Posted on 02/15/2010 3:29:27 PM PST by central_va
Did anyone here see tonight's Glenn Beck TV show segment with the author (Lehrman?) of Lincoln at Peoria?
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If that's all they wanted, why didn't they just stay in the Union?
Because they wouldn't have been left alone, hello!
Lincoln was embarked on a war policy to "reorganize" the South and abolish slavery -- and also to institutionalize Clay's "American System" and the Republican Party.
The idea was supposedly John Quincy Adams's. In the event of a civil war, the victorious faction could seize control of the beaten States' governments and "reorganize" them as conquered marches. It was a way around the Constitution, essentially.
However, the strategy did require ..... a war.
The People are the States, and the States are the People who live there -- not geography, not woods and trees, People.
Nice quote of the Fourteenth Amendment. We ought to get around to ratifying it someday.
Yes, Lee is atop the list of most-respected military heroes, North and South.
Oh, about his slaves. The slaves were his wife’s, via inheritance. He freed them before he took up arms.
This was Lincoln's argument:
“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”
Support his view?
Treaty of Paris:
Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
The Original draft of the Constitution : They changed to our current form ( They didn't know what States would ratify)
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.
Many State[s] acceding to the Constitution said the follow:
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788.
(1) WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known. ...
That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ...
... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution ... 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.
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Rhode Island; May 29, 1790
That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.
Mr. Madison Federalist No. 39
”In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established...it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America , given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State - the authority of the people themselves. ...That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors - the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation - is obvious from this single consideration: that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it...Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.”
N-s thanks for the great information!!!!
Yes, the Hartford Convention was very widely regarded as treasonous. The disgrace meant the end of the Federalist party. We are lucky that Andrew Jackson won the Battle of New Orleans and nothing came of it. As we are lucky the Confederate rebellion and its’ foreign intrigues failed.
So do the states have the right to band together and expel another state against its will?
So what? Roger Taney had served in Andrew Jackson's cabinet and when he issued his Dred Scott decision he was implementing a plan to strip blacks of citizenship that he'd been contemplating for decades. But hey, he was pro-slavery so I guess that doesn't count against him in your eyes.
Because no other nation had a section willing to launch a bloody rebellion in order to protect their slave industry. And compensated emancipation only works when the slave owners are willing to end slavery in favor of a payout. There was absolutely no indications that the Southern slaveocracy was interested in emancipation on any terms.
And what about the remaining states? Do they have no say in the matter? Do they have no rights that deserve to be protected? Is the Constitution valid for only those leaving and can be used by them as a club to beat those who are staying? The Southern states walked out. They walked away from national debt built up while they were a part. They repudiated obligations the country had entered into while they were a part. They took every bit of federal property they could get their hands on without compensation. And they were in a position where they could cut off all the western states from access to the sea via the Mississippi. And in your world, the remaining states had no choice but to sit there and take it and there wasn't anything they could do? Where is the sense in that?
Oh barf. Under Lincoln the South would have been free to do whatever they wanted with their slave property - except force it on the rest of the country by expanding it to the territories. The South couldn't stand that so they rebelled.
However, the strategy did require ..... a war.
And Davis provided one. Was he in on it?
Not so much, no. He didn't free them until late December 1862. By then he'd taken up his arms for almost 2 years.
His own secretary saw him do it, and wrote that he'd seen him do it. Of course, his secretary approved. But he also ratted him out.
Your hero was a gay man. Get over it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, I thought that you liberals celebrated diversity?
Maybe they thought they'd make fools of themselves (If they tried)
Judge Franz Leiber
“After studying more than 270,000 Confederate documents, seeking evidence against Davis, the court discouraged the War Department: ‘Davis will be found not guilty, and we shall stand there completely beaten’.”
—Chief Justice Salmon Chase to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton
“If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jefferson Davis’) capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason.”
http://www.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/v42/docs/connally.pdf
A not guilty verdict would embarrass the government. A finding
that Davis was not guilty of treason would imply that the Civil War was
fought in vain.111 A guilty verdict of course would be attacked by
Southern loyalists and if rendered by a jury with black members would
be condemned as a mockery, particularly in the South, and make the
imprisoned Davis more of a martyr than he already was. These political
realities, aside from the fact that Davis wanted to be vindicated in the
courts, were the basis of Davis’s persistent demands to be placed on
trial.112 “Davis wanted his day in court so that he could broadcast to the
country the legitimacy and virtue of his cause. As [he] saw it, any fair
trial had to result in his vindication.”113
“Chase, considered a radical while in Lincoln’s cabinet,
now wanted to avoid the trial, extend mercy, and put the issue of the
Civil War in the past.172
had been defeated. So why rule on the question of whether or not secession is treason?”
Most of northern history is revisionist.
But if you want to laugh like never before read any post from non-sequitur.
Which you know because of your vast experience on the subject?
Yes we have. Forced Davis into a corner, had no choice but to bombard Sumter, all Lincoln's fault, blah, blah, blah. Sourtherners never were much for accepting responsibility for their actions.
You are missing an important point. True enough that the Southern states made such a claim, but you leave out the fact that the northern states accepted it and operated government under such a premise.
Any and all northern pretense that they held/hold some superior moral high ground evaporates once you realize that everything the South did before the war was also done in the north or condoned by the north. Their opposition to expanding slavery had nothing to do with pity for the slaves and everything to do with maintaining superior political numbers (power) over the South.
Debate the particulars all you like, but never forget that there were more slaves under the Stars and Stripes than there ever were under the Stars and Bars. Keep you misplaced moral snobbery to yourself.
You are aware that Andrew Johnson issued three amnesty proclamations pardoning every rebel leader for their actions, aren't you? The first one covered every reb except for the political and military leadership. That was May 1865. The second one issued in December 1865 gave amnesty to all rebs except for a few select leaders - Lee, Davis and the like. The third issued just before he left office granted unconditional amnesty to all rebels. Kind of hard to prosecute when those you want to try have been granted a presidential pardon.
“If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jefferson Davis’) capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason.”
I see you Lost Causers repeating this quote time and again, though the recipient changes. But I've never seen a source for it. When exactly is he supposed to have said it?
"As [he] saw it, any fair trial had to result in his vindication.”
Show me a guilty person who doesn't believe that.
"So why rule on the question of whether or not secession is treason?”
Instead he ruled on whether or not secession was legal.
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.