X questions whether Bush would attempt to hold the Union together, that firing on the military demands justice and retribution. I simply ask you to look backward over the past 8 years, and see that President X42 allowed attacks to occur without any penalty whatsoever. And if the Confederacy's actions were wrong, and so reprehensible, why then was Davis or Lee, or any of the millions that fought against the Union never tried and convicted for treason?
"They want to see the secessionist leaders as purely good. Therefore, they have to see Lincoln as purely and uniquely evil."
I disagree. I have never held that Lincoln was evil, while holding Davis et al as saints.
"The latter-day Confederates have to have the villain Lincoln to blame for all that has happened since, so they leave out parts of the historical record that don't fit the picture they want to create."
Au contraire, I fully rely on the words of Lincoln himself. He lied repeatedly as to the course of action he would undertake, he countermanded his generals proclamations while executing his own. He attempted to free slaves in a foreign country/seceding states (either way, it was still illegal), while not freeing the slaves in the North.
"[W]e denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as the gravest of crimes."Three states retained (explicitly) the right to secede, if they chose to exercise that right. And the other 10 agreed to those terms. Lincoln himself held that the states had a right to secede, and later held that they also had the right to do so by force. The South seceded, and was content to coexist peacefully. The South did not invade the North, nor did it attempt to overthrow the government of the Union.
Abraham Lincoln, 1st Inaugural Address, 4 Mar 1861
How many men died in the fighting at Ft. Sumpter? NONE. But due to the actions of Lincoln, about 620,000 men, black and white, Northern and Southern, free and slave died needlessly. Does Lincoln's actions justify those deaths, or does it regulate them to the ash-heap of history, as revisionists would deem fitting? I honor the memory of those that fought for honor, integrity and justice. Regardless of which side they fought for, they deserve more than to be spit upon.
What it boils down to is your view of federalism. And first and foremost to the federalist position is denying the right of secession. What powers are retained by the states in Amendment X? Are they listed or enumerated? No, they are everything that is not granted to the federal government. But if you hold that the federal government is supreme and has unlimited powers, regardless of the Constitution, then Lincoln is your man. Congratulations, you should appreciate the behemouth that we have today.
On the other hand, if you desire freedom from a federal government that robs it's citizens blind, and freedom from a federal government that unconstitutionally and unmercifully denies your rights, if you believe that politicians are accountable to the people, and that the President is not above the Constitution, then the South was right, and Lincoln was not the man for you.
Take your pick.
None of that was outside Lincoln's purview as Commander in Chief in time of war. You simply cannot show in the record that it was.
None of the actions that Lincoln took were overturned in the courts during his life.
Walt
The record simply does not show that. The Consdtiution is the supreme law of the land, the laws of any state notwithstanding. No state ratification document says otherwise.
Whatever outrages you perceive as the government having done, it clearly retains the right simply to maintain its own existance.
Walt
Well, that is a flat lie.
Lincoln always maintained a right to -revolution-, which is exactly what Madison also said, but he -always- stoutly denied the right of unilateral state secession; and you have to ignore his widely availble statements to say other wise.
President Lincoln:
"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States."
3/4/61
"What is now combatted, is the position that secession consistent with the Constitution -- is lawful, and peaceful. It is not contended that there is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law, which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased, with money, the countries out of which several of these states were formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave, and without refunding? The nation paid very large sums, (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making any return? The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of the so-called seceding states, in common with the rest. Is it just, either that creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining States pay for the whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave, pay no part of it herself?
Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed there money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain... If all the states, save one, should assert the power to drive that one out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point, that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do, what the others because they are a majority may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle, and profound, on the rights of minorities. They are not so partial to that power, which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling itself "We the People."
7/4/61
It is always with a bit of humor that I read the nonsensical, not historically based, rambling of you neo-confederate persons. But you have flat told a lie.
So much for 'southern' honor.
Walt