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.
Maybe it's a name thing. Pershing was screwing Patton's sister Nita for a while before the first world war.
If you read the Patton Papers, Patton was OH SO hoping Nita would marry Pershing.
Walt
The whole point is that the quote that Burke Davis attributes to Chase is not verifiable because Burke Davis didn't directly provide a reference. It was further pointed out that the four chapter references Burke Davis does cite do not contain the quote either. Thats pretty sloppy scholarship on Burke Davis' part don't you think?
Since you've used the Chase quote in question to underpin assertion that "Secession was legal and Lincoln knew it", this might be a good time to start looking for cover....
Patton had to repeat the first year. That's flunking.
Walt
flunk (vi): to fail especially in an examination or course.
You are ever slowly catching on. That is flunking. That is not flunking out.
George Patton, Jr., did not flunk out of West Point. He was not dismissed from the institution.
Rather tahn continue down this totally fruitless path....did you know that Patton spent five years at West Point before today?
I am glad you have found a subject that you feel competent to discuss, BTW.
Walt
Coming from you, the king of cut-n-paste, I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya ;o)
No, no, no, 4CJ. It doesn't work that way with Walt. You see, if it appears in a book it is only true so long as it (a) praises Lincoln or (b) trashes the south. Now if it appears on an "AOL moderated newsgroup," that's a different story cause everything posted on there must be true...since it is moderated, right?
Section 2 states the conditions of the calling forth of the militia: "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 ..." A decision by the courts was never rendered, neither was Lincoln a court or member of the Judicial branch.
But I'm sure that something from an "AOL moderated newsgroup" will be posted as absolute, unmitigated proof otherwise. Their "Precious" must be defended.
But of course!
WLAT: Master hurts the precious!
WALTROT: But master is our friend.
WLAT: He wants the precious. Always he is looking for it, he is. And destroy it he will! But we mustn't let him have it.
WALTROT: But...but...We swears to serve the master of the precious. We swears on...on...on Father Abraham! We swears on the precious!
WLAT: But Father Abraham, destroy it they will. They destroy because they know the truth.
WALTROT: Truth? What truth, of we they know?
WLAT: The truth of the preeeecccioouuusss!
WALTROT: No!
WLAT: Why are you crying, Waltrot?
WALTROT: Master betray us! He tells of the precious in truth. He betrays...the precious
WLAT: Of course he did, I told you he would.
WALTROT: But what shall we do?
WLAT: Destroy master we can, and the precious we take from him!
WALTROT: No, no, too risky...unless...
WLAT: Unless we let 'McPherson' do it... yes... Yes, McPherson could do it for us, right precious?
WALTROT: Yes! We take master to McPherson! In the AOL Moderated Newsgroup, McPherson lies...with his words we strangle master and take the precious.
(enter Grand Old Partisan)
GRAND OLD PARTISAN: I couldn't help but overhear your adoration for the precious. Would you like to buy my book? I too like the precious (and I wrote a book about it that I'll sell you if you go to my website) because the precious was the first great Republican (you can read all about it in my book) and we must worship the precious as Republicans (just buy my book and you can learn how to worship it), cause your master is a Democrat just like all those other evil Democrats like Jeff Davis who murdered the defenders of the precious (my book has a chapter about it) and the holy union that the precious stood for, but were stopped thanks to those great and wonderful heroes Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stephens (who are also in my book) so remember that (only $14.99) and read about the precious! I would be honored if you copy from me (i'll even give you a coupon) so read about it and by my book!
WALTROT: Why buy to see what we can cut and paste for free?
WLAT: Cut and paste we will then...and strangle master with cut and paste...paste...our...our precious!
ROTF! You have missed your calling (unless, of course, your last name is Tolkein)
...buts that a bit more difficult isn't it?
The Supreme Court ruled that the secession ordinances and declarations had no validity in law. They were void.
The citizens of the so-called seceded states never stopped being citizens of the U.S.
Walt
PS. Mr. Burke historically has not been someone that advocated "our" position, and with over 40 books to his credit, I would tend to doubt (as did the information posted by Walt) that Mr. Burke invented it.
State Sovereignty died at Appomattox.
- Salmon P. Chase
When in the Course of Human Events, by Charles Adams, p. 188, relates that,
in February 1868, at a dinner party attended by the Chief Justice and an attorney for the government, it was agreed that on the following day a motion for nonprosecution would be made that would dismiss the case.
A guest overhead the conversation and reported what was on the minds of most Southerners: "I did not consider that he [Davis] was any more guilty of treason than I was.... "
The quote could be in Chase's Reports, which are referenced in two volumes I've seen.
Even assuming arguendo secession was unlawful, if Davis had a good faith belief that secession was lawful, there could be no criminal intent and, therefore, no crime of treason.
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.