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

Skip to comments.

The Real Lincoln
townhall.com ^ | 3/27/02 | Walter Williams

Posted on 03/26/2002 10:38:41 PM PST by kattracks

Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, "The Real Lincoln," Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let's look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union ... I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'"

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty." The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go." DiLorenzo cites other editorials expressing identical sentiments.

Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.

DiLorenzo does a yeoman's job in documenting Lincoln's ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That's why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.

COPYRIGHT 2002 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Contact Walter Williams | Read his biography

©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.



TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: dixielist; walterwilliamslist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-433 next last

1 posted on 03/26/2002 10:38:41 PM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Walter Williams list;shuckmaster;stainlessbanner

2 posted on 03/26/2002 10:44:23 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: ConfederateMissouri
You will enjoy this article by a great American thinker Walter Williams.
5 posted on 03/26/2002 10:51:38 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
it was about slavery, whether we like it or not. The Radical Republicans were the zealots on slavery they controlled the Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War, had powerful positions on Ways and Means and other important important committee's. Lincoln had 2 Radicals in his Cabinet.

After the war there were 17 black Republicans elected to Congress, the Democrats got around to it in the 1930's I understand.

6 posted on 03/26/2002 11:06:42 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
Constitutionally the states had a right to secede, thats why the war was about slavery
7 posted on 03/26/2002 11:07:25 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
Walter is one of the best
8 posted on 03/26/2002 11:07:52 PM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Bumpppppp!
9 posted on 03/26/2002 11:08:21 PM PST by Badray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: kattracks
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty." The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

I'm not sure you can use Maryland politicians as a guide to the beliefs of northern political leaders. The first suspension of habeas corpus by Lincoln was for the imprisonment of Maryland secessionists.

11 posted on 03/27/2002 1:05:24 AM PST by Gladwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
DiLorenzo does a yeoman's job in documenting Lincoln's ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That's why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.

Lincoln's argument was that secession based on protecting slavery was illegitimate. In his view, secession and revolt have to be legitimate and moral - for example, because of taxation without representation, or billeting of troops in homes without compensation.

12 posted on 03/27/2002 1:09:49 AM PST by Gladwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP;aomagrat; Moose4;ConfederateMissouri;Ligeia;CWRWinger;stainlessbanner...
Walter Williams ping!

Aw, Shucks!

13 posted on 03/27/2002 2:19:36 AM PST by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; shuckmaster
I've read some of Professor Williams articles and heard him on Rush Limbaugh . It might make some folks mad here ,but I enjoy hearing Williams more than Limbaugh.
14 posted on 03/27/2002 2:45:12 AM PST by Captain Shady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain Shady
So do I, Captain. Dr. Williams is a conservative. Rush is a GOP shill. There's a huge difference.
15 posted on 03/27/2002 3:11:20 AM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
it was about slavery, whether we like it or not.

Okay, I'll say this one more timeREAD THE BOOK!!

It's out in the stores, it's quite documented, and it reinforces past research that it was NOT, I repeat NOT over slavery!! Makes you question how slavery was ended throughout the Western Hemisphere peacefully everywhere else EXCEPT the US. The only other place there was a war, supposedly over slavery, there was a political motive, and slavery was used as an excuse there as well

16 posted on 03/27/2002 4:11:08 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
No - it was about tariffs, states rights, and the North's desire that all new territories would be free from blacks and slaves. That's why notherners were known as "free-soilers" - to protect jobs for white people.

The south abided by the Constitution, the North abused it.

17 posted on 03/27/2002 4:37:04 AM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster; GeronL

Great article, and it speaks volumes of the truth. Even though the Yankees will say its all lies, the truth is like a light ... it cannot be hidden, nor can it be extinguished. And as far as the slavery issue went, it was legal back then, the Yankees went to war to preserve the Union, or not to let the Southern States secede ... they didn't really care about slaves. Observe the treatment blacks received up North, and you'll understand.

18 posted on 03/27/2002 4:58:24 AM PST by Colt .45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BurkeCalhounDabney
There seems to be a dearth of Linkum-Sphincs on this thread.

Wanna bet on which one shows up first?

19 posted on 03/27/2002 5:00:51 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP
Thanks for the bump to Shucks who bumped to me. Here are some more quotes, unfortunately I haven't time to format them better. Pay close attention to the last one, which is disparate in theme from the others, but quite apropo for those who argue that "the Union created the States". They are liars, of course.

10 Nov 1860 from the _Albany (New York) Atlas and Argus_ " . . .We sympathize with and justify the South" because "their rights have been invaded to the extreme limit possible within the forms of the Constitution." If the South wanted to secede, the editors wrote, "we would applaud them and with them God-Speed."

The _Chicago Daily Times and Herald_ declared, eleven days later, that "like it or not, the cotton States will secede." The government will not then "go to pieces," but Southerners will be allowed to regain their "sense of independence and honor."

On Nov 24, 1860, the _Concord (New Hampshire) Democratic Standard_ complained of "fanatics and demagogues of the North" who "waged war on the institutions of the South" and appealed for "concession of the just rights of our Southern brethren."

Two days later, the _New York Journal of Commerce_ condemned the "meddlesome spirit" of people of the North who wanted to "seek to regulate and control" people in "other communities."

On 13 November 1860, the _Bangor (Maine) Daily Union_ defended southern secessionists by explaining that the Union "depends for its continuance on the free consent and will of the sovereign people" of each state, and "when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone." If military force is used, then a state can only be held "as a subject province," and can never be "a co-equal member of the American Union."

On the same day, the _Brooklyn Daily Eagle_ clearly explained that "any violation of the constitution by the general government, deliberately persisted in would relieve the state or states injured by such violation from all legal and moral obligations to remain in the union or yield obedience to the federal government." And while the editors saw "no real cause for secession on the part of the South, should any states attempt it there is nothing to be done but let them go."

The _Cincinnati Daily Commercial_ echoed similar sentiments by advocating that the southern states be allowed to "work out their salvation or destruction in their own way" rather than "to attempt, through forcible coercion, to save them in spite of themselves."

The _Davenport (Iowa) Democrat and News_ on 17 November 1860, editorialized against secession, but in its editorial it noted that it was apparently in the minority in the North, where most of the "leading and most influential papers of the Union" believe "that any State of the Union has a right to secede."

The _Providence (Rhode Island) Evening Press_ wrote on that same day that sovereignty "necessarily includes what we call the "right of secession" and that 'this right must be maintained" unless we would establish "colossal despotism" against which the founding fathers "uttered their solemn warnings."

The _Cincinnati Daily Press_ repeated this sentiment on 21 November 1860: "We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is *absolute* -- that, in other words, if South Carolina wants to go out of the Union, she has the right to do so, and no party or power may justly say her nay."

The _New York Daily Tribune_ made the same point on 17 December 1860, adding that if tyranny and despotism justified the American Revolution in 1776, then "we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."

Once South Carolina seceded on 20 December 1860, dozens of northern editorialists viewed it as a confirmation of the principle of sovereignty and self-government, while others, like the _Indianapolis Daily Journal_ said "thank God that we have had a good riddance of bad rubbish."

The _Kenosha (Wisconsin) Democrat wrote on 11 January 1861, that secession was "the very germ of liberty" and declared that "the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state."

The _New York Journal of Commerce_ reminded its readers on 12 January 1861, that by opposing secession, northerners would be changing the nature of government "from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism where one part of the people are slaves. Such is the logical deduction from the policy of the advocates of force."

The _Washington (D.C.) Constitution_ concurred, stating that the use of force against South Carolina would be "the extreme of wickedness and the acme of folly." It further opined the desire "that all the Southern states will secede."

On 5 February 1861, the _New York Tribune_ characterized Lincoln's latest speech as "the arguments of a tyrant -- force, compulsion and power." "Nine out of ten of the people of the North," the paper surmised, were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union.

"We ought to let them go," said the _Greenfield (Massachusetts) Gazette and Courier_, once additional southern states began to follow South Carolina's lead.

The _Detroit Free Press_ declared on 19 February 1861, that "an attempt to subjugate the seceded states, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent."

The _New York Daily Tribune_ argued once again that "the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration . . .Is that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." Therefore, if the southern states want to secede, "they have a clear right to do so."

On March 21, 1861, the _New York Times_ intoned "that there is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

"The people are recognizing the government of the Confederates," the _Cincinnati Daily Commercial_ wrote on 23 March 1861, and "there is room for several flourishing nations on this continent; the sun will shine brightly and the rivers run as clear . . .when we acknowledge the Southern Confederacy as before."

"Public opinion in the North," said the _Hartford (Connecticut) Daily Courant_ on 12 April 1861, "seems to be gradually settling down in favor of the recognition of the New Confederacy by the Federal Government." The thought of a "bloody and protracted civil war . . .Is abhorrent to all." (Howard Cecil Perkins, _Northern Editorials on Secession_ (Gloucester, AHA, 1964)

"He who will not reason, is a bigot;
he who cannot, is a fool;
and he who dares not, is a slave."
--Lord Byron

20 posted on 03/27/2002 5:10:06 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Do states have a right of secession?

Not under U.S. law.

Walt

21 posted on 03/27/2002 5:15:46 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
It is just so funny on one level that this nonsense of legal secession is constantly put forward in the face of the facts, the clear words of the particpants, and just plain common sense. The president of the Constitutional Convention stated plainly that the goal of every true American was the consolidation of the Union.

He presented the Constitution to the Continental Congress as a document binding on the states. The Judicary Act of 1789 gave the federal government clear power to strike down state laws. In the opinions in one of the very first cases to reach the Supreme Court in 1793, Justice Wilson writes: write:

"As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is not a sovereign state."

And:

"We may then infer, that the people of the United States intended to bind the several states, by the legislative power of the national government..

.Whoever considers, in a combined and comprehensive view, the general texture of the constitution, will be satisfied that the people of the United States intended to form themselves into a nation for national purposes."

And:

"Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform."

Now it seems to me that when the Supreme Court, in one of its its very first cases, comes down so hard on the side of the federal government, that the States should act to protect their rights. But they did not. This states' rights nonsense did not rear its head until it suited certain factions in the south, and for the most heinous of reasons. And I know all about the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, and the Hartford conventions and similar rumblings under the Constitution earlier than the civil war era. The point is you have the Supreme Court saying Georgia is not a sovereign state. Georgia's reaction in 1793? Zilch. Trying to break away 70 years later seems...sort of cheesy.

And interpreting the Constitution as a compact of sovereign states flies in the face of common sense. The Articles of Confederation were a failure. Of them Washington said:

"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."

George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786,

having said prior to the Constitutional Convention:

"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."

George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786

A compact of sovereign states would have been even less efficient and less able to act that the the government under the Articles.

Old GW wasn't mincing his words. Makes you wonder how his image got shanghaied onto the greal seal of the CSA, doesn't it?

Chief Justice Marshall, like Chief Justice Jay before him and Chief Justice Taney after him, was a strong propenent of the suremacy of the federal government. We are constantly warned not to judge historical people by moder day standards. That is why the slave holders are constantly defended in some circles. They couldn't help being slave holders. But I digress. How can you make a judgment on the historical people who held that the Union was perpetual? Especially when, as in the case of Washington, Jay, Madison, Marshall and many others, none of their contemporaries did.

President Lincoln called it:

"It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that Resolves and Ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."

3/4/61

Arguments for a state's right to legal unilateral secession simply crumble when exposed to the words of the people of the day. Let me leave you with one last quote:

"It is idle to talk of secession." Robert E. Lee 1861

Walt

22 posted on 03/27/2002 5:23:41 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: MyPetMonkey
It is considered immoral to pass debts from parent to child, but only if that debt is a private one. Some dead guy ratifying the constitution 200+ years ago binds us just like the debt to the slaveowner above.

What's a better system?

Walt

25 posted on 03/27/2002 5:41:20 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MyPetMonkey
The Feds are supreme and the states are not soverign because the Feds say so.

The states retain much sovereignty under the Constitution. But they do NOT retain complete sovereignty.

The people said so.

"The convention which framed the constitution was, indeed, elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might "be submitted to a convention of Delegates, chosen in each State, by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification." This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the Convention, by Congress, and by the State Legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it, in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in Convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States; and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the state governments.

--Chief Justice John Marshall, majority opinion, McCullough v. Maryland, 1819

Walt

26 posted on 03/27/2002 5:50:39 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: billbears
If you read the states, "Declaration of Secession", you will learn that the states did leave because of slavery.
27 posted on 03/27/2002 5:51:21 AM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
First not all states put forth a declaration of secession. Second, under the Constitution, slavery was still legal, so if slavery was the reason(which it wasn't) all the South would be doing would be protecting their Constitutional right. Dilorenzo also covers in this book the fact that the British did not see lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation as the great document it has been portrayed as by northern historians over the years
28 posted on 03/27/2002 6:09:01 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: billbears
First not all states put forth a declaration of secession. Second, under the Constitution, slavery was still legal, so if slavery was the reason(which it wasn't) all the South would be doing would be protecting their Constitutional right.

The natural law rights in the Declaration of Independence trump the Constitution. Every one has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No law can take that right away.

It is grotesque that you suggest that people should remain slaves just because it is the law.

Walt

31 posted on 03/27/2002 6:14:43 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: billbears
For every single state that wrote a declaration they used the excuse of slavery. Every single one of them.
32 posted on 03/27/2002 6:15:17 AM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MyPetMonkey
His opinion only matters if the feds are supreme, which is what you are trying to prove.

You are denying that humans must drive these events. To say a "fedgov" agent's opinion doesn't matter is to seek some sort of unattainable nirvana. Thank God the framers knew better.

Some human being or group of human beings MUST have the final say. And any honest person will see that the words of the Supremacy Clause, which gives supremacy to the federal government trump any attempt at state secession because a secession ordinance is a "thing" in the laws of that state which cannot withstand the Supremacy Clause.

Walt

33 posted on 03/27/2002 6:20:52 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MyPetMonkey
What's a better system?

One where you have as many ways of telling a govt no as humanly possible, including secession.

You are inviting anarchy.

Our government system may not be perfect, but it is the best one yet devised.

Walt

34 posted on 03/27/2002 6:26:01 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
BUMP
35 posted on 03/27/2002 6:27:36 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #36 Removed by Moderator

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: WhiskeyPapa
It is grotesque that you suggest that people should remain slaves just because it is the law

And it is even more grotesque that you suggest that leaders have the right to break the law even if the end is correct. Tell me, Walt, how many nations during the same century emancipated their slaves peacefully by paying the slave owners for their slaves? Tell me, Walt, what did lincoln want to do with the slaves again? Move them to Liberia? Tell me, Walt, how many northerners were actually members of this so called huge Abolitionist party?

It was not about slavery, it was the taxes.

38 posted on 03/27/2002 6:31:27 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"It is grotesque that you suggest that people should remain slaves just because it is the law."

I find it grotesque that you suggest that the Confederate states should have remained enslaved in the Union just because you believe that it was the law.

39 posted on 03/27/2002 6:31:29 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MyPetMonkey
You are inviting anarchy.

I'd use the word "demanding" instead of "inviting", but otherwise, guilty as charged.

Oh. Well, okay then. :)

Walt

40 posted on 03/27/2002 6:31:34 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MyPetMonkey
I need not remind you, I am sure, that Walt is a self-confessed socialist who prefers not to see information like this posted:

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." --Ulysses S. Grant

Wlat you are just asking for a

PINKO ALERT

Do these people know how you and your fellow travelers vote?
Here is your reply to Leesylvanian from another thread:

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

Leesylvanian:

Keep in mind when dealing with WP that you're dealing with a man who favors the government's rights/authority over those of the people. He voted for Clinton twice. 'Nuff said!

Wlat (WhiskeyPapa):

Well, I've never said I voted for Clinton twice, so I am glad you will be glad to post a retraction. What I said was that I had never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I voted for John Anderson in 1980. In '84 I voted Democratic. Same in '88. In '92 I DID vote for Clinton, although I was for Perot until he went batty. In'96 I didn't vote. In '00, I did vote for Al Gore. --Walt

780 posted on 2/28/02 10:49 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/634252/posts

41 posted on 03/27/2002 6:32:57 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: billbears
It was not about slavery, it was the taxes.

You cannot show that in the record. It is simply false.

" Antebellum Americans had been one of the most lightly taxed peoples on earth. And the per capita burden in the South had been only half that in the free states. Except for tariff duties-which despite Southern complaints were lower in the late 1850's than they had been for more than 50 years-

virtually all taxes were collected by state and local governments."

--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson

Walt

42 posted on 03/27/2002 6:34:35 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Walt I hate to break it to ya but McPherson has been outted for the statist pig that he is. Looky at this improved version and lemme know if it meets with your Animal-Farmian approval:

PINKO ALERT

Do these people know how you and your fellow travelers vote?
Here is your reply to Leesylvanian from another thread:

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

Leesylvanian:

Keep in mind when dealing with WP that you're dealing with a man who favors the government's rights/authority over those of the people. He voted for Clinton twice. 'Nuff said!

Wlat (WhiskeyPapa):

Well, I've never said I voted for Clinton twice, so I am glad you will be glad to post a retraction. What I said was that I had never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I voted for John Anderson in 1980. In '84 I voted Democratic. Same in '88. In '92 I DID vote for Clinton, although I was for Perot until he went batty. In'96 I didn't vote. In '00, I did vote for Al Gore. --Walt

780 posted on 2/28/02 10:49 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/634252/posts

43 posted on 03/27/2002 6:40:28 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson

Well that says it right there. How can I say this nicely? I can't. McPherson is so full of it his eyes are probably brown. He praised many of lincoln's moves in the economy as good things. In fact lincoln compared himself to Clay. You do remember Clay don't you? You know, Whig, protectionist, national banking, etc. Yeah, great guy < /sarcasm>, if you're Karl Marx!!

44 posted on 03/27/2002 6:43:17 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: billbears
It was not about slavery, it was the taxes.

Still false.

"One fact needs emphatic statement: of all the monistic explanations for the drift to war, that based upon supposed economic causes is the flimsiest.

The theory was sharply rejected at the time by so astute an observer as Alexander H. Stephens.

South Carolina, he wrote his brother on New Year's Day, 1861 was seceding from a tariff 'which is just what her own Senators and members of Congress made it.' As for the charges of consolidation and despotism made by some Carolinians, he thought they arose from peevishness, rather than a calm analysis of facts. 'The truth is, the South, almost in mass, has voted, I think, for every measure of general legislation that has passed both houses and become law for the last ten years.' The South, far from groaning under tyranny, had controlled the government almost from its beginning, and Stephens believed that its only real grievance lay in the Northern refusal to return fugitive slaves and to stop the antislavery agitation. 'All other complaints are founded on threatened dangers which may never come, and which I feel very sure would be averted if the South would pursue a judicious and wise course.'

Stephens was right. It was true that the whole tendency of federal legislation 1842 to 1860 was toward free trade; true that the tariff in force when secession began was largely Southern- made; true that it was the lowest tariff the country had known since 1816; true that it cost a nation of thirty million people but sixty million dollars in indirect revenue; true that without secession no new tariff law, obnoxious to the Democratic Party, could have been passed before 1863--if then.

"In the official explanations which one Southern State after another published for its secession, economic grievances are either omitted entirely or given minor positions. There were few such supposed grievances which the agricultural states of Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota did not share with the South--and they never threatened to secede. Charles A. Beard finds the tap-root of the war in the resistance of the planter interest to Northern demands enlarging the old Hamilton-Webster policy. The South was adamant in standing for 'no high protective tariffs, no ship subsidies, no national banking and currency system; in short, none of the measures which business enterprise deemed essential to its progress.' But the Republican platform in 1856 was silent on the tariff; in 1860, it carried a milk-and-water statement on the subject which Western Republicans took, mild as it was, with a wry face; the incoming President was little interested in the tariff; and any harsh legislation was impossible. Ship subsidies were not an issue in the campaign of 1860. Neither were a national banking system and a national currency system. They were not mentioned in the Republican platform nor discussed by party debaters. The Pacific Railroad was advocated both by the Douglas Democrats and the Republicans; and it is noteworthy that Seward and Douglas were for building both a Northern and a Southern line. In short, the divisive economic issues are easily exaggerated. At the same time, the unifying economic factors were both numerous and powerful. North and South had economies which were largely complementary. It was no misfortune to the South that Massachusetts cotton mills wanted its staple, and that New York ironmasters like Hewitt were eager to sell rails dirt-cheap to Southern railway builders; and sober businessmen on both sides, merchants, bankers, and manufacturers, were the men most anxious to keep the peace and hold the Union together."

Nevins, *The Ordeal of the Union* quoted on pp. 212-213

Walt

45 posted on 03/27/2002 6:43:42 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson

Well that says it right there. How can I say this nicely? I can't. McPherson is so full of it his eyes are probably brown.

No, that would be you.

I anticipated your response. See the words of Alexander Stephens in #45. What he said in 1861 is in complete agreement with what McPherson wrote in 1988.

Walt

46 posted on 03/27/2002 6:46:17 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Williams is just knocking off a quick rehash of DiLorenzo's favorite "evidence" from the book.

The real and honest argument should come from careful review of the book. There is little or nothing new in the column; it is essentailly the same stuff that Mercer and Dilorenzo himself already published at WND.

I'm waiting to strike at the [copper]head of the snake, and leaving the tail alone.

Cheers,

Richard F.

Oh, one little kick at the tail ... couldn't resist. On the authority of the "fedgov" to decide the extent of its powers under the Constitution, the third para from the end of Federalist 39 is instructive.

"[S]ome such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated."

One last question for our Rebel friends: Is there any direct and explicit statement of a legal right of secession in the whole Founding Era, from 1774 to and including the Hartford Convention? I don't mean such cloudy things as the Virginia "reservation," cited in Williams column, which is, to put it mildly, easily read as a notice of the natural right of Revolution. I seek instead a simple and direct statement of a legal right of secession, preferably using the term itself. If so, could we see get it sourced?

I'm not looking for controversy here, but hoping to get at historical truth.

Cheers again,

Richard F.

47 posted on 03/27/2002 6:52:20 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: MyPetMonkey
I said I wasn't looking for controversy. Perhaps there is direct evidence of the sort I ask for.

I have ordered the book and will be reviewing it, but I hoped someone would know if this remark from the column is true:

"Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Perhaps DiLorenzo will provide the evidence that I seek.

Anyway, my question is still out there, and I'd appreciate help in answering it. My own research has turned up nothing yet.

Cheers,

Richard F.

49 posted on 03/27/2002 7:04:38 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: rdf
"I'm...hoping to get at historical truth."

No you're not. You are hoping to establish your version of the truth, and will use whatever means are necessary.

50 posted on 03/27/2002 7:07:33 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-433 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