The one bust he kept. And it certainly had nothing to do with Liberty.
Posted on 04/14/2015 6:57:32 AM PDT by Paisan
On this date in 1865, Good Friday, Abraham Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. The 16th president died the next morning.
I have admitted that seemed reasonable given the circumstances.
Later, wider suspensions of habeas corpus came later after the congressional vote.
If it followed a vote of Congress and represents the will of Congress, then that ought to cover him legally.
And as the Supreme Court ruled in 1865 in many cases the suspension was not warranted.
No doubt. The entire Union wasn't being invaded, nor was the entire Union in Rebellion. It was definitely an overreach, but if Congress authorized it, it becomes an overreach of Congress.
That potentially large Union army. That would seem to me to be a pretty good guarantor of fair value. :)
It'd be like if I demanded you sign your car over to me and say I'll pay you fair value for it. You're at the mercy of whatever I consider fair.
If you had at your beck and call a gang of rowdies, I believe I would certainly make every effort to be fair to you.
Shouldn't the issues have been settled before leaving? Otherwise how can both sides protect their own interests?
I don't think the timing is important so long as it is understood that the issue would be addressed. Before or after, the property wasn't going anywhere and neither was the degree of indebtedness. Some of these land/property disputes go on for years. I think the Spanish and the Brits are still arguing over Gibraltar.
I personally think the Confederates would have been smarter to just keep haggling instead of trying to force the issue, but Arrogance is what motivated them to act. "Pride goeth before a fall."
Being presented with such a colossal blunder of understanding is a threat to anyone's objectivity. One can only keep a straight face for so long when confronted with such epic failure to grasp a point.
As I indicated, I can't recall having ever seen such an example before.
BTW: You neglected to speak to the actual point: Was Lee’s primary obligation to carry out the terms of Custis’s will or interject his own “sensibilities” into an interpretation of what was the best use of the resources of the estate?
A man must live with his own decisions. I trust that Robert E. Lee did what seemed most reasonable and fair to him, given the disparate moral requirements of the situation.
Were you reasoned into your position, or trained into it?
If the Behavior of the Confederates was inconsistent with their own Charter of Governance, then they are indeed equally hypocritical. I do not know if this is the case, being unfamiliar with the specifics of their Governing charter. I do not know if it had any safeguards for freedom of speech and such.
I do know that the US Constitution did. The best inference that can be drawn here is that the Confederates were "just as bad", but it still does not justify the Abuses of the Union side.
As an example, I do not point an accusing finger at the confederates regarding treatment of prisoners in POW camps because of the equally wretched performance by the north. I would consider it hypocritical to do so.
I have heard that both sides didn't do due diligence in the treatment of prisoners, but I have always heard that the abuses by the South were far worse. Possibly this was the result of them having fewer resources and more hatred for what they regarded as "invaders."
The whole thing was Ugly, and it is a great tragedy that it ever happened.
Thanks for validating my assertion of your apologist position.
(once more, with gusto) The observation was not offered with the intention of "justifying" or excusing anything. I merely pointed it out to illustrate that those who lean so heavily on the criticism while ignoring the same "abuse" by the other side (or should I capitalize abuse? LOL) do so without intellectual honesty.
You criticize Lincoln for not surrendering after Fort Sumter was attacked, a deliberate act of war, and yet you suggest that he could resort to war for money?
If you had at your beck and call a gang of rowdies, I believe I would certainly make every effort to be fair to you.
You have it wrong. I have your car, legally, free and clear. I offer $5 for it. What recourse do you have?
I don't think the timing is important so long as it is understood that the issue would be addressed.
If I walk out on you taking all the community property I can get my hands on and leaving you with sole responsibility for all the debt built up while we were together then what good is "addressing" it later? I've got what I want. I've left you with all the bills. I'm free and clear. What motivation do I have to reimburse you for anything?
I think the Spanish and the Brits are still arguing over Gibraltar.
An excellent example. Great Britain has Gibraltar. They are paying nothing, reimbursing nothing, doing nothing to address the Spanish claims. And it's 310 years after the fact. So why should Lincoln believe that the Confederacy were interested in paying for anything or accepting responsibility for anything? If the Confederate delegation had, in fact, been open for discussions why should the U.S. believe anything they have to say?
Nice try, no sale. Nothing to see here, move along.
That's debatable.
Nobody was stealing anything buckwheat.
That's patently untrue.
That pile of rocks in the Cooper River was paid for by Northern and Southerner alike.
That's irrelevant.
Nice try, no sale. Nothing to see here, move along.
That's irrelevant and pointless.
People with an obsession see everything as validating their preconceived notions. They need little in the way of affirmation to arrive at their long-ago-chosen destination.
Ah, the “I’m rubber and you’re glue” gambit.
Actually I’ve always approached it from the exact opposite approach: I’m open to alternate POV as long as you can make a compelling case. Give me a convincing argument and I’ll gladly consider it.
So far you’ve failed.
You are confusing the absolutist position of "no abridgement of free speech" with my position of "be consistent with your founding principles."
If the Confederates had no protection for "Free Speech", then they weren't being inconsistent with their own principles. The Union, however did have such protection, and therefore were inconsistent with their own governing rules.
Now though I consider "Freedom of Speech" to be a very important right, I am still applying the principle expressed here:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I think the Confederates should have had protections for Free speech, but I don't know if they did or of if they didn't. If they didn't, that would appear to have been their choice. Neither Canada nor Britain tolerates what we call "Free Speech", so such a thing is not without precedent.
What you want, is that *if* we take umbrage at the Union's abuse of "Free Speech, etc." then we should also take umbrage at the Confederates abusing "Free Speech, etc." My position is that the issue is one of contradiction with stated principles of governance. If you can show me where whatever passes for the Confederate governing Charter forbids the activity they engaged in, you will have demonstrated them to be equally bad as the Union in the context of not following their own governing principles.
But if you want to make an issue out of their denial of "Free Speech and other rights", My God man! They were supporting slavery! Don't you think the denial of "Free Speech and other rights" is a bit trivial in the context here?
You slice and dice what I say to imply something different. I said no one was killed in the Attack on Ft. Sumter. There existed no real threat to the Union. As for the money, Nations constantly argue about who owes what to whom for what. If it is significant enough, they can threaten war over it.
If I walk out on you taking all the community property I can get my hands on and leaving you with sole responsibility for all the debt built up while we were together then what good is "addressing" it later? I've got what I want. I've left you with all the bills. I'm free and clear. What motivation do I have to reimburse you for anything?
Apart from appeals to sense of fairness, there is always the weapon of trade. How viable would the South have been without mutually agreeable trade between the two? I dare say the South could have easily been convinced to pay legitimate debts. Trade was just too usable as a weapon against them, and the Army was always the guarantor of last resort.
An excellent example. Great Britain has Gibraltar. They are paying nothing, reimbursing nothing, doing nothing to address the Spanish claims. And it's 310 years after the fact. So why should Lincoln believe that the Confederacy were interested in paying for anything or accepting responsibility for anything? If the Confederate delegation had, in fact, been open for discussions why should the U.S. believe anything they have to say?
Given that it hasn't been all that critical to either Spain or Britain to resolve this issue conclusively, I have to wonder if it makes a whole lot of difference one way or the other if it wouldn't get resolved.
You and I both know this had really nothing to do with money. This war was about Pride, and very little of anything else.
"Those D@mn Yankees have a fort commanding the entrance to our Harbor. This is intolerable!"
"Those D@mn Rebs kicked us out of our fort! This is intolerable!"
Bunch of little children on both sides.
So far you’ve failed.
If you don't consider the Principles contained in the Declaration of Independence to be a convincing argument, I doubt there is much hope for me getting the point across to you.
I have always found it Ironic that Lincoln's greatest speech specifically refers to the time when the Colonies broke away from England. ("Four Score and Seven Years ago" was 1776.) He was reprising the role of George III at the time.
I guess the Irony is just lost on some people.
The principles are doing just fine. It’s your feeble attempts at warping them to fit the Slavers Rebellion that fail miserably.
Yea, how about that irony, huh?
Later, wider suspensions of habeas corpus came later after the congressional vote.
Your post might leave the impression with some that outside of the two suspensions of habeas corpus in your link that Lincoln didn't suspend habeas corpus in other places and in wider areas until after Congress in 1863 authorized him to suspend habeas corpus. To correct that possible misinterpretation, here are some other occasions that Lincoln and others suspended habeas corpus:
April 13, 1861. US Army Colonel Harvey Brown leaves a proclamation suspending habeas corpus in Key West, Florida with Bvt. Major W. H. French commanding Fort Taylor in Key West with instructions to use it if needed and saying that "its legality has been determined by higher authority." [Source]. I wonder who that higher authority might be who issued such a order even before Colonel Brown sailed to Key West with the Fort Pickens expedition sent by Lincoln in April. I wonder who authorized a mere Colonel to authorize a mere Bvt. Major to suspend habeas corpus.
April 27, 1861. Lincoln issues his suspension of habeas corpus between Washington DC and Philadelphia. You kindly provided a link to that proclamation.
May 6, 1861. Bvt. Major French posts Colonel Brown's proclamation suspending habeas corpus in Key West. French also suppresses an newspaper in Key West, the "Key of the Gulf" newspaper, certainly one of the first of many newspaper suppressions in the North and South by the Union during the war. [Source].
May 10, 1861. Lincoln issues a proclamation suspending habeas corpus in the islands of Key West, the Tortugas, and Santa Rosa. [Source].
June 20, 1861. Lincoln authorizes General Winfield Scott or any officer he designates to suspend habeas corpus in the case of Major William Henry Chase, who resigned from the US Army in 1856 but had become a major general of Florida State Troops in the Confederate Army in 1861. [Source].
July 2, 1861. Lincoln suspends habeas corpus between Philadelphia and New York City. [I've seen a number of references to this suspension but haven't found the actual wording].
October 23, 1861. Lincoln suspends habeas corpus in matters relating to the military in Washington, DC. [Source].
December 2, 1861. Lincoln suspends habeas corpus in Missouri. You kindly provided a link to that proclamation.
August 6, 1862. Lincoln suspends habeas corpus throughout the US for cases involving discouraging enlistment in the military, aid to the enemy, and persons arrested for disloyal practices. This proclamation orders that "no citizen liable to be drafted into the military service, be allowed to go into a foreign country." The proclamation was issued for Lincoln by Stanton. [Source].
September 24, 1862. Lincoln issues a nationwide proclamation covering much of the same ground as the one issued in August, but without the prohibition on leaving the country. However, the August proclamation still remained in effect. [Source].
The above list came from my cursory search for Lincoln's suspensions prior to 1863. There may be some other suspensions in this period that I missed.
:)
I don't think it matters if they were drug addicts and wife beaters, the Declaration says a people have a right to leave if they find one form of government not to their liking.
Now you say noticing this is "Warping" the principles. I think you are simply stuck on what you wish to believe; That the Union had a moral right to stop independence for the Southern States. You are too heavily invested in one side to admit an unpleasant truth.
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.