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

Skip to comments.

Setting the Record Straight: Lincoln's Wisdom on the Politics of Race
Declaration Foundation ^ | December 8, 2002 | Dr. Richard Ferrier

Posted on 12/11/2002 3:15:37 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa

A minor scholar, an economist by the name of Thomas DiLorenzo, has been on an anti-Lincoln Jihad throughout the year 2002. His book, "The Real Lincoln," has led otherwise sound writers, like Paul Craig Roberts, to declare the Great Emancipator, "worse than [ the Cambodian mastermind of genocide] Pol Pot." Since Dr. Keyes and the Declaration Foundation take Lincoln to be a model of Declarationist Statesmanship, it behooves us to deal with the calumnies of Professor DiLorenzo, and we have done so throughout the year.

Today, I'd like to excerpt a section from our book, "America's Declaration Principles in Thought and Action," dealing with the charge made by DiLorenzo and many before him, mostly leftists, but also libertarians, that Lincoln showed himself a racist in the famous "Peoria Speech" of 1854. It is found in Chapter 8 of our book, which may be purchased online at www.declaration.net

As we read the Peoria speech today, one element jars our sensibilities: Lincoln does not take a stand for full political and social equality of the races. Some of the abolitionists of his day, especially the Quakers and other religious abolitionists, did. The 1854 laws of Maine set up in almost all respects what we would recognize today as equal civil rights, including jury duty and voting rights. But Maine was almost alone. Illinois' laws did not allow blacks to vote or serve on juries, and Illinois was typical of the free states.

In Peoria, Lincoln said this: "Let it not be said that I am contending for the establishment of political and social equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary." Was this statesmanlike too, or was it either weak or unwise, or even unjust?

We think Lincoln's position in the Peoria speech can be vindicated, and that it can be reconciled with his support for expanded civil rights towards the end of the Civil War, if two things are kept in mind. First, as Lincoln himself said in 1859, "In this country, public opinion is everything." Second, that the knowledge of the statesman is prudence, or practical wisdom, which consists in knowing how to move towards moral goals by practicable steps, not in "the immoderate pursuit of moral perfection" which, in political life, "will more often lead to misery and terror than to justice and happiness," as Thomas G. West puts it in his book on the founding.

To take the first point first, is it not self-evident that in a republic, where the citizens are governed by their consent, their opinion will be the court of last resort, the final arbiter of all disputes? That does not mean that those opinions will never change, or that it will not be the duty of a good man and especially of a statesman to mold them for the better. But a public man will ignore them at his peril. Lincoln turns this weapon back on Douglas in the Peoria speech, when he tells him that he will never be able to suppress the voice of the people crying out that slavery is unjust: "...the great mass of mankind...consider slavery a great moral wrong; and their feeling against it, is not evanescent, but eternal. It lies at the very foundation of their sense of justice; and it cannot be trifled with-It is a great and durable element of popular action, and I think, no statesman can safely disregard it."

Sir Francis Bacon wrote long ago that, "Nature, to be mastered, must be obeyed." The saying is equally true of the nature of the physical body and of the body politic. Public opinion, the soul of the political body, was ailing in the days after the Nebraska Bill, and Douglas was prescribing as medicine what Lincoln thought poison. That the patient should also take up a regimen of vigorous exercise after his recovery was not and should not have been the first thing on the doctor's list.

Lincoln never said that political equality between the races was wrong; the most complete expression of his early views on the matter came in the 1858 debates with Douglas, and he clothed them entirely in the language of feeling: "...[I said years ago[1] that] my own feelings would not admit a social and political equality between the black and white races, and that even if my own feelings would admit of it, I still knew that the public sentiment of the country would not, and that such a thing was an utter impossibility, or substantially that." And again, in the same debate, "I agree with Judge Douglas that he [the Negro] is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color- perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without the leave of any body else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man."

It must be remembered that the young Lincoln had said in 1838 that our passions, our feelings, were to be the enemy of our freedom in the future, and that reason, "cold sober reason," would be the friend of the principles of the Declaration. Only one feeling, an almost religious reverence for the founding ideals, would buttress that reason. It should also be pointed out that Lincoln said that he knew only that the feelings of his fellow citizens would not admit of equality. He was certain that there was an inequality of "color." He did not say that he was certain of the infinitely more important inequality of "intellectual and moral endowments." These he said, might be unequal... "perhaps."

Many causes, including prominently the religious conviction that all men are brothers, conspired to change public opinion in the United States towards the end of the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation, by altering the legal status of slaves and by encouraging them to flee their masters and seek refuge in the Union armies, had some effect. But the greatest source of the change was probably the testimony given in blood by the black soldiers who had served the Union. The number enlisted was reported by the President to Congress in January of 1864 to be over 100,000,[2] and Lincoln and many others thought that without their services, the war could not have been won. To a complaining Northern politician, James C. Conkling, who objected to fighting to "free negroes," Lincoln penned these memorable words: "...[when peace comes] it will then have been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it."

When a man will not fight to preserve his people and his principles, we call him a slave; when a slave does fight, we see in him a man. In antiquity, slaves who risked their lives to save their masters were often manumitted. They had proved their manhood. Lincoln wrote Conkling in the same letter, "If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept."

It cannot, alas, be said that the promise was perfectly kept. It would take a century more after the abolition of slavery for a new exercise of Declaration statesmanship to establish political equality without regard to race in this country. But the start was made in the time of Lincoln's stewardship.

Let us be blunt; if Lincoln had taken the full position of equal social and political rights, he would not have been electable to any statewide office in Illinois, neither in 1854, when he was a candidate for U.S. Senate and nearly won the nomination, nor in 1858, when he and Douglas had their memorable debates. He would not have become president in 1860, nor would any member of his party who took such a stand. He accomplished the good that he could, always insisting on the fundamental principle that in the fullness of time would yield such results. To achieve this good, he had to rekindle a reverence for the Declaration. Let us look briefly at how he did that in the Peoria speech.

Word, words, words. "Mere words" men say, and yet it is by the power of words that we take common counsel and learn to govern ourselves. We are free because we are made in the image of the all-wise God, and we have a bit of His light in our minds, and by that bit we strive to live according to His laws, the "laws of nature, and of nature's God." Of Divine things, St. Paul writes, "But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear of him without a preacher?"

Lincoln preached in Peoria. He preached the political religion he had declared must be preached years ago in Springfield. Douglas and the doctrine of popular sovereignty were "giving up the OLD faith... " Human equality and popular sovereignty were "as opposite as God and mammon..." Three times he calls the proposition that all men are created equal, the "ancient faith." Of the Nebraska Bill he says, "It hath no relish of salvation in it." He calls the Founders, "our revolutionary fathers," and "the fathers of the republic," stirring memories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He compares slavery to the fateful disobedience of Adam. He says: "Our republican robe is soiled, and trailed in the dust. Let us re-purify it. Let us turn and wash it white, in the spirit, if not the blood, of the Revolution."

Lincoln was like a great preacher in more than his scriptural language and his vision that America was founded on the Declaration as a kind of covenant or original creed, the "ancient faith." He endeavored to emulate the charity of great preaching, too, as when he admitted that "the Southern people" were "just what we would be in their situation," and when he said that "I surely will not blame them..." He stressed that Thomas Jefferson, the 'father Abraham' of the American covenant was "a Virginian by birth...a slaveholder..." He opened his speech by announcing that he did not "propose to question the patriotism, or to assail the motives of any man, or class of men...He. added that he wished "to be no less than national in all the positions" he would take. When he had suggested that "...a gradual emancipation might be adopted..." He immediately added, "but for their tardiness in this I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south." Thus, to political faith, he added political charity.

The climax of the speech actually occurs about three-fourths in; after that point Lincoln anticipates some of the points he expects Douglas to make in his final hour's response. The paragraph begins with "Our republican robe is soiled..." It ends with these words of salvation and hope, which we quote in full:

Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. Let north and south--let all Americans--let all lovers of liberty everywhere--join in the great and good work. If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union; but we shall have so saved it, as to make and keep it, forever worthy of the saving. We shall have so saved it, that the succeeding millions of free happy people, the world over, shall rise up, and call us blessed, to the latest generations.

In the Lyceum speech, Lincoln had concluded by urging the statesmen of his day to take the materials supplied by reason and mold them into intelligence, morality, and reverence for the law. "Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." At Peoria, he took his own advice, and became such a statesman.

----------------------------------------------

[1]In fact, it was in the Peoria speech. The text there runs, "whether this [feeling against equality] accords with justice and sound judgement, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals."

[2] By the end of the war, over 200,000 blacks had served in the Union armed forces, and 37,000 had died serving their country.

Dr. Richard Ferrier President


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: freedom; lincoln; union
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-158 next last
To: okchemyst
You, Walt...the fruitcake we get every year.

Now this really isn't being very fair to fruitcakes. Surely there are fruitcakes out there somewhere that are offended by this comment.
121 posted on 12/22/2002 4:10:48 PM PST by treesdream
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Care to address your absurd position on the habeas corpus issue any time soon, Walt?

"Those respecting the press, religion, & juries, with several others, of great value, were accordingly made; but the Habeas corpus was left to the discretion of Congress, and the amendment against the reeligibility of the President was not proposed by that body." - Thomas Jefferson, autobiography, 1821.

122 posted on 12/23/2002 12:49:45 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa; 4ConservativeJustices; stainlessbanner; billbears; Non-Sequitur; Ditto; Twodees; ...
Hey Walt. An examination of the historical record offers clear evidence that the suspension of habeas corpus is a legislative power under the Constitution, not an executive one as you and The Lincoln claim. Consider the following from Madison's record of debates at the Constitutional Convention:

"The privileges and benefit of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall be enjoyed in this Government, in the most expeditious and ample manner; and shall not be suspended by the Legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding months." - Proposal by Mr. Pickney, August 20.

The proposal, along with several others, was referred to committee for consideration without debate. It emerged in its proposed form eight days later when Gouverner Morris motioned to include the text "The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended; unless where in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

The record again clearly indicates that the power of Article 1, Section 9 pertaining to habeas corpus was of the legislature.

The same is recognized in the debate papers during ratification where references to the clause identify it as a legislative power. Take the following excerpt from the anti-federalist papers:

"In the same section it is provided, that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may require it." This clause limits the power of the legislature to deprive a citizen of the right of habeas corpus, to particular cases viz. those of rebellion and invasion; the reason is plain, because in no other cases can this power be exercised for the general good." - "Brutus" (Robert Yates) Number 9, The Anti-Federalist Papers

Also in the ratification debate, delegates to the Massachussetts ratification convention clearly identified the suspension power as one of the legislature. The following excerpt is from its record of debates on January 26, 1788. As one delegate observed:

"Supposing it had been, as in our constitution, "not exceeding twelve months," yet, as our legislature can, so might the Congress, continue the suspension of the writ [of Habeas Corpus] from time to time, or from year to year. The safest and best restriction, therefore, arises from the nature of the cases in which Congress are authorized to exercise that power at all, namely, in those of rebellion or invasion."

Another delegate argued that "Congress have only power to suspend the privilege to persons committed by their authority," again clearly recognizing the suspension power was with the legislature.

Thomas Jefferson clearly saw it as a legislative power as well, writing so in his autobiography:

"Those respecting the press, religion, & juries, with several others, of great value, were accordingly made; but the Habeas corpus was left to the discretion of Congress, and the amendment against the reeligibility of the President was not proposed by that body." - Thomas Jefferson, autobiography, 1821.

Considering the volume of evidence for this view among the founding fathers and other participants in the Constitution's framing, it of little surprise that Marshall ruled the way he did in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout in 1807:

"The decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the purpose of revising that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature. But this point also is decided in Hamilton's case and in Burford's case. If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide." - John Marshall, Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout (1807)

The same view appears in the two most prominent legal commentaries on the Constitution from the early 19th century. William Rawle, in his "A View of the Constitution of the United States," defines the suspension power as legislative:

"It is at any rate certain, that congress, which has authorized the courts and judges of the United States to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases within their jurisdiction, can alone suspend their power"

Echoing this position, Justice Joseph Story makes it clear that suspension is a legislative right alone in his "Commentaries on the Constitution," perhaps the most celebrated early text on the document: "It would seem, as the power is given to congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, that the right to judge, whether exigency had arisen, must exclusively belong to that body."

That pretty much covers it, Walt - a comprehensive list of historical documents and figures from the time of the Constitution's drafting and the decades immediately after, ALL of whom clearly recognize that the Constitution specifically gives the suspension power for habeas corpus to the legislature. To date you've only provided two sources who assert otherwise by claiming the executive has the power:

1. Abe Lincoln, who claimed it as his own (1861)
2. William Rehnquist, at a speech to a law school (modern times)

Now Walt, compare that against my list of sources that say it's a legislative power:

1. Madison's records of the Constitutional Convention (1787)
2. The Massachussetts ratification debate records (1788)
3. The Anti-Federalist Papers (1789)
4. John Marshall, in Ex Parte Bollman & Swartwout (1807)
5. Thomas Jefferson, in his autobiography (1821)
6. William Rawle, in "A View of the Constitution" (1826)
7. Joseph Story, in "Commentaries on the Constitution" (1833)
8. Roger Taney, in Ex Parte Merryman (1861)

Now tell me, Walt. Exactly where did Lincoln come up with that nonsense about a presidential power to suspend habeas corpus, and how in the world can you defend it considering it directly contradicts the overwhelming ammount of historical evidence from the U.S. Constitution's drafting, ratification, and implementation before it?

123 posted on 12/23/2002 2:44:30 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Hey Walt. An examination of the historical record offers clear evidence that the suspension of habeas corpus is a legislative power under the Constitution, not an executive one as you and The Lincoln claim.

The Constitution nowhere says what the president may do in regards to the Writ. It only says what Congress may or may not do.

As I have suggested before, the perception of the powers of the three branches was different in 1861 than it is now. The power of the Supreme Court extended only to - particular cases-. Had the issue come before the Supreme Court in the form of a -case-, which it never did, and Lincoln ignore -that- then you might have a beef with Lincoln.

You are making an historical judgment on an historical person.

I think we can pretty much say that the current Chief Justice is familiar with all your data and he said (as you know):

"Lincoln, with his usual incisiveness, put his finger on the debate that inevitably surrounds issues of civil liberties in wartime. If the country itself is in mortal danger, must we enforce every provision safeguarding individual liberties even though to do so will endanger the very government which is created by the Constitution? The question of whether only Congress may suspend it has never been authoritatively answered to this day, but the Lincoln administration proceeded to arrest and detain persons suspected of disloyal activities, including the mayor of Baltimore and the chief of police."

-- Chief Justice William Rhnhquist, November 17, 1999.

Walt

124 posted on 12/23/2002 3:25:25 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Lincoln had sent a personal messenger, Robert Chew, with the letter and instructions to deliver the letter to Governor Pickens. This was done on April 6. Pickens literally knew about the plan before Major Anderson did.

Forgive me, sir, I was mixed up on the time line. I was thinking of another letter that was sent to Major Anderson telling him that if necessary to surrender Sumter and nothing would be held against him. That one never made it to him.

The cause of the country was advanced to some extent, the length to which Jefferson Davis wanted war rather than a peaceful solution were exposed.

I think you are leaving some factors out. There was a great amount of "footsie" being played with the delegation that was sent to DC, vis a vis the Secretary of State, in regards to Sumter and Pickens. If you put yourself in Davis's shoes, you would have one thing being said to your delegation and a threat (more or less) being delivered to the Governor of South Carolina. Couple that with threats on the floor of the House and Senate, and you have a very volatile situation. President Davis knew what would happen if a war was started and he did not want it. If you would have to make a decision based upon hearing conflicting things from the US govt, US military, and what you knew prior to leaving Washington, what would you have done? I know I would have let the fort be provisioned and take a chance on President Lincoln keeping his word because, quite frankly, any action started by Sumter or any of the ships would have been suicide. They would have been shot to pieces by the shore batteries.

But if a war was to come, then it had to be the south that started it.

Does that mean we agree it was provoked?

But there were hundreds of officers not at Sumter who ended the war as generals, too. Were they paid off as well?

No, but Major Anderson rose to General really fast. I find it peculiar that he was so quickly promoted for what was for all purposes a defeat and President Lincoln feeling the need to explain a few things to him. Maybe not a smoking gun but very peculiar none the less.
125 posted on 12/23/2002 7:44:45 AM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Grant had little choice but to shell sections of the city since the confederate army chose to hole up there. Had confederate troops taken over Baltimore or Annapolis, very real possibilities, extreme measures could have been called for.

Agreed, sir. Having enemy troops holed up and shooting back at you in a time of war from a city is another ballgame entirely and I personally think justification could be made in that case. Hyperbole or not, that was an order from the President to his Commanding General and there were no hostile armies in those population centers at that time.
126 posted on 12/23/2002 7:48:21 AM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Thebaddog
Hello freepers...i need some help. I have some uninformed people at work today that have never heard all the racist statements by various democrats(byrd, hillary, hollings etc...). Is there a short synopsis of dem gaffes that i can link to and print out so i can shut these people up??? help please!!!!
127 posted on 12/23/2002 7:50:25 AM PST by chasio649
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
But the Germans could and did evacuate all non-essential persons. Your statement is simply not correct.

Is it? Tell that to the citizens of a German city that was bombed and the Allied POW's who were ordered to clean up the charred remains. I don't remember the name of the city off the top of my head (either Cologne, Frankfurt, or Hamburg). That particular city held no real military value and it was done purely as an act of revenge for London being bombed.

Besides that, you are making a comparison from a completely different point of view. One was a declared war, the other was a civil matter that (thank God) did not require General Scott fulfilling his order to shell the citizens of various cities in Maryland.
128 posted on 12/23/2002 7:54:11 AM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Show that in the record.

Hello? Shelling population centers ring a bell?
129 posted on 12/23/2002 7:55:08 AM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Although Lincoln always held out the hand of forgiveness and conciliation to the rebels...

Provocation of the fall of Sumter, Shenandoah Valley, Camp Chase, Atlanta, New Orleans, Columbia, Charleston.... Hand of forgiveness and conciliation. Right. Sure. Pull the other leg, Walt, it plays Jingle Bells.

...he told a delegation from Maryland that if 75,000 Marylanders opposed the passage of Union troops, they might find 75,000 graves.

As well as he should have. A stand up fight is one thing, killing non-combattants is another. One is honorable, the other is simply killing for the sake of killing.

You criticise President Lincoln because you don't fancy the outcome of the war.
It's just more "mean old Lincoln kicked our rebel butts!"


No, Walt, just counter point to those who pass on the Lincoln lie as some kind of absolute truth.
130 posted on 12/23/2002 8:02:49 AM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
There were 60-odd confederate leaders who were indicted for treason or related charges....

We may differ on why Chief Justice Chase refused to try those who were indicted but I was just pointing out WP's penchant for conviently forgetting the "innocent until proven guilty" clause of the Constitution. I have something else you may be interested in. During the war, there was at least one military tribunal for treason in Maryland:

Another interesting military commission was one held for Samuel C. Betts, a citizen of Maryland, accused of treason. Betts was taken prisoner while in uniform in the ranks of the Confederate army near Rappahanock Ford on February 25, 1863. The commission met on March 3, 1863, at the headquarters of the Army of the Potomac located at camp near Falmouth, Virginia. The commission was headed by Brig. Gen. Daniel E. Sickles, who in three months' time, while commanding III Corps at Gettysburg would receive a wound that cost him his right leg. Betts was found guilty and sentenced "to be hung with a rope by the neck until dead." The Judge Advocate General noted that the sentence could not be enforced since the record shows the individual was a prisoner of war having been captured in uniform in the rebel ranks. The President agreed, writing, "Disapproved. The record showing clearly that the accused is a prisoner of war & should be treated as and exchanged."

13. File MM148, entry 15, Court-Martial Case Files, RG 153, NARA.

131 posted on 12/23/2002 8:23:25 AM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; WhiskeyPapa
Gentlemen, have yourselves a Merry Christmas and a wonderful holiday.
132 posted on 12/23/2002 8:24:37 AM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: wasp69
Although Lincoln always held out the hand of forgiveness and conciliation to the rebels...

Provocation of the fall of Sumter, Shenandoah Valley, Camp Chase, Atlanta, New Orleans, Columbia, Charleston.... Hand of forgiveness and conciliation. Right. Sure. Pull the other leg, Walt, it plays Jingle Bells.

All through 1862 President LIncoln suggested compensated emancipation if the rebel states would agree to acknowledge the national authority. Late in 1862 he determined on an emancipation proclamation. Even that- had a provision for slave holders to keep their slaves if, within 100 days the national authority was acknowledged.

In February 1865, President Lincoln suggested that $400,000,000 in bonds be made available to the rebel states if they would acknowledge the national authority.

President Lincoln always held out the hand of concilation and forgiveness to the rebels. The record is plain on that.

Walt

133 posted on 12/23/2002 8:28:37 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Walt, you will never get an argument from me that the "best friend to the South" died at the hands of a deranged idiot. There is no doubt in my mind that things would have been much different if President Lincoln had lived. However, giving the examples that I did, that hand of forgiveness and conciliation was more like a saltine to a starving man.
134 posted on 12/23/2002 8:40:07 AM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: wasp69
Show that in the record.

Hello? Shelling population centers ring a bell?

"Lincoln," Henry Grady said, "comprehended within himself all the strength, and gentleness, all the majesty and grace of the republic." He was indeed, the first American, "the sum of Puritan and Cavalier, in whose ardent nature were fused the virtues of both, and in whose great soul the faults of both were lost."

Although President Lincoln clearly held out the hand of forgiveness and reconciliation to the rebels, he was not willing to leave the game with "any card unplayed."

The rebels took the lead in atrocity and immorality. They reaped what they sowed.

Consider this from Jim Epperson's website:

12/24/62: Jefferson Davis issues a proclamation which states (1) White officers of black troops will not be treated as POWs; (2) The black troops themselves will not be treated as POWs; (3) Union Maj. Gen. Benjamin Butler is to be hanged w/o trial immediately upon being captured; (4) No Union officers will be paroled until Butler is caught and hanged. All four of these provisions were violations of the Dix-Hill Cartel.

12/28/62: In response to Davis's proclamation, the Federals end the exchange and parole of Confederate officers.

5/25/63: Non-exchange and parole of Confederate officers is re-affirmed in orders from Halleck to all commanders in the field. This is done largely in respone to the CS Congress passing a law implementing a small variation of Davis's 12/24/62 proclamation.

7/13/63: Secretary of War Stanton orders an end to the exchange and parole of enlisted men. This is done largely because of increasing arguments over the parole provisions of the cartel, and the feeling that this aspect of the agreement is (unfairly) being manipulated by the Confederates to their advantage.

Fall, 1863: Confederates return to service most of the Vicksburg garrison, an act which the Federals claim is not justified by the cartel. This hardens Federal attitudes towards the exchange process. So, as of 1/1/64, the exchange cartel is more or less entirely disrupted, as a result of reasonable objections being made by the Federals...

4/17/64: Lt. Gen. US Grant issues orders that exchanges remain halted until the Confederates compensate the Yankees for the release of the Vicksburg garrison, *and* agree to treat black soldiers equally with white. Grant's role was to confirm a policy already in place, a policy reached as a result of difficulties in managing the cartel. Grant's views on exchange are well-known: He thought it was a bad idea. There's a quote from him to the effect that re-opening exchange might be humanity towards the men in the camps, but keeping it closed was humanity towards the men in the ranks. That's a harsh judgement, but it is no less accurate for being harsh."

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html

It was the so-called CSA that brought war in the raw down on their own heads by their cruelty and immorality.

Walt

135 posted on 12/23/2002 8:40:14 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: wasp69
Gentlemen, have yourselves a Merry Christmas and a wonderful holiday.

And the same to you. :)

Walt

136 posted on 12/23/2002 8:41:12 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
It was the so-called CSA that brought war in the raw down on their own heads by their cruelty and immorality.

Sorry, Walt, it was Lincoln who showed his true colors in May of 1861 no matter how much of someone elses biased analysis you may hold up as a rebuttal. Besides, do you think a random General (Butler) was picked just because? Nice try, Butler would have earned any treatment he got for his actions in the Hampton Roads area.
137 posted on 12/23/2002 8:45:49 AM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: wasp69
It was the so-called CSA that brought war in the raw down on their own heads by their cruelty and immorality.

Sorry, Walt, it was Lincoln who showed his true colors in May of 1861 no matter how much of someone elses biased analysis you may hold up as a rebuttal.

What did President Lincoln do in May, 1861 that you find offensive?

Walt

138 posted on 12/23/2002 10:12:53 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: wasp69
Besides, do you think a random General (Butler) was picked just because?

Butler was picked, and remained in positions of authority because he was a major player in the Democratic Party.

After Lincoln was re-elected, Butler was sent packing.

Walt

139 posted on 12/23/2002 10:16:14 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
The Constitution nowhere says what the president may do in regards to the Writ.

Sure it does - nothing. Since the writ itself is enumerated specifically to the legislature's domain, logic dictates that it cannot be implicit to the executive's power. As I have evidenced thoroughly, practically every founding father and early constitutional scholar to weigh in on this subject agrees with me on this. All you've got is Abe Lincoln, the culprit himself, and Bill Rehnquist. Your sources simply do not compare to mine. Therefore you lose.

As I have suggested before, the perception of the powers of the three branches was different in 1861 than it is now.

Irrelevant. The evidence conclusively demonstrates that the reading of the constitution under its original intent by the men who framed it sought the suspension power to be the domain of the legislature. The Lincoln had no credible reason to act as he did.

The power of the Supreme Court extended only to - particular cases-.

Marbury termed it as the following: "The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution." That being noted, there was a particular case in 1861 called Ex Parte Merryman. The Lincoln ignored it because he didn't like the outcome.

Had the issue come before the Supreme Court in the form of a -case-, which it never did

It never came before the Supreme Court because The Lincoln refused to appeal it there even though it was his burden to do so. Try again.

and Lincoln ignore -that- then you might have a beef with Lincoln.

So in other words, you are saying he's free to ignore a circuit court ruling but not a supreme court ruling?

You are making an historical judgment on an historical person.

Yup, and I'm doing so by providing overwhelming historical evidence that the act of that historical person was unconstitutional.

I think we can pretty much say that the current Chief Justice is familiar with all your data and he said (as you know):

It's unfortunate if the guy is wrong, but that's just the way things go some times. He can call the issue unsettled all he wants, but that will never change the fact that the constitutional convention's records indicate the power was legislative, not executive.

Needless to say, my list including Taney, Marshall, Jefferson, Rawls, Story, the ratification debates, and Madison's notes from the constitutional convention still outweighs your list containing the crime's perpetrator and Rehnquist. But by all means try again, Walt. I enjoy watching you make an idiot of yourself.

140 posted on 12/23/2002 11:02:04 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-158 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