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.
I can tell intelligent opinion from asinine opinion and I'll ask again, why would you think that I would be at all interested in your asinine opinion?
So you want them to believe that you know what you are talking about? If that is your intent then I suggest that you stop spouting nonsense. My God, Peeshwank, are you honestly dumb enough to believe that had the Johnson Administration tried Davis that there would have been any chance of an acquittal? You're from Louisiana, you want us to believe that the concept of packing a jury if foreign to you? A trial of Davis would have started on a Monday and ended in a conviction by Friday and anyone with half a brain would realize that. But, then again, we are talking about your opinions here, aren't we? Never mind.
After Jeff Davis was captured, the vindictive radical Yankee Secretary of War Edwin Stanton [who some feel may have known more about Lincoln's assassination than is admitted] wanted to implicate Davis both as a co-conspirator in Lincoln's assassination and as a traitor for leading the secessionist government in Richmond, even though secession had not been original with Davis. Try as they might, the radical Republicans in Washington couldn't quite bring it off. Burke Davis notes, on page 204 of his book, a quote by Chief Justice Salmom P. Chase, telling Stanton "If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion....His [Jeff Davis'] capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason. Secession is settled. Let it stay settled." Burke Davis continued on page 214 of the book, noting that a congressional committee proposed a special court for Davis' trial, headed by Judge Franz Lieber. Davis noted: "After studying more than 270,000 Confederate documents, seeking evidence against Davis, this court discouraged the War Department: 'Davis will be found not guilty,' Lieber reported, 'and we shall stand there completely beaten'." What the radical Northern politicians were admitting among themselves [but not for the historical record] was that they had just fought a 'civil war' that had taken or maimed the lives of over 600,000 Americans, both North and South, and they had no constitutional justification for having done so, nor had they had any constitutional right to impede the Southern states when they chose to withdraw from the constitutional compact. They had fought solely for the right to keep an empire together. Call it 'manifest destiny' or whatever other noble-sounding euphemism you may tack onto it, either way, they had been wrong. Now they could not afford to let Jeff Davis go to trial, else their grievous crime would become public knowledge and beget them even more problems in the future. Needless to say, you probably have not read much about this in most of your 'history' books. As the narrator at the beginning of the movie Braveheart so correctly stated: "History is written by those who've hanged heroes."
CONSTITUTION - RATIFICATION DOCUMENTS
From the June 26, 1788, ratification document of
VIRGINIA
"The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will."
From the June 26, 1788, ratification document of
NEW YORK
"That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same."
From the May 29, 1790, ratification document of
RHODE ISLAND
"That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same."
Chase believed that the government could NOT convict Davis of treason - secession was not illegal.
So, the legislative power of the US rests in Congress, but that doesn't change the fact that he wrote, 'the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.'
Just as an aside, the Federalist Papers are frequently mentioned in SCOTUS decisions.
Walt
You can write the same thing, and you'll get slam dunked by the federal government too.
None of the framers thought there was a -legal- right to end the compact.
Walt
If that is true then why did Chief Justice Chase vote that unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states was unconstitutional in Texas v. White in 1869? Did he change his mind?
So do I. Supreme Court decisions, writings of Madison, that sort of thing.
That is a really scary statement if you think about it. What you're saying is you don't care what the Constitution or Federal law say, you'll just follow any SCOTUS ruling as long as YOU think its correct. No thought to what the law is, or what our founding principles are.
And you will dismiss any Supreme Court decision that you disagree with. Which is scarier? It really doesn't work that way, nor should it. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the responsibility for interpreting the Constitution, not you or me or the individual states. We don't have to agree with their decisions but we do have to accept them as valid and binding. Otherwise you have nullification and 50 different sets of law for 50 different states.
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.