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

To: Sequoya
Maybe you can tell us where the Constitution gives the president the right to take possession of newspapers by military force and arrest the editors, writers, and publishers for printing anti-war editorials.

The Supreme Court in 1862 ruled that the entire executive power rests in the president.

The right to free speech does not include calling for the overthrow of the lawful government. If you look at the record, you'll see that Lincoln erred on the cautious side, if anything.

Lincoln himself addressed your rant in some detail in an 1864 letter:

"It was in the oath I took, that I would, to the utmost of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I have publically declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand however that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving by every indispensible means, that government--that nation--of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensible to to the preservation of the of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it..."

4/4/64

You know it's old J. Davis who whacked the states rights guys as thoroughly as Lincoln ever did. Oh yes.

Consider this text:

"Conscription dramatized a fundamental paradox in the Confederate war effort: the need for Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. Pure Jeffersonians could not accept this. The most outspoken of them, [Governor] Joseph Brown of Georgia, denounced the draft as a "dangerous usurpation by Congress of the reserved rights of the states...at war with all the principles for which Georgia entered into the revolution." In reply Jefferson Davis donned the mantle of Hamilton. The Confederate Constitution, he pointed out to 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 existence 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

Ouch, ouch, ouch!

Yes, old Jefferson Davis himself invoked the powers of Congress to coerce the states! What a hoot! You know, Old JD might as well have had a copy of the 1819 Supreme Court decision on McCullough v. Maryland in his back pocket. He seems to have lost it after the war:

Mister Chief Justice Marshall gave the opinion of the Court:

"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or of creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people," thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair reading of the whole instrument.

...The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of the nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done, by confining the choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conclusive to the end."

Now, why is Jefferson Davis following precedents more rightly in Lincoln's camp?

Of course this makes old JD a lying two-faced son of a bitch, but you surely knew that.

Walt

106 posted on 04/16/2003 8:27:20 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies ]


To: WhiskeyPapa
Lincoln himself admits his actions were unconstitutional in the quote you posted. All tyrants claim necessity as the basis for their actions.

Pointing out President Davis’ faults and shortcomings does not erase the fact that Lincoln was a dictator who destroyed the union. I can see why you are a Clinton and Lincoln fan. In your mind, wrong is only wrong when done by someone you disagree with.

President Davis did plenty of things I find fault with. I don’t excuse him just because he was fighting a dictator who was destroying the union and subjugating the states. His actions were wrong even though done for a good cause.

Reputable historians like Rossiter, Rhodes, and Randall recognize that Lincoln was a dictator, but the excuse him and apologize for him because they agree with his goal. You simply deny his sins and claim that because someone else did wrong it somehow justifies Lincoln.

You support a dictator who trashed the constitution and destroyed the union. Spin cannot erase the facts and the facts show Lincoln to be a dictator and a tyrant.
113 posted on 04/16/2003 8:45:24 AM PDT by Sequoya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

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