Posted on 02/26/2003 1:10:37 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
Sure, I like the Declaration myself, especially the version Jefferson authored before Franklin & the committee trashed it.
But Lincoln did not swear an oath to defend the Declaration.
Without reliance on God's law an oath to defend the Constitution is worthless.
Walt
Post 267 shows otherwise. Live with it.
X's excellent #299 is the real deal.
You really are so irrelevant on this issue now, there's no point to continuing to answer your posts. You won't persuade anyone who cares about a true interpretation of these events.
Walt
You can't get any more real, Walt, that The Lincoln's own words. My post contains them. X's does not.
You really are so irrelevant on this issue now, there's no point to continuing to answer your posts.
In other words, you are unable to respond to my post, which, I might add, was in compliance with your latest criteria about Lincoln. You asked for many examples of his tariff activities. I posted them. Now you are unable to respond and unable to change your criteria any further without being thoroughly embarrassed, so you attempt to dismiss me and abandon this argument. You may continue to call it what you like, but I'll happily count this one as another victory.
Schurz - "It is true, in political campaigns he had occasionally spoken on the ostensible issues between the Whigs and the Democrats, the tariff, internal improvements, banks, and so on, but only in a perfunctory manner. Had he ever given much serious thought and study to these subjects, it is safe to assume that a mind so prolific of original conceits as his would certainly have produced some utterance upon them worth remembering. His soul had evidently never been deeply stirred by such topics."
Contrasted with Lincoln: "I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views" - Lincoln to Edward Wallace, October 11, 1859
In other words, what Schurz calls perfunctory and minimal was said by Lincoln himself to have been his #1 issue in old times.
Now, consider what Schurz says next - that Lincoln had never given tariffs any serious thought. Aside from the fact that Lincoln did give them serious thought to the point that he made more speeches on them than any other issue in his early years (and that he was still making speeches on them in his presidential years) there exists direct documentary evidence that he did give serious thought to tariffs. This is found in the collected works volume I, pages 408-416. These pages show a large fragment of Lincoln's personal notes on protectionism. In them he lays out several arguments in favor of protectionism, indicating that he has put much thought into the issue and his position on it.
Since it is a safe conclusion that Lincoln knew Lincoln better than Schurz knew Lincoln, places where Lincoln contradicts Schurz on the subject of Lincoln must be yielded to Lincoln. Therefore Schurz was wrong. But when his moral nature was aroused, his brain developed an untiring activity until it had mastered all the knowledge within reach . As soon as the repeal of the Missouri Compromise had thrust the slavery question into politics as the paramount issue, Lincoln plunged into an arduous study of all its legal, historical, and moral aspects, and then his mind became a complete arsenal of argument. His rich natural gifts, trained by long and varied practice, had made him an orator of rare persuasiveness.
In other words, you are unable to respond to my post...
In other words, it's been shown you quoted Lincoln out of context in order to put forward an unsupportable interpretation of what he meant.
Walt
Your interpretation is so skewed as to be laughable. Lincoln did make those speeches in "old times." And between 1850 and 1854 he was not active in politics at all. It no longer interested him. What reanimated him, as any number of sources will tell you, was the slavery question. From that time on, that issue was what compelled him, not tariffs.
Walt
It's also a safe conclusion that Schurz knew Lincoln better than you do.
Surely -- this is the most pedantic thread on FR in a long time.
Lincoln's issue was slavery, not tariffs or protectionism. You look a fool for starting such a ridiculous thread.
Walt
That fact is irrelevent to discussions of the Civil War.
Lincoln got out of politics after 1850 for four years. A fair person would consider the slate clean as of 1854 and consider what Lincoln said after that. But you are not interested in being fair.
Walt
If that is so, Schurz's claim that they were of little consequence is false.
And between 1850 and 1854 he was not active in politics at all.
That is not entirely true. His collected works indicate that he spent this period campaigning for and against presidential candidates and giving speeches related to that activity. In fact, those speeches heavily involved his favorite subject...tariffs!
"The people of this city were addressed at the court house on Friday evening last, by Hon. A. LINCOLN, of Springfield. He showed up the inconsistency of the sham democracy on the question of internal improvements in such a manner that it is not to be wondered at that the friends of Pierce and King were dissatisfied. On the subject of the tariff he advocated the American side of the question, asking why, instead of sending a distance of 4,000 miles for our railroad iron, the immense iron beds of Missouri were not worked, affording a better article than that of English manufacture, and giving employment to American labor. On this point, he agreed with that distinguished democrat, Benton, who does not believe with the President of the Peoria Pierce Club, that a protective tariff is a tax on the poor for the benefit of the rich. After alluding to the evasiveness exhibited in the celebrated platform adopted by the Democratic National Convention, the speaker contrasted the claims of the respective candidates to the support of the American people. Gen. Pierce had been a member of the U.S. Senate for five years and of the Lower House four years, and if he is the possessor of the great civil qualifications claimed for him by his friends, where is the evidence? Instead of possessing eminent civil abilities, said Mr. LINCOLN, did not an examination of the record prove that he is not worthy of the extravagant praises now bestowed upon him by his partisan friends. His votes show that he was the steady, consistent enemy of western improvements, and judging of the future by the past, should Mr. Pierce be elected he would surely veto such internal improvement bills as the one recently passed by Congress." - Peoria Weekly Republican, September 24, 1852
It no longer interested him.
The above indicates otherwise.
No Walt. Nothing of the sort has occurred. I may say that with certainty because a prerequisite for that event requires that you first acknowledge those quotations and excerpts I posted. You have not done so yet, therefore you cannot have possibly shown anything about their context, truthful or otherwise, as things stand right now.
The above is not sufficient to support your interpretation.
From 1832-1850 and from 1854-1865, Lincoln was either in office or seeking office. From 1850-54, he was not. He had, it is thought, a mid-life crisis. Politics no longer interested him as before. The appeal of the Missouri Compromise changed all that. And that involved slavery, not tariffs.
Walt
Its perfectly relevant considering that he took up advocating the tariff again in 1859 and rode it all the way into the war as his own justification for ingniting that same war.
Lincoln got out of politics after 1850 for four years.
Not entirely. His activities were diminished, but he did go around making advocacy speeches in the presidential campaign of 1852...on his favorite issue, the tariff.
A fair person would consider the slate clean as of 1854 and consider what Lincoln said after that.
And as I have show, he advocated the tariff after that. He also advocated it before that, including in the four year period when you claimed he was out of politics. Needless to say, it seems your new criteria is the arbitrarily chosen date of 1854 and later. In light of that fact, you better start thinking up a new set of criteria because you may now consider your old one met yet again.
"My dear Sir: I am here, just now, attending court. Yesterday, before I left Springfield, your brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff views; and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject. I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views. I believe yet, if we could have a moderate, carefully adjusted, protective tariff, so far acquiesced in, as to not be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles, charges, and uncertainties, it would be better for us. Still, it is my opinion that, just now, the revival of that question, will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it. I have not thought much upon the subject recently; but my general impression is, that the necessity for a protective tariff will, ere long, force it's old opponents to take it up; and then it's old friends can join in, and establish it on a more firm and durable basis. We, the old whigs, have been entirely beaten out on the tariff question; and we shall not be able to re-establish the policy, until the absence of it, shall have demonstrated the necessity for it, in the minds of men heretofore opposed to it." - Abraham Lincoln to Edward Wallace, October 11, 1859
"'That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imposts, sound policy requires such an adjustment of the imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.'" - Platform of the Republican Party adopted in August 1860 and endorsed by Lincoln, their nominee for President
"My dear Sir: To comply with your request to furnish extracts from my tariff speeches is simply impossible, because none of those speeches were published. It was not fashionable here in those days to report one's public speeches. In 1844 I was on the Clay electoral ticket in this State (i.e., Illinois) and, to the best of my ability, sustained, together, the tariff of 1842 and the tariff plank of the Clay platform . This could be proven by hundreds---perhaps thousands---of living witnesses; still it is not in print, except by inference. The Whig papers of those years all show that I was upon the electoral ticket; even though I made speeches, among other things about the tariff, but they do not show what I said about it. The papers show that I was one of a committee which reported, among others, a resolution in these words: ``That we are in favor of an adequate revenue on duties from imports so levied as to afford ample protection to American industry.'' But, after all, was it really any more than the tariff plank of our present platform? And does not my acceptance pledge me to that?" - Abraham Lincoln to James Hervey, October 6, 1860
"Yours kindly seeking my view as to the proper mode of dealing with secession, was received several days ago, but, for want of time I could not answer it till now. I think we should hold the forts, or retake them, as the case may be, and collect the revenue. We shall have to forego the use of the federal courts, and they that of the mails, for a while. We can not fight them in to holding courts, or receiving the mails. This is an outline of my view; and perhaps suggests sufficiently, the whole of it." - Abraham Lincoln, letter to Col. J.W. Webb, December 29, 1860
"The words ``coercion'' and ``invasion'' are in great use about these days. Suppose we were simply to try if we can, and ascertain what, is the meaning of these words. Let us get, if we can, the exact definitions of these words---not from dictionaries, but from the men who constantly repeat them---what things they mean to express by the words. What, then, is ``coercion''? What is ``invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit. But if the Government, for instance, but simply insists upon holding its own forts, or retaking those forts which belong to it,---[cheers,]---or the enforcement of the laws of the United States in the collection of duties upon foreign importations,---[renewed cheers,]---or even the withdrawal of the mails from those portions of the country where the mails themselves are habitually violated; would any or all of these things be coercion?" - Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861
"[I]f the consideration of the Tariff bill should be postponed until the next session of the National Legislature, no subject should engage your representatives more closely than that of a tariff . And if I have any recommendation to make, it will be that every man who is called upon to serve the people in a representative capacity, should study this whole subject thoroughly, as I intend to do myself, looking to all the varied interests of our common country, so that when the time for action arrives adequate protection can be extended to the coal and iron of Pennsylvania, the corn of Illinois, and the ``reapers of Chicago.''" - Abraham Lincoln, February 15, 1861
"The power confided to me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using of force against, or among the people anywhere." - Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861
"Sir: I shall be obliged if you will give me your opinion in writing whether under the Constitution and existing laws, the Executive has power to collect duties on ship-board, off-shore, in cases where their collection in the ordinary way is, by any cause, rendered impracticable. This would include the question of lawful power to prevent the landing of dutiable goods, unless the duties were paid." - Abraham Lincoln to Edward Bates, March 18, 1861
"Sir I shall be obliged if you will inform me whether any goods, wares and merchandize, subject by law to the payment of duties, are now being imported into the United States without such duties being paid, or secured according to law. And if yea, at what place or places? and for what cause do such duties remain unpaid, or [un]secured? I will also thank you for your opinion whether, as a matter of fact, vessels off shore could be effectively used to prevent such importation, or to enforce the payment or securing of the duties. If yea, what number, and description of vessels, in addition to those already in the Revenue service would be requisite?" - Abraham Lincoln to Salmon P. Chase, March 18, 1861
"At the beginning of that month, in the inaugural, I said ``The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties , and imposts.'' This had your distinct approval at the time; and, taken in connection with the order I immediately gave General Scott, directing him to employ every means in his power to strengthen and hold the forts, comprises the exact domestic policy you now urge, with the single exception, that it does not propose to abandon Fort Sumpter." - Abraham Lincoln to William Seward, April 1, 1861
"In answer I have to say, that having, at the beginning of my official term, expressed my intended policy, as plainly as I was able, it is with deep regret, and some mortification, I now learn, that there is great, and injurious uncertainty, in the public mind, as to what that policy is, and what course I intend to pursue. Not having, as yet, seen occasion to change, it is now my purpose to pursue the course marked out in the inaugural address. I commend a careful consideration of the whole document, as the best expression I can give of my purposes. As I then, and therein, said, I now repeat: ``The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess, the property, and places belonging to the Government, and to collect the duties, and imposts; but, beyond what is necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion---no using of force against, or among the people anywhere'' By the words ``property, and places, belonging to the Government'' I chiefly allude to the military posts, and property, which were in the possession of the Government when it came to my hands. But if, as now appears to be true, in pursuit of a purpose to drive the United States authority from these places, an unprovoked assault, has been made upon Fort-Sumpter, I shall hold myself at liberty to re-possess, if I can, like places which had been seized before the Government was devolved upon me.... Whatever else I may do for the purpose, I shall not attempt to collect the duties , and imposts, by any armed invasion of any part of the country---not meaning by this, however, that I may not land a force, deemed necessary, to relieve a fort upon a border of the country. From the fact, that I have quoted a part of the inaugeral address, it must not be inferred that I repudiate any other part, the whole of which I re-affirm, except so far as what I now say of the mails, may be regarded as a modification." - Abraham Lincoln, in a message of disinformation to commissioners from the Virginia convention, April 13, 1861
"By the President of the United States of America: A Proclamation. Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States: And whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection, have threatened to grant pretended letters of marquee to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United States: And whereas an Executive Proclamation has been already issued, requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session, to deliberate and determine thereon: Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of the public peace, and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the law of Nations, in such case provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach, or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the Commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will endorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize, as may be deemed advisable. And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretended authority of the said States, or under any other pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States, or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth." - Abraham Lincoln, April 19, 1861
The inescapable fact is, Walt, that the single belief that Abraham Lincoln consistently adhered to without any compromise for the entirety of his political career dating from the 1830's to his death is that of implementing and collecting the tariff. And the above is just a brief sample of his many speeches, writings, letters, and proclamations on that issue.
But you are not interested in being fair.
To the contrary, Walt. Despite what you think, "fairness" does not mean that everyone else has to go easy on you in debate. That we choose not to and instead thoroughly deconstruct and rebut your opinion is no less fair than you stating that opinion to begin with. You may not like it, but life is tough and contains a lot of things you may not like. Your false god loved implementing and collecting taxes. It was an issue he adhered to without compromise throughout his entire career. Live with it.
Sure it is. You claimed that after he "got out of politics for four years" in 1850 (which is itself a lie, considering that he remained active and campaigned for candidates in the 1852 race) and that upon leaving them, the tariff "no longer interested him."
That too is a lie as he advocated the tariff in 1852. He also advocated it in 1859, 1860, and 1861 through the end of the war. When he took the issue up again in 1859, he said that he was an old tariff Whig and HAD NOT CHANGED HIS VIEWS. He then advocated a tariff repeatedly through its implementation. No matter how you look at it, Walt, Lincoln liked tariffs. He liked them throughout his career. He never once changed his view away from protection, whereas with slavery he bounced all over the radar. His pro-tariff position dates from the 1830's through the day of his death. His position on slavery, whatever it may have been, dates only from about 1854 through his death and during most of that period - from 1854 through 1862 - he was all over the radar on it.
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so”.
With regard to the tariffs, which of course you simply dismiss as being unimportant, he said,
“The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and impost but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using force against or among the people anywhere”.
One writer said, "It became clear that slavery was tolerable. Failure to collect revenues was not."
Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices...The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections."
Judges and the mail were just as important. The whole tone of the message is that things should go on as they had been going on for decades in the hopes that a peaceful solution could be found. But he was wasting his breath, wasn't he? A peaceful solution wasn't what Davis wanted, was it? As we found out a little over a month later.
Yeah, so what? No one is denying Lincoln's main issue was Union.
A lot of water went under the bridge though. After blacks were enlisted to fight under Old Glory, Lincoln began to clear the way for equal rights for them.
Walt
“The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and impost but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using force against or among the people anywhere”.
Yeah. Collecting tariffs was the one sure way to show federal power in action. Holding on to Fort Sumter was a fig leaf for Lincoln. As long as the national power was not openly contravened, he was willing to bide his time. Jefferson Davis knew time was not on -his- side, so he had Fort Sumter attacked once it was obvious Lincoln was not going to back down.
Walt
It's not exactly rocket science, Pea Brain -- can I call you Pea Brain, you being such a brain and all...
Slavery was legal, interfering with the revenue was insurrection or revolution, according to circumstances.
Walt
You quote one sentence from Lincoln's letter to Wallace but leave out the sense of the letter, which is that this wasn't the time for agitation on the tariff question. Lincoln thought that eventually the nation would come to take his view on tariffs, but was not inclined to press the issue. If you're biased or paranoid you might see this as an admission of a behind the scenes conspiracy, but the more plausible explanation is that Lincoln didn't think the tariff was that important an issue in 1859. Politicians have principles, but also priorities. While Lincoln retained his belief in tariffs, he wasn't inclined to promote them at that date because other things were more important. The Whig conception of government was that Congress would work out questions such as the tariff on its own, and it's plausible that that view is reflected in the letter.
It does not seem to be correct to say that Lincoln "was still making speeches on them [tariffs] in his presidential years." A President could not avoid dealing with this issue, but Lincoln made few speeches as President and the tariff does not appear to have been the primary subject of any of them. The Collected Works bear this out. There were the pre-inaugural remarks in Pittsburgh on the tariff, not during his Presidential years, and very much an anomaly for the later Lincoln -- a reassurance to the strongest pro-tariff constituency in the country that its interests would not be neglected. And there were these comments in New Haven:
The old question of tariff---a matter that will remain one of the chief affairs of national housekeeping to all time---the question of the management of financial affairs; the question of the disposition of the public domain---how shall it be managed for the purpose of getting it well settled, and of making there the homes of a free and happy people---these will remain open and require attention for a great while yet, and these questions will have to be attended to by whatever party has the control of the government. Yet, just now, they cannot even obtain a hearing, and I do not purpose to detain you upon these topics, or what sort of hearing they should have when opportunity shall come.
For, whether we will or not, the question of Slavery is the question, the all absorbing topic of the day. It is true that all of us---and by that I mean, not the Republican party alone, but the whole American people, here and elsewhere---all of us wish this question settled---wish it out of the way. It stands in the way, and prevents the adjustment, and the giving of necessary attention to other questions of national house-keeping. ...
The truth is, that this question is one of national importance, and we cannot help dealing with it: we must do something about it, whether we will or not. We cannot avoid it; the subject is one we cannot avoid considering; we can no more avoid it than a man can live without eating. It is upon us; it attaches to the body politic as much and as closely as the natural wants attach to our natural bodies. Now I think it important that this matter should be taken up in earnest, and really settled. And one way to bring about a true settlement of the question is to understand its true magnitude.
"This question" was slavery, not the tariff. This is a good example of the passion and eloquence Lincoln brought to discussions of slavery and disunion, a passion and eloquence not found in his remarks on the tariffs. Schurz may not have been as well acquainted with Lincoln's early career, but he was more correct about Lincoln than later writers who've had access to more information and used it in only to confirm their biases and manias.
I did not address this post to you, but since you have chosen to respond, perhaps you could deal with Clingman's February 4th 1861 speech and his assertion that emancipation leaving millions of freed blacks at liberty would be "the greatest evil" that could be done to the South, far more serious than tariff questions. That speech clearly establishes the preservation of slavery and the "way of life" that it maintained as Clingman's primary interest, and the tariff as a secondary question on par with railway subsidies and the Homestead Act. In his other speeches, the tariff is more important, but it does not take precedence over slavery in importance.
The record also reveals Clingman to have been obsessed by slavery and race for years before the tariff revision of 1861 and shows that tariffs could not have been the primary reason for his support for secession. Clingman was talking about secession, Southern independence and war ten years earlier. It was not the passage of the tariff, but the election of a Republican President, whom he perceived to be anti-slavery, that led Clingman to take the step that he had been talking about a decade before. Clingman's dislike of a Republican, supposedly anti-Southern, President included a dislike of the tariffs that Republicans wanted, but his dislike of protective tariffs did not exclude a fanatical concern about the alleged threat to slavery.
Clingman clearly was a fanatical free trader, but that didn't prevent him from also being a fanatical pro-slaver and slavery expansionist. He changed from being a member of the protectionist Whig party and a follower of Henry Clay to a passionate low tariff Democrat, but never wavered in his support for slavery. One can't simply keep Clingman the free trader and ignore the rest of his life, thought and actions.
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.