Posted on 02/20/2020 9:13:10 PM PST by Pelham
Thomas Fleming talked about his book, A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War, in which he portrays the Civil War as a tragedy that American leaders foresaw and struggled to prevent.
He spoke about how public opinion and propaganda helped spark the war, and the longstanding tensions between the North and South. He also discussed events that heightened fear of a slave rebellion in the southern states. The Pritzker Military Library hosted this event.
No. You lost, you always have lost and will continue to lose. Goodbye.
:)
Your right that the constitution does not give the executive this kind of power. However it does give the legislative the power to suppress insurrections/rebellions. They have done this by passing laws such as the militia acts in the 1790 as a result of the whiskey rebellion, and the force act during the nullification crisis. These acts delegated authority to the executive.
In 1861 and 1862 Congress passed the confiscation acts. This gave Lincoln the authority to issue the emancipation proclamation.
No matter how many times you neo-confederates claim Lincoln was a dictator he bent or broke the law surprisingly few times. I’d even argue maybe even less than other Presidents during times of war.
Actually the President did have the power to declare a whole are in rebellion. In fact he had the sole authority as decided by the Supreme Court in this decision;
Martin v. Mott
25 U.S. 19 (1827), affirmed the president’s right as commander in chief to call out the state militia. Complying with an order from President James Madison during the War of 1812, the New York governor called out some militia companies. Mott, a private in one of those companies, refused to obey the order; he was court-martialed and fined for this refusal. Martin, a U.S. Marshal, seized Mott’s property to enforce the judgment when Mott did not pay the fine. Mott brought a civil suit to recover his property. The Court held that the president had validly used his Article I power to call out the militia, that he had sole authority to decide whether or not a situation permitting use of the statutory power existed, and that this decision was “conclusive upon all other parties” (as the states). The case set a major precedent in support of President Abraham Lincoln’s decision to assemble troops in the cause of defending the national union.
>>jmacusa wrote: “You know something you moron, you obviously must think yourself a conservative and you come to a conservative website venerating a bunch of treasonous Southern democrats...”
Thanks for coming clean. I suspected you were a belligerent, progressive, big-government jackass, but I needed to hear it from you.
Only a historical lightweight would believe the revisionist lies that secession was treason, or that Abraham Lincoln was honest, or that Lincoln was conservative. Marxists love Lincoln. Marxists hate conservatives. Just sayin’ . . .
****************
>>jmacusa wrote: “AND you’re spewing the same anti-Lincoln bullshit that the ultimate Leftist rag The New York Times is spewing in it’s horrendous “1619 Project’’. Are you aware of that?”
Are you implying the history of slavery and slave-trading in the early colonies is inaccurate, or are you implying we should cover it up?
Regarding the New York Times, I am resonably certain you will find their employees are predominately Lincolnites, like you.
****************
>>jmacusa wrote: “Don’t talk to me about ‘’brainwashing’’ and ‘’revisionist history’’ you idiot.”
Why not? You are obviously brainwashed into believing revisionist history? You want me to cover that up, as well?
****************
>>jmacusa wrote: “The South launched a violent war of secession and lost. There is no rationalizing that away so don’t waste my time trying.”
Lincoln started the war, you idiot!
Mr. Kalamata
Uh, huh. Lincoln opened fire on Ft. Sumter. And no, I’m not a leftist. I’m a conservative. You’re a Leftist. Piss off.
NO PROBLEM PAL!! One less Lost Causer Loser to suffer!
>>jmacusa wrote: “Uh, huh. Lincoln opened fire on Ft. Sumter.”
The historical record shows that Union troops illegally occupied the Fort of a foreign nation, and the Union government attempted to replenish the supplies and reinforce the numbers of those troops.
The bottom line is, the Union under both Buchanan and Lincoln committed multiple acts of war before a single shot was fired on Sumter. Lincoln tried to bully the wrong people in his First Inaugural, and the result was about a million deaths, and more than a century of racial hatred. Nice job, “republicans”.
****************
>>jmacusa wrote: “And no, I’m not a leftist. I’m a conservative. You’re a Leftist. Piss off.”
You are no conservative. You are just another foul-mouthed know-nothing.
Mr. Kalamata
Besides your opinion, show me the case law, supported by court decisions that makes Lincoln’s actions illegal.
In 1863, Congress raised the number of justices to ten (10), so Lincoln could pack the Court with a fifth Lincoln appointee to ensure against legal disaster. After Andrew Johnson took office, in 1866 Congress reduced the number of justices to seven (7) by attrition, although never fell below eight (8), ensuring Democrat Johnson never got to appoint anybody. After Johnson left and Grant took office, Congress returned the number of justices to nine (9) in 1869, and enabled Grant to make an appointment.
That about took care of Court opinions condemning Lincoln administration actions for much of his administration.
Ex Parte Merryman, April 1861 Term Case No. 9,487, 17 F. Cas. 144 (before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, at chambers; signed R. B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S.)
Handwritten Opinion by Chief Justice Taney.
Federal Cases 17. Link goes to 1394 page PDF.
The violation of law regarding habeas corpus involved in the Merryman case was clear and obvious. Lincoln not only took it upon himself the claim the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, but he extended that to suspending issuance of the writ itself, and manufactured his authority to delegate to military subordinates the authority for them to suspend habeas corpus. Under such authority, the original suspension of habeas corpus was issued by General Keim, not by Lincoln or Congress.
The Baltimore Sun reported the following on the front page of its May 29, 1861, issue:
Chief Justice Taney, upon taking his seat on the bench, said that he desired to state that his associate, Judge Giles, of the Circuit Court, was present with him yesterday by his invitation, because he desired to avail himself of his counsel and advice in so important a case. The writ of habeas corpus was ordered by him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, consequently Judge Giles could not act with him in the case.
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866) (9-0)
The Lincoln administation was clearly held to have convened an unconstitutional military tribunal in the Milligan case, among other transgressions of law.
No, congress cannot give such a power to a President either.
You also do not explain how they can specify that only one type of property is "contraband of war", and none of the rest is. This is hiding the real fact, that this is not about "contraband", and is instead about making a specific political statement.
If the "contraband of war" claim is allowed across the entire population, the Federal government effectively owns everything in the area of rebellion. They didn't go that far because people would immediately notice this is a false power. By deliberately limiting this false power to "slaves", they kept people from pointing out that this cannot be a legitimate power under the US Constitution. Had they confiscated everything under this alleged power, the game would be up, and even the worst of them would not be able to deny this was a dictatorial move, and not a valid constitutional power.
You cannot declare the innocent guilty because they live near the guilty, yet that's precisely the effect of such a decree.
Nor am I interested in your asinine opinions on what is constitutional and what is not, especially when people who know more about it than you say otherwise.
It's in plain English, and there is no risk of misunderstanding unless you just want to misunderstand.
Or, as in your case, you just don't bother researching the subject.
I agree with all that. I guess the thinking is that it is somehow OK to kill hundreds of thousands of people to force states to stay in a union the same states voluntarily created in the first place, which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
All well and good, but what does this have to do with the freeing of slaves when the Union army showed up after Jan 1 1863. This is what the original question was about.
Still no one opted to Amend the Massachusetts Constitution to restore slavery. Because there wasn’t enough slave interest in the state to make it a state wide issue.
Reagan covered this.
"The problem with our opposition is not that they are ignorant. It's that they know so much which isn't so."
A Judge usurps power and declares something to be legal or illegal without the people voting to make it so, and you say the response should be to overturn the incorrect Judge decision with a constitutional amendment?
Ever hear of "Abortion on demand", or "Gay" marriage? Even though the vast majority of people were against these things, they still became the "law of the land" just because Judges deliberately lied about the law.
Efforts to overturn them have come to naught because a sufficient number of people like the new "laws" such to prevent it's overturn by the process of amendment.
But this ignores the fact of how our laws are supposed to work. The *BURDEN* of changing the law should fall on those who wish to change it, not on those who wish to keep it as it is. Getting a Judge to flip a law is a short circuit of the process. You should not be demanding the ordinary citizenry restore a law to it's formal meaning, you should be demanding that those intent on changing a law should be required to go through the work of changing it rather than using a tin pot little dictator judge to do it for them.
The burden should fall on those who would change the law, not on those who want it left as it is.
You should take that to heart.
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. 1790 Constitution of the State of Massachusetts.
Notice, there is no comma after the word equal that exempts negro slaves. My guess is that the Presiding Judge interpreted the Massachusetts Constitution exactly as the wording implied. Do you have a different interpretation of the words “ All men are born free and equal”. If so, would really like to hear your interpretation of that phrase.
“It’s not the book. “
The subject of the thread is Thomas Fleming’s book. It’s why I bothered to post it in the first place. I’ve mentioned this book many times and some people will find it interesting.
“It’s the constant rehashing of the entire thing. On and on and on”
There’s never been a thread about his book other than this one. And as his title indicates he is offering “A New Understanding” and not “Another Rehashing”
“(You might want to work on your “old man on the porch” attitude. People might think you are a pompous ass.)”
You were the one bitching at me for having posted the thread as if you are being forced to read it. I was minding my own business. Someone here may be acting like an ass, it’s just not me.
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.