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. 

[WhiskeyPapa]

I don't know how to make this more plain to you.

You suggested a position on the meaning of the EP that a reading of any general history of the war would have told you was false.

Now, did you take that position in ignorance, or malevolence?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The 10th amendment never comes into play because Congress has the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare.

This is such an ignorant statement that I don't know where to start.

Ask Jefferson Davis; he took the same position.

"The Confederate Constitution, he [Davis] pointed out to [Governor] Brown, gave Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and to "provide for the common defense." It also contained another clause (likewise copied from the U.S. Constitution) empowering Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Brown had denied the constitutionality of conscription because the Constitution did not specifically authorize it. This was good Jeffersonian doctrine, sanctified by generations of southern strict constructionists.

But in Hamiltonian language, Davis insisted that the "necessary and proper" clause legitimized conscription. No one could doubt the necessity "when our very existance is threatened by armies vastly superior in numbers." Therefore "the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object...if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional."

--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson P.433

Davis believed that the federal government could coerce the states. Was he wrong?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

The 1792 version of the Act required the ncertification of a judge that insurrection was present. This doesn't appear in the 1795 version.

The president is given sole discretion.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

But in neither case was a request from state authorities required. Which made sense since, as in the case of the confederate states, those state authorities were the very leaders of the rebellion.

[WhiskeyPapa]

But in neither case was a request from state authorities required. Which made sense since, as in the case of the confederate states, those state authorities were the very leaders of the rebellion.

President Washington was of course one of the strongest proponents of the permanent, supremely powerful national Union. The Militia Act was passed at his request, and includes the wording he wanted. The president has sole discretionary power in supressing any rebellion or insurrection. The rebels might not have known that on 4/14/61, but President Lincoln's 4/15/61 proclamation should have sent them scrambling for their law books.

After that, it as just a matter of national will and economic power. Th rebels had little of either.

Walt

[nolu chan]

[Wlat] 103
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/894293/posts?page=103#103

[A. Patriot] Could someone tell me if it is true that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in areas that the U.S. government did NOT control? That slaves in other areas such as Maryland were freed later when the 14th Amendment was passed?

[Wlat] Yes.

Wlat said it. It must be true.

[GOPcapitalist]

"By the principles of the American revolution, arbitrary power may and ought to be resisted even by arms if necessary-- The time may come when it shall be the duty of a State, in order to preserve itself from the oppression of the general government, to have recourse to the sword" - Luther Martin, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, January 27, 1788

[4CJ]

The words "secede" and "seceded" were terms of a later generation.

"I cannot but hope then, that the States which may be disposed to make a secession will think often and seriously on the consequences."
George Washington, Letter to Henry Knox, 17 Jun 1788, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor, V. 29.

So much for that allegation.

Perpuetual in law means that no express duration is defined, not that it is permanent. To make more perfect means to "complete" something. The Articles were abandoned, the several states seceded from it. The Articles were not included or incorporated by inclusion in the Constitution. Unless your version has a few extra sentences unknown to the rest of the world.

In Federalist 9, Hamilton urges for ratification of the new confederacy writes, '[t]he latter [the consolidation of several smaller States into one great Confederacy] is that which immediately concerns the object under consideration.' He discusses the advantages of this proposed union, then writes this, 'the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.'

[4CJ]

Since the 14th Amendment prevented the leaders of the office from holding office again, Chief Justice Chase believed that trial and conviction for treason would mean that they would be punished again for the same crime.

Davis was arrested in 1865. The government could had held a trial and convicted Davis, and then executed him if found guilty. Instead, they understood that to bring him to trial would validate secession (see Chase's statement above). The 14th (ratified three years later) contained a clause allowing Congress to remove the prohibition against holding office - no dual punishmemt necessary. Cahse just made it up.

[WhiskeyPapa]

The words "secede" and "seceded" were terms of a later generation.

"I cannot but hope then, that the States which may be disposed to make a secession will think often and seriously on the consequences."

George Washington, Letter to Henry Knox, 17 Jun 1788, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor, V. 29.

So much for that allegation.

There is precious little in ther record from the framers regarding "secession", and not one framer can be quoted that there was such a thing as legal unilateral state secession.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

"By the principles of the American revolution, arbitrary power may and ought to be resisted even by arms if necessary-- The time may come when it shall be the duty of a State, in order to preserve itself from the oppression of the general government, to have recourse to the sword" - Luther Martin, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, January 27, 1788

The sword, not law.

The secessionist sword turned out to be pretty brittle.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Since the 14th Amendment prevented the leaders of the office from holding office again, Chief Justice Chase believed that trial and conviction for treason would mean that they would be punished again for the same crime.

Davis was arrested in 1865. The government could had held a trial and convicted Davis, and then executed him if found guilty. Instead, they understood that to bring him to trial would validate secession (see Chase's statement above).

If Stanton had wanted Lee and Davis and the others hanged, they would have hanged.

It was Lincoln's words from the grave that saved Davis.

Chase plainly called all secession articles null and void, and said that the perpetual Union of the Articles was made more perfect by the Constitution. His position on Davis was based on double jeopardy, not the total BS you present.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

In Federalist 9...

The judicial power of the United States rests in the Supreme Court, not the Federalist Papers.

The Supreme Court referred to the secessionists as traitors and secessions acts and documents as null ad void.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

The government could had held a trial and convicted Davis, and then executed him if found guilty.

They could have, but they didn't. Davis was held at Fortress Monroe headed for a military trial. The Johnson government decided that any trial for treason would have to be in a civil court in Virginia. Neither John C. Underwood, circuit court judge for the District of Virginia, nor Chief Justice Chase, who presided over the circuit including the Virginia district, felt that they had any authority over the case as long as Davis was held by the military. That didn't happen until May of 1867 when the writ was issued, Davis was arraigned and released on bail. The trial was delayed again for political reasons involved with the impeachment and the election. By the time the government was ready to proceed the 14th Amendment had been ratified.

Instead, they understood that to bring him to trial would validate secession.

How would trying and convicting Davis validate secession? A treason conviction would justify the administration's actions, not invalidate them.

[stand watie]

exactly!

[nolu chan]

[Walt] The secessionist sword turned out to be pretty brittle.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:

Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222


The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:

Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000

[GOPcapitalist]

The sword, not law.

Actually, Martin was one of the delegates who successfully fought to keep the concept of differentiated sovereignties in the Constitution by preserving the rights of the states to prosecute treason against them. He also put forth another clause that would have declared by law that any armed conflict between the federal government and the states would be treated under the laws of nations, though he did not have the votes to bring it to the floor.

The secessionist sword turned out to be pretty brittle.

If so, that speaks volumes about the ineptness of the yankee army, which took 4 long years and some 350,000 lives trying to break a brittle sword!

[Aurelius]

"How would trying and convicting Davis validate secession? A treason conviction would justify the administration's actions, not invalidate them."

How dense can you be? There was no trial for one reason and one reason only. The government would first have had to make the case that unilateral secession was forbiden under the Constitution. It was recognized that this would not be possible and exposing that fact would have opened an enormous can of worms. Apparently it was hoped that Davis and Stephans, who both appeared to be in frail health, would not survive their abominable conditions of incarceration. When it became apparent that they weren't going to die in the short term, there was nothing left to do but to relaese them.

[Non-Sequitur]

What made you think that I was at all interested in your asinine opinion?

[Aurelius]

You post asinine opinions all day long. But you should learn to recognize an intelligent opinion when one is posted. But maybe that's too much to expect, in light of your severely deteriorated mental condition.