Posted on 05/16/2002 11:37:00 AM PDT by Aurelius
The jaw droppers at the Independent Institute debate must have also been aware of Lincoln’s demolition of the First Amendment during his administration to have reacted with such looks of disbelief. There were hundreds of opposition newspapers in the North, and many of them were shut down and their editors and owners thrown into military prisons without any due process. For example, on May 18, 1864 Lincoln issued an order to General John Dix that read as follows: "You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof . . . you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of aforesaid newspapers." Dix complied, and hundreds of newspapers were censored (see Dean Sprague’s Freedom Under Lincoln).
**********
From a fine Libertarian at FR who attended the debate.
****
[DiLorenzo and others say]Lincoln has a blemished record of following the ideal of free government in his political life, as when he issued this order, on May 18, 1864:
"You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof. . . . You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforementioned newspapers."
What was it in these newspapers, inquiring minds may ask, that prompted Lincoln to issue this order?
"At 4 a.m. [on May 18 1864, Joseph] Howard distributed anonymously to all the New York papers a bogus proclamation, complete with the forged signature of the President, fixing May 26 `as a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer,' and calling for an additional draft of 400,000 men required by `the situation in Virginia, the disaster at Red River, the delay at Charleston, and the general state of the country.' ...Only two papers, the New York World and the Journal of Congress, were on the street with the story before the forgery was detected." Foote, The Civil War III, p. 376.
This was the so called "Gold Hoax" -- a criminal effort to drive up the value of gold at a very critical point in the war. Once it was established that the editors were only guilty of atrocious journalistic standards for source checking, they were released from custody and allowed to reopen their papers -- after only being held for three days. Foote, p. 376.
Nevertheless, the Lincoln bashers would no doubt argue that this instance had a chilling effect on the journalistic profession, so that no paper would dare to criticize Lincoln thereafter. But consider what was written by a Northern paper just a few short weeks later on the occasion of Lincoln's renomination (along with Andrew Johnson) during the 1864 Republican (aka National Union Party) Convention:
"The age of statesmen is gone...the age of rail-splitters and tailors, of buffoons, boors, and fanatics, has succeeded...In a crisis of the most appaling magnitude, requiring statesmanship of the highest order, the country is asked to consider the claims of two ignorant, boorish, third-rate backwoods lawyers, for the highest situations in the government. Such nominations, in such a conjecture, are an insult to the common-sense of the people. God save the Republic!" Foote, p. 379.
What brave journalist dared to so brutally insult the character of the President and his running mate? None other than the editor of the New York World.
18 posted on 5/10/02 8:03 PM Pacific by ravinson
********
Moral?
Never trust a hack.
Cheers,
Richard F.
"If you want to make sense of the Clintons, the best way is to understand them as the revenge of the Confederacy. Nothing else makes them plausible."
I just want to assure you all that I would in no way have any part in that.
Care to comment, ravinson?
Well in all actuality it is not 30-70%. From what I have found so far, more than a few of my relatives fought for the South(3 died, one in the non existant, never talked about, killed more prisoners than the South, northern prison camps) and only one who had any leanings to the north but apparently did not fight for the damnyankees. So, yes, I do feel direct ties to the South for men that stood up for what they believed.
As for your charge of a violent overthrow of Federal authority, no I am not in favor of that. The federal government has disappeared and has been replaced by a national government. But in either case, the South tried to secede quietly and Constitutionally. The immediate cause was abe's little foray into sovereign territory not belonging to the United States that started the war. If he would have peaceably withdrawn his troops from Fort Sumter, there would not have been a war. But admittedly Davis made a tactical error
Tocqueville put it best in one of those many pre-war political commentaries most Lincoln worshipers and Claremonsters like to overlook...
"However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right."
Considering that Ravinson played a part of preparing Jaffa for the debate... I'd say his opinion is biased in some way. Therefore, his opinion of what DiLorenzo said concerning the debate is flawed evidence.
Cajun, when I stated that I was going to "prepare for [the DiLorenzo-Jaffe] debate", I was referring to preparing myself for the audience Q&A period (in which I asked DiLorenzo a question about the limits of his concept of "states' rights" that he refused to answer). I had never known or communicated with Mr. Jaffe until I thanked him for coming to Oakland after the debate (and after I had done the same to DiLorenzo -- as well as helping him with the correct pronunciation of the name of a prominent Radical Republican newspaperman).
Moreover, even if you think I am biased, you can easily check the veracity of my statements (quoted above by rdf) regarding Lincoln's May 18, 1864 order closing the New York World and the Journal of Commerce, because as I noted, my source is Shelby Foote in Civil War (III), at pages 376-379. According to Foote (not me), Lincoln ordered those papers closed and the editors arrested on suspicion of involvement in a criminal gold speculating hoax, but those editors were out of jail and back printing vicious insults directed at Lincoln and his Vice Presidential running mate three short days later.
DiLorenzo's conclusion from this incident that Lincoln was a "dictator" who was guilty of "demolition of the First Amendment" is the funniest joke I've heard in a long time.
Even if the Confederate glorifiers like DiLorenzo can be allowed to ignore the ancient rule of contract law that both sides must manifest their assent to something before it becomes part of an enforceable agreement, there is no getting around this restriction (emboldened above). To my knowledge, neither the Virginia secessionists nor any other Confederates ever attempted to enforce any real or imagined Constitutional right of secession in the U.S. Courts, so they clearly waived any right to rely on anything in the U.S. Constitution, including any supposed conditions precedent. Moreover, had they asserted such a right, they would have found it difficult to prove that the Constitution had been "perverted to their injury or oppression" merely because a "Black Republican" had been elected to the Presidency.
Of course, the Confederates were not interested in proving any "states' rights" under the U.S. Constitution. They made it very clear that they were extremely dissatisfied with the U.S. Constitution because it did not sufficiently preserve and protect their cherished institution of slavery, and so they drafted their own constitution that provided as follows:
Article I... Section 9... (4) No ... law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed...
Article IV ... Section 2. (1) The citizens of each State ... shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired...
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory... In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States...
As the Mississippi secessionists candidly admitted, the Confederates' position was "thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery", which they considered "the greatest material interest of the world." The Confederates wanted to ensure that a government of the slaveholders, by the slaveholders, and for the slaveholders would not perish.
I don't recall hearing any "gasps", but I'll have to check the tape when it arrives. My impression was that the audience was very attentive and respectful to both speakers, even when DiLorenzo was making ridiculous statements.
You'll have to explain to me what you perceive to be "idiotic positions". In sharp contrast to DiLorenzo, Jaffa seemed to be well read and have a deep understanding of the full context of historical events.
Keep in mind that DiLorenzo is an economist, not a historian. It shows. He's great at lifting quotes out of context to try to support his points, but it's obvious that he hasn't done his homework. I could tell from his errors of omission (including the example I gave above) that DiLorenzo has not read the civil war books written by Shelby Foote or James McPherson, nor has he read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America even though he quotes it (totally out of context, of course).
It seems very apparent that DiLorenzo has simply read a few poorly researched pro-Confederate materials and then cobbled them together into a absurdly biased book that he is marketing almost exclusively to rednecks (and I suppose people who enjoy a good laugh at farcical literature).
"However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their sovereignty, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and "
I'm glad you brought up Tocqueville, since he's my favorite political analyst. As perceptive as he was, however, he was not infallible, and clearly he was wrong in assuming that "the Federal government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right". And of course, the U.S. never had to disprove the Confederate states' right to withdraw from the Union, since the seceding states never attempted to prove any right under the Constitution to secede.
But if you're truly enamored with Tocqueville, I take it that you'd agree with some of his other assertions in Democracy in America, such as the following:
"The legislation of the Southern states with regard to slaves presents at the present day such unparalleled atrocities as suffice to show that the laws of humanity have been totally perverted...In antiquity precautions were taken to prevent the slave from breaking his chains; at the present day measures are adopted to deprive him of even the desire for freedom...the Americans of the South, who do not admit that the Negroes can ever be commingled with themselves, have forbidden them, under severe penalties, to be taught to read or write; and as they will not raise them to their own level, they sink them as nearly as possible to that of the brutes." Democracy in America (Vintage Books Ed. 1990), Vol. 2, pp. 379-380.
"The Americans have ... much more ... to fear from the states than from the Union." DIA, p. 385.
"In the South there are no families so poor as to not have slaves. The citizen of the Southern states becomes a sort of domestic dictator from infancy; the first notion he acquires in life is that he is born to command, and the fist habit which he contracts is that of ruling without resistance. His education tends, then, to give him the character of a haughty and hasty man, irascible, violent, ardent in his desires, impatient of obstacles, but easily discouraged if he cannot succeed upon his first attempt." DIA, Vol. 2, p. 394.
"The inhabitants of the Southern states are, of all Americans, those who ... would assuredly suffer most from being left to themselves; and yet they are the only ones who threaten to break the tie of confederation." DIA, Vol. 2, p. 401.
"If ever America undergoes great revolutions, they will be brought about by the presence of the black race on the soil of the United States; that is to say, they will owe their origin, not to the equality, but to the inequality of condition." DIA, Vol. 1, p. 256.
If you want evidence that a company wanted to build new headquarters, do you need to ask a committee what they decided, or simply look at the skyscaper?
The ratifications are in two parts - the actual ratification - with it's statement of facts - that certain terms are understood, that certain rights cannot be denied, that certain actions are reserved. It then states that these reservations and stipulations are irrevocable, and under these circumstances - as evidenced by the document in question (the ratification) the state ratifies the Constitution.
After the ratification they present a list of proposed amendments. The ratification did not amend the Constitution, it set the terms for acceptance of one party, to be accepted/rejected by the other parties.
And it's conditioned. What part of "the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ... Under these impressions, and declaring, that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated ... do by these Presents, assent to, and ratify the said Constitution" don't you understand?
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.