Lee, Virginia, and the Union

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org ^ | March 27, 2019 | Fred H. Cox

[NKP_Vet]

The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York Uni­versity was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is in­tended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy un­dertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representa­tive American scholars in different callings. They are most­ly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Fighting against that right is rebellion.

But according to you, that natural right only exists at the state level, arbitrary lines drawn on a map by men.

[OIFVeteran]

No significant difference between either side?!? Your so full of s%#} it isn’t even funny. Here’s some quotes for you from the President is the United States, I challenge you to find any similitude quotes from any of the leaders of the pretend confederacy. And all of these quotes are before he as elected to the Presidency.

“What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other’s consent. I say this is the leading principle - the sheet anchor of American republicanism.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Speech at Peoria, Illinois” (October 16, 1854), p. 266.

“We were proclaiming ourselves political hypocrites before the world, by thus fostering Human Slavery and proclaiming ourselves, at the same time, the sole friends of Human Freedom.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Speech at Springfield, Illinois” (October 4, 1854), p. 242.

“Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others” (April 6, 1858), p. 376.

“In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Letter to Joshua F. Speed” (August 24, 1855), p. 320.

“In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Quincy” (October 13, 1858), p. 276.

“I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio” (September 17, 1859), p. 440.

“I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Speech at Chicago, Illinois” (March 1, 1859), p. 370.

“I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, “Speech at Chicago, Illinois” (July 10, 1858), p. 492.

“I believe the declara[tion] that ‘all men are created equal’ is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others-—individuals, free-states and national government-—are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it. I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed. That such necessity does not exist in the teritories[sic], where slavery is not present.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Letter to James N. Brown” (October 18, 1858), p. 327.

[DiogenesLamp]

But according to you, that natural right only exists at the state level, arbitrary lines drawn on a map by men.

Not so arbitrary. They represent natural boundaries, and they also generally describe distances that the population can defend. Their lines will sometimes exist long after the reasons for them being drawn where they were have been forgotten, but everyone understand that they represent a demarcation between one body of people and another.

Even if boundaries are fuzzy, the concept they are intended to represent as "yours" and "ours" is quite straightforward. You might think of it as "property rights" on a larger scale.

But nobody is disputing where the boundaries of states have been established, nor is anyone disputing that states are the entities which the Founders asserted had the right to be independent.

[HandyDandy]

It is quite telling that you won’t touch the Cornerstone Speech. It pretty much blows you and your fantasies out of the water. I am not at all surprised that you won’t go there. You can’t handle the truth.
Then too, there is a collection of letters between your friend Abe, and Al, that really get to the heart of the matter. Since you are so well versed in all things Lincoln you are, no doubt, familiar with them.

[DiogenesLamp]

No significant difference between either side?!?

Not when it comes to white supremacy. Both sides believed themselves to be the superior to blacks. There were a few liberal kook abolitionists who claimed to believe blacks were equal with whites, but Lincoln wasn't one of them. The vast majority of the Northern public regarded blacks as inferior, and many of their states passed laws to ban them from remaining in their states.

If people are being honest, they will recognize that Northern whites hated blacks, and did not care about any suffering they may have endured. Their objection to slavery was almost entirely a labor/wage concern. They also hated the thought of "aristocrats" in the South having all these servants to make them rich, and so a large part of it was envy and hatred of the Slave Owners, but not so much concern for the slaves themselves.

[HandyDandy]

Sorry man, I’m not what I used to be. I lost track of this thread for a while and got caught up in the “Ben Franklin” thread.
You are aware, no doubt, that your compatriot DL is the biggest Lincoln trasher/Hater//basher on FR?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Not so arbitrary. They represent natural boundaries"

Yeah, natural boundaries. Nothing arbitrary there.

But nobody is disputing where the boundaries of states have been established, nor is anyone disputing that states are the entities which the Founders asserted had the right to be independent.

Well, maybe not so much...

"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..."

Nothing there about states.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is quite telling that you won’t touch the Cornerstone Speech. It pretty much blows you and your fantasies out of the water. I am not at all surprised that you won’t go there. You can’t handle the truth.

I get that you don't pay attention, so I will remind you once again that things outside the category of why Northern armies invaded Southern states are irrelevant to the cause of the Civil War. This speech that you are obsessing on does not fit into the category of things which caused Northern Armies to march.

I have told people over and over and over again that I don't consider the Southern states reasons for leaving relevant. They simply do not matter regardless what they were. They had a right to independence, and they don't have to justify why they want independence.

The idea that the Colonies would have to find reasons acceptable to King George III and the British Public is ridiculous beyond belief, but this is the idiotic standard you keep trying to make me apply to the Southern state's right to independence.

Again, I don't care. If the Corner Stone speech said the South was leaving because they didn't like the Autumn leaves in Connecticut, it's all the same. They still have the right to leave, regardless of whatever reasons they see fit to do it.

[DiogenesLamp]

[DiogenesLamp]

Yeah, natural boundaries. Nothing arbitrary there.

Look hard enough and you can find exceptions, but it is quite dishonest to claim that exceptions disprove the general rule.

Nothing there about states.

Except for it was signed by representatives of the 13 states. To what "one people" did they refer?

There is plenty of other clarification on the point that they were referring to the states, and i'm sure you know about it, but you are working at being difficult just for the sake of being difficult.

This discussion is just trading snark anymore.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I get that you don't pay attention, so I will remind you once again that things outside the category of why Northern armies invaded Southern states are irrelevant to the cause of the Civil War.

Only to you. Life must be very simple for you when you simply exclude anything that doesn't fit your theories. Thousands of history books about the causes of the war? Irrelevant! Statements made by the southerners themselves about why they went to war? Don't care! A single editorial in a New York Democratic newspaper saying that they'll lose money? Wave it like a bloody shirt!

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The people of those states cannot be "disenfranchised." Doing such a thing is tyranny."

They disenfranchised themselves!
What do you think all those 1861 Declarations of Secession were all about?
They didn't want to be US citizens, but their slaves did.

So the Union let their former slaves vote and kept Confederates from voting until, until, until... they said, "pretty please, we want to be voters now."

When enough former Confederates said "pretty please" they voted out the former slaves and effectively nullified the 13th, 14th & 15th for nearly 100 years.

That was the truly unconstitutional part, and us Republicans are guilty of letting you G-D Democrats get away with it.

Sorry about that.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Exactly the kind of crap one expects from someone who is brainwashed."

You didn't read my post #386 because you're brainwashed and nothing frightens you more than the truth.

Truly, I think you need help, your brain doesn't function properly.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "New York was getting 40% of the production, with Washington getting whatever percentage the tariff required, and so the two cities were making more off of Southern production than the actual producers in the South."

Those would be millions of African American slaves, of course, who got nothing, but DiogenesLamp has no concerns for them, only for their "masters" who he thinks were somehow getting ripped off.

It's total nonsense.

[Pelham]

Thanks for removing all doubt as to whether or not you are a fool.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Not opinion. Fact.
You just don't like the facts that I am stating, and so you simply declare them to be 'opinions.' "

But you have not posted a single important fact to support your wild opinions.
You've simply announced that your opinions are "facts", no need for further discussion.

Read my post #386 and you'll see what happens when your opinions meet the real facts.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "This is the sort of parsing crap your side constantly engages in.
The United States would never have tolerated the British continuing to occupy Fort Stirling or Fort Richmond."

DoodleDawg: "Hence the Treaty of Paris."

What's so absurd about DiogenesLamp's argument here is that even after the 1783 Treaty of Paris, Brits still occupied dozens of forts and trading posts in US states & territories from New York to Michigan.
And they were in no way benign or friendly -- the Brits were supporting Indian tribes like the Miami & Shawnees against American settlers and the US Army.
In 1791 British support helped Little Turtle & Blue Jacket deliver the greatest single defeat against the US Army, ever, St. Clair's defeat.

There was no possible way that Fort Sumter could do as much damage to Confederates as those British forts did to President Washington.
And yet Washington responded by sending John Jay to London in 1794 to negotiate those forts away from the Brits.

So Jefferson Davis was in no way "forced" to start war at Fort Sumter, but rather he chose it, knowingly, deliberately.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Right after you signify acceptance of the Founder's position that Independence is a natural law right."

Contrary to what DiogenesLamp would have us believe, the Declaration of Independence never says anybody, anywhere, any time and for any reasons, or for no particular reasons, has an unlimited right to declare independence which must then be instantly granted.

The Declaration doesn't say that, nor did any Founder, ever.
What they said instead was that under certain very extreme conditions, beyond what people are "disposed to suffer" after "a long train of abuses and usurpation", designed to "reduce them under absolute Despotism" then it becomes their right & duty to abolish...

DiogenesLamp simply wants to impose his own radical beliefs on our Founders, but they are just not true.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "We replaced English Rule with a nation that believed in a right to Independence. "

But only under certain well-defined conditions, as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.

None of those conditions existed in 1860.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "On second thought, I think I would rather read something more relevant to the reason why multiple states were conned into sending armies to invade people who were no real threat to them."

Confederates were a serious threat to the Union states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and Kansas, along with the Union territories of Oklahoma and New Mexico.

Confederates were absolutely orders of magnitude a greater threat to the United States than either Japanese or Germans in WWII.
And all of those enemies formally declared war against the United States.

Seems like reason enough to me.