Getting Right with Lincoln:Why Lincoln’s conservative critics are wrong

2/21/01 | Charles R. Kesler

[Arkinsaw]

Actually, States need to receive approval from Congress for multi-State compacts (port compacts, water compacts, etc.).

This is a separate issue from secession however because a state not in the Union (Russia for instance) is not bound by Section 10. So the question becomes, were the States in, or out, of the Union when they confederated. That is ALWAYS the question and every argument always boils down to that question and it has not been answered to everyone's satisfaction anytime in our history (and is not likely to be answered to everyone's satisfaction ever).

[Arkinsaw]

Where is that right granted?

Where is your right to drink Pepsi granted? I haven't seen it specifically granted by the Constitution.

Your argument that a right does not exist because it is not granted is spoken to directly by the Constitution which says that the listing of certain rights in the Consitution does not disparage others that may exist. Things not explicitly prohibited by the Consitution are reserved to the States, or the people. It's quite clear.

[timm22]

Well, they still are running it. Hell, Osama thinks he is right. But I just care that we are winning. Sure, I would have fought and died with our founders till the end, even if I knew they wouldn't win. But, we'd be dead and they'd be ruling.

Of course the communists are still running Vietnam, and the Taliban no longer rule Afghanistan. But that doesn't address the rightness or wrongness of their movements. Likewise, the fact that the Confederacy was defeated does not make them wrong.

P.S. I am not saying the Confederacy was right.

[rdb3]

That unfortunately is a problem unresolvable by logical debate.

Speaking of "logical," would it be "logical" to say that just a small part of the slave-holding states desire to seceed involved. . . slavery?

It's simply indefensible and utterly hypocritical for so-called "freedom" loving people desiring freedom for themselves, but hold others in chattel slavery at the same time! There is NO defense for this, Arkinsaw. None whatsoever! And I don't care how any of you frame it, the act of slavery taints the Old South's history. Period. End of story. And we're not even going to get into the Black Codes, the Klan, and Jim Crow, okay?

I'm so glad that the North kicked the South's (Lord, forgive me) ASS! The War Between the States is over. If you want me to "move on," then move on yourselves. Otherwise, you're defending it.

[Alberta's Child]

To be honest, I usually consider articles like this to be a moot point because I am convinced that after 140 years it is clear that the South "won" the war anyway.

Go to my profile page and check out the article titled "The Triumph of Little America." I think you'll find it to be a good read.

And consider this great observation from Walker Percy, from an essay that he wrote in 1965 in observance of the hundredth anniversary of the end of the Civil War. I paraphrase:

"One wonders what to think of these Northerners. One hundred years after waging a savage war in their self-righteous attempt to set our slaves free, they are all fleeing to the suburbs so they don't have to live next door to them."

[rdb3]

Where is your right to drink Pepsi granted? I haven't seen it specifically granted by the Constitution.

Apples and oranges here, dude.

But nevermind. You take all that you are defending and simply shove it up your John Brown hindparts. It's quite clear what you are defending by what you are not criticizing.

That says a lot.

And I hate Pepsi, by the way.

[rdb3]

"One wonders what to think of these Northerners. One hundred years after waging a savage war in their self-righteous attempt to set our slaves free, they are all fleeing to the suburbs so they don't have to live next door to them."

That wasn't even the main reason why the war was fought. If Northern whites went to war to "free" slaves, no one would have went.

But let's go back to the quote you used. ". . .in their self-righteous attempt to set our slaves free. . ." Well, well, well. Need I say more?

[rwfromkansas]

While it is an interesting essay, it lacks some things which makes it a very weak arguement. I still am convinced that Lincoln is bad, not good. About total war, for example. I don't think that it is right for the north to go and burn all the southern towns down because the south is tired of the north mooching off of it's tarrif duties. The north did not have the moral hand here. Am I saying the south was right for supporting slavery? No. But they understood their rights as states to leave.

[Arkinsaw]

Speaking of "logical," would it be "logical" to say that just a small part of the slave-holding states desire to seceed involved. . . slavery?

Of course. Several of the States, particularly the deep South States were very clear in their Secession Ordinances. This is not to say that there were a variety of other reasons as well. In other States the slavery issue was of lesser importance.

For instance in my State the people elected a generally pro-Union secession convention slate. That convention voted to remain within the Union and disbanded. Cannons fired in Fort Smith in celebration. Secession meetings in the State were poorly attended. Arkansas would remain in the Union.

BUT, when Lincoln called for an allotment of troops from Arkansas for the purpose of forcing the other States back into/to stay in the Union that pro-Union convention called itself back into session and voted to secede. One commentator stated that the pro-Union sentiment in the State so obvious only a few days earlier had dissolved completely. While slavery played a part in the convention, its members determined to secede at the moment it did primarily because of "coercion" of other States which it stated was intolerable.

So you have foaming at the mouth partisans on one side screaming that it had nothing to do with slavery and foaming at the mouth partisans on the other claiming that it was only about slavery. Things just aren't that simple except in rhetoric.

[rdb3]

Am I saying the south was right for supporting slavery? No.

Well, I sincerely thank you for your admitting it. I truly appreciate that. Seriously.

[Alberta's Child]

OUR slaves

Think about it -- Are black people better off today living in the North or the South? I can't quote any statistics here, but I'd be willing to bet that by almost any statistical measure (violent crime, illegitimacy, etc.) blacks are better off in the South today than in the North.

That was Percy's point.

[rwfromkansas]

The north refused to let the south continue slavery and have a gradual abolition. The north demanded its way or the highway. Unfortunately, the south ended up having to leave since it could not get a fair deal. I am sorry, but I think the south was right.

[Arkinsaw]

Apples and oranges here, dude.

The apple being what you desire, and the orange being what really is.

But nevermind. You take all that you are defending and simply shove it up your John Brown hindparts.

My points versus this response of yours. Those reading can judge allocation of the debating points between the two.

It's quite clear what you are defending by what you are not criticizing.

And we will now pull out the "you must be a racist" card since the debate on Constitutional matters has not gone the way we desired. Once again, Freepers can judge the arguments for themselves.

And I hate Pepsi, by the way.

You are welcome to your hates whatever they may be. Whatever they are doesn't bother me.

[Alberta's Child]

If you read any of William Faulkner's novels, you'll see that what you posted is a very common theme. Faulkner makes the point that the Jim Crow era never would have taken place if the South had eliminated slavery on their own (as they eventually would have done).

[Alberta's Child]

. . . the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution had been added and so the national government had a new authority over civil and voting rights; but nothing essential to American republicanism had changed.

I would make the case that the 15th Amendment went a long way toward laying the groundwork for the rise of socialism in the U.S. in the 20th century. Once the act of voting was no longer restricted to land owners and/or taxpayers, the development of a permanent class of "modern barbarians" was inevitable. The "supermajorities" that the author refers to in his description of FDR would never have existed before the 15th Amendment was ratified.

[rwfromkansas]

Dang sir, this post in itself is 10 times more authoritative than the long speel that opened this thread. I especially found this interesting: "(It is always amusing to refer such people to the process by which the States ratified the Constitution – which involved the secession of the ratifying States from the self-proclaimed “perpetual Union” formed under the Articles of Confederation.)"

What an excellent observation!!!!!! That is probably one of the best arguments for secession I have seen in awhile. It is irrefutable.

[Who is John Galt?]

There is no defense for this. NONE.

Perhaps you can answer two simple questions:

1) When was it, precisely, that the Constitution was amended to prohibit slavery?

2) Shall government be bound by law, or by morality?

[rwfromkansas]

OH, AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SLAVES BUILDING THE WHITE HOUSE? COME ON! I am so freaking sick and tired of this one-sided history. The north was not some pure and noble entity. Get it????

[Who is John Galt?]

What an excellent observation!!!!!! That is probably one of the best arguments for secession I have seen in awhile. It is irrefutable.

If you ever find yourself discussing secession with our friend Walt (WhiskeyPapa), be sure to raise the subject: he will avoid it like a vampire avoids holy water. It really is quite amusing...

[Arkinsaw]

The 14th and 15th Amendments are not bad amendments as long as they are counterbalanced by the 10th. The 10th provides a check and balance by the States against the Federal government whereas the 14th provides the opposite against the States. The goal of both being the protection of the people of the States from tyranny from whichever direction it may come.

Unfortunately the 10th Amendment is not politically correct anymore and the States have become relatively powerless provinces. The decline of the 10th Amendment is what has led to the abuse of the 14th which would be a welcome amendment otherwise.

In my opinion, the amendment to elect members of the Senate by popular vote rather than appointment by the States is what led to the abrupt decline in the power of the States, as political entities, to resist Federal tyranny and encroachment. Senators became simply more powerful House members rather than representatives of their States.

This is why we have Senators who are more like used car salesmen (Daschle, Lott, Clinton, etc.) than statesmen. We certainly have not had a Stephen Douglas, Henry Clay, John Calhoun, Daniel Webster, or the like since that amendment.