Authors look at Lincoln's efforts to control media (Did Lincoln order trashing of newspaper of

Quad City Times ^ | Feb 3 05 | Quad City Times

[detsaoT]

You, sir, are stuck in Argentina in your mind. Thank God, I am not, nor are the majority of freedom loving Americans. That's what obsession with a slave south will do to ya, though.

To defend stand watie, I would say that, rather than being stuck in Argentina in his mind, he's actually quite earnest in trying to recover and guard our civil liberties. Technically, he is absolutely correct in his supposition that the Federal executive has not the authority to arrest members of the press - A limited construction of the Constitution shows no such right. While the Congress can, in theory, grant additional powers to the President via legislation, they are also restricted from doing so with respect to the Press, via the first amendment.

(I would say, Stand, that defeating our enemies, foreign and domestic, is something that the Government should have the right to do - It sounds like you and LS are disagreeing over the level which defines a domestic entity as "the enemy.")

I still think that treason is a serious crime which OUGHT to be punished by the Federal government [but isn't]. But to arrest editors for merely asking whether the South had a point in seceeding - particularly so soon after the Northeast had threatened to do so - does not rise to the level of "treason."

Regards,
~dt~

[detsaoT]

And rightly so, there is no such thing as freedom of the press when you are occupying your enemy's territory.

As the Federal government never recognized the South to have seceeded, would it not follow that the Federal troops were still on Federal territory? By their own definition?

[detsaoT]

In my defense, I will say that I own and have read some of LS' work, and while I don't agree with him on the least when it comes to the Civil War, he has done a great deal more research than I have. As a result, I hold him in the highest regards. I'm not familiar with your work, but if you have some references that I could use to bolster my knowledge of the situation so I would be better prepared for debate, I would be delighted to add them to my Amazon list promptly! :)

The denial of the usage of the postal service to these newspapers is certainly a serious matter, but it's not to the same level as the arrest of the editors, which was one of my original queries. I've proposed that, based on my personal research (which, sadly, is not very advanced at this point), the Confederate government did not make a habit of arresting political enemies, whereas the Federal government made a regular practice of it. Not having the documentation to support my position more firmly, I can't really do much more than voice my supposition. If you're aware of any sources that would help me in understanding the issue from the Confederate viewpoint more firmly, I'm absolutely open to them.

I'll be sure to keep an eye out for your work now, as well, and to watch for you on these periodic debates as well. Until I run into you again, I hold you,

Most Respectfully,
~dt~

[detsaoT]

Given that Lincoln didn't consider the confederacy another independent nation why in the world would he feel compelled to go to Congress for a declaration of war? Declare war on who? Ourselves?

What about the fact that the Congress (NOT the Executive) is only authorized to bring military force into the states to suppress insurrections at the invitation of the Governor or Legislature of the state? None of the Confederate states requested that either Lincoln or the Congress send in an army to assist them, did they?

Art I, Sec 8: [Congress shall have the power...] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Art IV, Sec 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

(There is an absolute right to repel Invasion, but nobody's seriously suggesting the Confederacy invaded itself, are they?)

[detsaoT]

But, as a form of currency, I would be willing to say that it's as well-backed as the current U.S. Dollar. (In other words, the true value of "money" is in the acceptability of that denomination to the market. How much do people think it's worth?)

Ahem, to edit my prior statement,

I think it's also fairly obvious by the massive inflation incurred towards the end of the war, that nobody thought the currency was worth anything.

Just in case I threw you for a loop with that other remark. :)

[detsaoT]

The confederate states initiated an armed rebellion against the United States when they fired on the U.S. fort at Sumter. They started a bloody and costly war that eventually ended in their own self-destruction. The fact that you might have believed that the confederacy had not interest in conquest is meaningless, I doubt that the Japanese or the Germans seriously contemplated conquering the U.S. in World War II. But they started the hostilities in every bit the same way that the south did 80 years earlier.

With all due respect, neither the Germans nor the Japanese held title to any significant holdings of land in the United States. South Carolina, on the other hand, did hold the original title to every acre of land within its borders, as granted to it by the Northwest Ordinance. Furthermore, none of the rivers in South Carolina provided any maritime access to any other states in the Union (which had not as of yet seceeded). Are you sure that South Carolina was not justified in trying to reclaim land that it already owned? (Particularly with the pending threat of additional troops being sent to said land?)

[sangrila]

"The government created under the Articles of Confederation was so insanely weak that it had essentially no authority whatsoever. It existed at the whim of the states and could be punished and controlled by any single state wishing to do so."


How is anything you wrote different from what I posted? Are you responding to the wrong post? It makes no sense.

[Casloy]

As the Federal government never recognized the South to have seceeded, would it not follow that the Federal troops were still on Federal territory?

A civil war is by definition the breakdown of the rule of law. In the middle of a war, in the enemy's territory, the only rule of law that applies is the one determined by whatever General is in command. If you know of exceptions to this, I'd be interested.

[libertarianben]

Shakes head at idiot.

[libertarianben]

A civil war is two or more factions fighting for control on a single government. The South wanted to create their own government apart from the Union.

[libertarianben]

A civil war is two or more factions fighting for control of a single government. The South wanted to create their own government apart from the Union.

[libertarianben]

"That is some of the goofiest logic I have ever read. The entire war was about whether the south had the right to secede the Union. The south was not a constitutionally independent nation, they seceded in what they were convinced was a legal way. The Federal government disagreed. That's why we went to war. At that point, like it or not, might makes right."

So, if you are powerful you have a right to destroy all others you deem less powerful than you even if the law says differently. Hitler and Stalin would be so proud. Well then, the Federal Government needs to read their founding fathers work.

[libertarianben]

Ever hear of the black codes? They were worse than the Jim Crow laws of the South, but used in the North. Slavery would have ended in the 1870-1880's due to economic reasons. I get tired of Yankee hoiler-than-thou attitude when they are no better. Go to Boston or LA and tell me about their attitudes on race.

[smug]

If the confederacy had freed their slaves before firing on Sumter then what would they have had to rebel over?

The same thing we face today; an over reaching federal government.

[Non-Sequitur]

What about the fact that the Congress (NOT the Executive) is only authorized to bring military force into the states to suppress insurrections at the invitation of the Governor or Legislature of the state? None of the Confederate states requested that either Lincoln or the Congress send in an army to assist them, did they?

The Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795 gave the president the power. Section two states "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. "

[Non-Sequitur]

South Carolina, on the other hand, did hold the original title to every acre of land within its borders, as granted to it by the Northwest Ordinance.

Overlooking for a moment the fact that from the viewpoint of the administration Sumter was a U.S. fort in a U.S. city in a U.S. state, neither South Carolina or any other state holds title over federal property. Sumter was built on property deeded to the United States free and clear by an act of the South Carolina legislature. By transferring ownership the South Carolina government gave up all control over the property because Constitutionally on Congress can exercise authority over federal facilities. And that includes disposing of them.

Are you sure that South Carolina was not justified in trying to reclaim land that it already owned?

I can't speak for the people of South Carolina and what they saw as justification. I can only say that South Carolina had no legal claim to Sumter, and their act of firing on it was an act of armed rebellion against the central government. And they paid the price for their decision.

[Non-Sequitur]

The same thing we face today; an over reaching federal government.

For 80 years they pretty much WERE the overreaching federal government. Can't be that. Must be slavery.

[Non-Sequitur]

They were worse than the Jim Crow laws of the South, but used in the North.

For every pre-rebellion black code you can show me in the North, there was one as bad or worse in place in the south.

Slavery would have ended in the 1870-1880's due to economic reasons.

Complete and utter nonsense. Absent any external influence slavery could have easily lasted into the 20th century.

[Non-Sequitur]

A civil war is two or more factions fighting for control of a single government. The South wanted to create their own government apart from the Union.

A rebellion is defined as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government." Can we agree that the southern actions were a rebellion?

[7thson]

Couldn't you say that for all civil wars everywhere?