Posted on 04/14/2009 10:22:38 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
John Wilkes Booth shoots President Abraham Lincoln at a play at Ford's Theater in Washington.
Five days earlier, Confederate General Robert E. Lee had surrendered his army to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. The war was nearly over, although there were still Confederate forces yet to surrender. The president had recently visited the captured Rebel capital of Richmond, and now Lincoln sought a relaxing evening by attending a production of Our American Cousin starring Laura Keene. Ford's Theater, seven blocks from the White House, was crammed with people trying to catch a glimpse of Grant, who was rumored to be in attendance. The general and his wife had cancelled abruptly for an out-of-town trip.
Lincoln occupied a booth above the stage with his wife; Henry Rathbone, a young army officer; and his fiancýe, Clara Harris, daughter of New York Senator Ira Harris. The Lincolns arrived late for the comedy, but the president was in a fine mood and laughed heartily during the production. At 10:15, Booth slipped into the box and fired his .44-caliber single-shot derringer into the back of Lincoln's head. Rathbone rushed Booth, who stabbed the soldier in the shoulder. Booth then leapt from the president's box to the stage below, breaking his leg as he landed. He shouted, "Sic semper tyrannis!" ("Thus ever to tyrants!"--the Virginia state motto) and ran from the stage. There was a pause, as the crowd initially thought the unfolding drama was part of the production, but a scream from Mrs. Lincoln told them otherwise. The stricken president was carried from the box to a house across the street, where he died the following morning.
Booth was one of the most famous actors of his day, and Lincoln had seen him perform. He was a Maryland native with southern sympathies who hoped to aid the Confederacy by taking out the Union's political leadership in one night. With Confederate president Jefferson Davis still free and General Joseph Johnston's army still alive in the Carolinas, Booth thought the Confederate cause was not yet lost. He sent George Atzerodt to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson and Lewis Paine to assassinate Secretary of State William Seward. Atzerodt could not muster the courage to carry out his assignment, but Paine burst into Seward's home and stabbed him as lay sick in bed. Although seriously wounded, Seward eventually recovered.
LOL. A year and a half after "the war broke out". You make it sound as if it was his first act. That is really a stretch to call that a 'broken promise'.
And in point of fact, he didn't interfere with their slave laws. He didn't change a single one of them. With the Emancipation proclamation, he offered the rebellious states the opportunity to rejoin the union and keep their slaves just as before. When they refused, he used his authority as CiC in a time of war to declare their slaves to be contraband property used to support rebellion (which was quite true) and therefore subject to military confiscation. Those slave states (MD, DE, KY & MO) that remained loyal to the Union as well as areas of the Confederate states that had by then been returned to the jurisdiction of Federal courts, were exempt from the terms of the EP. They got to keep their slaves --- for a while anyway.
Now if you are speaking of the 13th Amendment that outlawed slavery across the land, it was passed by Congress in early 1865 but the President has no part in the amendment process -- although Lincoln did strongly support it and he forwarded as required by congress to the states along with his hopes that they would ratify it.
Not a stretch at all. A broken promise is a broken promise. But that is what politicians do best. As for war breaking out, were there no other alternatives left to Lincoln? Yes, he could have worked for some other solution to the southern states rather than secession.
Now if you are speaking of the 13th Amendment that outlawed slavery across the land, it was passed by Congress in early 1865 but the President has no part in the amendment process -- although Lincoln did strongly support it and he forwarded as required by congress to the states along with his hopes that they would ratify it.
Lincoln played a major role in getting that amendment passed. He was not some objective bystander who only did what congress told him to do.
The issue was really state rights. Lincoln choose to impose a federal solution. Lincoln was FDR before his time.
Then you must really be ticked off about that whole 13th Amendment.
When Lincoln made that promise he was not fighting a bloody rebellion and in need of a measure that would weaken the confederacy's ability to wage war.
As for war breaking out, were there no other alternatives left to Lincoln?
Lincoln didn't fire first.
Yes, he could have worked for some other solution to the southern states rather than secession.
Check your timeline. By the time Lincoln was inaugurated seven Southern states had already seceded.
The issue was really state rights.
A state's right to do what? And what had Lincoln said or done prior to the rebellion to suppress those rights?
Get elected.
I wasn't aware that a Constitutional presidential election was a violation of their state's rights.
What right did the 13 colonies have to reject their legal obligations to the British crown? If the South had won the war, this would be a moot point.
related topic:
Our American Cousin Revisited
Slate.com | 02/11/09 | Timothy Noah
Posted on 04/14/2009 2:22:18 PM PDT by Borges
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2229093/posts
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Please check you time lines. Seven states had seceded even before he took office. Numerous Federal installations including forts in those states had already been taken over by force thanks to out-going Sec of War Floyd who pre-positioning both weapons and commanders whom he thought would support secession in charge of those installations. Most of them did, and once facing local militias gladly handed control of the forts and arms over, changed their uniforms and went to the other side. Floyd, however, made a big misjudgment in assigning Maj. Anderson to Sumter. Anderson was both a southerner and from a slave owning family, but his first loyalty, like other Democrats in the military at the time such as Grant and Sherman, was to the Constitution of the United States. Anderson, like them, was a good soldier and he held his post to the very best of his ability.
Lincoln played a major role in getting that amendment passed. He was not some objective bystander who only did what congress told him to do.
Yes he did, thank God --- After all the horrible loss the nation suffered, the source of that suffering was finally ended. Would you rather after four years of terrible war caused by slavery he would still support that cursed institution? The time for the end of slavery had come.
Presidents don't call all the shots. Their opponents in defeat often dictate what the outcome would be. If the South had not gone for secession in 1860-61, I'd expect that Lincoln would have been a one-term president just like the previous eight before him were. Definitely, there would have been no further expansion of slavery during his presidency, (his one campaign promise. Perhaps, the Fugitive Slave Act might have been revised to take the unconstitutional onus away from private citizens, and perhaps Dred Scott would have been overturned with the opportunity to replace two Supreme Court justices. Maybe the Homestead Act would have passed as well as the transcontinental railroad. Beyond that, he would have been a place keeper until the war over slavery would have started at some point in the not distant future. It was bound to happen and even Jefferson knew that 50 years earlier.
But remember, the only reason Lincoln ever became president was because the radical southern secessionists wanted him (or any black republican)to be president.
The issue was really state rights. Lincoln choose to impose a federal solution.
If you think the South actually gave a damn about "States Rights" think again. They didn't give a damn about it when they pushed through the Fugitive Slave Act which was the first time that the Federal Judiciary acted upon individual citizens as opposed to the states, and they applauded the Dred Scott decision that totally obliterated State Laws ranging from basic citizenship to legal rights under state law that had existed since the founding.
The Slave Power (South) only gave a damn about States Rights when it came to being able to force their institution upon the rest of the nation. They were no different than the Democrats today --- all for the 'little man' (and making damn sure he stays 'little.')
None. They knew their actions were illegal and didn't pretend otherwise.
If the South had won the war, this would be a moot point.
True. But they didn't win, did they?
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..." Written by a man from the South.
True. But they didn't win, did they?
No, they didn't. History usually takes the course of the victor in war.
That's true.
No, they didn't. History usually takes the course of the victor in war.
And the losers usually write the myths to explain why they rebelled and why they lost. The Civil War is no different.
Yes, I do think the time for ending slavery was coming in the nineteenth century. But the change came too quickly. Slavery is an institution that has a history of millennia. Even the ancient democracies of Greece practiced slavery. The philosopher Aristotle approved of slavery for those people who were not able to control their own appetites. It is much too easy to impose our modern ideas on the past.
Lincoln was going to force a solution on the Southern States too quickly. That's why so many states seceded before he took office.
The Slave Power (South) only gave a damn about States Rights when it came to being able to force their institution upon the rest of the nation. They were no different than the Democrats today --- all for the 'little man' (and making damn sure he stays 'little.')
Both parties work both sides of the street. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus at the beginning of the war. I guess he thought any means justifies the end.
As for the "Slave Power", Washington and Jefferson were Southerners. Is that why we are supposed to demonized them today, as if none of their actions or ideas could be worthy of our respect?
That is also true of the winners. The victors usually write all the history books about the war. It is much too easy to impose our so called enlightened, modern ideas on the past.
Again, you jumble the timeline. Without secession, there was absolutely nothing Lincoln could have done about slavery where it existed even if that were his intention -- and it wasn't. He clearly stated that slavery was constitutional and the only way for the Federal government to do anything about it was via a constitutional amendment.
If the eleven confederate states had not seceded and kept their members in congress, it would have been impossible to get the necessary 2/3 majority in either house to approve such an amendment, and even more far fetched that 3/4 of the states would then ratify such an amendment if it somehow did make it through congress. In 1860, ending slavery via federal action was not in the realm of possibility. Only secession and war made it possible.
Lincoln's only promise was to stop further expansion of slavery to the territories and the federal government did have the power to do that, but there was no way he could touch slavery in the states where it existed.
Both parties work both sides of the street. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus at the beginning of the war. I guess he thought any means justifies the end.
Under the Constitution, the power does exist to suspend habeas corpus in times of emergency. The only question is can the President do it by himself, or does it require an act of congress to suspend. The answer to that question has never been resolved by the Supreme Court. When Lincoln acted to prevent the City of Washington from being cut off from the North, congress was not in session. When they returned, they approved all of his actions.
So get the point right. It is not unconstitutional to suspend habeas corpus. The Constitution provides for it in Article 1, Sec 9. The only question as to the legality of Lincoln's action is did he have to power to do it on his own. The Constitution is not clear on that point and the courts have never decided the issue.
As for the "Slave Power", Washington and Jefferson were Southerners. Is that why we are supposed to demonized them today, as if none of their actions or ideas could be worthy of our respect?
If you read the history of the day, the term 'Slave Power' came about in the 1850s and was that used to describe those politicians and people with tremendous influence who made the protection and expansion of slavery not only their their top issue, but their only issue, even to the point of being willing to destroy the Union rather than see any limitation on the institution of slavery. While most were indeed Southerners, there were more than a few Northerners who were deeply vested as well either financially or through other interests in protecting and expanding slavery who also were part of the 'Slave Power.'
It had nothing to do with Washington or Jefferson who both wanted to see slavery ended in this country and who both were firmly opposed to the expansion of slavery into the territories. Jefferson even wrote the first draft of the Northwest Ordinance which forbade slavery in those territories and was the source for Lincoln's stand on expansion. It was the Slave Power who rejected Jefferson and what he stood for, not Lincoln.
Obviously the Southern states did not see it that way. Unless you are claiming that they seceded in order to end slavery. And they did have a solution imposed upon them from the federal government.
The Constitution is not clear on that point and the courts have never decided the issue.
Well, in my opinion Lincoln did violate the constitution. And why not when he had a Congress to rubber stamp what he did. Where were the real debates in Congress without the Southern states?
We will never agree on the place of Lincoln in American history. For me he was merely the leader of a movement that meant to do good by ending slavery, but merely provoked a very bloody war.
The push for secession began in the 1830s in the deep South lead by John C. Calhoun, and the primary driver of that was the issue of of expansion of slavery to the territories. A series of compromises between the sections ensued, but after the Mexican War, the Texas annexation and the 1850 compromise, there was little wiggle room left for more compromise. The sides hardened, and with the passage of the Kansas Nebraska act in 1854, they turned into concrete.
The Whig party collapsed with the Kansas Nebraska act with the southern pro-slavery Whigs becoming Democrats. In the North (and West) the Whigs plus the anti-expansion, pro homestead Democrats, joined by the much smaller abolitionist segments formed the new Republican party based entirely on Free Soil principles -- i.e. no further expansion of slavery.
After Kansas-Nebraska, the sides were totally hardened. In the the free states, (outside of New York City BTW where many of the Slave Power held significant influence including the Wood brothers), general sentiment among the Republicans, and the majority of the Northern Democrats, was opposed to further expansion. They had said 'enough".
In the the Deep South Cotton states, expansion was considered a matter of survival. They understood by simple demographics that before long they would be hopelessly outnumbered by their slaves and they needed new markets to sell their excess slaves who were encouraged to breed like rabbits. To both maintain the high value of an ever expanding asset and for their very own security, they absolutely needed places where the excess could be sold off.
In the border states, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas and Kentucky, where slavery was legal but by no means the driving force of their economies or a dominate propotion of the population as it was in the Cotton States, opinion was very much mixed which indeed made it a brother-against-brother confrontation.
The Slave Power, as I pointed out earlier, saw their wealth and the importance of King Cotton to the textile economies of England, France and even the North East textile industry and believed they could dictate their own terms.
They guessed wrong and overplayed their hand.
Did the South secede to stop Lincoln from ending slavery? No, not at all. The educated understood that was not a possibility. Nothing Lincoln could do would end slavery in their states.
But he did have the authority to isolate to slavery to those states by blocking expansion and that was a significant threat to both the wealth and potentially the lives of the Slave Power.
I agree, the majority of non-slaveholding whites in the South believed that somehow the "G-D Black Republicans" as they were called by the Democrats then, were going to somehow unleash the slaves upon them. That was the pure propaganda that the Slave Power pumped into the minds of the majority of whites in the Deep South who themselves did not own any slaves but were terrified by the prospect that these slaves owned by wealth men would suddenly be freed to compete with them for jobs or even kill them in areas where they were far outnumbered by slaves.
Sadly, the majority of those who died wearing the Grey died fighting for that damn lie. That lie had no more basis in fact or reality than the current day Democrats have in advertising to the uneducated that the Republicans today would take away their right to vote or return them to Jim Crow status or the current lie that people opposed to high taxes, abortion or more gun control or are war vets are somehow terrorists. But there are lots of brain-dead morons who will buy that story and because the complicit media is very much predisposed to sell it to them.
Like today, they used pure propaganda back then, and the Democrat party, staying true to their traditions, play the same crass kind of propaganda games now.
The really cool thing about studying history, is learning that nothing is new. It's all been done before -- many times.
Well, in my opinion Lincoln did violate the constitution.
Thanks for your opinion. Let me know when you are appointed to the Federal bench.
And why not when he had a Congress to rubber stamp what he did.
Read the history. Lincoln had anything but a 'rubber stamp" congress.
Where were the real debates in Congress without the Southern states?
Did you miss something here? What exactly is it that you think they meant by secession? They removed themselves from congress. No one chased them away.
No, I have not missed anything. And you have not related anything that I have not read before. What you do not understand is that the South was bolted into action by a bunch naive do-gooders from the North. The Southerns stated were chased away by a bunch of self-righteous Northern do-gooders.
You could also say that the anti-slavery movement overplayed their hand and precipitated a very bloody and destructive civil war. You could also say a truly wise person, as opposed to an educated person (most of which are not wise), would have understood that ending slavery by peaceful means would have taken longer that a few years of war. Many nations around the world were still practicing slavery in the nineteenth century, as had mankind for many thousands of years. And many of those nations were able to end slavery through peaceful means.
The really cool thing about studying history, is learning that nothing is new. It's all been done before -- many times.
And that is where you are quite wrong. History brings many new things to life. The problem is that it brings new things too quickly.
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.