Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

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. 


TOPICS: Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Maryland; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: burkedavis; civilwar; dixie; dixielist; economics; fairfax; georgemason; gmu; liberty; lincoln; reparations; slavery; thomasdilorenzo; warbetweenthestates
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 981-991 next last
To: HenryLeeII
I don't know of an explicit prohibition against uniateral secession. I do know that U.S. law requires that U.S. law operate in all the states.

And once a state has withdrawn from the Union, U.S. law no longer applies.

Not possible under U.S. law.

A state might withdraw under natural law, but it would have to make a better effort than the rebels did in 1860-65. Theirs was pretty lame.

Walt

781 posted on 05/02/2003 8:56:18 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII; WhiskeyPapa
Note to self and Walt: Not Georgetown, D.C., but Alexandria, D.C.
782 posted on 05/02/2003 9:00:09 AM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Not possible under U.S. law. A state might withdraw under natural law, but it would have to make a better effort than the rebels did in 1860-65. Theirs was pretty lame.

As I've said, Wlat, law is not just made up as we go along. And regarding the Militia Act, it states insurrection, not withdrawal. What's your next desperate grasp at the quickly-receding straws going to entail, an appeal to the U.N. Charter?

783 posted on 05/02/2003 9:04:43 AM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
And regarding the Militia Act, it states insurrection, not withdrawal.

No state has ever withdrawn from the Union.

The Act leaves it up to the president to decide when insurrection is active.

That's the law.

Walt

784 posted on 05/02/2003 10:34:13 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: stand watie; PistolPaknMama; basil; dixie sass
You're gonna love this!
785 posted on 05/02/2003 10:43:42 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (THE PSYCHO NEWS CHANNEL: FEAR AND (MENTALLY) UNBALANCED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
No state has ever withdrawn from the Union. The [Militia] Act leaves it up to the president to decide when insurrection is active. That's the law.

Your "reasoning" is completely baseless. What you are saying is that, because the Southern states were prevented for staying withdrawn (which they had already done), a right that they had was taken away and a new law created through simple military force with no constitutional precedent or Federal law being cited. This type of "reasoning" is completely asinine. Your argument would be laughed out of a freshman-level survey course!

786 posted on 05/02/2003 10:53:56 AM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
Your argument would be laughed out of a freshman-level survey course!

How long did the rebels hold Nashville? New Orleans?

How long was South Carolina without federal troops within her borders?

No state has ever been out of the Union.

Walt

787 posted on 05/02/2003 10:59:05 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Your "arguments" are getting more-and-more ignorant as you go. What you stated has nothing to do with constitutional theory or law. Your last shred of credibility is long gone. You are superflous to this thread. You are hereby dismissed.
788 posted on 05/02/2003 11:25:55 AM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
Your "arguments" are getting more-and-more ignorant as you go. What you stated has nothing to do with constitutional theory or law. Your last shred of credibility is long gone. You are superflous to this thread. You are hereby dismissed.

"South Carolina...cannot get out of this Union until she conquers this government. The revenues must and will be collected at her ports, and any resistance on her part will lead to war. At the close of that war we can tell with certainty whether she is in or out of the Union. While this government endures there can be no disunion...

If the overt act on the part of South Carolina takes place on or after the 4th of March, 1861, then the duty of executing the laws will devolve upon Mr. Lincoln. The laws of the United States must be executed-- the President has no discretionary power on the subject -- his duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Mr. Lincoln will perform that duty. Disunion by armed force is treason, and treason must and will be put down at all hazards. The Union is not, and cannot be dissolved until this government is overthrown by the traitors who have raised the disunion flag. Can they overthrow it? We think not."

Illinois State Journal, November 14, 1860

The IJS was pretty much known to be speaking for the president elect.

No state has ever been out of the Union for an instant since the Articles of Confederation were passed.

Walt

789 posted on 05/02/2003 11:30:10 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
No, I'd say that eleven states were out of the union for quite some time. Your revisionism doesn't change history but you get an A for "stick-to-it-ness".
790 posted on 05/02/2003 11:36:29 AM PDT by rebelyell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 789 | View Replies]

To: rebelyell
No, I'd say that eleven states were out of the union for quite some time.

Well, let's see. Tennessee passed a secession ordinance in June, 1861, right?

Federal troops were in Nashville in April, '62. That's less than a year. And they had held Memphis for months previous to that.

And when did Grant sack Jackson, MS?

And federal troops were outside Charleston very early, and on the barrier islands in NC and Georgia too.

And how many exports did the rebel states have? Or imports?

I think the outhouse republic in Texas a few years ago did about as well.

Walt

791 posted on 05/02/2003 11:44:20 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
And since secession was not illegal up through 1861, any subsequent ruling to the contrary is ex post facto, so this point is moot.

If you stop and think about it for a moment you would realize how ridiculous that statement is. In the first place, the Supreme Court was not enacting legislation. It was ruling on the Constitutionality of the act of secession passed by the Texas legislature. A quick reading of the court's decision would have uncovered that particular fact. In the second place, by your definintion then every ruling by the Supreme Court, or any other appeals court for that matter, is ex post facto since every decision is a ruling on something that has already happened. That's the way the system works, especially the Supreme Court which cannot legally issue any sort of advisory ruling. So it's back to the drawing board for you I'm afraid.

792 posted on 05/02/2003 11:47:11 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 761 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
And once a state has withdrawn from the Union, U.S. law no longer applies.

Don't try this at home kids...

793 posted on 05/02/2003 11:56:07 AM PDT by mac_truck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 778 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Let's see, you cannot cite any prohibition in the Constitution or Federal law against a state's withdrawal BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, so you are now deriving the power from a newspaper editorial. You're real funny!

794 posted on 05/02/2003 12:10:43 PM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 789 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
HenryLeeII: And since secession was not illegal up through 1861, any subsequent ruling to the contrary is ex post facto, so this point is moot.

Non-Sequitur: If you stop and think about it for a moment you would realize how ridiculous that statement is. In the first place, the Supreme Court was not enacting legislation. It was ruling on the Constitutionality of the act of secession passed by the Texas legislature. A quick reading of the court's decision would have uncovered that particular fact. In the second place, by your definintion then every ruling by the Supreme Court, or any other appeals court for that matter, is ex post facto since every decision is a ruling on something that has already happened. That's the way the system works, especially the Supreme Court which cannot legally issue any sort of advisory ruling. So it's back to the drawing board for you I'm afraid.

I've read the Texas decision, longer ago than I care to remember (birthday alert for tomorrow) and know what it was about. The problem with what you are stating is that the Supreme Court was in effect enacting legislation because there was no law or Constitutional language regarding withdrawal in the first place. The justices were creating a prohibition out of whole cloth.

When the Supreme Court rules in cases, it is ruling on acts that have already happened, but interpreting laws and/or rights that are already on the books (i.e. the Miranda decision had to do with the Fourth Amendment; Gore's attempted theft of the presidency was stopped upon the 7-2 ruling that the ever-shifting vote standards violated the Fourteenth Amendment). The Supreme Court does not have the authority to enact legislation or amend the Constitution which is what it did in the Texas ruling.

795 posted on 05/02/2003 12:22:00 PM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 792 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
Let's see, you cannot cite any prohibition in the Constitution or Federal law against a state's withdrawal BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, so you are now deriving the power from a newspaper editorial. You're real funny!

It's the law of the land:

The Militia Act of 1792

Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII

Passed May 2, 1792, providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia.

Militia Act, passed May 8, 1792, providing for the organization of the Militia follows.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.

Sec. 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial; and such officers shall, moreover, be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned by the like sentence, or failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for the space of one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Lincoln cites the Act in his 4/15/61 proclamation.

The Supreme Court majority opinion in the Prize Cases cites the Act.

This is new to you, but it is pretty much irrefutable.

The rebels didn't much care what the law was, because they expected to prevail at the point of a gun.

Walt

796 posted on 05/02/2003 12:24:20 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 794 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
The Supreme Court does not have the authority to enact legislation or amend the Constitution which is what it did in the Texas ruling.

Let's try this again. The Supreme Court does not enact legislation. It cannot. It has no power to do so under the Constitution. But it does have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of legislation passed by the states and to determine if such legislation violates the Constitution. And in the case of Texas v. White the court determined that the Texas acts of secession were in violation of the Constitution. The fact that you do not agree with their interpretation means nothing. They don't need your approval for the ruling to be valid. The fact that you believe that the court was, in effect, making legislation means nothing. The court did not make legislation, the Constitution does not grant them that power. The court interprets the Constituion as it relates to the case before them, and it this case they made an interpretation that you don't agree with. But your agreement is not needed for the decision to be valid. And Texas v. White was a valid decision and will remain so until the Constitution is amended or the decision is modified by a future court. So you are welcome to your opinion. I'm not going to try and talk you out of it. But the fact that you believe the court made legislation and that you believe that there is nothing in the Constitution preventing unilateral secession is meaningless from a legal standpoint.

797 posted on 05/02/2003 12:35:36 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
You keep repeating the same old garbage. Insurrection is mentioned in the Militia Act, not a state withdrawing. Two different things. Try again...
798 posted on 05/02/2003 12:49:00 PM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And perhaps you could tell me what Federal law or Constitutional passage they were interpreting? Walt has already admitted there wasn't any prohibition against a state withdrawing from the Union. Are you picking up his flag and continuing the charge?
799 posted on 05/02/2003 12:51:20 PM PDT by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII
You keep repeating the same old garbage. Insurrection is mentioned in the Militia Act, not a state withdrawing. Two different things.

Under the law, the president makes that decision.

Walt

800 posted on 05/02/2003 1:03:19 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 981-991 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson