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

Skip to comments.

Abraham Lincoln Was Elected President 143 Years Ago Tonight
http://www.nytimes.com ^ | 11/06/2003 | RepublicanWizard

Posted on 11/06/2003 7:31:54 PM PST by republicanwizard

Astounding Triumph of Republicanism.

THE NORTH RISING IN INDIGNATION AT THE MENACES OF THE SOUTH

Abraham Lincoln Probably Elected President by a Majority of the Entire Popular Vote

Forty Thousand Majority for the Republican Ticket in New-York

One Hundred Thousand Majority in Pennsylvania

Seventy Thousand Majority in Massachusetts

Corresponding Gains in the Western and North-Western States

Preponderance of John Bell and Conservatism at the South

Results of the Contest upon Congressional and Local Tickets

The canvass for the Presidency of the United States terminated last evening, in all the States of the Union, under the revised regulation of Congress, passed in 1845, and the result, by the vote of New-York, is placed beyond question at once. It elects ABRAHAM LINCOLN of Illinois, President, and HANNIBAL HAMLIN of Maine, Vice-President of the United States, for four years, from the 4th March next, directly by the People.

The election, so far as the City and State of New-York are concerned, will probably stand, hereafter as one of the most remarkable in the political contests of the country; marked, as it is, by far the heaviest popular vote ever cast in the City, and by the sweeping, and almost uniform, Republican majorities in the country.

RELATED HEADLINES

ELECTION DAY IN THE CITY: All Quiet and Orderly At the Polls: Progress of the Voting in the Several Wards: The City After Nightfall: How the News Was Received: Unbounded Enthusiasm of the Republicans and Bell-Everett Headquarters: The Times Office Beseiged: Midnight Display of Wide-Awakes: Bonfires and Illuminations

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: anniversary; bush; civilwar; dixielist; history; lincoln; republican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 951-964 next last
To: STONEWALLS
Our foes have seen too many of our side knuckle under. That only emboldens them.
151 posted on 11/07/2003 1:52:30 PM PST by wardaddy (...and Yes, I'll be your huckleberry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
And since the most famous 'victim' of the habeas corpus suspension, John Merryman, was arrested for terrorist activites (he burned a bridge)

So burning a bridge is a terrorist activity?

No, it's treason. Ask John Merryman.

Walt

152 posted on 11/07/2003 1:53:36 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS
that's cause Taney wrote Dred Scott, a decision based on law...

"Dred Scott" was -not- based in law or precedent. Blacks could vote in 5 northern states at the time.

It was an attempt at social engineering.

Walt

153 posted on 11/07/2003 1:57:16 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS
that's cause Taney wrote Dred Scott, a decision based on law but uber un-PC these days

Two things. One, please refer me to the law on which it was based, and then please tell me whether or not you agree with the Scott decision.

Thanx.


154 posted on 11/07/2003 2:01:20 PM PST by rdb3 (We're all gonna go, but I hate to go fast. Then again, it won't be fun to stick around and go last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
I won't honor Lincoln because Lincoln deserves scorn as a Traitor to the very Constitution he swore to uphold and defend.

In your view, how did President Lincoln do that?

Walt

155 posted on 11/07/2003 2:01:41 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Most historians agree that President Lincoln bent but did not break the Constitution. Blather all you like.

Of course, you cannot bend something that is inflexible (without breaking it, your rediculous symantics aside).

156 posted on 11/07/2003 2:01:56 PM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: labard1
There were many voices, North and South, which were far more constructive...

This was the typical "southern" voice:

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."

-- "The Coming Fury" by Bruce Catton

Walt

157 posted on 11/07/2003 2:08:38 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: republicanwizard
I just read the other day what Sam Houston said about one of the secesh leaders:

"He has all the qualities of a dog except fidelity."

Walt

158 posted on 11/07/2003 2:10:24 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: republicanwizard
I am conflicted and ambivalent regarding Lincoln. In my opinion, no person who has spent any time and effort to understand the founding period could fail to be conflicted as regards Lincoln.

On the one hand, his actions led to the abolition of slavery on this continent, which was one of the greatest achievements in all human history. On the other, his actions destroyed state sovereignty, led to the rise of an all-powerful central government that has not ceased to grow, and also were the genesis of the income tax. He settled by force something the founding generation took for granted — the right of the states and the people to disolve the union should such become necessary.

Lincoln did not so much lead the country through a crisis, as he took advantage of the crisis in order to redesign our system of government. One can applaud and honor the abolition of slavery while also noting that other parts of Lincoln's legacy are just as destructive of liberty, only in a different way.

159 posted on 11/07/2003 2:11:46 PM PST by Wolfstar (An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hirn_man
They didn't feel like they had to live up to the deal that their anscestors had made...

Exactly correct.

Southerners had controlled the federal government for decades. When the election of a man Like Lincoln -- always an opponent of slavery -- showed that control slipping, they tried to bolt.

Walt

160 posted on 11/07/2003 2:15:08 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: republicanwizard
But, did you really expect that this WOULDN'T become another bloated thread, beating the Civil War dead horse?
161 posted on 11/07/2003 2:16:15 PM PST by The Coopster (Tha's no ordinary rabbit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: republicanwizard
Frankly, I didn't see much point even arguing fact with the buffoon, so I resorted to belittling him and his petty, incorrect, racist-tinged arguments.

It's funny how often the neo-confederates have to preface their rant with comments like, "I don't favor a return to slavery, but..."

Walt

162 posted on 11/07/2003 2:17:17 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
He settled by force something the founding generation took for granted — the right of the states and the people to disolve the union should such become necessary.

The framers -clearly- wanted a more powerful central government than existed under the Articles.

From Letters and Other Writings of James Madison,. New York: R. Worthington, 1884. 287-290.

To General Washington

New York, April 16th, 1787

Dear Sir,

--I have been honored with your letter of the 31 March, and find, with much pleasure, that your views of the reform which ought to be pursued by the Convention give a sanction to those I entertained. Temporizing applications will dishonor the councils which propose them, and may foment the internal malignity of the disease, at the same time that they produce an ostensible palliation of it. Radical attempts, although unsuccessful, will at least justify the authors of them.

Having been lately led to revolve the subject which is to undergo the discussion of the Convention, and formed some outlines of a new system, I take the liberty of submitting them without apology to your eye.

Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcilable with their aggregate sovereignty, and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.

I would propose as the groundwork, that a change be made in the principle of representation. According to the present form of the Union, in which the intervention of the States is in all great cases necessary to effectuate the measures of Congress, an equality of suffrage does not destroy the inequality of importance in the several members. No one will deny that Virginia and Massachusetts have more weight and influence, both within and without Congress, than Delaware or Rhode Island. Under a system which would operate in many essential points without the intervention of the State legislatures, the case would be materially altered. A vote in the national Councils from Delaware would then have the same effect and value as one from the largest State in the Union. I am ready to believe that such a change would not be attended with much difficulty. A majority of the States, and those of greatest influence, will regard it as favorable to them. To the northern States it will be recommended by their present populousness; to the Southern, by their expected advantage in this respect. The lesser States must in every event yield to the predominant will. But the consideration which particularly urges a change in the representation is, that it will obviate the principal objections of the larger States to the necessary concessions of power.

I would propose next, that in addition to the present federal powers, the national Government should be armed with positive and complete authority in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade, including the right of taxing both exports and imports, the fixing the terms and forms of naturalization, &c., &c.

Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatsoever on the Legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the Kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions. Without this defensive power, every positive power that can be given on paper will be evaded or defeated. The States will continue to invade the National jurisdiction, to violate treaties, and the law of nations, and to harass each other with rival and spiteful measures dictated by mistaken views of interest. . . .

The national supremacy ought also to be extended, as I conceive, to the Judiciary departments. If those who are to expound and apply the laws are connected by their interests and their oaths with the particular States wholly, and not with the Union, the participation of the Union in the making of the laws may be possibly rendered unavailing. It seems at least necessary that the oaths of the Judges should include a fidelity to the general as well as local Constitution, and that an appeal should lie to some National tribunal in all cases to which foreigners or inhabitants or other States may be parties. The admiralty jurisdiction seems to fall entirely within the purview of the National Government.

The National supremacy in the Executive departments is liable to some difficulty, unless the officers administering them could be made appointable by the Supreme Government. The Militia ought certainly to be placed, in some form or other, under the authority which is entrusted with the general protection and defense.

A Government composed of such extensive powers should be well organized and balanced. The legislative department might be divided into two branches; one of them chosen every. . .years, by the people at large, or by the Legislatures; the other to consist of fewer members, to hold their places for a longer term, and to go out in such rotation as always to leave in office a large majority of old members. Perhaps the negative on the laws might be most conveniently exercised by this branch. As a further check, a Council of revision, including the great ministerial officers, might be superadded.

A National Executive must also be provided. I have scarcely ventured, as yet, to form my own opinion either of the manner in which it ought to be constituted, or of the authorities with which it ought to be clothed. An article should be inserted expressly guaranteeing the tranquility of the States against internal as well as external dangers.

In like manner the right of coercion should be expressly declared. With the resources of commerce in hand, the National administration might always find means of exerting it either by sea or land. But the difficulty and awkwardness of operating by force on the collective will of a State render it particularly desirable that the necessity of it might be precluded. Perhaps the negative on the laws might create such a mutuality of dependence between the general and particular authorities as to answer this purpose. Or, perhaps, some defined objects of taxation might be submitted, along with commerce, to the general authority.

To give a new system its proper validity and energy, a ratification must be obtained from the people, and not merely from the ordination of the Legislatures. This will be the more essential, as inroads on the existing Constitutions of the States will be unavoidable."

Your premise is wrong.

Walt

163 posted on 11/07/2003 2:23:59 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Lincoln did not so much lead the country through a crisis, as he took advantage of the crisis in order to redesign our system of government.

That is simply incorrect. President Lincoln used the power of the executive branch that the framers placed there. The reason this -appears- startling or new is because the executive had never had to extend itself in this way.

Consider what Jackson proposed to do during the nullification crisis -- take the federal army to South Carolina. How was this different from what President Lincoln did?

The executive always had the power President Lincoln used.

Walt

164 posted on 11/07/2003 2:28:02 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
You have assumed a most liberal interpretation of presidential powers. Before the Civil War the prevalent interpretation of the constitution was that the president was only commander in chief once war had been declared. When there was no state of war the military (militia) was under the command of the various state governments. The president as commander in chief was a constitutional convention compromise to assure the individual states that the commander of a single state's militia would not assume command thus making any other states militia's more or less expendable. Since no "war Power Act" was in effect and no Declaration of War existed Lincoln's actions were unconstitutional. (But he never let that get in his way).
165 posted on 11/07/2003 2:33:07 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; x
Before the Civil War the prevalent interpretation of the constitution was that the president was only commander in chief once war had been declared.

Nope.

Ah, ignorance is bliss.

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."

President Lincoln had all the authority he needed under law.

Now this is from the majority opinion in the Prize Cases.

"The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."

The 9th and 10th amendments don't come into play either.

Walt

166 posted on 11/07/2003 2:38:58 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Gianni
Most historians agree that President Lincoln bent but did not break the Constitution. Blather all you like.

Of course, you cannot bend something that is inflexible (without breaking it, your rediculous symantics aside).

Well, I guess that makes the United States Air Force illegal.

Flexibility is the genius of the Constitution.

Walt

167 posted on 11/07/2003 2:50:06 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: billbears
How about they address those issues through the replublican(government not political party)way?

You know repeal the laws they thought were so darn harsh.
Of course that would of meant that their ideas would have had to of been able to sway a majority of the legislative branch and get a president to sign it.

And failing that they could have sought redress from the courts.

The founders knew when they told King George to get lost that it meant war. I suspect that your confederate anscestors did too.

Your confederate anscestors had representation. Your founder anscestors didn't. I would say that that is a rather major difference.

Your confederate anscestors had all the rights that your founder anscestors fought and died for. That wasn't enough for them, they demanded to be in charge.





168 posted on 11/07/2003 3:00:35 PM PST by hirn_man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
I stand corrected on this point, however my overall opinion of Lincoln's assault on the Constitution is unswayed.
169 posted on 11/07/2003 3:17:36 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Both during the Constitutional Convention and the ratification period, various states threatened to secede from the union for various reasons. It was taken for granted by all of the state delegates and legislatures that states could secede. In fact, the members of the Constitutional Convention struggled mightly all that summer to settle differences and come up with compromises that would permit the document to be unanimously signed (it wasn't) and unanimously ratified (it wasn't).

I can't comment intelligently on that one Maidson letter without knowing its full context. However, one letter does not argue for unanimity of opinion on the matter during the founding period. Strong, even bitter differences of opinion existed throughout the period as regards state sovereignty vs. an all-powerful central government — or, to be more precise in describing the choice as they saw it, between preserving the newly independent states and fear of the establishment of a monarchy.

By all means, it's true that the members of the Constitutional Convention wanted to replace the weak Articles of Confederation with a stronger federal system. However, federalism meant something quite different to them than it does to us, today. Heck, it meant something different to the small vs. large states, to the northern vs. southern states, and to agrarians like Thomas Jefferson vs. urban businessmen and financiers like Alexander Hamilton. Their split on these very issues was the genesis of the American two-party system.

At one point early in the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton delivered a speech that seemed to argue for dissolution of the states entirely, and for the creation of a single central government with a monarchist slant. (Hamilton was an admirer of the British system of government.) The speech was most definitely not well-received by his fellow delegates. He left the convention and only returned months later.

In contrast, Jefferson despised the British and admired the French. He was in France at the time of the Convention. But we know from all of his writings during the period that, while he agreed with a strengthening of the federal system, he was opposed to a very strong, dominant central government. (When he finally became president, he didn't govern the way he had always written of his political beliefs, by the way.)

Over time, those who agreed with the Hamiltonian view (including Washington and Adams) became known as Federalists, and those who agreed with the Jeffersonian view became known as Democratic-Republicans. The seeds of the civil war were planted during the founding period, not just in their failure to deal with the slavery question, but also in this federalist vs. states rights question that only came to a head when South Carolina seceded.

She and the other southern states did so precisely because the states believed the Constitution did not bind them in a perpetual union. The Constitution is silent on the matter. (It would never have been ratified otherwise.) Solely as regards their right to secede, I believe the southern states were correct. Lincoln and many in the north obviously had a different view. That was the core issue of the Civil War, not slavery. Emancipation was a byproduct of Lincoln's fight to impose permanent union on the states.

170 posted on 11/07/2003 3:22:58 PM PST by Wolfstar (An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"Nope, Reagan ended one of the world's greatest tyrannies with hardly a shot being fired.
I guess you don't think the war in Korea and in Viet Nam were part of the downfall of Communism, or the capture of the U.S.S. Pueblo, or the numerous shoot downs of U.S. reconnaisance aircraft along the borders of the Soviet Union?

All of that was part and parcel of the fall of the Soviet Union and it sure wasn't bloodless."

You're right, there was a way to misconstrue my comment. So let me clarify: the Cold War had been going on for 35 years when Reagan became President. Some of that period had involved combat and some had been true cold war.

After Reagan became President, however, the Soviet Union fell and Eastern Europe was freed from its tyranny. Virtually no shots were fired in the Cold War after Reagan became President. Not being in government, he had no (meaningful) impact on Korea or Viet Nam.

Neither Korea nor Viet Nam "ended" Communism, though obviously it was necessary to stop the expansion of Communism before its power could be ended. Although I never said that the overall conflict with the Soviet Union was bloodless, I now understand that it was possible to misconstrue my comment. And who better than Whiskey Papa to do it?
171 posted on 11/07/2003 3:30:28 PM PST by labard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
I did not have the Richmond Examiner's declaration of the permanence of slavery in the South in mind when I said there were many voices which were far more constructive. Specifically I was thinking of the Whigs (Constitutional Union) and Senator Stephen Douglas. But if the ultimate judgement on matters is to be determined by journalists, I hope future historians don't read the New York Times.
172 posted on 11/07/2003 3:46:04 PM PST by labard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: labard1
"But if the ultimate judgement on matters is to be determined by journalists, I hope future historians don't read the New York Times."

You're right there. Newspapers on both sides of an issue tended to extremes.

I think the only difference between today and past times in regards to newspapers is that newspapers used to be fairly above board in their bias.

At least thats what my inferior public education has lead me to believe.
173 posted on 11/07/2003 4:16:19 PM PST by hirn_man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
"It was taken for granted by all of the state delegates and legislatures that states could secede. "

So if it was taken for granted by all of the state delegates and legislatures that states could secede, why is the constitution silent about the matter? Seems to me they could of prevented a costly war by spelling it out. There shouldn't have been any contention since all the state delegates and legislatures took it for granted.

174 posted on 11/07/2003 4:22:49 PM PST by hirn_man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: zarf
This is probably not what you had in mind, but today's Paul Harvey R.O.T.S. was actually voiced by commie Doug Limerick (trying to sound like Paul). To spare you the details, it was basically: Episcopalians and Native Americans good, Christians (except for Episcopalians) bad, Abraham Lincoln consummate evil. I deduce from today's R.O.T.S. that Mr. Harvey has given up editorial control.
175 posted on 11/07/2003 4:40:47 PM PST by G-dzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hirn_man
The Constitution is silent on a number of issues the founding generation took for granted. As brilliant and farsighted as they were, they nevertheless were fallible human beings who were addressing the most pressing problems of THEIR day. Issues they either did not see as problems in their time, or which were not as urgent to them, were deferred for future generations to handle.
176 posted on 11/07/2003 4:42:48 PM PST by Wolfstar (An angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: republicanwizard
Bump for Mr. Lincoln...
177 posted on 11/07/2003 4:45:58 PM PST by StoneColdGOP (McClintock - In Your Heart, You Know He's Right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hirn_man
Your comment about 19th century papers being proud to announce their party affiliations is absolutely accurate.

If you're going to be decent about things, then I owe you a civil explanation of why I reject your mother/child murder analogy to New England's effort at secession during the War of 1812.

In the case of your mother/child murder case, nothing in your mother's statements help construe the meaning of the murder statute. On the other hand New England's threat of secession during the War of 1812 came at a time many of the founding fathers were still alive, as were many people involved in the ratification of the Constitution in the various states. They knew what arguments had been made to get ratification. They had better insight into the intention of the framers than any subsequent group would ever have. And a number of them were active on behalf of secession.

Given that history, it seems highly selective to condemn Southern secession as illegal or morally indefensible. It's like the Dims accusing Schwarzeneger of groping after their defense of Clinton. It just doesn't ring true, even if one does not really condone groping.
178 posted on 11/07/2003 4:53:35 PM PST by labard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: subedei
If you want to work for decentralization and devolution of power to local authorities, fine, it could be a worthy cause. But the "state's rights" tradition has historically been associated with slavery and later with segregation. Therefore, people are naturally reticent about identifying that tradition with liberty. That doesn't necessarily mean that Calhoun, Taylor, Randolph and the rest need to be constantly labled "slavehounds" or "lords of the lash," but it does mean that no one can seriously identify their tradition simply with the defense of liberty. There's a dark side that needs to be taken into account. We can certainly respect some of their views, but most of us can't make their tradition our own.

If "state's rights" is silent or indifferent or supportive where slavery is concerned, it's a sign that there is something wrong or lacking with that school of thought. That moral deficiency in Jeffersonian republicanism or Jacksonian democracy means that we can't look on Lincoln or the abolitionists in the negative light that nineteenth century Southerners did. Republicans and abolitionists did bring something of value to the debate, which would be impoverished if its highest principle was the absolute sovereignty and divine right of state governments. Moreover, the practical difficulties and constitutional doubtfulness of nullification and secession were apparent to many people at the time, and those who pursued such ideas to the point of revolution and war are hardly reliable guides for citizenship or statesmanship.

Some people seem to have bought into the "Jeffersonians good, everything else bad" way of thinking, but it's too simplistic a picture. Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans asked Jeffersonians important questions that pointed up deficiencies or gaps in "state's rights" thinking. They understood things about the nature union and constitution that Jeffersonians didn't. The reverse is true as well, Jeffersonians brought up things that Hamiltonians would rather ignore. So I don't think there are any simple answers. All the more so, since Jeffersonians like Madison and Monroe ended up closer to Washington or Adams than to radicals like Taylor or Randolph. In the end, though, it does look to me like secessionists had the wrong goals and pursued them by rash and reckless means.

Does that mean that we pit Lincoln against the founders and choose him over them? No, first of all, as is pointed out here every week, Lincoln doesn't correspond to modern ideas on racial equality, either. There's room to criticize him on that ground and others. He is not immune from criticism or reproach. We are going to be hearing for a long time that because Lincoln wasn't committed to racial equality, his principled stands against the expansion of slavery and unilateral secession count for nothing. But it's not clear why Calhoun's or Taylor's support for slavery should be irrelevant to our assessment of their own views about secession and nullification.

It is clear that Lincoln wasn't so far different in his views of union and liberty from Washington or Adams or Hamilton or Madison, though. It's Jefferson whose views differed, and Calhoun whose views differed even more from the Founders. You may want to talk about Lincoln as a deviation or deformation of an older tradition, but the tradition of Calhoun is itself a corruption and a turning away from what the Founders intended. Lincoln brought some change, but it was more evolutionary, and more in accord with the views of our first Presidents than many claim. It's not true that the modern welfare state was born with Lincoln.

Differences about racial equality don't mean that we have to permanently ban Jefferson, or Washington, or Lincoln. We are adult enough to recognize their virtues and sterling qualities, which on balance were greater than our own. But it does mean that one can't naively raise the banner of Taylor or Calhoun, nullification, secession and state's rights without people asking serious questions, making reproaches, or ignoring one's stand. Chivalry and honesty mean that we can and should honor the courage of Confederate soldiers and understand that in their own minds their fight was justified, but the same honesty makes it hard to see the cause of radical Southern political leaders as our cause or as the cause of liberty.

179 posted on 11/07/2003 5:11:37 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: labard1
Almost every significant office holder in the Confederacy opposed secession until their views no longer mattered, at which time they went with their states.

The Confederacy wanted to win foreign support. Therefore it had to choose leaders who would appear sane, moderate, and responsible. Radical "Fire-eaters" like Rhett and Yancey had much power and influence, but those who were chosen to head the Confederacy, Davis and Stephens, would at least have to appear to be reluctant secessionists. Perhaps they were. But two further caveats are necessary. 1) Few politicians would give up their seats until their state had seceeded. Therefore, they'd have to at least appear to be committed to working out a compromise up to the last moment. They'd have to have clean hands, in case secession didn't come through. 2) The real debate in the cotton states wasn't between secession and union but between independent secession and cooperative action between the slave states. Was South Carolina or Mississippi going to go it alone, or were they going to form a league or union or new nation with other seceeding states. Many who were hesitant about seceeding wanted to see if other states would join theirs. Some may even have been working behind the scenes to make sure that if secession came it would be successful.

Northern unionists didn't understand this. They took such hesitation about secession for real commitment to the union and saw hope for preserving the nation in it. Hesitation -- indeed opposition to secession -- was more real in the Upper South, at least up until Sumter, but was likewise overrated by Northerners. It wouldn't survive the outbreak of hostilities. In the North, what we read now as a debate about letting rebel states go or holding them in by force was often a debate about whether to make concessions to the slave states. That was the real question for many concerned. Many unionists wanted to stand firm and resist concessions, rather than to fight and conquer or to simply let go and let the country fall apart. Events overtook this debate. Before Sumter war was one cloudy possibility among others, after it, there appeared to be no alternative to fighting. Just as Northerners read Southern hesitancy as implying more unionist sentiment than it did, so Southerners read the Northern position as implying more acceptance of secession and unwillingness to fight than was the case.

But also, reluctance is one of the great elements of political persuasion, especially in 19th century American politics. If Caesar wants the crown, he is a tyrant. If Augustus has it thrust upon him by the Senate and people, he can't resist it. Washington became President in part because he didn't want it, and since then statesmen always took care not to appear to want office or power too much. Every candidate had to maintain that his party's nomination came to him unsought and unsolicited. That's why nominees didn't even go to the conventions in those days. Jefferson Davis was not a secessionist militant, but that didn't mean he was devoted to preserving the Union. Whether he appeared to hold back because of loyalty, prudence, caution or concealed ambition would be hard to resolve.

180 posted on 11/07/2003 5:18:42 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Please refute where you think you have better information.

OK, let's start here.

Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus...

Lincoln's actions were not illegal because you say they were. The Supreme Court never ruled on the legality or illegality.

... launched a military invasion without consent of Congress...

Nonsense. Invasions are launched against other countries not rebellious sections of your own. Lincoln had all the authority he needed under the militia act.

...blockaded Southern ports without declaring war...

Again, you declare war against other countries, not parts of your own.

...created three new states (Kansas, Nevada, and West Virginia) without the formal consent of the citizens of those states...

Kansas was admitted before Lincoln was inaugurated. As for West Virginia and Nevada exactly what formal consent are you looking for?

...deported a member of Congress from Ohio after he criticized Lincoln’s unconstitutional behavior...

Former member of Congress, and after his conviction by a military court.

...confiscated private property; confiscated firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and eviscerated the Ninth and Tenth Amendments...

Some specifics please?

...ministers were imprisoned for failing to say a prayer for Abraham Lincoln...

Oh please.

Lincoln further arrested legislatures of Maryland who opposed the war and apponted their replacements...

Members who supported the ongoing southern rebellion. What was he supposed to do with them?

When the Chief Justus of the Supreme Court declared this unconstitutional Lincoln ordered him arrested too.

Utterly false.

181 posted on 11/07/2003 5:30:36 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: varina davis
Brings to mind the present-day bumper sticker: "Don't blame me -- I voted for Jefferson Davis"

Like you had a choice? He ran unopposed. Didn't want to take any chances, I guess.

182 posted on 11/07/2003 5:36:56 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: rdb3; WhiskeyPapa; shuckmaster; stainlessbanner; Constitution Day; stand watie; billbears; ...
"Two things. One, please refer me to the law on which it was based, and then please tell me whether or not you agree with the Scott decision."

1. the Court ruled Scott didn't have "standing" to sue.

2. I agree that he didn't have standing to sue but that he also deserved manumission and should have received it earlier than he did.

183 posted on 11/07/2003 5:52:27 PM PST by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Well, I guess that makes the United States Air Force illegal

Apparently, you don't remember losing this argument before.

Flexibility is the genius of the Constitution.

The document makes clear that it is flexible only through the amendment process. Why not detail some of the amendments Abe passed in order to bend the constitution?

184 posted on 11/07/2003 5:57:59 PM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: x
There is a lot of truth in what you say, though it is not the entire story. Rhett and Yancy were tremendously frustrated by the fact that they were never given any real power even though they were significant in shaping Southern popular opinion.

I believe all the evidence supports the proposition that Davis and Stephens were quite sincere in their opposition to secession, though their personal incentives were as you state. I do not believe they were chosen in Montgomery because of their ability to appeal to Europe as moderates. The delegates were propertied folks who wanted "sound" people running the government, and Rhett and Yancey didn't make that category.
185 posted on 11/07/2003 6:07:35 PM PST by labard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS
1. the Court ruled Scott didn't have "standing" to sue.

This I know, but why didn't Scott have the standing to sue? Could it be that Chief Justice Taney, who was a staunch supporter of slavery, thought that black people "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it?"

Now, what is your thought on this decision and Taney's words?


186 posted on 11/07/2003 6:07:41 PM PST by rdb3 (We're all gonna go, but I hate to go fast. Then again, it won't be fun to stick around and go last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
"This I know, but why didn't Scott have the standing to sue?"

.......if you knew it why did you ask?

187 posted on 11/07/2003 6:29:12 PM PST by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
No, it's treason. Ask John Merryman.

Sorry, but treason requires a charge, a case, and a conviction. Lincoln simply threw Merryman in jail without the benefit of any of those things.

188 posted on 11/07/2003 6:29:29 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS
Please answer my question.


189 posted on 11/07/2003 6:32:49 PM PST by rdb3 (We're all gonna go, but I hate to go fast. Then again, it won't be fun to stick around and go last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
I did, please answer mine
190 posted on 11/07/2003 6:33:59 PM PST by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: republicanwizard
Let us also be thankful to have a President of Lincoln's quality in the White House today.

You're anticipating another civil war?

191 posted on 11/07/2003 6:35:47 PM PST by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS
You didn't answer anything. In fact, you gave a conflicting post.

What do you think of what Taney stated?


192 posted on 11/07/2003 6:39:12 PM PST by rdb3 (We're all gonna go, but I hate to go fast. Then again, it won't be fun to stick around and go last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Utterly false.

Not exactly. I'm afraid that the verdict is still out on that matter of history. As it stands today there are at least two known corroborating accounts that claim a plot was hatched to arrest Taney but was soon aborted. The first is Ward Hill Lamon, a close Lincoln friend and the federal marshall who it is said to have been responsible for making the arrest. The second is George William Brown, the mayor of Baltimore who learned of the plot and went to Taney's courtroom to warn him of it.

193 posted on 11/07/2003 6:44:10 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Nonsense. Invasions are launched against other countries not rebellious sections of your own.

Lincoln sure didn't think so.

"The words ``coercion'' and ``invasion'' are in great use about these days. Suppose we were simply to try if we can, and ascertain what, is the meaning of these words. Let us get, if we can, the exact definitions of these words - not from dictionaries, but from the men who constantly repeat them - what things they mean to express by the words. What, then, is ``coercion''? What is ``invasion''? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit." - Abraham Lincoln, February 11, 1861

Oh, and by all means feel free to quote the rest of that speech. In no place does he ever negate his definition of invasion as some have erroniously alleged.

194 posted on 11/07/2003 6:49:45 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Like Lincoln -- always an opponent of slavery

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." - Abraham Lincoln speaking a the Inauguration of the 16th President of the United States, March 4, 1861

"Mr. Corwin's amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Congress from interfering with Slavery in the States finally prevailed by the bare Constitutional majority. It is known that Mr. Lincoln favored its passage" - New York Tribune, March 5, 1861

"Mr. Lincoln has advised that the Republicans of his State should support Mr. Corwin's constitutional amendment...prohibiting Congress from interfering with the domestic institutions of the South." - New York Tribune, March 2, 1861

The amendment to which Lincoln was referring and gave his support:

Article Thirteen. "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Sounds like a real slavery opponent to me!

195 posted on 11/07/2003 7:00:06 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
President Lincoln worked hard for the 13th amendment.

According to the New York Tribune he sure did!

"Mr. Corwin's amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Congress from interfering with Slavery in the States finally prevailed by the bare Constitutional majority. It is known that Mr. Lincoln favored its passage" - New York Tribune, March 5, 1861

"Mr. Lincoln has advised that the Republicans of his State should support Mr. Corwin's constitutional amendment...prohibiting Congress from interfering with the domestic institutions of the South." - New York Tribune, March 2, 1861

196 posted on 11/07/2003 7:03:07 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
You're forgetting the Walt qualifier:

By the end of the war, Lincoln had been an opponent of slavery his entire life.

When he said those things you quoted, of course, we didn't have the benefit of his actions from '62 on, which altered both the intent and meaning of everything he said throughout his entire life. /sarcasm

197 posted on 11/07/2003 7:24:49 PM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
First Alabama Chinese Volunteers? I see.

Put your list of volunteers up again.
198 posted on 11/07/2003 10:03:16 PM PST by Held_to_Ransom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Well, well, WLAT...you have come out of your dark little hole in the ground.....
199 posted on 11/08/2003 3:07:01 AM PST by TexConfederate1861 (Dixie and Texas Forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Oh, and by all means feel free to quote the rest of that speech.

Oh, I will.

"But if the Government, for instance, but simply insists upon holding its own forts, or retaking those forts which belong to it, or the enforcement of the laws of the United States in the collection of duties upon foreign importations, or even the withdrawl of the mails from those portions of the country where the mails themselves are habitually violated; would any or all of these things be coercion?"

Lincoln tried to hold on to federal property and tried to enforece the laws. Lincoln didn't invade South Carolina or any other southren state. He took no hostile actions against any southern state prior to the southern initiation of hostilities at Sumter. His actions were not 'coercion' or 'invasion' except, of course, to those who were out for a war in the first place.

200 posted on 11/08/2003 6:06:45 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 951-964 next last

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.

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

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson