Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
And that makes sense to you? The South consumed 103% of all goods imported into the U.S.?
When I do a job, I always give 110%. Compared to me, the South was slacking off.
You had a great debate going with Sherman Logan there; you were giving exceptional feedback to valid but otherwise false arguments by him. I would have loved to have read the rest of the debate as I was learning from it; but apparently no one will now.
Apparently.
See: Link
Really appreciate your admiration.
You misread it.
You misread it.
And to think he got zotted over a gay-themed post instead.
I think you were there when it happened, no?
I believe that words mean what they say, especially as regards the US Constititution. Your comment is as follows: “Let me explain it this way T.C.: You are a member of Free Republic. That in and of itself means you oppose much of what happens in Washington D.C. This is aid and comfort to our enemies. “Some people say” you are like Tokyo Rose. Yes, T.C., you have sassed Washington D. C. and you are a traitor. “Everyone” knows that.
The mere fact the Federal government has chosen, for whatever reason, to not try and convict you does not mean your treason does not exist.
See how this works T.C.? Think man, think.”
So, let’s go through this piece by piece. You’re implying (actually, you’re flat out saying) that, by disagreeing with Washington I am providing aid and comfort to our enemies? WTF? Who is this “some people say”? I want names and dates. If you seriously think that “some people say” that comments on FR are traitorous, prove it. I know of no serious attempt in the last 50 years to define people complaining about the government as traitorous. I can think on no case forwarded by ANY federal attorney for treason for the act of complaining about the government. If you have any proof, please forward. Don’t hide behind “Some people say” or “Everyone”.
It’s really nice that you quoted Hamilton. I really think that everyone should read our Founding Fathers. Having said that, Hamilton’s writings are not the Constitution, and Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution is what we are talking about.
You reference Lincoln’s violations of the 9th and 10th Amendments as usurpations. This means, I think, that you are saying that Lincoln was guilty of violations of the Constitution. Am I reading you right? I will note that violations of the 9th & 10th Amendment are curiously missing from the Articles of Secession prepared by the seceding States. You would think that if this was the reason they were seceding, they would have at least mentioned them in passing, wouldn’t you? But, let’s go through the process of challenging an alleged constitutional violation. I believe that the proper procedure is to go to the courts – first a federal district court, then an Appellate Court, then the Supreme Court. I’m having trouble finding records of these court cases. I’m sure that you have the citations at your fingertips. I would be grateful if you could provide them to us. By the way, what were the specific actions that Lincoln did against the 9th and 10th Amendments that were so egregious that the Southern States found it necessary to secede?
I also love the statement “the South defended itself”. Defense implies someone attacked you first. As I recall, the first shots of the war were by Confederate forces under General PGT Beauregard, when they staged an unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. Kinda hard to call it defense when you shot first, isn’t it? Or was this a case of pre-emptive self defense, since Union forces didn’t advance into Virginia until July 21, 1861 at Bull Run? Did General Beauregard go to Marty McFly and borrow the Delorean?
But, again, we are talking about shooting. I would think that the very act of shooting, and having an Army would be the very definition of “levying war”, so we’re once again back at Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.
I will close in noting that the defense of usurpation only comes into play if there were a trial for treason in being a way to JUSTIFY treasonous actions, not a repudiation of the fact that treasonous actions occurred. No matter how you cut it, the soldiers and government of the Confederacy waged war against the Union, and were guilty of performing treasonous acts (if not actually guilty of treason, as the Union government was too kind to actually charge them) under the definition of Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution.
“I will close in noting that the defense of usurpation only comes into play if there were a trial for treason in being a way to JUSTIFY treasonous actions, not a repudiation of the fact that treasonous actions occurred. No matter how you cut it, the soldiers and government of the Confederacy waged war against the Union, “
And this differs from the 1775 rebellion against the legitimate government of North America how, exactly?
Then point out what was misread.
Your figures are interesting, but other sources from the period put the amount at considerably less.
Then you said: “WTF? Who is this “some people say”? I want names and dates. If you seriously think that “some people say” that comments on FR are traitorous, prove it.”
Note to self: T.C. does not appreciate stand-up with edge.
So you now see that you were wrong about demand of Southern customers?
More than nice. Reading the writings of our founding fathers is essential to understanding the Constitution.
As Mr. Justice Story, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, explained: “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intentions of the parties.”
Another Associate Justice, George Sutherland, stated it this way: “The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it. The necessities which gave rise to the provision, the controversies which preceded, as well as the conflicts of opinion which were settled by its adoption, are matters to be considered to enable us to arrive at a correct result. The history of the times, the state of things existing when the provision was framed and adopted, should be looked to in order to ascertain the mischief and the remedy. As nearly as possible we should place ourselves in the condition of those who framed and adopted it. And if the meaning be at all doubtful, the doubt should be resolved, whenever reasonably possible to do so, in a way to forward the evident purpose with which the provision was adopted.”
With this in mind, reread what Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:“If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed.... But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”
Not really. I've seen other sources from the period put the amount of goods bought from the North at $200 million. So there's a bit of difference between the two.
Yes, I saw it happen.
So is it “considerably less” or “a bit of a difference”?
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.