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 ...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Robert E Lee was a great man...
See you tonight...I gotta work...maybe...
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/090116
And just what the hell do you think the Southerners were? Paragons of racial brotherhood?
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?
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.
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
The fact that the confederate draft law exempted slave owners didn't help that number.
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."
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...
True. But statistically, depending on the state, as many as half came from families that owned slaves.
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.
-----
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.
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.