Posted on 12/26/2002 9:05:17 AM PST by berserker
Edited on 07/20/2004 11:48:10 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The devil must be ice-skating. Richmond is getting a statue of Abraham Lincoln.
Many Virginians and other die-hard Southerners may be flabbergasted by this news. After all, it has been widely held for generations that Richmond would have a statue of Lincoln when hell froze over.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
Thomas DiLorenzo has published a book telling the truth.
Why don't you publish one telling your lies?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo31.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html
Anybody want to start a fund?
Thomas DiLorenzo has published a book telling the truth.
But it's not a very important issue to you, or you'd have the data you want at your fingertips.
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession." January 23, 1861
"All the South has ever desired is that the union, as formed by our founding fathers, should be preserved." Jan 5. 1866
-- now that -- is two faced.
Show that Lincoln ever said anything like that.
Here's another interesting little factoid for you:
" Madam, do not train up your children with hostility to the government of the United States. Remember, we are all one country now. Dismiss from your mind all sectional feeling, and bring them up to be Americans."
--Robert E. Lee, 1867.
So I don't see why anyone would take issue with a statue of President Lincoln, do you?
Walt
"Bind up the nation's wounds"
"Our fathers* brought forth a new nation"
(lincolon lies and spin are in red text)
Federalist 39:
"The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national"--James Madison *One of "our fathers" the spinmeister referred to
Wasn't lincolon a revisionist?
That would be true if I did not have a life outside this little chat universe, like you don't.
If it's important to someone to discover the truth about what you're spinning, it will be important enough to them to search your voluminous nonsense in FR, where you have been thoroughly and soundly dispatched and refuted, and not just to read this page.
"The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national"
--James Madison *One of "our fathers" the spinmeister referred to
"In order, therefore, to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, to provide for common defense and to secure the blessings of liberty, those people, among whom were the people of Georgia, ordained and established the present constitution. By that constitution, legislative power is vested, executive power is vested, judicial power is vested...We may then infer, that the people of the United States intended to bind the several states, by the legislative power of the national government...
Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the constitution, will be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes. They instituted, for such purposes, a national government complete in all its parts, with powers legislative, executive and judiciary, ad in all those powers extending over the whole nation. "
John Jay, first Chief Justice, 1793:
"It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, "We the people of the United States," 'do ordain and establish this Constitution." Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a state to govern themselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national Government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc."
--Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793
Chief Justice John Marshall:
"The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, as far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done by confining their choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of Congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conducive to the end...to have prescribed the means by which the government, should, in all future times, execute its powers, would have been to change, entirely, the character of the instrument, and give it the properties of a legal code...To have declared, that the best means shal not be used, but those alone, without which the power given would be nugatory...if we apply this principle of construction to any of the powers of the government, we shall find it so pernicious in its operation that we shall be compelled to discard it..."
From McCullough v. Maryland, quoted in "American Constitutional Law" A.T. Mason, et al. ed. 1983 p. 165
As to Virginia:
"The mischievous consequences of the construction contended for on the part of Virginia, are also entitled to great consideration. It would prostrate, it has been said, the government and its laws at the feet of every state in the Union. And would this not be the effect? What power of the government could be executed by its own means, in any states disposed to resist its execution by a course of legislation?...each member will possess a veto on the will of the whole...there is certainly nothing in the circumstances under which our constitution was formed; nothing in the history of the times, which justify the opinion that the confidence reposed in the states was so implicit as to leave in them and their tribunals the power of resisting or defeating, in the form of law, the legislative measures of the Union..."
ibid, p. 169-70
And James Madison: "The doctrine laid down by the law of Nations in the case of treaties is that a breach of any one article by any of the parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact had always been understood to exclude such an interpretation." (Remarks to the Constitutional Convention, July 23, 1787).
And:
"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, then the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of --98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created...."
(James Madison, Writings; Rakove, Jack N., editor; The Library of America; 1999; p. 862)
In March, 1833, he wrote to William Cabell Rives as follows:
"The nullifiers it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality are effectually transferred by it, and the dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hands of a soldier without a sword in it.
The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all.
"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdrasw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a state, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst. (sic) their bretheren of other States, not to expose them, to the dangers of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtrude it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!"
(ibid; pp. 864, 865)
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government and in that character, they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and in many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory. The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of of the United States are absolutely void. These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empire--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate."
--Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the majority opinion, Cohens v. Virginia 1821
You can play that federalist 39 tune all you like.
There is not a nickel's worth of difference in the way that Washington, Madison, Jefferson,Jackson and Lincoln viewed the Constitution.
Walt
Head of the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who is quoted in the original article with a statement in opposition to the erection of the statue of Lincoln in Richmond, Virginia.
Commander Brag Bowling
The Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, on their website, has included the Pledge to the Confederate Flag, which reads as follows:
I salute the Confederate Flag with affection, reverence and undying devotion to the Cause for which it stands.
Maybe he'll remember that comment the next time he wonders why blacks (the descendants of people enslaved by the culture of his ancestors) get upset over Confederate flags and monuments. Maybe he'll remember that comment when blacks act like they don't like the term "states rights" which was used as a defense of legal, forced segregation into the early to mid 1960s. After all, a century of apartheid into generations which are currently middle aged does tend to make a people peevish.
Lincoln was a man, a railroad lawyer and sometimes bum, with a super sized ego, that knew no bounds.
The only problem with booth plan was he didn't do it soon enough, and allow the democrats and copperheads to win the 64 election, thus resulting in a negotiated peace.
BTW that is why Powell reminds me so much of McClellan, he was the democratic candidate with a secret plan to end the war.
"The main excitant impulse was fear, and they wanted to protect the institution, not to penalize the individual. It was because the free Negro menaced the institution, because manumission undermined it, because all self-help systems for the slave corroded It, that pro- slavery men urged new legislation. Their object was not to surround slavery with an atmosphere of terror. It was to shore up an institution built on quick- sand and battered bv all the forces of world sentiment and emergent industrialism.
Ruffin was personally the kindliest of masters. The unhappy fact was that it had become impossible to safeguard slavery without brutal violence to countless individuals; either the institution had to be given up, or the brutality committed.
The legislators of Louisiana and Arkansas, of Alabama and Georgia, with humane men like Ruffin and the Eastern Shore planters of Maryland, had faced this alternative. They had chosen the institution. The Richmond Examiner stated their choice in unflinching language:
It is all an hallucination to suppose that we are ever going to get rid of slavery, or that it will ever be desirable to do so. It is a thing that we cannot do without;that is righteous, profitable, and permanent, and that belongs to Southern society as inherently, intrinsically, and durably as the white race itself. Southern men should act as if the canopy of heaven were inscribed with a covenant, in letters of fire, that the negro is here, and here forever—is our property, and ours forever—is never to be emancipated—is to be kept hard at work and in rigid subjection all his days.
This has the ring of the Richmond publicist Fitzhugh, and would have been repudiated by many Southerners. But Jefferson Davis said, July 6, 1859, "There is not probably an intelligent mind among our own citizens who doubts either the moral or the legal right of the institution of African slavery." Senator A. G. ' Brown said September 4, 1858, that he wanted Cuban, Mexican, and Central American territory for slavery; "I would spread the blessings of slavery . . . to the uttermost ends of the earth." Such utterances treated slavery as permanent, and assumed that it must be defended at every point."
-- "The Coming Fury" by Bruce Catton
Let's not get confused on what the so-called CSA stood for.
Walt
There is no such thing as a "scrupulously honest" lawyer.
I dare say there are some scrupulously honest lawyers today. That is not much newsworthy.
If you can show an incident that would show dishonesty on Lincoln's part, by all means share it with us.
Walt
As a Southerner, Texan, we were taught to have great respect for Lincoln. His picture was usually displayed as much as Washington's. We celebrated his birthday, learned about using the back of his shovel for a slate, etc. Some people think Southerners were taught he was the devil incarnate, I don't know about other states - but not in Texas. That is just another bit of either revisionist history or wishful thinking.
At the start of the war, the yankee volunteers signed up for a limited time (one year, six months, I can't remember exactly). When the time was up and they wanted to go home, Lincoln reniged on the deal and forced them to stay. Lincoln lied to the recruits to get them to sign up.
Sorry, a little agitated about this one. Might as well put up a statue of Lenin in Washington DC while we're at it. They believed the same, so why not?
At the start of the war, the yankee volunteers signed up for a limited time (one year, six months, I can't remember exactly). When the time was up and they wanted to go home, Lincoln reniged [sic] on the deal and forced them to stay. Lincoln lied to the recruits to get them to sign up.
That's --all-- wrong.
"A member of the 13th Massachusetts noted that his regiment "listened with respectful attention" while officers urged re-enlistment and extolled the valor of old soldiers, but he added: "It was very sweet to hear all this, but the 13th was not easily moved by this kind of talk. The boys knew too well what sacrifices they had made, and longed to get home again and, if possible, resume the places they had left." In the end the 13th refused to re-enlist, except for a handful who signed up for places in another regiment".
Altogether, there are few facts in American history more remarkable than the fact that so many of these veterans did finally re-enlist —probably slightly more than half of the total number whose terms were expiring. The proffered bounty seems to have had little influence on them. The furlough was much better bait. To men who had not seen their homes for more than two and one half years, a solid month of freedom seemed like an age. A member of the 5th Maine said that it actually seemed as if the war might somehow end before the furloughs would expire, and he wrote of the men who re-enlisted: "What tempted these men? Bounty? No. The opportunity to go home."
It was not hardship that held men back. The 100th Pennsylvania had been marooned in eastern Tennessee for months, cut off from supplies and subsisting on two ears of corn per day per man, but when the question of re-enlistment came up only 27 out of the 393 present for duty refused to sign. In the 6th Wisconsin, which had done as much costly fighting as any regiment in the army, it was noted that the combat men were re-enlisting almost to a man; it was the cooks, hostlers, clerks, teamsters, and others on non-combat duty who were holding back. And the dominant motive, finally, seems to have been a simple desire to see the job through. The government in its wisdom might be doing everything possible to show the men that patriotism was for fools; in the end, the veterans simply refused to believe it. A solid nucleus did sign the papers, pledging that the army would go on, and by the end of March Meade was able to tell the War Depart- ment that 26,767 veterans had re-enlisted.
The men signed up without illusions. A company in the 19th Massachusetts was called together to talk things over. The regiment had left most of its men on various battlefields, in hospitals, and to Southern prison camps, and this company now mustered just thirteen men and one wounded officer. These considered the matter, and one man finally said: "They use a man here just the same as they do a turkey at a shooting match, fire at it all day and if they don't kill it raffle it off in the evening; so with us, if they can't kill you in three years they want you for three more—but I will stay." And a comrade spoke up: "Well, if new men won't finish the job, old men must, and as long as Uncle Sam wants a man, here is Ben Falls."
The regiment's historian, recording this remark, pointed out that Ben Falls was killed two months later in battle at Spotsylvania Court House."
"A Stillness at Appomattox" by Bruce Catton, pp. 35-36
Those men are the heroes of the American Civil War, not the rebels, who mostly packed up and went home.
Walt
Who was fighting the Yankees then? BTW, Catton writes historical novels, not history.
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.