Examining 'evidence' of Lincoln's tyranny

World Net daily ^ | April 23, 2002 | David Quackenbush

[WhiskeyPapa]

In a recent WND interview with Geoff Metcalf, Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo suggested that those who have found fault with his recent book, "The Real Lincoln," and its thesis that Lincoln was a tyrant, have avoided the facts and arguments of that book:

"We academics pride ourselves in criticizing each other a lot, but criticizing on the basis of facts and logic and argument. But there has been a lot of name-calling and that sort of thing. That tells me I must be hitting a responsive chord, because if my arguments were weak, they could just shoot them down and not have to call me names."

Accordingly, I have selected the following texts from the book and from Dr. DiLorenzo's public writings in its defense. I believe that these texts accurately reflect the consistent quality of scholarship and argument throughout "The Real Lincoln." (All emphasis added in the texts below.)

First, Dr. DiLorenzo has claimed, in "The Real Lincoln" and in his recent public writing, that Lincoln's "real agenda" throughout his entire political career, was the pursuit of corrupt economic centralization. A colleague and I pointed out that, if this were true, it is remarkable that Lincoln said practically nothing about economics in the crucial years of his rise to national political prominence. In fact, the Lincoln of those years spoke almost exclusively of the evil of slavery and the threat it posed to the Union. In his WND column of Feb. 20, Dr. DiLorenzo responded thus:

"The claim by Ferrier and Quackenbush that Lincoln never talked about his career-long devotion to the Whig/mercantilist agenda of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for the railroad industry and government monopolization of the money supply from 1854 on belies their claim that they have read all of Lincoln's post-1854 speeches. In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda."

This claim is also presented in "The Real Lincoln" as a crucial piece of evidence revealing Lincoln's mind in the 1850s. Please note that Dr. DiLorenzo chose this evidence as his direct reply to our claim that Lincoln was entirely silent on his supposed "economic agenda" over the seven years of his rise to the presidency. In his book and in his reply to Dr. Ferrier and me, the best evidence Dr. DiLorenzo could marshal in support of his thesis that Lincoln was motivated chiefly by an economic agenda was the claim, "In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda."

Somehow, however, DiLorenzo failed to cite any of these acts of championship. It is not difficult to demonstrate why. They do not exist.

Consider the following quotation from Dr. James M. McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom," the Civil War volume of "The Oxford History of the United States." Dr. McPherson introduces his treatment of the Lincoln Douglas debates by noting precisely the absence of any trace of the evidence Dr. DiLorenzo claims is found in them:

"Desiring to confront Douglas directly, Lincoln proposed a series of debates. ... The stakes were higher than a senatorial election, higher even than the looming presidential contest of 1860, for the theme of the debates was nothing less than the future of slavery and the Union. Tariffs, banks, internal improvements, corruption, and other staples of American politics received not a word in these debates – the sole topic was slavery."

Those who find it strange that Dr. DiLorenzo could find evidence of Lincoln's economic fixation in precisely the debates which struck Dr. McPherson so strongly by their lack of any such evidence should read on. It gets stranger.

Turning to a second example from "The Real Lincoln," we find DiLorenzo telling the reader:

"Roy Basler, the editor of Lincoln's 'Collected Works,' commented that Lincoln barely mentioned slavery before 1854, and when he did, 'his words lacked effectiveness.'"

In his WorldNetDaily column, DiLorenzo went further, saying Basler "wrote that Lincoln barely ever mentioned the topic prior to 1854 and even then, he did not seem at all sincere. 'His words lacked effectiveness,' writes Basler."

One notes immediately Dr. DiLorenzo's strange confidence that the reader will accept "lacked effectiveness" as equivalent to "not at all sincere." Turning to the Basler text Dr. DiLorenzo cites, we discover that it occurs in a paragraph devoted not, as Dr. DiLorenzo falsely implies, to the general topic of Lincoln's words on slavery after 1854, but to a single speech, the Dred Scott speech of 1857. Basler writes of the Dred Scott speech:

"Although the speech contains some of the most memorable passages in his writings, it lacks the unity of effect which marks his best. The truth is that Lincoln had no solution to the problem of slavery except the colonization idea which he had inherited from Henry Clay, and when he spoke beyond his points of limiting the extension of slavery, of preserving the essential central idea of human equality, and of respecting the Negro as a human being, his words lacked effectiveness." (page 23: "Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings")

According to Dr. DiLorenzo, Basler says Lincoln's words on slavery after 1854 "lacked effectiveness" and "did not seem at all sincere." But the actual quotation clearly implies that – even in this single speech, Basler's only topic – Lincoln's words on slavery were not ineffective on the crucial questions "of the extension of slavery, of preserving the essential central idea of human equality, and of respecting the Negro as a human being." Regarding Lincoln's insincerity, we find not the slightest trace of a comment.

Would Roy Basler, editor of the collected works of Lincoln, think that it is accurate or honest for Dr. DiLorenzo to represent him as saying that Lincoln's words on slavery "after 1854" were ineffective and "did not seem at all sincere"? Yet Dr. DiLorenzo cites four words from Basler's paragraph to suggest, quite falsely, that the editor of Lincoln's "Collected Works" dismissed Lincoln's entire corpus of words on slavery after 1854 as ineffective and insincere.

It gets worse. Dr. DiLorenzo actually quoted this Basler text once before, in an article entitled, "The Great Centralizer: Abraham Lincoln and the War between the States" [July 1998 Independent Review]. In the acknowledgments to "The Real Lincoln," Dr. DiLorenzo says that this article benefited from the "advice of two anonymous peer reviewers" and formed the "backbone" of the current book.

So much for "peer review." Basler is the first authority DiLorenzo cites in his 1998 article, and on its second page we find the following attempt at a sentence, reproduced here verbatim as it appeared in The Independent Review:

"Basler writes that as of 1857 Lincoln 'had no solution to the problem of slavery except the colonization idea which he had inherited from Henry Clay ... when he spoke ... of respecting the Negro as a human being, his words lacked effectiveness'" (23).

Compare the relevant part of this ungrammatical passage to Basler's original and perfectly clear sentence from page 23, reproduced in full above. Dr. DiLorenzo used his handy snips to convert Basler's clear implication that Lincoln's 1857 words were effective on the point "of respecting the Negro as a human being" to the direct statement that Lincoln's 1857 words were not effective on precisely that point.

This was in 1998. In the intervening four years, Dr. DiLorenzo has apparently decided that it is better to be more terse in his quotations, that he may be more expansive in his interpretation. In "The Real Lincoln," as we have seen, he quotes only four words of Basler's text. But in this second go round with the Basler text, it is Lincoln's words on slavery, in general, after 1854 (not just those Lincoln spoke in 1857), that are dismissed as ineffective, with "not at all sincere" added for good measure. All of this, of course, DiLorenzo presents as Basler's professional historical judgment.

DiLorenzo clearly considers the Basler text a crucial piece of evidence. He led off with Basler in 1998, includes it in his book and makes it his first point in his reply to Dr. Ferrier and me. Examining the weird sequence of DiLorenzo's serial abuse of Basler's text, one concludes that it is not Lincoln whose words "lack effectiveness" and do "not seem at all sincere."

For another example of Dr. DiLorenzo's meticulous use of secondary literature, we may turn to the following passages from "The Real Lincoln":

"In 'Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Rights,' Mark E. Neely Jr. observed that as early as the 1840s Lincoln, one of the most ambitious politicians in American history, was seething with resentment over the fact that the Constitution stood in the way of the Whig economic program and his vaunted American System. At that time, writes Neely, 'Lincoln appeared to be marching steadily toward a position of gruff and belittling impatience with constitutional arguments against the beleaguered Whig program.'"

DiLorenzo continues:

"The Federalist/Whig program of protectionist tariffs, nationalized banking and government subsidies for corporations was foiled for 60 years by strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitution. Once he and the old Whigs were finally in power, Lincoln was not about to let the Constitution stand in his way."

As the highlighted portions make clear, Dr. DiLorenzo attributes to Neely the historical judgment that Lincoln was "seething with resentment" over "the fact that the Constitution stood in the way" of his economic program, and "was not about to let the Constitution stand in his way."

But Neely says nothing of the kind. On the very page of Neely's book that DiLorenzo cites we find the following two passages:

"Lincoln was satisfied that the U.S. Supreme Court had declared a national bank constitutional, as had a majority of the country's famous founders."

"Lincoln thought them both constitutional, of course." (the bank and the "subtreasury," the Democratic alternative, DQ)

Neely makes crystal clear that Lincoln's frustration was not with the Constitution, but with what he considered to be obtuse and willful refusal by Democrats to admit (to Lincoln) the manifest constitutionality of the bank. Neely is also, it is true, developing the larger theme that Lincoln as a young politician was more practically than theoretically minded, but he says nothing to suggest that Lincoln would resist or resent what he thought a true interpretation of the Constitution. He even summarizes Lincoln's argument for the constitutionality of the bank on the same page.

Can Dr. DiLorenzo not distinguish between frustration at the Constitution, and frustration at those whom Lincoln sincerely believed persisted willfully to misread the Constitution? Is it not clear that by "impatience with constitutional arguments against the beleaguered Whig program" Neely means the latter, and not the former?

Neely proceeds, still on the page Dr. DiLorenzo cited:

"A set of resolutions drafted by Lincoln and adopted at a Whig meeting in Springfield in 1843 reiterated his position on the proven constitutionality of a national bank, and followed with this abrupt dismissal of Democratic arguments against the distribution of the proceeds from the sale of the national lands: 'Much incomprehensible jargon is often urged against the constitutionality of this measure. We forbear, in this place, attempting to answer it, simply because, in our opinion, those who urge it, are, through party zeal, resolved not to see or acknowledge the truth.'"

Dr. DiLorenzo uses the one sentence he quotes from Neely to give the clear impression that Neely had written that Lincoln resented the restraint imposed on his political agenda by the Constitution. But Neely makes it absolutely clear that Lincoln was frustrated by partisan zealotry taking the form of constitutional argument, a very different matter.

I will preface the fourth, and most striking instance of Dr. DiLorenzo's creative textual interpretations by noting that only in two chapters of the book, "Lincoln's Opposition to Racial Equality" and "Why Not Peaceful Emancipation?," does Dr. DiLorenzo quote so much as a full sentence of Abraham Lincoln's words, with the single exception of a sentence from the first inaugural. This in itself is a fascinating demonstration of DiLorenzo's method of scholarship. The vast majority of a book entitled "The Real Lincoln" contains precisely one quoted sentence from Lincoln. But it is filled with extensive quotations from other historical figures, scholars, etc., and above all with Dr. DiLorenzo's confident narrative explaining to us how all these things reveal the real Lincoln. Lincoln himself, however, is muzzled.

Dr. DiLorenzo presumes throughout to speak for Lincoln, revealing to us Lincoln's tyrannical motives and base purposes, his fallacious reasoning and duplicitous explanations – without quoting from him. Accordingly, much of a reader's insight into the "real Lincoln" depends on Dr. DiLorenzo's fidelity and accuracy in selecting and presenting evidence, and interpreting it. In this light, consider the following passage, my final example of the quality of Dr. DiLorenzo's evidence:

DiLorenzo says:

"Lincoln even mocked the Jeffersonian dictum enshrined in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. He admitted that it had become 'a genuine coin in the political currency of our generation.' But added, 'I am sorry to say that I have never seen two men of whom it is true. But I must admit I never saw the Siamese twins, and therefore will not dogmatically say that no man ever saw a proof of this sage aphorism.'"

Dr. DiLorenzo finishes the paragraph by proving that the Gettysburg Address was insincere and manipulative, in view of the now established fact of Lincoln's contempt for the Declaration principle of human equality.

Continuing to find a rich mine of imaginary evidence in the Lincoln Douglas debates, Dr. DiLorenzo inaccurately identifies the first debate as the source of Lincoln's mocking words. They are actually snipped from Lincoln's "Eulogy to Clay," delivered in 1852. But no matter. More important is the question whether we can trust Dr. DiLorenzo to select quotations that reveal to us the real Lincoln.

How shall we answer this question? Perhaps some context will help. Here is a more complete quotation from Lincoln's "Eulogy to Clay:"

"But I would also, if I could, array [Clay's] name, opinions, and influence against the opposite extreme – against a few, but an increasing number of men, who, for the sake of perpetuating slavery, are beginning to assail and to ridicule the white-man's charter of freedom – the declaration that 'all men are created free and equal.' So far as I have learned, the first American, of any note, to do or attempt this, was the late John C. Calhoun; and if I mistake not, it soon after found its way into some of the messages of the governors of South Carolina.

"We, however, look for, and are not much shocked by, political eccentricities and heresies in South Carolina. But, only last year, I saw with astonishment, what purported to be a letter of a very distinguished and influential clergyman of Virginia, copied, with apparent approbation, into a St. Louis newspaper, containing the following, to me, very extraordinary language –

'I am fully aware that there is a text in some Bibles that is not in mine. Professional abolitionists have made more use of it, than of any passage in the Bible. It came, however, as I trace it, from Saint Voltaire, and was baptized by Thomas Jefferson, and since almost universally regarded as canonical authority "All men are born free and equal."

'This is a genuine coin in the political currency of our generation. I am sorry to say that I have never seen two men of whom it is true. But I must admit I never saw the Siamese twins, and therefore will not dogmatically say that no man ever saw a proof of this sage aphorism.'

"This sounds strangely in republican America. The like was not heard in the fresher days of the Republic."

Far from mocking our ancient Declaration creed, as DiLorenzo claims on his behalf, Lincoln laments the corruption of public sentiment that has occurred since Jefferson's time. He calls the Virginia clergyman's words, by clear implication, a "political heresy." But DiLorenzo reports the clergyman's words as Lincoln's own.

How, might we be permitted to ask, was it possible for a scholar of good will and serious attention to have misread this text so completely? I invite the reader to consider the passage, and try to imagine committing the mistake of thinking that Lincoln is mocking the Declaration.

Dr. DiLorenzo's method of giving us the real Lincoln is passing strange. It includes ascribing to Lincoln things Lincoln never said and, in fact, rejected as astonishing political heresy in the very passage our author cites. Truly a man might "prove" much with such methods.

To summarize:

• The author of the Civil War volume of "The Oxford History of the United States" is struck precisely by the total absence of evidence that DiLorenzo says is "virtually" everywhere in the Lincoln Douglas debates.

• The editor of the "Collected Works" of Lincoln uses the phrase "his words lacked effectiveness" to describe a portion of a single speech about slavery, but only when that speech ventures beyond its central, crucial topics regarding slavery. In 1998, Dr. DiLorenzo clipped this sentence to make it mean precisely the opposite. Four years later, he reports instead that the editor judges Lincoln's words on slavery for almost a decade to have "lacked effectiveness" and seemed "not at all sincere."

• A Pulitzer Prize winning historian writes a careful and balanced account of Lincoln's impatient youthful frustration at Democratic resistance to the constitutionality of a national bank. Dr. DiLorenzo tells us that the historian spoke of Lincoln's seething resentment at the Constitution itself.

• Lincoln quotes with withering disapproval the words of a Virginia clergyman who repudiates and mocks the Declaration doctrine of human equality. Dr. DiLorenzo presents snippets of the clergyman's words as Lincoln's own – a gross falsehood – in order to "prove" that Lincoln's love of the Declaration was insincere.

Suppressed evidence, misquotation, misconstruction of context, incompetent citations, inaccurate implication – it's all here. I have chosen these four examples from a much longer and ever-growing list. But these examples are utterly characteristic of the entire book. Dr. DiLorenzo wonders why the scholarly world has not responded with argument to his revelation of evidence that Lincoln was a tyrant. It may be because his "evidence" is such a cooked up mess.

---

Special Offer:

Judge DiLorenzo for yourself. Get "The Real Lincoln" at WorldNetDaily's online store, ShopNetDaily.

---

David Quackenbush is a senior academic fellow with the Declaration Foundation.

[Ditto]

Lincoln established the precedent that instead of each State being a equal partner in the Federal Government each State became subservient to the interests of the Union as a whole and as defined by a Presidency with vastly expanded powers.

It was actually the Framers of the Constitution who did that. Lincoln was simply the first to have to enforce it. Andy Jackson came close.

[Ditto]

Instead of your Ash Aleart or calling people Commies, why don't you answer Richard's question in #20.

Shuckmaster's keyboard must have seceded.

[rdf]

My complements to David (and you) for this excellent article. You are both true scholars.

Thanks for the kind words. I did some research, but the article is pure David.

in all my teaching career I had never seen, in a published book,such a gross error as the one about the Clay Eulogy.

It fairly takes ones breath away.

Regards,

Richard F.

[varina davis]

You should never let what you learn in school interfere with your education --- and most of what has been taught in schools since Reconstruction is revisionist history.

[Ditto]

I think States did and should have a right to secede.

James Madison did not agree with you.

Who should I trust, you or the Father of the Constitution?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Lincoln created the idea that the State's natural right to secede was null and void. The Framers never mentioned anywhere in the Constitution that States once they ratified the Constitution were forever bound to the Union. Since the Tenth Amendment limits the federal powers over the States to only what is spelled out in the Constitution and because the States had just seceded from England that omission was not a mere oversight.

[Ditto]

"..in all my teaching career I had never seen, in a published book,such a gross error as the one about the Clay Eulogy.

Well if you think diLorenzo is bad, take a sample of the scholarship over at CrownRights.com

It is the place where most of these Bubba's bought their libraries, and their video collections as well. I am sure this crap is finding its way into home school cricula, and it frightens the hell out of me. You can even get copies of Amos 'n Andy or Birth of a Nation there as well as the riveting works of some yahoo name Durand who makes DiLorenzo look like Milton Freedman.

You are absolutely correct on what you said above about the importance of challenging demagogues like DiLorenzo. It is not simply about re-fighting the Civil War. It is about assuring that the historical record is straight for our children and not allowing people with an ugly agenda hijack Conservatism.

History is important.

[Ditto]

James Madison to Daniel Webster
15 Mar. 1833Writings 9:604--5

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.

The guy who wrote the Constitution said secession was non-sense. What are your credintials?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Your link to Madison's words deals with two separate examples. One is secession at will, which would be a violation of a prior commitment, or secession for cause like the revolution. While he disagreed with the one he supported the other. The only question is whether the States have good cause and who should determine what constitutes good cause; not rather they were forever bound to the Union under any and all circumstances.

[davidjquackenbush]

You are absolutely correct on what you said above about the importance of challenging demagogues like DiLorenzo. It is not simply about re-fighting the Civil War. It is about assuring that the historical record is straight for our children and not allowing people with an ugly agenda hijack Conservatism.

History is important.

Right. And, for example, Worldnetdaily, which is a large and rapidly growing enterprise, is selling "The Real Lincoln" in its homeschooling section. Good people on the staff of WND have expressed unwillingness to pass judgment on the book, and said that there will be time enough to pull it off their site if its "reputation" implodes in the course of argument about it. That means that without public argument that DiLorenzo is a hack, the book will stay on WND's web store, and heaven knows how many other such sites, to be purchased by unsuspecting people impressed by footnotes.

Scholarly opinion about Lincoln will be completely unaffected by tracts like this. But the practice of writing lying junk about Lincoln, and promoting and publishing it outside of neo-reb ghettoes, really can receive encouragement or discouragement from the fate of such a book. It's an incredibly brazen thing to attempt -- lying on this scale about Lincoln, and just daring anyone to disagree. It's an act of will, not of mind. And I suspect, from the glee with which Walter Williams, Sobran, and Paul Craig Roberts wrote about the thing in advance, that if it avoids being disgraced it will be the first of a new round of such brazen junk. Why shouldn't they publish it, and sell it to a few score thousand people, if no one seriously objects.

What would be REALLY GREAT would be if some thoughtful opponents of Lincoln would 'fess up and say: "DiLorenzo's work is crap, and a disgrace to the noble school of thought of anti-Lincolnism. We want to have a renewed serious debate about Lincoln, taking his best case seriously, and defeating it, and learning deep truths about political community, etc., from our victorious debate with his defenders. And we resent the debasing of our position that work like "The Real Lincoln" cause."

[Ditto]

The only question is whether the States have good cause and who should determine what constitutes good cause; not rather they were forever bound to the Union under any and all circumstances.

If you would care to make the argument that the South had "good cause" in 1860 to secede because they did not like the outcome of an election, please be my guest. In fact, I look forward to it. None of the neo-confederates ever do that. They just repeat Calhoun's lie that Madison rejected in 1833, that states could just leave whenever they felt like it.

Legally, states are bound, under any and all circumstances. The Constitution does provide a way that requires the agreement of other states. The Constitution does not provide a self-destruct button. That is a recipe for anarchy, and anarchy is obviously not what the Framers intended. If oppression is intolerable, natural law gives us all the moral right to rebellion, as states, or as individuals.

But you can't just walk away because you lost an election, which is exactly what happened in 1860-61. They had no legal or moral justification for their actions.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Read the Tenth Amendment, the burden is on you to demonstrate an action is forbidden by clear authority granted to the Federal Government. Since all legitimate government is based on the consent of the governed it would seem that anytime the people of a state no longer give their consent to the union that would represent good cause to leave.

[Quix]

THANKS. Fits in my construction on reality.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Lincoln created the idea that the State's natural right to secede was null and void.

Well, that is not supported in the record.

Lincoln -never- denied natural rights, but he definitely held that unilateral state secession was outside United States law -- was in fact absurd and unjust:

Consider this text:

"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 their 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."

A. Lincoln 7/4/61

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Read the Tenth Amendment, the burden is on you to demonstrate an action is forbidden by clear authority granted to the Federal Government.

Under the 10th amendment, the people retain the rght to reserve the Union, which is what they have done.

But the 10th is not even in play. Article 1, section 8 gives the power to Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare. If a state secedes, the general welfare is diminished. Congress is empowered under the Constitution to prohibit state secession.

IF IF IF the states retained complete sovereignity -- which they don't you'd have nothing but anarchy.

I will now wave my magic Jefferson Davis wand, and you will disappear:

"Conscription dramatized a fundamental paradox in the Confederate war effort: the need for Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. Pure Jeffersonians could not accept this. The most outspoken of them, Joseph Brown of Georgia, denounced the draft as a "dangerous usurpation by Congress of the reserved rights of the states...at war with all the principles for which Georgia entered into the revolution." In reply Jefferson Davis donned the mantle of Hamilton. The Confederate Constitution, he pointed out to Brown, gave Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and to "provide for the common defense." It also contained another clause (likewise copied from the U.S. Constitution) empowering Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Brown had denied the constitutionality of conscription because the Constitution did not specifically authorize it. This was good Jeffersonian doctrine, sanctified by generations of southern strict constructionists. But in Hamiltonian language, Davis insisted that the "necessary and proper" clause legitimized conscription. No one could doubt the necessity "when our very existance is threatened by armies vastly superior in numbers." Therefore "the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object...if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional."

--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson P.433

EVEN Jefferson Davis said the central government could coerce the states in the matter of conscription. And if in conscription, why not secession?

Oddly, the man Davis sounds JUST LIKE Chief Justice John Marshall:

"In the case now to be determined, the defendant, a sovereign state, denies the obligation of a law enacted by the legislature of the Union...In discussing this question, the counsel for the state of Maryland deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to consider that instrument as not emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. The powers of the general government, it has been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states, who alone possess supreme dominion. It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. "

And:

"To the formation of a league, such as was the confederation, the State sovereignties were certainly competent. But when "in order to form a more perfect union," it was deemed necessary to change the alliance into an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly on the people, the necessity of deriving its powers from them, was felt and acknowledged by all... "

And:

If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect that it would be this -- that the government of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within its sphere of action. This would seem to result, necessarily, from its nature. It is the government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all; and acts for all. Though any one state may be willing to control its operations, no state is willing to allow others to control them. The nation, on those subjects on which it can act, must necessarily bind its component parts. But this question is not left to mere reason; the people have, in express terms, have decided it, by saying, "this constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof,: shall be the supreme law of the land," and by requiring that the members of the state legislatures, and the officers of the executive and judicial departments of the states, shall take an oath of fidelity to it. The government of the United States, then, though limited in its powers, is supreme; and its laws, when made in pursuance of the constitution, form the supreme law of the land, "anything in the constitution or laws of any state, to the contrary notwithstanding."

And:

"Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or of creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people," thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair reading of the whole instument... It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objectives designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects,, be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That is the idea entertained by the framers of the American constitution, is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from its language. Why else were some of the limitations, found in the 9th section of the 1st article, introduced? .... The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of the nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done, by confining the choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conclusive to the end. " --John Marshall, Chief Justice, writing in McCullough v. Maryland, 1819

How about that?

Sounds like Davis had a copy of McCullough in hs back pocket when he wroyte to Governor Brown. Guess he lost it after the war.

POOF!

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Third, in light of your historically flexible exploits on FR, Walt, you have very little room from which to accuse others of academic fraud.

If you can show any academic fraud by me, you need to do it, and not talk about it.

La-de-dah.

Hello, hello? Is anybody there?

Hello?

Walt

[foreverfree]

bump

[Non-Sequitur]

The Framers never mentioned anywhere in the Constitution that States once they ratified the Constitution were forever bound to the Union.

Nor did they ever mention a time when the states could take unilateral action where the interests of the other states are involved. Secession should have required the approval of at least a majority of all the states since the interests of all the states were affected. The south did not do that.

[4CJ]

"Lincoln was one of our greatest presidents.

ROTFLMAOPIMP!

[WhiskeyPapa]

THANKS. Fits in my construction on reality.

I think a lot of people, when they see these CSA apologist fantasy rants say to themselves, "gee, is that right? I didn't know that."

So it is good that Dr. Ferrier and Dr. Quackenbush and Ditto and X and Non-sequitur and a few others don't let these sleaze bags slide slanderously by.

Walt