Posted on 09/30/2003 12:19:22 PM PDT by sheltonmac
What the readers of Steers should know is what was written by Lincoln's Commissioner of Emigration within the administration, out of public view.
|LINK|
Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress. Transcribed and Annotated by the Lincoln Studies Center, Knox College. Galesburg, Illinois.
From James Mitchell to Abraham Lincoln, December 13, 1861
The first thing therefore claiming attention is the preservation of the mandatory relation existing between master and slave-- Should this relation be dissolved by the act of confiscation? We think not, but that law should make the title of the slave-holder eschet to the Federal government, and a strict mandatory relation maintained between the authorities and the freed-men for the purpose of affecting the removal of the latter, which work should be slow and gradual, whilst for the time being a strict survalence should be exercised, so that this perplexing mass of population may not suffer demoralization -- the Federal authority and control may be made rest as lightly on them as their good conduct will justify.
As to the field of present occupation and concentration the estates of disloyal men eschet to the Government for the lifetime of the owners, those could be placed in the hands of those companies and worked by the freed men under their control -- whilst the return of the title to the family would compel the removal of the laborers -- this would be as desired.
FROM LINCOLN'S COMMISSIONER FOR EMIGRATION
From a pamphlet published at the Government Printing Office, by the Lincoln administration, at taxpayer expense.
require a separation of the colored or negro race from us
Yet, terrible as is this civil war between men of kindred race for the dominion of the servant, future history will show that it has been moderate and altogether tolerable when contrasted with a struggle between the black and white race, which, within the next one or two hundred years must sweep over this nation,
the removal of the colored race to a proper locality . . . Surely this exercise of influence is a legitimate prerogative of the Chief Magistrate, the guardian of national peace, who, being convinced of impending danger to the country, has the undoubted right to notify the nation of its approach, and recommend the remedy.
Our danger in the future arises from the fact that we have 4,500,000 persons, who, whilst amongst us, cannot be of us - persons of a different race
The social and civil evils resulting from the presence of the negro race are numerous
the license of the races, which is giving to this continent a nation of bastards.
That political economist must be blind indeed; that statesman must be a shallow thinker, who cannot see a fearful future before this country, if the production of this mixed race is not checked by removal.
possibly the next great civil war will be the conflict of this race for dominion and existence.
this population is in the way of the peace of the country
Thus far we have found that their presence here disturbs our social structure. We come now to examine how far our civil structure is damaged by this population.
But there is one clause of this sacred compact which requires the Federal government to "guarantee to the several States a republican form of government." . . . When rightly construed it must and will require the gradual removal of such anti-republican elements and peoples as cannot be engrafted on the national stock
It is admitted on all hands that our mixed and servile population constitute the root of those issues and quarrels; what shall be done with them is the question of the hour.
this repulsive admixture of blood
the men of the Exeter Hall school, who, far removed from the scene of danger, see not the degradation of this admixture of race.
he does not choose to endanger the blood of his posterity by the proximity of such a population; that here is no command in the Word of God that will oblige him to place this race on the high road to such an amalgamation with his family
they rejected the black because they could not or would not amalgamate on legal or honorable terms.
Nothing but the authority of the Divine law will change his purpose to hedge himself in and erect legal protections against this possible admixture of blood,
Where men are truly moral and religious, the white and black races do not mix, so that the influence of religion will never effect fusion,
hatred of those who would engraft, as they say, negro blood on the population of their country
We must regard the extension of equal social and civil rights to this class of persons as distasteful to the mass of the nations; the majority will never submit to it
we cannot make republican citizens out of our negro population
a possible corruption of blood in future generations
The government of Great Britain is composed of a few thousand titled and privileged persons, located in a small island, who are born to rule and govern. From their isolated position it is not possible for them to come in contact with the numerous, heterogeneous, and inferior tribes and races under their rule. They are thus protected from possible admixture of inferior blood
How can such a people comprehend the necessity or use of removing the man of color?
to protect them against this repulsive admixture of blood
What is to protect us as a people from degenerating as a race, but the resolve to receive no blood from the other races but that which can be honorably and safely engrafted on the stock of the nation.
Let us then, earnestly and respectfully recommend as a remedy for our present troubles and future danger, the perfecting the proposed plans of the administration in regard to those two conflicting races, and the careful and gradual removal of the colored race to some desirable and convenient home.
Some affect to fear that the man of color will not remove to a separate locality. It is not to be expected that a race, which has hardly attained a mental majority, will rise in a day to the stature of the men who found empires, build cities, and lay the ground work of civil institutions like ours; nor should they be expected to do this unaided and alone. They should receive the kind attention, direction, and aid of those who understand such things; nor will the world condemn a gentle pressure in the forward course to overcome the natural inertia of masses long used to the driver's will and rod. Let us do justice in the provision we make for their future comfort, and surety they will do justice to our distracted Republic.
If they should fail to do this, there would then be more propriety in weighing the requirement of some to remove without consultation, but not till then.
We know that there is a growing sentiment in the country which considered the removal of the freed man, without consulting him, "a moral and military necessity" -- as a measure necessary to the purity of public morals and the peace of the country; and this unhappy war of white man with white man, about the condition of the black, will multiply this sentiment.
But we cannot go further now than suggesting, that the mandatory relation held by the rebel master should escheat to the Federal government in a modified sense, so as to enable his proper government and gradual removal to a proper home where he can be independent.
We earnestly pray that a perpetual barrier may be reared between us and that land of the mixed races of this continent - Mexico.
As Abraham and Lot agreed to separate their conflicting retainer and dependents, the one going to the right and the other to the left, so let those two governments agree to divide this continent between the Anglo-American and mixed races
I can't speak for Walt, but from what I see there was no selectivity to it. The southern states were never out of the Union.
The founders gave the authority to Congress not only to admit new states but required congressional approval for changes to the status of a state once it was in the Union. Combining, dividing, altering their borders by a fraction of an inch all require congressional approval. Why should departing be any different? Clearly it should not, so secession requires congressional approval.
The Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the states.
Powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States . You all keep forgetting that last part. The Constitution prevents a whole host of unilateral action on the part of the states where the interests of the other states can be impacted. Why should unilateral secession be different? Clearly it should not, so unilateral secession should be prohibited.
That's not my opinion, its fact...
No, it's your opinion.
Do you want me to start pinging you when it shows up?
Here we have another obvious Lincolnian paradox. He was authorized to implement a blockade under the rules of international law. Any action involving a state of the Union would have required Constitutional approval. The SC did not cite the constitution. They cited international law. Then they play a game of switching back and forth between the two, using whichever is to the union's advantage throughout the war and reconstruction.
As a resident smary guy, I assumed that you knew and appreciated this, but just accepted that their right to do so needn't be questioned because their dicta carries with it the weight of law and the wrath of Lincon's enforcement policies (i.e. wielding power is the government's responsibility, justice be damned).
Oh? Didn't see that spelled out in Article I.10, nor in Article IV, nor anywhere else in the enumeration of requirements and limitations of a State.
In fact, if we undertake your assertion that the Southern States never left the Union, then according to IV.4 Lincoln is the biggest criminal and traitor in U.S. History for inflicting upon those States the 'domestic violence' the Constitution demands he protect them from. So that argument is a non-starter.
As for your other comical assertions, please refer to:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Unless your argument is that these, along with other large tracts of the original document have been effectively dead letters since 1865? I'd agree with that, and the nation as it stand today is a direct result of the Constitution being an interpretive, 'living document' whose plain words mean not what they say, but whatever is convenient for the day. In a world of honorable governance, this can be an expediency that provides benefit. Of course, you'd also be living in a Bizarro alternate universe, since the one unchanging engine of history is corruptability and will to power.
The Framers designed the Constitution as they did, not to guarantee regular gatherings for tea and scones, but to prevent the success of the will to power. When their words no longer carry weight, the chains are loosed, and the men of power usurp the word of law. Which makes up different from every other pissant banana republic only in nomenclature.
Is this what you are in favor of?
It's not just the poster in question - most simply resort to name-calling, allegations of racism, appeals to force, non sequiturs, fallacies of logic, lack of facts and/or documentation, and denial of presented facts.
There's a huge difference. But what eludes you, in contrast to the point you belabor to make, is that many Southern men had a fervent desire too defend their homeland, and rushed to enlist. When their original term of service expired, or if they were wounded and discharged early, many still volunteered again to force the invader from their soil. Many could also leave if they found a willing replacement ('unless their places can be sooner supplied by other recruits not now in the service'). These men were not dragged kicking and screaming in protest to war, many relished the chance to serve their state - their country - and the CSA.
Your problem is that you attempt to paint them with dishonour but fail.
No, not swap units. That's your edit. Reorganize.
No, that's exactly what happened - re-orginazation. From Bouvier Law Dictionary Rev. 6th ed. (1859), REFORM. To reorganize; to rearrange as, the jury "shall be reformed by putting to and taking out of the persons so impanneled." The same companies etc still existed, but they could replace/swap men if desired.
They were, however all drafted again.
No, again, they could have been discharged due to wounds, or exempted for other reasons.
Who thought that up? The same guy that wrote your jackass history, Woodrow Wilson.
He's not my guy - I prefer Ronald Reagan. But irregardless, if what Wilson sid was true, it's still the truth.
Lincoln never drafted any state units into Fedearal service.
Did Lincoln DRAFT anyone into federal service?
The act of February 24, 1864, amendatory of the enrollment act, Section 24, provided:Lincoln drafted anyone he could get."That all able-bodied male colored persons between the ages of twenty and forty-five years, resident in the United States, shall be enrolled according to the provisions of this act, and of the act to which this is an amendment, and form part of the national forces; and when a slave of a loyal master shall be drafted and mustered into the service of the United States ...
Yet, terrible as is this civil war between men of kindred race for the dominion of the servant, future history will show that it has been moderate and altogether tolerable when contrasted with a struggle between the black and white race...
What was he smoking?????????????????
Sure they did. The majority decision refers to the President's constitutional positions as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and do not dispute his power to declare the blockade as a result of this. The court also makes note of the fact that the President cannot declare war on a foreign power and cannot invade a state of the Union. President Lincoln did none of those things. The court makes it clear that the President is authorized to call out the militia in the event of invasion or rebellion. And the court agrees that is what happened. And that Lincoln's actions in combatting the rebellion were Constitutional.
You seem to claim that because the court references 'jus belli' that this somehow confers recognition of the confederacy as an independant entity. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the court makes this clear when it saus, "The parties belligerent in a public war are independent nations. But it is not necessary, to constitute war, that both parties should be acknowledged as independent nations or sovereign States. A war may exist where one of the belligerents claims sovereign rights as against the other." THe court goes on to state that just because one or the other side of a rebellion choose to concede belligerent rights to the other side does not automatically confer recognition, either. The U.S. never recognized the independence of the confederacy. Neither did any other country.
...their dicta carries with it the weight of law...
Actually it does not. It merely represents an idea of the courts belief in such matters. It has no weight of law.
States coming in gain certain protections, benefits, etc., from being a member of the Union. The creation of new states from within the borders of existing ones does the same thing. Plus, in both cases, the regional balance of power that was so important up through the Civil War-era would be affected by the increase in the number of senators and representatives. Secession does not give an advantage to a region, and was not addressed in the Constitution.
"Powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States...". You all keep forgetting that last part. The Constitution prevents a whole host of unilateral action on the part of the states where the interests of the other states can be impacted. Why should unilateral secession be different? Clearly it should not, so unilateral secession should be prohibited.
I don't forget that part, and it in no way bolsters your argument. I'm surprised that you would even make this argument. It must have been late when you wrote this, or before your morning coffee, because you are normally not this sloppy. The phrase you highlight actually bolsters my argument because it simply refers to powers not specifically granted by the states (who wrote the Constitution) to the federal government. No Founder ever said publicly that the federal government should be allowed to prevent a state from voluntarily leaving the Union that it had voluntarily entered. Just the opposite can be shown by Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island including secession clauses in their ratification documents.
My saying that the Constitution does not empower the federal government to prevent a state from leaving is fact, given the document's lack of any language explicitly doing so; even WhiskeyPapa had to admit that there was no explicit Constitutional prohibition or federal law preventing secession as of December 1860. Your insistence that secession requires congressional approval is your opinion, which you are entitled to; your insistence that unilateral secession is prohibited is also your opinion.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
These didn't operate in the case of the rebellion.
The supremacy clause says the laws made in pursuance to the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. The federalists made sure to pass the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Militia Act of 1792 (modified in 1795). These two acts make unilateral state secession impossible.
Walt
There -is- a law that requires that United States law operate in all the states. It's the Militia Act.
Walt
Using the armed forces of the United States as provided "by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807..."
-- Majority opinion, the Prize Cases.
Walt
About 6% of Union soldiers were conscripted. The rebels coscripted @ 1/3 of their force, which ultimately was riven by desertion.
Walt
As is your insistence that unilateral secession was a right allowed to the states. The only difference between your opinion and mine is that mine is in accordance with the findings of the Supreme Court. So like it or not, agree with it or not, the Supreme Court found that unilateral secession is not protected by the Constitution. And, absent a constitutional amendment or modification by a future court, that is how it will remain.
Walt: There -is- a law that requires that United States law operate in all the states. It's the Militia Act.
Uh, Walt, your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.
No. That the states are not prohibited from seceeding is a fact based on a reading of the document itself: We all agree that there is no explicit prohibition. Your opinion is based on an interpretation, a reading-between-the-lines, if you will. And my point in this argument has been that the Supreme Court's decision was not based on the Constitution or extant federal law; thereofore, you can't keep using their decision to refute me. Show me where they made an argument based on the Constitution or federal law as it is written, and not on their wishful opinion. It can't be done.
I see in your apologetics, you also failed to cite the constitutional authority.
Actually it does not.
About this you are right. My phrasing was inaccurate.
Even I expected better of you (and I typically expect very little where you're concerned).
FR is the forum for INTELLIGENT, conservative persons.
free dixie,sw
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.