Lincoln: An invented hero

National Post via Canada.com ^ | October 30, 2012 | Kevin Gutzman

[EveningStar]

The Abraham Lincoln of popular perception is a mythological figure. He has little to do with the actual 16th president.

[donmeaker]

I will grant that you have an odd view of the term “winner”.

[donmeaker]

To start with, the 14th amendment came before the 16th amendment.

I have previously noted your difficulty with terms like “before” and “after”.

[x]

In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, “It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw.”

I'd say they understood that the system might fail, and this would leave the states independent, but it's possible that Lodge goes too far in ascribing to the founders a definite belief that states could simply pull out at their own wish whenever they wanted to.

Lodge didn't believe that the secessionists of 1860 (or 1830) were right. From the same book:

When South Carolina began her resistance to the tariff in 1830, times had changed, and with them the popular conception of the government established by the Constitution. It was now a much more serious thing to threaten the existence of the Federal government than it had been in 1799, or even in 1814. The great fabric which had been gradually built up made an overthrow of the government look very terrible; it made peaceable secession a mockery, and a withdrawal from the Union equivalent to civil war.

[x]

Do a word search on the word "slave" in the following link. It only appears in Texas, Alabama and Virginia articles.

Uh, du-uh. Some of those are just ordinances announcing a dissolution of ties to the United States. They don't give reasons of any sort.

If you look at the declarations of the causes of secession from some of the states, slavery is quite prominent. Link

And this is surprising in a way. Southerners convinced themselves that secession was right because they saw the North "enslaving" them, so one would expect them to avoid using the word "slave." That they didn't is a sign that slavery was an unavoidable reason for secession.

[OneWingedShark]

Any tax is a threat against your freedom if you don’t pay the tax. That is the nature of taxes. Government legitimacy is required to make a tax legitimate.

It is the legitimacy of such government, and indeed taxes, which merits careful consideration.

One of the things that severely degrades the legitimacy of our government is the lack of standing you and I have, by default; in short, I cannot challenge a law as contra-constitutional unless I first break the law and then defend myself in court as the accused -- this makes my challenge dependent on the implicit acknowledgment of that law's authority and therefore legitimacy. Another thing that indicates our government's illegitimacy is, as Waco showed,the readiness and willingness for the wholesale slaughter of the accused, and the refusal to investigate/punish those who participated in said slaughter. Fast & Furious completely illustrates this point in that it is (a) State sponsored terrorism, (b) unauthorized acts of war, (c) accessory to [another] slaughter, (d) Treason... and yet the government has done all of nothing in pursuing justice.

[OneWingedShark]

Actually, the northern states did acknowledge the persons of African heritage as fully human, which is why they and the people of the United States passed the 14th Amendment- and forced the conquered southern territories to agree to it as the price of resuming position as states in the Union.

There's an inconsistency here: if the south was conquered, that means that their secession was indeed valid and they were warred upon by an aggressive northern Union; but you have asserted the invalidity of secession as the justification for the aggression, have you not?

[OneWingedShark]

Since I've never seen such an assault on the 14th Amendment before, am wondering now, does anyone else understand what Talisker is talking about?
For example, can someone quote those words in the 14th Amendment which seem to be causing Talisker such heartburn?

The 14th Amendment is a big blow against State Sovereignty. How?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

What this does is conflates things it says: Born_In_US_Jurisdiction(Person) --> Citizen(Person, US) and Citizen(Person, State); they have pressed the logical fallacy A --> B = B --> A so that Citizen(Person, US) --> US_Jurisdiction(Person) thereby denying any jurisdiction to the states [and, incidentally making the claim that foreign-earned income is taxable].

[donmeaker]

The secession was invalid. In pretending to an illegal secession the southern states gained no legitimacy, and they were recognized by no foreign states. In making war against the United States, the state governments were in insurrection, and the acts of such a state government were invalid and illegal. Their insurrection was defeated, and the US territory they temporarily controlled was conquered.

[donmeaker]

All governments pursue a limited number of the charges that can be pursued. That our government like all other governments also pursues a limited number of cases does not make it illegitimate.

There is no power given to the federal government to use terrorism. Acts of terrorism committed by federal executive officials are not those of the government, but rather those of the executive officials, individually or severally. That is why those officials can be prosecuted. Such acts do not impact or affect the legitimacy of the federal government.

By contrast, illegal acts by a state government, passed by the legislature, and ratified by the governor can remove legitimacy from the state government. Illegal acts passed by a convention of the people, elected for that purpose, can do the same thing.

[OneWingedShark]

The secession was invalid.

I would disagree. The States were not bound to be in perpetual union to the Constitution, by the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence clearly states that it is the right (and duty) of the people to "to throw off such [Despotic] Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" when a government becomes tyrannical.

Clearly a government that rejects the right of States, who have voluntarily joined, and which have reserved all rights not expressly given* (which includes withdrawal) must be considered tyrannical. (* Amendment 10)

In pretending to an illegal secession the southern states gained no legitimacy, and they were recognized by no foreign states.

Their secession cannot be held to be illegal without invalidating the central tenant of the Declaration of Independence, to do this destroys the legitimacy of the government from which they were in secession.

In making war against the United States, the state governments were in insurrection, and the acts of such a state government were invalid and illegal.

The United States as in the federal government, or as in the several states? If the former then it cannot be held to be treason, if the latter then it is treason. (The definition for treason contains pluralities, if it meant the federal government then it must be singulars.)

Their insurrection was defeated, and the US territory they temporarily controlled was conquered.

You miss the point entirely: you cannot conquer friendly (your own) territory. You can retake it, or liberate it, but military conquest is fundamentally different.
con·quer - verb (used with object)
1. to acquire by force of arms; win in war: to conquer a foreign land.
2. to overcome by force; subdue: to conquer an enemy.
3. to gain, win, or obtain by effort, personal appeal, etc.: conquer the hearts of his audience.
4. to gain a victory over; surmount; master; overcome: to conquer disease and poverty; to conquer one's fear.

[donmeaker]

Of course court cases only resolve controversies that exist, rather than cruise about looking for trouble.

There is one law, the 1867 anti-injunction act which forbids court cases contesting the validity of tax law until the tax has been paid. The recent Roberts decision had to hold that the Obamacare law assertion that it was a penalty, not a tax permitted the court to handle the case, or else some schmuck would have had to either pay the tax and then sue, or would have to not pay the tax, and then be prosecuted by the IRS.

That several state attorneys general had filed suit against the US, requesting resolution stood in their favor, and against your assertion that you have to break the law and then defend yourself in court.

Even if you did have to defend yourself against an unconstitutional law, what of it? If you feel sure of your position, and it has not previously been ruled upon, then you should not feel oppressed by that. The alternative is to have no law at all, and others could use that to oppress you, and in that case you would have no recourse. The smallest minority is the individual, and court procedures offer the greatest protection of individual rights, compared to majority votes in the legislature, or a single person defending against a mob.

[OneWingedShark]

There is no power given to the federal government to use terrorism. Acts of terrorism committed by federal executive officials are not those of the government, but rather those of the executive officials, individually or severally. That is why those officials can be prosecuted. Such acts do not impact or affect the legitimacy of the federal government.

Wow - You are utterly off base. Just because the act is illegitimate does not mean the act cannot be done.
Your view of the government means that the government literally cannot do any wrong. It is very close to elevating the government to the position of God.

[donmeaker]

I refer you to your definition 2. to overcome by force; subdue:

The states in insurrection, made war, declared themselves the enemy of the United States, though a domestic kind of enemy, and lost.

[donmeaker]

Of course, holding a government is limited in its authority is the opposite of asserting that the government is G-d.

We are all familiar with cases where government officials act in excess of their legal authority, but I will offer a hypothetical: Legal authority is not extended to rape because an individual police officer commits rape. That would be giving the government G-d like powers. Rather, the police officer committing rape would be subject to prosecution for his crime, and his connection with the government would not be justification.

[donmeaker]

The perpetual union of the articles of confederation created the people of the United States. The people of the United States did not agree to secession, so such pretended secession in 1861 was not legal. Insurrection pursued with the cover of authority by the illegal pretended insurrection does not make the persons pursuing insurrection less of an enemy. Enemies can be foreign or domestic as stated in the constitution.

The Declaration of Independence explained that the government of England had made war on the colonies, and because of that, the colonies had the right and duty to protect their people by becoming independent states. The Union of those states created the people of the United States.

[central_va]

Again. Get the hell away from me you lunatic. Stupidity like your is dangerous to the republic. You are just a useful idiot on the road to serfdom.

[central_va]

Reading the idiot Donmeaker’s posts is there any wonder why the country is teetering ion the edge of despotism? He is a statist thug.

[BroJoeK]

BJK post #97: "...I've never seen such an assault on the 14th Amendment before... does anyone else understand what Talisker is talking about?"

donmeaker post #99: "He is upset that the Slave Power is no longer permitted to use state governments to deny the protections of citizenship to persons of African heritage. "

OneWingedShark post #107: "The 14th Amendment is a big blow against State Sovereignty...
What this does is conflates things it says: Born_In_US_Jurisdiction(Person) --> Citizen(Person, US) and Citizen(Person, State); they have pressed the logical fallacy A --> B = B --> A so that Citizen(Person, US) --> US_Jurisdiction(Person) thereby denying..."

So the 14th Amendment conflates a logical fallacy?
Well, now I'm glad that's all cleared up...

;-)

[central_va]

If there was another secession movement would you take up arms against that state(s)? Would you kill your one time fellow citizens that were deprecating their independence? Well would you?

[central_va]

deprecating=declaring (spell checker issue)