ABRAHAM LINCOLN: STATESPERSON AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACTIVIST

The Iconoclast ^ | February 6, 2003 | Paul Walfield

[clintonbaiter]

Marc Morano of CNSNews has reported that tours of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. aren't what they used to be. I can remember my first visit to D.C. way back when and my parents telling me about the Lincoln Memorial, and walking up the huge steps, and seeing the great man seated and looking majestic. I can even remember seeing his words etched in the stone all around me as I stood at his feet. It was striking, it was awe-inspiring.

I thought I had learned a good deal about Lincoln in school and felt like I knew him. I guess I was wrong.

Now, according to the Discovery Channel, Abraham Lincoln, Republican and the 16th President of the United States, was in reality a liberal Democrat. Moreover, not just any liberal Democrat. According to the folks at Discovery Channel, Abe Lincoln was slightly to the left of the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone......

[WhiskeyPapa]

The Constitution nowhere says what the president may or may not do in regard to the Writ.

Sure it does. The Constitution only permits suspension of the writ under specified circumstances by way of Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. In no other circumstance than that clause can the writ be legitimately and constitutionally suspended.

My, that's a strict construction. And where is secession allowed for?

Walt

[rdb3]

I believe all this railing against Lincoln is just a veiled defense of white supremacy, racism and segregation.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far.

I'm all for people speaking their minds as long as I have the equal right to counter what I may disagree with in their speech. One would think that someone like me just may raise an eyebrow when I hear lamentations about what was lost during this period. What those who do the lamenting fail to realize is that what they romantically look back upon had its foot on my forebears necks.

No, I don't appreciate that.

Lastly, I think the way for this Confederate Flag issue to disappear is for those who are opposed to its display to simply stop protesting it. It takes two to tango. I think it best for those who don't like that flag is to do what I do when I see it, and that is simply shrug and keep going. It can't hurt me.

Then maybe, just maybe, all of us could finally get on with the 21^st Century and leave the past, well, in the past.

T-minus 37 days until the birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[GOPcapitalist]

Retired? He resigned. He was only 47.

He retired from the bench to resume private practice, Walt. Judges do it all the time - not as much on the higher federal courts any more due to their increasing politicization, but on lower courts and state courts it happens all the time. The retiring judge will normall resign his bench and go into a firm as a partner. It is still customary for him to retain his title of judge or justice after retiring from the bench, just as it was customary in Curtis' day.

[GOPcapitalist]

And where is secession allowed for?

Although that statement is an obvious attempt at evasion on your part, I'll happily offer the various constitutional theories. Some have suggested amendment 10 permits it among the unenumerated rights reserved to the states. Others point to the ratification process and note that this process was voluntary and unilateral by the states. It follows that rescinding that ratification may occur by the same process, and that means voluntary withdrawal.

[WhiskeyPapa]

And where is secession allowed for?

Although that statement is an obvious attempt at evasion on your part, I'll happily offer the various constitutional theories. Some have suggested amendment 10 permits it among the unenumerated rights reserved to the states. Others point to the ratification process and note that this process was voluntary and unilateral by the states. It follows that rescinding that ratification may occur by the same process, and that means voluntary withdrawal.

Not very explicit.

There is no mechanism for secession in the Constitution except as allowed for under the amendment process.

Under the 10th amendment the people retain the right to maintain the Union, which is what they have done.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

No civilians were hung.

That is simply not true. In one famous case a New Orleans civilian was hung for the simple "crime" of removing a union flag. Countless other civilians were executed by other means all over the south.

Name some. This man in New Orleans was Munford, right?

I think we once toted up @ 800 Union men/POW's murdered in cold blood by the rebels.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

Not very explicit.

Then look at the document itself. Article VII specifies that "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." This clause requires the ratification of 9 states in order for the constitution to come into being -between- those states who ratify it voluntarily. The clause goes further, stating that this agreement will then come into being for "the States so ratifying the Same." Therefore consent of any one state first had to be achieved for that state to become part of the agreement of the Constitution. All 13 states eventually ratified and did so voluntarily and unilaterally. As Alexis de Tocqueville astutely observed, the government of that constitution cannot escape the principles that were admitted in its establishment, that being its voluntarily entry. Voluntary exit follows from that.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Then look at the document itself. Article VII specifies that "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." This clause requires the ratification of 9 states in order for the constitution to come into being -between- those states who ratify it voluntarily. The clause goes further, stating that this agreement will then come into being for "the States so ratifying the Same." Therefore consent of any one state first had to be achieved for that state to become part of the agreement of the Constitution. All 13 states eventually ratified and did so voluntarily and unilaterally. As Alexis de Tocqueville astutely observed, the government of that constitution cannot escape the principles that were admitted in its establishment, that being its voluntarily entry. Voluntary exit follows from that.

Alexis de Tocqueville wasn't on the Supreme Court.

"The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of of the United States are absolutely void. These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empire--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate."

--Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the majority opinion, Cohens v. Virginia 1821

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

Name some. This man in New Orleans was Munford, right?

That is correct.

I think we once toted up @ 800 Union men/POW's murdered in cold blood by the rebels.

I think you purported to, though I do not know your final figure. I also recall that many of the numbers you included were suspect as they counted among "murders" several yankee looters and arsonists who had been killed in the act by persons defending their homes.

[GOPcapitalist]

Alexis de Tocqueville wasn't on the Supreme Court.

No he wasn't. But I was not citing him for a legal opinion. I was crediting him with a philosophical and logical observation about the nature of the constitution.

I further note that even if Alexis de Tocqueville were on the supreme court, you would likely ignore his statement. It is my experience in observing you that permits me to conclude that you pay attention only to those court rulings that support your views and ignore, downplay, or dismiss any and all that do not.

[4CJ]

I don't think it is the least radical to say that the powers that be cooked up the electoral college to lessen the power of common people.

They fought against the elite possessing the power: 'A popular election in any form, as Mr. Gerry has observed, would throw the appointment into the hands of the Cincinnati[*], a Society for the members of which he had a great respect; but which he never wished to have a preponderating influence in the Govt.'
* The Society of the Cincinnati is the nation's oldest veterans' organization, and was founded during the last year of the Revolutionary War by the officers of the Continental Army. George Washington was the society's first President General.

They also 'thought the Community not yet ripe for stripping the States of their powers' [sovereignty].

They also thoght that the common man would be uniformed, and that the 'ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union & acting in Concert to delude them into any appointment.'

And that the 'principal objection agst. an election by the people' would be 'the disadvantage under which it would place the smaller States', with the 'most populous States by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points.'

Not to lessen the power of the common people, but something to protect them from conducting popularity contests, and allowing the smaller states to be a factor.

[4CJ]

Under the 10th amendment the people retain the right to maintain the Union, which is what they have done.

And the right to leave it. But the "people" are the people of each separate state, not the people en masse:

Ellsworth's motion to refer the plan to the legislatures of the states for ratification was defeated 3-7. The plan that was submitted by committe "to refer the Constitution, after the approbation of Congress, to assemblies chosen by the people was accepted 9-1.

The convention did consider the option of submitting the Constitution to the people of the states en masse for ratification:

"Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved, that the reference of the plan be made to one general convention, chosen and authorized by the people, to consider, amend, and establish the same."

The result: "Not seconded." (Eliott's Debates, Vol. V., p. 356).

[#3Fan]

Already did in the previous post. Did you not see the stuff about shifting the consumer surplus away and redistributing it?

So did the South do the same thing with their tariffs they supported?

We are not talking about income taxes here. We are talking about the dominant type of taxation used in the 1860's, the tariff.

So the tariff's sole purpose was to make a few poor manufacturers wealthy. Was this the same purpose for the South's tariffs?

I never claimed anything of the sort. Those were the average rates of the TARIFFS of each government as I clearly identified when I cited them. You simply did not read my post and somehow have come to the conclusion that it referenced non-existant income taxes.

So since Davis had a tariff also, did he love taxes?

No. You are not reading what I post. The taxes were redistributed by way of a protective tariff to the participants in the protected industries. That is what tariffs do. It is also why labor unions and certain industrialists alike love them to this day. They reap a huge part of the consumer surplus' redistribution after a tariff is enacted. That this occurs after a tariff is a matter of economic fact.

So did the South's tariffs have the same effect and was their sole purpose to make her poor manufacturers rich?

First off, out of what hole did you pull the income tax? Nobody said anything about an income tax here. My issue is with the tariff. And in answer to your question regarding of those tariffs, the purpose of them was to make the participants in certain select and regionally defined industries wealthy on the back of the country as a whole.

Was it the same in the South?

Those tariffs were enacted to "protect" those industries from foreign competition. When this is done, the protected industry gains but rest of us all have to pay for it.

Was it the same with the South's tariffs?

No, because the south did NOT support the tariff act. When the Morrill bill came up before the House in 1860, every single congressman from a CSA state save one voted AGAINST it.

But the South supported the tariffs initially when they couldn't compete with India. And you said yourself that the South had a 13% tariff. Was the South's tariff for the sole purpose to make poor businessen rich like you claim the north's tariffs were?

You are still jousting with straw men, though I am not aware if the reason is intentional or induced by incompetance. As I have explained repeatedly, protectionist tariffs benefit the participants of the protected industry.

You said the South had them to. Was their sole purpose to make a few business owners rich like you said the North's were?

In the north's case, the protected industries were those of the Republican Party's northern industrialist cronies. They were not necessarily poor cronies, or rich cronies.

They were middle-class cronies?

But the policy of protectionist tariffs that the north adopted did extend its protection to those industries. They therefore gained financially at a greater cost to the nation as a whole. In a way, they were 1860's versions of welfare handouts and corporate welfare handouts.

Was the South's tariffs the same?

It is not theory that protected industries will reap the benefits of a protectionist tariff at a greater cost to the rest of us. That is a matter of economic fact.

Did the South's tariffs do the same thing? What middle-class cronies were the South's tariffs supposed to make rich?

Such types tend to be idolaters and blasphemers with interests is materialistic communism and who have no genuine use for Jesus.

Exactly. But they still praise Jesus, rightly or wrongly. And a lot lot of liberals praise Jefferson. Should we hate Jefferson for the same reason?

Only its founder.

The Alpha chapter of Marx cults?

Did you not read the quote? If so, I suppose that is par for the course with you. Try reading it again though. Marx's praise for The Lincoln was to assert that he set into motion an "era of ascendancy...for the working class."

I think it's a good thing for the working class to ascend. It's good for people to get paid for doing work.

In marxian terms, that means the road to communism. Read the quote, this time carefully: "The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world" - Karl Marx, letter to Abraham Lincoln on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, January 28, 1865 (located in Collected Works of Karl Marx, Volume 20, page 19)

Looks like Marx was right in this case. It's good for blacks to get paid for doing work. What is it about this quote that you don't like?

They do? Most liberals I know of despise Jefferson as a slave-owning western-civilization minded white guy. They despise him in this way just as the despise most of the founding fathers.

The what despise? I've heard a lot of liberals praise Jefferson.

Then you did not read the quote. Here it is again. The important parts are in bold to assist your comprehension: "The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world" - Karl Marx, letter to Abraham Lincoln on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, January 28, 1865 (located in Collected Works of Karl Marx, Volume 20, page 19)

Where did Marx promote anything socialistic in this. Do you disagree that blacks should be paid for doing work? Marx seems to have praised our founding fathers for our independence to help the working class. So should we hate the founding fathers like you hate Lincoln for this?

Now, I do not know what your previous familiarity with Marx's writings may be though I do advise them to any fellow conservative as a central part of the "know your enemy" principle. When reading them there are a few things you should always know. Marx uses many buzz words, such as "working class" and "working men." When mentions the "working men" rising up, he's talking about a communist revolution. When he mentions an "era" of the "working men," he's talking about an era of communism. When he mentions redefining the social order of the world, he's talking about redefining it toward the communist model. As you should be able to see with ease, he uses all of these terms in his praise for The Lincoln.

So you've got this other theory here. Let me see if I I've got it right. Marx praised Lincoln for freeing the slaves but since Marx said that the working class would benefit from this act that Marx was actually praising Lincoln for being a Communist? hmmm... Maybe the logic will come to me.

[#3Fan]

Answered above.

[#3Fan]

To someone with no knowledge of the political history of the Republic, the two men had nothing in common. One was a Democrat, the other, a Republican. Sadly, you seem out of your depth. At least you vote for the right people :-) ... I hope.

A non-answer. Perhaps if you were in your depth you could answer my question instead of hurl personal insults.

[#3Fan]

To someone with no knowledge of the political history of the Republic, the two men had nothing in common. One was a Democrat, the other, a Republican. Sadly, you seem out of your depth. At least you vote for the right people :-) ... I hope.

A non-answer. Perhaps if you were in your depth you could answer my question instead of hurl personal insults.

[#3Fan]

Not really, his political opponents within his party pushed for that amendment. It was they who freed the slaves, not Lincoln.

Because he was shot by one of your kind before he could oversee it.

(sigh) No, not at all, and your question is absolutely asinine, as well as irrelevant to the point at hand.

Holy cow, you think slavery should still be legal?

Unless of course your name is Al Sharpton and you're a shameless race baiter.

Since I'm against slavery, I'm a race-baiter? LOL

I have addressed your "comments", but I must point out that none of them answered my question. I'll ask again: Do you disagree with Wlat that Lincoln was the beginning of the end of our Constitutional government?

Yes of course I disagree with him. Walt's a Dem and I disagree with him on a lot of things. LOL But on this topic, Walt always uses actual quotes from history though. All you neo-Confederates just make things up. Walt's right that the Constitution should not have had provisions for slavery in it though.

[#3Fan]

sigh) No, not at all, and your question is absolutely asinine, as well as irrelevant to the point at hand.

I misread this in the above post. I'm glad you agree the Constitution was better off when the wishes of the South were bucked.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I ain't -that- dem. ;-)

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Murdered Union men:

40 loyal Texans at Gainesville, Tx., October 1862

184 at Lawrence, KS

2-300 at Fort Pillow, April 1864

At least 53 in Sherman's command per Burke Davis in Sherman's March

55-100 at Saltville, VA in October, 1864

22 loyal North Carolinians hung by George Picket

Taking the lower figure in all disputed cases, that is 554.

Black Union POW's were routinely murdered by rebel forces, so the total number is a lot higher.

At the kangaroo court that hung the Texans, it was arranged so that a majority of the jury could convict --- it didn't have to be unanimous. Oddly, all the slave holders voted to convict the 40 -- none of whom held slaves.

Walt