Posted on 04/16/2003 5:44:44 AM PDT by 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.
LOL - join the crowd! But just because someone posts something doesn't make it a fact. I learn by researching their responses - especially in primary source documents. Some posters simply accept information posted on a website, or the opinion of others, as concrete proof. When I'm wrong I'll admit it, but some never do.
I am indeed scoring points against you, x, but it is not over my assertion of Spooner's importance but rather your repeated attempts to belittle, downplay, and dismiss his role as an abolitionist.
Two months ago is not "a few weeks ago." That accounts for my difficulty in figuring out what you were talking about.
Not really. You claimed yesterday that you knew nothing of Gerrit Smith beyond his name as recent as a few weeks ago. Therefore you could not have known anymore a month or two prior to two weeks ago.
Read carefully what I wrote. I made no claim as to Gerrit Smith's importance.
I have read it carefully, and yes you did claim his importance. Note the bolded portions:
It takes a rare and massive ignorance to pass over Wendell Phillips, Theodore Parker, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Elijah P. Lovejoy, Frederick Douglass, Theodore Dwight Weld, the Grimkes, James Birney, Moncure Conway, Gerrit Smith, Lewis Tappan, John Brown, John Greenleaf Whittier, Sojourner Truth, Lucretia Mott, Horace Greeley, Martin Delaney, Henry Ward Beecher and others and single out the obscure Spooner as one of the "best known and most prominent" of the abolitionists.
Now what does that mean, x? Your assertion was that I had "passed over" all the people on that list, which included Smith, and chosen the "obscure" Lysander Spooner as one of the most prominent abolitionists. Such a statement necessarily implies that you considered all of the people on that list, which included Smith, to posess a prominence that you also asserted the "obscure" Spooner not to have. And as I have demonstrated, you did not know a thing about Gerrit Smith at the time you included him on that list beyond his name. I further suspect that you have not a clue about half of the other names on that list either, and simply threw them in their after conducting a brief internet search in order to pad the ranks of abolitionists who were supposedly prominent compared to the "obscure" Spooner. But of course, despite your own ignorance of the matter, you're the one accusing me of a "rare and massive ignorance" of abolitionism, right?
didn't have to know all about Gerrit Smith's or Lucretia Mott's or Martin Delaney's or Lewis Tappan's activities to know that their names appeared in more books and articles on the subject than Lysander Spooner's.
By your own admission, you did not know a thing about Smith other than his name. Now you say you knew his prominence because that name appeared in a number of anonymous "books and artices" on abolitionism, even though by your own admission you knew nothing more about him than that name itself.
Curious.
You know, Calhoun's name appears fairly regularly in books on abolitionism, often in reference to the "opposition" and what not. Now, supposing you knew nothing of Calhoun, who he was, or what he said, but simply saw his name appearing a lot in abolitionist books, and saw lots of references to his name in the index, would you conclude similarly that he must have been an abolitionist of great prominence? Such an exercise would be no less scientific, if one can even call it that, than your current method of evaluating abolitionist credentials, x. That method, by your own indications, ammounts to little more than counting the number of references in the indexes or passages in the pages of a select few modern day historical works, many of them anonymous, and declaring it as conclusive proof that "person A was prominent" while "person B was not" and so forth. Nowhere have you offered so much as even a passage stating that Lysander Spooner's role was what you believe it to be, be it a modern or historical source. Nowhere have you offered anything from Spooner's fellow abolitionists discounting his relevance as you do.
I, on the other hand, have provided an extensive list of statements from Spooner's contemporaries, articles about Spooner from newspapers, and endorsements of his theories from other prominent abolitionists, all of which conflict with your initial contentions that Spooner was "obscure" and "minor" as a member of that movement.
Your case is weak, x, and you have yet to offer much of anything supportive of it beyond your usual flood of senseless bloviation and distraction-laced equivocation.
I did not "declare" that Smith or any other person on that list was important
By including those names in that list, you necessarily implied that each and every one of them had been passed over by me as candidates for the description of "best known and most prominent" abolitionists that I had provided for Spooner. If you do not believe the implications you made for your list to be accurate, you should not have included within it several names about which you knew absolutely nothing at the time. You have only yourself to blame for that one, x.
merely that a person who was honest and knew about the abolitionist movement wouldn't pass over a long list of names, including his, and baldly state that Lysander Spooner was second only to Garrison in the movement.
For one who whines as much as you do over the portrayal of your previous words, even when accurate, you sure don't pay much attention to accuracy yourself when referring to others! Read what I stated again, x:
"Aside from maybe Garrison, Spooner was perhaps, the best known and most prominent of the abolitionists of his day."
Now tell me. Does that sound like a "baldly state(d)" proclamation of absoluteness that Spooner "was second only to Garrison"? I venture to say that it does not, due to the intentionally included words that appear in bold from the excerpt above. When one says "perhaps," it is indicative of a possibility - namely, that an argument can be made to the end that is directed to by that same word. I have said it previously, and will say it again that not only an argument, but a STRONG argument can be made that Lysander Spooner was indeed among the very top of the most prominent abolitionists. Does a declaration that he was perhaps in the top ranks necessarily make him "#1 all time" or "#2 all time," or even say as an absolute statement of fact that he was either of these things? No, nor can it as such rank ordering is INHERENTLY a subjective exercise. It does however indicate that one believes a strong argument may be made for his inclusion at the top of the list and, as I have shown, evidence abounds in the abolitionist movement to support the conclusion that he was among the most prominent and influential in their ranks.
For all of your accusations of my supposed backtracking, you don't seem to express your original conviction with as much force.
In what way, x, has my position changed? I stated that Spooner was perhaps the abolitionist movement's most prominent and influential thinker, with a only few others that could arguably be the same (i.e Garrison), and that Spooner also ranks among the top level of important abolitionists. I continue to maintain and argue for his high level prominence in that movement, which included a strong influence on other well known abolitionists (i.e. Smith and Douglass) and national fame due to his book's wide circulation. You, on the other hand, have indeed backpeddled, at least enough to escape the implications of your earlier attempts to cast a role for Smith and others, in face of the facts I have presented here. You do not readily admit it, but it has been evident in your recent posts. As I noted previously, you set your criteria for prominence among abolitionists and I have presented a strong case of why Spooner meets each of them. Yet every time a fact is posted that contradicts your attempt to characterize Spooner as "minor" and "obscure," you offer not a rebuttal of that fact nor a concession of your error but rather an excuse that you hope will somehow get you around it.
We live and we learn.
Some of us do. Your behavior here, however, has been indicative of blatant stubbornness in the face of truths that contradict your root contention about Spooner. That stubbornness is so pervasive in your posts that you will even backpeddle on your earlier "supporting" statements when it is shown that, rather than help you, they support a contention exactly opposite of the one to which you cling regarding Spooner.
Since you've offered so little reliable evidence in defense of your original statement
It takes an unusual degree of arrogance for someone who has based his entire argument on vague platitudes and appeals to anonymous authorities to accuse another, who has made an argument upon historical facts and documentation, of failing to evidence something.
The evidence I have offered is sufficient to both refute your claim that Spooner was "obscure" among the abolitionist movement, and to support mine that he rightfully belongs in a place among the highest levels of prominence within that same movement. Among it is conclusive proof that other abolitionists and leading abolitionist publications took notice of, praised, and, in many cases, fully embraced Spooner's abolitionist theories. Among those who took major notice of it, while disagreeing, were Garrison and Phillips. Among those who took notice of it and embraced it were Smith and Douglass. My case is further supported by the fact that Spooner's theories became a subject of discussion in the highest of government circles during the 1850's, namely Congress, and by powerful politicians such as William Seward. Add to all of that the fact that major mainstream newspapers such as the Boston Globe and New York Times, which called his book a "remarkable" anti-slavery treatise and "an epoch" in abolitionism, respectively. All of these facts are direct proof that your claims of Spooner's obscurity and unimportance are little more than frauds, lies, and expressions of ignorance. Each of them further supports my argument that Spooner's abolitionist prominence was at the top of the top. If you dispute either of these, make you case, x.
Just note that appealing to anonymous authorities, equivocating around facts that directly contradict your claims, excuse-making when directly confronted about this same set of evasion, offering as serious evidence the childlike game of counting page numbers from the index as an indicator of importance, and, as always, posting lengthy tracts of largely irrelevant bloviation on a subject about which you know very little will not suffice as making a case for anything beyond your own unwillingness to engage in honest factual debate over the materials you contend.
You've got good instincts Burkeman. Don't let the CSA zombies intimidate you, and there's a fire-team here if you need us.
If that is your position now, that is about all I can hope to ask for from you. That was my original complaint with your portrayal of him. Obviously, you do not consider him as significant as I do. I believe, and think that a strong case can be made, that Spooner ranks among the highest levels of abolitionists in prominence. As this is ultimately a matter of subjectivity, you may disagree if you desire. At this point I only ask that credit be given, and up until very recently, you were not giving him due credit. That being said, I too am content to leave this debate as it stands.
That's 100% correct. Of course it helps to have source material on hand. I find myself at a disavantage most of the time. If you can stand the bashing and name calling, there are things to be learned on FR.
"Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better." - Thomas Jefferson, to John C. Breckinridge, August 12, 1803 (emphasis mine)
You replied to 318 (everything below are your comments - not a citation & reply):
"That has nothing to do with the nature of the Union."
Yes, the citation of Jefferson you used in #318 has nothing to do with the nature of the Union.
I don't know how much more clear I can make it.
But these citations from Jefferson DO speak to the nature of the Union:
"It is hoped that by a due poise and partition of powers between the General and particular governments, we have found the secret of extending the benign blessings of republicanism over still greater tracts of country than we possess, and that a subdivision may be avoided for ages, if not forever." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1791
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"The preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801.
"It is of immense consequence that the States retain as complete authority as possible over their own citizens. The withdrawing themselves under the shelter of a foreign jurisdiction is so subversive of order and so pregnant of abuse, that it may not be amiss to consider how far a law of praemunire [a punishable offense against government] should be revised and modified, against all citizens who attempt to carry their causes before any other than the State courts, in cases where those other courts have no right to their cognizance." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797. ME 9:424
It is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our State governments are superior to the Federal or the Federal to the States. The people, to whom all authority belongs, have divided the powers of government into two distinct departments, the leading characters of which are foreign and domestic; and they have appointed for each a distinct set of functionaries. These they have made coordinate, checking and balancing each other like the three cardinal departments in the individual States; each equally supreme as to the powers delegated to itself, and neither authorized ultimately to decide what belongs to itself or to its coparcener in government. As independent, in fact, as different nations." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821. ME 15:328
"The spirit of concord [amongst] sister States... alone carried us successfully through the revolutionary war, and finally placed us under that national government, which constitutes the safety of every part, by uniting for its protection the powers of the whole." --Thomas Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809. ME 12:227
"The interests of the States... ought to be made joint in every possible instance in order to cultivate the idea of our being one nation, and to multiply the instances in which the people shall look up to Congress as their head." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1785. ME 5:14, Papers 8:229
"By [the] operations [of public improvement] new channels of communication will be opened between the States; the lines of separation will disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1060.htm
Walt
Alabama Secession Ordinance - it gives as a reason for rebellion the election of Lincoln who is "avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions" of the state. The domestic institution referred to is clearly slavery. What other institution could it be? So I believe that a 'Y' belongs in the 'Slavery as a Cause' section and the emphasis should be moderate.
Texas - their secession ordinanec contains the phrase "the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States..." Again a clear reference to slaves. Emphasis should be heavy since it is the sole specific reason given, and is clearly the violations that the SO refers to.
Also you place the importance of the Secession Ordinances on the same level as the Declarations of the Causes of Secession. That isn't appropriate since the declaration of causes were meant to be the southern equivilent of the Declaration of Independence penned by Thomas Jefferson. These were their justification for their actions. Their record for posterity of the reasons for the causes which impelled the separation. As you admit defense of slavery, while not always the only reason, was the issue mentioned more often than any other. It was clearly by far the single, most important reason for the rebellion.
Finally, I believe that your final totals are a little misleading. A total of the reasons other than slavery given more emphasis than slavery would be useful. It would show, I believe, that compared to all other reasons, slavery was the cause mentioned more often and given more importance than any other reason.
Walt
Practically any issue of states rights. Notice the plural of the word "institutions." That indicates clearly that they meant for it to refer to more than one thing, of which they did not elaborate. Typical language use of the time employed a singular when the term "institution" was applied to slavery alone - i.e. "our peculiar institution" was one common way of phrasing it. Therefore you cannot say with certainty that they were saying slavery, and in fact it looks as if they intentionally left the issue open by saying "institutions" with a plural.
Texas - their secession ordinanec contains the phrase "the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States..." Again a clear reference to slaves.
That's a geographic reference. I believe Virginia's had a geographic reference as well. But geographic references to the "slave states," a term that was used interchangably for decades with the south be it on the issue of slavery or something entirely unrelated. Therefore it would not be accurate to mistake geography for a stated cause.
Emphasis should be heavy since it is the sole specific reason given, and is clearly the violations that the SO refers to.
What on earth are you smoking, non-seq? Your illogic on this issue is approaching Wlat proportions, and that is not good thing. It's a statement about geography used in passing for precisely that purpose. Nowhere does it emphasize anything about slavery. Compared to what was said, it is virtually negligable and could just as easily have been substituted with the term "southern states" or "states of dixie" or whatever you like with virtually no change on the rest of the ordinance.
As is usually the case, mac_truck responds to the fact that he got caught plagiarizing and the fact that he couldn't carry his attempt to pass off Free-Soilers as one in the same with abolitionists not by apology or retraction, but rather by calling names. Such has predictably become the case with this poster, who ceases debate entirely and goes into vitriolic strings of name-calling the second he knows he's beat. It just affirms what has always been known...
mac_truck=> as in hit by one.
That assertion has been made with great frequency by you. You keep saying that, as if constant repetition will make it any less false. Not once have you specified or substantiated it, and in fact you have willfully ignored a number of facts that defy it. I have listed them for you previously, which leads me to conclude that an innocent form of ignorance is not the source of that comment. Needless to say, Since facts evidently do not phase you, I'll happily post them for any individual who wishes to judge for himself.
337 The Constitution nowhere says what the president may do in regards to the Writ. It only dictates what Congress may or may not do.
339 Taney caused President Lincoln some embarrassment with this, but he could have caused more had he gotten the issue before the whole court. He never did. Ex Parte Merryman is not a Supreme Court decision. But you will doubtless continue to use it to sway the ingnorant and dissatisfied.
CJ Taney died October 12, 1964.
"The Constitution leaves open the question of who may suspend the writ, president or Congress. Abraham Lincoln did so on his own in 1863, arousing a storm of opposition, and Congress eventually approved the suspension retroactively. After the Civil War, the Supreme Court held in Ex parte Milligan that only Congress may suspend the writ, and it denied even Congress the power to suspend as long as civilian courts remain open. After World War II, the Court rejected Congress's suspension of habeas corpus and the declaration of martial law in Hawaii because the public safety did not genuinely require it, since the civilian government and courts continued to function and months after Pearl Harbor there was no longer a thread of invasion."
A Practical Companion to the Constitution, Lieberman, 1999, University of California Press, p.221
Citing:
Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304 (1946)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/327/304.html
Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/71/2.html
REL was the son of a former three-time governor.
For the 30 years prior to the war, REL lived in a mansion built on an 1,100-acre estate. Six of his seven children were born there.
The property was inherited by the wife of REL, and title remained in her name, but he was hardly poor.
Ex Parte Milligan was after the war.
There was enough question about the issue to give President Lincoln the benefit of the doubt in 1861. Chief Justice Rehnquist has suggested the issue is still not decided.
It is also worth noting that Milligan would have hanged but President Lincoln stayed the sentence.
Walt
THE CUSTIS ESTATE
George Washington Parke Custis was a colonel in the United States Army. Born at Mount Airy, Maryland, on April 30, 1781, his parents were John Parke Custis and Eleanor (Calvert) Custis.
After his father died, G.W.P. Custis was raised by his grandmother Martha and her second husband, George Washington at Mount Vernon. The Custis mansion, intended as a living memorial to George Washington, was owned and constructed by the first president's adopted grandson, G.W.P. Custis, son of John Parke Custis who himself was a child of Martha Washington by her first marriage and a ward of George Washington. His mansion, begun in 1802 but not completed until 1817, held a collection of Washington heirlooms.
George Washington Parke Custis considered calling the estate Mount Washington, but eventually adopted the name of the Custis family ancestral estate.
The mansion was built on an 1,100-acre estate that Custis' father, John Parke Custis, purchased in 1778. It was designed by George Hadfield, the English architect who was for a time in charge of the construction of the Capitol.
In 1804, G.W.P. Custis married Mary Lee Fitzhugh. Their only child to survive infancy was Mary Anna Randolph Custis, born in 1808.
On June 30, 1831, Mary Anna Randolph Custis married her husband Robert, son of a former three-time governor. For 30 years this mansion was their home, and six of their seven children were born there.
G.W.P. Custis left the estate to his daughter Mary for her lifetime, to be passed on to the her eldest son. The estate was in need of repair and Mary's husband Robert, as executor, oversaw the improvements.
THE CUSTIS ESTATE AND THE CIVIL WAR
Virginia adopted an Ordinance of Secession on April 17, 1861. On April 22, 1861, Robert left the home, never to return. About a month later, Mary also left, managing to send some of the family valuables off to safety. Later, many of the remaining family possessions were moved to the Patent Office for safekeeping. Some items, including Mount Vernon heirlooms, had already been looted.
THE CUSTIS ESTATE WRONGFULLY SEIZED
In 1863 Congress levied a tax on all confiscated properties, but payment was rejected for the Custis estate.
A wartime law required that owners of property in areas occupied by Federal troops appear in person to pay their taxes.
The property was confiscated by the federal government when property taxes levied against the estate were not paid in person by the owner, which was Mary. The property was offered for public sale on January 11, 1864, and was purchased by a tax commissioner for "government use, for war, military, charitable and educational purposes."
Brig. Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs, who commanded a wartime garrison at the estate, appropriated the grounds June 15, 1864. Intending to render the house uninhabitable should the family ever attempt to return, Gen. Meigs ordered the remains of war dead to be buried as close to the home as possible. A burial vault in the rose garden containins the remains of 1,800 Bull Run casualties.
Neither Mary, as title holder, nor Robert as executor, ever attempted to publicly recover control of the estate.
After their death, their son George brought an action for ejectment in the Circuit Court of Alexandria County, Va. As the eldest son, he claimed that the land had been illegally confiscated and that, according to his grandfather's will, he was the legal owner. In December 1882, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, returned the property, stating that it had been confiscated without due process.
On March 3, 1883, the Congress purchased the property for $150,000, and it became a military reservation.
AND NOW, THE REST OF THE STORY...
Today the mansion, conceived as a living memorial to George Washington, looks somewhat out of place. The effort begun by General Meigs continued and the mansion is now surrounded by hundreds of thousands of graves.
Originally envisioned as Mount Washington, the estate came to be named after the ancestral Custis estate, Arlington.
George Washington's descendant, Mary Anna Randolph Custis married her husband Robert Edward Lee.
The estate was unlawfully confiscated from the lawful owner, the wife of Robert E. Lee.
Ownership was returned to the Custis family by a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court rendered on December 4, 1882. U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882)
On March 3, 1883, the Congress purchased the property from George Washington Custis Lee for $150,000.
On March 4, 1925, restoration of the Mansion was authorized. On August 10, 1933, it was transferred from the War Department to the National Park Service. On June 29, 1955, it was declared a permanent memorial to Robert E. Lee, with a name change to "Custis-Lee Mansion."
On June 30, 1972, the mansion was restored to its historic name, Arlington House.
It is the former estate of Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Lee that became Arlington National Cemetery. Arlington House was their home.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That is not true. Article I, Section 1 states that the powers in that article belong to the legislature. The suspension power occurs in Article I, Section 9. Therefore the suspension power belongs to the legislature.
Practically every writing from the founding fathers agrees with this as well. Not until Lincoln came along and needed a means of arresting political opposition did anyone dispute that the power was Congress's.
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.