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 ...
“Google “Lincoln on slavery”. regards.:
_________
So you have no idea but are convinced that a clever quotation taken from a Google Search is the equivalent of informed argument.
The point of my question is that I believe I recognize the comment as being an early stand taken by the president. In the quoted comment he states an urgency in keeping the union but disinterest in the plight of slaves. Lincoln, did however, come to realize the evil of slavery and those who supported it.
I like your theory but I think the average Southerner just plain hated being in the Union with Yankees. I think it is that simple. Southerners then, and now(at least some) do not like centralized authority. Especially unrestrained, irresponsible Central Authority.
I found their skirting of the issue of the California bail outs as being only resolve-able by federal elections, the very SAME federal elections which put the people in power who are effectively bailing out California, to be funny in its shortsighted hypocrite.
Glenn if your going to stand up for Lincoln and his war on the people’s rights to self-determination as well as the limits of the U.S. Constitution, as clearly demonstrated by the 9th and 10th amendment as well as the American declaration of independents and the VERY ACT it describes. Don’t bring up the oppressive choices of the majority.
To be fair you could have done far worse in bring up the oppressive apparent ability of the majority to impose their idea and definition of health-care management upon us.
As if we have not the right to control the management of our own finances and bodies, separate from the apparently boundless power of the Majority and thus those same “Elections”.
You can’t have it both ways, Just as matters of secession are not in the Federal Constitution as ceded rights, nether are matters of health-care. To be frank even if the matters of secession were not only in the Constitution, but explicitly forbidden by it, The natural laws of God would nully such a cession or usurpation of our rights, just as it did in the British empire which calmed to outlaw secession just the same.
Lincoln and the republicans of that day were wrong on every account! And there is no possible way they could ever have been right under the natural laws of nature and nature’s God as written of and demonstrated in our Declaration of Independence. The right of secession is a unilateral and inalienable right of the people, it cannot be ceded.
Nor was it ceded by the people in the U.S. Constitution as it happens.
If you doubt that fact read our constitution and find where in that document it says anything of the matter of secession or separation. then read the 9th and 10th Amendments to see that even the clams of implication of that right holds no water. If you still doubt that read the deceleration of independents and the British laws against secession. There is no ground upon which anyone may stand and clam that the union indivisible.
Same thing in practice Colonel Kangaroo. What is the difference between “the principles of revolution as put forth in the Declaration of Independence.” and that of secession?
I remind you that all of the Southern States published their own Declaration of Independence, in all cases the people of the states voted to leave the union which is more then what all the 13 states did in 1776.
If they were not “in revolution” in the exact same sense of our forefathers in the “Declaration of Independence” secession, the then term “revolution” as you and Lincoln have chosen to uses it here is utterly meaningless.
Yes play all the word games you want but as Lincoln used the term revolution its only possible meaning is to include secession. Either way the Southern States did the paper work even better and more completely then the 13 colony did to qualify as “a revolution” in exactly the same sense.
MY God, man, get your history right.
The Hartford Convention simply said that New England had a right to challenge actions it thought were unconstitutional (the New England states were opposed to the War of 1812 because of the impact it was having with its trade with England), and it thought the prosecution of the war and its affect on New England were infringements on the sovereignty of the New England states. That position by New England was almost exactly on point with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 offered by Jefferson and Madison (which were in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts). What Jefferson and Madison really opposed with the Hartford Convention was that convention’s direct insult to Virginia in propounding the resolution that the US presidency could not be held consecutively by men from the same state.
The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were fully supportive of state’s rights. In fact, they were the precursor to the nullification acts a few years later, which held that the United States was a contract between the individual states and the federal government, and that the federal government had only limited powers, and that if the federal government sought to exceed those limited powers, those powers would be nullified.
So, you are now arguing that the two champions of states’ rights (Jefferson and Madison) suddenly switched gears and opposed New England’s assertion of states’ rights?
As for Robert E. Lee, he did not oppose secession, he just wished it would not have to come to that.
“He’s both. And I’ll happily come burn your house to the ground again, any time you want a rematch. “
It might kinda be out of your way, but you are welcome to try and start with mine. I live near Abilene,Tx. Good luck!
The simple distinction that I make is that revolution is a concept associated with the Declaration while secession is a Constitutional concept. But there is no Constitutional provision for the president to recognize either revolution or secession. What Constitutional authority did Lincoln have to recognize secession? All Lincoln saw in the document was that he had to uphold the supreme law of the land, collect the duties, deliver the mail and suppress any rebellion that prevented from carrying out the mandated tasks. Lincoln could do nothing else and still be true to his oath of office.
Just out of curiosity, did Beck say what state’s right Lincoln had trampled on?
And men like Davis and Lee thought they should be the owned rather than the owners.
Lee did not believe in secession. He believed in loyalty to Virginia. Here are Lee's own words to a friend named Charles Anderson:
"But if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will still follow my native state with my sword, and if need be with my life."
Q. States Rights for just what exactly?
A. Slaves.
Read some history. The cotton gin actually made slavery far more economic than before. By cutting the cost of cleaning the cotton boll it made cotton far more cost effective. By making it more cost effective it raised the demand for cotton. By raising the demand it increased the need for slaves, thus increasing demand for slaves, thus increasing the price of slaves, and so forth and so on.
Eli Whitney was the savior of slavery, not the other way around.
It all depends on who’s in power. The New England Federalists were strong champions of states’ rights after they lost power to Thomas Jefferson (the Essex Junto) and during the War of 1812 (the Hartford Convention).
If Lincoln was so devine and so genius, why didn’t he impose sanctions on the South, or solve the problem through other diplomatic solutions like our current Dear Leader would have? lol
Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley, August 1862. The letter in full reads:
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
Interestingly enough, when Lincoln wrote this letter on August 22nd, he'd already previewed his Emancipation Proclamation to his cabinet and was waiting for an auspicious time to announce it.
That’s right! Lee’s loyalty was to Virginia! Since his loyalty was to Virginia (and thus necessarily not to the Union when the wto were in conflict), he tactily approved Virginia’s secession. He may not have “believed” in secession, but he sure as hell did not oppose it. Or else he would have accepted Scott’s offer to become the commanding general of the Union forces in a war against the seceding states.
Had Virginia stayed in the Union I’m sure Lee would have been quite willing to lead the Union armies. From his words, it sounds like he would have preferred that to what actually did happen.
Yeah, like “it is my personal wish that there be no abortion, but as a matter of public policy I’m going to allow the torrent of infant blood to keep on flowing.” Credibility gap.
Neither issue could be dealt with except through Constitutional Amendment. The difference is that Lincoln got his amendment passed out of Congress and sent to the states.
“Had Virginia stayed in the Union I’m sure Lee would have been quite willing to lead the Union armies. From his words, it sounds like he would have preferred that to what actually did happen.”
Yes, I’m sure he would have, because his ultimate loyalty was to Virginia. But since his loyalty was to a seceding state, Virginia, above all other loyalties, he took up arms to defend her. And that meant fighting the Union.
He had an agonizingly tough choice to make, just as a couple million other Americans had to make at that time. That’s why a civil war is the worst possible thing that can befall a nation and a people.
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.