Posted on 01/23/2003 6:06:25 PM PST by one2many
Which is true.
His second premise is that Taney remained on the supreme(sic) court(sic) until he died, which was after the Merryman ruling. Which is also true.
His conclusion is that The Lincoln could therefore have not issued an order to arrest him.
I don't say that Lincoln could not, I'm saying that based on the evidence that he did not. You base your support on Ward Lamont's unsubstantiated account without explaining why, if Lincoln did sign a warrant, Lamont didn't go ahead and arrest Taney. Did he not know where the Chief Justice was? Did he have a history of not carrying out Lincoln's orders? Did he hold such esteme for the Chief Justice that he could not, in good conscience, carry out the order? Or did such an order not exist? After all there is no evidence other than Lamont.
You offer the speculations of Taney on arrest as support and then accuse me of having conclusions not following the premise. Where are the two connected? How would Taney know what Lincoln planned if only Lamont was in on it? What evidence did Taney have, and if he really thought that he would be arrested then how could he continue on the bench? And finally why have him arrested in the first place? What would that have accomplished? What would Lincoln have been able to do differently? Nothing at all.
You meant to say "the white people of Texas" correct?
Mexico did not support slavery, and the Mexican people who lived in Texas before and after it was taken from Mexico didn't support slavery either. Its funny how they don't count for much in these history debates.
No, Johnny Taliban is being treated better. He's locked up in a federal prison within driving distance of his family.
When I read about the Merryman case and how Lincoln abused the constitution, I immediately thought of the 20th hijacker from France. Applying todays terminology to 1861, Merryman could easily be considered a domestic terrorist. And rightly so.
A purse snatcher might say as much.
As to Wigfall's comments, in the CG, let me check that out. I appreciate you checking the sources.
I haven't found the CG in anything but Jpg. form. It can't be cut and pasted. Where did you find what you used, or did you type it in?
Walt
The states are not completely sovereign under the Constitution as the Supreme Court said decades before the ACW.
"Those powers are not given by the people of a single state. They are given by the people of the United States, to a government whose laws, made in pursuance of the constitution, are declared to be supreme. Consequently, the people of a single state cannot confer a sovereignty which will extend over them.
The convention which framed the constitution was, indeed, elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might "be submitted to a convention of Delegates, chosen in each State, by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification." This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the Convention, by Congress, and by the State Legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it, in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in Convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States; and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments.
-- McCullough v. Maryland, 1819
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government and in that character, they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and in many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory.
The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of of the United States are absolutely void. These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empire--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate."
--Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the majority opinion, Cohens v. Virginia 1821
Walt
There was no chance of the Morrill tariff becoming law if southern congressmen kept their seats. That is why the slave power insisted that a slave state be admitted for every free state -- so they could block any legislation they wanted.
The tariff issue was not an important or even periphial cause of the war. What compromises did Lincoln offer in his first inaugural address on the tariff? None. But he did offer to support a constitutional amendment protecting slavery.
You can see this in how little attention is given to tariffs -after- the start of hostilites. What were the issues in 1861-62? The return of fuguitive slaves, the revokation of the emancipation acts of Generals Butler and Fremont, the use of free blacks in the Union army, and so on. Lincoln worked in this time and spent a lot of effort on colonization and compensated emancipation. There is no noise on the tariff issue.
What about the famous letter to Greeley in August, 1862? Where are the references to "the policy I seem to be pursuing"? They involve slavery, not tariffs. When in 1864, Horace Greeley was advocating a peace conference, what mention was made of tariff issues? None. In answer to this agitation of Greeeley's, Lincoln offered to meet with rebel representatives with only the issue of reunion on the table.
And what talk of tariffs were there in the peace talks at City Point, VA in February, 1865? None.
Your position is just complete nonsense.
Walt
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.
Thanks, Wlat, this letter proves my position quite well, just as Abe's last speech does.
Well, you're certainly brazen.
What this letter shows is Lincoln applying a method he used quite successfully throughout his administration. He is going slowly, and seeing what people will accept.
As I've indicated before, he was preparing the public for the idea of black equality by saying that "so far as tested" black soldiers were just as good as white, and by saying that when you gave a black man a rifle, it meant that he would have the full value of his freedom and manhood.
Whatever else, we can see that Lincoln's ideas were far in advance of most other people of the day.
You try to minimize the import and impact of what Lincoln said and what he accomplshed. Other people won't be so partisan. They won't accept the nonsense you spout.
Walt
I typed it in, as can be told by a couple of my misspellings. Actually I have you to thank for my finding the Congressional Globe on the web. You had posted information from it a few weeks ago, so I undertook to find it then.
For others who might be interested in it, the old congressional records and speeches can be found at: Congressional Globe. I downloaded a few pages (click on the image of the old page and download), then printed out the pages of interest. I guess I could do OCR on the images, but I didn't try that.
Yes, I thought of that too. The relevance of history to some of today's events is amazing.
Merryman was apparently arrested for participating in actions ordered by the Governor, the Baltimore Mayor, and the Baltimore police that were designed to prevent more bloodshed from occurring in Baltimore. There had been riots in the streets (much of it caused by Southern sympathizers) when troops from other states moved through Baltimore, a not too common occurrence back when the armed coercion of states by other states was thought to be wrong. The troops had killed 12 citizens during the riot; 4 soldiers had been killed. The Governor, Mayor and the police board thought that additional Northern troops coming through the city would result in more deaths, so the burned the bridges to prevent that from happening.
Here is a letter authorizing the burning of bridges.
Baltimore, 20 April 1861, 12 1/2 A.M.By the authority of the Governor of Maryland and for the protection of the City of Baltimore, I hereby direct Col. Isaac Trimble to proceed up the Philadelphia R.R. and break down the bridges thereof up to the Susquehanna River, and also require all persons to refrain from opposition thereto.
George William Brown
Mayor of Baltimore
And from the the Mayor and Governor to Lincoln:
Sir:-A collision between the citizens and the Northern troops has taken place in Baltimore, and the excitement is fearful. Send no troops here. We will endeavor to prevent all bloodshed. A public meeting of citizens has been called, and the troops of the State have been called out to preserve the peace. They will be enough.
Sorry Walt, but that is simply not so. It passed the House with practically every single southern congressman opposing it. In the senate there was an even split IF every southerner opposed it. The VP would then break the tie for the tariff. You've been told of this many times, Walt, yet you spew the same nonsense and tell the same fibs.
Senator Robert Hunter of Virginia was there on the senate floor in 1861 fighting the thing. He admitted its passage was inevitable ever since Pennsylvania and the Republican Party united on the issue. He told his colleages "I believe it has been generally understood that the adhesion of the State of Pennsylvania to the Republican party was upon the condition of the passage of this Morrill-tariff bill. Still, I owe it, perhaps, to those whose opinions I represented on this committee, and to my constituents, to expose, if I can, the shallow pretexts on which it is sought to adopt this measure, and strip itt of those disguises in the shape of specific duties, under which its enormous taxation is hidden."
He then gave a thoroughly detailed speech outlining all the problems with the tariff, reiterating that "No, sir, this bill will pass. And let it pass into the statute-book; let it pass into history, that we may know how it is that the South has been dealt with when New England and Pennsylvania held the power to deal with her interests."
Contrary to your chronic dishonesty and habitual tendency toward fraud, Walt, the south knew the inevitable was coming with that tariff. They knew The Lincoln was planning to hammer it through at all costs. They knew that it would bring devastation to their economy. And they knew that they couldn't mount a majority to stop it in the senate, the only place remaining for it to gain approval as of December 1860.
That is why the slave power insisted that a slave state be admitted for every free state -- so they could block any legislation they wanted.
This was a tactic to keep sectional balance, Walt. It worked on making the senate evenly split between north and south. But it was NOT a guarantee to block legislation. When the senate votes split 50%-50%, the Vice President comes in and breaks the tie. The Lincoln's VP Hamlin would have voted for the tariff.
The tariff issue was not an important or even periphial cause of the war.
I suppose that is why Senators Wigfall, Toombs, and Hunter all spoke at length about their grievances with the tariff? Sorry Walt, but when you ignore the tariff issue you ignore history. You lie, fib, and defraud your way around that issue because you do not want to address its truth. Read Senator Hunter's speech if you doubt me. It starts on page 898 of the congressional globe for that session and goes on for seven more pages - ALL of it devoted to the tariff. Read that speech, Walt, and say it with a straight face that the tariff was not an issue. Then we shall all know if you are simply a liar or a mentally incompetant fool who cannot tell the difference between the fantasy he desires and the reality he observes.
What compromises did Lincoln offer in his first inaugural address on the tariff? None.
Exactly. And that is because The Lincoln wanted his tariff bill intact. He said so when he pledged to make it his top legislative priority two weeks earlier. Henry Adams also noted that The Lincoln intentionally framed his "compromises" during secession around slavery to gain political advantage even though the tariff issue was there.
But he did offer to support a constitutional amendment protecting slavery.
Yeah, the one he personally guided through congress and helped author. Read the southern responses to that amendment though, Walt. Wigfall, the last remaining deep south senator when it passed, said it would not help the situation because the yankees had already driven the first seven states away. He then pleaded with the yankees to cease their drum beating for war, let those seven states go peaceably, and both hope and actively work to retain the border states in the union by a similar offer of peace. He then told them that if they chose war, it would be a harsh and bloody war because, contrary to their assumptions at the time, the south would resist and defend itself from an invasion. The yankees ignored his prediction and sure enough it came true.
You can see this in how little attention is given to tariffs -after- the start of hostilites.
Your continual fibbing amazes me, Walt. Newspaper reports came in constantly after the first year of Morrill about its impact on trade. When the stats came out for '61 and '62, it became clear that Morrill had virtually killed off trade with Europe. The Times of London and the New York Times alike reported this fact and closely examined trends of declining imports related to it.
What were the issues in 1861-62? The return of fuguitive slaves, the revokation of the emancipation acts of Generals Butler and Fremont, the use of free blacks in the Union army, and so on. Lincoln worked in this time and spent a lot of effort on colonization and compensated emancipation.
Yeah. All those lovely civil rights minded actions by the non-racist Lincoln.
There is no noise on the tariff issue.
The bill was passed, Walt. The noise about it came not in policy but in effects of that policy - the gutting of trade with Europe.
What about the famous letter to Greeley in August, 1862? Where are the references to "the policy I seem to be pursuing"? They involve slavery, not tariffs.
Lincoln already had his tariffs at that time. Try again, Walt.
That letter clearly supports my position, and exposes your delusional apologetics for what they are: revisionist fabrications worthy of a Lyndon LaRouche schizophrenic conspiracy theory.
What this letter shows is Lincoln applying a method he used quite successfully throughout his administration. He is going slowly, and seeing what people will accept.
LOL - What that letter very clearly shows is Lincoln expressing his own opinion. As you pointed out earlier, it is a 'private' letter. And as ol' Abe pointed out himself in a public speech afterwards, it was his believed and avowed opinion. Apparently you believe ol' Abe was a pathological liar and conniving scoundrel who was incapable of ever uttering the truth either in writing or speech. I assume that he is being "honest Abe", and you, wlat, assume that he is "DIShonest Abe". Shame on you, you "Lincoln-Hater"! - LOL.
As I've indicated before, he was preparing the public for the idea of black equality by saying that "so far as tested" black soldiers were just as good as white, and by saying that when you gave a black man a rifle, it meant that he would have the full value of his freedom and manhood.
"preparing the public for the idea of black equality" - by making it very clear he was for no such thing when others were. He was willing to make exclusionary, bigoted exceptions for "the very intelligent", and give it as a reward to those who served as soldiers, though. It seems very clear from his statements that their children would not inherit the right though, unless they too served in the military, or passed one of his black "intelligence" tests. No wonder people like Frederick Douglass were "compelled by truth" to publically point out his prejudice against blacks, even at memorial services for him. I don't condemn Lincoln for his common race prejudice, historical perspective must be considered, it was the 1800's.
Whatever else, we can see that Lincoln's ideas were far in advance of most other people of the day.
He was ahead of some, way behind others. His political opponents, the ones who actually freed the slaves, rightfully considered him prejudiced and an obstacle. They often said so. Once again, that's why people like Frederick Douglass were "compelled by truth" to publically point out Lincoln's prejudice even at memorial services for him. As I've said, I don't condemn Lincoln for his common race prejudice, historical perspective must be considered, it was the 1800's.
You try to minimize the import and impact of what Lincoln said and what he accomplshed. Other people won't be so partisan. They won't accept the nonsense you spout.
LOL - You may call Lincoln's OWN words "nonsense", but that is your opinion. I believe that if he were here right now, he would call your revisionist fraud for what it is: "a specious and fantastical arrangement of words by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse."
For centuries, Spain had imposed essential slavery on the indigenous Indians of Mexico. This ended when Mexico became free of Spain. Slavery was abolished by the 1824 constitution of Mexico.
Oddly enough, the Texas Revolution started not over slavery but because Santa Anna had tossed out the 1824 constitution and become dictator. (Got to watch those rulers who tromp on constitutions.) The first flag of the Texans fighting Santa Anna in fact had the number 1824 emblazened on it. A number of Mexicans in Texas supported the fight with Santa Anna.
Who knows. The way things are going, Texas will eventually have an Hispanic governor as a result of the number of people crossing the border. Their time will come.
A truthful premise in a non-sequitur means nothing of its conclusion, as that premise, true or not, does not support the conclusion.
I don't say that Lincoln could not, I'm saying that based on the evidence that he did not.
Okay. Then if that is your conclusion, it is still a non-sequitur from your premises. It simply does not follow from either of them or from any combination or relation between them.
You base your support on Ward Lamont's unsubstantiated account
No. I base it on Lamon's account with corroboration in the knowledge of both Brown and Taney of the plot to arrest the latter.
without explaining why, if Lincoln did sign a warrant, Lamont didn't go ahead and arrest Taney.
It's a matter of historical guess as to why, but mine would be that somebody realized that arresting Taney would be over the line.
Or did such an order not exist? After all there is no evidence other than Lamont.
To the contrary. There is an account by George W. Brown, mayor of Baltimore, who spoke with Taney shortly after the Merryman ruling. According to his account of the conversation, both men had recieved knowledge of a consideration by the administration to arrest the chief justice.
You offer the speculations of Taney on arrest as support
According to Brown's report, it was not speculation. Taney spoke of having knowledge of an plan to arrest him that had since been rejected.
and then accuse me of having conclusions not following the premise.
I don't accuse you of that. I state it of your argument for a fact.
Where are the two connected? How would Taney know what Lincoln planned if only Lamont was in on it?
According to Lamon's account, he was not the only one in on it. I believe he mentions the presence of others. Any one of them could have advertantly or otherwise communicated the plot to where it eventually reached Taney. We do not know who, but we do know that Taney knew of information from somewhere revealing the plans for his arrest.
What evidence did Taney have
According to Brown's account, he had recieved word of it. Though the exact source of how that word got to him is unknown, that it was mentioned indicates that Taney was not simply speculating.
and if he really thought that he would be arrested then how could he continue on the bench?
According to Brown's report of the conversation, he had recieved word at the time that the danger had passed, meaning they had decided against arresting him.
And finally why have him arrested in the first place?
Because he was issuing rulings that declared The Lincoln's actions unconstitutional.
What would that have accomplished?
For one, it shuts up a judge who is causing constitutional problems for The Lincoln's war efforts.
What would Lincoln have been able to do differently?
Conduct his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus without having to ignore court rulings telling him that doing so was unconstitutional.
So you should be able reference Tariffs in the Statements of Secession from the various states, in which they list their reasons for seceding right? I think Walt posted some of these earlier to refute your claim that tariffs were an important issue.
Would you mind posting a confederate state's Secession Ordinance or other Secession statement that mentions tariffs? Otherwise, the tariff issue as a cause of secession becomes moot, and you would be well advised to stop raising it.
I also prefer the historical facts and defy you to show even one single piece of evidence for your oft asserted yet never substantiated allegations of dishonesty against myself and the other southerners on this forum.
IMO, calling yourself a capitalist is a form of intellectual dishonesty, since you spend most of the time defending the confederacy. Perhaps you should study up on the concepts of free labor vs. slave labor as they applied to 19th century America, and then either change your name or switch sides.
So you should be able reference Tariffs in the Statements of Secession from the various states, in which they list their reasons for seceding right? I think Walt posted some of these earlier to refute your claim that tariffs were an important issue.
Would you mind posting a confederate state's Secession Ordinance or other Secession statement that mentions tariffs? Otherwise, the tariff issue as a cause of secession becomes moot, and you would be well advised to stop raising it.
I also prefer the historical facts and defy you to show even one single piece of evidence for your oft asserted yet never substantiated allegations of dishonesty against myself and the other southerners on this forum.
IMO, calling yourself a capitalist is a form of intellectual dishonesty, since you spend most of the time defending the confederacy. Perhaps you should study up on the concepts of free labor vs. slave labor as they applied to 19th century America, and then either change your name or switch sides.
In a way, I suppose. But California had that status on questionable grounds for something like a month or two. Texas, by comparison, had that status with international diplomatic recognition and an operating government for the decade prior to its annexation.
And before that they belonged to Mexico. May we assume that Mexico didn't give them up willingly?
No they didn't, but the circumstances also differ for each. Texas' independence was won during the Mexican rebellions of 1836 following the seizing of power by Mexican dictator Santa Anna. It was one of the many states of Mexico to resist Santa Anna's repeal of the 1824 Constitution and, during that resistence, declared and won its independence. During that revolution, Texas was politically aligned with participants in similar resistance efforts in provinces across Mexico. After their victory they even sent naval support to the Yucatan to help other provinces in their fight against the dictator. The issue was accordingly not one of Mexico giving them up, but the dictator in charge of Mexico giving them up. And if you recall your history, that dictator was back in power in the late 1840's and tried again to claim Texas territory as his own.
After all the United States did fight a war with Mexico over the matter.
They fought a war that began with Santa Anna's violation of the Texas southern boundary. That war expanded and resulted in the territorial acquisitions to the west.
LOL - What that letter very clearly shows is Lincoln expressing his own opinion.
You are slightly more credible than Stand Watie.
Walt
Lincoln already had his tariffs at that time. Try again, Walt.
The idea we were discussing was the breaking of the Union. The idea was to restore the Union. There seems to be virtually no discussion of the tariff when restoration of the national authority throughout the country is mentioned.
Your position is complete nonsense. It's not supported in the record.
And your response I quote above can only be seen as an attempt not at honest discussion, but Nazi/Soviet style disinformation.
Walt
Happily. See the Georgia declaration of causes (one of the four states to do so). It speaks of the tariff over several paragraphs.
I think Walt posted some of these earlier to refute your claim that tariffs were an important issue.
If he did, I do not recall seeing it. He did attempt to downplay the Georgia declaration's tariff statements. He called them brief and negligable when in fact they encompass several paragraphs. He also overstated slavery in those documents. It appears in only those four declarations of causes, though he made it sound as if every single state cited it.
Would you mind posting a confederate state's Secession Ordinance or other Secession statement that mentions tariffs?
None of the 11 ordinances mentions either the tariff or slavery as a cause. Georgia's declaration mentions both. Here's the tariff part from it:
"The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all. All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success."
IMO, calling yourself a capitalist is a form of intellectual dishonesty, since you spend most of the time defending the confederacy.
Not in the least. As this tariff discussion no doubt indicates, the southerners sided with the capitalist position of free trade. Northerners sided with protectionism, economic intervention, government subsidies, and the sort. They also drew many fans of their cause from the far left, including Karl Marx himself.
Perhaps you should study up on the concepts of free labor vs. slave labor
I already have, actually. It goes without saying that neither labor system was particularly capitalist or desirable. Beyond labor though (which, unless you are Karl Marx, is NOT the entirity of economics and far from it), one side of the conflict was clearly oriented toward capitalist markets and the other toward interventionist markets.
A split is a failure, of course. It's not baseball. A tie doesn't go to the runner in voting.
There were a number of protectionists in the north, in any case. There were not enough votes to carry the Morrill tariff if southerners had kept their seats.
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.