The Real Lincoln

townhall.com ^ | 3/27/02 | Walter Williams

[one2many]

Non_Sense, explain what you think this sentence means. Or just paraphrase it in your own terminology if that is easier for you. Thanks in advance.

We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.

[Non-Sequitur]

In and around your name calling in this link here was the offer not to bother me if I didn't post to you. It took you less than two days to violate that.

[one2many]

Show me where you ever agreed PINK

[one2many]

You know you never did agree PINK

[one2many]

But I will agree to it right now; I won't even insist that you answer my request that you give your interpretation of that sentence. I will even not call you PINK.

Agreed?

[Non-Sequitur]

How was I supposed to agree? By post? That would violate the agreement right off the bat, wouldn't it? You should have said something like, "On my honor as a southerner I will not post to you if you do not post to me." Then I would have known right off the bat that your word was worthless.

[one2many]

So by your not answering this message I will assume that you agree now.

Goodbye.

[Non-Sequitur]

Sorry. Commuting.

But I will agree to it right now; I won't even insist that you answer my request that you give your interpretation of that sentence. I will even not call you (names).

You mean like "This time I really, really mean it. Cross my heart and hope to die, stick a needle in my eye." That kind of promise? And this time I'm supposed to believe it? I'll believe it when I see it.

[Aurelius]

Re: Your post yesterday, on the thread that was deleted, regarding the number of southerners who owned slaves.

"The census [of 1860] also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

The source quoted is:

The American Negro, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.

I felt sure that your figure of 2.25 million slave owners had to be wrong as there were less than 4 million slaves in all, so that would have left the average slave owner owning less than two slaves. I posted that but it got lost with the deletion of the thread. Since then I found this source. This is at least roughly in agreement with the claim that one southerner in 18 was a slave owner. (That, I believe, was posted by Gorjus.)

[rdf]

Thanks for posting this resolution, which never seems to show up when people are arguing over whether secession amounted to the uncontested right to revolution. At least the Minnesotans seem to have agreed with the Southerners, however much, for other reasons, they were prepared to deny Southerners the exercise of their right to revolutionize their affairs. It remains to agree with the Minnesotans that the South is now, and has been, a conquered province, and their Southern march, protectorate, and plaything.

You are welcome. I must point out, though, that the natural right to revolution, or rebellion, also requires, from Locke, the Declaration, and the whole train of Founding thought, that the grounds be just, and the provocation of long standing ..."but when a long train of abuses ...etc..." Presumably the Minnesotas did not think there had been "a long train of abuses," just one crucial election which the slave power had lost, and they also did not think the cause of perpetuating and extending human slavery naturally just. So, the key requirement for a just rebellion being absent, the secessionists were engaged in acts of treason.

Such, at least, I believe to have been their thinking, and I further believe it correct.

Thanks for your courtesy, a virtue that is fast growing rare on this thread.

Richard F.

[rdf]

Well, I would say you are most of the way there, but they still have their editorial corpus to fall back on, and the question of whether Republican rank-and-file opinion squared with that of the Unionist leadership.

Thanks for the kind words. Here is a thought on the editorial business. Shouldn't we distinguish between those who, like President Buchanan, thought legal secession a pipe dream, but at the same time thought they had no prudent and/or legal means to resist it, and so would let the rebels go, and those who really believed in the right of secession?

If the editorials were counted that way, and not simply summed up under the "Let them go" heading, the results would be different, and I would guess strikingly so.

I don't have access to the 1942 study, so I have to leave it there. Too bad Gallup wasn't around then for a snap poll!

We know how well GOP leadership today reflects the rank-and-file following, and how seldom it diverges in favor of an agenda set by the modern industrial and business lobby.

Boy do I agree with you there! But you knew I would, right?

Cheers,

Richard F.

[rdf]

Give us all your evidence right away. That promotes rational discussion.

And check your attitude at the door. Because it doesn't.

Hope you feel better tomorrow,

Cheers,

Richard F.

[rdf]

You wrote:

"The key to this semantic question is that Lorenzo said:

made it a point to mention.... and Quackenbush twisted those words into:

'revealed his single-minded devotion....'

So you see, Quackenbush is simply being disingenuous in order to discredit DiLorenzo. Most speeches cover a variety of topics; and most of Lincoln's did. It follows that "making a point to mention" cannot be construed to be "a single-minded devotion" to an issue."

Well, but, as Quackenbush points out,

DiLorenzo, from page 54 of the book: "Lincoln was always a Whig, and was almost single-mindedly devoted to the Whig agenda-protectionism, government control of the money supply through a nationalized banking system, and government subsidies for railroad, shipping and canal-building businesses ("internal improvements").

I fail to see any misrepresentation here.

Regards,

Richard F.

[rdf]

At the separation from the British empire, the people of America preferred to establish themselves into thirteen separate sovereignties, instead of incorporating themselves into one. To these they look up for the safety of their lives, liberties, and properties. They formed the Federal Government to defend the whole against foreign nations, and to defend the lesser States against the ambition of the larger ones. --Luther Martin, delegate to the Philadelphia convention 1787, quoted by Spence, American Union, page 230

Our commissions give a complexion to the business; and can we suppose that, when we exceed the bounds of our duty, the people will approve our proceedings? We are met here as the deputies of thirteen independent, sovereign States, for federal purposes. Can we consolidate their sovereignty and form one nation, and annihilate the sovereignties of our States, who have sent us here for other purposes? --William Patterson, delagate to the Philadelphia convention 1787, and future governor of New Jersey

These bear some thought. They say nothing about secession, and they are only two of the Founders, but they are worty of attention, IMHO.

Cheers,

Richard F.

[rdf]

This is at least roughly in agreement with the claim that one southerner in 18 was a slave owner.

This is not the most illuminating way to count. The better question would be, "What % of households owned slaves?" Don't you agree? Surely we don't want to ignore marriage, or take minors as not involved in the peculiar institution if their parents were slaveholders ...

Cheers,

Richard F.

[rdf]

We know how well GOP leadership today reflects the rank-and-file following, and how seldom it diverges in favor of an agenda set by the modern industrial and business lobby.

I omitted your "irony" remark, but I didn't mean to mislead. I agree that the current GOP leadership ignores and abuses the rank and file, especially the pro-life, pro-family segment.

cheers,

Richard F.

[davidjquackenbush]

I really didn't intend to weigh in on the question of federal sovereignty, et al. I haven't, that I can recall, posted views on that subject. I think it is a really hard question, and that the Founders spoke in ways that are apparently inconsistent. My only point on your post was that it seemed unfair to respond to an interpretation of the Virginia ratification with a document from another time, and then criticize someone else for posting texts from yet a third.

To repeat, I believe the Founding doctrine on sovereignty is either complex and fascinating, or contradictory. Given that many thoughtful men were involved, it is probably a bit of each. Let the investigation continue.

[davidjquackenbush]

What I "understand" is that you will talk about anything except the question I ask about DiLorenzo's interpretation of specific texts.

And that you have eagerly adopted his recourse to the yelp of "ad hominem" rather than do so.

So why don't you take one more diversionary pot shot at me and then we'll let the matter rest.

Of, if you prefer, please tell me if you think that Lincoln's words on the Bank decision in the Dred Scott speech reveal a focus on economic policy, or slavery.

[rdf]

please tell me if you think that Lincoln's words on the Bank decision in the Dred Scott speech reveal a focus on economic policy, or slavery.

One2many,

It's a simple question, give it a simple answer.

Richard F.