Federalist Patriot bashes Abe Linclon

2/17/06 | Mobile Vulgus

[Mobile Vulgus]

I don't know how many of you get the Federalist Patriot report via email, but it is a great source of conservative news and opinion that all of you should get.

You can find their site at:

http://patriotpost.us/

Anyway, even though I support them, they sent out an email today that bashed Abe Lincoln fiercely. I was so moved to annoyance by their biased and ill thought out email that I had to write them and say how disappointed I was.

You can go to their site and see the anti-Lincoln screed that they put out to know exactly what I am replying to if you desire to do so.

Now, I know some of you freepers are primo confederate apologists so I thought this would stir debate on freerepublic!!

Now, let the fur fly as we KNOW it must...

[stainlessbanner]

From Rhode Island's Ratification of the US Constitution:

Amendments.

I. The United States shall guaranty to each state its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States.

III. That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.

Equally as interesting is Providence threatened to seceed from Rhode Island and become it's own state.

[reagandemo]

On No you have done it now. Speak badly of their St. Abraham will get you a mega dose of flames here. The truth is hard to handle for some. Lincoln was a politician which cared not one bit for Blacks. His only allegiance was to winning and keeping his power.

[TexConfederate1861]

Hey Brainless, you don't have a CLUE what you are talking about. I advocate the RIGHT of SECESSION, and I am in NO way a Traitor. You had better be careful how you throw that word around on FR. Their are Southern Freepers on this board that could probably "clean your clock".

[TexConfederate1861]

Well, I guess that doesn't apply to Texas, as we were admitted in 1845, and we retained the right to secession by Treaty of Annexation.

[Courdeleon02]

You raise a good point. How about the fact that when Lincoln ran for reelection in 1864 which he won by a slim margin against General George McClellan who wanted to end the war the South did not vote.The vote was conducted in the North only. Had the South been able to vote Lincoln would have been defeated by a landslide. In that he was an illegitimate president.

[voreddy]

Let me get this straight, if tomorrow Hawaii wants to secede you're ok with that? Guess what genuis, I'd bet that 95% of the country would disagree and the military would have no problem setting Hawaii straight. And thats nice that your retort is to say "I'll beat you up."

[Mobile Vulgus]

Here is more on Madison just for your info...

Madison fought against the idea of secession in the Nullification crisis and denied Calhoun was correct in his hints that South Carolina could secede from the Union. Madison is often (though not 100% properly) called the "Father of the Constitution" and HE said it was NOT a right. Shouldn't HE know better than either of us if secession was a right?

Here is what he said (And I quote him from my copy of "The Complete Madison" by Saul K. Padover, in which is taken from the Federalist No. LVIII- Fed 22, 1788):

"Lastly, it would facilitate and foster the baneful practice of secessions, a practice which has shown itself even in States where a majority only is required; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us."

Further more, in a letter Madison wrote to Nicholas Trist in 1830, Madison said that the Ken. and Vir. resolutions did NOT claim a right of secession but merely meant to deny the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts. (I got this from my book, "The Last of the Fathers", by Drew McCoy. A great book, but it cost me $60 which was crazy!!)

No Constitution or government was ever created with a clause for its destruction contained within. that means that any consideration that there was an ability to "break the compact legally" is simply NOT one codified into law. Not even the Confederate constitution claimed that secession was a "right" in any way. Even the Confederate Constitution remained mute on the subject.

[stand watie]

the "lincoln worshipers" REALLY HATE IT when i point out that lincoln was NO BETTER than "wee willie klintoon". they were TWINS, separated by 150 years.

NEITHER had the morals of an alley-cat or the integrity of a thief.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

if given my choice i'd sooner the northeastern states seceded, but HI CAN if they choose to do so.

it's called LIBERTY. you have heard of that word, have you not???

free dixie,sw

[reagandemo]

Get's them every time! A few strange little tidbits of history. Mary Todd Lincoln was born in Lexington Ky and lived a couple of blocks from a theater (building still stands) where the Booth family made many appearances on stage ( including John Wilkes). Between her house and the theater was the apartment where Jefferson Dave lived (still standing). Wile living there he dated Mary Todd. Yep that's right he dated the future first lady!

[voreddy]

Oh I missed that civics class. The one where if you oppose the right of states to freely choose when they want to enter and leave the union at will you oppose liberty. If what you are saying is true then this country exists only in name. And I am not willing to settle that the greatest human expiriment in the history of mankind can be undone tomorrow becuase some people decided they didnt want to extend the liberty you so cherish to the slave they controlled. My only regret for the south is that she lost so many decent sons in that conflict to protect the rights of the few.

[4CJ]

Dr. Jaffa observes that there can be no constitutional process that presents a state majority to lawfully nullify the acts of the federal Union within the boundaries of its delegated powers.

No state majority is nullifying a federal act. There is NO federal act (law) prohibiting secession. If there was such a law it must be pursuant to a delegated power to prohibit secession, no such constitutional clause exists. For secession to be unconstitutional there must exist a clause holding secession to be illegal, there is no such clause. Dr. Jaffa is another believer in a living Constitution, because he can't point to any clause prohibiting secession.

Specifically the Constitution mandates that members of the federal union possess governments that are 'republican' [representatives of the people of THAT state] in nature. In representative governments, the people do not vote democratically - the majority does not rule. The people elect representatives to vote in their stead. These representatives for their state government in various bodies, usually denominated as a legislature, governor and court system. But the people of that state are still sovereign, and can alter their form of government at will via amendment or by constitutional convention ['[a constitution] is paramount to the power of the Legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it', US Supreme Court Justice William Patterson, Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 US 304,308 (1795)]

The federal Constitution does not prohibit states from altering their constitutions, nor abolishing their current form of government, it simply requires that members of the union have republican governments. And if a state has a republican form of government, it may convene, and exercise it's God-given right to choose the best system of government for it's citizenry, whether that is in the union or out of it.

Secession had previously been practiced by the states, members withdrew from the New England Confederacy, from the Articles of Association, from Britain, from the Articles of Confederation. It was not a new concept.

Secession constitutes a repudiation of republican government as understood by the Founders.

Au contraire, secession is the embodiment of republican government as understood by the founders. Notably, 'to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.' The republican ideal was that government was not a right of kings [Britain, France et al or deities [Egypt], but for the common man, to aggregate and form bonds based on mutual interests at will, '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.'

Jaffa, and every anti-secessionist, is anti-republican and against the ideals of the Declaration of Independence

Could popular government in America maintain itself against a "formidable internal attempt to overthrow it."

BWahahahahaha! No one was attempting to overthrow the federal government, several states were exercising to remove themselves from such. What fool would think that the same founders that had thrown off the shackles of a despotic government would turn around and bind themselves forever to another?

[Courdeleon02]

In my view the Constitution says nothing explicitly about secession.It does not prohibit it. The matter of secession became a matter of opinion that no one could safely establish in law either for or against.We do know that at the time of the formation of the union, states were under the impression that they were sovereign units. That sovereignty was never to be taken away from them by any voluntary union. The union remained only in-tack as long as its members felt it should remain.The Civil War was an immoral war and Mr. Lincoln was a poor diplomat that was incapable of saving that union. He was a minority President elected by only 38% of the people. His assassination deified him in American history. The reality is that he was not a good President but a divisive figure who failed at reconciliation.

[Luis Gonzalez]

None so blind as they who will not see.

[Mobile Vulgus]

Lincoln could not have saved the Union regardless of his ability. The South busted the country up BEFORE... I repeat BEFORE... Lincoln ever took office.

Your focus on Lincoln and your absolving the South is absurd.

[fortheDeclaration]

The real question is, was the war morally justified considering the massive loss of life and destruction of property in view of the fact that had the south been left alone slavery would have been abolished in due course. The question of the right of states to secede I believe also favors the southern view that yes they had a right to secede. States did not sacrifice their sovereignty at the time of the formation of the federal union. If you had a right to join you should have also the right to leave if this is determined by the democratic process.

First, it is always asserted by the 'let them go' crowd, that slavery would have ended.

Since the South was leaving to keep slavery, it is highly unlikely that it would have died a peaceful death.

Second, no where does the Constitution give the right to secede.

Not even the Confederate states wrote it in their Constitution.

The Union was not a coalition of semi-nations.

It was a Federal system that carefully balanced sovereignity between local and federal government.

The right of secession is simply the right of revolution, the right to dissolve a government.

But to invoke that right there must be some real abuses that cannot be resolved peacefully.

Losing an election is not a valid reason to dissolve a government.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"We do know that at the time of the formation of the union, states were under the impression that they were sovereign units."

Not true at all, we actually know the exact opposite.

You will herewith receive the result of the Convention, which continued its session till the 17th of September. I take the liberty of making some observations on the subject, which will help to make up a letter, if they should answer no other purpose.

It appeared to be the sincere and unanimous wish of the Convention to cherish and preserve the Union of the States. No proposition was made, no suggestion was thrown out, in favor of a partition of the Empire into two or more Confederacies.

It was generally agreed that the objects of the Union could not be secured by any system founded on the principle of a confederation of Sovereign States. A voluntary observance of the federal law by all the members could never be hoped for. A compulsive one could evidently never be reduced to practice, and if it could, involved equal calamities to the innocent and guilty, the necessity of a military force, both obnoxious and dangerous, and, in general, a scene resembling much more a civil war than the administration of a regular Government.

Hence was embraced the alternative of a Government which, instead of operating on the States, should operate without their intervention on the individuals composing them; and hence the change in the principle and proportion of representation. -- James Madison Explains the Constitution to Thomas Jefferson

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Jaffa, and every anti-secessionist, is anti-republican and against the ideals of the Declaration of Independence."

What a laugh coming from a supporter of Calhoun's idea that people were NOT created equal, and that rights belonged to society, not individuals.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"In my view the Constitution says nothing explicitly about secession."

Demonstrably false.

In the Constitution's Preamble, the intent of the document is put forth as being "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Posterity means all of the offspring of a given progenitor.

It was then agreed that the Union was perpetual, to add a clause making the dissolution of a perpetual union illegal would be unnecessarily redundant and needlessly repetitious.

(yes, I intended to be redundant in my statement about being redundant)

[Courdeleon02]

To be perfectly frank James Madison had his opinion and other equally intelligent founding fathers did not share his view. Ironically John Adams for one.