Posted on 09/26/2009 2:45:33 PM PDT by HokieMom
LEXINGTON, Va. (AP) -- Americans must pay attention to challenges to democracy today just as Abraham Lincoln did by fiercely opposing slavery, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told a conference on the 16th president's legacy Friday night.
"We are part of something far greater than ourselves," Thomas told more than 300 people at Washington and Lee University.
Many in Lincoln's time didn't realize the threat that slavery posed to the principles on which the nation was founded, Thomas said.
"What a miserable job he had. He wasn't popular," Thomas said, "but he did what was right."
Thomas received a standing ovation from the audience in Lee Chapel, where Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee is buried.
He told conference participants he isn't a Lincoln scholar, but admires him greatly.
"My interest in him has been deeply personal and long-standing," said Thomas, who grew up in segregated rural Georgia in the 1950s and 1960s. "We thought of him then as the great emancipator."
The 61-year-old Thomas is the Supreme Court's second black justice. The first was Thurgood Marshall, whom he replaced in 1991.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Clearly it would be the States that decide....
The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the constitution, that it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated and consequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition. (The Virginia Report of 1799-1800, Report on the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798)
That war was going to take place regardless of the underlining issue! Just look at today's voting pattern {Dixie vs New England States}With the exception of the herds of Liberal beach lovers flooding from New York the South has remained fairly Conservative....
The more times change the more they stay the same!
Texas Senator Louis T. Wigfall, 1861:
That the people of the North shall consider themselves as more blessed than we, more civilized, and happier, is not a matter at which we would complain at all, if they would only content themselves with believing that to be the fact; but when they come and attempt to propagandize, and insist that we shall be as perfect as they imagine themselves to be, then it is that their good opinion of themselves becomes offensive to us.
Let my neighbor believe that his wife is an angel and his children cherubs, I care not, though I may know he is mistaken; but when he comes impertinently poking his nose into my door every morning, and telling me that my wife is a shrew and my children brats, then the neighborhood becomes uncomfortable, and if I cannot remove him, I will remove myself; and if he says to me, “you shall not move, but you shall stay here, and you shall, day after day, hear the demerits of your wife and children discussed,” then I begin to feel a little restive, and possibly might assert that great original right of pursuing whatever may conduce to my happiness, though it might be kicking him out of my door.
If New England would only be content with the blessings which she imagines she has, we would not disturb her in her happiness.
It's really disappointing they don't teach about the Real Lincoln!
Now irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home—may find some spot where they can better their condition—where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favor of this not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our own people who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over. . . . (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, New York: The Library of America, 1989, edited by Don Fehrenbacher, p. 807)
What would you know about the real Lincoln?
Senator Wigfall hit the nail on the head. There was no violation of the Constitution involved at all. He was ticked off because (some of) the people of the free states had hurt his feeeelings.
As Lincoln said. paraphrasing, the slave states would never be satisfied for the Union to allow slavery in the slave states, or even if it was allowed to spread into the territories without restriction. They would never rest until the free states agreed with them, and said so publicly, that slavery was not only tolerable but a positive good.
I can understand the pickle those who inherited slave ownership were in. Lincoln himself said he did not know how to solve the problem and he did not know what he would have done had he been a slaveowner himself.
An honorable man can be stuck in difficult position morally and be unsure how to get out of it. Only a deeply morally corrupt and evil person would, however, turn around and claim that the evil he was stuck with was a positive good, much less plot to expand it throughout the country and the hemisphere, perhaps eventually the world.
Calhoun and the southern fire-eaters fell into the latter group. The Bible talks about “woe to those who call evil good.” Well, they got their woe, packed down and overflowing, and managed to drag the entire country into it while at it.
That speech was made in Capon Springs, Virginia in 1851. And Webster had been dead for 9 year by the time the rebellion broke out. So pray tell how could he disagree with Lincoln's fight against the Southern rebellion?
The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right to governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state.
True. So long as their actions don't violate the U.S. Constitution. See Article VI of the same.
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788
Also from the New York Ratification Document: "We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution." That means that they agreed to abide by it and accepted its privlidges and its restrictions. Any action they took which violated that Constitution was illegal.
I'm sure, Mr. Madison wouldn't agree with forcibly preserving the Union.
I know Mr. Madison would not support the Southern secession: "I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-’99 as countenancing the doctrine that a state may at will secede from its Constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."
Thomas Jefferson, to William Crawford...
In the first place it's clear that in Jefferson's view the separation is mutual. It is not done unilaterally. In the second place, you really should look at the entire quote in context:
"The alternatives between which we are to choose [are fairly stated]: 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter and hold the former at arm's length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war."
Now, if you want to lump the confederacy in with those wanting "licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many" then I won't disagree. Especially on the wanting war part.
Calhoun and the southern fire-eaters fell into the latter group. The Bible talks about “woe to those who call evil good.” Well, they got their woe, packed down and overflowing, and managed to drag the entire country into it while at it.”
Calhoun was twice the Constitutional scholar compared to Lincoln! First, Lincoln claimed this—
Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union . The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas; and even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the Declaration of Independence . . . . Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of “State rights,” asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the “sovereignty” of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a “sovereignty” in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it “a political community without a political superior”? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas , ever was a sovereignty. . . . (Special Session Message to Congress, July 4, 1861)
His whole argument is false!! His war a lie...
“The Thirteen States are Thirteen Sovereign bodies.”
— Oliver Ellsworth
Madison—
Who are the parties to it? The people—not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.
The original draft of the Constitution:
WE the People of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.
Texas Constitution of 1845:
All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit and they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient; and, therefore, no government or authority can exist or exercise power within the State of Texas, without the consent of the people thereof previously given; nor after that consent be withdrawn.
That editorial is a fine example of Copperhead cluelessness to the true nature of the rebellion as a mere coup of the Dixie political class without sufficient enthusiasm from the Southern people. Hundreds of thousands of Southerners knew what they were doing when they fought for Old Abe against the power play of the slaveowners.
This thread is of particular interest to anyone who believes that our Republic can be saved by the so-called “Conservative” movement.
Some “Conservatives” have the idea that the role played by Washington, DC is just fine — but it should be run by “Conservatives,” so that by sheer strength of will and personal convictions they would keep government limited and in line with “Constitutional guidelines.”
Other Conservatives are convinced that the nation should go back to the original intent of our Founders to truly restore our Republic. Only then can the boundaries of government be correctly restored, the branches forced to observe proper checks and balances, and the actual POWER of the nation back in the hands of the STATES and of the PEOPLE, NOT invested in the FEDS populating Washington, DC.
Those who argue that the results of the Civil War were “good” are the FORMER types of “Conservatives” who have bought into the same Progressive premises that drive the Liberals that now run both the elected a bureaucratic wings of the Washington regime. In reality, their philosophical foundation is NO different than Barack Obama’s.
The latter are actual “Conservatives,” who base their philosophy on the words of the Founders, and the Cosntitution alone. They KNOW that if the States are powerless to STOP Washington apart from working THROUGH the rigged Washington system, then we HAVE no Republic, and our system is merely an illusion.
In this sense, the FORMER “Conservatives” are not truly Conservatives at all. They may be dubbed “Neo-Conservatives,” though that term is SO misued and distorted these days that I’m not sure it’s appropriate. Pseudo-Conservative, Big Government Conservative, Washington Conservative all fit — MINUS the “Conservative.” Because their ultimate basis of argument is Washington will be better if WE are in charge. And that is a FALSE PREMISE that true conservatives REJECT.
The latter are often dubbed “Paleo-Conservatives,” but that isn’t really indicative of their convictions either. They are Originalist Conservatives, States Rights Conservatives, Constitutional conservatives and ultimately are the heirs to the Founders ideologically. And yes, they are in the minority — as this thread seems to starkly demonstrate.
The answer to restoring our Republic was NOT Washington in 1865, and it IS NOT Washington in 2009! That task belongs SOLELY to the STATES AND THE PEOPLE. Washington be damned! No matter what tag you hang on yourself, if you are sold on the idea that the future of our Republic will be directed from Washington DC, you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, not part of the solution!
Deo Vindice!
Patriot Preacher
Only to those who blame Abraham Lincoln for everything up to an including a rainy day.
Which I don’t do — but ignoring that Lincoln was the one who got the whole Federocentric Washington DC thing going is the FIRST sign that one’s “Conservative” credentials are based on false premises...
trouble makers out there with nothing better to do.
You mean stomp the living sh-t out of treasonous “Americans” who had the gall to fire on a US military installation? I’ll have to side with his Honor on this one...
What is vastly overstating Lincoln's responsibility for the current D.C. monster a sign of? Other than a Southron supporter?
You really need to work on your debating skills. I hate to break it to you, but your declaring an argument false and a lie is not actually an argument. It's an assertion or contention, and unless supported by something resembling evidence it has no more validity than any other unsupported statement of opinion.
Lincoln's argument sounds pretty good to me. No State declared its separate independence from UK, rather they all declared independence together as a corporate body, the United States. Till that moment they were colonies, each separately subject to the King and Parliament.
No colony had any separate existence as an independent State prior to the Declaration. As Lincoln says, no state except Texas was ever an independent country.
And if you wish to use Texas as an example of a state with a right to secession, you'll need to point to the appropriate clause in the treaty by which it entered the Union specifying its right to secede, not to a Texas Constitution entered into after it had already joined that Union.
“The Thirteen States are Thirteen Sovereign bodies.” — Oliver Ellsworth
Why exactly should I accept Ollie's opinion as dispositive? He was one of the Founders, but only one man. His opinion, as such, is inherently no more valid that yours or mine.
Madison— Who are the parties to it? The people—not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.
No one argues that the states are sovereign in that they share sovereignty with the Union. The whole point of the Constitution was that it tried to divide sovereignty between the States and the Union. No conservative, I believe, would disagree that we have drifted much too far away from the split sovereignty.
It's a big step from that to secession and launching war against the Union by the States.
The original draft of the Constitution:
Probably more accurately, one draft of the Constitution. You think it possible they may have had a reason for changing it to the present version? I know when I change a rough draft of an article I'm working on it's because I've come up with something that more accurately makes my point.
FYI, here's REL's opinion as to abolition as of 1856, in a letter commenting on an anti-abolitionist speech by President Pierce.
" I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"
Quite apparently REL was perfectly happy to have the elimination of slavery take a few more thousand years. What's a millenium or two?
I found particularly sanctimonious the last sentence quoted. He apparently thinks abolitionist New Englanders should be more tolerant of the spiritual liberty of southerners holding others in bondage than of the spiritual liberty of those so held.
REL was a very great man, and an even greater soldier, but he obviously had some very serious moral blind spots.
I was thinking of Lincoln last night.
It’s only too bad Orly Taitz doesn’t
have a lawyer like young Abe on her team.
The two cannot logically be combined. Either secession was a legal and constitutional action, in which case it should have been handled by the appropriate legal and constitutional means, such as a lawsuit in the Supreme Court asserting the right. Given the composition of the Court at the time, there is every reason to believe such a suit would have been successful.
Or secession was based on the right of every people to revolution. But once one resorts to revolution and the sword, one by definition abandons all right to appeal back to law and Constitution.
You just can't have it both ways.
BTW, the right of revolution does not mean that others have no right to contest your right to revolutionize. Once you have appealed to the decision arms, you give up your right to claim that others have no right to fight back.
The seceding southern states chose an appeal to arms, on various assumptions, largely because they (correctly) assumed that fighting would bring Upper South states in on their side. Where they miscalculated was that it didn't bring (in the long run) the border states also in on their side. Had they been correct in this assumption (especially MO and KY) they would have won the War.
Other incorrect assumptions: The North was populated entirely by cowards who couldn't fight against southern gentlement. King Cotton would ensure European intervention and CSA victory. And a good many others. All of which turned out to be illusions.
I'm curious. Do you have any particular reason to believe the States, by which you presumably mean the existing state governors and legislatures, would be effective in this role?
It seems to me you are speaking of romanticized and ideal States, not those which actually exist.
State legislature and governors are often at least as corrupt as the federal government, more so in many cases.
Thank you for implicitly accepting my point that secession was not in response to an actual violation of the Constitution, but rather because the southerners had their feeeeelings hurt when northern abolitionists pointed out the immoral nature of their peculiar institution.
(The euphemistic nature of this popular term, BTW, reinforcing the fact that even southerners could not make a moral case for the institution they were defending.)
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.