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

To: wasp69
With respect, you left out a couple of key passages there.

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?

65 posted on 12/12/2002 10:21:28 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
With respect, you left out a couple of key passages there.

Yes, sir, I did and that was why I posted a link. My point, to Walt, was President Lincoln was not the "lover of freedom for all men" that he presents him as. I am fully aware of the history of that time and used that part of his letter for a specific purpose. To put it into other words:

President Lincoln was prepared to shell cities in Maryland to counteract the 75,000 men that were supposed to be on the borders. Contrast that with the ending of segregation. In both Alabama and Arkansas, regular troops faced off against both state's National Guard. Both ended peacefully after some tense moments. Two Republican Presidents, two very different responses. One was an eye to eye face off that ended peacefully and the other was instructions to bomb cities.
85 posted on 12/13/2002 7:21:55 AM PST by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

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