Lincoln: Tyrant, Hypocrite or Consumate Statesman? (Dinesh defends our 2d Greatest Prez)

thehistorynet. ^ | Feb 12, 05 | D'Souza

[4CJ]

The Supreme Court had already established the legality of the Confiscation Acts which allowed the government to seize without compensation private property if it was used to further the cause of the rebellion.

PRIOR to the war the Supreme Court had ruled that uncompensated takings were unconstitutional. See the 5th Amendment.

[Non-Sequitur]

PRIOR to the war the Supreme Court had ruled that uncompensated takings were unconstitutional. See the 5th Amendment.

And the Supreme Court modified that decision when in Miller v United States they ruled that the government could deprive an enemy of their property without compensation if that property might be used against them.

[4CJ]

See the 5th Amendment.

[Non-Sequitur]

See Miller v US

"The objection starts with the assumption that the purpose of the acts was to punish offences against the sovereignty of the United States, and that they are merely statutes against crimes. If this were a correct assumption, if the act of 1861, and the fifth, sixth, and seventh sections of the act of July 17, 1862, were municipal regulations only, there would be force in the objection that Congress has disregarded the restrictions of the fifth and sixth amendments of the Constitution. Those restrictions, so far as material to the argument, are, that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury; that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law, and that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. But if the assumption of the plaintiff in error is not well made, if the statutes were not enacted under the municipal power of Congress to legislate for the punishment of crimes against the sovereignty of the United States, if, on the contrary, they are an exercise of [78 U.S. 268, 305] the war powers of the government, it is clear they are not affected by the restrictions imposed by the fifth and sixth amendments. This we understand to have been conceded in the argument. The question, therefore, is, whether the action of Congress was a legitimate exercise of the war power. The Constitution confers upon Congress expressly power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules respecting captures on land and water. Upon the exercise of these powers no restrictions are imposed. Of course the power to declare war involves the power to prosecute it by all means and in any manner in which war may be legitimately prosecuted. It therefore includes the right to seize and confiscate all property of an enemy and to dispose of it at the will of the captor. This is and always has been an undoubted belligerent right. If there were any uncertainty respecting the existence of such a right it would be set at rest by the express grant of power to make rules respecting captures on land and water. It is argued that though there are no express constitutional restrictions upon the power of Congress to declare and prosecute war, or to make rules respecting captures on land and water, there are restrictions implied in the nature of the powers themselves. Hence it is said the power to prosecute war is only a power to prosecute it according to the law of nations, and a power to make rules respecting captures is a power to make such rules only as are within the laws of nations. Whether this is so or not we do not care to inquire, for it is not necessary to the present case. It is sufficient that the right to confiscate the property of all public enemies is a conceded right. Now, what is that right, and why is it allowed? It may be remarked that it has no reference whatever to the personal guilt of the owner of confiscated property, and the act of confiscation is not a proceeding against him. The confiscation is not because of crime, but because of the relation of the property to the opposing belligerent, a relation in which it has been brought in consequence of its ownership. It is immaterial to it whether the owner be an alien or a friend, or even a citizen or subject of the power that attempts to [78 U.S. 268, 306] appropriate the property. In either case the property may be liable to confiscation under the rules of war. It is certainly enough to warrant the exercise of this belligerent right that the owner be a resident of the enemy's country, no matter what his nationality. The whole doctrine of confiscation is built upon the foundation that it is an instrument of coercion, which, by depriving an enemy of property within reach of his power, whether within his territory or without it, impairs his ability to resist the confiscating government, while at the same time it furnishes to that government means for carrying on the war. Hence any property which the enemy can use, either by actual appropriation or by the exercise of control over its owner, or which the adherents of the enemy have the power of devoting to the enemy's use, is a proper subject of confiscation."

[Modernman]

Without importation of African Slaves, slavery would have eventually dwindled.

Hogwash. The wealthy slave-breeders and traders in the south were in favor of bans on importation because they did not want competition for their business. they were, however, more than capable of meeting the demand for slaves in the CSA.

[Modernman]

FYI, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri remained in the Union during the war and were also slave states. In addition, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamaion was written only for the slaves in the South. Those in the North were excluded.

Lincoln had no Constitutional power to free slaves in non-rebel states without a Constitutional Amendment.

[Dustbunny]

Excellent !!

[4CJ]

I note you don't post the DATE of Miller v. US, 78 Wall. 268 - it was heard in the December 1870 term with the decision released 3 Apr 1871. Prior Supreme Court decisions - prior to the war - held that uncompensated takings were unconstitutional.

[Non-Sequitur]

Prior to that there hadn't been a rebellion. Legislation was passed to combat the rebellion. The matter was taken to court and the court ruled that the Constitution hadn't been violated. That's the way it works, regardless of the date of the ruling.

[Darkwolf377]

Your endless attempt to change the subject changes nothing. I posted a quote in response to a comment. If you couldn't figure that out, you've got no right lecturing anyone on how to debate.

[Iris7]

Such bellicosity is unbecoming. If you had cared to read beyond the first two lines you would have noticed that the two review excerpts I quoted are critical of Bennett. What is being discussed are Bennett's claims, and discussed unsympathetically.

Reading Lincoln's materials, it is obvious that Lincoln hoped that the blacks would all want to leave the United States, in order that they could "live with their own kind." To what extent he would have been willing to encourage such leaving, by carrot and/or stick, is unknowable.

[Iris7]

"Not one of your posts has included a quote from Lincoln saying where he supported the forced deportation of blacks."

That is true. I have never seen any statement creditably claimed to be Lincoln's that advocated forced deportation. At the time I was trying to get into Lincoln's head, I decided that he was wistfully hopeful that the blacks would all want to leave when given the opportunity. I don't know if Lincoln saw that this mass departure of happy blacks was only a foolish dream.

Besides, when you run the numbers, transport of the era would be very strained indeed to accomplish such a thing. It would take five or ten years, anyway.

[4CJ]

Legislation was passed to combat the rebellion.

From the decision, "[t]he question, therefore, is, whether the action of Congress was a legitimate exercise of the war power." Was it a war? When did Congress declare it to be a war? Or was it a rebellion? In 1866 SCOTUS determined 9-0 that the Constitution applied to all men at all times, that it could not be suspended by a war. Only a moron can take '[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation', and make it mean something else.

[Jsalley82]

I'm sorry, Dark, but you evidently have never read anything the Bible says about the 'sin' of slavery.

Please read Colossians, ch 13-14 if memory serves. Slavery is NOT a sin. In fact,the Bible gives very detailed instructions under which slavery is allowed to exist. In fact, the instructions on slavery are very similar to those on divorce- another practice that is allowed, under certain circumstances, although it has negative effects.

A study of the Slave Narratives, in their own words, shows the prodominant practices in the South followed the Apostle Paul's instructions.

[Darkwolf377]

Please read Colossians, ch 13-14 if memory serves. Slavery is NOT a sin.

Oy vey, this is gettin' scary. No offense, but I'm outta here. Have a good one.

[Jsalley82]

Arkinsaw-

Your argument agaist those who claim slavery wasn't the cause of the war fly directly in the face of what Lincoln and the entire northern-controlled Congress SAID in 1861.

Lincoln' First Inaugural Speech, only DAYS befor war broke out:
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Furthermore, he fully supported the Fugitive Slave Laws:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Most telling, Lincoln tells EXACTLY why there WILL be a war:
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, ..."

IN other words: Collect the tarriffs, there will be no war.

FURTHERMORE, the northern controlled Congress has JUST PASSED a Constitutional Amendment, constructed to get the Southern states back into Congress, that would prevent the federal government from EVER interferring with slavery:
On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000). The proposed amendment read as follows:

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.”

Lincoln FULLY SUPPORTED this Amendment, and SAID SO in his First Inaugural speech!!! He said:
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . 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.”

Now, it sure doesn't sound to me as if Lincoln was BROODING how to get rid of slavery!!!! In fact, as he CLEARLY wrote Horace Greely, maintaining the Union- even if it required the deaths of 620,000 Americans- was FAR more important than ANYTHING having to do with slavery!

Furthermore;
The reason for the war should be easy to determine. On July 22, 1861, the US Congress issued a "Joint Resolution on the War" that echoed Lincoln’s reasons for the invasion of the Southern states:
“Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought
to cease.”

By "the established institutions of those states" the Congress was referring to slavery. As with Lincoln, destroying the secession movement took precedence over doing anything about slavery.

In other words, the US Congress UNANIMOUSLY said that the war had NOTHING to do with slavery.

[Petronski]

The only thing good that came from his actions, was that slaves were freed. But the price to our country was NOT worth it.

Discussions of "The Great Slaver Rebellion of 1861" sure bring out the worst in some people, eh?

[TexConfederate1861]

That is really a matter of conjecture, one way or the other. The demand in the lower South was so gret, personally, I don't think it could have been met.

[TexConfederate1861]

Jeez, what does someone have to do, draw you a picture?
That is a DIRECT quote from a Historical document. Admit it for once. You have been bested in this argument.

[rdb3]

Discussions of "The Great Slaver Rebellion of 1861" sure bring out the worst in some people, eh?

---

No, not really. It doesn't bring out anything that wasn't already there. Believe it or not, I like knowing who I'm dealing with in the purest form.

I don't like illusions, or anything else that passes itself off as being anything other than what it is. If I want an illusion, I'd go to a Vegas show.

I want to see things for what they are, as they are.