Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus;
launched a military invasion without consent of Congress;
blockaded Southern ports without declaring war;
imprisoned without warrant or trial some 13,000 Northern citizens who opposed his policies;
arrested dozens of newspaper editors and owners and, in some cases, had federal soldiers destroy their printing presses;
censored all telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads;
created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states, an act that Lincoln?s own attorney general thought was unconstitutional;
ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections;
deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln?s unconstitutional behavior;
confiscated private property;
confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment;
Thanks in advance.
1] Roberts compared Lincoln to Pol Pot ... said, in fact, that he was worse!
That is a calumny.
2] According to Roberts, "Lincoln urged his generals ...to use rape as a weapon of war..."
That is a calumny.
I ask you to do this because DiLorenzo is writing specifically about Dr. Keyes' column and my Foundation, and is defending the Roberts column in which these two calumnies occur. The points you mention are partially in the Roberts pice and partially not.
Old business first, if you would be so kind.
Cheers,
Richard F.
******
Alan Keyes: Paid in blood
Monday, April 01, 2002
This Easter season and the truth of the Civil War
WorldNetDaily.com
Holy Week is a season for reflecting on a great price paid, once and for all, and the life that arose in triumph over sin and evil once that price was paid. And what an unfortunate season, indeed, for some to renew their effort to extort "reparations" for slavery from their fellow citizens.
Yet, lawsuits have been filed. Those responsible propose to settle the accounts of slavery leaving the Civil War out of the equation – complete and utter nonsense. The price for the sin of slavery has already been paid, in blood.
To answer the reparations question, we must re-awaken a living understanding of the great moral drama played out in blood, treasure and human spirit on the battlefields of America a century and a half ago. President Lincoln stated in the Second Inaugural that, at the beginning of the war, "slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."
Somehow.
By this simple adverb, Lincoln captures the great question slavery posed to the soul of the nation. The war began in imperfect understanding, and concluded in clear understanding, that it had been caused by national violation of the laws of nature, and of nature's God. Lincoln spoke this truth for the nation:
If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said 3,000 years ago, so still it must be said, "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."
The moral drama of the Civil War was the nation's discernment, in its agony, that slavery was the cause of the war not as an economic interest, not as a political provocation, but as a sin which must be paid for by the blood of North and South.
At the heart of Union sentiment was the sense that a precious common good, to which all had legitimate claim, was being denied by the illegitimate refusal of their fellow citizens in the South to accept the verdict of the 1860 election. In its various ways, the North understood that the Union was the attempt of one people to establish the possibility of self-government upon the basis of the equal dignity of all men. And so the North understood that secession in defense of slavery represented the illegitimate bid by the South to replace self-government by equal free men with its elder adversary – the tyrannical rule of the powerful over their weaker brethren.
In ever increasing numbers and with ever increasing clarity, the soldiers of the North came to understand that the cause of the Union was the cause of liberty for all men. In their letters and diaries, the leavening motive, in the chaos of war, was increasingly the belief that God called them to sacrifice their lives to repair the moral stain of slavery. And over this increasing discernment, President Lincoln exercised wise, and good and patient statesmanship. He saw, and led, a people coming to understand itself and its duty – its vocation unto death and a "new birth of freedom."
This story is so complicated, and deep, that the venal and superficial among us can continue to deny it. Pseudo- learned scribblers who find contradiction in every prudence, and hypocrisy in every generous concession, continue to offer us their "real Lincoln" and to deny that Lincoln, or the North, had any real moral purpose. They demonstrate instead only their own incapacity to recognize moral purpose in the genuine complexity of human affairs. The true Lincoln, and the true moral greatness of the Union cause, will continue to tower above their uncomprehending pettiness.
Our liberty, reborn from the Civil War's labor, remains imperfect – as we must expect of any mortal thing. Pettifogging lawyers and dishonest scholars will always be able to carp selectively and ignorantly about the warts upon our body politic.
But the truth of the Civil War is that the terrible price for American slavery has been paid, once for all, by the American people's deliberate acceptance of their duty to pay it when, in God's providence, Southern intransigence brought it due.
Let us resolve, this Easter season, to remember the price America paid for her sin. Let us remember and venerate the high moral purpose of those, including Lincoln, who died to make men free.
*********
I support every word, every single word, of this column.
Cheers,
Richard F.
Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus;
We are certainly not in agreement that President Lincoln trashed the Constitution; please don't lie about this.
As far as President Lincoln illegally suspending the Writ, where does it explicitly state in the Constitution that the president may NOT suspend the writ? His powers in this regard are nowhere restrained in the Constitution.
In 1814, Andrew Jackson suspended the Writ when a British army approached New Orleans. He wasn't even president.
He arrested several people, including a judge who issued a Writ for another person.
Once the British threat receded, he paid a $1,000 levied by this judge. Later, the Congress refunded this money with interest. That is an historical fact.
They knew that the executive MUST have the power to act.
Congress even passed a "Habeas Corpus" act to delegate the power to President Lincoln, but there is no reason he needed such legislation, as there is nothing in the Constitution to prohibit him from suspending the Writ.
Walt
Not needed. The Militia Act of 1792 gives the president the power to call out the militia of the several states to suppress insurection. President Lincoln cited this legislation in his call for 75,000 militia in April 1861.
In 1862 the Supreme Court cited the Militia Act as amended in 1795 as justification for the government having the power to put down the rebellion.
Walt
SCOTUS ruled that the president did have such power in the Prize Cases (1862).
Walt
As president, he could suspend the writ and arrest anyone he liked.
Unlike in the CSA where 40 loyal Texans, 22 loyal North Carolinians, dozens of loyal east Tennesseans were lynched, to say nothing of the murder of Union POW's at Fort Pillow and Saltville, VA, and the lynching of a number of Sherman's men, -- all -- every single one -- of the people arrested by federal officials for disloyal activity -- were released unharmed. The single exception to this that I know of was the one person hanged in New Orleans by General Butler, but did not to my knowledge have to consult with Washington for that. All the persons arrested by Lincoln's habeas corpus orders were released unharmed.
Walt
Some papers were closed for disloyal activity.
I'd like to see your source that President Lincoln ordered that. I'd also like to see you document an actual number, and also that federal soldiers were involved.
Walt
Your source, please?
Walt
Source?
One thing that IS known is that it was thought so CERTAIN that President Lincoln would lose the 1864 election that he was actually asked to withdraw by the Republican National Committtee. That is a fact. They apparently were not convinced that President Lincoln either could or would try to rig the election.
It is also an historical fact that the Republican party lost seats in the 1862 election because so many Republicans were in the army and did not vote. It is true that President Lincoln urged his generals to furlough home loyal voters. The idea that he rigged any elections is not well supported in the record.
I won't hold my breath until you provide a reputable source for such.
Walt
Lincoln engaged in no unconstitutional behavior.
This person had already BEEN arrested on the order of the local military commander for making treasonous statements. Lincoln made the best of a bad situation by releasing him on condition he either go to Canada or the so-called CSA.
Walt
You mean slaves? What a hoot.
Confiscation of enemy property is allowed by the law of war.
Walt
Source?
Walt