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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 401-433 next last
To: davidjquackenbush
In case anyone actually examines the evidence I just posted, let me anticipate one objection. It is true that Lincoln does mention that he has never before disagreed with a Supreme Court Decision. So it is not strictly true that he says nothing that reveals his opinion on the bank decision. I trust no one will grasp at this straw, even to save DiLorenzo.
151 posted on 03/28/2002 7:53:35 AM PST by davidjquackenbush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: rdf
I am sorry to say that your attack on DiLorenzo seems, at least to me, largely specious and mired in minutiae.

Despite some minor inconsistencies I believe his work is valuable and shows the tyrant in his correct light. No doubt he, like most of us, has to work fast and in so doing "extrapolates" sometimes when he shouldn't. I must say, however, that I find much more veracity in his position than in that of yourself and Mr. Quackenbush (if indeed you still hold to your position that old "Honest Abe" had an altruistic bent toward the slaves)

My view is that he simply saw them as nuisancesome pawns.

152 posted on 03/28/2002 7:56:33 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Actually, DiLorenzo's claims about Lincoln's remarks in the Lincoln Douglas Debates and the Dred Scott speech are the only evidence I can find in the book that Lincoln cared AT ALL about economics during the 1850's. And that evidence is bogus. I'm sorry that you think that it is "minutiae" to point out, again, that DiLorenzo has completely failed to supply any evidence that Lincoln thought at all about economics from 1850 to 1860.
153 posted on 03/28/2002 8:02:39 AM PST by davidjquackenbush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
BUMP
154 posted on 03/28/2002 8:11:04 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush
I have focused on this one claim -- that Lincoln revealed his single-minded devotion to "the corrupt Whig economic agenda" in these speeches -- because here it is directly clear that DiLorenzo is either lying or incompetent on a piece of evidence he himself has offered as central to his case.

It is good to have a well-defined target. I'd like to read the speeches in question and then respond to your contention. Are they in one place on the web?

Oh, and is this a direct quote: "Lincoln revealed his single-minded devotion to the corrupt Whig economic agenda"....

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?

Thanks.

155 posted on 03/28/2002 8:13:26 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush
I'm sorry that you think that it is "minutiae" to point out, again, that DiLorenzo has completely failed to supply any evidence that Lincoln thought at all about economics from 1850 to 1860.

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.

And the question begs, what intelligent man in the united states from 1820 onward did NOT connect slavery and economics?

The Ape was many things but a dunce he was not.

156 posted on 03/28/2002 8:21:12 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: rdf
Rawle was a Philadelphia lawyer of a prominent legal family. I believe the family firm still exists. I first heard him mentioned at lewrockwell.com. You can search the archives there, or David Dietemann's columns. His article was also posted here, so you can check the archives or try a Google search.

I don't know much about legal reasoning, but it does look to me as though Rawle went far away from the text of the Constitution and into extrapolations of his own. The faults of Supreme Court justices who are always pulling something out of the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution come to mind. A more modest methodology might admit that multiple interpretations were possible or that the question was unsettled and advise caution.

There's an extrapolation from the way states "got into" the Union to the way they could "get out." But this connection is nowhere explicitly made in the Constitution. One could just as well build on the amendment process to explain how the constitution could be dissolved in whole or in part. Which path one chooses depends on other assumptions which may or may not have a foundation in the text.

If you want to look for the roots of secessionist theory, you might look closely at the anti-federalists. They argued over whether states could "get out" of the Constitution. The federalists were aiming at a more permanent union and were focused on other issues.

157 posted on 03/28/2002 8:44:20 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush
While we all benefit from a study of history and it does shape our thinking about modern events. In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what the ancients did or thought, modern events are going to be governed by those living in the present. And I for one, am never again going to live under a government where Democrats controll all three major branches of the government.

I would remind you of the immortal words of an American legend and hero from Virginia, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” One man made a difference; are we so unworthy as to attempt less?

158 posted on 03/28/2002 8:54:19 AM PST by B. A. Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: rdf
William Rawle

William Rawle was the founder of Rawle and Henderson, the law office with the longest continuous practice in the United States.

Rawle was born in Philadelphia in 1759. His father died in a hunting accident in 1761 and his mother remarried Samuel Shoemaker, a Tory who served as mayor of Philadelphia during the British occupation.

When the British troops withdrew, Shoemaker and his family left with them for New York and eventually London. During those years, young Rawle began his study of law, becoming a member of the Middle Temple Inn of Court in England.

In 1782, thanks to a handwritten passport from Benjamin Franklin, then in France, Rawle returned to Philadelphia. In 1783 he passed the bar and opened a law office in his home on Spruce Street in Philadelphia.

In 1789 he was elected to the state legislative assembly, and two years later was appointed as a United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years. Prominent in legal, civic and intellectual affairs, William Rawle wrote, annotated, collected and used many of the legal books now on display in the Rawle Reading Room at Temple Law School

159 posted on 03/28/2002 9:13:20 AM PST by SCDogPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: SCDogPapa
Many thanks.

Richard F.

160 posted on 03/28/2002 10:03:04 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Here is what we said in the column:

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.

161 posted on 03/28/2002 10:06:56 AM PST by davidjquackenbush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Quackenbush has quoted correctly, you have misplaced his quotation marks, and your post is really a quibble.

Sorry to have to speak so plainly.

Richard F.

162 posted on 03/28/2002 10:15:35 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: x
If you want to look for the roots of secessionist theory, you might look closely at the anti-federalists

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!

163 posted on 03/28/2002 10:16:48 AM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: one2many
It is good to have a well-defined target. I'd like to read the speeches in question and then respond to your contention. Are they in one place on the web?

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.

164 posted on 03/28/2002 10:20:37 AM PST by davidjquackenbush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush
Let any honest reader peruse this column, and say that you have misrepresented anything!

BTW, is does misquote, as though directly quoting, you and me.

DiLorenzo's first response to DQ and rdf

Richard F.

165 posted on 03/28/2002 10:27:31 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush
Below are two fascinating letters from Lincoln in 1859 and 1860 on the tariff. Particularly interesting is the comment that he judges the issue to be best left at rest until the opponents of a tariff shall change their minds. I would be most interested in the opinion of fair-minded persons as top whether these letters are consistent with DiLorenzo's account of Lincoln's ambition to implement the Whig economic agenda as his chief political goal.

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

166 posted on 03/28/2002 10:34:15 AM PST by davidjquackenbush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush; rdf
We are moving in circles here. I'll concede, as I have already, some liberty on the part of DiLorenzo. But I will also offer that what I have seen here and at the DF website is, shall we say, contorted, at times.

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)

167 posted on 03/28/2002 10:42:09 AM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: rdf; all
BTW, is does misquote, as though directly quoting, you and me.

Oops ... should read, "...he [Dilorenzo] does misquote, etc."

Cheers,

Richard F.

168 posted on 03/28/2002 10:42:45 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
If you read the states, "Declaration of Secession", you will learn that the states did leave because of slavery.

I disagree. It was obvious that the reason for secession was simply because they lost the presidential election. ;)

169 posted on 03/28/2002 10:43:28 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: one2many
(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.

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.

170 posted on 03/28/2002 10:49:46 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: one2many
I don't know what you mean by conceding "some liberty." I claim he has substantially misrepresented his only pieces of evidence for his central claim about Lincoln's purpose in the '50's. This seems like more than "some liberty." He manufactures, by misrepresenting irrelevant texts, his central evidence for his key claim about Lincoln in the decade approaching the presidency. You have the texts in my previous post. Are you saying that he isn't lying or incompetent, but "taking some liberties?" What does this mean?

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

171 posted on 03/28/2002 11:08:31 AM PST by davidjquackenbush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush; one2many
David,

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.

172 posted on 03/28/2002 11:38:59 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: all
The is the summation for the prosecution.

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.

173 posted on 03/28/2002 11:45:15 AM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush

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!

174 posted on 03/28/2002 12:00:51 PM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Gore_War_Vet; stand watie
ping
175 posted on 03/28/2002 12:13:23 PM PST by RFP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdf
No offense meant ... I thought you were being a stickler for accurate quotation,

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).

176 posted on 03/28/2002 12:26:10 PM PST by one2many
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: one2many
What did you expect him to say about slavery in a race for the Illinois legislature, at age 24, given that Illinois was a free state? That's like looking for comments on our relationship with China in a campaign speech for the city council.

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.

177 posted on 03/28/2002 1:09:40 PM PST by davidjquackenbush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: one2many
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).

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.

178 posted on 03/28/2002 1:18:59 PM PST by davidjquackenbush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush
manufacturing of evidence by DiLorenzo.

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.

179 posted on 03/28/2002 2:11:30 PM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: one2many
Caught a nap, and have time for one more.

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.

180 posted on 03/28/2002 2:17:17 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
Care to give some sign that you have attended to the discussion at all? Comment on the texts from which he manufactures the evidence? Do anything but avoid the point?
181 posted on 03/28/2002 2:47:29 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
Further, the Clay eulogy is overwhelmingly ABOUT Clay's position on SLAVERY not on anything else. Have you read it?
182 posted on 03/28/2002 2:48:22 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; rdf; WhiskeyPapa
"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."

Yes, Madison said that, and some may find ways of reading a right to unilateral secession into those words regardless of other evidence to the contrary. How come the apostles of dis union never quote these words from Madison?

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.

Source: James Madison to Daniel Webster, 15 March, 1833

As to Northern politicians arguing for the right to unilateral secession in 1861, some very prominent Southern folks argued the opposite.

"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union" so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution."

Robert E. Lee, 23 January, 1861.

"The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision."

Exactly how was Washington ‘encroaching’ on the rights of the Southern States? Did South Carolina have a constitutional “right” to impose slavery on the people of Kansas? The only grievences mentioned in their resolutions of secession were slavery issues and the only question on slavery then was expansion!

The South wanted a Revolution so they could expand slavery. It was an economic necessity for them to continually expand slavery or they would be swamped with excess slaves and the value of their 'property' would colapse. They made very few bones about it at the time. Their revolution and that war was all about slavery. Williams should know better.

183 posted on 03/28/2002 2:50:20 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdf
I haven't followd this thread, but I have read Robert W. Johannsen biography of Lincoln where DiLorenzo gets much of his info from. Lincoln was a huge fan of Clay's economic system. I'm sorry, but this can't be denied.
184 posted on 03/28/2002 2:54:05 PM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
It was an economic necessity for them to continually expand slavery or they would be swamped with excess slaves and the value of their 'property' would colapse

Of course that's just pure nonsense. The Confederate Constitution forbid the importation of anymore slaves. Zero Nada... But it was an economic necessity for the Northern states to contitune to collect the huge tariffs paid for by Southerners. That's why both houses of congress passed with the support of Lincoln the pro slavery amendment which guaranteed slavery forever.

185 posted on 03/28/2002 2:58:12 PM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
Of course that's just pure nonsense. The Confederate Constitution forbid the importation of anymore slaves. Zero Nada...

Vinny, Vinny, Vinny. I'm not sure we should be getting into this here since you may be a minor --- but did you every hear of 'The Birds and the Bees"? Babies come from mommy's belly and stuff?

Slavery importation had been illegal since 1808. People caught bring new slaves in after that point could be hung as pirates! There were around 1 million slaves in the US at the 1810 census. By 1860, there were nearly 4 million slaves. The slave population doubled every generation of so, with no imports. (They did it the old fashion way.) By 1860, the last damn thing the slaveocrats needed or wanted was an infusion of fresh slaves from Africa (even if they could have made it past the British, French and American navies who would hang slavers if they caught them.)

What the Slaveocrats needed soon was more territory to open up for them to sell their own 'homegrown' excess slaves. The cotton plantations of the deep south were already approaching saturation and without new markets, slave prices would drop. That is why those old creeps you have been suckered into admiring wanted a revolution. Follow the money Vinnie.

186 posted on 03/28/2002 3:26:00 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
The Confederate Constitution forbid the importation of anymore slaves. Zero Nada.

Excuse me? Article 1, Section 9:

The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America , is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Rather than forbidding the importation of slaves the confederate constitution protected it.

187 posted on 03/28/2002 3:31:45 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

Comment #188 Removed by Moderator

To: rdf
WhiskeyPapa is not the subject of this thread, and Sherman and Sheridan have not come up until you mentioned them.

Funny, you didn't get onto WhiskeyPapa for thread creep. What I responded to was what every Psuedo-Union type does when they run out of facts: claim some sort of moral superiority because of "slavery". They conveniently forgive all immoralities committed by Lincoln, Sheridan, and Sherman among others - because the CAUSE was "right". The ends justify the means - only in one's mind. Right is always right. Wrong is always wrong. Southerners argue their cause on principle. Pseudo-Unionists argue because they wrote, and continue to write the history... Deo Vindice!
189 posted on 03/28/2002 4:46:21 PM PST by safisoft
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: ConfederateMissouri
I would rather have historical writings declare what they are and who they represent. At the time, there were no "American citizens" instead everyone was a citizen of their state.

Constitution of 1787, Article I, sec. 2 para 2 "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States ..."

So am I to understand that Congress had to wait seven years for a single human being to be qualified to serve therein?

When the Virginia resolution was written, it was refering to the citizens of VIRGINIA. And no amount of deluded spinning on your part can change that fact.

From the VA ratification:

"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."

Are these historical enough for you?

Richard F.

190 posted on 03/28/2002 5:38:20 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: rdf
You didn't even need to go that far into the document.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

191 posted on 03/28/2002 5:42:49 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
By 1860, there were nearly 4 million slaves.

Come on. !!Of course it did with the encouragement of the slaveowners. But At no time in the south did the black population ever go over 30 percent. And do you really think the men behind the Confederacy really thought slavery would last forever. These weren't stupid men. As I've said many times in the past on this forum, slaveowners would use immigrants for really dangerous work than risk the life of one of their slaves. Immigration would have made slavery economically infeasible and everyone knew it. You had to pay immigrants, but you didn't have to feed, cloth and house them like you did slaves.

192 posted on 03/28/2002 5:54:58 PM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
confederate constitution protected it.

And so did the United States Constitution. What's your point.

193 posted on 03/28/2002 5:56:28 PM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

Comment #194 Removed by Moderator

To: VinnyTex
Rhode Island was a stronghold of anti-federalists. It was the last state to ratify the Constitution. If it hadn't done so, history would have been different. Similarly, if later states to enter the union had been given the right to ratify or reject the Constitution we might have looked on the process differently. Instead it was Congress which decided whether or not to admit the states that would be formed out of US territories.

Rhode Island attached a lot of conditions on to its acceptance of the Constitution. It's unclear just what status those provisions had in terms of law, but it looks like they may have provided much of the impetus for the Bill of Rights. The RI ratifying convention did specify "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness," but it's not clear whether this refers to a specific right of secession, or the general right of revolution evoked in the Declaration of Independence.

One could talk for hours about this phrase would mean. Federalists and Anti-Federalists differed as to what was conducive to the people's happiness. There may be a more specific reservation asserting the right to secede in the ratifying convention's text, but I couldn't find it.

This guy may believe in it.

One thing about the ratification process. One could make an argument that the Constitution was sent to conventions, rather than to state legislatures for ratification in order to avoid the idea that the Constitution would simply be a compact of state governments or their creature. Of course the existence of the states had to be taken into account, and if a convention turned down the Constitution that state wouldn't be involved in the new government, but it looks as though they were aiming at something more than a confederation of independent states.

195 posted on 03/28/2002 6:25:41 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: x
X, I'm talking about Patrick Henry style anti federalists.. Not Thomas Jefferson types. Huge difference.
196 posted on 03/28/2002 6:41:37 PM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: ConfederateMissouri
I really don't know what to make of your post, except that you are very angry, and very rude.

Perhaps in the morning you can turn it into a civil argument.

Goodnight

197 posted on 03/28/2002 11:41:11 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: VinnyTex
My point is that you made the claim that, and I quote, the "Confederate Constitution forbid the importation of anymore slaves. Zero Nada." I was just pointing out that you were wrong in that claim.
198 posted on 03/29/2002 2:34:01 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: ConfederateMissouri
When the Virginia resolution was written, it was refering to the citizens of VIRGINIA. And no amount of deluded spinning on your part can change that fact.

Look in the mirror. All the Virginia resolution reserved, if that, was a right to revolt. There is no legal right under U.S. for unilateral state secession. The men that attempted to rend the government were traitors as well as fools.

Walt

199 posted on 03/29/2002 4:30:12 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse.

Be that as it may, one framer at least urged an immovable attachment to the national union.

"The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole."

--George Washington, farewell address

Walt

200 posted on 03/29/2002 4:38:40 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 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