Posted on 07/04/2011 6:57:54 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
In his Gettysburg Address, …… Abraham Lincoln found the precise words to describe America’s dire situation. Here they are. Hear them, and savor them. “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war.
We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
“But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.
The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom— and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”…..
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Ever wonder why there are those who insist the South seceded only due to slavery? (Rhetorical only:)
Darn straight! When you read the DOI do you ever think that the Southern states should have stockpiled some food and ammo and seceded again?!
Those were the Acts of Secession, not the Declarations of Causes that were issued by South Carolina, Georgia, Texas and Mississippi, which went into detail. You can find them all here
Those were the Acts of Secession, not the Declarations of Causes that were issued by South Carolina, Georgia, Texas and Mississippi, which went into detail. You can find them all here
If you'll read Georgia's Declaration of Causes (not Georgia's Ordinance of Secession), at the link you've so kindly provided, you'll see that my post #119 is extracted from that very source.
If your point is that there is a difference between Ordinances of Secession and Declarations of Causes - yep, I do know the difference.
Lincoln had less right to put down the "rebellion" than King George III had to fight the 'rebellious' colonists.
King George OWNED the colonies. The colonists didn't seem to care. They fought and won and gained freedom.
Lincoln and the union didn't own the States. The States created the union. The States were free to leave the union. After fighting so hard to get free from an oppressive government during the revolutionary war, do you really thing the States were going to create a new government that they couldn't get out of if they wanted to? Why would they put such a chain upon themselves after all they had gone through? The logic is lacking there. That is why some states (like Virginia, New York and Rhode Island) included in their ratifications the right to resume their delegated rights if they so chose.
There was no right to secede...not even in Texas or Alaska. See Texas v. White (1869) or Kohlhaas v. State (2006)
And if some court declared that there really is no right to own a gun, then I suppose you will agree with them? Sheesh. The courts are not meant to be the creators, destroyers or redefiners of rights.
His actions were constitutionally justified
They were not. Nowhere in the constitution is the president given the power to attack States. The government is given the power to put down rebellions like the whiskey rebellion, but not the power to force sovereign States that have left the union to come back at the point of a bayonet.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/secede?vm=r
And from another site: Secession is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or political entity.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Secede?vm=r
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes 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, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
When they dissolved the political bands they were withdrawing and reassuming their power.
As John Milton said:
"The power of kings and magistrates is nothing else but what is only derivative, transferred, and committed tot hem in trust, the right remaining in [the people] to reassume it to themselves, if by kings or magistrates it be abused."
'Maryland & Virginia he said had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. N. Carolina had done the same in substance.'
'He [Mr. Pinkney of S. Carolina] wd. himself as a Citizen of S. Carolina vote for it [a ban on the slave trade (if proposed by his State)].'
Newport, Rhode Island was the largest slave trading city in the colonies. The John Brown House in Providence, the meetinplace of the historical society, was named for an American patriot, but Brown was also a slave trader and so was his brother Nicholas, for whom Brown University was named. Peter Faneuil (for whom Faneuil Hall was named) was also a slave trader. John Hancock made money in the slave trade.
In 1774, the citizens of South Carolina and North Carolina passed laws forbidding any importation of slaves. Virginia and Maryland also passed laws banning the importation of slaves. In contrast, the US constitution passed laws forbidding the US congress from banning the slave trade. This was a direct result of the influence of New England Slavers who stood the most to gain from it.
DVSST replied: They were not. Nowhere in the constitution is the president given the power to attack States. The government is given the power to put down rebellions like the whiskey rebellion, but not the power to force sovereign States that have left the union to come back at the point of a bayonet.
DVSST is correct.
RM - If, as Lincoln claimed, the Southern states were still in the Union, he had no Constitutional authority to invade any state. See my post #139 to you for Madison's and Hamilton's statements concerning use of force/coercion against a state. VA, AR, NC & TN seceded due to Lincoln's use of force/coercion, not slavery.
If the seceded States were no longer in the Union (and they weren't) Lincoln acted Unconstitutionally b/c the power to declare war rests with Congress, not the Executive. Lincoln did not consult Congress before his invasion of Virginia.
So, either way Lincoln acted Unconstitutionally.
I always learn something from these threads:) Here's what I've found:
The North then demanded compensation for the loss of this very thriving trade, and the South readily conceded it by granting them the monopoly of the coasting and carrying trade against all foreign tonnage. In this way it was settled that the Slave Trade should be abolished after 1808. Diary of H.C. Clarke
We at the North are certainly responsible before God for the existence of slavery in our land. The Committee of the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, consisted of Messrs. Rutledge, of South Carolina, Randolph, of Virginia, and three from the Free States, viz: "Messrs. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, Gorham, of Massachusetts, and Ellsworth, of Connecticut. They reported, as a section for the Constitution, that no tax or other duty should be laid on the migration or importation of such persons as the several States should think proper to admit; not that such migration or importation should be prohibited. This was referred by the Convention to a committee, a majority of whom being from the Slave States, they reported that the Slave Trave be abolished after 1800, and that a tax be levied on imported slaves. But in the Convention, the Free States of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, voted to extend the trade eight years, and it was accordingly done; by means of which it is estimated there are now at least three hundred thousand more slaves in the country than there would otherwise have been. Rev. Dr. N. Adams, Essex Street Church, Boston, January 4, 1861 (Diary of H.C. Clarke)
From the Report of the Joint Committee on the Harpers Ferry Outrages January 26, 1860:
The next aspect in which the subject arose was in regard to the suppression of the African slave trade; and here again the subject of difference was settled in a wise spirit of conciliation and mutual concession.
The proposition originally reported to the convention was in these words: "The migration or importation of such persons as the several states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the legislature prior to the year 1800, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such migration or importation at a rate not exceeding the average of the duties levied on imports." Elliott's Debates, vol. 1, p. 292. On the 25th of August 1787, it was moved to amend the report, by striking out the words "the year eighteen hundred" and inserting the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight," which passed in the affirmative: Yeas–New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia–7. Nays–New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia–4. Rhode Island and New York did not vote on the question. Thus it appears that New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut voted to prolong the period during which the slave trade should be allowed.
On the question to agree to the first part of the report as amended, viz: "The migration or importation of such persons as the several states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the legislature prior to the year 1808," it passed in the affirmative. Yeas— New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia–7. Nays–New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia–4. Elliott's Deb. vol. 1, p. 295-6.
The course of Virginia on this subject, it is well known, was dictated by no friendly feeling to the African slave trade. She had prohibited it by her own laws as early as 1778, and George Mason, one of her delegates to the federal convention, refused to give his sanction to the constitution, among other reasons, because it failed to place an immediate interdict on the African trade.
So true.
Good stuff you got there. Thanks. :-)
In his July 4, 1861, “Message to Congress,” President Lincoln said "no choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government; and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation." Lincoln claimed "nothing was done beyond the constitutional competency of Congress." And decisions were made, Lincoln said, "trusting that Congress would readily ratify them."
If the south had considered to take the matter to the courts (which requires presenting evidence) rather than open insurrection, that weak argument could stand.
"Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
So in fact, you're both mistaken on that point. South Carolina had already committed acts against the Constitution and he was defending the union against open insurrection that Buchannon ignored.
http://www.civiced.org/index.php?page=multimedia_lincoln_john_patrick_transcript
No where in the Constitution does it say that states, confederated or otherwise, may attack other states or troops, fortifications, or other property belonging to the federal government. Secession is OPEN REBELLION against the the other states and the federal government. Your comment only concludes that Lincoln was totally justified in putting down the rebellion.
United States Constitution, Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Firing upon federal troops was encouraged by state governments such as South Carolina....southern states DID commit treason.
Insurrection would be within a state (I'm givin' ya a hint here). Not a single one of the Southern governors declared an insurrection in their state. Lincoln even tried his best to get Sam Houston of Texas to do so; offered ol' Sam some federal troops if he'd just declare a state of insurrection in Texas. Well, ol' Sam was a Union man, but he was an honorable man and told Lincoln to pound sand. Ol' Sam told Lincoln that secession was a matter for Texans to decide (9th Amendment) and when the Texans voted to secede they spoke through their voice, The State of Texas (10th Amendment), and She seceded.
You still haven't answered my question about the Northern slavocracy. Do you deny the individual fortunes Norhterner bankers, merchants, industrialists, shippers, etc., were amassing from cotton (slave) profits?
Before Congress adjourned, Lincoln was asked if he had anything they needed to be made aware of and he responded in the negative. At the same time, Lincoln was preparing for war. If you are under the impression that Ft. Sumter was the start of the war, you are mistaken. Not only did Lincoln's secretary, in writing, call it Lincoln's war, the USSC has affixed the beginning of the war on Lincoln:
The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates
Retroactive approval by Congress does not a constitutional act by the Executive make. The Constitution is very clear on where the responsibility for declaring war rests - with Congress, not the Executive.
Madison and Hamilton make clear the utter Unconstitutionality of invading any State.
Again, either way, Lincoln's acts were Unconstitutional.
And you say I'm the one grasping at straws in the dark? LOL!
If the south had considered to take the matter to the courts (which requires presenting evidence) rather than open insurrection, that weak argument could stand.
Where are the court cases filed by Lincoln or any of the Northern states? There aren't any. Open insurrection did not exist within (another hint) any of the states. Again, insurrection was not declared by a single governor.
So in fact, you're both mistaken on that point. South Carolina had already committed acts against the Constitution and he was defending the union against open insurrection that Buchannon ignored.
Rebellion and secession are two different things. I believe DVSST provided you with definitions earlier in the thread. And again, The war didn't begin with S.C. It was, according to Lincoln's secretary, in writing, Lincoln's war and USSC affixed the beginning of the war to Lincoln:
The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates
Again, States don't engage in treason, see previous post. States don't engage in rebellion, either. That's why Lincoln dreamt up the whole rebellions within SC, NC, VA, etc., gobbledygook. What part of The People of a State (9th Amendment) speak as one voice through their State (10th Amendment) do you not grasp? And again, the USSC affixed the opening of the war on Lincoln.
Rebellion, uprising or insurrection - “is a refusal of obedience or order. It may, therefore, be seen as encompassing a range of behaviors aimed at destroying or replacing an established authority such as a government or a head of state.”
Treason against the United States - “shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Might be time to break out your dictionary again. You were right that the war did not start with Fort Sumter. It started coming to a head during the 1850’s and peaked during Buchanan’s term. He claimed southern states didn’t have a right to seceed, but he sat on his hands:
South Carolina - December 20, 1860
Mississippi - January 9, 1861
Florida - January 10, 1861
Alabama - January 11, 1861
Georgia - January 19, 1861
Louisiana - January 26, 1861
Texas - February 1, 1861
“confederate states” formed - February 7, 1861
Lincoln’s Inauguration - Monday, March 4, 1861
Attack on Fort Sumter - April 12-13, 1861
Lincoln calls for troops - April 15, 1861
Virginia - April 17, 1861
Arkansas - May 6, 1861
North Carolina - May 20, 1861
Tennessee - June 8, 1861
The last four states had first all voted against secessionists. Their pro-slavery governors strong-arming tactics pushing out pro-unionists in favor of anti-unionists was the only way they joined the pro-slave states.
Threatening secession or secession due to free an fair election (individual, legislature, or state) = TREASON. Openly firing on federal ships, forts or troops & siezing federal property = INSURRECTION.
Pro-unionists attempt to break away from the confederacy in East Tennessee, but was suppressed by the confederacy. Over 3000 men suspected of being loyal to the Union were arrested and were held without trial. I’ll wager the pro-slavery confederates called that an insurrection.
“Texas was a temporary exception to the united front developing in the lower South for secession. Its governor, Sam Houston, was a staunch Unionist who refused to call his legislature into special session. As a result, Texas secessionists resorted to the irregular, if not illegal, expedient of issuing their own call for a January convention.”
http://www.civilwarhome.com/southernseccession.htm
“Lincoln’s War”??? ROFL! Buchanan was named as one of the main persons responsible for the escalation of hostilites and a primary cause of the Civil War. Since Lincoln cleaned up his mess and had cross-dressing Jeff Davis on the run, call it Lincoln’s war if it eases your bruised southern sympathies.
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington, April 15, 1861.
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
A PROCLAMATION
Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and now are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by law:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed.
The details of this object will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government, and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.
I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union, and in every event the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.
And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from date.
Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both houses of Congress.
Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers at twelve o’clock noon on Thursday, the fourth day of July next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as in their wisdom the public safety and interest may seem to demand.
In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
Secretary of State.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/lincolntroops.htm
Ironic coming from he who first contributed to the emergence of the Federal Leviathan more than anyone
No disrespect Abe, you’ve got some fine points I can identify with but I would prefer to take my inspiration from the founders to beat back that which pretty much made it’s bones first under your guidance
Isn’t it fascinating. The history is there, and it is clear. One side of a conflict arrogantly claimed a right and unilaterally exercised it at the expense and injury of the other, and of the honor and interests of the mutual parties.
A war was fought, and adjudications followed, and all redounded in favor of the union.
After all of that, and 150 years later, there are still some who can peer at a lemon and tell you it’s a peach.
I guess they wouldn’t be called Lost Causers if they didn’t...
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.