Rare Lincoln Letter Found in Allentown

AP ^ | July 19, 2006 | AP

[stainlessbanner]

ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) - July 19, 2006 - A University of Illinois researcher had discovered a fourth copy of a rare letter Abraham Lincoln had written by to the nation's governors in 1861.

The letter John Lupton found Tuesday in the Lehigh County Historical Society's holdings was one Lincoln wrote as part of an unsuccessful ratification process for a constitutional amendment Congress adopted during the term of his predecessor, President James Buchanan, that would have made slavery the law of the land.

The president remembered for abolishing slavery had been willing to push the amendment as "kind of a carrot to the Southern states" if that would preserve the union, said Lupton, associate director of the Papers of Abraham Lincoln Project of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.

"But even by that point, it was too late. By that time, the Southern states felt Lincoln's election was an affront," Lupton said. In fact, the letter discovered in Allentown was addressed to "His Excellency the Governor of the State of Florida," which had seceded from the union two months earlier.

Until Tuesday, only three of the letters were known to have survived. "It's a very cool document," Lupton said.

Joseph Garrera, the historical society director, said he will consult with the society's board to determine the best way to display the document and try to figure out exactly who donated the letter.

[rustbucket]

I don't think there is any "magical omnipotence of states rights." As long as the benefits of union outweigh the benefits of going it alone, states would remain in the Union. That is what happened during the first 70-odd years of the country's history.

Southerners revered the Constitution and wanted it obeyed. Had the North obeyed the Constitution with respect to fugitive slaves there might not have been a war. Lincoln said that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Law. In that respect he might have been middle ground for the times. He did not choose the path of peace, however, and the Union became a union of force rather than the voluntary union intended by Founders.

After it was perhaps too late, some judges and lawyers up North recognized that the personal liberty laws of their state contravened the Constitution, but I suspect the bulk of the Republicans didn't.

Lincoln and the Radicals were at odds over how to treat the South after the war. The Radicals' plan got put in place. Voters in Southern states were often restricted to those who would elect Republicans. Constitutions were forced on Southern states whose authorized voters had rejected them. Southern states were allowed to vote for one US constitutional amendment to get it passed, then treated as though they weren't in the Union unless they voted for another proposed amendment. Is it any wonder why Southern states remained Democrat for so long?

Here are some comments from a Representative Beck of Kentucky about what was going on [Congressional Globe, May 13, 1868].

Taxation without representation for the white man, and representation without taxation for the negro is now the rule in South Carolina.

Now as far as Alabama is concerned ... all the facts are known to this House. We all know that the constitution of Alabama was defeated, and defeated in the mode permitted by the laws passed by this Congress, and this House has so decided; yet we are called upon [by Stevens and the Radicals] to impose that constitution on the people of Alabama, a constitution which they themselves have rejected, which we have said they have rejected. The people of Alabama having rejected that constitution, it is now brought forward in an omnibus bill, along with constitutions of other States, and we are asked to declare that they have adopted that constitution.

Let me look hurriedly at the provisions respecting the other States. ... The fact appears in all the publications of the day, and is true beyond all peradventure, that hundreds or thousands of negroes who came to the polls to vote for the constitutions and the officers under them came from the plantations with halters in their hands, that they might lead home the mules they expected to receive; for forty acres of land and a mule were promised to every ignorant negro who would vote for the constitutions.

As I have posted on these threads before, when the Republicans were finally voted out in Texas in 1873-74, an armed mob of Republicans seized part of the capitol building, captured and held the mayor of Austin, and attempted unsuccessfully to illegally remain in power. This certainly didn't endear Republicans to Texans.

[4CJ]

And if the Davis regime had treated Union prisoners as prisoners instead of criminals, runaway slaves, and the like the prisoner exchanges might have continued.

LOL. It was the Lincoln REGIME that refused to exchange prisoners, refused the South medical supplies to be used on Northern prisoners, and by the end of the war refused to simply accept their prisoners without exchange. It was the Lincoln REGIME that starved/froze Confederate soldiers while Union troops were warm and well-fed. Dictator Lincoln even refused to meet a delegation of Union POW's released from Adnersonville. A Union POW [James M. Page] refutes your oft asserted canard, 'When they [ex-slaves] were captured they were either sent back to their old masters or put to work on rebel fortifications, and they were not starved and did not suffer. ... When the Andersonville emissaries returned from Washington there was not one word about the exchange of Negro soldiers being in the way of our release.'

Yankees, under Dictator Lincoln's leadership, DESPITE having abundant food and medicine, had more POW's in their care die (26,000 versus 22,000), as well a having a higher percentage of POW's die (11.2% versus the Confederacy's 8.1%). All in all, the death rate of POW's was 45% higher in Yankee camps despite the plethora of food and medicine in the North.

Face the facts, MORE POW's died under ther Lincoln REGIME, a higher percentage died under the Lincoln REGIME, Southern treatment of blacks POW's was not the reason to stop the exchanges, it was solely due to the Lincoln REGIME refusing to exchange POW's. Thanks to boneheaded, unhumanitarian decisions by dictator Lincoln, 48,000 men died needlessly.

[Non-Sequitur]

It was the Lincoln REGIME that refused to exchange prisoners, refused the South medical supplies to be used on Northern prisoners, and by the end of the war refused to simply accept their prisoners without exchange.

It was the Davis REGIME that announced that certain Union generals would be refused the protections of POW status if caught, it was the Davis REGIME that announced that black Union soldiers captured would be returned to slavery, and it was the Davis REGIME that announced that white officers caught while commanding black soldiers would be charged with slave insurrection and tried and executed accordingly.

And another thing. The Union prisoners of war died from exposure, starvation, scurvy, typhus, typhoid, dysentery, and the like. Assuming that the North complied witht hte southern request, and assuming any of the medications actually made it to the POWs they were intended for, what medications were the North supposed to be sending?

[Heyworth]

Assuming that the North complied witht hte southern request, and assuming any of the medications actually made it to the POWs they were intended for, what medications were the North supposed to be sending?

Haven't you heard? Lincoln invented penicillin, but kept it a secret so that those prisoners would die, giving him a free hand to impose tariffs on the freedom-loving slaveholders.

[Non-Sequitur]

Haven't you heard? Lincoln invented penicillin, but kept it a secret so that those prisoners would die, giving him a free hand to impose tariffs on the freedom-loving slaveholders.

Yet another fact about the tyrant that is kept from the American people by the fawning pro-Linkum establishement no doubt. </sarcasm>

[Non-Sequitur]

Illegal - 2 Sep 1863

On August 29, 1863, Salmon Chase handed Lincoln a draft proclamation which would revoke the exemptions from the Emancipation Proclamation in Louisiana and Virginia. In response Lincoln wrote:

Executive Mansion,

Washington, September 2. 1863.

My dear Sir:

Knowing your great anxiety that the emancipation proclamation shall now be applied to those certain parts of Virginia and Louisiana which were exempted from it last January, I state briefly what appear to me to be difficulties in the way of such a step. The original proclamation has no Constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure. The exemptions were made because the military necessity did not apply to the exempted localities. Nor does that necessity apply to them now any more than it did then-- If I take the step must I not do so, without the argument of military necessity, and so, without any argument, except the one that I think the measure politically expedient, and morally right? Would I not thus give up all footing upon Constitution or law? Would I not thus be in the boundless field of absolutism? Could this pass unnoticed, or unresisted? Could it fail to be perceived that without any further stretch, I might do the same in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri; and even change any law in any state?

Would not many of our own friends shrink away appalled? Would it not lose us the elections, and with them, the very cause we seek to advance?

So where does Lincoln say that the Emancipation Proclamation was illegal?

Unconstituional 4 Apr 1864.

Executive Mansion,

Washington, April 4, 1864.

My dear Sir:

You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I verbally said the other day, in yours presence, to Governor Bramlette and Senator Dixon-- It was about as follows:

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath using the power. I understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand hower, however, that my oath to preserve the Constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government -- that nation -- of which that Constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the Constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the Constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constution Constitution all together. When, early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. When, in March, and May, and July 1862 I made earnest, and successive appeals to the border states to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation, and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure, They declined the proposition; and I was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it, the Constitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chose the latter. In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this, I was not entirely confident. More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force, -- no loss by it any how, or any where. On the contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and laborers. There are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no cavilling-- We have the men; and we could not have had them without the measure.

And now let any Union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measures he condemns. If he can not face his case so stated, it is only because he can not face the truth.

I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein no new cause to question applaud attest and revere the justice [ or?] and goodness of God.

Yours truly

A. Lincoln

So where does Lincoln say he beleived his actions to be unconstitutional?

Could incite rebellion/murder/massacre - 13 Sep 1862.

In his reply to the Emancipation Memorial presented by the Chicago Christians of All Denominations.

``The subject presented in the memorial is one upon which I have thought much for weeks past, and I may even say for months. I am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and that by religious men, who are equally certain that they represent the Divine will. I am sure that either the one or the other class is mistaken in that belief, and perhaps in some respects both. I hope it will not be irreverent for me to say that if it is probable that God would reveal his will to others, on a point so connected with my duty, it might be supposed he would reveal it directly to me; for, unless I am more deceived in myself than I often am, it is my earnest desire to know the will of Providence in this matter. And if I can learn what it is I will do it! These are not, however, the days of miracles, and I suppose it will be granted that I am not to expect a direct revelation. I must study the plain physical facts of the case, ascertain what is possible and learn what appears to be wise and right. The subject is difficult, and good men do not agree. For instance, the other day four gentlemen of standing and intelligence (naming one or two of the number) from New York called, as a delegation, on business connected with the war; but, before leaving, two of them earnestly beset me to proclaim general emancipation, upon which the other two at once attacked them! You know, also, that the last session of Congress had a decided majority of anti-slavery men, yet they could not unite on this policy. And the same is true of the religious people. Why, the rebel soldiers are praying with a great deal more earnestness, I fear, than our own troops, and expecting God to favor their side; for one of our soldiers, who had been taken prisoner, told Senator Wilson, a few days since, that he met with nothing so discouraging as the evident sincerity of those he was among in their prayers. But we will talk over the merits of the case.

"What good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do, especially as we are now situated? I do not want to issue a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the Pope's bull against the comet! Would my word free the slaves, when I cannot even enforce the Constitution in the rebel States? Is there a single court, or magistrate, or individual that would be influenced by it there? And what reason is there to think it would have any greater effect upon the slaves than the late law of Congress, which I approved, and which offers protection and freedom to the slaves of rebel masters who come within our lines? Yet I cannot learn that that law has caused a single slave to come over to us. And suppose they could be induced by a proclamation of freedom from me to throw themselves upon us, what should we do with them? How can we feed and care for such a multitude? Gen. Butler wrote me a few days since that he was issuing more rations to the slaves who have rushed to him than to all the white troops under his command. They eat, and that is all, though it is true Gen. Butler is feeding the whites also by the thousand; for it nearly amounts to a famine there. If, now, the pressure of the war should call off our forces from New Orleans to defend some other point, what is to prevent the masters from reducing the blacks to slavery again; for I am told that whenever the rebels take any black prisoners, free or slave, they immediately auction them off! They did so with those they took from a boat that was aground in the Tennessee river a few days ago. And then I am very ungenerously attacked for it! For instance, when, after the late battles at and near Bull Run, an expedition went out from Washington under a flag of truce to bury the dead and bring in the wounded, and the rebels seized the blacks who went along to help and sent them into slavery, Horace Greeley said in his paper that the Government would probably do nothing about it. What could I do? [Here your delegation suggested that this was a gross outrage on a flag of truce, which covers and protects all over which it waves, and that whatever he could do if white men had been similarly detained he could do in this case.]

"Now, then, tell me, if you please, what possible result of good would follow the issuing of such a proclamation as you desire? Understand, I raise no objections against it on legal or constitutional grounds; for, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy. Nor do I urge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the South. I view the matter as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion."

Thus invited, your delegation very willingly made reply to the following effect; it being understood that a portion of the remarks were intermingled by the way of conversation with those of the President just given.

We observed (taking up the President's ideas in order) that good men indeed differed in their opinions on this subject; nevertheless the truth was somewhere, and it was a matter of solemn moment for him to ascertain it; that we had not been so wanting in respect, alike to ourselves and to him, as to come a thousand miles to bring merely our opinion to be set over against the opinion of other parties; that the memorial contained facts, principles, and arguments which appealed to the intelligence of the President and to his faith in Divine Providence; that he could not deny that the Bible denounced oppression as one of the highest of crimes, and threatened Divine judgments against nations that practice it; that our country had been exceedingly guilty in this respect, both at the North and South; that our just punishment has come by a slaveholder's rebellion; that the virus of secession is found wherever the virus of slavery extends, and no farther; so that there is the amplest reason for expecting to avert Divine judgments by putting away the sin, and for hoping to remedy the national troubles by striking at their cause.

We observed, further, that we freely admitted the probability, and even the certainty, that God would reveal the path of duty to the President as well as to others, provided he sought to learn it in the appointed way; but, as according to his own remark, Providence wrought by means and not miraculously, it might be, God would use the suggestions and arguments of other minds to secure that result. We felt the deepest personal interest in the matter as of national concern, and would fain aid the thoughts of our President by communicating the convictions of the Christian community from which we came, with the ground upon which they were based.

That it was true he could not now enforce the Constitution at the South; but we could see in that fact no reason whatever for not proclaiming emancipation, but rather the contrary. The two appealed to different classes; the latter would aid, and in truth was necessary to re-establish the former; and the two could be made operative together as fast as our armies fought their way southward; while we had yet to hear that he proposed to abandon the Constitution because of the present difficulty of enforcing it.

As to the inability of Congress to agree on this policy at the late session, it was quite possible, in view of subsequent events, there might be more unanimity at another meeting. The members have met their constituents and learned of marvellous conversions to the wisdom of emancipation, especially since late reverses have awakened thought as to the extreme peril of the nation, and made bad men as well as good men realize that we have to deal with God in this matter. Men of the most opposite previous views were now uniting in calling for this measure.

That to proclaim emancipation would secure the sympathy of Europe and the whole civilized world, which now saw no other reason for the strife than national pride and ambition, an unwillingness to abridge our domain and power. No other step would be so potent to prevent foreign intervention.

Furthermore, it would send a thrill through the entire North, firing every patriotic heart, giving the people a glorious principle for which to suffer and to fight, and assuring them that the work was to be so thoroughly done as to leave our country free forever from danger and disgrace in this quarter.

We added, that when the proclamation should become widely known (as the law of Congress has not been) it would withdraw the slaves from the rebels, leaving them without laborers, and giving us both laborers and soldiers. That the difficulty experienced by Gen. Butler and other Generals arose from the fact that half-way measures could never avail. It is the inherent vice of half-way measures that they create as many difficulties as they remove. It is folly merely to receive and feed the slaves. They should be welcomed and fed, and then, according to Paul's doctrine, that they who eat must work, be made to labor and to fight for their liberty and ours. With such a policy the blacks would be no incumbrance and their rations no waste. In this respect we should follow the ancient maxim, and learn of the enemy. What the rebels most fear is what we should be most prompt to do; and what they most fear is evident from the hot haste with which, on the first day of the present session of the Rebel Congress, bills were introduced threatening terrible vengeance if we used the blacks in the war.

The President rejoined from time to time in about these terms:

"I admit that slavery is the root of the rebellion, or at least its sine qua non. The ambition of politicians may have instigated them to act, but they would have been impotent without slavery as their instrument. I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition. I grant further that it would help somewhat at the North, though not so much, I fear, as you and those you represent imagine. Still, some additional strength would be added in that way to the war. And then unquestionably it would weaken the rebels by drawing off their laborers, which is of great importance. But I am not so sure we could do much with the blacks. If we were to arm them, I fear that in a few weeks the arms would be in the hands of the rebels; and indeed thus far we have not had arms enough to equip our white troops. I will mention another thing, though it meet only your scorn and contempt: There are fifty thousand bayonets in the Union armies from the Border Slave States. It would be a serious matter if, in consequence of a proclamation such as you desire, they should go over to the rebels. I do not think they all would---not so many indeed as a year ago, or as six months ago---not so many to-day as yesterday. Every day increases their Union feeling. They are also getting their pride enlisted, and want to beat the rebels. Let me say one thing more: I think you should admit that we already have an important principle to rally and unite the people in the fact that constitutional government is at stake. This is a fundamental idea, going down about as deep as any thing."

We answered that, being fresh from the people, we were naturally more hopeful than himself as to the necessity and probable effect of such a proclamation. The value of constitutional government is indeed a grand idea for which to contend; but the people know that nothing else has put constitutional government in danger but slavery; that the toleration of that aristocratic and despotic element among our free institutions was the inconsistency that had nearly wrought our ruin and caused free government to appear a failure before the world, and therefore the people demand emancipation to preserve and perpetuate constitutional government. Our idea would thus be found to go deeper than this, and to be armed with corresponding power. (``Yes,'' interrupted Mr. Lincoln, ``that is the true ground of our difficulties.'') That a proclamation of general emancipation, ``giving Liberty and Union'' as the national watch-word, would rouse the people and rally them to his support beyond any thing yet witnessed---appealing alike to conscience, sentiment, and hope. He must remember, too, that present manifestations are no idex of what would then take place. If the leader will but utter a trumpet call the nation will respond with patriotic ardor. No one can tell the power of the right word from the right man to develop the latent fire and enthusiasm of the masses. (``I know it,'' exclaimed Mr. Lincoln.) That good sense must of course be exercised in drilling, arming, and using black as well as white troops to make them efficient; and that in a scarcity of arms it was at least worthy of inquiry whether it were not wise to place a portion of them in the hands of those nearest to the seat of the rebellion and able to strike the deadliest blow. That in case of a proclamation of emancipation we had no fear of serious injury from the desertion of Border State troops. The danger was greatly diminished, as the President had admitted. But let the desertions be what they might, the increased spirit of the North would replace them two to one. One State alone, if necessary, would compensate the loss, were the whole 50,000 to join the enemy. The struggle has gone too far, and cost too much treasure and blood, to allow of a partial settlement. Let the line be drawn at the same time between freedom and slavery, and between loyalty and treason. The sooner we know who are our enemies the better.

In bringing our interview to a close, after an hour of earnest and frank discussion, of which the foregoing is a specimen, Mr. Lincoln remarked: "Do not misunderstand me, because I have mentioned these objections. They indicate the difficulties that have thus far prevented my action in some such way as you desire. I have not decided against a proclamation of liberty to the slaves, but hold the matter under advisement. And I can assure you that the subject is on my mind, by day and night, more than any other. Whatever shall appear to be God's will I will do. I trust that, in the freedom with which I have canvassed your views, I have not in any respect injured your feelings."

The date is interesting, September 13, 1862. By that time the Emancipation Proclamation had already been written and presented to the cabinet, and Lincoln was only waiting for a Union victory before issuing it. Four days later McClellan beat Lee at Antietam, and five days after that Lincoln issued the proclamation. Only 9 days after this meeting.

[smug]

Four days later McClellan beat Lee at Antietam,

More like McClellan lost the battle but won the PR war. Little Mac's refusal to attack Lee on the second day should have put an L in his column. Lee waited for the attack that never came and then pulled up stakes and headed back, his mission mostly accomplished.

[Non-Sequitur]

More like McClellan lost the battle but won the PR war. Little Mac's refusal to attack Lee on the second day should have put an L in his column. Lee waited for the attack that never came and then pulled up stakes and headed back, his mission mostly accomplished.

Mission accomplished? What mission was that? Did he bring Maryland into the confederate fold? No. Did he attract thousands of new Maryland recruits to his army? No. Lee spent about 3 weeks in Maryland, took Harper's Ferry only to have to give it right up again, fought several battles leading up to Antietam, and then was badly bloodied by McClellan. There is no doubt that McClellan botched it. He should have won a decisive victory there but he frittered it away and he allowed Lee to escape. But to say Lee 'mostly accomplished' his mission is a major overstatement.

[smug]

What mission was that?

Lee's letter to Davis mentions giving Maryland a chance "If it is ever desired to give material aid to Maryland and afford her an opportunity of throwing off the oppression to which she is now subject, this would seem the most favorable"He further states he is underarmed and in want of wagons, animals, ammunitions and shoes, and that they cannot remain there long. His goals were few, mostly just an opportunity to take the war out of Virginia. Seems to me as out gunned and supplied as he was he did a fairly good job. Maryland got it's chance and declined.

[Non-Sequitur]

His goals were few, mostly just an opportunity to take the war out of Virginia. Seems to me as out gunned and supplied as he was he did a fairly good job. Maryland got it's chance and declined.

He took the war out of Virginia for a few weeks. He came back to Virginia with few wagons, animals, food and feet to fill with shoes than he started out with. And Maryland basically laughed at his attempts to coerce her. If Lee accomplished anything then his goals were certainly minor.

[4CJ]

So where does Lincoln say that the Emancipation Proclamation was illegal?

'The original proclamation has no Constitutional or legal justification.'

So where does Lincoln say he beleived his actions to be unconstitutional?

Above, previously cited. And here, 'I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful.' If Congress had passed it as a law it might have had a chance at being legal, but Dictator Lincoln wasn't Congress.

And when does Dictator Lincoln admit that the EP could cause rebellion/massacre in the South? 'Nor do I urge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the South.' Face the facts, the Lincoln REGIME was was no better than Sadaam Hussein. He exercised powers as a dictator, overthrow and refused to abide by all legal controls, and could care less that millions of Southerners - old men and women, children - would be slaughtered. Thankfully, the Southern blacks were not the hate-filled depraved beasts that Lincoln thought they were.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Here's a address of a web page dealing with the history of black suffrage. It contains clickable notes to sources on the states which allowed free black suffrage at the time of ratification.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=95

[Non-Sequitur]

'The original proclamation has no Constitutional or legal justification.'

"The original proclamation has no Constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure".

'I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful.'

"I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it." Again, you said Lincoln believed the Emancipation Proclamation to be illegal. When the quote is taken in context then it's obvious that you are wrong.

'Nor do I urge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the South.'

From the Emancipation Proclamation, "And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages." Obviously they listened to Linclon and not the southern slavers.

Thankfully, the Southern blacks were not the hate-filled depraved beasts that Lincoln thought they were.

But since you expected the massacres then obviously you expected that they were and feared the worst.

[4CJ]

"The original proclamation has no Constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure".

ROTFLMC*O! What Congress passed it as a law. The UNANIMOUS Supreme Court held that extra-constitutional acts during the war were illegal.

Again, you said Lincoln believed the Emancipation Proclamation to be illegal. When the quote is taken in context then it's obvious that you are wrong.

You do understand the English language? Exactly what part 'otherwise UNCONSTITUTIONAL' and 'might BECOME lawful [meaning now ILLEGAL]' do you have problems comprehending? Baghdad Bob you're killing me!

But since you expected the massacres then obviously you expected that they were and feared the worst.

ROTF!!! You LIE so terribly - it was the DICTATOR Lincoln (cited above) who surmised that MASSACRE/MURDER would be a byproduct of his known illegal act.

[mac_truck]

what they [Duke & Wallace] did or do doesn't change my reverence for the flag they misuse or for my ancestors who fought under it.

Well it does change the symbolic meaning of the Confederate flag though doesn't it? Regardless of your personal feelings . Funny how nobody who claims to have such reverence for the CBF ever got aound to challanging that 'minor trash-spouting wannabe national powerhouse' George Wallace over its use.

Do you dispute the accuracy of the CNN report about what Kerry and Sharpton were claiming?

I could care less about the accuracy of anything CNN reports, much less Kerry's office. It sounds like you watch and believe too much cable television. That's your problem, not mine.

The picture above the caption showed police in riot gear escorting black students in buses. But, but, but you had claimed that it was all about white students.

Well at least up North the police were used to PROTECT the law abiding black folks. Or have you forgotten the Edmund Pettus bridge...incident? That was yer buddy Wallace again wasn't?

[Source: especially to educate mac]

Lol. Please tell me you have something more substantial to support your crap than an old opinion piece written by a graduate student.

I remember the Boston riots, having earlier lived in both Boston and Cambridge while in college.

I seriously doubt the accuracy of anything you remember from college.

I don't deny that blacks were earlier denied the right to vote in the Texas Democrat primary or in earlier general elections. History is history.

Do you think the 1944 Surpreme Court decision on "whites-only" primaries was the end of the black voting rights problem in Texas? You're kidding me right? How about all those other methods used in Texas and the rest of the South back then?

Poll taxes
Literacy tests
“Grandfather” clauses
Suppressive election procedures
Black codes and enforced segregation
Gerrymandering
Physical intimidation and violence
Restrictive eligibility requirements
Rewriting of State constitutions

-btw It is interesting to note that in 2006 the SCV and their Republican dupes delegates are putting their trust in the Court rather than the People in their quest to have the Confederate plaques reinstated. Why is that?

One final question and then I think we're done here. Do you consider Alberto Gonzalez a Southerner, and if not why not?

[Non-Sequitur]

ROTFLMC*O! What Congress passed it as a law. The UNANIMOUS Supreme Court held that extra-constitutional acts during the war were illegal.

So when did the Supreme Court rule the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional? I must have missed that one.

You do understand the English language? Exactly what part 'otherwise UNCONSTITUTIONAL' and 'might BECOME lawful [meaning now ILLEGAL]' do you have problems comprehending? Baghdad Bob you're killing me!

I have to keep remembering that we must make allowances for you, product of southern school systems and all. But you, yourself, have to remember that a period forms only the end of a sentence. You pause there, you don't stop reading altogether. Which must be why you missed this part, "Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it." You just stopped reading altogether. Lincoln believed that he was right. Nothing had proven him wrong.

ROTF!!! You LIE so terribly - it was the DICTATOR Lincoln (cited above) who surmised that MASSACRE/MURDER would be a byproduct of his known illegal act.

Which in the southron mindset is all the more reason to leave blacks in bondage. Lincoln may have feared it but he didn't expect it and events proved him right.

[rustbucket]

Well it does change the symbolic meaning of the Confederate flag though doesn't it? Regardless of your personal feelings .

Not to me.

That was yer buddy Wallace again wasn't?

The way you carry on about him, I suspect you're in love.

Please tell me you have something more substantial to support your crap than an old opinion piece written by a graduate student.

So, you can't refute that article, huh? Did you notice the following from it?

They waved, not burned, American flags during nearly every demonstration. They consistently invoked the tradition of American liberty in their fight to retain it. Unfortunately, this sometimes resulted in a perverse blend of patriotism and racism, which culminated when a Charlestown youth literally speared a black attorney with a flag pole adorned with the Stars and Stripes at City Hall Plaza, a moment captured in a famous Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph.

According to your logic that must change the symbolic meaning of the Stars and Stripes.

I seriously doubt the accuracy of anything you remember from college.

LOL.

One final question and then I think we're done here. Do you consider Alberto Gonzalez a Southerner, and if not why not?

Why? What did he do now? Did he engineer some more clandestine plaque replacements in the middle of the night like he did before? Wasn't he advising Bush back when Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill? Heaven help us.

[4CJ]

So when did the Supreme Court rule the Emancipation Proclamation unconstitutional? I must have missed that one.

You miss everything. What part of the Constitution authorizes the Executive to pass laws - NONE! Only Congress can pass laws. In your bizarro world Lincoln or Clinton could craft laws that made elections illegal, and make themseleves President for life.

Justice Davis wrote, 'The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.'

[Non-Sequitur]

You miss everything. What part of the Constitution authorizes the Executive to pass laws - NONE! Only Congress can pass laws. In your bizarro world Lincoln or Clinton could craft laws that made elections illegal, and make themseleves President for life.

So the worm turns once again and we're back to it being unconstitutional becuase you say it is. I wish you had made that clear from the beginning so I wouldn't have wasted my time paying attention.

[4CJ]

So the worm turns once again and we're back to it being unconstitutional becuase you say it is.

How typically liberal of you! I said the court ruled it illegal and they did. Some 10 years earlier the Supreme Court held that private property may not be seized capriciously

Our duty is to determine under what circumstances private property may be taken from the owner by a military officer in a time of war. And the question here is, whether the law permits it to be taken to insure the success of any enterprise against a public enemy which the commanding officer may deem it advisable to undertake. And we think it very clear that the law does not permit it.
Chief Justice Taney, Mitchell v Harmony, 54 How. 115, 135 (1851)

The court also addressed the issue of UNcompensated takings,

There are, without doubt, occasions in which private property may lawfully be taken possession of or destroyed to prevent it from falling into the hands of the public enemy; and also where a military officer, charged with a particular duty, may impress private property into the public service or take it for public use. Unquestionably, in such cases, the government is bound to make full compensation to the owner.
Ibid. at 134.