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.
[Walt] Well, that's all wrong. President Lincoln DID call a special secession of Congress to meet July 4.
[712 nolu chan returned to context] When Abraham Lincoln was elected and inaugurated, he didn't have a Congress for the first six weeks. He did not, however, call an extra session of Congress.
Lincoln's first inaugural address was given March 4, 1861.
Do the arithmetic Walt.
You made a false statement, and you don't seem to have a really good grasp of these events. You seem to be P/O'd at FDR, and you've transferred that angst back to poor old Father Abraham.
You said a while back that the EP freed no slaves -- that Lincoln "freed" slaves where he had no power and left slaves alone where he did have power. This is often seen, and always wrong. Anyone who read a survey history of the war would know that. Now you say that President Lincoln didn't declare war. That same survey or general history of the war that you never read would have told you that President Lincoln's position was that no state could get out of the Union and that secession ordinances were null and void. That is what he said in his inaugural address.
You don't seem to know the history.
Go read a good single volume history of the war and then get back to me.
Walt
The question would be -- was there a precedent or law that would have shown the arrest of Milligan to be CLEARLY outside the law -- when it happened? The answer is NO. That is why the question wound up at the SCOTUS. That is why lots of questions end up at SCOTUS -- because there is a question of interpretation.
Presdent Lincoln -- Gee whiz, President Lincoln was presented with a fait accompli -- Milligan was arrested without his knowledge. He upheld the legality of the arrest, as he might be expected to back his subordiate.
But can his memory be attacked simply for that? No. You just look silly.
Walt
I see your point. This proves he is in good company.
1972
Richard M. Nixon
520 electoral votes
46,740,323
George McGovern
17 electoral votes
28,901,598
It's called the Constitution.
Oh, the Constitution! But the Constitution doesn't say, "Officers of the government must leave Lambdin P. Milligan strictly alone," does it?
No, it says that the Writ of HC must not be suspended except when yadda yadda yadda...and it doesn't specify who may suspend the Writ, and it says not a word about the president.
There was no -law- that said the president must not suspend the Writ (remember that Milligan sued out on a Writ of HC AFTER LINCOLN WAS DEAD), and there was no case law to guide the executive.
You just look silly.
Walt
I see your point. This proves he is in good company.
You make my points for me. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment. Can you say the same for President Lincoln?
Thing about Lincoln and Nixon was that Lincoln did all this out in the open. There was a "boisterous discussion" of civil liberties in the North, to quote Dr. mark Neely. The Watergate scandal didn't break until after the election. Are you just trying to look a fool?
Walt
Don't you mean DEPORTED?
He was sent into rebel controlled territory.
As a southerner I resent the implication that something is wrong with the south.
Walt
You mean his deliberations ended with his death.
I see you are trying to word things more carefully now. Good idea.
Walt
Then why did you vote for Clinton twice and then Gore? They're both known liars and thieves. Clinton dodged the draft and organized and/or participated in anti-U.S. rallies in Moscow during a time when the KGB carefully screened Americans that wanted to go there. Gore signed a document with then-Prime Minister Putin agreeing that the Clinton administration would not notify congressional oversight committees of Russia's building a nuclear reactor in Iran (the signed document was obtained under FOIA and published two months before the 2000 election). They are both dishonorable scum but you voted for them.
On April 15, 1861 in response to the confederate firing on Sumter, President Lincoln issued his proclamation calling up the Militia to supress the rebellion and also calling Congress into special session to convene at noon on July 4, 1861. That was the 42nd day of his administration, exactly 6 weeks after his inauguration. Walt was right.
He had Vallandigham sent to the confederacy, which I imagine President Lincoln thought was preferable to remaining in jail. In any case, Vallindigham enjoyed life under the Davis regime so much that he took off for Canada and then crossed the border back into the states, where he remained free.
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.