POLITICALLY CORRECT HISTORY - LINCOLN MYTH DEBUNKED

LewRockwell.com ^ | January 23, 2003 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo, PHD

[one2many]

<!-- a{text-decoration:none} //-->

CONTENT="">

Politically Correct History by Thomas J. DiLorenzo The political left in America has apparently decided that American history must be rewritten so that it can be used in the political campaign for reparations for slavery. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago inserted language in a Department of Interior appropriations bill for 2000 that instructed the National Park Service to propagandize about slavery as the sole cause of the war at all Civil War park sites. The Marxist historian Eric Foner has joined forces with Jackson and will assist the National Park Service in its efforts at rewriting history so that it better serves the political agenda of the far left. Congressman Jackson has candidly described this whole effort as "a down payment on reparations." (Foner ought to be quite familiar with the "art" of rewriting politically-correct history. He was the chairman of the committee at Columbia University that awarded the "prestigious" Bancroft Prize in history to Emory University’s Michael A. Bellesiles, author of the anti-Second Amendment book, "Arming America," that turned out to be fraudulent. Bellesiles was forced to resign from Emory and his publisher has ceased publishing the book.) In order to accommodate the political agenda of the far left, the National Park Service will be required in effect to teach visitors to the national parks that Abraham Lincoln was a liar. Neither Lincoln nor the US Congress at the time ever said that slavery was a cause – let alone the sole cause – of their invasion of the Southern states in 1861. Both Lincoln and the Congress made it perfectly clear to the whole world that they would do all they could to protect Southern slavery as long as the secession movement could be defeated. On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000). The proposed amendment read as follows: ARTICLE THIRTEEN No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. Two days later, in his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln promised to support the amendment even though he believed that the Constitution already prohibited the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. As he stated: I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable (emphasis added). This of course was consistent with one of the opening statements of the First Inaugural, where Lincoln quoted himself as saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." That’s what Lincoln said his invasion of the Southern states was not about. In an August 22, 1862, letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley he explained to the world what the war was about: My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. Of course, many Americans at the time, North and South, believed that a military invasion of the Southern states would destroy the union by destroying its voluntary nature. To Lincoln, "saving the Union" meant destroying the secession movement and with it the Jeffersonian political tradition of states’ rights as a check on the tyrannical proclivities of the central government. His war might have "saved" the union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically as the country became a consolidated empire as opposed to a constitutional republic of sovereign states. On July 22, 1861, the US Congress issued a "Joint Resolution on the War" that echoed Lincoln’s reasons for the invasion of the Southern states: Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease. By "the established institutions of those states" the Congress was referring to slavery. As with Lincoln, destroying the secession movement took precedence over doing anything about slavery. On March 2, 1861 – the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate – another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it. Nor would the Republican Party, which enjoyed a political monopoly after the war, have insisted that the Southern states rewrite their state constitutions to outlaw secession as a condition of being readmitted to the Union. If secession was really unconstitutional there would have been no need to do so. These facts will never be presented by the National Park Service or by the Lincoln cultists at the Claremont Institute, the Declaration Foundation, and elsewhere. This latter group consists of people who have spent their careers spreading lies about Lincoln and his war in order to support the political agenda of the Republican Party. They are not about to let the truth stand in their way and are hard at work producing "educational" materials that are filled with false but politically correct history. For a very different discussion of Lincoln and his legacy that is based on fact rather than fantasy, attend the LewRockwell.com "Lincoln Reconsidered" conference at the John Marshall Hotel in Richmond, Virginia on March 22. January 23, 2003 Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland. Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com Thomas DiLorenzo Archives Really Learn About the Real Lincoln Now there is a study guide and video to accompany Professor DiLorenzo's great work, for homeschoolers and indeed anyone interested in real American history. http://www.fvp.info/reallincolnlr/

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

[outlawcam]

I would pose this question to you, but also to others posting along this vein:

Does the Constitution define the Supreme Court, or does the Supreme Court define the Constitution?

Because it seems to me we enter a very sticky area if we rely on the courts to forever "interpret" the Constitution for us in any regard, whereby we tend to rely more on what they say than what the Constitution says. More than often, I've noticed, people cite the court only when the court backs up their point, and ignore those rulings which contradict it. Therefore we must be careful if we accept the premise that the law is what the Supreme Court says it is, for we effectively remove our claim as rightful participants in our political system.

That being said, I'd love to hear your comment on Lincoln's logic, that if any state be allowed to leave whenever it wishes, there is no limit to the ransom they may hold the federal government as a condition for their staying. Likewise, if no state may be compelled to stay, then neither may a city, township, neighborhood, nor household be compelled, by the same logic the Southern states were using. Here's the exact quote:

Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain... "

Purely from a logical standpoint, it is a recipe for anarchy, if not anarchy itself. At the very least, it is warlordism. Far from contributing to the system of federal checks and balances, the system would undermine and destroy the very thing it claimed to promote, and would guarantee governments everywhere toothless and inept. No such system is sustainable, nor would it be able to protect any type of universal freedom. The only stability any government could claim would be for the power that which it usurped apart from the system that created it. That goes for Lincoln, Davis, Ghandi, and Napoleon alike.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Lincoln's message to Pickens pledged no troops and asked that peaceful access be given for only that purpose.

Lincoln's message to Pickens stated that the resupply attempt would be food only, and if no resistence was made then arms and reinforcements would not be landed without prior notice so long as the fort was not attacked. Obviously if the attempt to land food was resisted then that was an attack on the fort and the reinforcements would be landed. No deception, no lies, everything was laid out for Pickens beforehand. Likewise the message that Wells gave the fleet commander which was posted in reply 432. The primary mission of the expedition was resupply with arms and men to be landed in the event of southern opposition. The same message was sent to Major Anderson, supplies only with reinforcements landed if the supply mission was opposed. The intention was clear.

They contained explicit instructions on how to fight their way in over the inevitable confederate refusal to allow them entry.

So what you are saying is that war was inevitable since Davis was looking for an excuse to begin it?

[mac_truck]

I take this position with reason based on what he did in the Merryman case almost immediately after his election.

Yes, I'm somewhat familiar with the Merryman case. In fact it was Taney's ruling in that case that led me to suspect that the US Supreme court would look favorably at a secession case brought to it by one or more states.

Of course the Merryman case occurred after secession and the rebellion had started, and Lincoln was invoking his executive power as commander and chief, something he may have found harder to pull off in peace time.

Its also interesting to note that it was a US Circuit court rather than the US Supreme court that ruled on the Merryman case. I'm not sure a US curcuit court has any final jurisdiction over the executive branch.

btw what was the charge brought against Merryman?

[thatdewd]

What could President Lincoln possibly gain by lying?

To provoke the South into defending itself.

Can you point out the descrepancies you see in what you posted, and what the clerk Chew delivered to Governor Pickens:... "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort"

Refer to post 434

... SIR: This letter will be landed to you by Captain 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-enforce 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...

President Lincoln didn't lie. He had no earthly reason to.

LOL - He lied.

Attempts to besmirch his memory will always founder on the record.

This isn't about "besmirching" anyone, it's just history. It's the record. He lied.

[WhiskeyPapa]

This was the message delivered to Pickens per the Library of Congress:

"I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort--"

Yes Walt. And it conveniently neglects the part about them fighting their way in with warships over a refusal to comply. That part was included only in the orders to the ships and military.

Pickens couldn't fail to understand the import.

Your interpretation falls down also where TD's does. President Lincoln had no reason to lie. There was no way he could coerce the rebel forces in that time frame.

That changed later.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

What could President Lincoln possibly gain by lying?

To provoke the South into defending itself.

LOL

Straight from "1984".

Walt

[outlawcam]

So what you are saying is that war was inevitable since Davis was looking for an excuse to begin it?

I would say that if Davis wanted to remain in his position as head of the rebelling provinces, he absolutely had to demonstrate resistance to the "invading Yanks." A wiser--or less desperate--man would have practiced forbearance. Who knows what would have happened? Would reconciliation have been likely? Perhaps, but without the resistance to unilateral secession that the Union displayed, we certainly would have split long ago, and would have been perpetually doomed to the intracontinental squabbles that has plagued Europe for all of recorded history.

Of course, this is all speculation based on the little I know of Confederate politics of the time, but living apart from those times and given the gift of hindsight, it seems reasonable.

[thatdewd]

You are talking about a time frame of about a month after he promised to support a constitutional amendment protecting slavery in the states. How does that square with war mongering?

It squares perfectly. The Southern States had rejected his offer.

[WhiskeyPapa]

... SIR: This letter will be landed to you by Captain 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-enforce 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...

I don't see anything inconsistent with what President Lincoln told the rebel authorities.

Two hundred recruits and the 65 men in Sumter were not going to faze the rebels. I don't know exactly, but I bet there were at least 10,000 armed rebels in and around Charleston.

Maybe a source on that can be cited. General Scott definitely told the president that at least 20,000 men would be required to open the port.

It's -so- funny how hard the neo-rebs work to catch ol' Honest Abe in a lie.

Walt

[thatdewd]

You posted your interpretation of two orders which do not conflict with each other. Munitions and reinforcements would be landed only if the supply attempt was opposed.

Incorrect. Where in the second order for the troops, munitions, etc. does it say that? It doesn't, and specifically states that the troops and munitions are part of a mission to reinforce the garrison and that it would be "AUGMENTED". The first order is only for the hiring of the ships. The secret plan was not told to the ships' captains, they were only told the public story and commanded to obey US Agent Fox.

Why would he lie to Major Anderson? He told him the same thing he told Governor Pickens, that an attempt to land supplies would be made and that reinforcements and munitions would be landed only if the mission was opposed.

Major Anderson was not completely trusted and was to be replaced right before the augmentation of the garrison was attempted. He strongly believed the Fort should be evacuated, and Lincoln and the warmongers did not trust him.

Sure, that's why he made sure that Pickens knew about it ahead of time. But this whole scheme that you've concocted would have fallen apart if Davis hadn't fired on Sumter. Pretty stupid of Jeff, wasn't it?

LOL - The concocted scheme was Lincoln's and his cabinet's, not mine. They forced the South to defend it's sovereignty. They deliberately and intentionally provoked the South into "shooting first". Lincoln was so duplicitous that he even betrayed Fox in this deal. All he wanted was to provoke a firing.

[mac_truck]

LOL (you're making my sides hurt) -Why would they go to the Court to inquire about secession when they considered it a right and had no questions about it?

They would seek a ruling from the US Supreme court to avoid damage to the institutions and nation from whence they came. To prevent a Civil War. Pretty good reasons if the true intent of the confederates was to go in peace, don't you think?

At the risk of causing your head to explode, let me add something from one of those old meaningless documents you neo-rebs like to thumb your nose at

"Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light or transient Causes" -2nd Continental Congress July 4th 1776

What noble confederate Cause was there other than the protection and expansion of slave power?

[GOPcapitalist]

"What makes emphasis on the tariff as a cause for secession particularly absurd is that the votes to pass the Morrill Tariff did not exist in Congress until *after* the secessionist Senators and Representatives resigned.

Sorry Walt, but your source much like you and Marx, is simply wrong. To pass that bill required a majority in the U.S. Senate. It already had the House and the incoming President's support. In 1861 the Senate was sectionally split in half. If every southerner opposed the Morrill bill (like they did in the House), and every northerner favored it (also like the House), the most they could do on a vote was force a tie. When ties occur in the Senate, the Vice President casts a tie-breaking vote. In this particular case, that vote would have been for the tariff, thereby permitting it to pass.

"One fact needs emphatic statement: of all the monistic explanations for the drift to war, that based upon supposed economic causes is the flimsiest. The theory was sharply rejected at the time by so astute an observer as Alexander H. Stephens.

It may have been rejected by Stephens, a unionist at the time, but economics were readily cited elsewhere. Secessionists Toombs and Wigfall both asserted economic reasons in their advocacy of separation from the union. The secessionist Charleston Mercury referred to the Morrill bill in derisive terms and cited it as a major grievance with the north, as did pro-secession editorials and resolutions around the confederacy. You, or your newsgroup, or Nevins, or Marx for that matter can deny it all you like, Walt, but that will not ever make the historical documents on the tariff go away.

Stephens was right. It was true that the whole tendency of federal legislation 1842 to 1860 was toward free trade; true that the tariff in force when secession began was largely Southern- made; true that it was the lowest tariff the country had known since 1816

Nevins is neglecting, perhaps intentionally, the fact that the 1860 tariff was on its way out as of May 1860. Congress was in the process of repealing it and replacing it with protectionism - a process that was on the verge of conclusion when the first states seceded and complete before The Lincoln's inauguration.

true that it cost a nation of thirty million people but sixty million dollars in indirect revenue

NOT true. No tariff costs only that which it collects in revenue. Free trade tariffs minimize additional costs beyond revenue as was the case before 1860. But the true cost of protectionist tariffs, as was the case in 1861, is felt in its impact to prices and its waste of the consumer surplus. Nevins is probably not an economist hence a plausible excuse for his error, but from an historical view, it is still an error of great significance.

true that without secession no new tariff law, obnoxious to the Democratic Party, could have been passed before 1863--if then.

NOT true. I have already explained how it could have passed in 1861 above. Nevins' assertion that the law was opposed by the Democratic Party as a whole is similarly false. Every single northern Democrat in the house save a negligable number that is countable on a single hand voted FOR the Morill bill in May 1860. A northern Democrat president, James Buchanan, also supported and signed it.

"In the official explanations which one Southern State after another published for its secession, economic grievances are either omitted entirely

That is simply NOT true. Those "explanations," which he ascribes to "one southern state after another," in fact ammount to a grand total of four out of eleven states - not even a majority of those states!

or given minor positions.

Again that is simply not true. Of those four states, Georgia's devotes paragraph upon paragraph to the tariff and economic issues as I have excerpted previously to you. A second, Texas, gives a "minor position" to it in a single listed grievance. In effect, a full half of those four declarations gave some mention to economics and a full quarter of them focused heavily on economics.

There were few such supposed grievances which the agricultural states of Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota did not share with the South

That too is simply not so. Morrill's tariff bill intentionally threw pork to the northern farm states by way of protecting their products in order to get them on board. They responded in full by unanimously voting for the thing in the House on May 10, 1860.

But the Republican platform in 1856 was silent on the tariff; in 1860, it carried a milk-and-water statement on the subject which Western Republicans took, mild as it was, with a wry face

Again, that is simply not so. The 1860 Republican Platform solidly endorsed the tariff. That tariff plank had the support of the Republican presidential nominee, Abe Lincoln. And when that tariff came up for a vote in Congress, the Republicans unanimously favored it.

the incoming President was little interested in the tariff

That is simply not so. Of his tariff advocacy, The Lincoln wrote on October 11, 1859 "I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views." His support for protectionism is accordingly without question. Contrary to Nevins' assertion, the Lincoln's interest in tariffs was similarly prominent. On February 15, 1861 he made this known in the plainest of terms, telling an audience "[I]f the consideration of the Tariff bill should be postponed until the next session of the National Legislature, no subject should engage your representatives more closely than that of a tariff." Not only did he favor the tariff, Walt. He publicly pledged to make it a legislative priority.

and any harsh legislation was impossible.

That is simply not so. The Morrill bill was one of the harshest tariff acts in American history. It passed and was therefore possible.

Ship subsidies were not an issue in the campaign of 1860. Neither were a national banking system and a national currency system.

Yet they were issues in the secession crisis. Toombs addressed them thoroughly.

The Pacific Railroad was advocated both by the Douglas Democrats and the Republicans

The Douglas Democrats and Republicans were both northern parties.

In short, the divisive economic issues are easily exaggerated. At the same time, the unifying economic factors were both numerous and powerful.

The May 10, 1860 House vote on the Morrill bill was the single most sectionally divided vote that session. It had near unanimous support from the north (all save six, if I remember correctly) and near unanimous opposition from the south (all save one). This bill was the single most prominent economic measure of the 1860 session. It is therefore absurd to suggest the strength of unifying economic factors offered by Nevins.

North and South had economies which were largely complementary.

Under free trade they were fairly complementary. But when free trade ceases to exist, that mix is thrown into chaos because trade restrictions severely hurt exports - the area of the national economy dominated by the south.

and sober businessmen on both sides, merchants, bankers, and manufacturers, were the men most anxious to keep the peace and hold the Union together."

That too is simply not so. Northern businessmen sought to keep the nation together because it was necessary to do so if they were to reap the benefits of the Morrill act. The operated the protected industries that would gain from the shift of the consumer surplus into their pockets. The New York Times admitted and advocated this position on March 30, 1861. By contrast, southern businessmen opposed this position. Their business interests were in exports, which were severely hurt by the trade barriers imposed under Morrill. Free trade helped their business so they went with the confederacy, which adopted a pro-free trade tariff schedule that was similar to the pre-1860 U.S. one.

In view of these facts,

Such a claim is fraudulent. As I have just shown, these alleged facts are themselves plagued with historical errors and fraud.

1) It was a much more respectable justification for Southerners after the war than "we seceded because we believed--rightly or wrongly--that Lincoln's election would be a menace to slavery."

Though the tariff question is more respectable as a position, it is fraud to suggest that it was an invention after the war. The widespread existence of secession era grievances against the tariff evidences the dishonesty in such a claim.

(For the same reason the tariff "explanation" of secession was often used by Confederate representatives in Great Britain *during* the war.)

Actually, it was the British themselves who independently saw the war and concluded tariffs to be a dominant cause for secession. A review of any major British newspaper from the time shows this to be true.

What tended to be forgotten is that in 1860 the South was wealthier than most nations in the world

That it was, but nowhere was this "forgotten." Secession occured in part because the northern tariff sought to rob the south of this wealth by wreaking havoc on its export-heavy economy.

(3) Finally, the economic explanation of the war fit in well with vulgarized Marxism

Much to the contrary. The marxist view of the war itself had no greater advocate than Marx himself. Historically, Marx threw his support enthusiastically behind the north and argued at length AGAINST the tariff cause of the war by relying upon the exact same fraudulent claims articulated here by you, Walt. To suggest that the tariff argument was a marxist creation is to turn history on its head and assign to Marx a position opposite of the one that he himself articulated in the most explicit of terms. Put another way, it is to assert that war is peace, black is white, short is tall, circle is square, and day is night.

[mac_truck]

Purely from a logical standpoint, it is a recipe for anarchy, if not anarchy itself. At the very least, it is warlordism. Far from contributing to the system of federal checks and balances, the system would undermine and destroy the very thing it claimed to promote, and would guarantee governments everywhere toothless and inept. No such system is sustainable, nor would it be able to protect any type of universal freedom. The only stability any government could claim would be for the power that which it usurped apart from the system that created it

Well said..

[GOPcapitalist]

Your interpretation falls down also where TD's does. President Lincoln had no reason to lie.

Sure he did. His goal was not to communicate accurately with the south, but to maneuver them into a confrontation. To accomplish this, he decieved. His actions surrounding Sumter were a political move to feed his cause of war. He admitted that in a private letter to Fox a few weeks after the battle.

[GOPcapitalist]

Of course the Merryman case occurred after secession and the rebellion had started, and Lincoln was invoking his executive power as commander and chief, something he may have found harder to pull off in peace time.

The issue in Merryman though was that his power of CoC did not encompass that of suspending habeas corpus. The court ruled against him on this but he ignored it.

Its also interesting to note that it was a US Circuit court rather than the US Supreme court that ruled on the Merryman case.

Not really considering the arrangement of our judicial system. Cases must work through the court process before reaching the supreme court. It reached the federal circuit court level in Merryman, where the case was ruled against The Lincoln. He could have appealed it to the supreme court or simply abided by it. Instead he chose neither and ignored it. If a president simply ignored a federal court ruling against him in any other time, there's a strong possibility he would be brought up on charges for impeachment, and with good reason.

btw what was the charge brought against Merryman?

That's the issue - he was held without being charged. Since he was imprisoned without charges, he sought a writ of habeas corpus from the court to have those charges specified. Taney initiated procedings to identify that writ as his court was tasked to do under the federal laws establishing the judicial system. When the court's marshall was refused due to The Lincoln's suspension of the writ, Taney was left to rule on the constitutionality of that suspension.

[4CJ]

What noble confederate Cause was there other than the protection and expansion of slave power?

The right of self-government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 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.

[GOPcapitalist]

Does the Constitution define the Supreme Court, or does the Supreme Court define the Constitution?

For a strict constructionist, it would seem that the Constitution defines the court. The court under this model is accordingly tasked with being the arbiter of that constitution - in a sense, its guardian - but not its writer or rewriter.

That being said, I'd love to hear your comment on Lincoln's logic, that if any state be allowed to leave whenever it wishes, there is no limit to the ransom they may hold the federal government as a condition for their staying.

In a way, The Lincoln's argument here is a perversion of the concept of secession itself. Secession is asserted as a final right for extreme circumstances to in effect check the government against abuses. Lincoln calls it ransom, but I would call it another check and balance. He also seems to trivialize the act down a slippery slope by asserting that there is "no limit" to secession. In order for secession to function as a valid check on government power, it must itself be used in that manner prudently in order for it to have any impact. If a state were to cry wolf and threaten secession under trivial circumstances, few would have reason to take it seriously. Nor would that state likely succeed over something trivial, as the benefits of union in that particular case would outweigh the acheivement of that triviality.

Likewise, if no state may be compelled to stay, then neither may a city, township, neighborhood, nor household be compelled, by the same logic the Southern states were using.

Such an argument is a slippery slope fallacy. States are distinguished from all those other things as an entity of certain characteristics. The possession of the attribute of secession rights among cities and towns does not logically follow from the assertion of that attribute for a state.

[thatdewd]

On the contrary, I believe that the Supreme Court ruling in Texas v. White was valid.

But you said the Court's ruling isn't law. Here's your exact words: "And it isn't law in the first place." This is important because there was nothing in the Constitution that stated or agreed with the Court's ruling (which illegally usurped the conditions stated in the documents that created the Constitutional union), therefore the ruling was making law, which you have denied was law, but yet you argue from the position that it was... Your fluctuating conditional anarchy is confusing.

And as a result of that I can say that the southern acts of secession were illegal because the court ruled that they were. It's you that said it was an invalid decision, apparently denying the court's authority.

LOL - See above. As to me, I am firmly and lovingly embracing the Court's authority by pointing out that illegal court decisions are not really law. That is a position held by the Supreme Court, in fact, it is one of it's primary and fundamental postitions. My entire position is in fact based on the authority of the Court.

[GOPcapitalist]

Oh, and Walt. Returning to the tariff, if you take issue with my response to your last post, why not invite your buddy who authored that thing from this so called AOL newsgroup to come over here and make his case? I'd be happy to share my response with him and debate the issue further.

[Non-Sequitur]

Major Anderson was not completely trusted and was to be replaced right before the augmentation of the garrison was attempted. He strongly believed the Fort should be evacuated, and Lincoln and the warmongers did not trust him.

Your conspiracy theories are getting wilder and wilder.