, regarding 'the divine right of kings' versus 'the rule of law' versus whatever, but I will conclude with a simple observation: it's not unreasonable to question any government action that seems to be more justifiable on a moral basis, than a legal basis (i.e., than based on the written 'law of the land'). Such government actions might include legalized abortion, 'Obama-Care', any number of gun control laws, military actions lacking a declaration of war, and perhaps even the federal draft.

Obviously IMHO, YMMV, etc...

[BroJoeK]

rockrr to Kalamata: "It must suck to hate this nation the way you do.
Why don't you go find some shithole more to your liking?"

You might have noticed that Kalamata is a newcomer here, and with all due respect, a formidable poster.
He comes to us fully equipped with a huge inventory of relevant quotes, an arsenal of logical tricks, a defensive shield of barbs & insults, and utter disregard for facts or reasons which might falsify his own unique outlook.

Undoubtedly, Kalamata is thoroughly anti-American, but in the sense of, for examples, a Ken Ham (Ark Encounter) or Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) -- these people have declared & waged intellectual war not just on the USA, but on the very idea of reality itself as we perceive it, scientifically.
Perhaps with some justification they feel assaulted by blatant scientific atheists like Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), and strike back with their own equally aggressive anti-science ideology/theology.

Ultimately, of course, it's pure nonsense and nobody I've posted against here is more deeply immersed & steeped in it than Kalamata, nobody more tireless or ruthless in defending it.

If you wish to grasp the precise moment in history where Kalamata's & our views part company, it might be here: in historical reality our Christian Founders were leaders in and exemplars of the Enlightenment Age, they chiefly define what the term "Enlightenment" means.
But in Kalamata's world-view our Christian Founders were victims of and opposed to the atheistic European Enlightenment, while their success in framing our nation came despite, not because of, their Enlightenment ideals.

So Kalamata is not just pro-Confederate and anti-American, he's also anti-reality as we understand it.

My own views on science, so far as I can tell, are identical with those of traditional main-line Protestant and Roman Catholic teaching, namely, in sum, that science can theorize whatever it wants, but God created and rules everything.