Glenn Beck Discusses Lincoln with "Expert"

Glenn Beck Show ^ | 2/15/2009 | Self

[central_va]

Did anyone here see tonight's Glenn Beck TV show segment with the author (Lehrman?) of Lincoln at Peoria?

[Bigun]

Although the federal government can, in no possible view, be considered as a party to a compact made anterior to its existence, and by which it was, in fact, created; yet as the creature of that compact, it must be bound by it, to its creators, the several states in the union, and the citizens thereof. Having no existence but under the constitution, nor any rights, but such as that instrument confers; and those very rights being in fact duties; it can possess no legitimate power, but such, as is absolutely necessary for the performance of a duty, prescribed and enjoined by the constitution. Its duties, then, become the exact measure of its powers; and wherever it exerts a power for any other purpose, than the performance of a duty prescribed by the constitution, it transgresses its proper limits, and violates the public trust. Its duties, being moreover imposed for the general benefit and security of the several states, in their politic character; and of the people, both in their sovereign, and individual capacity, if these objects be not obtained, the government will not answer the end of its creation: it is therefore bound to the several states, respectively, and to every citizen thereof, for the due execution of those duties. And the observance of this obligation is enforced, by the solemn sanction of an oath, from all who administer the government [31].

Tucker's Blackstone Volume 1 — Appendix Note D [Section 2 — Nature of U.S. Constitution; manner of its adoption (cont.)]

The States created the Federal government and not the other way around period end of story!

[Lee'sGhost]

To add...

If you force people to be part of a “union” it is no longer a union, it is a government enslaving people. By fighting with and forcing people to be part of his federal government, Lincoln created that which the Lincoln lovers profess to loathe....a slave state. The irony is rich and the ignorance — or denial — of the Lincoln defenders is astounding. It is just that we have become numb to it.

[Non-Sequitur]

He is wrong because every one of those states were free and independent states long before there was any union whatever!

Not hardly.

[Non-Sequitur]

The States created the Federal government and not the other way around period end of story!

If you say so.

[LorenC]

If Davis had said he would get rid of slavery then he would have been impeached and kicked out of the conferacy.

It's not like Davis had any say in the matter to start with. The Confederate Constitution explicitly protected the right of slave ownership, so slavery in the CSA couldn't have been banned without a Constitutional amendment. As President, Davis didn't even have a say in the amending of the Confederate Constitution.

[Bigun]

If you force people to be part of a “union” it is no longer a union, it is a government enslaving people. By fighting with and forcing people to be part of his federal government, Lincoln created that which the Lincoln lovers profess to loathe....a slave state. The irony is rich and the ignorance — or denial — of the Lincoln defenders is astounding. It is just that we have become numb to it.

Absolutely right! It is counter to everything this country is supposed to be about!

[Bigun]

You are willfully blinded to the FACTS and so it appears you shall forever remain!

The fallacious notion that "The Union is older than the States and in fact created them as States. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. [T]he Union threw off their old dependence for them and made them States, such as they are." is the essence of Lincoln's, and your, sophistry and I know that you will argue it forever but you will STILL be wrong!

[Idabilly]

“To add...

If you force people to be part of a “union” it is no longer a union, it is a government enslaving people. By fighting with and forcing people to be part of his federal government, Lincoln created that which the Lincoln lovers profess to loathe....a slave state. The irony is rich and the ignorance — or denial — of the Lincoln defenders is astounding. It is just that we have become numb to it.”

Lysander Spooner would agree.

“The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States , instead of slave States, had seceded. . . .

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle—but only in degree—between political and chattel slavery. . . .

The North has thus virtually said to the world: It was all very well to prate of consent, so long as the objects to be accomplished were to liberate ourselves from our connection with England, and also to coax a scattered and jealous people into a great national union; but now that those purposes have been accomplished, and the power of the North has become consolidated, it is sufficient for us -— as for all governments—simply to say: Our power is our right.

In proportion to her wealth and population, the North has probably expended more money and blood to maintain her power over an unwilling people, than any other government ever did. And in her estimation, it is apparently the chief glory of her success, and an adequate compensation for all her own losses, and an ample justification for all her devastation and carnage of the South, that all pretence of any necessity for consent to the perpetuity or power of government, is (as she thinks) forever expunged from the minds of the people. In short, the North exults beyond measure in the proof she has given, that a government, professedly resting on consent, will expend more life and treasure in crushing dissent, than any government, openly founded on force, has ever done.

And she claims that she has done all this in behalf of liberty! In behalf of free government! In behalf of the principle that government should rest on consent!”

[Bigun]

It isn’t just me who says so and if you would simply read my preceding posts to you you would know that!

[Non-Sequitur]

The fallacious notion that "The Union is older than the States and in fact created them as States. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. [T]he Union threw off their old dependence for them and made them States, such as they are." is the essence of Lincoln's, and your, sophistry and I know that you will argue it forever but you will STILL be wrong!

Because you say so. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Non-Sequitur]

As President, Davis didn't even have a say in the amending of the Confederate Constitution.

Well it's not like the confederate government found following their constitution all that important to begin with.

[Bigun]

Do you have any idea who St. George Tucker was or the import of his work that I linked to in #201?

I think not so I will presume to inform you a little on the subject! That work, published in 1803, was a textbook in virtually EVERY law school in the country prior to the late 1850's and as such helped shape the understanding of everyone who studied it which would be every legal scholar for generations after it's publication. It happens to agree with me and a great many others who can separate the Forrest from the trees!

[Lee'sGhost]

So said Lysander Spooner... which all became just so much prattle when Southern states were forced to take an oath of allegiance re-write constitutions to acknowledge their newly inflicted state of slavery, negating every principle he stated.

[Non-Sequitur]

Do you have any idea who St. George Tucker was or the import of his work that I linked to in #201?

Yep.

I think not so I will presume to inform you a little on the subject!

Oh goody.

It is, at best, a chicken-or-egg situation. The Declaration of Independence states that representatives of the United States of America declared its independence. Well the United States at the time was made up of 13 sovereign states. I don't think that Lincoln was right when he said the union predates the states anymore than you are correct in saying the states predate the Union. They were born simultaneously and one cannot exist without the other. However, much of what Lincoln said WAS true in that the Union existed before most of the rebelling states did, and that it did, in effect, create them when they were allowed to join the Union.

[central_va]

I just shake my head in sorrow, every time I think of so much blood shed by Southern boys for the sake of the plantation owners "property" rights

BS alarm! Please, spare us.....

[Bigun]

I don't think that Lincoln was right when he said the union predates the states anymore than you are correct in saying the states predate the Union. They were born simultaneously and one cannot exist without the other.

Horse feathers!

After the collapse of British authority in 1775 it became necessary to form new state governments and by the end of 1777 ten new state constitutions had been created. Connecticut and Rhode Island kept their colonial charters but removed all references to British sovereignty. Massachusetts waited until 1780 to adopt it's new Constitution. All of this prior to adoption to the Articles of Confederation!

The were already free and independent states prior to their becoming party to any union whatever!

[Bigun]

However, much of what Lincoln said WAS true in that the Union existed before most of the rebelling states did, and that it did, in effect, create them when they were allowed to join the Union.

I guess the word "create" carries a different meaning for you than it does for most everyone else.

Main Entry: ¹cre·ate

Pronunciation: \krē-ˈāt, ˈkrē-ˌ\

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): cre·at·ed; cre·at·ing

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin creatus, past participle of creare; akin to Latin crescere to grow — more at crescent

Date: 14th century

transitive verb 1 : to bring into existence <God created the heaven and the earth — Gen 1:1(Authorized Version)>
2 a : to invest with a new form, office, or rank <was created a lieutenant> b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or behavior <her arrival created a terrible fuss> <create new jobs>
3 : cause, occasion <famine creates high food prices>
4 a : to produce through imaginative skill <create a painting> b : design <creates dresses>intransitive verb 1 : to make or bring into existence something new
2 : to set up a scoring opportunity in basketball <create off the dribble

Create.

[Non-Sequitur]

Horse feathers!

And did 13 colonies issue 13 declarations of independence? Or did they meet in a single congress and approve and issue their declaration from that single body?

After the collapse of British authority in 1775 it became necessary to form new state governments and by the end of 1777 ten new state constitutions had been created.

And well before that they had been meeting in Congress - first the First Continental Congress in 1774 and then the Second Continental Congress that began meeting in May 1775.

[Non-Sequitur]

I guess the word "create" carries a different meaning for you than it does for most everyone else.

Was Alabama, for example, a state before it was admitted into the Union with the approval of the other states? No. Was it a state after it was admitted? Yes. "Bring into existence" would not be an inappropriate description of the process Congress went through to create the state of Alabama.

[Bigun]

And did 13 colonies issue 13 declarations of independence? Or did they meet in a single congress and approve and issue their declaration from that single body?

NO they each independently endorsed the one that was issued!

Who was it that the King of England made peace with under the 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, Delaware, 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.

Treaty of Paris

And well before that they had been meeting in Congress - first the First Continental Congress in 1774 and then the Second Continental Congress that began meeting in May 1775.

Of course they had and they met as thefree and independent states they were at the time!