Posted on 11/25/2007 5:05:15 PM PST by Bear_Slayer
I am researching the phrase
that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
that was used by Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address
Specifically the part "of the people, by the people, for the people."
Is this phrase used anywhere in our constitution or DOI?
You give Lincoln’s racism a pass in historical context....as do I like (like I’m so damned racism obsessed anyhow admittedly)
My question was ...do you also grant the same historical context to North American Slavery?
I have always felt that this little piece of side politics was one of the most judicious, humane, and wise uses of executive authority that I have ever assisted in or witnessed.
And how do you think things get done in Washington, anyway?
Trading of favors and appointments is government's lifeblood.
It's not that the end justifies the means, though. It's that favor-trading was unavoidable in 19th century US politics.
No, just not blessed with your odd definition of words.
So the person who committed the bribe feels that the person who authorized it had a noble purpose. Give me a break.
Bribery [Britannica Concise Encyclopedia]:
Crime of giving a benefit (e.g., money) in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust (e.g., an official or witness). Accepting a bribe also constitutes a crime. Bribery is typically punishable as a felony (see felony and misdemeanour). In any charge of bribery, some element of "corrupt purpose" must be implied or proved. Thus, in the absence of a complete statutory prohibition on the granting of favours to a public official, a gift is not a bribe unless it is given with some intent to influence the recipient's official behaviour.
BRIBERY, crim. law. The receiving or offering any undue reward by or to any person whomsoever, whose ordinary profession or business relates to the administration of public justice, in order to influence his behaviour in office, and to incline him to act contrary to his duty and the known rules of honesty and integrity. 3 Inst. 149; 1 Hawk. P. C. 67, s. 2 4 Bl. Com. 139; 1 Russ. Cr. 156.
2. The term bribery extends now further, and includes the offence of giving a bribe to many other officers. The offence of the giver and of the receiver of the bribe has the same name. For the sake of distinction, that of the former, viz : the briber, might be properly denominated active. bribery; while that of the latter, viz : the person bribed, might be called passive bribery.
3. Bribery at elections for members of parliament, has always been a crime at common law, and punishable by indictment or information. It still remains so in England notwithstanding the stat. 24 Geo. H. c. 14 3 Burr. 1340, 1589. To constitute the offence, it is not necessary that the person bribed should, in fact, vote as solicited to do 3 Burr. 1236; or even that he should have a right to vote at all both are entirely immaterial. 3 Bur. 1590-1.
4. An attempt to bribe, though unsuccessful, has been holden to be criminal, and the offender may be indicted. 2 Dall. 384; 4 Burr. 2500 3 Inst. 147; 2 Campb. R. 229; 2 Wash. 88; 1 Virg. Cas. 138; 2 Virg. Cas. 460.
The same applies if Her Ankleship and the First Felon, or any other Democratic contender, return to the White House in 2009!
Today’s Democratic Party is as anti-American as any foreign enemy we have opposed since the Revolution. And they are closer to winning than any other of our past foes!
Yes.
Truth is, slavery was NOT uncommon at the time. In fact, it was western ideals that eliminated it. That we were the last western power to rid ourselves of it is annoying, but I do not look back on slavery and lament that it was sooooo horrible that it makes us evil as a result. truth is, EVERYONE had slavery when we began this country!
Truth is most of the world outside the west STILL had slavery up until the 1900s! Saudi Arabia didn’t “officially” outlaw it until the 1960’s fer Lord’s sake!
So, yes, it was bad. But we did lose 600,000 men to fighting it and we DID get rid of it.
It is what it is. No reason to act s if it was any worse here than anywhere else in the world, throughout time.
I agree.
Glad to hear it. Thanks.
Obviously you are referring to the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation, as an action taken against the Confederate states, did not affect slavery in the border states that did not secede.
However you are forgetting the 13th Amendment to the Constitution:
Section 1. 'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.',
which was passed by Congress in January, 1865, under Lincoln's leadership. It was not ratified until December, 1865, 8 months after John Wilkes Booth, an agent of the Confederate Government, assassinated him.
Because Alexander Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume the debts of the states and Jefferson disagreed ... until Hamilton offered his support for a federal capital on Virginia's Northern border.
Favor trading has been a part of our politics from the beginning. You only call it bribery when someone you disapprove of does it.
I call paying people in exchange for their votes bribery. I provided the definition of bribery given in an 1856 dictionary of US law terms, and it seems to fit this particular case. On the other hand, you term this sort of transaction "favor trading."
Let's calculate the value in present day dollars of one of those three jobs that were offered in exchange for three votes, the one mentioned at $20,000 a year. Using an Excel inflation spreadsheet available on the web [Link], the value of a 2007 dollar in 1864 would have been 0.80. In other words, an $20,000 job in 1864 would have been worth $250,000 a year in 2007.
Some favor.
Sorry, the value of a 2007 dollar in 1864 would have been 0.080. Darn those typos.
Boys, boys! Please let nobody get caught tossing off in a Sarasota sex-shop....
In searching I found that Stanton took his cabinet post under Lincoln at a salary of $8,000 [Link 1]. And I found customs regulations of 1864 that limited the aggregate of salaries, fees and commissions to a maximum of $2,500 [Link 2]. Any excess was to be turned in to the Treasury Department.
So, the $20,000 salary quoted by Dana sounds suspiciously high. Perhaps there was a typo and the figure should have been 2,000. Or, perhaps a crooked official could really earn the $20,000 a year in fees, etc. and just not turn over the excess to the Treasury. Who knows?
From the speech of Representative C. H. Van Wyck of New York to the House of Representatives, February 23, 1863, starting with the headings [page 117 of Appendix to the Congressional Globe for that session, 37th Congress, third session, Link]. Van Wyck was making a minority report about what he had found out about the true earnings of customs officials from interviewing 50 of them:
FRAUD ON THE TREASURY -- THE NEW YORK CUSTOMS-HOUSE
... MONEYS RECEIVED BY REVENUE OFFICERS
There was a difference of opinion among witnesses as to the amount of moneys received by the revenue officers. Mr. Cargill, a very candid man. formerly in the custom-house under Schell, as deputy, in a position which entitled him to know, states it at $150,000 to each for four years, independent of the salary. Also, Mr. Bayard, then and now in the seizure bureau of the customs-house, a cautious, prudent witness whose office gave him the means of knowing, and who had previously made calculations as to the amount, fixes it at $30,000 per annum to each ... The figures as made by Mr. Ogden [rb: an auditor] show from fines penalties and forfeitures, between twenty one and twenty two thousand dollars per annum, besides the salary of $5,000.
In addition the collector receives from commissions on the harbor master, health officers, and seaman's retreat hospital fees, about four thousand dollars more, making according to their own figures about thirty thousand dollars per annum for the collector, and $27,000 each to the surveyor and naval officer.
Possibly there should be no censure for the officers who take these fabulous amounts when the law gives it to them, but what outrage and enormity in the law which can tolerate such a thing! A party in power which creates or continues such a law ought to be rebuked. If these gentlemen are worth $30,000 a year to themselves, they are certainly not to the government. Without any disparagement to them, who will pretend that their places could not be filled with men equally competent for the salary of $5,000.
According to Van Wyck, the figures above do not include bribes. No wonder that Lincoln was besieged by patronage job applicants, and Dana could offer such a job in exchange for a vote. Van Wyck said that his colleagues on the committee that investigated this were trying to bury the information, hence the need for Van Wyck's minority report.
I gather from Van Wyck's words that this customs bonanza had gone on during the Buchanan administration as well and in fact for some 20 years, at least. So, you are correct that this kind of operation was the modus operandi back then. All this probably led to the later limitation on customs officials' earnings.
By the way, the average salary of a working man in 1860 was about $290 per year according to the census. [Link].
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.