Posted on 02/11/2009 6:06:39 PM PST by Kaslin
This is the 200th birthday of the first Republican to win a national election, Abraham Lincoln. It is good for Republicans today to remember Lincoln, not to be antiquarians, but to learn from his principled defense of the Constitution.
By becoming students of Lincoln, Republicans can win elections and would deserve to win by helping America recover its constitutional source of strength and vitality.
The greatest political crisis America faces today is neither the recession nor Islamic terrorism; it's not health care, education, immigration or abortion. It is that the United States Constitution has become largely irrelevant to our politics and policies.
All three branches of government routinely ignore or twist the meaning of the Constitution, while many of our problems today are symptoms of policies that have no constitutional foundation.
If we are to recover the authority of the Constitution and the many ways it restrains and channels government power, someone or some party must offer a principled defense of the cause of constitutional government.
They must understand not only the Constitution, but also the principles that informed its original purposes and aspirations, principles found in the Declaration of Independence among other places.
No one understood that better than Lincoln.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
You must have pulled that out of Robert E. Lee's hat.
Glatthaar is able to do what previous historians have failed to do, but be warned, his answer is not a simple one.
He finds that 10.27 percent of enlistees in the Confederate army in 1861 personally owned slaves (p. 19). While just 4.95 percent of whites owned slaves in the Confederacy, one might conclude the average Confederate enlistee was more than twice as likely to be a slave owner as a common citizen in the Confederacy. However, the conclusion fails to tell the whole story.
Glatthaar finds that more than one in every four (25.62 percent) enlistees lived with a parent who was a slave owner.
If we combine those enlistees who owned slaves (10.27 percent) with the number who lived with parents who owned slaves (25.62), we find that 35.89 percent of enlistees either owned slaves or lived with parents who did.
While 24.9 percent of Confederate households owned slaves, we might conclude that volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely than the general population to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who did. Yet again, Glatthaar cautions against forming that conclusion just yet.
He finds that one in every ten volunteers did not own slaves themselves, but lived in households headed by non-family members who did.
If we combine the 10 percent of enlistees who lived with non-family members who owned slaves, with the 35.89 percent figure we arrived at earlier (volunteers who were slave owners or who lived with parents who owned slaves), we find that nearly half of all Confederate enlistees in 1861 either lived with slaveholders or were slave owners themselves.
Glatthaar concludes his point:
"Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution’s central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy. (p.20)" Source
Professor Glatthaar is only talking about the enlistees of 1861, not about the poor conscripts of later years, but his research does show a correlation between enthusiasm for secession and being a part of the slaveholding system.
Angels and Ages by Adam Gopnik, though, will tell you a lot more about Adam Gopnik than about Abraham Lincoln (or Charles Darwin, the book's other subject), and nobody's exactly crying out to hear Gopnik's ideas expounded at length.
If there's any need at all for a book on Lincoln and Darwin, Rebel Giants by David Contosta might be a better choice. Haven't read it yet, though.
Because the limited suspension Lincoln enacted while Congress was out of secession had lapsed.
Madison also said the Constitution was a compact and if the Federal government tried to claim powers that the Constitution did not grant it, then the contract was voided.
Madison also said, "The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains." In short, the compact is not violated merely because one party says it is.
The Declaration of Independence never refers to the States as United States or Colonies but as united States and united Colonies.
The Articles of Confederation does.
Davis was charged with treason and arrested for it, so why not charge him?
Because until May 1867 Davis was in military custody, and the judges assigned to the case, Chase and Underwood, would not proceed until he was returned to civilian control. Once that was done, and Davis released on bail, preparations for the trial proceeded in fits and starts. There were delays while the Supreme Court was in session and the Johnson Impeachment delayed the matter for several months early in 1868 because Chief Justice Chase had to preside over that.
If the Feds knew they were right, they would have had him convicted in court.
If the matter had gone to court, he would have been.
There is no way you can buy the Federal governments reason for not trying Davis, it makes no sense at all.
It does if you are familiar with the facts surrounding the matter.
It's called breach of contract. Thanks for making the point for me.
You might try actually reading the letter. Madison also states, "The characteristic distinction between free Governments and Governments not free is, that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but between the parties creating the Government. Each of those being equal, neither can have more rights to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved, than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist on the execution of the bargains." The compact wasn't breached merely because the rebelling states said it was.
Happy 200th birthday to the Greatest Republican!
Kindly point out exactly where in the Preamble the word 'perpetual' is found.
Thanks in advance.
L
Those were Lee's words, not mine. Personally, I don't see why a state cannot leave the Union so long as it is done with the agreement of all the impacted parties - those leaving and those staying.
Nor was it not because the federal government said it wasn't.
The legal right to own slaves in this country was a fact before the Constitution was even conceived, so the federal government had no say-so on the issue of slavery in the states where it existed.
After the election of Lincoln, the South's choice was to leave the Union, or stay and let the federal government collapse their agriculturally driven economies.
Some choice.
-----
The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
View of the Constitution of the United States
Actually they were Lincoln's, not Lee's.
so long as it is done with the agreement of all the impacted parties - those leaving and those staying.
Try it this way:
"As long as the bully gives his permission for the bullied to leave, everything is cool."
Does that about sum your position up?
L
Or how about your way? "Only the bully has any rights and is free to do what they want and take what they want, regardless of the interests of the others."
Does that sum up your opinion?
Lee's letter to his son, which I quoted earlier, predated Lincoln's inaugural address and those were the sentiments Lee himself expressed. I sincerely doubt that Lee quoted Lincoln in his letter, or Lincoln quoted Lee in his speech. Obviously both men held the belief in a perpetual union.
No it wasn't. So neither side had the right to take any unilateral action that could infringe on the rights and interests of the other. The only reasonable outcome was negotiation towards a settlement. Unfortunately the South wasn't interested in negotiation.
The legal right to own slaves in this country was a fact before the Constitution was even conceived, so the federal government had no say-so on the issue of slavery in the states where it existed.
As Lincoln made abundantly clear on many occasions. But Lincoln also made it clear that be believed the Taney court was wrong when it ruled that Congress could not legislate slavery in the territories.
After the election of Lincoln, the South's choice was to leave the Union, or stay and let the federal government collapse their agriculturally driven economies.
How? If Lincoln couldn't interefere with slavery in the states where it existed then how could he collapse their economy?
Some choice.
The decision for war certainly didn't work out for the South now did it?
Nope. My opinion is that the bullied has the right to walk away from a bully at any time. If the bully doesn't allow it, the bullied has the right to do serious damage to the bully.
Which is, of course, a position much more moral and logical than yours.
Lincoln got what was coming to him. It's just too bad it came too late to stop a completely unnecessary war.
L
Nonsense. Considering that the overwhelming majority of tariff income was collected in Northern ports, upwards of 95% of it, then it would seem that the opposite of your claim would be true. It would be Northerners who were impacted more by the tariff and not Southerners. But that is neither here nor there. Tariffs were uniform and that is all the Constituiton requires them to be. They impacted every consumer of imports, North and South, and every consumer of those goods protected by the tariff, North and South, equally.
I haven't been able to substantiate or refute your 95% figure, but I'll assume it's correct for this argument. If 95% of imports are going into northern ports, then the tariffs were effective in shutting the south out of the world's market. It also means that northern wholesalers are going to have an advantage over southern ones because they are one step higher in the supply chain. This is certainly disproportionate effect.
Of course it is. Vallandigham gets booted from the U.S.? Baaaad! Eeevil! Vallandigham gets booted from the confederacy? Irrelevant. Southron hypocrisy knows no bounds....No, the crux of the matter was that Vallandigham was deported by Lincoln to save him from a term in prison, which is what the military tribunal had sentenced him to. His expulsion from the confederacy came without trial or hearing.
Vallandigham was arrested for the "crime" of speaking out against the war. And the "law" he broke was an order by a Union General---not an act of the legislature. The first amendment, in the understanding of today as then, protects this sort of dissenting speech. Vallandigham was unconstitutionally deported. What good is a trial when the offense isn't a crime?
And just what the hell do you think the Southerners were? Paragons of racial brotherhood?
Firstly, nothing I've written in this thread was in support of the south, slavery or racism; nor are these the original topic of debate, which was Lincoln's defense/abuse of the Constitution. Yet I have been slandered as a racist and being in the KKK (not by you, however). Name-calling is what one does when one runs out of intelligent things to say. The insistence on equating Lincoln's critics with Confederates (or worse) is a disgraceful way of shutting down the other side of the argument without presenting a case of your own.
Nevertheless, I will address your off-topic remark. Inasmuch as we can monolithically label southerners as white supremacists, we condemn their beliefs. And we condemn the practice of keeping slaves. But pointing to southern ignorance as wicked while ignoring Lincoln's equal perception of white superiority is senseless. Granted, Lincoln's case is one of belief or thought as opposed to owning slaves or action. But he was no paragon of racial brotherhood either. He had a bunch of schemes to relocate slaves to Africa and just about anywhere else but American shores. He didn't want them around. Furthermore, what does the racist attitude of southern slaveholders have to do with Lincoln's official actions with respect to defending the Constitution?
Only you accept that the South was the bullied party. So what was it exactly that the mean ol' North was doing to it?
Lincoln got what was coming to him. It's just too bad it came too late to stop a completely unnecessary war.
Jeff Davis got the war he wanted.
Abe Lincoln made war on a people who were trying to secede from an oppressive government. Sounds a lot like King George doesn’t it?
It's not just me. Apparently you think it's fine for a President to jail Federal Judges without charges, send Federal troops to shut down newspapers, and institute a completely un-Constitutional income tax.
Remind me again how you're a 'conservative'.
Because you're talking an awful lot like Barney Frank is today.
L
The figure is from Congressional reports quoted in "Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War" by Stephen Wise. For the year prior to the rebellion, net tariff revenues for the three busiest Northern ports totaled about $42.5 million dollars. Net tariff revenue from the eleven busiest Southern ports for the same period totaled less than $3 million.
If 95% of imports are going into northern ports, then the tariffs were effective in shutting the south out of the world's market.
If 95% of all imports are going to Northern ports then wouldn't that indicate that the overwhelming majority of imports are destined for Northern consumers? It makes no sense otherwise. If they were destined for Southern consumers then they would have gone to the Southern ports. At the same time those goods were flooding into New York, Boston, and Philadelphia over 3.1 million bales of cotton were being exported, and over 2.8 million were leaving from Southern ports. So access to the world's markets wasn't the issue. Demand was.
Vallandigham was arrested for the "crime" of speaking out against the war. And the "law" he broke was an order by a Union General---not an act of the legislature. The first amendment, in the understanding of today as then, protects this sort of dissenting speech. Vallandigham was unconstitutionally deported. What good is a trial when the offense isn't a crime?
Vallandigham was arrested and tried by a military tribunal, a process that was legal under the laws in effect at the time. The Supreme Court would rule in 1864 that they didn't have the right to issue a writ of habeas corpus in military cases, though they would also rule the following year that courts shouldn't have been suspended in the first place since they could operate openly and freely. As for the unconstitutionality of the deportation I fail to see what clause was being violated by Lincoln's act of compassion that spared Vallandigham time in jail.
Firstly, nothing I've written in this thread was in support of the south, slavery or racism; nor are these the original topic of debate, which was Lincoln's defense/abuse of the Constitution.
And into which you interjected your opinion that Lincoln was also a white supremacist. If you want to judge him by today's standards then shouldn't you also admit that any Southern leader you would care to admit was worse?
But pointing to southern ignorance as wicked while ignoring Lincoln's equal perception of white superiority is senseless.
But slandering Lincoln while ignoring the South is OK, is that it?
He had a bunch of schemes to relocate slaves to Africa and just about anywhere else but American shores.
Lincoln was a supporter of voluntary emigration, key word being voluntary. And given what blacks in the U.S. faced in both the North and the South, just what was so evil about that? Considering Southern leaders like Lee and Davis considered them fit for slavery and nothing else and considering that the Supreme Court had ruled that blacks were not and could never be citizens and had no rights that the white man was bound to respect, where was Lincoln so God awful sinister by suggesting that they might do well to carve out their own life free from the bigotry they faced in this country at the time? Can you explain that?
Furthermore, what does the racist attitude of southern slaveholders have to do with Lincoln's official actions with respect to defending the Constitution?
You're the one who started down the racist path. Are you back tracking?
Case in point.
I too would be very interested to know what oppressions the South was suffering when the secessions started.
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.