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

Skip to comments.

Lincoln's Defense Of Constitution Is Moral For Today's Republicans
IBD Editorials ^ | February 11, 2009 | Thomas Krannawitter

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: gop; lincoln
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-279 next last
To: Non-Sequitur

Suspension of habeas corpus is granted to Congress under Article One of the Constitution under certain circumstances.

The Southern States did not force any state to leave the Union against its’ will, you misrepresent what Madison was saying. He also said the Constitution had to be ratified, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.”


51 posted on 02/11/2009 8:22:33 PM PST by coon2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lonely Are The Brave
They were true Patriots who lived by the Constitution and God.

We must not be talking about the same people. The people I'm talking about is a class of politicians who lied, cheated and rabble-roused themselves into a rebellion and who afterwards often avoided the consequences, leaving the bitter fruits of defeat for their despised cannon fodder.

52 posted on 02/11/2009 8:26:03 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
“I worked for Ronald Reagan's administration, and met Barry Goldwater when I was working in the Senate. You're version of conservatism is not theirs. Yours is the conservatism of Randy Weaver and George Wallace and Orval Faubus. A reverence of the South, a loathing of Lincoln, and an excessive willingness to overlook the ugly reasons why the South wanted to secede, are all red flags to me of someone who has issues that are outside of a reasoned conservative philosophy.”

Forget The War For Southern Independence...

If your are suggessting, on Free Republic, that you are a Conservative while saying you support Obama....well, this is Alice in Wonderland... By the way, I'm sitting in my nice slacks and shoes which Obama will provide for you going forward...

53 posted on 02/11/2009 8:26:24 PM PST by Lonely Are The Brave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Lonely Are The Brave
I am slightly to the right of Reagan, but I'm not right or left of you, more like on a different scale. I'm 20th century Milton Friedman/Jean Kirpatrick. You are 19th Century Jeff Davis.

I was working in DC in the 80s, for a Senator, a Congressman, and for Reagan. During that time, I was for a 17 percent flat tax when Reagan was working for a 23 percent rate. I was against the 1986 Amnesty that he signed, although he was pushed to by Alan Simpson and resisted it. I was for more spending cuts and government shutdowns than he gave us, but understood his desire to go along with Congress to get the defense spending he wanted. I was for a stronger response to the Beirut bombing and to Iran's torture of our operatives. I was for telling Congress and Rep. Barnes to go to hell over the Contras. There were many, many issues I agreed with Reagan about, but I can't think of any where he was more conservative than me. (Nonetheless, he was our greatest President since Lincoln, and a man I would have walked through walls for.) Most libs would consider me a caveman.

So, it's amusing to me that you consider me a "new conservative" because you wish the south had won the civil war. It's not a conservative/liberal issue. 50 years ago, you and Trent Lott would have been Dems. I'd have been the same.

54 posted on 02/11/2009 8:27:50 PM PST by Defiant (I for one welcome our new Obama Overlords.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

“I’m 20th century Milton Friedman/Jean Kirpatrick. You are 19th Century Jeff Davis”

“There are no free lunches.”

Davis and Friedman knew that...you don’t


55 posted on 02/11/2009 8:31:00 PM PST by Lonely Are The Brave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

Defiant wrote...(I for one welcome our new Obama Overlords.)

Come to your own conclusions if you see this...


56 posted on 02/11/2009 8:32:25 PM PST by Lonely Are The Brave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

I don’t know why I let myself get involved in these Lincoln threads, they all follow the same pattern. It is odd that a supposedly conservative site has so many southern apologists on it.


57 posted on 02/11/2009 8:32:54 PM PST by Defiant (I for one welcome our new Obama Overlords.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lonely Are The Brave
“There are no free lunches.”

Davis and Friedman knew that...you don’t

???? Did your head explode? WTH are you talking about?

58 posted on 02/11/2009 8:36:37 PM PST by Defiant (I for one welcome our new Obama Overlords.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Lonely Are The Brave
If your are suggessting, on Free Republic, that you are a Conservative while saying you support Obama....well, this is Alice in Wonderland.

Man, that's just plain funny. Someone, anyone, read post 41 and explain it to Orval.

59 posted on 02/11/2009 8:39:54 PM PST by Defiant (I for one welcome our new Obama Overlords.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

There are 3 nations in North America, are we still fighting? And had Lincoln not invaded the Southern States we would not have computers? There you have it, Lincoln was the reason why Al Gore invented the internet.


60 posted on 02/11/2009 8:40:36 PM PST by coon2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: coon2000

“Where in the Constitution does it say that a state cannot leave the Union?”

Just curious about this argument. Since the Constitution protects inalienable rights from government power, even if the majority in the state vote to suppress those rights, were not the states which seceded depriving their citizens of the protection of the Constitution?


61 posted on 02/11/2009 8:41:53 PM PST by yazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

What am I talking about?

You are a light weight...

The Great Milton Friedman said this...

His aversion to govenment...

“There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch.”


62 posted on 02/11/2009 8:44:10 PM PST by Lonely Are The Brave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Lonely Are The Brave
Thanks, Mr. Lonely, I never heard that saying before...please tell me more, Professor.

I figured out the problem, and it has to do with comprehension, and if you prefer, you can go on believing you are the one who comprehends. It will get you through the evening.

63 posted on 02/11/2009 8:49:28 PM PST by Defiant (I for one welcome our new Obama Overlords.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Lonely Are The Brave
“Davis, Lee and Stonewall Jackson had very good relationships with blacks”

Are you referring to the slaves Lee freed by 1862 because the Custis will required it? The overarching fact is that without slavery there never would have been a civil war. It was the issue of slavery and its expansion into the new states that was the single most dividing issue for at least 30 years before the civil war. You only have to read any newspaper of the period from the south or the north to know how it divided the country. To somehow treat slavery as a side issue that would have gone away by itself and it having little to do with the war is at best disingenuous and at worst ignorant.

64 posted on 02/11/2009 8:58:01 PM PST by yazoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lonely Are The Brave
You admire Friedman's aversion to government yet also admire the Confederacy. Here's a little sample of Confederate small government from the Home Guards of Maury County Georgia on 6/1/1864:

1st. Resolved. That we invite all ministers of the Gospel who preach among us, to give a lecture on the war, at their earliest convenience, or give their hearers unmistakable evidence that they support the Southern Confederacy.

...Resolved That no more negro preaching be allowed until the war is over. Negroes can hear white men preach if they want to.

Signed Vigilance Committee

====================

Wonder who would be more at home with this expression of limited government, Milton Friedman or Joseph Stalin?

65 posted on 02/11/2009 9:00:22 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: coon2000
Had the US split in 2, with the west sparsely settled and a militaristic south whose individual states were already willing to leave prior confederations if they didn't get their way, the continental US would have been a much different place in the late 1800s. The borders would have been dangerous, contested and often changing. Both the north and the south would have been required to maintain standing armies, at great cost in treasure and to individual citizens. They would have battled over the western territories, at a minimum over the north/south line, but possibly over all of it. It would have been a large territory to control, when you have a rival nipping at your heels. Some parts, like the pacific northwest, or California, or the far north (Montana, WYO, the Dakotas), might have used the instability to go their own way.

The peace and stability that allowed industry to flourish and invention to spread would simply not have existed. The wealth that made the US the world's envy by WWI, would not have been generated. Technology might have advanced, but it would not likely have been as fast, or spread as quickly. We certainly would not have been the nation that mobilized and made the difference in WWI or which defeated the Nazis and Japan in 4 years in WWII.

Not to mention the slavery issue. Had that cute little southern institution continued after a secession, it would not have slowly died out, as southern apologists claim. Hell, the south was still in the same mindframe in 1965 that it was in 1865 regarding black people. The only difference was that the Feds didn't let them enslave blacks, but they did all they could to keep them in a kind of serfdom, a non-voting, segregated, second-class citizenship that fully 90 percent of the South supported until forced to change. You want to tell me that they wouldn't have had slavery in 1965? I say you are full of it!

That slavery issue would have added to the tensions between north and south after the civil war, and would have made it even more likely that additional wars would have been fought, to eradicate slavery and to consolidate control of the continent. The cost to humanity would have been huge.

But hey, Lincoln was a bastard, and you in your nice jeans or whatever know so much more than the rest of us here, so I defer to you.

66 posted on 02/11/2009 9:07:11 PM PST by Defiant (I for one welcome our new Obama Overlords.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: yazoo

The Constitution enumerates its’ powers, anything that is not specifically stated is reserved for the individual states and the people. If the people of those states chose to leave the union, then they had that right. Why? Because it does not state anywhere in the Constitution that a state could not secede. The Constitution was supposed to protect us against this very thing, an all powerful central government but it was circumvented, thus the citizens were deprived of the protection of the Constitution.


67 posted on 02/11/2009 9:13:48 PM PST by coon2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

The much-used line that the South only wished to be left alone does not match the actions of the cotton states. While they may have wanted time to consolidate their new regime, in the long run they wanted confrontation, not harmony. The secessionists obviously did not want to cooperate with the rest of the country because the greatest framework for inter regional cooperation and harmony was already present in the US Constitution.


68 posted on 02/11/2009 9:15:27 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: coon2000
The Constitution was supposed to protect us against this very thing, an all powerful central government but it was circumvented, thus the citizens were deprived of the protection of the Constitution.

And the Constitution is also clearly designed to protect citizens from all-powerful local government. Sovereignty is not absolute for either national or local government. Article 1, Section 10 limits the allowed actions of states without provision for secession. Article IV, Section 4 gives the United States power over the form of government for a state with no provision for secession.

69 posted on 02/11/2009 9:25:39 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
I agree with you. They wanted to be ensured that they could preserve their economic system and slavery in perpetuity, and with expansion to the territories, they feared that they could be outvoted on slavery in coming decades. Had the south been allowed to go its own way, as some might have done to avoid a costly and bloody war, there would have been war someday.

A free, wealthy society threatens the world view of an impoverished, rural slave state ruled by its plantation class, and it would have to both consolidate its control internally, and would feel the need to neutralize the danger from its greatest external enemy, the United States. It is not like Canada and the US; it is like the Iron Curtain after WW2, which was on a razor's edge for 45 years, or perhaps more analogous, North and South Vietnam. The communist north could not stomach a free and prosperous south because its very existence proved the commies wrong. It had to be extinguished. The south would have had to do the same, because the very existence of the US served as a rebuke to the south, and because the nature of the two biggest kids on the block is to figure out which one is toughest.

70 posted on 02/11/2009 9:31:54 PM PST by Defiant (I for one welcome our new Obama Overlords.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

Get on your soap box and preach all you want bud, but where did I say anything at all about slavery? I am talking about defending the Constitution. You assume that I am on the side of the southern states, I am on the side of the Founders and the Constitution that they created. Do you believe that they fought a super power to gain their independence from a powerful central government only to hand it right back to a newly formed powerful central government? That cute little institution was not a southern thing by the way. It has been around since the beginning of time, all over the world and still continues in some places today.

So if two countries share a border they are going to be constantly fighting? By your logic there should never be peace anywhere at any time on the planet. So you think Virginia would have gathered a large army and gone out west to attack Montana?

You say I know so much more than the rest of us here... So you are representing everyone here? It seems as though you fancy yourself as some modern Nostradamus, If not for Lincoln we would not have technology, we would have no wealth, we would not have contributed as greatly as we did in WWII, we would be fighting constantly, just like these pesky perpetual wars we seem to have with Canada and Mexico.

I did not call Lincoln a bastard. I said he disregarded the Constitution. The states lost their rights, their power and now we have a trillion dollar armed robbery by that very same all powerful central government that the Founders warned us about. You go ahead and enjoy being governed by Nancy Pelosi, I would prefer to be governed by my state as the founders had intended it.

Why do you care what I am wearing anyway? Is it any business of yours? Is there a central committee that I need to go through to get my clothes approved?


71 posted on 02/11/2009 9:49:20 PM PST by coon2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

That is right, it does not say that they can and it does not say that they cannot. So, what does that mean? It is reserved to the states or the people to decide. Remember, the states created the Constitution, it is not the other way around. Madison himself said that the Constitution was ratified by the people “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.”


72 posted on 02/11/2009 9:55:27 PM PST by coon2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I agree in principle with a Constitutional foundation, but I am afraid the GOP is incapable of acting consistently in congruence with the Constitution. The party is run by the same elitist political class that runs the Democrat party, and the elite political class is not interested in Constitutional limits on government power. There are only superficial differences between the two parties, which is an inevitable result of a two-party system. We have reached the point where in reality there is only one party, with token opposition that Obama is moving very quickly and very efficiently to marginalize completely, with able assistance of top GOPers like McCain, Specter, Snowe, Collins, and others. I’m afraid that if a restoration of the Constitution is to be accomplished, the United States will not be where it occurs. As far as Lincoln is concerned, I grew up as a Yankee who always believed in the Union cause, but over the years I have come to realize that the abolition was not the primary generator behind the Civil War, it was States’ Rights, and Lincoln was wrong an that issue. The federal government began its march to tyranny under Lincoln, and it may take another Civil War to rectify the original incorrect result. At least this time there won’t be the distraction of slavery to muddy the issue of the people’s rights vs, the federal government. I don’t think the GOP is capable, nor indeed does it have any interest, in a restoration of the Constitution.


73 posted on 02/11/2009 10:00:46 PM PST by gorilla_warrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coon2000
Sorry about the jeans comment, I confused you with a different poster. I disagree with you about the founders and Lincoln and the disasters that would have befallen the continent had the south been allowed to leave, but you have been civil in your discourse, and I don't mind arguing these issues with you.

I have not given an opinion about whether the southern states had the legal right to secede. There are arguments on both sides of that, and all I can say is it is a close issue. I have said simply that it was a good thing for this nation, and ultimately, for humanity, that Lincoln chose to come down on the side of preserving the Union. I also noted that the comparisons of the civil war situation to the present are misplaced, since the South had not suffered a refusal by the North to follow the Constitution. The South was unhappy because the Constitution would allow the North to upset the balance between slave and free, and threaten to force the South to change.

Our present situation is one where the Democrats are unabashedly admitting that the Constitution is meaningless, as when Supreme Court Justices say that it is to be interpreted by European opinion or evolving standards, not by its actual words.

74 posted on 02/11/2009 10:05:33 PM PST by Defiant (I for one welcome our new Obama Overlords.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: iowamark; Non-Sequitur; Colonel Kangaroo
Iowamark:
I don't know where you get this KKK business from, but it's a hell of an insinuation to throw at someone you don't know. Plus, you're assuming things about me. Nowhere in my post did I profess sympathy towards slavery or racism. My post was about Lincoln's constitutional abuses, which has nothing to do with reading KKK material. It would benefit you to be more objective and less hyperbolic in matters of opposing viewpoints.

Non-Sequitur:
The tariffs were not uniform because they disproportionately affected the south, even if the rates were the same everywhere. Just like a tax on talk radio would disproportionately affect Republicans, even if the per-hour rates were the same on all content. As far as what happened to Vallandigham after he was deported, this is unimportant. The crux of the matter is that he was deported for his political views. (And yes, I have read DiLorenzo and I plan on reading McPherson and other conflicting viewpoints in the future. But for right now, I'm focusing on economics.)

Colonel Kangaroo:
I'm sorry but I can't accept that moral equivalence argument, i.e., destroying the Constitution is bad but slavery is worse. It doesn't matter whose system is more ethical, profitable or righteous. What matters is how the president behaved with respect to the law. Furthermore, Lincoln was perfectly fine with letting slavery exist, so the choice between constitutionality and slavery is a false one. But even if Lincoln had gone to war to quash slavery, the virtues of freedom over bondage did not give Lincoln a blank check to do whatever he pleased. There has to be a limit on the power of any ruler---even if the limit is high---no matter how enlightened, wise, forthright, etc. or we fall into despotism.

75 posted on 02/11/2009 10:08:23 PM PST by AdLibertas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AdLibertas

Get real. If the sheet fits, be proud of it. You cannot post neo-Confederate racist agit-prop and then protest against people assuming that you are racist.


76 posted on 02/11/2009 10:17:10 PM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Whatever your overall opinion of Lincoln, I don’t think he’s the best choice to hold out as an example of defending the constitution.


77 posted on 02/11/2009 10:24:35 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
And another low-blow. Classy. Failing to stoop down and kiss Lincoln's butt---himself a white supremacist---makes me a Klan-member and racist? Can you really be this ignorant?
78 posted on 02/11/2009 10:25:15 PM PST by AdLibertas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

That is fair.

I agree with you on the present situation. The Republic no longer exists. We are being ruled by a new royal class that does not care about our freedoms. We are certainly no longer a nation of laws.


79 posted on 02/11/2009 10:27:32 PM PST by coon2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: AdLibertas
I don't know if you a racist or merely under their influence. I do know that Americans' general lack of historical knowledge gives such extremists their opportunity.

There is a good defense of Lincoln against recent slanders by a Christian Hillsdale College history professor, Thomas Krannawitter:
Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President

CSPAN's BookTV and Lincoln 200 websites have much information and video on Lincoln.

An excellent recent BookTV program:
In Depth: Abraham Lincoln with authors: Edna Greene Medford and Frank Williams

80 posted on 02/11/2009 11:24:37 PM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: iowamark
Justice Frank Williams, Chairman of the Lincoln Forum, and Professor Edna Greene Medford mentioned these Lincoln books on BookTV Feb. 1, 2009:

Edna Greene Medford Recommends

“Mary Todd Lincoln: A Biography” by Jean Baker

“The Age of Lincoln” by Orville Vernon Burton

“Lincoln” by David Herbert Donald (available to view in Featured Videos section)

“Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President” by Allen Guelzo

“Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” by Doris Kearns Goodwin (available to view in Featured Videos section)

“Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech that Made Abraham Lincoln President” by Harold Holzer (available to view in Featured Videos section)

“Lincoln and the Negro” by Benjamin Quarles

“Lincoln in American Memory” by Merrill Peterson

“Honor’s Voice: The Transformation of Abraham Lincoln” by Douglas Wilson

“Lincoln’s Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural” by Ronald White, Jr. (available to view in Featured Video section)

Frank Williams Recommends

Abraham Lincoln
“Lincoln’s Sword” by Douglas Wilson
“The Portable Abraham Lincoln” by Andrew Delbanco
“The Lincoln Anthology” by Harold Holzer
“Lincoln in his Own Words” by Milton Meltzer
“In Lincoln’s Hand” by Harold Holzer and Joshua Wolf Shenk

Books on the Assassination
“Stealing Lincoln’s Body” by Thomas J. Craughwell
“The Last Lincoln Conspirator” by Andrew C. A. Jampoler
“The Lincoln Assassination” by William C. Edwards and Edward Steers Jr.

Biographies
“The Age of Lincoln” by Orville Vernon Burton
“One Man Great Enough: Abraham Lincoln’s Road to Civil War” by John C. Waugh
“Abraham Lincoln: Lincoln Laughing” by James W. MacMeekin III
“Abraham Lincoln, A Man of Faith and Courage” by Joe Wheeler
“President Lincoln” by William Lee Miller
“The Inspired Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln” by Philip L. Ostergard
“Abraham Lincoln: A Biography” by Benjamin P. Thomas
“Abraham Lincoln and Robert Burns: Connected Lives and Legends’ by Ferenc Morton Szasz
“Lincoln President-Elect” by Harold Holzer

“Lincoln” by David Donald

“Lincoln, The Biography of a Writer” by Fred Kaplan

“Lincoln: A Very Short Introduction” by Allen C. Guelzo
“Abraham Lincoln: A Life” by Thomas Keneally
“A. Lincoln: A Biography” by Ronald C. White
“Angels and Ages” by Adam Gopnik
“Abraham Lincoln” by James M. McPherson
“Lincoln the Inventor” by Jason Emerson
“With Malice Toward None” by Stephen B. Oates

Lincoln Books for Children
“Abraham Lincoln for Kids” by Janis Herbert
“Case of Abraham Lincoln” by Julie M. Fenster
“Abe Lincoln Loved Animals” by Ellen Jackson
“Lincoln and Douglass” by Nikki Giovanni
“The Last Stop: Lincoln and the Mud Circuit” by Alan Bower
“Abe Lincoln Crosses a Creek” by Deborah Hopkinson
“Mrs. Lincoln’s Dressmaker” by Lynda Jones
“Abe Lincoln Goes to Washington” by Cheryl Harness
“Do You Hear Me, Mr. Lincoln” by Judith Caseley
“Lincoln and His Boys” by Rosemary Wells

Lincoln and the Civil War
“Freedom Just Ahead: The War Within the Civil War” by William Grimes
“The Dark Intrigue” by Frank van der Linden
“Lincoln and the Decision for War” by Russell McClintock
“Lincoln’s Darkest Year” by William Marvel
“Lincoln and His Admirals” by Craig L. Symonds
“The Road to Disunion, Volume II: Secessionists Triumphant” by William W. Freehling
“Tried by War” by James M. McPherson (available to view in Featured Videos section)
“Disunion!” by Elizabeth R. Varon
“Mr. Lincoln’s High-Tech War” by Thomas B. Allen and Roger MacBride Allen
“Abraham Lincoln’s Extraordinary Era” by Karen M. Kostyal
“1864: Lincoln at the Gates of History” by Charles Bracelen Flood

Essays
“Lincoln and Freedom” by Harold Holzer and Sara Vaughn Gabbard
“Big Enough to be Inconsistent” by George M. Fredrickson
“Our Lincoln” edited by Eric Foner (available to view in Featured Videos section)
“Abraham Lincoln” edited by Brian Lamb and Susan Swain
“Lincoln’s America” by Joseph R. Fornieri and Sara Vaughn Gabbard
“The Best American History Essays on Lincoln” by Sean Wilentz

Family
“The Madness of Mary Lincoln” by Jason Emerson
“House of Abraham” by Stephen Berry
“The Lincolns” by Daniel Mark Epstein
“The Lincolns” by Candace Fleming
“Mrs. Lincoln: A Life” by Catherine Clinton

Frederick Douglass
“The Radical and the Republican” by James Oakes
“Douglass and Lincoln” by Paul Kendrick and Stephen Kendrick
“Giants” by John Stauffer

Gettysburg
“The Gettysburg Gospel” by Gabor Boritt
“Lincoln at Gettysburg” by Garry Willis
“The Gettysburg Address” by Sam Fink and Gabor Boritt

Law
“Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney” by James F. Simon
“Act of Justice: Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the Law of War” by Burrus M. Carnahan

“Lincoln and the Court” by Brian McGinty

“The Papers of Abraham Lincoln: Legal Documents and Cases” by Daniel W. Stowell

Lincoln and Douglas
“The Long Pursuit: Abraham Lincoln’s Thirty-Year Struggle with Stephen Douglas for the Heart and Soul of America” by Roy Morris Jr.
“Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates the Defined America” by Allen C. Guelzo
“The Lincoln-Douglas Debates” by Rodney O. Davis and Douglas L. Wilson (available to view in Featured Videos section)

Politics
“Lincoln at Peoria” by Lewis Lehrman
“Great Comeback” by Gary Ecelbarger

Popular Culture
“Summers with Lincoln: Looking for the Man in the Monuments” by James A. Percoco
“Vindicating Lincoln” by Thomas L. Krannawitter

“Looking for Lincoln” by Peter W. Kunhardt, Philip B. Kunhardt III, and Peter W. Kunhardt Jr.

“Abraham Lincoln on Screen” by Mark S. Reinhart

White House
“Lincoln’s White House Secretary” edited by Harold Holzer
“Lincoln’s Men” by Daniel Mark Epstein

Informative
“Lincoln Legends” by Edward Steers
“Did Lincoln Own Slaves” by Gerald J. Prokopowicz
“The Last Lincolns” by Charles Lachman

Additional books and authors discussed during the program:

“The Portable Abraham Lincoln” by Abraham Lincoln, edited by Andrew Delbanco
“Abraham Lincoln : His Speeches and Writings” by Roy Prentice Basler
“The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln” by Abraham Lincoln

“Crisis of the House Divided : An Interpretation of the Issues in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates” by Harry V. Jaffa
“New Birth of Freedom : Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War” by Harry V. Jaffa
“The Conditions of Freedom : Essays in Political Philosophy” by Harry V. Jaffa
“Prelude to Greatness Lincoln in the 1850’s” by Don E. Fehrenbacher,
“The Dred Scott Case : Its Significance in American Law and Politics” by Don Edward Fehrenbacher
“War for the Union vol. 1-8” by Allan Nevins
“Lincoln Unmasked : What You're Not Supposed to Know about Dishonest Abe” by Thomas J. Dilorenzo
“Lincoln and the Tools of War” by Robert Bruce
“Six Months at the White House with Abraham Lincoln : The Story of a Picture” by Francis B. Carpenter
“Slavery By Another Name : The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II” by Douglas A. Blackmon
“Herndon’s Informants : Letters, Interviews and Statements about Abraham Lincoln” by Douglas L. Wilson, Terry Wilson
“Lincoln's Herndon” by David Herbert Donald
“Lincoln : An Account of His Personal Life” by Nathaniel Wright Stephenson
“Herndon’s Life Of Lincoln” by William H. Herndon
“Love Is Eternal” by Irving Stone
“Forced Into Glory : Abraham Lincoln and the White Dream” by Lerone Bennett
Vincent Harding
W.E.B. DuBois
“Abraham Lincoln : A Life” by Michael Burlingame
“The Emancipation Proclamation : Three Views” by Harold Holzer, Frank J. Williams, Edna Greene Medford
“They Have Killed Papa Dead!” : The Road to Ford's Theater, Abraham Lincoln's Murder, and the Rage for Vengeance by Anthony S. Pitch
“Short History of Reconstruction : 1863-1877” by Eric Foner
“The Lincoln Murder Conspiracies” by William Hanchett
“Lincoln” by Lord Charnwood,
“Abraham Lincoln, the Illustrated Edition : The Prairie Years and the War Years” by Carl Sandburg
“Judging Lincoln” by Frank J. Williams
”Lincoln Reconsidered: Essays on the Civil War Era” by David Herbert Donald
“Lincoln’s Melancholy” by Joshua Wolf Shenk
“In Lincoln’s Hand” by Joshua Wolf Shenk and Harold Holzer
“Lincoln” by Gore Vidal
“Mary Lincoln: A Biography of a Marriage” by Ruth Painter Randall
“The Papers of Abraham Lincoln: Legal Documents and Cases” vol. 1-4

81 posted on 02/11/2009 11:28:26 PM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: yazoo
I want to commend your excellent arguments. Of course, as you probably know, arguing with a neo-Confederate is like the old adage about wrestling with a pig. Nevertheless, when I hear Lincoln trashed by both the neo-Confederate, and the radical Leftist activist Black, I have to think that politics truly does make strange bedfellows, even in the area of revisionist history. BTW: the other night I heard a rendition of a little ditty widely sung by unreconstructed Rebs in the post Civil War era. It included a verse to the effect of "I hate your Constitution...and your Declaration of Independence, too". You might look that up for your next joust.
82 posted on 02/12/2009 12:04:37 AM PST by pawdoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Lonely Are The Brave
Davis and Judah Benjamin knew slavery was dead and gone...

Hard to believe since between them the two men owned several hundred slaves. But I'll bite. Give us a single quote from either man from before or during the rebellion indicating that they knew slavery was dead and gone and I'll admit my errors. Have at it.

Davis, Lee and Stonewall Jackson had very good relationships with blacks unlike AbrEEEEEEHAAAM Lincoln, Grant and Sherman.

Well yeah. All three owned slaves at the outbreak of the rebellion so I suppose you could say they had very good relations with them. They also had very good relations with their livestock, houses, and other property. But again some quotes from them would be nice.

You did not give any sources so your remarks are just that...remarks...

And look who is talking. But you do have a point. Any of the information I gave can be substantiated in any number of histories on the rebellion. But I might suggest "Look Away: A History of the Confederate States of America" by William C. Davis; "Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism" by Mark E. Neeley, Jr.; "Jefferson Davis: American" by William J. Cooper as places to start.

Now your turn. Quotes addressing the questions I raised and their sources. Please.

83 posted on 02/12/2009 4:46:07 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: coon2000
Suspension of habeas corpus is granted to Congress under Article One of the Constitution under certain circumstances.

Article I says habeas corpus can be suspended under certain circumstances. It is silent on who may suspend it.

The Southern States did not force any state to leave the Union against its’ will, you misrepresent what Madison was saying.

No, you misunderstand Madison. What he is saying is that the concept that any state can leave the union without the consent of the others is as ridiculous as the concept that the other states can expel a state without its consent. Madison is quite clear in his writings that he believed a state could leave the Union only with the consent of all impacted parties. That both sides had rights that should be respected. And that only with the agreement of both sides could acrimony and hard feelings be avoided. Anything else guaranteed conflict, as the South showed in 1861.

He also said the Constitution had to be ratified, “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.”

Which has nothing to do with secession.

84 posted on 02/12/2009 5:38:36 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: AdLibertas
The tariffs were not uniform because they disproportionately affected the south, even if the rates were the same everywhere.

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.

As far as what happened to Vallandigham after he was deported, this is unimportant.

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.

The crux of the matter is that he was deported for his political views.

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.

Oh, and if you want proof that God has a sense of humor, look into how Vallandigham died.

And yes, I have read DiLorenzo and I plan on reading McPherson and other conflicting viewpoints in the future. But for right now, I'm focusing on economics.

Be sure to let us know how you do.

85 posted on 02/12/2009 5:50:10 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Article I speaks directly to the role of the Legislative Branch, so the decision rests with Congress. Lincoln did not ask for permission. The Supreme Court ruled that what Lincoln did was unconstitutional, stating that it would take an Act of Congress to do so.

It is a totally different concept of tossing someone out of a lifeboat against their will as opposed to someone who decides to try to swim to shore on their own accord.

The fact that the Founders believed that the States were independent and sovereign is at the heart of the matter when it comes to secession. They declared their independence from England as seperate and free states. These men freely signed their own death warrant to break free of what they considered a tyrannical government. Why would the Founders write and sign the Declaration of Independence only to then turn around and say that the very same reason for seceeding from England did not aply with the newly formed union? Both Jefferson and Madison at different times saw secession as a self evident right.

Well before the south seceded from the Union, there were many in the north who wished to secede, and it was debated over many years. Why was it not made clear by Congress then that it was unconstitutional to do so? Both sides of the debate claim that they were on the right side of the Constitution. But if the Federal government was so sure that they were in the right, why did Jefferson Davis not get tried in a court of law for treason? If it were in fact treason, he should have been tried and if found guilty, convicted. Do you deny categorically that the Federal government may have feared that Lincoln was wrong and that indeed there was nothing prohibiting the states from seceeding? There were over 600,000 people dead, whole towns and cities destroyed. It makes no logical sense to not try him, if he was clearly a traitor as Lincoln’s argument required. If the Federal government wanted to heal the division, letting Davis off the hook was going to be the answer to a decimated population? After all that death, destruction and financial ruin, not trying one man is going to heal a nation? They could have easily tried him, proved his treason and then pardoned him. I say they saw a very strong chance that they could not prove treason, that the argument that the states could secede would possibly be held up. What does that mean for the Federal government? Very bad indeed.


86 posted on 02/12/2009 6:48:51 AM PST by coon2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; Lonely Are The Brave
Lee was either blowing smoke before the rebellion or after it. I'm betting after.

Picking cherries today, Non-Sequitur? Here's the rest of the quote:

Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness,50 has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and save in defence will draw my sword on none."

And a link: R. E. Lee: A Biography, page 421

87 posted on 02/12/2009 7:11:35 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am NOT an administrative, collective, corporate, legal, political or public ~entity~!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: coon2000
Article I speaks directly to the role of the Legislative Branch, so the decision rests with Congress.

Not entirely. Section 10 speaks to powers prohibited to states. The fact of the matter remains that the Constitution does not say who may supend it. Since Congress was not in session and since Congress had granted the president the power to act in other areas when they were not in session if the situation required it then it's impossible to make the blanket statement that Lincoln violated the Constitution by his action.

It is a totally different concept of tossing someone out of a lifeboat against their will as opposed to someone who decides to try to swim to shore on their own accord.

Not at all. In both cases Madison refers to, the action is unilateral and without the consent of all parties impacted. Madison believed that all states are equal and are entitled to the same constitutional protections as any other. To say that only the seceding states had rights and the remaining states did not is ridiculous. As ridicuous as turning out a state against its will.

The fact that the Founders believed that the States were independent and sovereign is at the heart of the matter when it comes to secession.

I don't accept that fact because I'm not aware of any quotes from any of the founders that endorse the idea that states could secede in a unilateral manner. But regardless of what I think, wouldn't your claim lend credence to the idea that states could be expelled against their will? If states are independent and sovereign then why should they be forced to accept a state they don't want to?

They declared their independence from England as seperate and free states.

They declared their independence as 13 united colonies.

Well before the south seceded from the Union, there were many in the north who wished to secede, and it was debated over many years. Why was it not made clear by Congress then that it was unconstitutional to do so?

But never seriously and never put into action so we don't know what form their secession would have taken. And it should be noted that when there were discussions about secession in New England during the war of 1812 the most vocal opponents of the idea were the Southern states.

But if the Federal government was so sure that they were in the right, why did Jefferson Davis not get tried in a court of law for treason? If it were in fact treason, he should have been tried and if found guilty, convicted.

And you will remember that Davis was, in fact, arrested and charged with treason. And that his trial was delayed, first by the Congressional investigation into complicity in the Lincoln assasination and then until he was transferred from military to civilian control (and promptly released on bail). In any event progress towards a trial was being made when the 14th Amendment was ratified and Chief Justice Chase stated his opinion that a trial and conviction on treason charges would have violated Davis's 5th Amendment protections against double jeopardy. A few months later Andrew Johnson's Christmas Amnesty made the whole matter moot.

Do you deny categorically that the Federal government may have feared that Lincoln was wrong and that indeed there was nothing prohibiting the states from seceeding?

I do indeed. Especially in light of the 1869 Supreme Court ruling that the Southern secession was unconstitutional.

I say they saw a very strong chance that they could not prove treason, that the argument that the states could secede would possibly be held up. What does that mean for the Federal government? Very bad indeed.

I would say your arguement was flawed.

88 posted on 02/12/2009 7:34:39 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

And where, exactly, does Lee modify his earlier remarks? Nowhere. Lee made his decision, choosing state over country. And by his own words he apparently made his decision without any misconceptions that the actions were anything but illegal. At least until he joined the post-rebellion revisionist crowd.


89 posted on 02/12/2009 8:02:22 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Robert E Lee was a great man...

See you tonight...I gotta work...maybe...

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/090116


90 posted on 02/12/2009 8:05:05 AM PST by Lonely Are The Brave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdLibertas
Failing to stoop down and kiss Lincoln's butt---himself a white supremacist...

And just what the hell do you think the Southerners were? Paragons of racial brotherhood?

91 posted on 02/12/2009 8:23:21 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And by his own words he apparently made his decision without any misconceptions that the actions were anything but illegal.

Lee never stated his actions were illegal, but it was a nice try to infer that he did.

Care to source Madison's quote you posted earlier in the thead?

92 posted on 02/12/2009 8:32:45 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am NOT an administrative, collective, corporate, legal, political or public ~entity~!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Lee never stated his actions were illegal, but it was a nice try to infer that he did.

No inference necessary. Read the quote in Reply 6 and it is clear that is exactly what Lee is trying to do, in all his full-blown, post-rebellion revisionist glory.

Care to source Madison's quote you posted earlier in the thead?

Sure. An 1832 letter in response to Alexander Rives.

Link

93 posted on 02/12/2009 8:54:47 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Read the quote in Reply 6 and it is clear that is exactly what Lee is trying to do

Not hardly. Lee states that it is the attempt to change the Constitution from it's original intent that is the root of the issue.

The attempt at historical revisionism in the face of facts won't work.

-----

Sure. An 1832 letter in response to Alexander Rives.

LOL! A New York Times newspaper article from 1860 concerning an undated letter that was supposedly written by Madison to someone under a under a nom de plume? Good grief, they can't even get the phrase nom de plume right.

THAT'S your 'source'?

-----

Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States, would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes; or by considering the will of a majority of the States, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national Constitution.
Federalist, no. 39 James Madison, 16 Jan. 1788

94 posted on 02/12/2009 9:24:11 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am NOT an administrative, collective, corporate, legal, political or public ~entity~!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Lonely Are The Brave
96 percent of the soldiers who fought for the South owned no slave

The fact that the confederate draft law exempted slave owners didn't help that number.

95 posted on 02/12/2009 9:31:18 AM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Not hardly. Lee states that it is the attempt to change the Constitution from it's original intent that is the root of the issue.

Then his statement that "our conduct was not caused by any insurrectionary spirit nor can it be termed rebellion" directly contradicts his earlier statement in his 1861 letter to his son. Revisionists often do that.

LOL! A New York Times newspaper article from 1860 concerning an undated letter that was supposedly written by Madison to someone under a under a nom de plume? Good grief, they can't even get the phrase nom de plume right.

So your response is that the New York Times faked the letter? OK, then how about here? Or is "The Writings of James Madison" suspect too?

Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act

"...that I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-’99 as countenancing the doctrine that a state may at will secede from its Constitutional compact with the other States. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it."

96 posted on 02/12/2009 10:03:41 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
Good article.. for some reason, there is an anti-Lincoln contingent here, but to each his own I guess..

There isn't really an anti Lincoln contingent - what people get upset about is the historical revisionism that the anti southerners use to smear the South. Many of us feel Lincon was a great man who did what he had to in order to presrve the union. Yet you get a lot of morons here like that guy on this thread who called out another on here as a Klan supporter. And you also get a lot of people who make claims that are simply 100% false - like someone on here who claimed on another thread that it was "imaginary" that there were Northerners who fought for the South (a fact that is easily disproved with a web search).

What's funny is that the same pop revisionism is now being turned on Lincoln - pop education is now trying to claim Lincoln was a racist, homosexual, etc...

97 posted on 02/12/2009 10:05:05 AM PST by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lonely Are The Brave
96 percent of the soldiers who fought for the South owned no slaves and were poor Kangaroo...jump...jump...fast..

True. But statistically, depending on the state, as many as half came from families that owned slaves.

98 posted on 02/12/2009 10:17:17 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Why then did Congress grant the suspension in 1863 if Lincoln already had the right to do it himself?

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.

the united Colonies declared themselves free States: “That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States” The Declaration of Independence never refers to the States as United States or Colonies but as united States and united Colonies.

Davis was charged with treason and arrested for it, so why not charge him? Was there anyone in the Federal government who doubted that he was the President of the States which seceeded? Your argument is flawed, not mine. If the Feds knew they were right, they would have had him convicted in court. If treason was commited against the Constitution then by all means try the person who is being charged. No prosecutor wanted this case because it was a loser. What the Federal government won on the battlefield they could not win in court. What then, the Supreme Court declares that what the Federal government did was illegal? Instead of going down that path, come up with some weak excuse as to why you should not try a treasonous war criminal who was complicit in 600,000 deaths, massive destruction and financial ruin. There is no way you can buy the Federal governments reason for not trying Davis, it makes no sense at all. The Southern states were destroyed, not trying one man was supposed to heal the two sides? Try him, prove that secession was illegal, the debate would be ended for good. But the debate continues.


99 posted on 02/12/2009 11:47:58 AM PST by coon2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
No, only that the source was questionable.

-----

OK, then how about here?

See? That wasn't so hard, was it?

-----

A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it.

It's called breach of contract. Thanks for making the point for me.

100 posted on 02/12/2009 11:53:49 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am NOT an administrative, collective, corporate, legal, political or public ~entity~!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-279 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