Author of the The Real Lincoln to speak TODAY at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia

[Lady Eileen]

Washington, DC-area Freepers interested in Lincoln and/or the War Between the States should take note of a seminar held later today on the Fairfax campus of George Mason University:

The conventional wisdom in America is that Abraham Lincoln was a great emancipator who preserved American liberties.  In recent years, new research has portrayed a less-flattering Lincoln that often behaved as a self-seeking politician who catered to special interest groups. So which is the real Lincoln? 

On Wednesday, April 16, Thomas DiLorenzo, a former George Mason University professor of Economics, will host a seminar on that very topic. It will highlight his controversial but influential new book, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.  In the Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo exposes the conventional wisdom of Lincoln as based on fallacies and myths propagated by our political leaders and public education system. 

The seminar, which will be held in Rooms 3&4 of the GMU Student Union II, will start at 5:00 PM.  Copies of the book will be available for sale during a brief autograph session after the seminar. 

[Non-Sequitur]

...you are an apologist for a dictator and a tyrant...

Since you don't seem to have any problem with Jeff Davis and his actions that is certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. IMHO, of course. Anyone wanting to look for constitution trashing, tyranny installing, or socialism promoting need look no further than Richmond under Davis.

[republicanwizard]

Here is the authority granted to Congress:

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

[WhiskeyPapa]

Where did the Constitution say there was no right to secession?

Everywhere.

"Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the constitution, will be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes. They instituted, for such purposes, a national government complete in all its parts, with powers legislative, executive and judiciary, ad in all those powers extending over the whole nation."

Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1793

Where does the Constitution --allow-- for secession?

The Congress has the clear power to provide for the common defense and general welfare. If secession is inimical to those interests, the neccesary and proper clause empowers the Congress to act.

At least that's what Jefferson Davis thought.

Walt

[republicanwizard]

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

How much more justification did Lincoln need?

[republicanwizard]

Nice to be defending America against these anti-Americans at your side.

[republicanwizard]

In fact, the second citation above is the most powerful argument that can be found in the Constitution other than the power to suppress rebellion.

[republicanwizard]

The Constitution does not mention succession. However, we can infer that the states did not have a right to leave the Union.

[Non-Sequitur]

The pleasure is all mine.

[republicanwizard]

Then we share infinity.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Constitution does not mention succession. However, we can infer that the states did not have a right to leave the Union.

Not necessarily. I believe that a state could leave the union in the same manner in which almost all of them joined - with the approval of a majority vote in Congress. It was the unilateral manner of their actions which violated the Constitution. IMHO, of course.

[Treebeard]

Let me know when your cape gets back from the cleaners, Captain America...

[republicanwizard]

You are correct. Congress did not give its consent; therefore, the Union could not be dissolved.

Suffice it to say that the Constitution is clear enough that states cannot willy-nilly leave the Union.

[Sequoya]

The Constitution never gave the federal government the right to force any state to remain in the union. Therefore, the states retained the right to leave the union when the people of those states decided that it was in their interest to do so.

The Constitution would not have been ratified had there been a prohibition on leaving the union. New York and Virginia explicitly put that right into their ratification documents. Without NY and VA in the union there would have been no union and without the right to secede the people of those states would have never ratified the Constitution.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are very clear on the subject. If the Constitution does not specifically grant a power to the federal government the states retain that power.

There is no place in the Constitution that says no state may ever leave the union. Therefore, they have the right to leave just like they had the right to join or not join.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[Sequoya]

Can't find that law can you? So Lincoln did violate the law and take action not within his powers as president.

Next tyrant lover please.

[Sequoya]

I've said that I have problems with President Davis' actions and do not defent the ones I have a problem with. I'm not the one trying to justify Davis by saying Lincoln did bad things too.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The Constitution never gave the federal government the right to force any state to remain in the union.

The Supreme Court said otherwise in 1862.

"By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare was against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States...

All persons residing within this territory whose property may be used to increase the revenues of the hostile power are, in this contest, liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. They have cast off their allegiance and made war on their Government, and are none the less enemies because they are traitors."

Walt

[republicanwizard]

"The Constitution never gave the federal government the right to force any state to remain in the union. Therefore, the states retained the right to leave the union when the people of those states decided that it was in their interest to do so."

This is inherently not true. I have already cited statements in the Constitution to the contrary. At the very least, permission of the Congress was required.

"The Constitution would not have been ratified had there been a prohibition on leaving the union. New York and Virginia explicitly put that right into their ratification documents. Without NY and VA in the union there would have been no union and without the right to secede the people of those states would have never ratified the Constitution."

Those reservations do not have binding legal authority and are not necessarily valid. Ratification did not give the states the right, willy-nilly, to break whatever clause didn't suit their purposes.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Yes, the South was violating the rights of African-Americans and deserved to be punished.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

How can the 10th amendment apply when the Congress is given the clear power to provide for the common defense and general welfare?

It doesn't.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Yes, the South was violating the rights of African-Americans and deserved to be punished.

As you know, President Lincoln suggested in his second inaugural that if the guilt lay on the whole people, north and south, and if the war was the result, that no man could say the judgments of the Lord were not righteous altogether.

Walt