Lincoln’s 'Second American Revolution'

James McPherson and other prominent historians sometimes speak of Abraham Lincoln’s "Second American Revolution" (the title of one of McPherson’s books). They are correct to portray Lincoln as a revolutionary, but the reasons they give for this are incomplete or inaccurate. He led a revolution all right, but it was an anti-American revolution against virtually all the founding principles of this country. It was a revolution against: free-market capitalism (Lincoln was a devoted mercantilist); the principles of the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution; the system of states’ rights and federalism that was created by the founders; and the prohibitions against waging war on civilians embodied in the international law of the time as well as the canons of Western Christian civilization.

One of the most absurd Lincoln myths is that he was devoted to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Harry Jaffa and his followers have perpetuated this myth for decades based on their own stylized interpretations of a few lines of Lincoln’s speeches. In reality, however, Lincoln’s words and actions thoroughly and completely repudiated every one of the main principles of the Declaration.

The Jaffaites usually dwell only on the "all men are created equal" line of the Declaration and ignore the rest of it. Not only is this selective reading of the Declaration intellectually dishonest; it is wrong. Lincoln denounced racial equality over and over again throughout his entire adult life. He did not believe that all men are created equal. In his August 21, 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas he said "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races" and that "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary."

"Anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the Negro," he said in the same speech, "is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse."

"Free them and make them politically and socially our equals?" he continued. "My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We cannot, then make them equals."

In his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream, Ebony magazine editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. writes that "On at least fourteen occasions between 1854 and 1860 Lincoln said unambiguously that he believed the Negro race was inferior to the White race. In Galesburg, he referred to ‘the inferior races.’ Who were ‘the inferior races’? African Americans, he said, Mexicans, who he called mongrels . . ."

For his entire adult life Lincoln advocated deporting all the black people in America to Africa, Central America, or Haiti ("colonization") and was a member of the American Colonization Society. "There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children," he said in his 1852 eulogy to Henry Clay. Ten years later, in his December 1, 1862 message to Congress, he said, "I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization." He held these views until the day he died. As Joe Sobran has remarked, Lincoln’s position was that black people could be "equal" all right, but not here in the U.S.

Lincoln supported the Illinois constitution, which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state; he supported the Illinois Black Codes, which deprived free blacks of any semblance of citizenship or economic freedom; in his First Inaugural he supported a proposed constitutional amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from interfering with slavery; and he was a staunch supporter of the Fugitive Slave Act which coerced the Northern states to round up runaway slaves and return them to slavery. He did denounce slavery in principle, as did most political, military, and business leaders of the era. But as historian Robert Johannsen explained in Lincoln, the South, and Slavery, his position was opposition to slavery in principle, toleration of it in practice, and a vigorous hostility to the abolition movement. The notion that Lincoln was a champion of equality is an Orwellian absurdity.

A most important principle of the Declaration is the idea that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. In 1861 nearly every opinion maker in the country, North and South, held this as a cherished belief and, as such, thought that using military force to coerce any state to remain in the Union would be an act of tyranny and a repudiation of the Declaration of Independence. As the Bangor Daily Union wrote on November 13, 1860, the Union "depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." A state coerced into the Union is "a subject province" and may never be "a co-equal member of the American Union."

The New York Journal of Commerce editorialized on January 12, 1861, that opposing secession changes the nature of government "from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves" to the federal government. This was the view of the majority of Northern newspapers at the time according to Howard Cecil Perkins, editor of the two-volume book, Northern Editorials on Secession.

After Thomas Jefferson was elected president the New England Federalists plotted for over a decade to secede from the Union. Their efforts culminated in the Hartford Secession Convention of 1814, where they decided against secession. The movement was led by George Washington’s Secretary of War and Secretary of State, Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering. All during this time, no one questioned the right of any state to secede because this was the Revolutionary generation, and they revered the Jeffersonian dictum that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Senator Pickering announced that, because of this belief, secession was "the" principle of the American Revolution. The Declaration of Independence was, after all, a Declaration of Secession from the British Empire. Lincoln’s war destroyed this fundamental tenet of the Declaration.

There was also a vigorous secession movement in the "middle states" – Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York – in the late 1850s, as described by William C. Wright in The Secession Movement in the Middle Atlantic States.

As H. L. Mencken sagely pointed out in an essay on Abraham Lincoln, it was the Confederates who were fighting for consent of the governed; they no longer consented to being governed by Washington, D.C., and Lincoln waged war to deprive them of that consent. And it is important to keep in mind that neither Lincoln nor the U.S. Congress ever said that they were launching and invasion of the Southern states for any reason having to do with Southern slavery. They did not launch an invasion because the slaves were deprived of consent. Lincoln declared his purpose in the war in his famous August 22, 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, which was published in the Tribune: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."

Of course, Lincoln only "saved" the Union geographically; he destroyed the Union philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature. His version of "saving the Union" is analogous to the situation where a woman leaves her husband because he has been abusing her. The husband drags his wife back into the home, chains her to the bedpost, and threatens to shoot her and burn the house down with her in it if she leaves again. The Union has been restored! But what kind of Union is it? It is the kind of coercive Union that has existed in the U.S. since 1865.

The U.S. Congress also declared on July 22, 1861 that the purpose of the war was to destroy the secession movement (i.e., the voluntary Union) and nothing more:

Resolved: . . . That this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

Thus, the official purpose of the war, as explained to the entire world by Lincoln and the U.S. Congress, was not to interfere with "the rights or established institutions" of the Southern states, i.e., slavery, but to "preserve the Union." This was a clever euphemism for "destroying once and for all the system of states’ rights and federalism designed by the founding fathers." And as will be seen shortly, Lincoln eviscerated constitutional liberties in the North, which permanently weakened the constitutional protections of liberty for all Americans.

The Constitution was created by the states, who routinely referred to themselves as "free and independent states." They created the federal government as their agent, and Virginia, Rhode Island and New York explicitly reserved the right to withdraw from the Union if it ever became destructive of their liberties. Virginia’s constitutional ratification convention stated 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." The New York and Rhode Island delegations made almost identical statements.

The Tenth Amendment includes a right of secession, since it reserves all rights not granted to the federal government to the people, respectively, or to the States. This includes the right of secession.

Lincoln knew that the Confederates had constitutional history on their side and so, as a slick trial lawyer, he decided to rewrite history by claiming that the Union was older than the states, and that there was never any such thing as state sovereignty over the federal government. He claimed that the government was really created by the Declaration of Independence, which of course had no force of law like the Constitution did. The Declaration was a Declaration of Secession, period, which makes Lincoln’s claim even more bizarre. It is also a colossal absurdity: It is impossible for the union of two things to be older than either thing that it is a union of. This makes as much sense as saying that a marriage can be older than either spouse.

Lincoln’s rewriting of history also repudiated the constitutionalist thinking of James Madison and other founders, who held that "a more perfect Union" was created by the Constitution, not the Declaration. Lincoln "proved" his false history "correct" by force of arms, not by logic and debate. Generations of court historians have repeated this spectacular lie, so that it has become part of the Lincoln legend.

Harry Jaffa and his followers go even farther than Lincoln did in rewriting history. They relegate both the Constitution and the Declaration to the political speeches of one man, Lincoln. "Above the Constitution, even above the Declaration, as an expression of American principles, is the magnanimous figure of Lincoln," wrote Jaffa’s colleague Charles Kessler in National Review (July 6, 1979). Jaffa and his followers have somewhat of a Führer complex when it comes to Lincoln, which of course is patently un-American. Placing any one man above the Constitution is a repudiation of the whole idea of constitutional government.

The third major set of principles in the Declaration is contained in the "Train of Abuses" where Jefferson condemned the tyrannical King George, III. As I document in The Real Lincoln, every single one of these abuses was as bad or worse during the Lincoln administration. King George "dissolved Representative Houses"; Lincoln and his party governed the occupied South as a military dictatorship during the war and Reconstruction. King George "has made Judges dependent on his Will alone" and was guilty of "depriving us in many cases, of the right of Trial by jury"; Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had his military imprison tens of thousands of Northern political opponents. King George "has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures." The Party of Lincoln did this during Reconstruction. King George was condemned "for cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world." Lincoln put into place a naval blockade of the Southern states.

King George declared Americans "out of his Protection" and was "waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coast, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies, of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny." Every single one of these things was the policy of the Lincoln administration.

As a master politician Lincoln was clever enough to pay lip service to the Declaration of Independence, but his words and, more importantly, his actions, thoroughly and completely repudiated every single principle of the Declaration. This was indeed revolutionary.

The U.S. Constitution does not allow for a dictator, but generations of historians have described Lincoln as such. In his book, Constitutional Dictatorship, Clinton Rossiter wrote that "Dictatorship played a decisive role in the North’s successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms . . . one man was the government of the United States . . . Lincoln was a great dictator . . . and a true democrat."

"Lincoln’s amazing disregard for the Constitution," Rossiter wrote, "was considered by nobody as legal." "Never had the power of a dictator fallen into safer and nobler hands," James Ford Rhodes wrote in his History of the United States. And James G. Randall wrote in Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln that "If Lincoln was a dictator, it must be admitted that he was a benevolent dictator." Why it "must be" was not explained.

The reasons why all these distinguished (and pro-Lincoln) scholars have labeled him a dictator can be found in the above-mentioned books, along with Freedom Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague, Fate of Liberty by Mark Neely, Jr., and Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey Hummel, to name just a few references.

These books detail how Lincoln launched a military invasion without the consent of Congress and blockaded Southern ports without first declaring war. He unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration and had his military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents. A secret police force under the direction of the secretary of state carried this out.

The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, ruled Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus to be unconstitutional (only Congress has such power), but he was ignored by Lincoln as the mass arrests of political dissenters continued. As described by Dean Sprague in Freedom Under Lincoln (p. 161): "The laws were silent, indictments were not found, testimony was not taken, judges did not sit, juries were not impaneled, convictions were not obtained and sentences were not pronounced. The Anglo-Saxon concept of due process, perhaps the greatest political triumph of the ages and the best guardian of freedom, was abandoned." Thousands of political prisoners languished in Fort Lafayette in New York harbor, which came to be known as "The American Bastille."

Dozens of Northern newspapers were shut down and their editors and owners were imprisoned if they opposed the Lincoln administration. On May 18, 1864 Lincoln sent the following order to General John Dix: "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 aforesaid newspapers."

All telegraph communication was censored, the railroads were nationalized, and federal troops were ordered to interfere with Northern elections to ensure Republican victories. Lincoln won New York state by 7000 votes "with the help of federal bayonets," wrote Pulitzer Prize–winning Lincoln biographer David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered. Several dozen members of the Maryland legislature were thrown into military prison along with the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May of Maryland so that they could not meet to discuss secession.

The most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham, was deported after 67 armed federal soldiers broke into his Dayton, Ohio home and arrested him. He had been vehemently protesting the suspension of habeas corpus and other constitutional infringements on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, and Lincoln apparently could not tolerate such talk. The Ohio Democratic Party made Vallandigham its gubernatorial nominee even though he had fled to Canada.

The border states were systematically disarmed, and two "confiscation acts" were written into law in which any U.S. citizen could have all of his private property confiscated by the government for such "crimes" as "falsely exalting the motives of the traitors"; "overstating the success of our adversaries"; and "inflaming party spirit among ourselves." Informers who turned in their neighbors could keep 50 percent of their neighbors’ property; the other half when to the U.S. treasury.

For decades, leftist historians have been praising Lincoln’s evisceration of the Constitution precisely because it established a precedent for the kind of executive branch usurpation of constitutional liberties that the founders gravely warned against. In Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln James G. Randall painstakingly details all of these attacks on constitutional liberty, and more, but then praises Lincoln for it by writing that "great social purposes " can be promoted by "abandoning constitutional barriers." One must look at the Constitution, says Randall, as "a vehicle of life" and a "matter of growth, development, and interpretation." He denigrated the founders by saying that we should not tolerate "excessive reliance upon the political wisdom of a bygone generation."

More recently, George P. Fletcher praises "Lincoln’s casual attitude toward formal constitutional institutions" because it has aided the cause of generations of leftists who have transformed the purpose of American government from the defense of individual liberty to "nationalism, egalitarianism, and democracy."

This – and Lincoln’s actions with regard to the Constitution – was a repudiation of the wisdom of the founding fathers, specifically of George Washington. In his Farewell Address Washington noted that if the Constitution is to be altered "let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

Lincoln’s "change by usurpation," paved the way for so many other usurpations of constitutional liberty by the executive and judicial branches that today the Constitution is almost a dead letter altogether. Dean Sprague noted the significance of Lincoln’s "usurpations" by commenting that at the outbreak of the war "the federal government was not a real source of power." But once it demonstrated that it could abolish the opposition press and mass arrest any and all opponents of the ruling party "without any recourse to law," this established that the executive "had real power." Such an exhibition laid the groundwork for such unprecedented coercive measures as military conscription (which was loudly denounced in the North as "slavery") and income taxation.

On April 24, 1863, Lincoln issued General Order No. 100, known as the Lieber Code, which reiterated the accepted conventions of international law that existed at the time and which prohibited the intentional targeting of civilians in wartime. Those who did so were considered to be war criminals and should be prosecuted as such.

But from the very beginning, the Lincoln administration ignored its own Code as its armies pillaged, plundered, raped, and burned their way through the Southern states. In 1862 the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee, was burned to the ground by General Sherman even though there were no enemy combatants there. In 1863 Sherman burned Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi to the ground, again after the Confederate army had left. In a letter to General Grant, Sherman boasted that "for five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire, and I have no hesitation in pronouncing the work well done. Meridian . . . no longer exists."

Ninety percent of the buildings in Atlanta were destroyed despite the fact that there were no Confederate soldiers there, either. After the bombardment of Atlanta, an act that was prohibited by international law, Sherman evicted the remaining 2000 residents just as winter was arriving.

General Sheridan burned the entire Shenandoah Valley and his army stole or destroyed virtually all the private property there in the fall of 1864. Dozens of towns in Georgia and South Carolina were incinerated during "Sherman’s march," during which Sherman claimed in his memoirs that his soldiers destroyed $100 million in private property and stole another $20 million worth.

The pillaging and plundering of private property and the murder and rape of civilians was so widespread that even the pro-Sherman biographer Lee Kennett wrote in Marching through Georgia (page 286) that "had the Confederates somehow won . . . they would have found themselves justified . . . in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants."

When Lincoln first ran for public office in Illinois in 1832 he announced that "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." Lincoln was the political "son" of Alexander Hamilton, who first championed these mercantilist policies.

Mercantilism was the economic and political system that prevailed in Europe in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries under which special privileges were granted by kings and parliaments to a merchant elite in return for the political and economic support of that elite. It is the system that Adam Smith railed against in his magnum opus, The Wealth of Nations. Many of the pilgrims who came to America fled this corrupt system. King George’s attempt to impose this system on the American colonists, with all its state-sponsored monopolies and high taxes, led to the American Revolution.

There was always a group of ambitious politicians in America who wanted to bring this corrupt system across the Atlantic because, as corrupt and impoverishing as it was, it was a convenient tool for the accumulation of political power. First there was Hamilton and the Federalists, then Henry Clay and the Whigs, and then Lincoln and the Republicans. They all championed high protectionist tariffs that would plunder consumers for the benefit of manufacturers, corporate welfare for railroad and road-building corporations, and a central bank that could print money that was not redeemable in gold or silver that could finance all these adventures. They had almost no success at all until the entire agenda was imposed on the nation at gunpoint during Lincoln’s war.

Senator John Sherman, the chairman of the U.S Senate Finance Committee during the Lincoln administration and the brother of General William Tecumseh Sherman, announced the reason why the Republican Party chose Lincoln as its presidential nominee:

Those who elected Mr. Lincoln expect him...to secure to free labor its just right to the territories of the United States; to protect…by wise revenue laws, the labor of our people; to secure the public lands to actual settlers...; to develop the internal resources of the country by opening new means of communications between the Atlantic and Pacific.

David Donald interprets this statement "from the politician’s idiom" in Lincoln Reconsidered to mean: "Lincoln and the Republicans intended to enact a high protective tariff that mothered monopoly, to pass a homestead law that invited speculators to loot the public domain, and to subsidize a transcontinental railroad that afforded infinite opportunities for jobbery."

The Federalist/Whig/Republican policy of mercantilism was finally put into place during the first eighteen months of the Lincoln administration. The average tariff rate was tripled, and would remain that high or higher for decades after the war. The building of the government-subsidized transcontinental railroad (in California) was commenced even though a desperate war was being waged. The National Currency Acts and the Legal Tender Act finally created a central bank that could issue currency (greenbacks) that was not immediately redeemable in gold or silver. An income tax was adopted for the first time ever, as was military conscription, pervasive excise taxation, and the internal revenue bureaucracy was created. It was the triumph of American mercantilism and the beginning of the end of laissez faire capitalism in America.

Lincoln also repudiated the means by which slavery was ended in every other country on earth during the first 55 years of the nineteenth century: peacefully, through compensated emancipation. The U.S. was the only country in the entire world during that time where war was associated with emancipation. The British and Spanish empires, and the French and Danish colonies all chose the peaceful route to emancipation, which occurred in Argentina, Columbia, Chile, all of Central America, Mexico, Bolivia, Uruguay, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, and elsewhere prior to Lincoln’s war. Brazil ended slavery peacefully after the war. Ninety-four percent of all the slaves that were brought to the Western Hemisphere were brought to these countries; about 6 percent ended up in the United States. The former group was emancipated peacefully. Lincoln never utilized his legendary political skills to do what the rest of the world did with regard to slavery, and end it peacefully.

This is bound to be one reason why the great nineteenth century natural rights theorist, the Massachusetts abolitionist Lysander Spooner, wrote in 1870 that

All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing a "government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor" are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one.

Perhaps they ought not to deceive, but generations of court historians have seen to it that they have.

Attempts by the Confederate government to settle its differences with the Union were spurned by Lincoln...

He had to. There were laws that he had to see obeyed. Not only that, there was no confederate government; there were just some U.S. citizens trying to wrest by treason and force what thegy couldn't get in the courts.

What about the confederate government? Did you know that the CSA gov't passed a law in May, 1861 that required private owned to private creditors in the north be paid to the CSA treasury? Did Lincoln do anything that far outside the law?

Walt

In the long run, I believe slavery would've ultimately died out as a practice without a war, bcuz a) the increasing evangelization of the South by Protestant Christian preachers was gradually awakening Southerners to slavery's immorality,

Simply not supported by the facts. The two main evangelical religions, Methodist and Baptist, had already split over the issue of slavery into Northern and Southern branches. The Southern branch of each developed extensive Theological justifications for slavery and the southern PC police were on the constant look-out for any hint of abolitionist ministers who may sneak in from the North. When caught, their collar did not protect them from serious punishment. Moreover, the southern people, both slave-holders and non-slave holders alike, believed more in slavery in 1860 than they had 30 or 40 years earlier. Those who felt differently were forced to hold their views to themselves or face serious social, economic or even physical damage. The entire southern political, intellectual and religious effort over those 30 or so years was bent on justifying slavery and making it "guilt-free".

and b) the unleashed forces of the free market would have doomed it anyway.

Not for many decades if the South could continue the expansion of slavery which was the key to its profitability. Until the 1950s, cotton harvesting was still mostly done by hand by share croppers who were often indistinguishable from slaves. That is why Lincoln and the Free-Soil movement were such a serious threat to the slave power. Keep this in mind. If slavery had been confined to the 15 states where it existed in 1860, and slave populations continued to double every generation while white population grew little if at all, not only would the price of slaves have collapsed, but white southerners would have soon been outnumbered by a hostile captive population. The lessons of Haiti and Jamaica slave uprising were not lost on the southern people. Blocking expansion as Lincoln vowed to do, threatened not only the wealth of the slave powers, but threatened their lives and society as well. That is way expansion was paramount and why Lincoln and the Union needed to be destroyed.

DiLorenzo:

Lincoln also repudiated the means by which slavery was ended in every other country on earth during the first 55 years of the nineteenth century: peacefully, through compensated emancipation.

Nah.

"As you would perpetuate popular government for the best people in the world, I beseech you that you do in no wise admit this. Our common country is in great peril, demanding the loftiest views, and boldest action to bring it speedy relief. Once relieved, its form of government is saved to the world; its beloved history, and cherished memories, are vindicated; and it's happy future fully assured, and rendered inconceivably grand. To you, more than any others, the privilege is given, to assure that happiness, and swell that grandeur, and to link your own names therewith forever."

A. Lincoln, 7/12/62 to "border state" representatives.

It didn't take:

"When in March, and May and July 1862 I made earnest, and succcessive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable neccessity for military emancipation and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter. In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this, I was not entirely confident. More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force, no loss any how or any where. On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite one hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which there can be no cavilling. We have the men; and we could not have them without the measure.

And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. If he can not face his case so stated, it is only because he can not face the truth.

I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the Nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God."

4/4/64

We do NOT hate the United States of America, we wish to see the federal government bound by that which they promised to uphold. That being the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitution was spat upon by Lincoln, he ignored it, in order to "save it". What he ended up doing was creating a precedent where the Federal government was no longer for the people, by the people. It was from then on, a monstrous entity with no controls. IE: the Constitution of the United States. The federal government IGNORES the constitution, and Lincoln, may he rot in hell, was the one that started it.

I don't care who started the civil war or for what reasons, if Lincoln had FOLLOWED the letter of the constitution, there would NOT have been a civil war, the slaves would have been freed as they had been throughout the world peacefully, and the federal mess we have now would NOT exist.

I set this mess right in the lap of your socalled honest Abe. He was a dictator in all rights but name. The constitution was just so much toilet paper.

This makes Lincoln a traitor, and if he had not been assassinated, he should have been put up on charges and shot, just as Sherman should have been, but that's a whole other story.

Again, I don't care how much you LOVE Lincoln, it is at his feet that we can lay blame for the monstrosity that we have today.

The Constitution was spat upon by Lincoln, he ignored it, in order to "save it".

No, he didn't.

Non-Sequitur takes as his cross to bear the duplicity of the neo-rebs in giving J. Davis a free ride for doing the same things Lincoln did.

I'll take a page from hs text to say that Davis and Lincoln were at war. You do things differently in war than in peace -- especially a civil war.

The most important currency in war is information. A lack of information is why Al Qaeda was able to fly airliners into the WTC and Pentagon. A lack of information precludes us from catching Osama bin Laden -- he sure would get a kick out of us quarreling among our selves over something as silly as all this--. We need information to prosecute the war we are in now, and we are short of it. It is hard for us to get spies into our enemies' camps.

In the ACW, the same situation prevailed. Information was the commodity we needed, and arresting those who clearly had treasonous intent helped us prevail.

There is --something-- stuck in your craw. I don't know what it is, but it drives you to take a very unreasonable position.

Let's see; Lincoln and Davis do pretty much the same things -- Davis had 4,000 people locked up, and dozens of citizens loyal to the Union were hanged, simply for being loyal to the United States in the south. In the north --every single person arrested under Habeas Corpus was released unharmed.

So why is Lincoln condemned and Davis gets a free ride?

Oh, Davis was a slave holder. Got it.

Walt

That's like saying the bombing of a single naval base in Hawaii did not legitimize the atomic destruction of two civilian cities.

Your analogy is illogical. The bombing of Hiroshima did NOT stem directly from Pearl Harbor but from the circumstances of the next 4 years of war in between. Lincoln's invasion into the south and his blockade DID come as a direct result of that single incident at the fort. Might I also remind you that Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack with massive casualties and no hopes of taking the base whereas Sumter was an anticipated attack with zero casualties and a surrender of the fort on non violent terms.

Accepting for a moment that the confederate claims of independence was valid, then the confederacy initiated hostilities at Sumter

No, not really. The first shot was fired a day earlier from a yankee ship trying to impede access to the harbor.

The Union had war forced on them and carried it out to the end.

As always it all goes back to your shunning of responsibility. To you it is all "The south made us do it"

Again, I could not care less what Davis and the Southern Confederacy did, or did NOT do.

All I care about is what Lincoln did, by Declaring the constitution null and void, writ of habeaus corpus, arresting newspaper editors, shutting down newspapers etc, he destroyed the constitution. There is NEVER a time where the constitution can be just ignored, EVEN in time of war, either it is the rule book or it's not.

To say that the states did NOT have the right to secede, is repeating the same lie and propaganda that gave Lincoln the power he so obviously craved.

The states had a contract with the feds, the feds broke that contract, the states had the right to get out of the contract. It was taught as a state right in West point clear up to the civil war.

Lincoln was a traitor, pure and simple. And your backing him shows that you approve of the federal government we have now, and like the fact that the constitution can now be ignored, because the states have no power to enforce it.

THANKS TO YOUR HERO LINCOLN.

"The day before Fort Sumter the USS Harriet Lane fired a shot at the steamer Nashville as it was entering Charleston harbor. The Harriet Lane sought to block the Nashville from entering because it did not fly the union flag even though it was a confederate vessle entering a confederate port. It is traditionally considered the first shot of the war."

Wrong, wrong and wrong. It was April 12, while Sumpter was being shelled, not the day before. It was the USRC Harriet Lane, (U S Revenue Cutter) that fired a shot across the bow (they did not fire for effect) on the Nashville because the Nashville had no flag, US or CSA, on her mast. After the shot, the Nashville got the message and raised the Stars and Stripes and was allowed to pass. A US Cutter would have fired a shot across the bow of any ship entering a US Harbor that had no flag be it in 1861, 1821, or 2001. That is the protocol.

The federal government IGNORES the constitution, and Lincoln, may he rot in hell, was the one that started it.

You've been sold a bill of goods.

All Lincoln said, all that was asked of him, was to preserve the Union. Lincoln was gifted with a very powerful intellect, a furnace of ambition, a pragmatic, practical side and a great heart. That's a pretty good combination.

He asked, and I will ask you: Can aliens make treaties better than friends can make laws? Can we fend off al Quaeda better if we split up? I don't think so. Lincoln looked at the history of Europe. Jeepers, who wouldn't want to avoid that crock of crap? We had done it -- formed a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Through many trials and half steps we came to the Constitution. It may not be the best document for governing, but it is the best one extant.

You want some sort of pie in the sky nirvana that is simply NOT supported by what we know of human behavior. The framers tried a less stringent document. It was a failure. You seem to want another recipe for failure. George Washington knew it. He wrote to John Jay, 1786:

"Your sentiments that are affairs are rapidly drawing to a crisis, accord with my own. What the event will be is also beyond the reach of my foresight. We have errors to correct. We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt & carry into execution, measures the best calculated for their own good without a coercive power. I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."

The Constitution is the best document yet conceived for real life.

Walt

"Lincoln was a traitor, pure and simple."

That's not all: Lincoln was also seen cavorting with throngs of prostitutes during the darkest hours of the Civil War. Once, while travelling under the guise of "official business" (wink, wink) he stopped in an alley and challenged a blind man to a duel. Having disposed of his prey, Lincoln then consulted with his highest generals and concieved a plan to overrun Christmas Island and set up an international heroin ring with the proceeds going to fund his chronic gambling habit.

Another time, while undergoing methadone treatment, Lincoln smashed a half-empty bottle of formaldehyde across the face of a Colonel who was wounded previously at Chickamauga. This event was quickly hushed up, and the Colonel died 2 days later of "natural causes".

To say that the states did NOT have the right to secede, is repeating the same lie and propaganda that gave Lincoln the power he so obviously craved.

Lincoln never denied the right to secede.

He said:

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

He did say it was inconsistent with U.S. law and patently unfair in our situation in 1860-61.

"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 there 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... "

Now, look at Lincoln's words -- address what he --said-- and say why it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Walt

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.