Posted on 07/26/2006 3:22:50 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) - July 19, 2006 - A University of Illinois researcher had discovered a fourth copy of a rare letter Abraham Lincoln had written by to the nation's governors in 1861.
The letter John Lupton found Tuesday in the Lehigh County Historical Society's holdings was one Lincoln wrote as part of an unsuccessful ratification process for a constitutional amendment Congress adopted during the term of his predecessor, President James Buchanan, that would have made slavery the law of the land.
The president remembered for abolishing slavery had been willing to push the amendment as "kind of a carrot to the Southern states" if that would preserve the union, said Lupton, associate director of the Papers of Abraham Lincoln Project of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.
"But even by that point, it was too late. By that time, the Southern states felt Lincoln's election was an affront," Lupton said. In fact, the letter discovered in Allentown was addressed to "His Excellency the Governor of the State of Florida," which had seceded from the union two months earlier.
Until Tuesday, only three of the letters were known to have survived. "It's a very cool document," Lupton said.
Joseph Garrera, the historical society director, said he will consult with the society's board to determine the best way to display the document and try to figure out exactly who donated the letter.
But in all his talk about preserving the Union he also made it clear that no violence would occur without the south initiating it. Planning a dual front is not in keeping with that.
Could it be that once a party breaks the terms of a contract, as Washington did, it behooves the other party to remove himself from the transaction.Interesting claim, since all the seceding states (including those which attacked federal installations) did so before Lincoln was sworn in.
That's not true. North Carolina seceded May 20th, 1861. Abraham St. Lincoln was sworn in March 4th, 1861. March comes before May most years.
It was not defined by law.
It existed to be sure but it was not written as law of the land.
There I believe lies the difference, Lincoln offered the south a Chance to make it the law of the land, they refused and legalized it in the Confederacy.
You are mistaken. Slaves were chattel property, same status as cattle or livestock and thusly the institution was considered "covered" by Constitutional guarantees of private property ownership. Today, we view the slaves as though they were an equal human, but most Caucasians of that time did not. Simple color made them "not equal". Refer to the treatment of all peoples of color in that era for proof.
Your position is validated only from today's perspective interjected upon Nineteenth century life. It took a war to revise that old philosophy.
Show me one law that legally describes the condition of slavery?
It can't be done. There was no legal definition of slavery in the United States government until after the Civil war.
By The way, you have proved my point indirectly. Lincoln offered the South a legalization of slavery to force a national debate and a vote that they knew they would not and could not win.
Just like abortion and all those other things the democrats have forced upon us, slavery would never be legalized through normal means.
He's likely never heard of a u-boat in a Galveston park, either.
That's because he never read "Yacts vs. Subs".
By no means. The "root cause" of a war can lie very deep indeed. "Root causes" are distinguished from surface causes. Historians who speak of slavery as a "root cause" of the war are trying to explain how it was that the US became divided into two hostile camps, rather than the specific circumstances that sparked the war.
Slaves were chattel property, same status as cattle or livestock and thusly the institution was considered "covered" by Constitutional guarantees of private property ownership.
There were abolitionists who argued that the Constitution and laws actually forbade slavery. That was to be sure very much a minority point of view.
The anarchist Lysander Spooner, beloved by neo-confederates for his attacks on Lincoln, wrote a book on the subject. It's a curiousity, since Spooner didn't believe that the Constitution was a binding authority, but if one values Spooner's contributions, his view on this should also be considered.
The larger point is that there wasn't one unified 19th century opinion on race and slavery. Even if there were it wouldn't be immune from criticism. If you criticize present day thinking about this or that issue, there's no reason why one can't do the same for past positions on social or political questions.
People at the time understood that, and that helps to explain why slaveowners were so terrified of the abolitionist movement.
for dixie partisans the war was a battle for FREEDOM from a faraway government which southerners increasingly viewed as intrusive & potentially dictatorial. they wanted OUT of the union AND were willing to die to be FREE. (the soldiers,sailors & marines of the CSA saw themselves as being exactly the same as the heroes of 1776.)
for unionists, the war was to prevent the union being divided. dedicated unionists were prepared to die to prevent the south departing. (MANY thousands of those BRAVE union boys DIED BRAVELY in a POOR CAUSE.)
it really was NO MORE complicated than that.
99% of EITHER side cared NOT a DAMN about "the pitiful plight of the slaves". (BOTH sides SHOULD have cared. they DID NOT care!)
99% of Americans wouldn't have fought a SKIRMISH over slavery in 1861. hardly ANYONE would have fought a WAR that killed a MILLION people over the DYING "peculiar institution" even in 1864. (furthermore, veterans on BOTH sides would have lol AT you had you told them that that was what the war was about!)
all this talk of "slavery was a major cause of the war" is in a word: BALDERDASH (and/or: a KNOWING LIE, told NOW, by sanctimonious,REVISIONIST, DAMNyankee, LEFTISTS!)
free dixie,sw
it was lincoln's WAR & the blood of a MILLION Americans was/IS undeniably on HIS hands.
free dixie,sw
Lincoln was not the only party to the contract. The contract was between the people and the government. Of, by and for the people. It was broken and has since been trashed. Do you think the present government has overstepped its bounds? What limit do you put on those bounds? If a state in the 1860's felt that the government had overstepped those bounds, broken that contract, how much overstepping is required by you to consider the contract broken?
Is the contract broken now?
In what way.
Sovereignty over the states. Powerful central government. Trying to lead a nation of states with a handful of power brokers in Washington. Control of states' laws. Usurping the 9th and 10th Amendments. Now I know what you are going to say: without the central power slavery would still be among us. I disagree and so did R.E. Lee in his letter. For no other reason, however, the central power has completely screwed up the idea of self government. The CSA saw that and dissented.
That point is moot, but Article IV, Section 2 should satisfy your desire; the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted to BAN any property ownership of slaves. As was referenced upthread by Non-Sequitur, I would also refer to Scott vs. Sanford.
Slaves were deemed "property"; "CHATTEL", as in "chattel slavery" has its root from "CATTLE". Owning cattle or livestock wasn't mentioned in the Constitution as a specific legal right either - neither are the conditions describing livestock ownership defined, but domesticated animals were considered a protected "property" of their "rightful" owners.
The SCOTUS of that day believed property ownership of slaves was a legitimate Constitutional right and ruled thusly to protect it.
failing that, slavery should have been outlawed EVERYWHERE sooner, rather than later. slavery was IMMORAL;nobody today defends it, thus "harping on it" is a SIGN that the "harper" is out-of-touch with REALITY.
and YES, i know ALL you DYs & SCALAWAGS would rather forget that the DYs didn't plan to EVER free THEIR slaves, but only to "beat on" the south about southern slaves.
DYs have forever been MEAN-spirited, sanctimonious, HYPOCRYTES & false.
free dixie,sw free dixie,sw
BABY-MURDER, "gay marriage", "gun control", "busing" & "separate but equal" are just a FEW of those MISTAKES!
free dixie,sw
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due
The person who escaped such service or labor had to be returned to the party to which the labor or service was due.
That implies more then anything recognizing some sort of legal contract between the party due the labor or service and the person in labor or service to the party.
Legally these would be Apprentices of a guild or a union, indentured servants and debtors working off a debt through service to those that loaned them the money, not slaves. Especially if you believe that slaves were property and no more then cattle or chattel, they could not therefore be considered as persons and would be not be legally bond to a two party contract they could not have entered into any more then a horse or a cow could enter such a contract
The Thirteenth Amendment does not ban any property ownership of slaves, it abolishes the practice of slavery or involuntary servitude except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted.
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.