Posted on 03/10/2010 6:35:02 PM PST by Idabilly
Over the course of American history, there has been no greater conflict of visions than that between Thomas Jefferson’s voluntary republic, founded on the natural right of peaceful secession, and Abraham Lincoln’s permanent empire, founded on the violent denial of that same right.
That these two men somehow shared a common commitment to liberty is a lie so monstrous and so absurd that its pervasiveness in popular culture utterly defies logic.
After all, Jefferson stated unequivocally in the Declaration of Independence that, at any point, it may become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…
And, having done so, he said, it is the people’s right 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.
Contrast that clear articulation of natural law with Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, where he flatly rejected the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Instead, Lincoln claimed that, despite the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment, no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; [and] resolves and ordinances [such as the Declaration of Independence] to that effect are legally void…
King George III agreed.
(Excerpt) Read more at southernheritage411.com ...
So you would have us believe. Yet Scott initiated communications with Lincoln in October 1860, as evidenced by this November letter. And apparently continued his communications through November and December, as evidenced by this letter. There is no evidence that Buchanan or Floyd were unaware of the communications. Or that they objected to it. And Lincoln made it clear in his second letter that he relied on Scott to send him only information that he "deem it proper to make to me."
Lincoln didn't go behind Buchanan's back, and he wasn't planning a war. Except in your hyperactive imagination.
Um, they joined the Union army? See: Link
In early 1861, the Wide Awakes chapter of St. Louis became involved in paramilitary operations at the outbreak of the Civil War. The Republican Wide Awakes, the Democratic "Douglas Invincibles", and other parade groups volunteered en masse for the Union army.
Or the southern Minute Men? Don't have much to say about them.
The Minute Men were generally formed in response to the threat posed by Wide Awakes. Most of what I've been able to find in the old newspapers talks about groups of Minute Men forming in the South after Lincoln's election. The Wide Awakes date back at least to 1856.
From: "Young Men for War": The Wide Awakes and Lincoln's 1860 Presidential Campaign by Jon Grinspan [Link].
Here the story enters that strange vortex between election and war. Yet the Wide Awakes bridge that divide. While some companies disbanded after the election, hundreds of others continued to meet and offered to escort Lincoln down to Washington for his inauguration. They were politely refused, but the mere suggestion stoked southern fears. South Carolina fire-eaters began to organize "Minute Men" militias, not out of empty paranoia, but "as an offset of the Wide Awakes of the North." The creation of the Minute Men is often mentioned as a major stepping-stone on the road to disunion, but few historians note that they were a direct response to the Wide Awakes.
A better link for that last document is http://bss.sfsu.edu/waldrep/hist642/Lincoln%20article%20642.pdf
And you're saying none of the others joined the rebellion? Or attacked the federal troops as they passed through Baltimore in April 1861?
Big Republican threat in the South was there?
Rebellion? What rebellion?
I answered your question about what happened to the Douglas Invincibles. They joined the Union army as did the Wide Awakes. I don't doubt that some Minute Men would have joined Confederate forces. Stands to reason. They were formed to protect the South from things like Seward's threat of using the Wide Awakes. It was no idle threat -- you know, of course, how Blair used the Wide Awakes in Missouri in early 1861.
Or attacked the federal troops as they passed through Baltimore in April 1861?
Could be. You got any documentation of that?
Your link doesn't work.
Yeah, that good old Scott. He couldn't help himself revealing Lincoln's intention to reinforce Sumter. See Winfield Scott's message on page 236 of the OR, Series I, Volume I that reads in part:
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Washington, D. C., April 4, 1861.
Lieutenant Colonel HENRY L. SCOTT, A. D. C., New York:
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.
Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?
Your defense of despots like Lenin, Mao, and the Taliban is remarkable.
Congrats on the dumbest post I’ve read.
OMG
Incarcerating criminals is done to protect the natural rights of citizens.
In other news the sky is blue and 1+1 is still 2.
Non-Sequitur acts like the Coach who's team is behind 45-7, and argues with the referee over whether or not his time out was called before the two minute warning. The game is OVER.
It matters not. He fights facts served up by Rustbucket,Yourself,and other proud supporters of the ‘Lost Cause Brigade’..........
OK Smart Guy
Where does the General Government obtain this authority to regulate a God Given Right?
Does Mr. Madison have it wrong?
“Let a standing army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. . . To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.”
P.S
Tyrant
“The most ironic thing about the so-called Civil War is that its outcome has made slaves of us all.”
very...VERY true
Of course if a law violates the Constitution itself, then states can and must resist. But they still can not leave the Union.
One of the newspaper editorials about Lincoln's first inaugural speech said something similar. From the Baltimore (Maryland) Sun:
The inaugural as a whole, breathes the spirit of mischief. … The fact is as boldly stated as such a man as Lincoln dared to do it, that if the North will sustain him he will coerce and subjugate the South.
Your first ‘reply’ to yourself:)
“Article 1. Section 10. Sentence 1: No state shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance or Confederation. There it is in plain English.”
Your second ‘reply’ to yourself :)
Prove it.
Keep in mind - Seceding States are no longer bound by the Federal Constitution.
Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon March 2, 1861:
My residence is in the North, but I have never seen the day, and I never shall, when I will refuse justice as readily to the South as to the North. . . .
Sir, if there is, as I contend, the right of secession, then, whenever a State exercises that right, this Government has no laws in that State to execute, nor has it any property in any such state that can be protected by the power of this Government. In attempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrases “executing the laws” and “protecting public property” for coercion, for civil war, we have an important concession: that is, that this Government dare not go before the people with a plain avowal of its real purposes and of their consequences. No, sir; the policy is to inveigle the people of the North into civil war, by masking the designs in smooth and ambiguous terms.
The one the Southern states waged between 1861 and 1865. It was in all the newspapers.
So you're saying no government anywhere has the right to oppose a rebellion?
The only ‘rebellion’ is the one - going on between your ears.
Try this one.
Yeah, that good old Scott. He couldn't help himself revealing Lincoln's intention to reinforce Sumter.
The claim was made that Lincoln attempted to go behind Buchanan's back and give orders to Scott. That claim is false, not surprisingly, and these links help show it.
Yeah, that good old Scott. He couldn't help himself revealing Lincoln's intention to reinforce Sumter.
Should have looked at the page prior - Link Secretary Cameron's letter to Anderson: "Hoping still that you will be able to sustain yourself until the 11th or 12th instant, the expedition will go forward; and, finding your flag flying, will attempt to reprovision you, and, in case the effort is resisted, will endeavor also to re-inforce you." And the instructions to Fox himself: "Sir: It having been decided to succor Fort Sumter you have been selected for this important duty. Accordingly you will take charge of the transports in New York having the troops and supplies on board to the entrance to Charleston Harbor, and endeavor, in the first instance, to deliver the subsistence. If you are opposed in this you are directed to report the fact to the senior naval officer of the harbor, who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage, when you will, if possible, effect an entrance and place both troops and supplies in Fort Sumter."
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.