Posted on 12/11/2002 3:15:37 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
When cases of rebellion or invasion exist, the Constitution allows this.
Stop making excuses for traitors.
Walt
it's about covering up the UN-lawful, hatefilled, arrogant, ignorant,statist, stupid acts of the damnyankees, not to speak of the THOUSANDS of WAR CRIMES committed against innocent civilians & Confederate POWs in the "care" of the filth that came down from the north.
free dixie,sw
Or this treasure from Article IV, Sections 19 through 21 of the Virginia Constitution
19. Slaves hereafter emancipated shall forfeit their freedom by remaining in the Commonwealth more than twelve months after they become actually free, and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to prescribe proper regulations for reducing such negroes to slavery.
20. The General Assembly may profit the future emancipation of slaves, impose such restrictions and conditions as they shall deem proper on the power of slave owners to emancipate their slaves; and may pass laws for the relief of the Commonwealth from the free negro population, by removal or otherwise.
21. The General Assembly shall not emancipate any slave, or the descendant of any slave, either before or after the birth of such descendant.
Pretty much, yeah. Lincoln made his intentions clear in letters to Governor Pickens and Major Anderson, the ships would unload provisions only unless opposition to that action was shown by the southern forces. Then arms and men should be landed. Had Davis not fired on Sumter then the status quo would have continued and a negotiated settlement might have eventually been reached. Instead Davis ordered Beauregard to open fire, and death and destruction throughout the south was the result.
My dear Sir: The Maryland Legislature assembles to-morrow at Anapolis; and, not improbably, will take action to arm the people of that State against the United States. The question has been submitted to, and considered by me, whether it would not be justifiable, upon the ground of necessary defence, for you, as commander in Chief of the United States Army, to arrest, or disperse the members of that body. I think it would not be justifiable; nor, efficient for the desired object.
First, they have a clearly legal right to assemble; and, we can not know in advance, that their action will not be lawful, and peaceful. And if we wait until they shall have acted, their arrest, or dispersion, will not lessen the effect of their action.
Secondly, we can not permanently prevent their action. If we arrest them, we can not long hold them as prisoners; and when liberated, they will immediately re-assemble, and take their action. And, precisely the same if we simply disperse them. They will immediately re-assemble in some other place.
I therefore conclude that it is only left to the commanding General to watch, and await their action, which, if it shall be to arm their people against the United States, he is to adopt the most prompt, and efficient means to counteract, even, if necessary, to the bombardment of their cities---and in the extremest necessity, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Your Obedient Servant
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Note that Lincoln was advocating violence only if the state entered into armed rebellion against the Federal government. Why should Maryland have been treated any differently than any of the other confederate states?
Wrong. The Executive does not have the power to decide that none of the claimants is the "legitimate" government - he must recognize one of the sides as the legitimate government.
"By this act, the power of deciding whether the exigency had arisen upon which the government of the United States is bound to interfere is given to the President. He is to act upon the application of the legislature or of the executive [of the state in question], and consequently he must determine what body of men constitute the legislature, and who is the governor, before he can act. The fact that both parties claim the right to the government cannot alter the case, for both cannot be entitled to it. If there is an armed conflict like the one of which we are speaking, it is a case of domestic violence, and one of the parties must be in insurrection against the lawful government. And the President must, of necessity, decide which is the government and which party is unlawfully arrayed against it before he can perform the duty imposed upon him by the act of Congress."
Chief Justice Taney, Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1 (1849)
Thus, Lincoln had the power to act without waiting for a request from a Governor or State Legislature.
"[U]pon the application of the governor under the charter government, the President recognized him as the executive power of the State."
"It is the second clause in the same section [Militia Act of 1795] which authorizes the call to suppress an insurrection against a State government. The power given to the President in each case is the same, with this difference only, that it cannot be exercised by him in the latter case except upon the application of the legislature or executive of the State."
Chief Justice Taney, Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1 (1849)
-- from the ACW moderated newsgroup.
I'd get away from relying on newsgroups. Moderated or not.
My argument was that on balance Lincoln was not a force for tyranny. You brought up tariffs. I responded that tariffs were a matter of ordinary government policy. I would have gone further into this but we have rehashed the issue at length earlier. It's clear that neither Washington, nor Hamilton, nor Madison considered protective tariffs tyrannical or incompatible with liberty. On balance, I said, Lincoln was a force for more, not less liberty.
You've insisted that the discussion was about tariffs and that my mention of slavery was a "red herring." But slavery is something that has to be taken into the balance. It was an implicit part of my argument from the beginning. And if you look at the thread title, it's "Setting the Record Straight: Lincoln's Wisdom on the Politics of Race ," and clearly has more to do with slavery than with tariffs. on
If you want to talk about tariffs in isolation, fine, but don't act as though a broader focus is somehow illegitimate or a "red herring." Seen in the context of history or of the thread, a narrow and inclusive focus on tariffs, looks like a real "red herring."
There were hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of people who disagreed with Lincoln about tariffs, yet agreed with him about slavery and secession, and on balance regretted his passing. And there were tens of thousands or more who agreed with Lincoln on tariffs, yet still fought against him on other grounds. If you do want to talk about tariffs in isolation from other factors, Non-Sequitur may still be waiting for the extended economic analysis you offered to provide him with two weeks ago.
But for the record: The argument against taxation without representation advanced during the revolution doesn't allow those who throw away their right to representation to cry about tax levels. And the idea of your "guys" at Mises Institute not imposing a narrow orthodoxy on their fellows is laughable. In grammatical English, we do not use articles before proper names. And "diefy" is not a word.
The fealing is mutual.
You habitually ignore, avoid or dismiss out of hand views that don't accord with yours.
I don't believe I've excessively avoided or dismissed that which is at hand in the conversation. I will readily concede to dismissing your little slavery equivalency charade, but I've already stated my reasons for doing so and stand by them as sound. Beyond that I would ask that you specify your allegations as I don't believe I've committed in any serious way what you accuse me of doing.
That's par for the course, but what's offensive is the way you change what the argument is about and attack others for not arguing what you think they should.
As is often the case with you, that statement would be well suited for a mirror. As for your allegation, I think we may assess its merits in the history of this discussion. You began with the comment that various political policies of The Lincoln, most of them economic, were not a recipe for big government. I challenged that assertion and made the case that they were. Rather than responding to my case, you threw the issue of slavery in the bag, evidently with hopes that by doing so you could respond not by addressing the intrinsic problems raised by economic policies under The Lincoln, but instead by their relative position as gauged by you through the lens of slavery. I then responded by pointing out the fallacy of that tactic and calling you to task on using it, to which you respond now by alleging that I'm trying to restrict your argument to my mold, and that is where we stand right now.
Now, it seems to me that your grievance is based on my dismissal of your attempt to use a tactic of diversion to alter the debate's subject matter into what you percieve to be your favor. That being the case, I respond that your grievance is without merit because it pertains to my refusal of your attempted manuever for similar lack of merit.
My argument was that on balance Lincoln was not a force for tyranny.
Your initial argument was that a list of The Lincoln's economic policies provided in your earlier post were not themselves a recipe for tyranny. I responded to that point, and you responded to me with a relativist judgment of them through the lens of slavery, an issue that is not intrinsic to the discussion of those policies.
I responded that tariffs were a matter of ordinary government policy.
That you did, and I offered my response as it pertains to taxing policy's relation to tyranny. I do not see any further response from you.
It's clear that neither Washington, nor Hamilton, nor Madison considered protective tariffs tyrannical or incompatible with liberty.
Nor do I suggest that protective tariffs are always tyrannical or incompatable with liberty. I do say though that abusive taxing policies are tyrannical and incompatible with liberty and, considering the presence of that issue as a central point of contention in the American Revolution, I do not believe you could successfully maintain that the founding fathers would disagree.
On balance, I said, Lincoln was a force for more, not less liberty.
That is your belief and you are entitled to argue it. Mine is that the gains in liberty under The Lincoln were outweighed by the losses in liberty caused in the denial of life by war, the destruction of homes and livlihood by the practices of that war, and the continued expansion of government power as a result of that war. It is my belief that The Lincoln won a pyrrhic victory.
You've insisted that the discussion was about tariffs and that my mention of slavery was a "red herring."
When you randomly toss out the issue of slavery as a relative standard by which to view all else that is being discussed, your mention of it is a red herring.
But slavery is something that has to be taken into the balance.
Yes, in a discussion of the war as a whole. But you threw it out there during a discussion of several specific economic issues and then proceded to use it as a relative standard by which to view those issues. As an argument, that type of a tactic is unsupportable.
If you want to talk about tariffs in isolation, fine, but don't act as though a broader focus is somehow illegitimate or a "red herring."
I would not do that to a broader focus. I would react that way, and did so accordingly, in the event that what you purport to be a broader practice is in reality a diversionary fish thrown out to reorient the discussion away from intrinsic consideration of The Lincoln's policies to a relative judgement of them through the lens of an issue external to their discussion, slavery.
There were hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of people who disagreed with Lincoln about tariffs, yet agreed with him about slavery and secession, and on balance regretted his passing. And there were tens of thousands or more who agreed with Lincoln on tariffs, yet still fought against him on other grounds.
Every cause has its minority of opponents somewhere. The fact that they exist does not make them equal in size to those opposite of them. In this particular case, the country divided over the tariff along lines virtually identical to the war as is evidenced in the May 1860 House vote on the Morrill tariff.
If you do want to talk about tariffs in isolation from other factors, Non-Sequitur may still be waiting for the extended economic analysis you offered to provide him with two weeks ago.
Non-Sequitur did not indicate during the course of that discussion that his interests were in doing so, or if he did, I must have missed it. I attempted this once before with him several months ago and went into extensive detail with formulas and import-export figures, but he ignored it and went back to the same old line of entry ports he has been towing ever since. Therefore I am hesitant to expend the effort as long as he is unreceptive to it. If he will indicate otherwise, I will do my best to accomodate him. But until then...
But for the record: The argument against taxation without representation advanced during the revolution doesn't allow those who throw away their right to representation to cry about tax levels.
Your argument here smells of chickens and eggs. One could just as easily say that the action of removing itself from the union government was in part brought about by the advancing installment of a the very same tax. Did the tax cause them to leave, or did they leave causing the tax? Citing the May 1860 sectional trends, I say the tax. If you care to argue differently you are free to do so.
And the idea of your "guys" at Mises Institute not imposing a narrow orthodoxy on their fellows is laughable.
If you wish to make your case, please do so. I'll happily do the same with Claremont though and point out that Claremont's network extends much deeper than you allege of "ours."
In grammatical English, we do not use articles before proper names.
Yet concepts are a different story. If you have not yet noticed, I maintain that the concept of The Lincoln, espoused by many around here, is significantly different from the man Abraham Lincoln in his worldly existence.
And "diefy" is not a word.
Neither is "demostrate" for that matter. On that note, I anticipate that you see the sillyness and potential dangers of letting this slip into a game of "typo patrol." If you have anything further to offer to this discussion though, I look forward to it.
"All men?" Except, of course, those Americans who opposed his unconstitutional policies. Tell us again, friend Walt, about your opinion of Mr. Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, by which means he imprisoned many "men, everywhere," without benefit of trial. Perhaps you have forgotten Mr. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion on the suspension of the writ, or that of Mr. Justice Story, or that of Mr. Chief Justice Taney. Shall I refresh your memory?
Enjoy!
;>)
You seem to be confused: your friend Walt seems to quote Jefferson Davis quite a bit more than any Freepers "from the southron contingent." And Walt is just as confused as you appear to be - he can't quite decide whether he is quoting 'Jefferson Davis the Statesman,' who's words would apparently be worth quoting, or 'Jefferson Davis the Despicable Traitor,' who's words we should presumably ignore.
But then, most of us have learned to expect nothing BUT confusion 'from the northern contingent'...
;>)
;>)
A. Lincoln, 1862
"I expect to maintain this contest until successful, or till I die, or am conquered, or my term expires, or Congress or the country forsakes me..."
A. Lincoln 6/28/62
Nothing Lincoln did was shown to be unconstitutional.
The only place to show that was in the courts, and the rebels dared not go there.
Walt
So you put Davis in the "Ethel Rosenburg" category, not the "Julius Rosenburg" category? ;-)
Did you see this thing on the exploration of the Bismarck?
Out of 700 14" and 16" shells fired at almost pointblank range they only found two penetrations of the belt armor. They found no important damage from the three torpedo hits form Dorcetshire. The Germans scuttled her.
The one torpedo hit fom the Swordfish caused massive damage to the starboard rudder and penetrated the hull, pushing the rudder into the center screw.
The show perpetrated the idea that Bismarck and not Prinz Eugen delivered the fatal shot to Hood, although I heard years ago that it was Eugen and not Bismarck that hit the Hood's magazine.
Prinz Eugen survived the war and wound up as a test dummy in one of the A-bomb tests.
Walt
He's clearly implicated. Didn't Lincoln allow his navy to begin conversion to iron-clad warships?
Walt
The neo-rebs don't much care for quotes from people of the Civil War era. The record doesn't support their rant.
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.