Abraham Lincoln Was Elected President 143 Years Ago Tonight

To: GOPcapitalist

So in other words, rather than admitting that your "rule" about conscription was overly broad,

It wasn't my rule. It was Confederate Law. Every man between the ages of 18 and 35 was conscripted unless he had a lawful exemption in April of 1862, regardless of whether he was already serving or not.

This was done twice again later to expand the age range of those eligle for conscription. Everyone. Especially those in uniform, and if you didn't want to get shot up in Northern Virginia or ordered into one of Lee's famous failed direct assaults into Union artillery, you needed to volunteer in 30 days or find a furlough to delay that.

That was it. No wonder there were so many desertions. No wonder the vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens stated that the Confederate National Conscription Act was the primary reason the south lost the war. No wonder at all.

221 posted on 11/08/2003 10:15:49 PM PST by Held_to_Ransom

To: Held_to_Ransom

It wasn't my rule. It was Confederate Law.

Wrong. 4CJ has already shown that to be factually incorrect. Your only reply so far has been to offer a series of lame excuses for every case that violates your previous claim.

222 posted on 11/08/2003 10:45:04 PM PST by GOPcapitalist

To: GOPcapitalist; WhiskeyPapa

It wasn't my rule. It was Confederate Law.

Wrong.

Pg 13 - Conscription and Conflict in the Confederacy by Professor Albert Burton Moore, PhD, Professor of History at Alabama University. Pub by MacMillan Company. b At this juncture the Confederate Congress proved its mettle. In spite of the theory of the indepnedence and sovereignty of the States- thus far had unforseen exignecies driven it-- it passed by a vote of more than two to one [Journal of the Confederate Congress, II, 154, V, 228] an act (April 16th) declaring every able-bodied white man between the ages of 18 and 35 to be subject to the military service of the Confederate States. Thus it was for the national legislature in a governmental system, the very woof and filling of whose texture was the principle of State sovereignty and independence, to exploit and explain the extent of the power of general governments to raise and support armies.

President Davis urged conscription upon Congress for several reasons [message to Congress, March 28, 1863] First, he thought it was imperative as a means of retrieving the mistake of short enlistments. [Appleton's Annual Cyclopadia, 1862, 243-4] Second, it was necessary to have uniformity and regularity in the military system; a well balanced and sympathetically coordinated military machine could not be created by the independent action of twelve governments. He had early become an exponent of a simple and uniform military system with a centralized control, and he urged with fervor upon Congress from the beginning of 1862. Third, he thought the act was necessary to secure an equal distribution of the burdens of war. Without it the ardent and patriotic would pay more than their debt of military service.

The conscription act was passed about one month before the expiration of the term of enlistment of 148 regiments of the twelve-months' men. All white men within the age limits at the time the President should call for them were declared to be in the military service of the Confederate States for three years, unless they were entitle to exemption. Likewise those persons fo conscript age who were already in the army were to be continued in the service for three years from the date of their original enlistment, unless the war should end sooner. The Twelve-months men, especially affefcted by this act, were given the priviledge to reoganize themselves and elect their officers. The furlough and bounty act of the preceding December was retained for their benefit, and if they preferred not to use the furlough they might recieve in lieu of it the commutation value in money of the transportation charge. Thirty days of grace were allowed in which companies, squadrons and battalions might be raised by the volunteer method, with the priviledge of electing their officers. This gave those of conscript age an opportunity to avoid the odium of being forced into service. The privilege of volunteering inot units already in the field was allowed, provided one volunteered before he was enrolled.

The President was given power, with the consent of the governors of the various states, to employ the State officers for the enrollment of conscripts, but in any State where the State officers were not available he was authorized to use Confederate officers. The actual procedure in enrollment was left to the discretion of the Secretary of War. When enrolled, conscripts were to be assigned by him to those companies already in the service from their respective states until each company was filled with the maximum number. In case any state did not have enough units in the field to absorb its conscripts the excess was to be held in reserve, and the depleted ranks of companies in the field from that state were to be replenished by lot at intervals of three months. The reserves were allowed to remain home pending their call by the President.

223 posted on 11/08/2003 11:14:06 PM PST by Held_to_Ransom

To: Held_to_Ransom

Yawn. That still doesn't establish your claim, Fikus boy. Confederate law simply drafted able-bodied male civilians of military age into the service - a common practice throughout the history of mankind and especially during wars in a country that is under invasion. At the time of the draft, 1862, the confederacy already had a large army of those who volunteered before it was instituted. That simple fact contradicts your bizarre and historically uncorroborated claim that all confederates were drafted.

224 posted on 11/08/2003 11:55:29 PM PST by GOPcapitalist

To: STONEWALLS; rdb3

"Two things. One, please refer me to the law on which it was based, and then please tell me whether or not you agree with the Scott decision."
1. the Court ruled Scott didn't have "standing" to sue.

And that was a totally bogus construct.

Taney's ruling said: blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

But that is false. Blacks could vote in five states.

Taney's position was made up from whole cloth --- as I said before it was based in neither law or precedent.

Lincoln, 6/26/57:

"I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was, in part, based on assumed historical facts which were not really true; and I ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this; I therefore give an instance or two, which I think fully sustain me. Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the Court, insists at great length that Negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States.

On the contrary, Judge Curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows that in five of the then thirteen states, to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey and North Carolina, free Negroes were voters, and, in proportion to their numbers, had the same part in making the Constitution that the white people had. He shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt of its truth; and, as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the following language:

"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States, through the action, in each State, of those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of the State. In some of the States, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on the subject. These colored persons were not only included in the body of ‘the people of the United States,’ by whom the Constitution was ordained and established; but in at least five of the States they had the power to act, and, doubtless, did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption."

More Taney:

"all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

And more Lincoln:

Again, Chief Justice Taney says: "It is difficult, at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted." And again, after quoting from the Declaration, he says: "The general words above quoted would seem to include the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day, would be so understood."

In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favorable now than it was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars, the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but, as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. In two of the five States—New Jersey and North Carolina —that then gave the free Negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken away; and in a third—New York—it has been greatly abridged; while it has not been extended, so far as I know, to a single additional State, though the number of the States has more than doubled. In those days, as I understand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves; but since then, such legal restraints have been made upon emancipation, as to amount almost to prohibition. In those days, Legislatures held the unquestioned power to abolish slavery, in their respective States; but now it is becoming quite fashionable for State Constitutions to withhold that power from the Legislatures. In those days, by common consent, the spread of the black man’s bondage to new countries was prohibited; but now, Congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition, and the Supreme Court decides that it could not if it would. In those days, our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the Negro universal and eternal, it is assailed, and sneered at, and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him; ambition follows, and philosophy follows, and the Theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him, and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrent of every key; the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is.

It is grossly incorrect to say or assume, that the public estimate of the Negro is more favorable now than it was at the origin of the government.

Three years and a half ago, Judge Douglas brought forward his famous Nebraska bill. The country was at once in a blaze. He scorned all opposition, and carried it through Congress. Since then he has seen himself superseded in a Presidential nomination, by one indorsing the general doctrine of his measure, but at the same time standing clear of the odium of its untimely agitation, and its gross breach of national faith; and he has seen that successful rival Constitutionally elected, not by the strength of friends, but by the division of adversaries, being in a popular minority of nearly four hundred thousand votes. He has seen his chief aids in his own State, Shields and Richardson, politically speaking, successively tried, convicted, and executed, for an offense not their own, but his. And now he sees his own case, standing next on the docket for trial.

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope, upon the chances of being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. If he can, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversaries, he thinks he can struggle through the storm. He therefore clings to this hope, as a drowning man to the last plank. He makes an occasion for lugging it in from the opposition to the Dred Scott decision. He finds the Republicans insisting that the Declaration of Independence includes ALL men, black as well as white; and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes Negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does, do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with Negroes! He will have it that they cannot be consistent else. Now I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either, I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others.

Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include Negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. And this is the staple argument of both the Chief Justice and the Senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain unmistakable language of the Declaration. I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in what respects they did consider all men created equal—equal in "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This they said, and this meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, not for that, but for future use. Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their vocation they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack.

I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and objects of that part of the Declaration of Independence which declares that "all men are created equal."

Now let us hear Judge Douglas’ view of the same subject, as I find it in the printed report of his late speech. Here it is:

"No man can vindicate the character, motives and conduct of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when they declared all men to have been created equal—that they were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain—that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country."

My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it—see what a mere wreck—mangled ruin—it makes of our once glorious Declaration.

"They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain!" Why, according to this, not only Negroes but white people outside of Great Britain and America are not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included to be sure, but the French, Germans and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the Judge’s inferior races.

I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condition of British subjects; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition. According to that, it gave no promise that having kicked off the King and Lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a King and Lords of our own.

I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere; but no, it merely "was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country." Why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical use now—mere rubbish—old wadding left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won.

I understand you are preparing to celebrate the "Fourth," to-morrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. But I suppose you will celebrate; and will even go so far as to read the Declaration. Suppose after you read it once in the old fashioned way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas’ version. It will then run thus: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all British subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all British subjects born and then residing in Great Britain."

And now I appeal to all—to Democrats as well as others,—are you really willing that the Declaration shall be thus frittered away?—thus left no more at most, than an interesting memorial of the dead past? thus shorn of its vitality, and practical value; and left without the germ or even the suggestion of the individual rights of man in it?

But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once—a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married. On this point we fully agree with the Judge; and when he shall show that his policy is better adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours we shall drop ours, and adopt his. Let us see. In 1850 there were in the United States, 405,751, mulattoes. Very few of these are the offspring of whites and free blacks; nearly all have sprung from black slaves and white masters. A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation but as all immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self-evident truth. A few free colored persons may get into the free States, in any event; but their number is too insignificant to amount to much in the way of mixing blood. In 1850 there were in the free states, 56,649 mulattoes; but for the most part they were not born there—they came from the slave States, ready made up. In the same year the slave States had 348,874 mulattoes all of home production. The proportion of free mulattoes to free blacks—the only colored classes in the free states—is much greater in the slave than in the free states. It is worthy of note too, that among the free states those which make the colored man the nearest to equal the white, have, proportionally the fewest mulattoes the least of amalgamation. In New Hampshire, the State which goes farthest towards equality between the races, there are just 184 Mulattoes while there are in Virginia—how many do you think? 79,775, being 23,126 more than in all the free States together.

These statistics show that slavery is the greatest source of amalgamation; and next to it, not the elevation, but the degeneration of the free blacks. Yet Judge Douglas dreads the slightest restraints on the spread of slavery, and the slightest human recognition of the Negro, as tending horribly to amalgamation.

This very Dred Scott case affords a strong test as to which party most favors amalgamation, the Republicans or the dear union-saving Democracy. Dred Scott, his wife and two daughters were all involved in the suit. We desired the court to have held that they were citizens so far at least as to entitle them to a hearing as to whether they were free or not; and then, also, that they were in fact and in law really free. Could we have had our way, the chances of these black girls, ever mixing their blood with that of white people, would have been diminished at least to the extent that it could not have been without their consent. But Judge Douglas is delighted to have them decided to be slaves, and not human enough to have a hearing, even if they were free, and thus left subject to the forced concubinage of their masters, and liable to become the mothers of mulattoes in spite of themselves—the very state of case that produces nine tenths of all the mulattoes—all the mixing of blood in the nation.

Of course, I state this case as an illustration only, not meaning to say or intimate that the master of Dred Scott and his family, or any more than a percentage of masters generally, are inclined to exercise this particular power which they hold over their female slaves.

I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform—opposition to the spread of slavery—is most favorable to that separation.

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one; but "when there is a will there is a way;" and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body.

How differently the respective courses of the Democratic and Republican parties incidentally bear on the question of forming a will—a public sentiment—for colonization, is easy to see. The Republicans inculcate, with whatever of ability—they can, that the Negro is a man; that his bondage is cruelly wrong, and that the field of his oppression ought not to be enlarged. The Democrats deny his manhood; deny, or dwarf to insignificance, the wrong of his bondage; so far as possible, crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him; compliment themselves as Union-savers for doing so; and call the indefinite outspreading of his bondage "a sacred right of self-government."

The Dred Scott decision was based neither in law nor precedent.

Walt

225 posted on 11/09/2003 4:07:20 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)

To: GOPcapitalist

...he marched armies into the southern states in hostility against their people and used those armies to coerce obedience.

After the Davis regime initiated hostilities at Sumter. Once they started the war Lincoln had no choice but to respond.

Yes he did. He dispatched the fleet a week before Fort Sumter to provoke a military conflict.

Nonsense. Lincoln sent men and supplies to Sumter and Pickens in order to hold on to the forts belonging to the United States, just like he said he was going to do.

226 posted on 11/09/2003 4:38:09 AM PST by Non-Sequitur

The greatest tragedy in our countries history.

And which country would that be?

227 posted on 11/09/2003 4:40:11 AM PST by Non-Sequitur

Lincoln used war to destroy the U.S. Constitution in order to establish a powerful central government.

Think about this:

"And it's a very odd thing that a region, the South, which supposedly believed in states' rights and local autonomy, pressed for this law [The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850] which allowed the federal government to completely override the legal processes in the North: to send marshals in, to avoid the local courts, and to just seize people (they might be free born) and just drag them into the South as slaves. It shows that the South didn't believe in states' rights. It believed in slavery. States' rights was a defense of slavery. But when active federal power was needed to defend slavery, they were perfectly happy to utilize that also.

The Fugitive Slave Law had many features which seemed to violate the liberties of free -white- northerners. It allowed the federal government to deputize citizens, even against their will, and force them to take part in posses or other groups to seize fugitive slaves. It also said that local courts could not adjudicate whether a person was a slave or not. It was federal commissioners who would come in and hear testimony. And the slave was not allowed to testify. It was the testimony of the owner, or the person who claimed to be the owner, of this alleged fugitive. And the commissioner would judge whether the owner's testimony was believable or not, and then send -- as they usually did -- the person back to slavery."

-- Eric Foner

The most intruseive American law in the 19th century was the FSL.

And Lincoln was a) not in office and b) strongly opposed to it.

Walt

228 posted on 11/09/2003 4:42:52 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)

So Walt...did Tennessee play yesterday?

229 posted on 11/09/2003 4:46:57 AM PST by Non-Sequitur

To: Non-Sequitur

So Walt...did Tennessee play yesterday?

They had a litte game in Miami yesterday, yessir.

FIGHT WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT!!!

FOR THE ORANGE AND WHITE!!!

FIGHT VOLS FIGHT!!!

walt

230 posted on 11/09/2003 4:50:29 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)

To: Held_to_Ransom

The book is chock full of interesting notes about the immense difficulties the Confederate Government had keeping the population of the states under control.

The south was basically a police state. It had elements of a police state even before the war with the slave patrols.

But the poor whites -did- rush to the colors in 1861, largely to support what would now be called "white supremacy." After a year, when their ardor for that waned, they were forcibly conscripted to serve the slave power.

And of course -- the neo-confederates will give Davis and the slave power a pass for the same things they excoritate President Lincoln for.

Walt

231 posted on 11/09/2003 5:17:54 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)

You have assumed a most liberal interpretation of presidential powers. Before the Civil War the prevalent interpretation of the constitution was that the president was only commander in chief once war had been declared. When there was no state of war the military (militia) was under the command of the various state governments. The president as commander in chief was a constitutional convention compromise to assure the individual states that the commander of a single state's militia would not assume command thus making any other states militia's more or less expendable. Since no "war Power Act" was in effect and no Declaration of War existed Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional. (But he never let that get in his way).

Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, 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, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.

Sec. 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year's pay, and not less than one month's pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial; and such officers shall, moreover, be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned by the like sentence, or failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for the space of one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That court martial for the trial of militia be composed of militia officers only.

Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That all fines to be assessed, as aforesaid, shall be certified by the presiding officer of the court martial before whom the same shall be assessed, to the marshal of the district, in which the delinquent shall reside, or to one of his deputies; and also the supervisor of the revenue of the same district, who shall record the said certificate in a book to be kept for that purpose. The said marshal or his deputy shall forthwith proceed to levy the said fines with costs, by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the delinquent, which costs and manner of proceeding, with respect to the sale of the goods distrained, shall be agreeable to the laws of the state, in which the same shall be, in other cases of distress; and where any non-commissioned officer or private shall be adjudged to suffer imprisonment, there being no goods or chattels to be found, whereof to levy the said fines, the marshal of the district or his deputy may commit such delinquent to gaol, during the term, for which he shall be so adjudged to imprisonment, or until the fine shall be paid, in the same manner as other persons condemned to fine and imprisonment at the suit of the United States, may be committed.

Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That the marshals and their deputies shall pay all such fines by them levied to the supervisor of the revenue, in the district in which they are collected, within two months after they shall have received the same, deducting therefrom five per centum, as a compensation for their trouble; and in case of failure, the same shall be recoverable by action of debt or information in any court of the United States, of the district, in which such fines shall believed, having cognizance therefor, to be sued for, prosecuted and recovered, in the name of the supervisor of the district, with interest and costs.

Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That the marshals of the several districts and deputies, shall have the same powers in executing the laws of the United States, as sheriffs, and their deputies in the several states have by law, in executing the laws of their respective states.

Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force, for and during the term of two years, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer.

APPROVED, May 2, 1792.

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

232 posted on 11/09/2003 5:23:50 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)

And the commissioner would judge whether the owner's testimony was believable or not, and then send -- as they usually did -- the person back to slavery."

Even more than that Walt. If the commissioner found that the black was not to be sent back south, the commissioner recieved a $5 fee from the government. If he found that the black was a "fugitive" he was awarded $5 by the government AND $5 by the person claiming ownership. Bounty hunters figured pretty quickly that they could "buy" a slave in the North for five dollars and sell him in the South for $1000. Such a deal!

233 posted on 11/09/2003 5:31:00 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)

excoritate

Excoriate.

Walt

234 posted on 11/09/2003 6:09:16 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)

Sec. 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That whenever it may be necessary, in the judgment of the President...

This is the kicker.

Walt

235 posted on 11/09/2003 6:13:26 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)

Calling these people heroes, or suggesting they represented an impulse towards freedom, is straight from "1984".

Walt

236 posted on 11/09/2003 6:15:07 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)

To: TexConfederate1861

Well, well, WLAT...you have come out of your dark little hole in the ground.....

Haven't posted this in a while.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal."

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow, this ground -- The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

A. Lincoln, 11/19/63

Walt

237 posted on 11/09/2003 6:25:25 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)

Don't forget this one, Walt.

"Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came." -- Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1865

238 posted on 11/09/2003 7:19:18 AM PST by Non-Sequitur

To: Non-Sequitur; WhiskeyPapa

It was to work the gold mines on this continent that the Spaniards first brought Africans to the country. The European races now engaged in working the mines of California sink under the burning heat and sudden changes of the climate, to which the African race are altogether better adapted. The production of rice, sugar, and cotton is no better adapted to slave labor than the digging, washing, and quarrying of the gold mines.

-- Jefferson Davis

239 posted on 11/09/2003 8:13:11 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)

To: GOPcapitalist

Sounds like a real slavery opponent to me!

Don't you get tired of getting called on this over and over?

It's no secret that Lincoln wanted to save the Union first, and would agree to accept slavery where it already existed. He said it plainly enough:

Letter to Horace Greeley
Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Lincoln's most famous letters. Horace Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, a few days earlier had addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions." In it, he demanded emancipation for the country's slaves and implied that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve.
Lincoln wrote his letter to Greeley when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in his desk drawer. His response revealed the vision he possessed about the preservation of the Union. The letter, which received universal acclaim in the North, stands as a classic statement of Lincoln's constitutional responsibilities.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable [sic] in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.

Source: The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by Roy P. Basler.

Home | News | Educational Links | Places | Resources |

240 posted on 11/09/2003 10:20:21 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794