You are a sorry little confederate crackerhead, but this "ultimate response" made me laugh. I think I'll save it to use when I'm otherwise completely out of ammo.
Posted on 01/23/2003 6:06:25 PM PST by one2many
Oddly, in the mid-18th century it was northern -- not southern -- states who were having their rights trampled by an over intrusive federal government. This can be seen by the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision.
But laws that keep men in chains as chattel slaves should be opposed -- you agree with that, don't you?
The Dred Scott decision was not based on anything in the law or precedent and remains one of the worst Supreme Court rulings ever -- right up there with Roe v. Wade.
You are perilously close to making excuses for the slave power.
Walt
LOL - You have yet again demonstrated both your ignorance and your inability to comprehend. Or, you are trying to perform some cheap non-intellectual sleight of hand.
You make two clear references to George Washington in your statement. Once before the quote I referenced in 450 and once after. You even ask me if I think Washington was the eleventh president, informing me that you're improperly referring to executuve power within the context of AoC.
LOL - I never referred to "executive power" within the context of the AoC. I referred to the Presidents that existed under the AoC. I had immediately corrected your ignorant misunderstanding of what I was saying the very instant you made that ignorant mistake, as I have clearly shown in post # 586, and as can be easily seen in the entire series: post #429 containing my original statement referencing the existence of Presidents under the AoC, post #450 containing your ignorant misunderstanding of that statement, and post #455 where I immediately correct your ignorant misunderstanding of what I said. I had only referred to there being "Presidents" under the "perpetual" AoC, which there were. To you that means "executive power" only because you are ignorant of our nation's history and it's earlier forms of government. I stopped and corrected your ignorant mistake the very first time you made it, and clarified that I had only referred to "Presidents". The reason I had referred to the Presidents under the AoC was because you evidently thought that the "perpetual" AoC meant that they were forever and ever. Hence, I was asking if you thought the "Presidents" under the AoC should be counted before Washington. I was explaining to you that your understanding of the word "perpetual" was incorrect and that it obviously did not mean what you thought it did since those "Presidents" are not counted before Washington, as they were Presidents under a different government that obviously was not "perpetual". Irregardless, I very clearly corrected you the very first time your ignorance led you to think I had referred to "executive power".
To clarify your use of the word "presidents", I refer back to your statement and ask "Since you made this statement perhaps you could point to the specific Article of Confederation that deals with executive power."
And I immediately at that point corrected your ignorant mistake and clarified that I had only said there were "Presidents" under the AoC, which there were. I made it clear that I had referred to "Presidents", not "executive power". To you, "President" means "executive power" because you are ignorant of history. The Presidents under the AoC did not have "executive power" as we understand that phrase today, which is why I had immediatley corrected your ignorant mistake the moment that you made it.
Being a dimwitted confederate, you took the bait and responded here 455 that its Article IX. Of course, the correct answer would be that there are no executive powers enumerated in the Articles of Confederation.
LOL - I clearly corrected your ignorant misunderstanding of what I had referred to before I responded to your ignorance of the fact that there were Presidents under the AoC. That post clearly demonstrates that fact.
Now, could you be more WRONG about something chucklehead?
ROFLMAO - I am completely CORRECT in all regards. It is obviously you who are wrong, and evidently quite ignorant to boot. Given your obvious comprehension disabilities, it is not surprising that you are "less than smart".
Exactly! They twisted the Constitution to suit themselves. By doing so they were violating the Constitution that the South lived by.
Exactly! They twisted the Constitution to suit themselves.
No. That is what the Taney Court did in the Dred Scott decision -- ignore the Constitution. The Taney court attempted to use the same sort of judicial activism condemned today to end agitation on slavery.
Taney said that blacks had no rights under the Constitution when the Constitution says nothing that can support that.
Of course I've seen no quotes from Taney suggesting that secession was legal under U.S. law.
Walt
Thanks for the warning though I'm not sure how it follows from what I said. If I point out Northern hypocrisy then I'm for keeping men in chains? LOL.
In my view, unconstitutional Northern actions concerning fugitive slaves were one of the causes of the war. The South certainly considered them as such.
Fox's, the one that was accepted and put into action. Actually, Scott's opinion was not on the force needed to "reduce the rebellion in Charleston" since Lincoln's question had been "what amount of means and of what description, in addition to those already at command, it would require to supply and re-enforce the fort". Many people submitted their opinions to be reviewed. Scott, not surprisingly, went with one of the highest submitted. Lincoln, however, went with Fox's. His suggestion was next to the smallest. So, to answer your question about a second opinion: Fox's. It was Fox's opinion on the matter that Lincoln chose, and Fox's opinion he put into force, as history clearly shows.
Yes, General's Scott's appreciation of the situation is only an opinion. And your posts to FR are only an opinion, and so are mine. Are you discounting opinions generally?
LOL - No, absolutely not. My point was that Scott's opinion was immaterial since Lincoln had dismissed it and had decided to go with Fox's opinion. The moment he did that, the only opinion that mattered in regards to the events that occurred and the motivations behind them was Fox's. Scott's opinion was absolutely meaningless in regards to Lincoln's actions, since Lincoln rejected Scott's opinion.
Lincoln had no reason to incite a war in Charleston or anywhere else. There was quite a roil in Virginia at this same time. Lincoln was trying to mollify the Virginians. Starting a war in South Carolina was not in his mind.
He needed a conflict that appeared to not be of his making, so he delibertely provoked the situation at Sumter for that purpose. He admitted it to Fox afterwards: "our anticipation is justified by the result."
Offering only to send supplies to Charleston was a brilliant stroke worthy of the best chess master. It put the ball (to mix metaphors) right back in the rebel's court.
And clearly demonstrated his desire to provoke war, since by that time South Carolina had joined the new Confederacy and the previous status quo was a thing of the past. Peace meant being the first President to have States withdraw from the Constitutional union, and losing those States meant many other things as well. By that point in time he knew he had to have a war, and so he provoked one, and then firmly resisted every attempt at peace that followed. If he had obeyed the will of the people, there would have been peace. Many times. Peace is not what he wanted.
My interpretation is far better supported by the historical record than yours. He did mollify his position a little bit, but not very much.
President Lincoln's attempt to legitimize blacks as Americans can be seen in these letters he wrote
Far from it, they only demonstrate that he was desirous of using them as troops for his army. At the same time that he (finally) accepted the idea of using blacks as troops he reiterated his desire to eventually colonize the blacks. In fact, both ideas were presented in the same document.
Lincoln also proposed --privately-- to the new governor of Louisiana that the new state constiution include voting rights for blacks.
Source?
A year later, in April, 1865 he came out --publicly-- for the suffrage for black soldiers, because his great --political-- skill told him that the time was right.
And what of the rest? What he said was:
"It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
He very deliberately separates himself from those who advocated general suffrage by stating his exclusionary conditions. He is stating that he would give it to some, but certainly not all. I doubt his intention was to create a subclass of secondary freemen with lesser rights. He had specifically spoken against that very thing in the past when advocating colonization. Do not miss the important fact that his version of 'suffrage' was made illegal by the 13th amendment, the work of his political opponents within his own party. He clearly must have had something else intended for "the rest".
It was a direct result of this speech, and this position, that Booth shot him.
You know that isn't a true statement, and I have seen you discuss enough details regarding the assassination to know you don't believe that. Booth would have shot him even if he hadn't made that speech. It was a very involved affair.
President Lincoln, besides ordering the army (note that this is only a few months after the EP) to use black soldiers more vigorously, made many public speeches to prepare the people for the idea of black suffrage.
He did order the army to use black soldiers more vigorously, and even pointed out that every black man induced into serving in the union Army meant a Northern white man didn't have to. And more importantly to Lincoln, Southern blacks induced into the union army meant a drain on Southern resources. That was his constant and never ending point. As for the second half of your statement, it's just Jaffaesque revisionism.
"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro...
In that letter to Conkling he specifically points out that using black troops and the EP doesn't mean anything other than an increase in military force to preserve the union and win the war, while draining the resources of the South at the same time. The purpose of the letter was to assuage Conklings fears that the union was embarking on some crusade to fight for the blacks.
""when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more..."
I most humbly request a source for this particular quote. Not that I doubt you, only that I can't seem to find where it is from. You will be honored to know that you are the only source for it that showed up on the one search I ran.
in his message to Congress the president reported, "So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any."
Once again, this is only a testament to their ability as soldiers, and nothing more. Justification for his EP, which as he repeatedly pointed out, was nothing more than a war measure to drain Southern resourses and bolster his own.
When some suggested in August 1864 that the Union ought to offer to help return runaway slaves to their masters as a condition for the South's laying down its arms, Lincoln refused even to consider the question.
Absolutely correct, but not for the reason you imply. As he very clearly states in your quote he was only opposing the idea of allowing manpower resources to be returned to the "support of the rebellion". That seemed to be his major concern.
Lincoln's sense of fairness made him seek to extend the blessings of citizenship to everyone who served under the flag.
By the very end of the war, he had come to the conclusion to allow black troops to become citizens.
His great political skill made him realize that blacks --were--not-- leaving -- he played that card and no one was biting, black or white.
That's not exactly true, he was pushing the colonization idea hard until the radicals were able to organize a block to cut off his colonization funding. Based on his last speech it seems pretty obvious he intended something for the majority of freed slaves that most certainly did not involve full citizenship, and it's not hard to guess what that was. Especially considering those comments of his quoted by General Butler. Colonization was still part of his plan.
That being the case, he knew he had to prepare for the future, and that future involved full rights for blacks.
That's not what Lincoln said. In his very last public speech he made it plainly clear that he was opposed to general suffrage for blacks: "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers." He separates himself from those wanting general suffrage for the black man and lays down exclusionary conditions.
You are a sorry little confederate crackerhead, but this "ultimate response" made me laugh. I think I'll save it to use when I'm otherwise completely out of ammo.
Already did. It was loaded with factual errors and outright fraud. See post #474 for further details on the nature of those errors. I'll also direct your attention to post #532 pertaining to the many fraudulent claims of Nevins' book. Every one of your posts on the tariff issue has been rebutted and exposed, Walt. I patiently await your response to them.
I agree completely. The court is often the check though when one of those other branches fails at this responsibility. And yes, CFR is an excellent example of such a case.
No, not really, so long as the reasoning behind its use is understood. As a point of clarification for you, I'll happily take on that task. In all honesty, the reference is designed as little more than a point of innocent mockery to those who practice idolatry in the name of The Lincoln (e.g. The Caesar or The Pharoah would be similar historical uses). If you do not practice such an idolatry, I would ask that you disregard any perception that such a reference be directed at you. For those who do continue in this practice though, I note that they may consider themselves taunted.
You are attempting to paint supporters of his action, particularly regarding Ft. Sumpter, as worshipers of an idol.
No, not really. Just those who practice idolatry. If you take the time to read similar threads, you will note that I use the reference of The Lincoln generally regardless of the subject, be it sumter or something else. I do so out of mockery for the reason stated above. That mockery is itself intended only for those who genuinely practice an idolatry of The Lincoln among FR posters and lurkers. If this does not include you, it need not apply.
We have two different assumptions on the table. One is that secession is legal, and the other that states COULD (not WOULD, as would be indicative of the slippery-slope fallacy you describe) hold ransom the national/federal government for any reason it wished, if they could just leave at any time.
If your position is "could," I need only note that "could" per se is insufficient as a reason for action. As I previously noted, it is perfectly possible that the sun "could" not rise tommorrow. Most likely it will, but since it has not happened yet, that it does not still remains a possibility. Yet if I were to suggest that argument in itself as proof of why we should not expect the sun to rise tommorrow, it is likely that few would take me seriously. In other words, if you wish to argue the line of "could" to evidence the results you desire, you must provide sterner stuff along with it.
Now let's talk about assumptions, possibilities, and probabilities for a little bit. Why is government needed at all? According to Alexander Hamilton, because man will not conform to the dictates of justice and reason, without constraint. Does that necessarily follow? No. It is an assumption.
Why must a government be constrained? Does it necessarily follow that every government will violate the rights of individuals and groups? No
Actually, yes it does if one is to first accept that man is by nature a flawed and sinful being. If all men sin, and government is an institution composed of men, it follows that a government of man will itself partake in sinful tendencies. Granted, that sin may be a grave violation of rights or a restrained and minor one, but it is a virtual inevitability of any government composed even of the most saintly individuals.
A sober judgement of man's nature evaluated by reasonable men led them to the conclusion that power and the lust for power, fame, and wealth will lead otherwise reasonable men to destruction.
That is not alone an evaluation. It is also a conclusion reached by reason. If man is sinful, and government is an extension of man composed of men and thereby exhibiting their attributes, government too will be sinful. There was much more to the founders than simple experience - they were educated men who understood classical concepts of justice, among them the concept of worldly disconnect from the universal good. Government is of the world and because of that fact is, no matter how prudently designed, prone to the worldly existence that created it.
Is it necessarily so that cities, provinces, and households could secede? No, but possible, and for certain people, even probable, if that sort of power were granted.
Your argument is well intentioned, but the analogy is simply not logically sound for the reasons noted above. The concepts of the state you described above were the necessary logical conclusions of certain philosophical strains and premises. Many of the founders knew this to be so as they were well educated in the classics and influenced heavily by them. Since your analogy rests on those statements of yours being valid themselves, it no longer holds.
What about a Bill of Rights? Was it necessary?
The Bill of Rights was a matter of political decision, not an argument in itself and definately logical conclusion from previous premises. Therefore asking the question of its necessity is not relevant.
Does it necessarily follow that because we have a Bill of Rights, Congress will take more power than was granted? No
And in that case you are correct. But the argument you are considering is one of political speculation on a future event, not a formal conclusion of fact. Such an argument may be supportive of a position or offer some reason for and against it, but it lacks conclusiveness when presented alone.
Since insurrection was not defined by law, wouldn't it have been a good idea to define it before they took off?
Though the concept is nice, this argument suffers the same problems as your court argument about secession. The supreme court does not issue advisory opinions on constitutional meanings - only real cases that come before it.
However, what you described, I would argue, did occur, because they overthrew the government of that land, declared it null and void, and assumed the role for themselves that belonged to another entity.
Again no, as your position neglects the identity of the very actors in secession. Think about it. First, may we agree that a government cannot overthrow itself? If so, it cannot be said that the state governments in the CSA states were overthrown as they acted to secede themselves. This cannot be said of the primary participant in the federal government for those states either - their congressional delegations. They supported and acted to secede, as did numerous other federal authorities, employees, and officers from the south. The whole of the southern action at most rejected only the northern remainder of the previous federal government after their departure, and that itself does not constitute the overthrow of a government.
It doesn't matter that it was only a portion of the whole.
Sure it does. When a portion of a whole leaves that whole, the whole is no longer intact for that portion to "overthrow." Potentially that portion could attempt to "overthrow" the remainder, but the south did not seek that and was content to coexist with it independently.
The national/federal government was properly elected
And that proper election included the southern congressional delegations, who left with the southern state governments.
That's not exactly true. Ratification of the Constitution required nine states' approval.
You mistake what I said. While nine were necessary, it was NOT necessary that each of the other states decide on the acceptance of any one of those ratifications.
Part of joining the national/federal government under its own terms meant agreeing that the federal government could both collect taxes and spend it on certain items.
Sure it does. But nowhere is it said that by "federal" ownership the constitution really means northern ownership. The desired action of The Lincoln following secession intended for the whole of the previous state's properties to transfer into the hands of that remaining portion that occupied the northern regions. I don't think Lincoln claimed the properties as exclusive to the northern states, but to the national/federal government, which he saw as made up of all of the states.
Semantical nonsense aside, The Lincoln was by all practical realities president of the northern states. His government exclusively consisted of and represented those states in all areas of property dispute and, in such disputes, sought by retention to deny those same properties to the governments of the southern states. His actions ammounted to a claim on all federal properties for the northern states alone.
Non sequitur fallacy.
Not at all. A non sequitur is a conclusion that does not logically follow from its premise. If one holds as a premise that the "union" was really the north alone, and that those properties were claimed for the "union," my conclusion follows without problem - since the north and the "union" were one in the same, to claimproperties for the union is to them for the north.
As I said, Lincoln considered the states rebelling provinces of the complete national/federal government.
He may call them whatever he likes, but the reality of the situation was otherwise. This in effect reduces The Lincoln's claim to nothing more than a semantical attempt to justify actions that he could not justify under the reality of the situation before him. Also, I sincerely think that had the war ended earlier and had Lincoln not been assassinated, the transition back to peaceful participation would have been much smoother. He always sought the preservation of the union and reconciliation.
One may always speculate as to what have been and your guess seems perfectly reasonable. It is not true though that The Lincoln always sought the path of reconciliation. His actions instigating sumter indicate the conscious choice of a path of violence on his part. The excessive and criminal acts of war carried out under his command by top union generals also indicate the presence of a sinful vengeance in their cause at many times.
Right. The existence of a fallacy doesn't cause the argument to be untrue
Not necessarily, it doesn't. But that cannot be stated as a general rule. Certain types of arguments simply do not contain a logical flow and therefore cannot be held out as valid arguments. Others may contain elements of distraction or name calling, yet retain elements of truth with or without those fallacious elements.
Already did. It was loaded with factual errors and outright fraud.
No it wasn't.
You ignored most of it.
The lurkers can make their own decision. Everything you say is becoming more and more over the top ridiculous. You cannot possibly believe it.
Tariffs were not a compelling reason for war to the people in the ACW period. There is absolutely no reason we should take your word otherwise over that of the Vice President of the so-called CSA.
Walt
Lincoln's actions as regarding Fort Sumter were brilliant.
Maury Klein in "Days of Defiance" likens his actions to those of a chess master.
The war wasn't of Lincoln's making. Seven states published secession documents before he even took office. They thought separation already a done deal.
But it wasn't.
You look at Lincoln's actions and say, "what a bum!" It's just sour grapes. Boo hoo hoo! Mean old Lincoln kicked our butts -- and made us look like fools -- and put you in the wrong also, per Robert Toombs --. Boo hoo hoo.
The same actions you decry of Lincoln's I say, "So what?"
History has judged. But you're welcome to your opinion. The facts are plain enough. Mr. Lincoln's reputation can withstand your lame, unfounded assault.
Walt
You didn't point out any northern hypocracy. Not unless you can find some precedent for Taney's Dredd Scott ruling in the law or Constitution. Some pretty sharp people at the time said there was none.
Unless you can do that, then yes, you are pretty much making excuses for the slave power.
Most of the time you sound a bit more reasonable than 4CJ, GOPcap or the almost Stand Watieish Thatdewd.
Don't blow it.
Walt
Fox's, the one that was accepted and put into action.
You can't be bothered to share Fox's estimate? I don't know that he made one, or that it was substantally different from General Scott's -- 5,000 regulars, 20,000 volunteers and six months preparation.
There was no plan to reduce the rebellion in Lincoln's mind in refusing to give Sumter up without a fight. He clearly had no idea what was in store - 4 years of conflict and over 600,000 dead.
It wasn't until after the attack on Fort Sumter that he called for volunteers.
This is all just so weird and pedantic. None of these issues is at any way at issue.
The rebels started the war by firing on Fort Sumter. President Lincoln acted honorably and above board in regard to the rebels. Lincoln did have and keep secrets. So what? Really most of the neo-reb rant (and certainly what you add to the discussion is just slightly above what Stand Watie brings) can be dismissed with a simple "so what?"
Walt
You didn't communicate any point very well, or with any honesty.
Walt
My interpretation is far better supported by the historical record than yours.
No it's not.
The data you use stops in about 1858.
What you use after that date is taken out of context or cannot be corroborated.
Walt
Source?
Honorable Michael Hahn
My dear Sir:
March 13. 1864.
I congratulate you on having fixed your name in history as the first-free-state Governor of Louisiana. Now you are about to have a Convention which, among other things, will probably define the elective franchise. I barely suggest for your private consideration, whether some of the colored people may not be let in---as, for instance, the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks. They would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewel of liberty within the family of freedom. But this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to you alone.
Yours truly
A. LINCOLN
You can find this letter in the "Library of the Americas" Lincoln, Speeches, Letters and Presidential Proclamations 1859-65 Don Fehrenbacher ed.
But it's been posted many times before.
To suggest that your interpretation is well supported in the record is just nonsense.
You can find almost this exact wording in Lincoln's last public address of 4/11/65.
Walt
I most humbly request a source for this particular quote.
"When you give the Negro these rights," he [Lincoln] said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood...
By the close of the war, Lincoln was reccomending commissioning black officers in the regiments, and one actually rose to become a major before it was over.
At the end of 1863, more than a hundred thousand had enlisted in the United States Colored Troops, and in his message to Congress the president reported, "So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any." When some suggested in August 1864 that the Union ought to offer to help return runaway slaves to their masters as a condition for the South's laying down its arms, Lincoln refused even to consider the question.
"Why should they give their lives for us, with full notice of our purpose to betray them?" he retorted."Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, or any incoming administration can save the Union."
To others he said it even more emphatically. "This is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated. Keep it and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it."
...For the newly freed and the newly enlisted black men who served in the Union army--in the end more than 179,000 of them---perhaps the greatest moment was when they they too, shared the experience of paying their respects, of marching past their presidents in their new uniforms, looking as smart and martial as any. On April 23, 1864, and again two days later, newly mustered black regiments in a division attached to the IX corps passed through Washington on their way to the Virginia front. They marched proudly down Pennsylvania Avenue, past Willard's Hotel, where Lincoln and their commander, Burnside stood on a balcony watching. When the six black regiments came in sight of the president they went wild, singing, cheering, dancing in the street while marching. As each unit passed they saluted, and he took off his hat in return, the same modest yet meaningful acknowledgement he gave his white soldiers. He looked old and worn to the men in the street, but they could not see the cheer in his breast as he witnessed the culmination of their long journey from slavery, and pondered, perhaps, what it had cost him to be part of it. Even when rain began to fall and Burnside suggested they step inside while the parade continued, Lincoln decided to stay outdoors. "If they can stand it," he said, "I guess I can."
--"Lincoln's Men" pp 163-64 by William C. Davis
Walt
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.