Posted on 02/07/2009 7:45:28 AM PST by Loud Mime
Abraham Lincoln's Birthday is this Thursday. I thought it fitting to quote from the first Republican president's debates against Stephen Douglas. Each had an hour to present their case, hardly what the mainstream media would like.
I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world where men can be found inclined to take it.
This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world; enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty - criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.
Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tip-top Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.
When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia - to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.
When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.
But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go info our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbidden the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.
The south should have made the same calculation, then.
The south should have made the same calculation, then.
And there we have it folks! Bubba Ho-Tep has made the decisive concession - that the north prevailed by might alone.
“And take away a judiciary and where do you find any legal authority? It’s anarchy.”
You wouldn’t be taking away the judiciary by asserting that the states have final authority over Constitutional issues, if that’s what you had a mind to do. The federal judiciary is not the only legal entity in existence. Your faith in their power is in fact troubling, I must say. It is a political institution. An oligarchic political institution, to boot.
It’s one thing to argue that it’d be better to allow them final authority over all Constitutional issues. I can understand that argument. But it’s an entirely different matter to argue that anything else would be anarchy. That is, any other system of government but the rule of a tiny group of unelected life-termers is chaos. Right. ‘Cause Dred Scott really brought order and justice to our nation, didn’t it?
The Harriet Lane fired on an unflagged ship approaching them. One shot was fired across their bow as challenge, they raised the US flag and continued on their way. That they didn’t enter Charleston harbor was simply because Sumter was already being shelled and no merchantt captain in his right mind was going to sail into that.
"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen and I say give them all they want."--William Tecumseh Sherman
Toombs, at least, saw what would happen. "You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest. Legions, now quiet, will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."
No. Just smaller.
Details please. When was the order issued? When was it implemented? What ships were stopped and what goods were confiscated?
Based on what rule of law?
Noting except the rights and privileges exercised by every sovereign government that ever existed - including BTW the Unites States.
Now that is pure nonsense.
Your conclusions are false for the reasons I have given you. You cannot point to chapter, verse, or anything else that says what you are claiming and your stretch is a personal opinion unsupported by the text.
And you can? Besides, I have pointed to chapter and verse of the Constitution. I've quoted from court decisions and writings of James Madison which have supported my position. I'm not making any of this up. Unlike you and your Sumter justifications.
They were there to land supplies for the garrison that the South was trying to starve into surrender.
On April 11, 1861, one of those ships, the “Harriet Lane” or “Harriet Lee” (I can’t remember which) fired on the Confederate ship “Nashville” in Charleston Harbor. The next day, Beauregard ordered the shelling of Sumter.
The Harriet Lane stopped the Nashville and had her identify herself. Once she did she was allowed to continue into Charleston. Interestingly enough, she was promptly seized by the confederate authorities from her lawful owners, a New York shipping firm. So Southern theft took many forms.
“And for good reason, as Chief Justice Marshall noted: ‘Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers..”
That is nothing more than a long way of saying that the court won’t nitpick what the other branches do, because that would be inconvenient. In other words, expediency triumphs. And he has a point, to a degree. Government in practice cannot be identical to government in law. Among other reasons, this is so because the Constitution is intentionally vague. Also, everyone disagrees as to what every little word means. So we fill in the gaps in practice, as Marshall indicates.
When they say that all powers not delegated to federal government belong to the states or the people, I have no trouble swallowing that they mean both enumerated powers AND implied powers. The trouble is, who decides what is implied? You can say that one power follows from another, and in many cases you don’t have to stretch reason too far. But what about powers that follow from the powers that follow from enumerated powers? If you consent to implied powers, why suddenly turn around and disregared powers implied by implied powers? And what about the powers next to that? And the powers next to that? You see the trouble.
There is no doubt in my mind that Marshall was an apoligist for the federal government. What he says is fine and all, incidental powers following from broad strokes. I admit, “delegated” is not “expressly delegated”. I wonder, though, what magic little bird tells Marshall what is and is not delegated, if not the Constitution. That is, what does it mean for a power to be delegated, if it doesn’t mean that it has to be enumerated or follow very, very closely from what is enumerated? If the court sticks to the “very, very” part, who would complain. But that’s so subjective.
His argument is all about practicality. We simply can’t go around striking down laws every two seconds. The government has to have a chance to breath. Otherwise it’s a dream, not a reality. Then again, the fact that he just so happens to fall on the side of big government all the time raises my eyebrows. If the presumption is that the federal government can do what it is doing, why does the 10th amendment exist?
Nothing he says can convince me that the power to charter a central bank is implied by the coining clause. It seems that Hamilton and the big government boys wanted a central bank all along, and they wasted little time in trying to institute it. But if that’s what they wanted, why didn’t they mention it in the damn Constitution? Government banking power is not a little thing. It’s not an incidental thing. You’d think they would have mentioned it. Unless, that is, they thought they’d have a better chance to pass it after the federal government was already in existence.
There have been various other imaginary implied powers that stretch credulity. The draft? It’s practical in times of invasion. But are you going to tell me that the Founding Fathers, who suspected standing armies more than anything else, besides perhaps excessive taxation, intended conscription without mentioning it? Humbug! Do you really think the EPA has a right to regulate the use of a pond in your backyard because of interstate commerce? Ha!
Saying a central bank follows from coining power is like me saying government has a moral right to interfere in all private enterprise simply because we haven’t loudly complained about their running education and public transport. If the 10th amendment means anything, it means that the presumption of authority is on the side of state government, just like there is presumption of innocence in criminal courts. Marshall has to prove to me that banks are implied by the Constitution. I won’t take his word for it. Neither will I take it for granted that “a fair construction of the whole instrument” tells me so.
But it is the only one granted jurisdiction by the Constitution.
Your faith in their power is in fact troubling, I must say. It is a political institution. An oligarchic political institution, to boot.
As opposed to 50 state legislatures?
But it’s an entirely different matter to argue that anything else would be anarchy. That is, any other system of government but the rule of a tiny group of unelected life-termers is chaos. Right. ‘Cause Dred Scott really brought order and justice to our nation, didn’t it?
And in your world we would have had as many different interpretations of the Fugitive Slave laws as we would have had states. I'm sure you're side would have just loved that.
Nobody is saying that the Supreme Court is perfect. But it is prefereable to leaving the Constitution open to 50 different interpretations.
“That they didn’t enter Charleston harbor was simply because Sumter was already being shelled and no merchantt captain in his right mind was going to sail into that.”
Sumter wasn’t shelled until April 12, 1861. The “Harriet Lane” fired on the “Nashville” on April 11, 1861.
Not at all. He's merely pointing out that Castro isn't stupid enough to believe that Gitmo is worth starting a war over. If Davis had only been as smart.
Stop being an obnoxious horse’s ass. If you are looking for the specific manifest with the name of the manufacturer, buyer, agent, date of production, specific weight of a, say piano, who tuned it in England, and if it had ivory or bone keys I don’t have it.
The constitution of South Carolina and the principle of sovereignty.
And you can?
Yes. The tenth amendment.
I have pointed to chapter and verse of the Constitution.
No you haven't. Nothing you have pointed to says a state cannot secede. You are just reading your own opinion into it and pretending it says something it doesn't.
I've quoted from court decisions and writings of James Madison which have supported my position.
No court decision prior to the war says a state cannot secede. And the writings of Madison are not law.
“The Harriet Lane stopped the Nashville and had her identify herself. Once she did she was allowed to continue into Charleston. Interestingly enough, she was promptly seized by the confederate authorities from her lawful owners, a New York shipping firm. So Southern theft took many forms.”
Details please. Who gave the order to fire on the “Nashville?” What was the chain of command that ultimately authorized the action? If a standing order, who wrote it, and when? Did the “Harriet Lane” give the “Nashville” a warning before firing, as required under maritime law? Or did it violate maritime law? If it did signal the “Nashville”, what specifically did the warning state? Was it by semiphore? Did the warning comply with maritime law? Was “Harriet Lane’s” action a war crime? If not, why not? You see how ridiculous this can get? We can play this idiot game forever.
Which is once again an appeal to the notion that might makes right. Most Lincoln apologetics ultimately reduce to that argument.
“But it is the only one granted jurisdiction by the Constitution.”
It is the judicial branch, after all. I’ve already said that judicial review follows logically from the fact that the Constitution is, in fact, a legal document and therefor must be enforced. That doesn’t mean that the court should be the ultimate authority, as we’ve come to see it in modern times. The other branches ought to have oversight of it, and furthermore the other branches should be able to assert their own interpretations of the Constitution.
“As opposed to 50 state legislatures?”
Those are political bodies, too. The benefit to us is to play them off against eachother, and play them all off against the federal government. I certainly trust more in the interplay between those forces to preserve the balance than smaller bodies with larger scopes of power. See federalist #10.
“Nobody is saying that the Supreme Court is perfect. But it is prefereable to leaving the Constitution open to 50 different interpretations”
I agree that judicial review is preferable to state nullification. I’ve never been big on state nullification. What I want is for judges to restrict themselves, which they won’t do. I have this feeling that leaving it a little more open to different interpretations would help keep the operation of the federal governmnet more to its original intent. Deferring too much to the courts gives the same gilded authority to bad decisions as good.
Is there some level, under nullification but above the current situation, that could put more fear into the hearts of the feds? Maybe if states started consciously ignoring and refusing to enforce federal laws, without waiting for the courts to slam down their gavels on the issue. Too bad the big examples of this that we remember are tied to the civil rights era. Anyway, the feds have managed to assert plenty of informal power, mostly tied to money, in order to coerce the states into doing what they want. It can work the other way, to a point.
It would be perfect if the court was an arbitor between the states and the feds. But the court IS federal. It’s notorious for extending its own power at the expense of other branches, and for extending the power of the federal government at the expense of the states. There isn’t any great reason why we should sit back and allow this to happen. Certainly not because judges are objective and above the fray.
Nope. And according to at least one eyewitness, the south shot at the "Nashville" first:
Somehow, the Nashville had passed the Harriet Lane and her sister ships and arrived in Charleston Bay before them. It was 4:30 in the morning on April 12 and Henry Lewis was the lookout on board the Nashville. The Nashville was just outside Charleston harbor, near a sand bar when the confederate battery on Morris Island fired a round at the Nashville, thinking she was the Harriet Lane. After all, the Nashville and the Harriet Lane were roughly the same size and had similar riggings. Captain Murray of the Nashville gave the orders to ”retire from the bar” immediately. At this point he knew that if he had continued in, he would have faced certain destruction.So, the Nashville began it’s move away from the bar in retreat from the harbor, when it suddenly encountered the Harriet Lane. According to the interview, Captain Murray did not want the ships paper examined. Probably because some of the goods being delivered to the southern port included ammunitions. So Captain Murray of the Nashville ordered his Chief Engineer to “shake it up” in an effort to out run the Harriet Lane. According to the many accounts, the Nashville was not flying its colors so the Captain of the Harriet Lane fired a “blank” shot in a signal for the Nashville to stop, but the Nashville continued trying to move away. So the Harriet lane swung around broadside and fired a “solid” shot across her bow. Captain Murray then ordered his Chief Engineer to stop all engines and to come around.
According to the United States Coast Guard web site, the phrase “The Desired Affect” comes from the Harriet Lane and it’s encounter with the Nashville. When the Nashville shut down its engine and came around, the captain of the Harriet Lane remarked that their shot had “had the desired effect.”
The story told by H W Lewis indicates that the Captain of the Harriet Lane simply asked some perfunctory questions of Captain Murray, and that was it. The Nashville then raised the American “colors” and was allowed on its way. But the two ships then sat on the bar together and not only watched the first shots fired against Fort Sumter, but the entire thirty-six hour bombardment.
No you don't have to go into that much detail. Let's start with the date of Lincoln's order. Give me that and I can look up the wording. Or is that too much to ask? Wouldn't want to be too obnoxious of a horse's ass, would I?
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.