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

Skip to comments.

Debate continues over 'The Real Lincoln'
World Net Daily ^ | April, 28, 2002 | Geoff Metcalf & Dr. Richard Ferrier

Posted on 04/28/2002 1:24:25 PM PDT by Ditto

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-205 next last
To: Rule of Law
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Notice how this foreshadows the 10th Amendment. No accident there.

It doesn't foreshadow the 10th amendment because the word "expressly" was expressly left out of the latter.

Forgive the Dr. Suess-like sentence, but whether or not to include the word "expressly" WAS debated at the Constitutional Convention. And they left it out, expresssly for this reason:

"Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people," thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair reading of the whole instrument.

The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the articles of confederation, and probably omitted it, to avoid those embarrassments. A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public.

Its nature, therefore, requires, that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objectives designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects,, be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That is the idea entertained by the framers of the American constitution, is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from its language. Why else were some of the limitations, found in the 9th section of the 1st article, introduced? ....

The subject is the execution of those great powers on which the welfare of the nation essentially depends. It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, their beneficial execution. This could not be done, by confining the choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in the power of congress to adopt any which might be appropriate, and which were conclusive to the end.

...any means adapted to the end, any means which tended drectly to the execution of the constitutional powers of the government are themselves constitutional."

-- Chief Justice John Marshall, 1819

The Congress is charged with providing for the general welfare and the common defense of the United States. Anything inimical to those ends are covered in Marshall's ruling. The Congress clearly is empowered to deal lwith them. This includes secession. The right to secession CANNOT be retained to the states because the right of perpetuity is retained by the federal government.

Walt

121 posted on 05/03/2002 10:52:50 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
The Congress is charged with providing for the general welfare and the common defense of the United States. Anything inimical to those ends are covered in Marshall's ruling. The Congress clearly is empowered to deal lwith them. This includes secession. The right to secession CANNOT be retained to the states because the right of perpetuity is retained by the federal government.

Walt, the only way you can get to this conclusion is to throw out the Declaration of Independence and say that "We the people" belong to the United States government instead of the other way around.

122 posted on 05/03/2002 11:54:50 AM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Rule of Law
Walt, the only way you can get to this conclusion is to throw out the Declaration of Independence and say that "We the people" belong to the United States government instead of the other way around.

I can say it by pointing out that the D of I is not the law of the land. The Constitution is.

If the government becomes abusive of its powers, then is the time to call the D of I into play.

Walt

123 posted on 05/03/2002 12:05:01 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
If the government becomes abusive of its powers, then is the time to call the D of I into play.

Which the South did when it seceded.

124 posted on 05/03/2002 12:17:19 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Rule of Law
If the government becomes abusive of its powers, then is the time to call the D of I into play.

Which the South did when it seceded.

I always ask this, and I NEVER get an answer.

Lay out the long train of abuses prior to 1860 of the type that TJ lays out in the D of I.

Walt

125 posted on 05/03/2002 12:20:26 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Hey, that's just what I asked him. RofL, where's the beef?

Particularly given Democrat and Southern domination of the Senate and White House in the decades before the rebellion.

The "abuse" that was "intolerable" was the advent of a federal administration that was resolved in principle to treat slavery as a Constitutionally protected evil in the states where it existed, and to oppose it strenuously wherever state authority did not protect it. That was intolerable to the Slave Power.

126 posted on 05/03/2002 12:40:53 PM PDT by davidjquackenbush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush
Hey, that's just what I asked him. RofL, where's the beef?

People who depend on the parts of the D of I easily committed to memory are typically going to be surprised and chagrined when the record is a bit more fully explored. :)

They get out the Brasso and lovingly shine up their replica Great Seal of the CSA with George Washington's image, never realizing that he was perhaps the single most adamant proponent of UNION.

Walt

127 posted on 05/03/2002 12:49:22 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Where is the grant of this power [to suspend habeas corpus] to the Executive?

Lincoln's argument would obviously be that it lies within the scope of Art. II, Section 2, paragraph 1 ("The President shall be Commander in Chief...").

Would you argue that the Judicial branch has this power as well?

Such an argument could perhaps be plausibly made. Note as I stated earlier that in Ex parte Bollman and Swartwout the Supreme Court held that the federal courts had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus even in the absence of statutory authorization from Congress. Where is that power enumerated in the Constitution?

So why have a three month delay before Congress convened?

Aside from the logistical difficulties of getting Congressmen from Oregon and California to D.C. (even by Pony Express it took at least 7 days for mail to move between telegraph stations in April 1861), Washington wasn't exactly a safe place to be in April 1861, and until Bull Run, Lincoln (and almost everyone else in the Union) anticipated a short war. Nevertheless, he called Congress in for the special session which convened on July 4, 1861. I'm not sure when Lincoln called for the special session, but it appears he wanted to give every Congressman plenty of time to get their personal affairs in order and travel to Washington and he also wanted to take advantage of the Independence Day symbolism. Note that he had suspended habeas corpus on April 27 and Taney had issued his Merryman ruling on May 28.

Ambiguous? Only if you don't believe in "separation of powers", limited powers, "checks and balances".

Stack up all of the paper it has taken to interpret the U.S. Constition and then tell me if you still believe that.

What do we do, add an amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"?

Of course, that provision still requires judges to determine exactly what power has been delegated and whether the powers not delegated are reserved to the people or the states.

And your point is? Do we let everyone slide?

I thought I was pretty clear about that. I'd like to see more energy focused on improving the Constitution rather than blaming the politicians who take advantage of its weaknesses, loopholes, and ambiguities.

Was Lincoln above the law? Pardon me, but Lincoln insisted that the seceded states had never left, yet southern property was seized in the blockades, a violation of property rights.

As I've stated, Lincoln was acting within the scope of a plausible, good faith interpretation of his Article II powers as Commander in Chief. Would you have preferred that he acted meekly and permitted the Southern slaveocracy to survive in perpetuity?

Unable to win on the battlefield, Lincoln made innocent civilians legitimate military targets, women and children slaughtered, property and crops destroyed.

Now you've gone way off the deep end into Confederate fantasyland. The Union forces prevailed on the battlefield without slaughtering women and children. Certainly there were innocent civilians who were caught in the crossfire from time to time as in all wars, but they were not targeted by the Union forces. Property and crops were legitimate military targets, since they provided the fuel, sustenance, and transportation of the Confederate forces. There certainly was some retaliatory property damage in areas in which the inhabitants were known to have provided aid and comfort to Confederate guerillas/raiders like Forrest, Morgan, Mosby, and Quantrill. There were also numerous incidents of rogue soldiers harming civilians by both sides in the war. In comparison to other wars before and after, however, the Civil War was a rather civilized conflict.

After the war, the Confederate states ratified the 13th as a condition of RE-admission to the union, then refused to ratify the 14th Amendment, which promptly led to them being "declared out of the union" (which is what they wanted in the 1st place, but their vote on the 13th put them back into a union they allegedly never left), the federal government deprived millions the right of suffrage. Hundreds of thousands of southerners were killed, raped, robbed, and starved, millions of dollars of property stolen during reconstruction, and you and others have the audacity to insist that "we" are picking on someone?

Lincoln had nothing to do with reconstruction. In fact, it was the Confederates' assassination of him that triggered the harshness of reconstruction, and once again, the ambiguities of the Constitution made it easier for that harsh treament to occur.

Slavery was legal at the time, and was still practiced in Illinois after the start of the War for Southern Independence.

Slavery was outlawed in Illinois by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Given that Southern Illinois was surrounded on two sides by slave states, however, it is not surprising that there are reports of slaveholding in "Little Egypt" -- and of course the fugitive slave laws made it easier for people to get away with that.

Blacks were not wanted in the North, and what few were there were despised.

There is an immense moral difference between merely not wanting to associate with people and enslaving them. Americans (especially poorer white people) have never been very enthusiastic about hordes of refugees pouring into their neighborhoods. The Northern Democrats certainly took advantage of that anxiety in their campaigns against the Republicans. Nevertheless, by the end of the war people like Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln had made great strides in persuading most fair minded Americans that negroes could become full citizens without shattering American society.

Brazil and several other countries all ended slavery well after the war - and without a war.

" By 1872, there were 4.25 million free blacks and mulattos, and they accounted for at least three-quarters of all African Brazilians (as compared to a mere 262,000 or 6 percent of all African Americans in the U.S. South on the eve of emancipation)." Source.

Despite these much more favorable numbers, slavery was not abolished in Brazil until 1888. If you were a slave in the South in 1865, would you be comfortable with waiting even as little as 23 years for your liberty?

In his inaugural address, Lincoln made it perfectly clear that all he wanted was the revenues from Southern ports. He stated uneqivocally that he had no desire nor authority to interfere with anything - only that he wanted the money. That in itself, puts to rest any legitimate claims that the war was to preserve the union, or to free the slaves.

Hardly. Lincoln made it very clear when he was inaugurated that his first priority was preserving the Union. He had also made it very clear during the campaign that although he despised slavery, he preferred to try to appeal to Southerners' Jeffersonian instincts to negotiate a peaceful end to slavery.

The radical Republicans, on the other hand, made it clear that they were determined to abolish slavery as soon as possible. The Confederates made little distinction between radical Republicans and moderate Republicans, labeling them all "Black Republicans". I give the Confederates credit for being smart enough to see the writing on the wall if they remained in the Union and maintained their affinity for slavery. You apparently do not, even though you have the advantage of knowing what happened to the institution of slavery during the war at a time when abolishing it was not the President's first priority.

128 posted on 05/03/2002 12:55:05 PM PDT by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush; yall; rule of law
Rule of Law claims:

"The Declaration does not say that the right to self-determiniation is conditional."

Yes, it does. Or rather, it means that the right to self-determination is not conditional, but qualified. The right to self-government arises from human equality and the divine endowment of rights, and its legitimate exercise must, accordingly, to be rational, be claimed in light of its origin. You disagree with the Declaration when you speak of an absolute right to self-determination.

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

Notice how you get 'no response' when an obvious fallacy is pointed out in ROL's position.

As you & others here have made clear, the Declaration qualifies; -- "That to secure these Rights, - [inalienable rights, - to life, liberty, property] - Governments are instituted among men," -----.

Seeing that only a republican form of constitutional government can 'secure' such rights, it is specious of ROL to claim that our declaration would allow states to secede to form ANY type of government that a states majority would will.

In reality, his position is clear. He disagrees with certain basic principles of both the declaration & the constitution/bill of rights.

He favors majority rule, - statism. - And refuses to admit this simple truth.  

129 posted on 05/03/2002 1:04:28 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Lay out the long train of abuses prior to 1860 of the type that TJ lays out in the D of I.

Read the D of I. It says, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "

Yes, The D of I lists greivences against King George. But the heart of the matter is that whenever the people no longer consent to a particular form of government, the just powers of that government are at an end. The people of the South no longer consented to be governed by the United States. The government of the United States did not have the right to impose their will on the people of the South.

You may not agree with what the South believed, but it is not your place (nor was it Lincoln's) to impose your beliefs on the people of the South. To impose a government on the unwilling is tyranny.

130 posted on 05/03/2002 1:13:01 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Rule of Law
The people of the South no longer consented to be governed by the United States. The government of the United States did not have the right to impose their will on the people of the South.

You obviously don't honor the D of I.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Were the secessionists acting prudently?

Walt

131 posted on 05/03/2002 1:19:07 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
President Lincoln pointed out that Andrew Jackson suspended the Writ in and around New Orleans in 1814 when he wasn't even president!

Excellent point. Do you think we'll ever see one of the Confederate glorifiers publishing a book trashing Andrew Jackson?

132 posted on 05/03/2002 1:22:17 PM PDT by ravinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: ravinson
Regarding the "delay" before the special session, may I add the following fact, which I read recently in a history? I can't recall which text it was, but perhaps someone can help confirm this.

Two of the states had to hold special elections to select Congressmen to the special session.

If my memory is correct, and this fact is true, it would seem to be another reason that the 2 1/2 (not three months -- it was 4/17/61 -- 7/4/61, I believe) time period was perfectly reasonable, as you indicate.

Other factors making the date Lincoln set reasonable, if not too soon, include this: Congressmen and Senators coming to Washington were leaving behind -- unexpectedly -- the constituents, citizens and state legislators, whom they were to represent. They were going to a special session of unique importance in the history of the Republic. Once in Washington, or on the road, consultation with those constituents would become nearly impossible. And yet the decisions to be made in Washington were of the absolutely first order of importance. Surely it was necessary to make sure that representatives left their states with some confident opinion of what their constituents wished them to do. And this would also have added some days or weeks to the reasonable time it would take for such a deliberative body to assemble.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the "delay" is among the most unreasonable criticisms leveled at Lincoln, and shows again how willing his critics are to hit him with any stick they can find, reasonable or not.

133 posted on 05/03/2002 1:27:08 PM PDT by davidjquackenbush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Notice how you get 'no response' when an obvious fallacy is pointed out in ROL's position.

As I have pointed out in a private reply to Mr. Quackenbush, I have not forgotten him and will reply when I collect the necessary data.

Mr. Paine, I have asked you to quit these childish personal attacks on me. I will ask you one more time to cease. Your personal attacks on people (and I'm certainly not the only person you routinely attack) do not add to the debate. They do not do anything except disrupt this forum.

If you have something to add, some fact or some, reasonable, logical argument, then by all means, add it. Don't distort other people's arguments. Don't insult people. And don't play out childish vendettas against people.

134 posted on 05/03/2002 1:29:38 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Were the secessionists acting prudently?

It is not for you or me to decide whether they were prudent. And you will notice that the D of I says whenever the people think their government needs to change, they can change it. It then goes on to say that if they are prudent, they won't do so rashly.

I do not believe that the people of Sweden are prudent for adopting socialism. But who am I to impose my will on the people of Sweden? I do not consider Islamic fundementalism a prudent form of government. But if the people of the Middle East wish to live under that form of government, it's up to them.

The fact that you may not believe the South was prudent does not mean that you would be right to deny them their self-determination.

135 posted on 05/03/2002 1:36:25 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush
I will look forward to seeing the official statements of secession that offer this reason, even supposing (which I do not think true) that the claimed economic abuse was true or intended.

What is the Southern explanation, by the way, for the enormous tariffs DURING the war, after the South was gone?

As I have indicated, my bookmarks for the reasons for secession are at home. I will post the links when I can.

But even if they do not list the tariff, it was an issue they felt so strongly about that they outlawed protectionist tariffs in the Confederate Constitution.

As for tariffs during the war, Lincoln had to get money somewhere. He used high tariffs and paper money.

136 posted on 05/03/2002 1:41:32 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush
Yes, it does. Or rather, it means that the right to self-determination is not conditional, but qualified. The right to self-government arises from human equality and the divine endowment of rights, and its legitimate exercise must, accordingly, to be rational, be claimed in light of its origin. You disagree with the Declaration when you speak of an absolute right to self-determination.

I disagree with you. Read it again. You are wanting to read the section about prudence as a requirement for self-determination. It says that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Not, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the goverened as long as the people are prudent. Or even morally right.

I don't believe that the people in Iran, for instance, are morally right. They certainly don't believe in human equality. But I also believe they have the right to determine their form of government. I disagree with that form of government. But I don't think that anyone has the right to impose a government on the people of Iran without their consent. Do you?

And if it would be wrong to impose a government on the people of Iran without their consent, how can it be right to impose a government on the people of the South without their consent?

137 posted on 05/03/2002 1:52:58 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush
PRECISELY so you wouldn't say this:

My apologies.

138 posted on 05/03/2002 1:54:39 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Rule of Law
--- the heart of the matter is that whenever the people no longer consent to a particular form of government, the just powers of that government are at an end.

Not so. A southern minority of the citizens of the US no longer consented to a valid constitutional republics overall views on ending a violation of human rights, - slavery. They rebelled against their own constitutions principles.

The people of the South no longer consented to be governed by the United States. The government of the United States did not have the right to impose their will on the people of the South.

The people of the south had no right to oppose the clear intent of the constitution to abolish slavery, as Article I section 9, infers. - They chose violent rebellion to resolve political differences over human rights, in the stead of constitutional remedies. Big mistake. Their fellow citizens had every right to enforce & defend the constitution & the entire republic from such a division.

139 posted on 05/03/2002 2:05:56 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: davidjquackenbush
But be serious. The northern states "achieved emancipation peacefully," so I don't know what you mean by "that was not even tried here." It was repudiated in the most solemn way as even an ultimate, distant goal by the Southern states who cast their lot with a regime based on slavery, after they had almost a century to think the matter over carefully, and while the rest of the world moved toward emancipation and substantially accomplished it. The civilized world of 1776 was very clear on the moral issues involved in slavery, and the civilized world of 1860 was even clearer -- the South just ILLEGITIMATELY DISAGREED. And they quite openly based their revolt on that disagreement. So let's see what statements by seceeding states you have that a) offer reasons for the justice of secession as an avoidance of tyranny, and b) don't make slavery the principal, even only, cause of secession.

Actually, as pointed out, the whole of the world didn't move away from slavery. It is still alive in much of the world. Africa, the Middle East, much of Asia still practices slavery. Unfortunately, we have a long way to go before we eliminate slavery.

In the places where slavery was abolished, it was almost without exception done peacefully, generally through compensated emancipation or through phasing out slavery over a period of years. And while the Psalms singers like to take credit for ending slavery, it was really simple economics that did the trick. Owning slaves just didn't pay. (We might as well face facts, for many people, if not most, money counts for more than morality.)

Don't think I am defending slavery or defending the South's stance on slavery. But this is not a question of whether slavery was right or wrong. There's no question that slavery is wrong. It is a question of whether people may decide what kind of government they will live under.

140 posted on 05/03/2002 2:09:32 PM PDT by Rule of Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-205 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