Posted on 01/23/2003 6:06:25 PM PST by one2many
Sounds like the Mendez Brothers defense to me. Ya, we killed our parents, but don't punish us because we're just poor orphans.
I'll address any subject I like.
You were saying that Lincoln was a political opportunist. Donald's work suggests that Lincoln was a man of principles that could not be shaken. That is a fair interpretation.
More Donald:
Donald states (about Lincoln in August of 1864), "...Had he failed to to insist on abolition as a condition for peace negotiations, he explained, he would be guilty of treachery to the hundreds of thousands of African-Americans who had 'come bodily over from the rebel side to ours.' Such betrayal could not 'escape the curses of Heaven, or of any good man.'
...this was interpreted the next day in the New York Times thusly:
"Mr. Lincoln did say that he receive and consider propositions for peace...,if. they embraced the integrity of the Union and the abandonment of Slavery. But he did not say that he would not receive them unless they embraced both these conditions."
Lincoln further said:
"There have been men who have proposed to me to return to slavery the black warriors of Port Hudson & Olustee to their masters to conciliate the South. I should be damned in time & in eternity for so doing. The world shall know that I will keep my faith to friends & enemies, come what will."
Now, Lincoln made these statements in late summer 1864 -- when he seriously thought the 1864 election could not be won.
He was a man of principle; the record shows that much.
Walt
Show me one example of anyone, even the wildest abolutionist, contemplating ending slavery by amendment in 1860. They all knew then it could only be ended by the states, individually. That is why people like Greeley called the Constitution a pact with the devel.
The war, as wars tend to do, changed the realities. But in 1860, it was beyond comprehension for it to have ended that way. The south knew it, and the people who proposed that amendment knew it. That is why that amendment was a non-starter from the get-go. It was simply a desperation attempt to hold the Union together.
As you should be. You've been practicing a tortured form of politically motivated linguistic gymnastics on this thread since you arrived here.
Ha. You are the one suggesting a state is not a state.
Walt
Nonsense. Walt's claim is that the applicability of federal acts to all states prevents them from seceding though it is not specified. His conclusion simply does not follow from his premise - its a non-sequitur.
Not from the above book, but a few others will suffice. For clarity I took the liberty of coloring Lincoln's comments red.
When asked, as President of the United States, "why not let the South go?" his simple, direct, and honest answer revealed one secret of the wise policy of the Washington Cabinet. "Let the South go!" said he, "where, then, shall we get our revenue?"And these:
Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Is Davis a traitor; or, Was secession a constitutional right previous to the war of 1861?, Baltimore: Innes & Company, 1866, pp. 143-144.
Another effort was made to move Abraham Lincoln to peace. On the 22nd, a deputation of six members from each of the five Christian Associations of Young Men in Baltimore, headed by Dr. Fuller, and eloquent clergyman of the Baptist church, went to Washington and had an interview with the President. He received them with a sort of rude formality. Dr. Fuller said, that Maryland had first moved in adopting the constitution, and yet the first blood in this war was shed on her soil; he then interceded for a peaceful separation, entreated that no more troops should pass through Baltimore, impressed upun Mr. Lincoln the terrible responsibility resting on him - that on him depended peace or war - a fratricidal conflict or a happy settlement.And another similar account of the preceding:"But," said Lincoln, "what am I to do?"
"Let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the Southern Confederacy," answered Dr. Fuller, "and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense and war may be averted."
"And what is to become of the revenue?" rejoined Lincoln, "I shall have no government, no resources!" [italics in original]
Robert Reid Howison, "History of the War", excerpted in Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. 34, Issue 8, August 1862, Richmond, VA., pp. 420-421.
"But," said Mr. Lincoln, "what am I to do?"The meeting was written up in the Baltimore Sun 23 Apr 1861 edition."Why, sir, let the country know that you are disposed to recognize the independance of the Southern States. I say nothing of secession; recognize the fact that they have formed a government of their own; that they will never be united again with the North, and and peace will instantly take the place of anxiety and suspense, and war may be averted."
"And what is to become of the revenue?" was the reply. "I shall have no government - no revenues."
Evert A. Duyckinck, National history of the war for the union, civil, military and naval. Founded on official and other authentic documents, New York: Johnson Fry & Co., 1861.
"It is therefore a bar to unilateral state secession."
As GOPcapitalist has pointed out, that is a non sequitur, (and one fully worthy of your buddy of the same name).
Perhaps you would like to explain how you think your conclusion follows without begging the question. Quoting "1984", or some other novel, won't cut it.
No Walt. I am asserting that a state which acts to cease its existence as a state is no longer a state by way of that act. It's a simple relationship of being. If a certain act causes A to cease to be A and instead become B, it is fraudulent to assert that B is still A. Yet that is exactly what you are doing.
Walt is right in line with the father of the Constitution, James Madison. Madison said quite plainly that unilateral secession was not constitutional.
LINCOLN was like the Japanese in 1941, lying to the peace commissionars and Justice Campbell about the attempted restocking of Ft. Sumter: invading while lying.
LINCOLN was like the Japanese in 1941, lying to the peace commissionars and Justice Campbell about the attempted restocking of Ft. Sumter: invading while lying.
You know that's not true.
Washington,
April 6. 1861
Sir--
You will proceed directly to Charleston, South Carolina; and if, on your arrival there, the flag of the United States shall be flying over Fort-Sumpter, and the Fort shall not have been attacked, you will procure an interview with Gov. Pickens, and read to him as follows: "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition, without will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort"
After you shall have read this to Governor Pickens, deliver to him the copy of it herein enclosed, and retain this letter yourself--
But if, on your arrival at Charleston, you shall ascertain that Fort-Sumpter shall have been already evacuated, or surrendered, by the United States force; or, shall have been attacked by an opposing force, you will seek no interview with Gov. Pickens, but return here forthwith-- [On Following Sheet:]
I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort--
[Endorsed on Envelope by Lincoln:]
Notice carried by R. S. Chew to Gov. Pickens, and his report as to how he gave the notice--
Charleston S. C.
April 8th 1861
To The President
Under the foregoing orders I left Washington at 6 P.M. Saturday April 6th, 1861, in company with Capt. Theodore Talbot, U. S. Army, and arrived at Charleston, S. C. on Monday at the same hour. Finding that Fort Sumter had neither been surrendered, evacuated nor attacked, I immediately thro' Capt. Talbot, requested an interview with Governor Pickens, which was at once accorded to me, and I then read to him the portion of said orders in italics, and delivered to him the copy of the same which was furnished to me for that purpose, in the presence of Capt Talbot.
Govr. Pickens received the Copy and said he would submit it to General Beauregard, he having, since the ratification of the Constitution of the Confederate States by South Carolina, been placed in charge of the Military operations in this vicinity-- Genl. Beauregard was accordingly sent for, and the Governor read the paper to him.
In reply to a remark made by Governor Pickens in reference to an answer I informed him that I was not authorised to receive any communication from him in reply--
Respectfully submitted
R. S. Chew
War Department
As you -very- well know, it was Seward, not Lincoln who met with the rebel commissioners.
But any kind of lie will do in support of "southern" heritage.
Walt
Your response fails to address my statement - that Walt's conclusion about secession does not logically follow from his premise. Madison's opinion may certainly weigh in on another aspect of this debate, as may that of Jefferson, whose writings permit the possibility of secession. But neither of those authorities are the issue at hand. Therefore your citing of Madison is a non-response.
Your response fails to address my statement - that Walt's conclusion about secession does not logically follow from his premise.
The text of the Militia Act is no non-sequitur:
According to the Militia Act of May 2, 1792, as amended Feb 28, 1795, Sec. 2:
"And it be further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislatures of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
You'll note it says nothing about a state having passed an ordnance of secession to be a bar to federal action.
And the Supreme Court did not see it that way in the Prize Cases ruling either.
Walt
No one denies the possibility of secession -- not Madison and not Lincoln. Madison called secession only another name for revolution. What is clear is that unilateral state secession is outside U.S. law.
Walt
It is indeed "outside U.S. law" in the sense that it isn't mentioned. Being "outside U.S. law", however, is by no means the same thing as being illegal.
It is indeed "outside U.S. law" in the sense that it isn't mentioned. Being "outside U.S. law", however, is by no means the same thing as being illegal.
Well now both the Beavis and Butthead of the "1984" set have weighed in.
If you can secede and still have U.S. law operate --- the marshals can't haul you off, now-- go for it.
Walt
You try it.
"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).
-- James Madison
Walt
LOL - Once again, and as always, you are wrong. Most Constitutional scholars (good ones) will cite the 1863 date, since the cases were not heard until February of 1863 and the decision rendered that year. They were filed in December of 1862, but not heard or decided on until the next year, 1863, because the Court wanted to wait until a new Justice was seated. So much for that controversy. However, in regards to more important issues, like what it was they decided on, your idiotic statements regarding the finding of the cases were wrong. Just as you were wrong in saying it was unanimous. The Supreme Court's decision on the "Prize Cases" did not decide secession was illegal. Nor did it declare the war an illegal insurrection. It did not even deal with those issues, they were not the point of the cases. They only thing the Court decided was that it was constitutional for the President to react to a state of war (irregardless of what type) without waiting for Congressional declaration. Once again, and as usual, you are wrong.
This story appears to be apocryphal.
But you forgot this:
"South Carolina...cannot get out of this Union until she conquers this government. The revenues must and will be collected at her ports, and any resistance on her part will lead to war. At the close of that war we can tell with certainty whether she is in or out of the Union. While this government endures there can be no disunion...
If the overt act on the part of South Carolina takes place on or after the 4th of March, 1861, then the duty of executing the laws will devolve upon Mr. Lincoln. The laws of the United States must be executed-- the President has no discretionary power on the subject -- his duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Mr. Lincoln will perform that duty. Disunion by armed force is treason, and treason must and will be put down at all hazards. The Union is not, and cannot be dissolved until this government is overthrown by the traitors who have raised the disunion flag. Can they overthrow it? We think not.
Illinois State Journal, November 14, 1860
Tariffs were a piddling amount -- less than $2 per year per person in the USA. And 95% of -that- amount was collected in northern ports. Two customs houses in the south LOST money -- it cost more to operate them than they collected.
But the collection of tariffs -was- a sign of federal power, and one that President Lincoln was not willing to relinquish.
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.