Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial - 2009; the official work and preparation begins now

It's funny that people don't use the word "rabid" about any belief that they share or respect. It looks to be wholly pejorative, and hence, not very useful, except in establishing which side those who use it come down on an issue.

Agreed. I am indeed guilty of what I condemn others for. I will refrain from using it in the future.

-----

The Founders clearly didn't think of slavery that way. By the 1850s many Southern leaders did.

Again, agreed. Emotions over slavery became so inflamed that rational discussion was practically impossible.

I believe that, while the war was the shattering of the Republic, the fractures began much earlier.

The Missouri Compromise was later ruled unconstitutional because the federal government had no authority on the issue. It seems the tariffs were a sore point as well.

-----

The Founders were, however, adamant about state's rights. Thomas Jefferson's letter to William Branch Giles Monticello, December 26, 1825 is a perfect illustration about how the 3 branches of government had already begun to meld into one, huge 'national' government.

The biggest difficulty today, IMHO, is sorting through the mess of history and trying to find where those original lines were.

------

At what point did it start? In your opinion, was the national bank unconstitutional?

Well, aren't those interesting quotes. I must admit I feel quite enlightened.

Tariffs (or taxation of any kind) had been an issue. Excess taxation was always an issue with the Founders.

James Madison to Andrew Stevenson 27 Nov. 1830
But admitting the distinction as alleged, the appropriating power to all objects of "common defence and general welfare" is itself of sufficient magnitude to render the preceding views of the subject applicable to it. Is it credible that such a power would have been unnoticed and unopposed in the Federal Convention? in the State Conventions, which contended for, and proposed restrictive and explanatory amendments? and in the Congress of 1789, which recommended so many of these amendments? A power to impose unlimited taxes for unlimited purposes could never have escaped the sagacity and jealousy which were awakened to the many inferior and minute powers which were criticised and combated in those public bodies.

It's very sad reading the Founder's letter around this time. It's almost as if they could see the writing on the wall.

-----

Thank you again for your informative post.

It seems you enjoy jumping on my mistakes as if the mistakes themselves created some type of evidence. I'm so sorry, I'm not perfect. I have never once in all my time here said that I was.

Well, your "mistake" excuse is wearing ever thinner as you tried to make it cover more and more of what you wrote. What you originally said was that South Carolina had petitioned congress over the matter of tariffs on cotton exports 25 years prior to the Declarations of Causes. Then you said, well, what you meant to say was that they'd petitioned over runaway slaves. Then you said that the petition WAS the Declaration of Causes, which apparently was sent to congress 25 years earlier, but it wasn't a petition. Or something like that.

So, once and for all, what did South Carolina do 25 years before over some grievance or another?

My theory is that you were thinking in some hazy fashion about the Nullification Crisis of 1828, which WAS about tariffs, although not on imports. Or cotton.

Have you still no opinion on Governor Mifflin's precedent I posted to you on #311?

I'm still trying to figure out just what the precedent was, since we've established that Washington called up not just the militia of other states, but that of Pennsylvania to put down the rebellion. Mifflin's refusal seems to have been essentially ignored.

But the group has the right to compel the individual to abide by the agreements entered into when they were allowed to join the group.

If that were the case, why did the federal government say they had no legal authority to retrieve the escaped slaves until after the 'gave' it to themselves with the Fugitive Slave Act?

----

The south stole a bunch of forts

They weren't 'stealing' them, they were knocking them down for easier transportation back to D.C.

:-p

He also said this (while adopting socialist theory):

"Free trade is a system whereby some have labored, and others have, without labor, enjoyed a large portion of the fruits.... To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government."

Can you source this please? I can't find it in his writings, and it certainly wasn't in his Pittsburgh speech.

He also said this (espousing early facist thinking):

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot do so well, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities."

Let's take it in context, shall we?

"Government is a combination of the people of a country to effect certain objects by joint effort. The best framed and best administered governments are necessarily expensive; while by errors in frame and maladministration most of them are more onerous than they need be, and some of them very oppressive. Why, then, should we have government? Why not each individual take to himself the whole fruit of his labor, without having any of it taxed away, in services, corn, or money? Why not take just so much land as he can cultivate with his own hands, without buying it of any one?"

"The legitimate object of government is ``to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves.'' There are many such things---some of them exist independently of the injustice in the world. Making and maintaining roads, bridges, and the like; providing for the helpless young and afflicted; common schools; and disposing of deceased men's property, are instances."

"But a far larger class of objects springs from the injustice of men. If one people will make war upon another, it is a necessity with that other to unite and cooperate for defense. Hence the military department. If some men will kill, or beat, or constrain others, or despoil them of property, by force, fraud, or noncompliance with contracts, it is a common object with peaceful and just men to prevent it. Hence the criminal and civil departments."

Positively Hitlerian. </sarcasm>

This dramatically illustrated Lincoln's dictatorial mentality. He would place his subjective impressions over the decisions of individual consumers. Lincoln proposed that he, rather than consumers, would determine which goods and services would exist. This is Lincoln as the advocate of central planning.

This is DorisKearnsGoodwad running off at the mouth again. A careful reading of the quote, again in context, shows how wrong you are. Link

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was ruled unconstitutional in Dred Scott. Chief Justice Taney said Congress did not have the authority to restrict slavery in any territories. Slaves were property, and the restriction of property without due process violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

In Strader v. Graham (1851), for example, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ordinance was no longer in force in the states formed in the northwest territory.

It is very true that by 1851, the Northwest Ordinance was not in force. The land that was Federal territory in 1789 was then all independent states, admitted to the Union with all the privileges (and duties) of the original states. Their applications for statehood and constitutions had been reviewed and approved by Congress and they were granted statehood.

But if the very law that allowed them to organize was found unconstitutional long after the fact, the logical conclusion from the Court should have been that the Constitutions of those states that outlawed, by requirement of Congress, that particular brand of property (slavery) were violations of the Federal Constitution. Their Constitutions should have been overturned. But Taney and the majority never suggested that. Why?

And what of the original thirteen states? Did Pennsylvania, for instance, (which outlawed slavery a nearly a decade before before the US Constitution was enacted) be required to allow slavery? It was a "free state" when it entered the Union under the Constitution. If new states are given the same rights as the original states, are the original states given the same as new states? Was Pennsylvania required to allow slaves to be imported from other states under the 1851 decision?

If the Taney decision was right, then the reading of the Constution was that the right to own slaves must exist in every state and no state could ban it.

It takes a very strange view of the Constitution to come to that conclusion. As to original intent of the Framers concerning slavery in the territories, I'd refer you to Lincoln's Cooper Union Address.

The federal government was "Stacking the deck?" in an effort to restrict something they legally had no say in.

Seems to me that the Slave Power were the prople "stacking the deck" by mangling beyond recognition the intent of the Framers. But they had already repudiated the Declaration. Twisting the constitution into knots was a logical next step.

[Non, previously] So Rawle seems to be saying that none of the states in 1829 had the authority to secede as part of their Constitutions.

[Non, now] Then don't muddy the waters. I quoted Rawle with accuracy, and pointed out that in several of the cases the southern states seceded in a manner in which Rawle himself would consider illegal. But in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter anyway because Rawle was incorrect when he claimed states could secede unilaterally to begin with.

It appears as though I have helped, since you're now refuting your own authority, and back to the argument that "It's wrong because Non says so."

[Non] The are you admitting that by Rawle's definition several of the southern secessions weren't legal?

Yes, unfortunately, when invaded, things like that happen. Many of Lincoln's actions were not legal, but were later approved by the legislature. Many were not legal, and were never approved - it took decades worth of historians and chest-thumping for people to accept it as necessary, and only around a hundred years later did people start making the argument that because it was necessary, it was inherently legal.

Of course, it's necessity depends entirely on your agreement with Lincoln's goals.

Yes, unfortunately, when invaded, things like that happen.

It is getting deep in here...again. One does not invade one's own country, so your justification for ignoring the law doesn't apply. But say, for the sake of arguement, that your claim is correct. Who had invaded South Carolina when the legislature seceded? Who had invaded North Carolina? What justified their actions which, by Rawle's guidelines, was illegal?

Many of Lincoln's actions were not legal, but were later approved by the legislature.

How fortunate we are that we have you here with us, to rule on what is legal and what is not. Now I realize that the Davis regime saw no need for a judiciary, but personally I would prefer to rely on the courts to rule on the legality of Lincoln's actions. And in the overwhelming majority of the cases that they have ruled on, they seem to think Lincoln acted legally.

Many were not legal, and were never approved - it took decades worth of historians and chest-thumping for people to accept it as necessary, and only around a hundred years later did people start making the argument that because it was necessary, it was inherently legal.

When it comes to chest thumping and myth spreading the southron contingent takes second place to no one.

I normally don't quote my sources, but to help you through this one, Dearie, I will give you a hint. Do your search using the term 1847, and be a sweetie and just read it for what it is.

Quite understandable, considering how badly you tend to butcher the quotes. But surely you can make an exception in this case? Searching on the quote returns nothing. Searching on '1847' returns a large number of documents. Now either you can source the quote or you can't. I hope you can, because I'm looking forward to seeing how much embellishment there is in your post.

Thank you so much for posting all three of Mr. Lincoln's paragraphs, although it does seem that you use "taking it in context" to mean that you think that posting more of his words changes the intent of his quote, which is WHAT NOW, ALL...........YES, a NON-SEQUITUR.

And I can see why you didn't post the quote in context, what with the talk about courts and justice and all. Subjects that were an anathema to Jefferson Davis and the southron cause. Hope I didn't cause any unpleasant flashbacks by bringing it up.

Just keep looking, and you will find it. And sorry, the sentences before and after it do not change the meaning, so your usual "context" quest is useless.

Can't source it, huh? Well, I should have known.

You might just drop the "context" red herring and see what the man said, and think about the consequences of that type of thinking.

But if we read your misquotes, fabricated quotes, and quotes out of context how will we ever do that? Context IS important for those interested in the truth. Present company excepted, apparently.

"I... would continue trade where it is necessary, and discontinue it, where it is not. As instance: I would continue commerce so far as it is employed in bringing us coffee, and I would discontinue it so far as it is employed in bringing us cotton goods."

There's nothing there but his opinion. The matter was in the hands of Congress. Where is the Constitutional issue? Tariffs are provided for by the Constitution. So you're saying the secession/rebellion was over a difference of economic opinion? I guess I now see why almost every justification of secession published was based on the slavery issue. The poor ignorant mud sills who would have to carry the military load of rebellion would have no stake in nor appreciate the economic issues involved. If your tariff explanation is correct, the slavery hysteria expressed by the big shots was just a cynical concession to the bill in blood that the poor cannon fodder would have to pay for the elite's economic well-being.

I think this Confederate economic rationale is as morally disgusting as the standard straightforward slavery justification for secession/rebellion. Either way the disturbers of the peace had a lot to answer for.

There was only one person capable of bringing about war. That was the man that commanded a standing army...

Who was that?

By April 4, President Lincoln, discovering that supplies in the fort were shorter than he had previously known, and believing a relief expedition to be feasible, ordered merchant vessels escorted by the United States Navy to Charleston. On April 6, 1861, Lincoln notified South Carolina Governor Francis W. Pickens that "an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort." In response, the Confederate cabinet decided at a meeting in Montgomery, Alabama, to open fire on Fort Sumter in an attempt to force its surrender before the relief fleet arrived. Only Secretary of State Robert Toombs opposed this decision: he reportedly told Jefferson Davis the attack "will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest.... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."
The Confederate Secretary of War telegraphed Beauregard that if he were certain that the fort was to be supplied by force, "You will at once demand its evacuation, and if this is refused proceed, in such a manner as you may determine, to reduce it." Beauregard dispatched aides to Fort Sumter on April 11 and issued their ultimatum. Anderson refused.
At 4:30 a.m., a single mortar round fired from Fort Johnson exploded over Fort Sumter, signaling the start of the bombardment from 43 guns and mortars at Fort Moultrie, Fort Johnson, and Cummings Point. Edmund Ruffin, a notable secessionist, had traveled to Charleston in order to be present for the beginning of the war, and was present to fire the first shot at Sumter after the signal round. Anderson withheld his fire until 7:00 a.m., when Captain Abner Doubleday fired a shot at the Ironclad Battery at Cummings Point.

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.