Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lincoln on the Fourth of July, 1861 [Answer to Lincoln Bashers]
Polyconomics ^ | July 3, 2002 | Jude Wanniski

Posted on 07/06/2002 1:30:53 PM PDT by B.Bumbleberry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: FirstFlaBn
Let's set aside all the spin, and see if we can agree on where we disagree.

The GOP fought and won an election on the core issues in Dred Scott ... namely, the right and duty of the Federal Govenment to ban slavery from the US Territories, and the deeper question still of whether the black man was included in the meaning of the Declaration.

That implied less than total respect for a SCOTUS decision on the part of the Party and of Lincoln after 1857. He said so himself in the 1857 speech you cite. He said it many times in his race against Douglas in 1858.

I'm perfectly content with his qualifications for acquiesence in SCOTUS decisions, and I would love to see GWB act the same way with regard to Roe v. Wade.

Some of the states of the Deep South [I omit VA and the upper south because the issue is more complex there] thought the election of such a man heading such a party was grounds for rebellion, or, as they put it, secession.

You seem to agree with them. I don't.

Regards,

Richard F.

41 posted on 07/07/2002 1:10:40 PM PDT by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: agrandis
Such a conveniently isolated point, since none of the invading states made plain that the cause was slavery.

And yet that was the cause.

Joint Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, on the state of the Union. Adopted January 22, 1861.

1. Resolved, That one of the vital and necessary principles which form the basis of all free governments, is that the constitutional majority must always rule. And therefore, the right of the people of any State to withdraw from the Union, thereby hazarding the liberties and happiness of the millions comprising this Confederacy, can never be acknowledged by us under any circumstances.

We regard secession upon the part of any State as amounting directly to revolution, and precipitating civil war with all its sad train of consequences.

2. Resolved, That the people of the State of Minnesota re-iterate their unalterable devotion to the Constitution of the United States, and that if its provisions are strictly observed, it will, in its own words, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

3. Resolved, That ABRAHAM LINCOLN and HANNIBAL HAMLIN, having been constitutionally and legally elected President and Vice President of the United States, at a general election fully and freely participated in, on the same day, by the people of every State of the Union, South as well as North, that any attempt to dissolve or destroy the Union on account thereof, is without excuse or justification, and should receive the condemnation of every patriot in the land.

4. Resolved, That we have heard with astonishment and indignation of the recent outrages perpetrated at Charleston, South Carolina, by firing upon an American steamer, sailing under the flag of our country, and that we expect of the General Government the strongest and most vigorous effort to assert its supremacy, and to check the work of rebellion and treason. Fully impressed with our duty to make every possible effort to uphold the Union, and to maintain the authority of the General Government, we hereby tender to the President of the United States, for that purpose, through the Governor of this State, aid in men and money, to the extent of our ability.

When one or more States erect the standard of disunion, and place themselves in military array against the Government bequeathed to us by our ancestors, we can discover no other honorable or patriotic resource than to test, both on land and on ocean, the full strength of the Federal authority under our National Flag.

5. Resolved, That we declare to each State of this Union our sincere desire to secure a renewal of that fraternal feeling which ought always to exist between citizens of a common country, and which distinguished the history of the nation for more than half a century. Especially do we express to those patriotic citizens of the Southern States, who have nobly and manfully exerted their utmost effort to prevent the catastrophe of dissolution, our sincere gratitude and highest admiration.

6. Resolved, That the most sincere thanks of the nation are justly due to that distinguished patriot and veteran, Lt. General Winfield Scott for the prompt and decisive steps he has taken to stay the tide of revolution, and for the determined spirit he has evinced in maintaining the honor of our Government.

7. Resolved, That we never will consent or submit to the obstruction of the free navigation of the Mississippi river, from its source to its mouth, by any power hostile to the Federal Government.

8. Resolved, That the Governor of this State is hereby requested to transmit a copy of these resolutions to the President of the United States, to Lt. General Winfield Scott, and to each of our Senators and Representatives in the Congress of the United States, and to the Governors of the several States.

IGNATIUS DONNELLY, President of the Senate. JARED BENSON, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The cause that drove the slavers to disunion was slavery. The cause that drove the loyal Union men north and south was the cause or responsible republican government.

Walt

42 posted on 07/07/2002 5:27:36 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
The history reading tells me that Lincoln cleverly manouvered to have people in South Carolina "fire the first shot," which I assume they did. And Lincoln was shocked. Shocked!

Lincoln wasn't president when the Star of the West was fired on.

Walt

43 posted on 07/07/2002 5:30:01 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
I cannot cite a source at the moment, but it is my understanding that during the glorious year of 1860, which you picked, more that 85% of the revenues collected from tarriffs came from the South.

False.

According to Exec. Doc. 33 of the 36th Congress, 1st Session the amount collected in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston during the period 6/58 to 6/59 was on the order of $42.5 million. The amount collected in all the Southern ports was something like $3 million. These figures can be found in Appendix 2 of Stephen Wise's book on blockade running (Lifeline of the Confederacy).

Walt

44 posted on 07/07/2002 5:41:04 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: agrandis
Thanks for your post 39, I needed that. A lot of folks here just don't understand. Sure the deep south states were concerned about their constitutional right to deal with slavery, and exercised their right to secede. But Lincoln, without any authority, called for 75,000 troops to invade the South, and that when the other states seceded. There is no evidence that Lincoln invaded the South to free the slaves. He didn't even free 'em in the Union slave states. He wanted to ship all the blacks to colonies in the jungles of Central America. The yankee use the slavery issue to justify what they did. Well, as Chump Sherman said , their views are "a delusion of the brain."
As for the hippies, they helped keep the war goning because most people felt that if a bunch of dirty dope smokin' hippies are against the war, that's reason enough to be for it. Also, it was revealed in the early '70's that the CIA had run an unlawful operation against the anti-war movement, and I suspect that some of the "hippies" may have been government provocateurs.
45 posted on 07/07/2002 6:27:55 PM PDT by Rebelo3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
The history reading tells me that Lincoln cleverly manouvered to have people in South Carolina "fire the first shot"...

So your whole heritage is based on the fact that Jefferson Davis was so stupid that he did exactly what Abe Linclon wanted him to do? And you're proud of that?

46 posted on 07/07/2002 6:31:36 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Rebelo3
At that time the Northern papers were filled with hateful attacks on the South and slavery.

So slavery was good, and not evil?

Walt

47 posted on 07/07/2002 6:32:11 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Rebelo3
But Lincoln, without any authority, called for 75,000 troops to invade the South,...

President Lincoln was clearly authorized to call out troops based on the Militia Act of 1792, which he cited in April '61and which the Supreme Court also cited the next year.

The act reads in part:

"And it be further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislatures of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."

it's all boo-hoo-hoo from the neo-rebs. Mean old Lincoln spanked us so bad we can't even consult the history books.

Walt

48 posted on 07/07/2002 6:37:37 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Your post #42 makes the point I was making. Namely, there is no mention of "freeing the slaves" in Minnesota's decision to force the South back into the "Union." Looks to me like they were more concerned about the Mississippi River than anything else, when you boil it all down.
49 posted on 07/07/2002 8:40:18 PM PDT by agrandis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: agrandis
Your post #42 makes the point I was making. Namely, there is no mention of "freeing the slaves" in Minnesota's decision to force the South back into the "Union." Looks to me like they were more concerned about the Mississippi River than anything else, when you boil it all down.

The slave holders made the war, not Minnesota.

It is a myth that the northern people cared about blacks. The war was fought over slavery in that it was the cause for which the slavers would rend the Union. Loyal Union men were not going to let that happen.

Walt

50 posted on 07/08/2002 3:21:59 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: B.Bumbleberry
History meant for there to be a Great War, not a simple skirmish, or the issues it resolved might still be in doubt.

Reminds me of the famous words of Thomas Paine:

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

51 posted on 07/08/2002 12:55:45 PM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Who is we?
52 posted on 07/08/2002 4:19:51 PM PDT by CyberCowboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
You mean the North? (Not "we" BTW)

When did the North Fire upon the South First. I'd like to look it up.

53 posted on 07/08/2002 4:28:18 PM PDT by CyberCowboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"So slavery was good, not evil?" Well, Sherman didn't think it was as evil as the abolitionists said. He wrote: "As far as I can judge, niggers feel very lighty indeed the chains of their bondage we read of....I know that the idea of oppression and tyranny that some people consider the necessary accompaniment of slavery is a delusion of their own brain." For a better understanding of slavery, I suggest that you read Fogel's Nobel Prize winning study of slavery:"Time on the Cross." He says that 90% of the value created by a slave was returned over a life time. So slave labor was not free and it was not cheap. The planters were proud of their system because everyone was provided a living from the cradle to the grave. Anyway, the point of my post was that we should not accept propaganda as truth. And as I noted, I saw first-hand how US propaganda was in conflict with the truth in Vietnam. Over the years I've come to see that we live in propaganda and advertisment induced fog of lies. Like JC said, "Seek the truth."
54 posted on 07/08/2002 8:20:53 PM PDT by Rebelo3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Rebelo3
"So slavery was good, not evil?" Well, Sherman didn't think it was as evil as the abolitionists said.

What do -you- think?

Walt

55 posted on 07/08/2002 8:32:09 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Lincoln wasn't president when the Star of the West was fired on.

And I had no idea what the "Star of the West" was before reading your message. Or at least if I ever did hear of it, it didn't make too much of an impression. Most of my books (I have lots of books.) do not mention it, but I was able to find out a bit about it on the internet and in McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom.

Most notably, it isn't mentioned at all in the entire Encyclopedia Britannica (1979 & 1998) so far as I can tell. Of course, Ft. Sumter is described. Now why do you think this event, which you correctly describe as the South firing on a US Flag ship also near Charleston and which occurred three months before the firing on Ft Sumter, has been relegated to such obscurity?

ML/NJ

56 posted on 07/09/2002 3:55:08 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
According to Exec. Doc. 33 of the 36th Congress, 1st Session the amount collected in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston during the period 6/58 to 6/59 was on the order of $42.5 million. The amount collected in all the Southern ports was something like $3 million. These figures can be found in Appendix 2 of Stephen Wise's book on blockade running (Lifeline of the Confederacy).

I think you are citing a silly statistic here. It doesn't matter what port the goods came in at. It matters where these goods were bound. It hoes from England were taxed, and hoes were also manufactured in Connecticut, the guy in Georgia who needs a hoe is going to bear most of the burden. Some benefit goes to the hoe manufacturer in Ct., and some to the treasury. There is no cost to someone in Boston who has no need for a hoe.

ML/NJ

57 posted on 07/09/2002 4:10:12 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So your whole heritage is based on the fact that Jefferson Davis was so stupid that he did exactly what Abe Linclon wanted him to do? And you're proud of that?

I think you should read before you post. My "heritage" is Northern. (That's what "Honest Yankee" is supposed to convey.) I have never lived below the 40th parallel. I feel quite lucky to have been born in the United States. What would have happened if Lincoln had let the South go in peace is sort of a moot point so far as I am concerned. I am ashamed of some of the things that got us here though, and some of the precedents that were established. I have little doubt that Abe Lincoln is a man who was studied very closely by the Great Stainmaker.

ML/NJ

58 posted on 07/09/2002 4:19:15 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
When did the North Fire upon the South First. I'd like to look it up.

Maybe you should read my post #35 on this thread.

ML/NJ

59 posted on 07/09/2002 4:25:42 PM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: B.Bumbleberry
...that ballots are the rightful, and peaceful, successors of bullets

I wondered where that phrase came from.

60 posted on 07/09/2002 4:33:43 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson