Posted on 03/17/2005 8:14:05 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan
The Lincoln-Reagan Freedom Foundation is dedicated to promoting greater appreciation for the heritage of the Republican Party, founded as a civil rights movement in 1854. This "Grand Old Party" has an extraordinary, though overlooked, record of achievement in advancing civil rights in the United States and around the world.
Celebrating a Century and a Half of Civil Rights Achievement by the Republican Party
For the past century and a half, the Republican Party has proven to be the most effective political organization ever to champion equality and human rights in the United States and around the world. From President Lincoln's victory in the Civil War to President Reagan's victory in the Cold War, the GOP shares credit for the ability of hundreds of millions of people to live in freedom.
To increase our appreciation for this heritage, the Lincoln-Reagan Freedom Foundation brings together Republican officeholders, activists and staff, academics, and the media.
(Excerpt) Read more at lincolnreaganfoundation.org ...
*Yes, the first concern was that after Dred Scott, combined with the FSL, free blacks would be re-enslaved. Free black merchantmen could not leave their vessels in Charleston for fear of being enslaved, and, I think (not sure) SC and GA eventually made it a law that they could NOT leave.
The souther Old Testaments probably said something about the morality of slavery, which is my point: southern religion changed dramatically after the Declaration to absolve southerners from the moral issue of slavery by making blacks "less than men." Smith is an EXCELLENT study of this change in language.
There are plenty of studies of southern corruption, and NO STATE was more corrupt than antebellum Arkansas, although Mississippi and Alabama come pretty close. I wouldn't go there if I were you. The Gilded Age is child's play compared to the antebellum DEMOCRAT goverments in the south. See my "Banking in the American South" for just a taste of their corruption.
My ancestors were slave owners in Georgia. Today, a good many black families have the historic family name, which, I surmise, was because the slaves took the names of their owners in the 1800s. I've uncovered a will giving evidence to my speculations.
Two books came into my office last year about the Metoyer family in Louisiana, a black family of plantation owners who owned slaves - men even owning their wives and children.
So, in summary, at age 50, I'm learning great things about the history of my ancestors and slavery.
At least Jeff Davis asked for Congressional consent to suspend the HC - even if it was unpopular. I'll verify Bensel's work.
And if Bensel is correct, that the abuses of the habeas corpus suspension were worse in the south, then how does the fact that the confederate congress suspended habeas corpus in the first place make it better?
Thanks for sharing that tidbit
It says alot when a state elected official from SC feels comfortable making such statements [as an invited speaker] to a group of Republicans in another state. The purpose of their assembly being to honor Lincoln.
My guess is that Gov. Mark Sanford is going to regret that Lindsey Graham ever made those remarks.
I guess you'll have to figure that out. Jeff Davis asked Congress. Lincoln didn't didn't. Take it from there.
We can debate the method of the suspension until the cows come home. In fact, I think that we HAVE debated the manner of suspenson for a lot longer than that. But regardless of how it was done, isn't the abuse of those powers the important thing? If Bensel is correct, then does the fact that habeas corpus was suspended in your preferred manner excuse the greater level of abuse under that suspension?
Presumably, the people get to vote on the issue. That's the difference.
Desperation is setting in, Stainless. You don't care that the power was abused, so long as that abuse was made possible in a manner you approve of. Well, you haven't provided evidence that Lincoln's method was illegal, Lincoln was elected by the people, so the people got a vote on the issue.
Not to worry. I doubt you'll be voting in that party's primary anyway.
Do you have Bensel's book to verify that for certain, Non-Seq? Cause all I've seen so far is a second hand non-contextualized claim of what it supposedly says without giving even the slightest hint of what his methodology is, or even if he reaches the alleged conclusion.
Precisely the point. This is exactly why there are checks and balances on our system for elected officials. Congress makes the call to suppress free speech.
Thanks for sharing that one.
Really? Hmmm....
"The writ of habeas corpus was formally suspended by congressional action for only eighteen months and President Davis was unwilling to suspend the writ by executive proclamation. In other periods, however, the Confederate military officers often acted as if the writ were formally suspended, resorting to martial law. The military thus partially filled the breach in periods when the Confederate Congress failed to pass enabling legislation. Even allowing for these supporting, extrastatutory efforts, however, the Confederate experience with the suspension of the writ and martial law was considerably less statist than the administrative structure and implementation in the North." - Bensel, p. 144
Bensel also lists the Union as the bigger abuser of habeas corpus in his chart of comparison on page 182. In the same chart he states that a comparison of "direct taxes/internal duties" is inconclusive, rating it "neither." In terms of various economic policies he ranks the North more abusive in a national banks, tariffs, financial markets, nationalization of currency, legal tender notes, treasury debt, confiscation on the world scene, and homesteads. The south gets ranked as more abusive the economic policies of domestic confiscation, price controls, and redistribution.
In total, the chart ranks the South as more statist in 13 categories of comparison versus 18 categories for the North and 11 where it is indeterminate.
How refugio-esque.
You've clearly misunderstood the text. N-S told you it was the other way around, now please give him credit for knowing a thing or two.
Far from coincidence, there's a reason to be noted. When a need exists to prop up Lincoln above everything else, doing so occurs at the expense of the that which gets in the way. Facts get in the way thus factual authenticity is among the first things to be sacrificed.
Would that be the same Mark Thornton, author of "A New Perspective on Antebellum Slavery: Public Policy and Slave Prices" and "Slavery, Profitability, and the Market Process," who is currently a senior scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is far better known for his recent book "Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation," which argues that the tariff was clearly among the "major factors leading to war" given that "Republicans who came to power in 1860 supported a mercantilist economic agenda of protectionism, inflation, public works, and big government"? Just curious.
I'm not worried at all. In fact, I'm gonna enjoy watching Mark Sanford over the next few years. That kind of rhetoric might play well with the bigots down south, but it isn't going help the governor up in Iowa or New Hampshire. In fact it doesn't sound like it went over too well with Republicans in Tennesee either. My guess is Gov. Sanford's gonna be attending a good number of Lincoln Day dinners in the future to correct the impression that all South Carolinians are Lincoln haters.
I doubt you'll be voting in that party's primary anyway
Beyond your feckless attempt at insult, lies some glaring ignorance. If you think choosing the next presidential nominee is about voting in the primaries, you need to start attending your polysci classes sonny boy.
Reagan and Lincoln had nothing in common!
Lincoln was evil and Reagan was good.
Do you have a link to the site?
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.