Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
As mentioned, more and more of this stuff (as modified by events over the last 160 years) is showing up as 'current events'...
You provided nothing because you have nothing. Not surprising.
The figure of 14,000 political prisoners comes from Mark E. Neely Jr., The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties
I have Neely's book and he does not identify 14,000 "political prisoners" unless you classify "political prisoner" as anyone who supported the Southern rebellion. It should be noted that "political prisoner" as used by the federal government during the Civil Was is not the same definition used today. People arrested for running the blockade, smuggling goods to the Confederacy, refugees from the Confederacy or people slipping across the border were all classified as "political prisoners" by the administration. Neely details, had either you or Bulla bothered to read the book, that these kind of people make up the large majority of people arrested. Arrests for opposing the government, i.e. political prisoner as we define it today, were by far the minority.
And Neely wrote a companion piece to The Fate of Liberty titled Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism. His findings make it clear that on a percentage of population basis one was far more likely to be jailed without trial for political reasons in the Jeff Davis Confederacy than in Abe Lincoln's U.S.
Abraham Lincoln and Press Suppression Reconsidered
I'm not paying $44 to access the paper. But assuming you have can you list the 300 papers he's talking about?
Question for you. What do you believe President Buchanan’s response (constitutionally) should have been to South Carolina’s declaration of secession?
I am from Pennsylvania, and I understand that Buchanan's hand was in the pockets of the steel industry protectionists (aka, the crony capitalists.) But if Buchanan HAD been a patriot, he would have said something like this:
"The powers of secession and nullification were retained by the states in the constitutional and ratificational conventions to constrain the overreaching lust for power by those who seek to divide us and rule over us, rather than represent us."
We were warned early on about those seeking to usurp power by dividing us.
"'Divide and govern' is a maxim consecrated by the experience of ages, and should be familiar in its use to every politician as the knife he carries in his pocket." [Philiip Freneau, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792]
BTW, I read that statement by Freneau on Free Republic many, many years ago. At the time, I never dreamed I would one day be saying this: Lincoln was 'The Great Divider!'
Mr. Kalamata
Allow me to offer a few (hopefully brief ;>) observations.
First, another question: what options actually exist for a chief executive, if/when faced with State secession (or some other perceived violation of the law)?
We can look to fairly recent history, for a few analogous examples. We probably all recognize the names “Ruby Ridge” and “Waco”. In both cases, the federal government chose to exert lawful authority by means of force. (Obviously, whether the force was actually applied in a lawful or even sensible manner is open to discussion). We quite likely remember both of the above names, because there were body bags involved, and because (as noted above) reasonable questions were subsequently raised regarding the actual application of force.
But how many of us still remember the “Montana Freemen”? The government, without surrendering any authority, elected to negotiate. Many do not even remember the Montana ‘standoff’, because no one died, and essentially no issues were raised regarding the exercise of federal authority.
So, possible options available to a chief executive quite probably include the application of armed force, and negotiation (others may suggest additional options). Which option might Mr. Buchanan have chosen (your original question)? And which did Mr. Lincoln actually choose?
Perhaps more to the point, WHY did Mr. Lincoln make the decisions that he did? An interesting viewpoint is offered by Gabor S. Boritt, in his 1996 ”And the War Came”? Abraham Lincoln and the Question of Individual Responsibility. I won’t quote long sections of text (because many won’t read such posts – please feel free to skip the quotes below), but the author notes:
“…Republicans dismissed threats of secession and Civil War, as a political ploy to extort concessions from the North.”
“…like others, [Mr. Lincoln] spoke with contempt about Southern threats of violence.”
“From contempt Lincoln could move on to ridicule. Even in 1860 secession threats reminded him of the joke about [the skinny old, next-to-dead horse]…and the crowd rewarded Lincoln with roars of laughter.”
“In 1855 Joshua Speed of Kentucky [once his best friend]… wrote in private of his preference for disunion. Lincoln did not take his friend seriously. In 1856 Lincoln announced that “All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug…”
“Lincoln disliked violence and war in a way that went well beyond the common… With his Kentucky origins… at times he may have thought of himself as a Southerner and, in any case, thought he understood Southerners. He wasn’t and he didn’t… Lincoln overestimated Southern unionism to the end of his life. He misread the people below the Mason-Dixon line in part because his own devotion to the Union was so deep”
“…[I]n the words of Robert Bruce, ‘those who denied the possibility of war invited it.’ By 1860 Lincoln was chief among them.”
We all recognize that, in 1861, Mr. Lincoln was a new president, facing difficulties that no president would desire. While attempting to deal with the situation in South Carolina, he sought advice from his cabinet. IIRC, all but one or two advised that he not attempt to resupply Fort Sumter. Apparently, he made his decision (as one might expect any president reaching a decision) based on his own understanding of the facts. What part, if any, did his unrealistic, preconceived ideas play in that decision, and subsequent events?
Why is this relevant? Where options exist, choices must be made – and heaven help the commander, who makes life-and-death decisions based on an inadequate or inaccurate understanding of the situation.
Say you’re on your way to Baghdad, and you encounter a roadblock. What are you facing? A couple dozen ‘fedayeen’ militiamen, or a Republican Guard battalion? (Maybe both, with the militiamen highly visible, right up front, trying to suck you in?) If your commanding officer doesn’t know, but is personally convinced that all Iraqis are [fill in the blank], does it make a difference?
Probably so - if you’re dealing with Americans in body bags the day after…
The obvious answer is "yes, by both".
Difficulties come from not just varying definitions of "law" and "morality", but also from the fact that life itself often presents complex situations without pristine moral options.
Often leaders must chose among the least worst of bad options.
Sure, I "get" that pro-Confederates such as yourself wish to bind President Lincoln with BOTH legal and moral sanctions, you'd like to impeach him just like Democrats today wish to impeach Republicans they despise.
But I don't agree that any of your anti-Lincoln arguments are even a whit more valid than Nancy Pelosi's charges against the current Republican president.
They're all just partisan hatred & loathing masquerading under banners labeled "LAW" and "MORALITY".
It sounds like you're trying to be thought provoking, but the flippant answer is also the correct one: it depends if at heart you are really a Democrat or Republican.
If at heart you're really a Democrat, then you don't care a whit about intellectual honesty or consistency, all you care is how you feeeeeeel at the moment.
So you'll eagerly condemn in Republicans what you happily accept in yourself, etc.
Republicans by contrast are burdened with the need to be both honest and consistent with our morals and ideology.
On your question of "nullification" Democrats were always the party of nullification, and remain so today.
And were the roles reversed (as in civil rights laws) Democrats would take nullifiers to court and throw them in jail, but somehow that hasn't happened with Democrats' "sanctuary cities".
Do you even wonder why?
Nonsense and you well know it.
The truth of history is that what began as a war to defeat Confederates and restore the Union became, long before it ended, also a war to destroy slavery, first by Proclamation and finally by Constitutional amendment s.
Confederates were eager to start, declare and wage war against the United States, especially in states which refused to secede -- so much for Confederate "consent of the governed."
After the war, "consent of the governed" means consent of law abiding voters, which every Confederate denied being.
Fortunately in those secession states were millions of other voters eager to elect their own representatives, and so the republic was able to continue without the former Confederates.
In our country, I personally believe government must be bound by law (not law and morality); insofar as we allow some undefined concept of morality to modify the law, the law becomes of no effect. IMO, if a government official has a view of morality that prohibits them from executing the law, they should resign – NOT substitute their personal moral values for the “the law of the land.” (Yah, I know – most government officials probably would NEVER do that, even if it’s the proper thing to do!)
Difficulties come from not just varying definitions of "law" and "morality", but also from the fact that life itself often presents complex situations without pristine moral options.
Often leaders must chose among the least worst of bad options.
I agree completely (for whatever that’s worth ;>)!
Sure, I "get" that pro-Confederates such as yourself wish to bind President Lincoln with BOTH legal and moral sanctions, you'd like to impeach him just like Democrats today wish to impeach Republicans they despise.
In terms of Mr. Lincoln’s service as president, I think that I’ve consistently tried to frame my opinions in terms of his legal obligations (i.e., did the Constitution of 1860 actually prohibit State secession – or not?). In terms of Mr. Lincoln as a human being (rather than as a “Chief Executive”), I’ve never intended to hold him to some unique standard; everybody has flaws, or personal failings – no one is perfect (even government officials). And (FWIW) I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that he should have been impeached (I certainly don’t remember doing so). The North was generally content with his leadership (sufficiently so, that he was reelected), and if the Southern States were acting within their constitutional rights (as they existed at that specific time) when they seceded, which has been the foundation of my argument, then they had no voice in the matter.
But I don't agree that any of your anti-Lincoln arguments are even a whit more valid than Nancy Pelosi's charges against the current Republican president.
They're all just partisan hatred & loathing masquerading under banners labeled "LAW" and "MORALITY".
I disagree – and I’m also sorry to hear that (it suggests that I haven’t been very successful in conveying my point of view). But if you have any specific concerns regarding any of my posted comments, I would be happy to address them (to the best of my ability). On those occasions when I suggest that Mr. Lincoln might have made a critical mistake, it’s worth keeping in mind that all presidents make mistakes (for which they are often criticized). For example, George H. W. Bush should never have raised taxes (after his famous campaign pledge); George W. Bush should have nominated Clarence Thomas to be Chief Justice (rather than whats-his-name); and even Ronald Reagan made mistakes. I think we might all agree that Mr. Lincoln was a human being, not the Second Coming of the Messiah…
Hopefully you’re aware that Ronald Reagan was at one time a Democrat. Did Mr. Reagan change in some radical way, before joining the Republican Party?
He may have matured a bit, and certainly became more knowledgable, and much more experienced. But his values apparently remained largely consistent; as he put it (quoting from memory), ”I didn’t leave the Democrat Party – the Democrat Party left me!”
Simply put, today’s political parties are NOT the same parties that existed 50, 100, or 150 years ago. The names may not have changed, but the foundational beliefs certainly have. (Just to emphasize that point, here’s a bit of historical trivia: Karl Marx supported the Union! ;>)
If at heart you're really a Democrat, then you don't care a whit about intellectual honesty or consistency, all you care is how you feeeeeeel at the moment.
So you'll eagerly condemn in Republicans what you happily accept in yourself, etc.
Actually, I may well have been voting conservative longer than you’ve been alive.
Republicans by contrast are burdened with the need to be both honest and consistent with our morals and ideology.
Come, now – if that were true, there would be no debates on FreeRepublic, and no competing Republican candidates in the party’s primaries.
On your question of "nullification" Democrats were always the party of nullification, and remain so today.
Perhaps you should reread that post. When I lived in Colorado, it was the Republican sheriffs in the State that refused to enforce (i.e., ‘nullified’) the new Democrat ‘gun control’ laws. The same thing is happening in Virginia, even as we speak. A more accurate description (obviously still subject to debate) would be that some “constitutionalists” or “strict constructionists” support nullification, as do some scoff-law Leftists. As I believe rockrr noted, it’s not a ‘cookie cutter’ issue.
And were the roles reversed (as in civil rights laws) Democrats would take nullifiers to court and throw them in jail, but somehow that hasn't happened with Democrats' "sanctuary cities".
Do you even wonder why?
Perhaps you should ask someone who’s a Democrat. Back when Californians were suggesting that their State secede to get away from the ‘Bad Orange Man’, I believe I posted here on FR my opinion that, if that ever happened, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party leadership would be the first to demand that the US military invade the State, without delay, and shoot the ring-leaders. (As noted, the parties have changed! ;>)
All of that is false, only remotely true in Kalamata's own mind through the magic of redefining words to suit his own purposes.
For example he defines "science" as "whatever I, Kalamata, believe" and defines everything else as "false religion".
He defines the Enlightenment as "everything Kalamata thinks was bad in the 18th century."
Whatever he thinks good... well, that was our Christian heritage, etc.
The fact is that Kalamata's thinking is both deep and broad, spanning the range from Lost Cause to Young Earth Creationism, I can't think of another poster like him.
And as you can tell by his posts here, he's also a royal jerk, loves to insult & lie, apparently for the sheer joy it, and so is unlikely to win friends or influence anyone who's not already committed to his unique outlooks.
This procedure for the "gagging" of abolition petitions was made into a formal resolution by the House on May 26, 1836: "All petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid on the table and … no further action whatever shall be had thereon."
So much for the constitutional right to petition the government for the redress of grievances.
You post made sense until the first part of the first sentence.
Secession was a peaceful act. The newly formed Confederacy sought to be left alone and to have peaceful relations with the United States. It was President Lincoln and his political and economic backers that sought war.
First they needed a pretext for war which they found with Lincoln's navy in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Errr . . . I meant to say the Fort Sumter Incident.
I struck some of your filler words to get at the heart of the matter. For the purpose of this post, let's stipulate that you are correct: at some point Lincoln began to use war to violently overthrow slavery provisions of the United States Constitution.
We know before the war Lincoln did not have the necessary votes in Congress to peacefully pass a constitutional amendment ending slavery but after all the war killings, redefining states as military districts, and disbarments of voters, he did.
This is a problem for anyone who claims to support the original intent of our founders. The founders included in the constitution a peaceful amendment process, but not a provision to use the military to violently overthrow the constitution.
By any definition, consent obtained by the use of violence is not consent.
Still, many people contend the one million page Federal Register (or is it two million pages now?) authorized by the Lincoln constitution is better than anything based on “consent of the governed.”
FYI, FWIW, YMMV, etc.
I thought you had made a New Year's Resolution to make issue-based arguments to support your deeply held opinions and to avoid visceral, personal attacks.
You made it to January 2. It is not too late to turn away from the personal attacks.
You should name names.
The historical slave states were New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Delaware.
Also, North and South Carolina, Virginia and Georgia were slave states. Don't ever forget to cast 4/13ths responsibility in that direction for enshrining slavery into the United States Constitution.
Don’t forget mention that slavery was illegal in New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island by 1860.
Yep, Abe just completely bumfuzzled poor dim witted Jefferson Davis into firing on Fort Sumter.
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.