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.
To repeat, Lincoln's entire recorded corpus of thought, from his serious re-entry into national politics until his election as president, is devoted substantially – and, many would say, obsessively – to the sole issue of slavery. His public speeches, his private correspondence – everything he wrote, said and did – is focused like a laser on the issue of the evil of human servitude, and how to stop it from permanently corrupting the Union he loved.
Regarding your post:
So you stand by your contention that all the Ape cared about after 1854 was abolishing slavery or did DiLorenzo twist these words:
These ill-mannered scolds claim that Lincoln was obsessed with the issue of slavery from 1854 on.
Please notice: First, we did not say that he cared at all about "abolishing" slavery. Please read the words -- we said he cared about "the evil of human servitude, and how to stop it from permanently corrupting the Union he loved."
And, DiLorenzo's incapacity to read is shown further in his twisting what we DID say: "many would say, obsessively" into what we did NOT say: "These ill-mannered scolds claim that Lincoln was obsessed with the issue of slavery from 1854 on."
You say: And the question begs, what intelligent man in the united states from 1820 onward did NOT connect slavery and economics?
I don't know about all intelligent men in the United States. I would like to see the slightest evidence that Lincoln treated slavery as an issue subordinated to, or connected to, his "economic agenda." I never suggested there were not profound economic consequences to slavery. Lincoln was not focused, at all, on them. He was focused on the moral implications of slavery for the Union.
Sorry to have to speak so plainly.
Richard F.
New York and Rhode Island weren't full of anti-federalists. Yet before they agreed to sign off on Madison's constitution they let it be known that they reserved the right to leave the union!
Every word known to have been spoken or written by Lincoln before he became president is available at http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/aboutinfo.html
Oh, and is this a direct quote: "Lincoln revealed his single-minded devotion to the corrupt Whig economic agenda"....
DiLorenzo, from page 54 of the book: "Lincoln was always a Whig, and was almost single-mindedly devoted to the Whig agenda-protectionism, government control of the money supply through a nationalized banking system, and government subsidies for railroad, shipping and canal-building businesses ("internal improvements").
Or is this more like it: "In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda."
Obviously "revealed his single-minded devotion to the corrupt Whig economic agenda" is very much NOT the same thing as: "made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda" don't you agree?
Well, yes, these two completely unsubstantiated and false statements are different. One is a false instance supporting the false general claim.
BTW, is does misquote, as though directly quoting, you and me.
DiLorenzo's first response to DQ and rdf
Richard F.
Letter to Dr. Edward Wallace Clinton - Oct 11, 1859
My dear Sir: I am here just now attending court. Yesterday, before I left Springfield, your brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff views, and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject. I was an old Henry Clay-Tariff-Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other.
I have not since changed my views. I believe yet, if we could have a moderate, carefully adjusted protective tariff, so far acquiesced in as not to be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles, changes, and uncertainties, it would be better for us. Still it is my opinion that just now the revival of that question will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it.
I have not thought much on the subject recently, but my general impression is that the necessity for a protective tariff will ere long force its old opponents to take it up; and then its old friends can join in and establish it on a more firm and durable basis. We, the Old Whigs, have been entirely beaten out of the tariff question, and we shall not be able to reestablish the policy until the absence of it shall have demonstrated the necessity for it in the minds of men heretofore opposed to it. With this view, I should prefer to not now write a public letter on the subject. I therefore wish this to be considered confidential. I shall be very glad to receive a letter from you.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, May 12, 1860.
My dear Sir: Your brother, Dr. W. S. Wallace, shows me a letter of yours in which you request him to inquire if you may use a letter of mine to you in which something is said upon the tariff question. I do not precisely remember what I did say in that letter, but I presume I said nothing substantially different from what I shall say now.
In the days of Henry Clay, I was a Henrys-tariff man, and my views have undergone no material change upon that subject. I now think that the tariff question ought not to be agitated in the Chicago convention, but that all should be satisfied on that point with a presidential candidate whose antecedents give assurance that he would neither seek to force a tariff law by executive influence, nor yet to arrest a reasonable one by veto or otherwise. Just such a candidate I desire shall be put in nomination. I really have no objection to these views being publicly known, but I do wish to thrust no letter before the public now upon any subject. Save me from the appearance of obtrusion, and I do not care who sees this or my former letter.
A. Lincoln
However, I would like to read your initial piece attacking DiLorenzo. Is it at your website?
(btw Richard, the only reason I moved the quotation marks was my intention to make the passage read more clearly. I doubt anyone but you noticed and it didn't matter. And I certainly did not mean to mislead. Do not attempt your pedantry on me if you expect civilized discourse)
Oops ... should read, "...he [Dilorenzo] does misquote, etc."
Cheers,
Richard F.
I disagree. It was obvious that the reason for secession was simply because they lost the presidential election. ;)
No offense meant ... I thought you were being a stickler for accurate quotation, and responded with a view to strict accuracy.
You can find the whole controversy at WND, searching under "quackenbush" Or you can go to www.declaration.net and find it under "news", going back to the first column in early February.
Regards,
Richard F.
Column url's:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26440
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26519
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26530
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26572
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26610
I think you've reduced the falsehood charges to a perfect and lucid fromula here:
One2many writes, with my clarifications and numbers in brackets,:
1] "In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda."
2] Obviously "revealed his single-minded devotion to the corrupt Whig economic agenda" is very much NOT the same thing as: 1] " [in the debates] made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda" don't you agree?
And you reply, with a few insertions from me ...
Well, yes, these two completely unsubstantiated and false statements are different. One [#1 above]is a false instance supporting the [other, #2 above, which is a] false general claim.
The is the summation for the prosecution.
Comments, anyone?
Richard F.
FR fatigue must be setting in.
I meant to type, This is the summation etc.
Better quit for Maundy Thursday family and church activities.
Best to all, and see you tomorrow or Saturday,
Richard F.
Very useful site you provided URL for:
http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/aboutinfo.html
Ironically, the very first result from my search using the words FREEDOM SLAVES took me to an 1832 speech to the people of Sangamo County. I don't see anything in the speech that has a thing to do with slavery but it has everything to do with "internal improvements" thus buttressing DiLorenzo's viewpoint, albeit somewhat tangentially, and not your own.
One thing I did note was the seeming "plasticity" with which the early Ape views "the law":
"In cases of extreme necessity, there could always be means found to cheat the law; while in all other cases it would have its intended effect. I would favor the passage of a law on this subject which might not be very easily evaded. Let it be such that the labor and difficulty of evading it could only be justified in cases of greatest necessity."
I am struck by how much that sounds like our own era's Caligula from Arkansaw and I, for one, look forward to a more comprehensive scrutiny of this "great man" of yours! Thanks again for the link!
In one respect I was. This gets down into what I call the "He said he said"s; the point being that both your side and DiLorenzo's side has been guilty of... shall we say.... presenting the other's words to our own perceived advantage.
So I guess it kind of comes down, at least to me, to who attacked whom first (and why).
Perhaps at some point you will rouse yourself to comment substantively on the manufacturing of evidence by DiLorenzo.
Nobody ever said that Lincoln was not a Whig in the matters of principle interest in Illinois politics in the 30's and 40's. And nobody ever said Lincoln was a great man when he was 24 years old.
His point about usury was obviously that law, being universal, cannot fit every particular circumstance, and that when people desparately need money, and are willing to pay high interest, they shouldn't be prevented by a law. He is calling for a law that will regulate interest rates in normal business, but which will not effectively constrain desparate borrowers. He puts it badly, and the whole issue has completely obscure context, as various biographers have said. No one knows why he even raised the issue.
Why don't you try using your powers of attention on the texts DiLorenzo offers as evidence, and see if we can reach a conclusion on those. If you want more reflection by Lincoln on rule of law, try the address to the Young Men's Lyceum, 1838.
So I guess it kind of comes down, at least to me, to who attacked whom first (and why).
Who attacked whom first may interest you, although I can't see why except as a way to discover who is telling the truth. So why why don't you "guess it kind of comes down, at least to you," whether the book which is the topic of this thread contains manufactured evidence for a key assertion? Why won't you speak to the specific evidence laid before you?
DiLorenzo says specific texts contain Lincoln's economic zealotry in the most crucial decade before his presidency. He offers them in reply to the challenge that he can find NO texts which reveal that zealotry, because he made it up. He has cited these texts twice in WND columns and again in his book as key evidence. I say the texts are nothing of the kind, and that he either knows better and is lying, or is incompetent. I have put the texts before you. You continue to talk about everything else but this.
DiLorenzo didn't manufacture any evidence. You Jaffa sycophants just have to get it through your heads. Lincoln was one of the worst Presidents in our nations history. Even the National Review couldn't get anyone to really defend the bum.
As for Lincoln, he did consider himself the heir to Henry Clay's American system. Lincoln eulogized in 1852 as "the beau ideal of a statesman" and the great parent of Whig Principles. "During my whole political life," Lincoln stated, I have loved and revered [Clay] as a teacher and leader.
Read Robert W. Johannsen biography of Lincoln.
Here goes.
This gets down into what I call the "He said he said"s; the point being that both your side and DiLorenzo's side has been guilty of... shall we say.... presenting the other's words to our own perceived advantage.
I flatly and vigorously deny this. Quackenbush and I have been scrupulous to quote DiLorenzo exactly, and to represent directly and honestly his assertions. I even took your summary/citation of them to crystalize the points at issue.
Let's stay out of Sangamon County in 1832, and stay on point.
Here is the summary, again:
****
One2many writes, with my clarifications and numbers in brackets:
1] "In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda."
2] Obviously "revealed his single-minded devotion to the corrupt Whig economic agenda" is very much NOT the same thing as: 1] " [in the debates] made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda" don't you agree?
And Quackenbush replies, with a few insertions from me ...
Well, yes, these two completely unsubstantiated and false statements are different. One [#1 above]is a false instance supporting the [other, #2 above, which is a] false general claim.
*******
Now tell me, if you would, what is wrong with this summation, and in particular, how it misrepresents DiLorenzo's writings. He did make claim 1], and his general thesis in the book, which I now have, is that 2], and not anti-slavery, was Lincoln's principal aim in his 28 year public career.
Regards, and Happy Easter,
Richard F.
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.