GOP Could Use the Whiskey the Tea Party Drinks

While many of our heroes have lost their gloss, Abraham Lincoln still shines brightly for many Americans because there is so much to learn from his life.

For example, in 1858 Abraham Lincoln was defeated in his race for the United States Senate by Stephen Douglas, making it Lincoln’s third electoral defeat in a row. As Lincoln emerged from the telegraph office into the rain-soaked street in Springfield, Illinois he lost his balance when his foot slipped on the slick boardwalk. Catching himself before he tumbled into the mud Lincoln muttered to under his breath, “A slip, but not a fall.”

Recognizing the symbolic importance for his political life of catching himself before he fell, Lincoln understood that his political career was not over despite his string of defeats. He started for home reenergized. In two years he was elected President of the United States.

“I claim not to have controlled event,” Lincoln candidly wrote in 1864, “but confess plainly that events have controlled me.”

Lincoln’s critics (both contemporary and posthumous) have often pointed to this confession as a sign that while Lincoln successfully rode the whirlwind of Civil War, he was not the builder of the nation that others have claimed- a kind of second founding father after Washington.

But it was this essentially negative trait (negative in the sense that it was passive and did not require action) that allowed Lincoln to remake US society on the basis of the words of the Declaration of Independence that declared “all men are created equal,” to include African Americans. He was able to accomplish this revolutionary object through passive management of the Civil War without turning it in to a “remorseless revolutionary struggle,” which might have irreparably divided the nation during Reconstruction.

Nowhere was Lincoln’s task more arduous than in managing and massaging the personalities of his generals (and to a lesser extent, members of Congress). Many of Lincoln’s strongest critics were generals who felt that Lincoln wasn’t taking their advice on how to conduct the war. In this chapter we will explore how Lincoln ignored personality (and public opinion) in supporting his generals and stuck to the principle of rewarding those that fought and won battles.

The most striking examples of this were the cases of General George McClellan and US Grant.

McClellan was the commander of the Army of the Potomac and later general-in-chief of all Federal forces. Mostly on the strength of a strong personality, McClellan dazzled soldiers and politicians despite the fact that he squandered several opportunities to beat the Confederates in battle. He was glamorous, good looking and just credible enough to be plausible. Lincoln however was not fooled.

Instead, Lincoln found himself drawn to the unpopular and often shy US Grant. Grant won battles even though he was publicly ridiculed for being a drunkard, slovenly and lacking in refinement. When a group protested Lincoln keeping Grant in command despite hearsay that Grant was a drunkard, Lincoln only reply was asking them what brand whiskey Grant drank so he could get some for his other generals who hadn’t yet won a battle.

Lincoln once famously observed, “I have endured a great deal of ridicule without much malice; and have received a great deal of kindness, not quite free from ridicule. I am used to it."

Indeed, during Lincoln’s life he was ridiculed over his origins, (from a log-cabin); his looks (he described himself as “homely”); his lack of formal education (he was mostly self-taught); his wife (who could be quite arrogant and aggressive, not to say crazy); and a great deal besides. Probably no President dealt with as much abuse as Lincoln. Yet throughout his life Lincoln rarely struck back at his critics. He maintained, instead, a firm confidence about who he was which helped him turn critics into supporters.

In 1855, for example, Lincoln was hired to represent Cyrus McCormick who was claiming patent infringement against a defendant. In addition, McCormick retained a number of better established lawyers from the eastern US, including Edwin M. Stanton. As the trial commenced in Cincinnati, the other attorneys ignored Lincoln, shutting him out of the case with Stanton going so far as to call Lincoln “that damned long armed Ape,” within his hearing. Lincoln swallowed his pride and watched the trial from the courtroom with other spectators.

When McCormick later sent Lincoln a check for his services on the case, Lincoln returned the check explaining that he really hadn’t done anything to earn it.

When the client returned the check to Lincoln and insisted that he cash the check, Lincoln again swallowed his pride and cashed the check despite his grumbling about the “rough” treatment he got from Stanton.

What’s most amazing is that Lincoln later picked Stanton to become his War Secretary after the resignation of Simon Cameron. At the time of his selection Stanton was still an avowed critic of Lincoln. Lincoln was willing to overlook this because of Stanton’s superb managerial skills. As their relationship matured Stanton became one of Lincoln’s warmest admirers. Standing at the foot of Lincoln’s bed as the latter died of a gunshot wound to the head, Stanton proclaimed of Lincoln: “Now he be belongs to the ages.”

The GOP right now could use a backward glance at Father Abraham and the lessons he bring with the ages.

Defeat in one election doesn’t always mean defeat forever. It helps, however, if you know what you where you are and whither you are tending; if you have high ideals and stick to them, as Lincoln did.

Too, we mustn’t always be so ready to excoriate our foes- foes inside our own party who are often arrogant, unreliable and closed minded, these people we call RINOs. We will later need these valuable allies to get elected and run the party.

But to those who are quick to criticize the Tea Party trend inside the GOP as unrefined and often perhaps extreme, I would remind them that just like in the case of Grant, the whiskey we drink more often leads to victory than defeat. And really, you can’t say that much about your other generals.

Secession Crisis U.S. Constitution "The Right To Secede" March 4, 1789 The first union of the original 13 colonies was effected by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. The articles established a confederation of sovereign states in a permanent union. The "permanence" lasted only until 1788, when 11 states withdrew from the confederation and ratified the new Constitution, which became effective on March 4, 1789. The founding fathers recognized the defects in the Articles of Confederation, learned from these defects, and scrapped the articles in favor of the "more perfect union" found in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State." Well into the 19th century, the United States was still viewed by many as an experimental confederation from which states could secede just as they had earlier acceded to it. It took a bloody war to prove them wrong. Fascinating Fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle

The one in 1793 was constitutional.....
Again, I don't feel the federal laws forcing anything were constitutional.

Momma, we have a logical disconnect here. I refer you to Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution as ratified in 1788.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

we have a logical disconnect here. I refer you to Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution as ratified in 1788.

That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution

-----

While the Supremacy clause authorizes laws made pursuant thereof, it cannot override other constitutional provisions, such as:

Article 4 section 4 - The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This does not, however, says Barbeyrac, hinder but each confederated state may provide for its particular safety, by repressing its rebellious subjects. And herewith the present constitution of the United States fully agrees. For although congress are bound to guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government, and to protect each of them against invasion; and also against domestic violence; yet this last is only to be done where the legislature, or executive of the state (where the legislature cannot be convened) shall make the application.
George Tucker Of the Several Forms of Government, SECTION XII

At the same time it is properly provided, in order that such interference may not wantonly or arbitrarily take place; that it shall only be on the request of the state authorities: otherwise the self-government of the state might be encroached upon at the pleasure of the Union, and a small state might fear or feel the effects of a combination of larger states against it under colour of constitutional authority;
William Rawle

Unless and until a State requests assistance of the federal government to physically enter a State, it has NO legitimate authority to do so.....NO MATTER what that purpose might be.

Thus my statement 'I don't feel the federal laws forcing anything were constitutional' stands.

------

So I have no logical disconnect, as I realize the Supremacy clause is not a carte blanche for the federal government to act however it pleases.

And yes, the 1793 fugitive slave act WAS constitutional, since the Appeals Court to the US Supreme court said so in 1835.

Moonman62’s response in #63 (”People can be just as wrong then as they are now. Since you like to play lawyer, all you need now is a case that you can bring to the Supreme Court, where you can play lawyer for real, and lose.”) is just as appropriate here.

The insurrection that was the pretense of southron secession was put down by the union and upheld by the courts. The south lost their rebellion and people should recognize and respect that, and move on.

Or I suppose one could try flailing away in court ;-)

Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States.

Myth. There ratification of the Constitution was contingent on a Bill of Rights being ameneded to the Constitution which was the first order of business of the 1st Congress.

Well into the 19th century, the United States was still viewed by many as an experimental confederation from which states could secede just as they had earlier acceded to it.

Not by many, but by some. The Father of the Constitution was not among them

I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.
--- James Madison, March 15, 1833

The insurrection that was the pretense of southron secession was put down by the union and upheld by the courts.

The obligation of the northern states to follow their sworn agreement was established as a fixed point in law (stare decisis) by a Court even higher than the Supreme Court...which was the APPEALS court to the Supreme court, yet the northern states continued to ignore their promise to perform.

This breach of the Compact by the Northern States is why the South was no longer legally obligated to stay IN it, and the federal government has no authority to judge them FOR it as that power does not appear in the Constitution.

If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
Life of Daniel Webster, 1851 / Vol 1 / page 518

Then the federal government violated Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 / Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 / Article 4, Section 4...and the 10th Amendment. The federal governments excuse was for 'moral justice' but its purpose was to create a consolidated government.

"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821

-----

Are you saying we should follow the law by ignoring the Law?

LOL! Hypocrite much?

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.