Posted on 12/15/2001 10:52:58 AM PST by shuckmaster
I have no trouble with that. Fly any flag you want.
I could care less if it offends you or anyone else.
That seems obvious.
It is a basic freedom that people are guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. I have served on active duty in the Navy for 19 years to defend that Constitution and Bill of Rights that so many want to limit to fit the PC "sensitivity" mold! I fight against tyranny of every form. Where liberty is threatened ... there am I. That is now! Whether you think the South was right or not is immaterial to me, I believe what I believe, and I'll defend everyone's right to be free to fly whatever flag they want!
So will I. Really though, it is easy for me and others to refute the neo-confederate rant on every front by referring to the words of the participants and not some half baked myth or construction of whole cloth.
The CSA was clearly set up to protect property in slaves. It was set up in direct defiance of law and authority, as well as obligations solomnly entered into into. It was set up by immoral men not worthy of any sort of honor. In fact, they rate only contempt from us today.
The real heroes of the American Civil War were the brave men who came forward to preserve the nations's life. That includes, I am delighted to say, 31,000 from Tennessee.
It shouldn't go unnoticed that loyal men were hanged in East Tennessee, Texas and elsewhere --simply-- for professing loyalty to the old flag.
I'm sorry if pointing out the nonsense of CSA honor offends you.
Walt
And that is simply not true by any fair reading of these events.
I beg to differ, as does the record, for that is what I said and not something else as you attributed to me in your straw man.
I refer you back to what I said earlier: "From 1854 to his nomination for the presidency in 1860, as James McPherson noted in his DRAWN WITH THE SWORD, "the dominant, unifying theme of Lincoln's career was opposition to the expansion of slavery as a vital first step toward placing it in the course of ultimate extinction." In those years he gave approximately 175 political speeches. McPherson notes that the "central message of these speeches showed Lincoln to be a "one-issue" man - the issue being slavery."
That's nice and all but (1) I really don't care what somebody else said about lincoln - I care what lincoln said himself and (2) what lincoln said himself throughout his political career clearly demonstrates him taking positions all over the radar screen with regards to slavery: from openly expressing an enthusiastic willingness to tolerate it in the form of a constitutional amendment (see lincoln's first inaugural) to abolishing all together it in certain places (see emancipation proclaimation). No ammount of quoting a secondary source's authority will ever get you around the realities evident in primary sources, and the realities evident in primary sources from lincoln, and even so in strictly his major speeches, indicate that he took more than one position on slavery, and that those positions were (a) not always consistent with each other and (b) not always indicative of the abolitionist viewpoint many incorrectly attribute to lincoln.
Lincoln worked for the gradual elimination of slavery well before the war.
In some cases, yes he did. But in some sense, so did Robert E. Lee. What you leave out though is also important. While at times prior to the war lincoln worked for elimination of slavery, at other times prior to the war including in his inaugural address, he openly advocated a measure that would have prolongued and perpetuated slavery free from government inferference indefinately.
I see you pass over what I said about Lincoln vs Lee.
No. You do not "see" because if you did "see" you would have no other option than to concede that I rebutted what you said about lincoln v. lee point by point while also offering to you several questions, all of which go unanswered, pertaining to your bizarre assertion that lee was paying "lip service" to some unknown persons when he stated his slavery position.
Lincoln undertook, well before the war, "governmental actions" to use your phrase, to attack slavery.
That's nice, but it still does not get you past the fact I have noted, namely that Lincoln ALSO undertook, before the war, governmental actions that would have perpetuated slavery. I have already given a solid example of what one of those actions was and need not go into repetition over it. If you do not know what I am referring to, you have only yourself to blame.
It simply is not correct to say that he only adopted an anti-slavery stance with the coming of the war,
1. Your straw man has already been noted above. I advise that you cease repeating it as it gains you nothing other than dishonesty.
2. Even so in regards to what you said, quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.
and you cannot torture the record into supporting such a position.
I cannot torture the record as, unlike you, I do not need to torture the record to support my position. The record is clear as day regarding my position. On the other hand, you have done nothing but torture the record in search of lincoln quotes that support your position while you simultaneously and, IMHO, willfully ignore those quotes that contradict your opinion. That is called torturing the record, and that is what you are doing.
Now, Lincoln faced, on his very first day in office, a gigantic rebellion against the lawful government.
Did he? Jefferson Davis no more wanted to conquer New York than did George Washington want to conquer Cornwall. Lincoln faced, at best, a war with a faction of his nation that sought political independence from the rest of that nation, and did so through the consent and actions of their own lawfully elected officials.
The insurgent area covered seven states.
I would extend it beyond that, as practically every state in the confederacy experienced wartime action in addition to the border union states.
Lincoln didn't want war.
If that is the case, why did he order warships to forcefully reinforce sumter and defend it?
That is one thing you've shown with your stressing this proposed 13th amendment. You have shown that Lincoln was willing to bend over backwards to avoid war.
Was it bending over backwards though? On a similar note, I could just as easily apply reasoning along the lines of that you make above and note that, despite a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the continuation of slavery, the southern states continued forth with secession. This would seem to suggest that there had to be something more to it than just slavery, because if it was just slavery at issue, the south could have stayed in the union and had that issue resolved with an amendment protecting it as well as its installation in any new state that wanted it.
On the other hand, as he made very clear in his first inaugural address he was definitely going to maintain the Union at all hazards. And that is pretty much what happened.
Yes it did, and at a very high cost in the number of lives, resources, cities, and just about everything else.
Of course this segue of yours does show us one thing: You want to hold Lincoln to some impossible standard
I would beg to differ and in fact offer that it is you, not I, who seeks to hold Lincoln to such a standard. I have no problem noting the historical presence of Lincoln's flaws, including those in his position of slavery. You on the other hand turn highly defensive upon even the slightest suggestion, no matter how factual it may be, by anybody to the effect that Lincoln was anything less than some sort of all-good abolitionist diety. That is why you cannot even bring yourself to concede the fact that Lincoln's position as set forth in his first inaugural was far less slave-friendly than many suggest despite the fact that you have a prominently recorded direct quotation indicating just that.
Lincoln did a masterful job of holding the country together. He brought the ship of state home safe and sound and we can all thank him for that, can't we?
Yeah. Too bad that ship had its masts blown off of it, half of its passengers tossed overboard along the route, its cargo consumed, and its hull pierced with leaks when it arrived back in the harbor.
I'm simply quoting the historical record here. You may not want to hear or see that record at times, but that doesn't make it go away. As to the quote, you tell me then what Lincoln was talking about: "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"
Whatever credibility you have will go right out the window
Since when are you the distributer of credibility? If you are, may I ask where I should go to request the person that appointed you to that position reconsider his action? Cause you are no shining beacon of credibility yourself, as evidenced by your dishonest straw man debating tactics and intentional efforts to ignore the historical record when you don't like what it says.
if you continue to maintain that Lincoln supported legal, unilateral state secession.
Again, I'm simply quoting the historical record. You tell me what the following means: "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"
There is not one scintilla of evidence that he supported such an "unjust and absurd position", to use his very words that are readily available in the record.
That they may be, but my quoted words are themselves readily available in the record as well. So again, you tell me what Lincoln meant: "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world"
Now, if we want to agree that 'secession' and 'revolution' are exact synonymns, then we are in agreement.
Did you not call it that yourself? You're the one that just completed a diatribe about how Lincoln navigated the country through the period when half of it was in revolt, as in a revolution.
The slave holder/secessionists went outside United States law to secede and attempt to establish a new nation.
Only so far as we maintain the position that a revolting people must first seek the consent of their government before deciding to revolt, and that is itself an absurd proposition. That being said, it is only accurate to note that the south did everything it legally could to facilitate its separation - it held elections on secession, it's elected officials voted in legislature to seceed etc.
If you agree with that position, then we have no conflict on this point
I'll agree that no, the nation did not have a law allowing part of it to revolt. I agree to that as it is an absurd proposition to suggest anything otherwise, for it defeats the whole purpose of a revolution.
Excuse me, but Lincoln used a congressional power - that of suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Justice Taney corrected him, then Lincoln ordered the arrest of Taney. Lincoln also violated the Constitution by ending the freedom of the press, free speech, and used military tribunals against American citizens, among other things. I think the Milligan decision addressed the tribunal issue (Lincoln was wrong), as well as whether or not the Constitution could be suspended in times of war. Guess what - Lincoln was wrong.
"None of the actions that Lincoln took were overturned in the courts during his life."
Are you arguing that Lincoln died in 1860, or that ex parte Merryman never occurred?
No kidding. There are a few now justifying childish vandalism. At any rate, this is still pretty funny.
"Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right."
And the new Constitution, was it really destined to be "perpetual (which, by the way was repeated not twice, but 5 times in the AoC). And yet the word "perpetual" was never included in the new Constitution. Why? Do the words "a more perfect Union" mean perpetual? Why not just write "a more perfect, perpetual Union" instead if that was the intent?
Lincoln thought very highly of President Thomas Jefferson. Lincoln had certainly read the writing of Jefferson, and couldn't have missed the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, when Jefferson wrote in protest of the Alien and Sedition laws:
"[T]he several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States, and of certain amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for general purposes, delegated to that government certain powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no effect."
Jefferson also opined in his 1801 inaugural adress,
Since he can't refute Jefferson, Lincoln remains silent. Which is a habit of Lincoln. He also omits any reference to the Second Amendment ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms") in order to protect the security of a free State. A trip through the debates (and a very recent Court decision) makes it abundantly clear that the people of the states have the right to defend themselves, not only against criminal, but also against the tyranny of the federal government. Considering that the several States had just fought a war over a tyrannical Britain, one can hardly understand why Lincoln would be silent on this issue."If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.".
And speaking of Lincoln's silence regarding the Constitution, not once does Lincoln mention the 9th and 10th Amendments - they justify the secession, and his omission (remember he was a lawyer) is most compelling. He could not refute them, so he must rely on bogus arguments instead. He argued that the secession of a state would destroy the government, so once the South seceded, what government sent an army to invade the South?
Not only does Lincoln ignore the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, he completely reverses them - the several states have no rights that are not expressly stated in the Constitution And he also argues that he has the Constitutional authority to use military force against the seceding states. Guess again. The Constitutional Convention raised this very issue on 31 May 1787 when they debated adding this Congressional power, "to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union, failing to fulfil its duty under the articles thereof." Eliotts Debates records this motion as postponed, yet James Madison spoke against it (in his records), and gives a liitle more detail why it was postponed (and discarded):
"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
Either way, the federal government did not have the power, and when the federal government attacked a state, the Union would be dissolved anyhow. Madison also wrote this,
"Let a standing army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger."
The states have the right to protect themselves against tyrannical federal government by force, and they also have the right to do so by the peaceful means of secession.
The best analysis of the 10th Amendment is given by Justice Thomas, with whom Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor, and Justice Scalia joined, dissenting, in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thorton, (1995). (footnotes ommitted)
And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people.
Our system of government rests on one overriding principle: all power stems from the consent of the people. To phrase the principle in this way, however, is to be imprecise about something important to the notion of "reserved" powers. The ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole.
When they adopted the Federal Constitution, of course, the people of each State surrendered some of their authority to the United States (and hence to entities accountable to the people of other States as well as to themselves). They affirmatively deprived their States of certain powers, see, e.g., Art. I, 10, and they affirmatively conferred certain powers upon the Federal Government, see, e.g., Art. I, 8. Because the people of the several States are the only true source of power, however, the Federal Government enjoys no authority beyond what the Constitution confers: the Federal Government's powers are limited and enumerated.
In each State, the remainder of the people's powers - "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States," Amdt. 10 - are either delegated to the state government or retained by the people. The Federal Constitution does not specify which of these two possibilities obtains; it is up to the various state constitutions to declare which powers the people of each State have delegated to their state government. As far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, then, the States can exercise all powers that the Constitution does not withhold from them. The Federal Government and the States thus face different default rules: where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power - that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication - the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it.
These basic principles are enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, which declares that all powers neither delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." With this careful last phrase, the Amendment avoids taking any position on the division of power between the state governments and the people of the States: it is up to the people of each State to determine which "reserved" powers their state government may exercise. But the Amendment does make clear that powers reside at the state level except where the Constitution removes them from that level. All powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State.
The principle necessary to answer this question is express on the Tenth Amendment's face: unless the Federal Constitution affirmatively prohibits an action by the States or the people, it raises no bar to such action.
The record clearly supports the right of secession. But continue if you will, to uphold as a saint, the President that killed 620,000 Americans over 1 dead horse.
I said specifically: "The historical Lincoln was perfectly willing to tolerate slavery where it existed and only moved to end it as a war time strategy."
I said:
And that is simply not true by any fair reading of these events.
So it is hardly a straw man to quote you and then refute what you say, but it is getting sort of comical to cover the same ground over and over, but that is the nature of these vanities regarding poor old Lincoln.
Now, it is simply -not- fair to say that Lincoln only became interested in the slavery issue in 1861. He opposed slavery throughout his life.
But we can continue to spin this out as long as you like.
Walt
Lincoln said himself on many occasions that his bedrock oposition was that slavery not be allowed in the territories. That is why the slave holders bolted.
Too, you can only sound like a fool to characterize Lincoln as "enthusiastic" on the proposed 13th amendment.
In Lincoln's famous letter to Horace Greeley in Augst 1862, he reiterated what he said over and over--that his personal wish was for all men everywhere to be free. You cannot get the record to support any other position on his part.
Walt
Well, that is simply not true. First of all, as I said before, the war was already on when Lincoln took the oath of office. It was in December, 1860 when South Carolina denounced Old Glory. And in January, State troops fired on the 'Star of the West'.
And it is simply false to say that Lincoln "undertook" government actions, since he was was not even in office prior to taking the oath, as would seem obvious. And even on that occasion, all he said was:
"I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it."
So you are trying to make a case in the record that simply cannot be made. But don't let me stop you from plunging ahead and wrecking your credibility.
Walt
You are the one making the assertion that the South leached off the North. I replied that if that were true, then WHY fight a war to keep the South in the Union? I've read the Congressional record, even quote from it. But in this case, first you must defend your assertions.
You've seen this before.
"And this issue embraces more than the fact of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man, the question, whether a constitutional republic, or a democracy--a government of the people, by the same people--can or cannot, maintain its territorial integtrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, accroding to organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily, without any pretense, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: "Is there in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness?" "Must a government, of neccessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existance?"
A. Lincoln, 7/4/61
That is why the slave holders had to be opposed.
Walt
But to answer your 192, please read post 186. Especially if you'd like to see what the Supreme Court thinks about the 10th Amendment.
But to answer your 192, please read post 186.
# 186 has nothing to do with what Lincoln said on 7/4/61. But it is not your purpose to be fair, is it?
I'll get to your #186 ASAP.
Walt
Lincoln represents the essence of America and all who hate him hate what America really stands for. Weighed in the balance against their demigod, Jefferson, there is no comparison. Not only was Abe a far superior president but even surpassed Jefferson's rhetorical abilities which was his only real claim to fame outside of being as deceitful a political manipulator as ever drew breath.
It means what it says, of course. To shake off a government, not legislate a new one. I did hold off about you being disingenuous, but I won't do that any longer.
By no stretch of the imagination or any torturing of the English language can Lincoln have been said to support legal unilateral state secession. And no credible person will suggest that.
Walt
There is not one word on secession in the Constitutional Convention. NOT ONE.
Since the Articles of Confederation maintained the Union was perpetual and the Constitution strove to create "a more perfect Union" and never changed the Articles stance on indivisibility, it is utterly illogical or deceitful to claim that the right to secede was there.
Lincoln's speech was to a special session of Congress - this "extra" session of the 37th Congress was called by Lincoln via executive Proclamation issued on 15 Apr 1861 (he also asked the states for 75,000 men). Lincoln was sworn as President 4 Apr 1861, long after the formation of the Confederacy. If preserving the Union at all costs was so important, then why didn't outgoing President Buchanan attempt to recapture the South?
Immediately after the South defended Ft Sumter from resupply, Lincoln calls for the special session. If it was that important to preserve the Union, why delay the convening of Congress by nearly three months? Just days after one horse was killed Lincoln calls for a blockade of Southern ports.
In his speech Lincoln calls the secession a rebellion. Defending a Fort several hundred miles away could hardly be considered a rebellion. After their defense of Ft Sumter, the South simply went about it's business. They did not attack the North. What states did the South invade? None. Secession is overlooked or ignored by Lincoln because he cannot refute it, and only by ignoring secession as a Constitutional or inalienable right can Lincoln attempt to find Constitutional grounds for his actions. Lincoln ignores the fact that once 9 states had ratified the Constitution then a new government was created by a secession of those 9 states from the original 13. So at that point in time the remaining states were not part of the Union.
But New York, Rhode Island et al understood the right of secession, and never lifted a finger against the seceding states. They were also faced with the possibility that not all the states would ratify (read the ratification debates, they certainly assumed that not all thirteen states would ratify the Constitution.) And even though it had been ratified, the Constitution did not give the President the power to force the new government onto that states that had not ratified - it had no force on states that were not part of the Union.
By late 1789, two states (North Carolina and Rhode Island) had failed to ratify the original Constitution (pre Bill of Rights) - the version that guaranteed a republican form of government? To get them to join Madison had to submit the Bill of Rights for ratification as well. Of course, the 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendments are in the BoR, and I handled that in my post 186. The right of secession was guaranteed.
So Lincoln attempts to justify military action to preserve the Union with another strategy,
"The Constitution provides, and all the States have accepted the provision, that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government." But if a State may lawfully go out of the Union, having done so it may also discard the republican form of government; so that to prevent its going out is an indispensable means to the end of maintaining the guaranty mentioned; and when an end is lawful and obligatory the indispensable means to it are also lawful and obligatory."
So to justify his military actions Lincoln claims that the seceding states no longer have a "republican" form of government. The fact is the Southern states virtually duplicated the government they had just left. They did make a few additions and changes, but it's laughable to think that it wasn't a "republican" form of government. But by claiming that the seceding states no longer have a "republican" form of government, he is recognizing that they have seceded, and once they are no longer part of the Union they are no longer bound by the Constitution, thus making Lincoln the invader. If he denies that they have seceded, they are still part of the Union, they still have a "republican" form of government, and Lincoln is again left without a Constitutional reason for invasion.
Only by ignoring the previous two secessions performed by the several states, only by denying the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, only by denying the Bill of Rights could Lincoln even have a chance of being correct. He was still wrong.
It was just as "perpetual" as the AoC was.
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.