Authors look at Lincoln's efforts to control media (Did Lincoln order trashing of newspaper of

Quad City Times ^ | Feb 3 05 | Quad City Times

[smug]

On the other hand, if Lincoln did not deliberately violate the Constitution, which he did not, then he should be respected for remaining within the bounds of that document at a time when the southern rebellion was placing the very existence of the government at peril. Right?

Wrong! It is irrelevant whether he violated it deliberately on not. He exceed his constitutional powers. And further more, please explain how the Confederate States of America put the United States government at peril. Those several states that wished to stay with it justified it's authority to them.

[detsaoT]

which newspapers NOW would you shut down because you consider them "treasonous"???? free dixie,sw

I'd start with the New York Times, personally. ;)

See my reply to LS - While just about all "dissent" today is something I would consider to be treasonous, back during (and before, I'd say) the Civil War, there was a clear distinction between the two categories. I don't know if LS will agree with my sentiments or not, but it'll be interesting to see nonetheless. He is still a remarkable scholar, regardless.

As always, it is a pleasure to participate in these threads with you,

Respectfully,
~dt~

[libertarianben]

If succession was illegal and evil then why didn't Jefferson Davis go to trail and convicted of the crime?

[detsaoT]

Read what the founding fathers say about succession and then tell me that again.

As Non-Sequitur has pointed out in the past, there are a number of Founders that considered Federal power to be superior to States, and these are the ones he will tend to quote.

There was no "unanimity" in the Founding era, just as there is none today. We, of course, can continue to point to a number of prominent Founders ourselves that uphold our argument for secession, and he will continue to quote those that deny it.

(If you look at the debates, and the resolutions passed by the states, in order to accept the Constitution of 1787, there is a clear and undeniable right to seceed from the Federal compact expressed by nearly every State. NS tends to -and please, NS, correct me if I'm misrepresenting you, as that is NOT my intent- suggest that these were merely political ploys, and that the Federal compact, by nature of being an extension of the "eternal" Articles of Confederation, supersedes all State authority, and that no State can claim sovereignty. I could not possibly disagree with these sentiments more strongly, but NS is as entitled to his opinion on the matter as I am.)

[libertarianben]

Ok, so how many states do you need to secede?

[libertarianben]

I have a question. What is so sacred about the American Union and for that matter any union. If the union is a great and noble thing, then wouldn't worldwide union be even better? If so then all nations should cede their sovereignty to the UN and be done with it. We all been taught the propaganda of "one nation, indivisible"as in the pledge of allegiance. Which was written by a socialist, btw.

[libertarianben]

"Lincoln would probably be considered more conservative than any politician is, or would at least ever admit to being in modern American politics."

LOL! Not quite. The foundation of his and his party (both Whig then later Republican) economic policy was high protectionist tariffs, taxpayer subsidies for railroads and other corporations (corporate welfare) and the nationalization of the money supply to pay for this. Lincoln also instated the first national income tax.

[MamaTexan]

what Supreme Court decisions were you thinking of specifically?

Ya know, it’s obvious how appropriate your screen name is and that you're not actually reading any of my replies.

Personally, I have better things to do than play the FR game of “I’ll just keep asking what’s already been answered.”

Tell you what.

The next time your on a thread bemoaning the fact that (yet) another illegal immigrant has been released by the police for something you or I would have been heavily fined and/or jailed for, TRY to wrap your brain around what’s been said, okay?

[LS]

For the gold, see my book, "Banking in the American South, from the Age of Jackson to Reconstruction." It's interesting that Lincoln destroyed the southern economy largely by yanking the financial basis out from under it with the Emancipation Proc. Most southern banks had only two forms of collateral on the books: land and slaves. But the land was worthless without the slaves. When Lincoln announced that slavery was over in the south---whether it was in reality or not---the uncertainty associated with the possibility finished off what the Confederate government started with its confiscation of all gold in early 1861 (which was the only other form of reserve any banks had). So, ironically, the two presidents utterly destroyed the once-strong southern banking system.

In fact, the southern banks were stronger/more stable than the northern banks going into the war (though not nearly as large) because of branch banking in the south; but typically Davis destroyed their note-issuing function by taking their gold and printing Confederate notes, whereas in the north, Lincoln utilized an inferior system of "unit" banks by allowing them to retain their note-issue function, thus the number of "greenbacks" peaked at only $450m, and never constituted any major source of money in the north. More to the point, northern currencty held its value (supported by gold) while Confederate notes plummeted. (See "Graybacks and Gold," by James Morgan).

I would take what Jeff Davis said with a grain of salt. He had his own agenda. All one needs to know about the unpopularity of the war from the get-go in the south was that more southerners fought for the Union than northerners fought for the south---a lot more. In addition to the more than 80,000 black troops from seceded states who fought in blue, 100,000 white southerners (40,000 from Tenn.) fought for the Union, including the 4th Ark. Infantry, the 1st Mississippi Mounted Rifles, the 2nd Florida Cavalry, and the 1st Alabama Infantry.

Stanley Legergott, a well-known economic historian, has written an article in the Journal of Am. History in which he traced the quiet rebellion of the merchant and business classes against the Confed. government over the cotton embargo and high taxation, and found that by 1863, the blockade runners---who were operating under the financial support of these groups---were only bringing in jewelry, fancy clothes, combs, etc., which the merchants could sell at high premiums, NOT guns or ammo that were needed by the army.

[MamaTexan]

WOW!

Thank you so very much for the information!

:)

[LS]

NY Times, WaPo (leakage), al-Jazeera (contributing to casualties) and websites like the "Iraq Body Count," DU, and Daily Kos.

[detsaoT]

I have a question. What is so sacred about the American Union and for that matter any union. If the union is a great and noble thing, then wouldn't worldwide union be even better? If so then all nations should cede their sovereignty to the UN and be done with it. We all been taught the propaganda of "one nation, indivisible"as in the pledge of allegiance. Which was written by a socialist, btw.

I would be perfectly content to live in an independent Virginia, myself. But you're preaching to the choir, in my case. :)

[Non-Sequitur]

Ok, so how many states do you need to secede?

A majority vote in Congress is all that's needed for a state to be admitted to the Union. I see no reason why the same criteria cannot apply to a state wishing to leave.

[Non-Sequitur]

Ya know, it’s obvious how appropriate your screen name is and that you're not actually reading any of my replies.

Actually I am, I'm just making the mistake of assuming you know what you are talking about. You quote two cases that went before the court after Lincoln was long dead and which, near as I can tell, had nothing to do with any of his policies.

The next time your on a thread bemoaning the fact that (yet) another illegal immigrant has been released by the police for something you or I would have been heavily fined and/or jailed for, TRY to wrap your brain around what’s been said, okay?

Tell you what. First I'll check to see if it's one of your threads and if it is I won't bother trying. Can't see as it would be all that possible to begin with. Though I am curious why you wandered away from your illegal alien threads to begin with.

[detsaoT]

For the gold, see my book, "Banking in the American South, from the Age of Jackson to Reconstruction."

Ah, thank you again for an excellent reference. I will put this one on my Amazon wishlist, as I prefer to own books written by you to borrowing them!

It's interesting that Lincoln destroyed the southern economy largely by yanking the financial basis out from under it...but typically Davis destroyed their note-issuing function by taking their gold and printing Confederate notes...northern currencty held its value (supported by gold) while Confederate notes plummeted. (See "Graybacks and Gold," by James Morgan).

Forgive me for abbreviating your quote, but I didn't want to sandwich a brief reply between overly large paragraphs. I've noted the reference, and will add it to my library list.

Didn't the Confederate currency plummet largely as a result of quasi-official counterfeiting rings, which printed large quantities of fake Confederate notes in New York City and supplied these notes to Sherman's Army, who spread them all over the south? That's one of the claims made by Mr. Davis, though I can see it as being a potential usage of war (I believe the British did something similar in the War of 1812) between Christian belligerents.

...whereas in the north, Lincoln utilized an inferior system of "unit" banks by allowing them to retain their note-issue function, thus the number of "greenbacks" peaked at only $450m, and never constituted any major source of money in the north. More to the point...

The Federal debt in the war was an order of magnitude larger than the Confederate debt. Could that be a consequence of the Northern (more centralized) banking policy? Or merely a result of having an immensely larger army and war policy?

I would take what Jeff Davis said with a grain of salt. He had his own agenda.

I actually enjoy "Rise and Fall" to a great degree. I understand that he had his own agenda in writing what he did, but I'd argue that, as humans, we all have our own agendas. In its final form (and I'm not saying I accept everything in it at face value, merely commenting on its form), it comes across to me, the reader, as a very beautiful argument for the sovereignty of the people, versus the military might of a conquerer.

All one needs to know about the unpopularity of the war from the get-go in the south was that more southerners fought for the Union than northerners fought for the south---a lot more. In addition to the more than 80,000 black troops from seceded states who fought in blue, 100,000 white southerners (40,000 from Tenn.) fought for the Union, including the 4th Ark. Infantry, the 1st Mississippi Mounted Rifles, the 2nd Florida Cavalry, and the 1st Alabama Infantry.

Are all of these soldiers counted here voluntary? Or were they conscripted by the invading Northern army? (I'm not very intimately familiar with the military side of the Civil War at this point, I admittedly have quite a bit of work left to do to bring my understanding of those affairs up to par. Please forgive me for asking these questions out of such supreme ignorance, but they're the first questions that come to mind in reading the prior statement.)

Stanley Legergott, a well-known economic historian, has written an article in the Journal of Am. History in which he traced the quiet rebellion of the merchant and business classes against the Confed. government over the cotton embargo and high taxation, and found that by 1863, the blockade runners---who were operating under the financial support of these groups---were only bringing in jewelry, fancy clothes, combs, etc., which the merchants could sell at high premiums, NOT guns or ammo that were needed by the army.

I will see if I can find that article - It sounds rather interesting. I was under the impression that blockade running was fairly subdued after 1862, as most of the nations which would have been there to trade with the Confederacy were blocking military orders from being sent to any Southern destination, as a result of a "neutral policy." Is that a correct reading of the historical record?

In light of that, what do you think about the fact that these same nations, who were refusing trade with the CSA [which, in my opinion, was too interested in behaving honorably to be able to succeed in this type of affair], were on the other hand openly dealing in arms and soldiers to the United States. Was this considered fair treatment, in light of the usages of Christian war up until 1860?

(I tend to compare the Civil War with the War of 1812, wherein the British and the Northern armies were merely interested in conquest and domination of the Americans and Southerners; respectively. Do you think that's a fair allegory to use?)

As always, I am humbled and honored to hold you in the highest regard,

Most respectfully,
~dt~

[MamaTexan]

You quote two cases that went before the court after Lincoln was long dead and which, near as I can tell, had nothing to do with any of his policies.

The courts said the 14th Amendment changed the Constitution. Why was the Amendment written?

Lincoln!

Lincoln's actions changed our government. Changing our government is not something he had the authority to do. It was a direct violation of his oath of office.

The length of time between his death and the court decisions is immaterial. His Amendment DID do what they said it did.

------------

Though I am curious why you wandered away from your illegal alien threads to begin with.

I was trying to show how Lincoln's actions still affect us today. The illegals have special right precisely BECAUSE they are illegal. Citizens NO LONGER have 'rights', but privileges BECAUSE OF their citizenship.

This legal fact, is again, directly a result of Lincoln's actions.

---------------

(sigh)

Look. I'm not trying to be difficult, and I do know of the facts of which I speak.

I don't like knowing how the birthright of Freedom was stolen from Americans.
I don't like knowing OUR OWN GOVERNMENT continues to financially rape the American public with no legal authority to do so.
I don't like watching politicians continually beating Americans over the head with the *law* while they themselves freely ignore it.

But the fact is, I DO know...and Lincoln was the Great Instigator.

[Colt .45]

I'm sorry, I fell asleep while reading your fallacious assrtions. If you had something of importance to say, I might have stayed awake. But once more you have proven how narrow minded your views on subjects pertaining to the Great Emasculator are.

The facts I have put down are facts, your purported facts are nothing more than spin designed to bolster your weak-assed stand.