Author Topic: WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?  (Read 2081 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nohorse

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 109
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« on: December 17, 2004, 08:24:49 AM »
There's been enough discussion to merit a seperate topic on Lincoln and his politics.  I took the liberty of copying El Confed's posting on another thread to get this kicked off [hope ya don't mind].   Now, for those of us that feel so much passion regarding the man and his legacy here's your chance to post and explain your point of view.  I know some of ya just aren't gonna be able to pass this up!  Yeeehaaawww!!

The Real Lincoln [as previously posted by El Confed]:

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.
GG-father: 6th Ala Inf
GG-uncles: 6th Ala Inf; 19th Tn; Wirt Adam's Cav.

Offline El Confederado

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 171
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2004, 08:30:00 AM »
Oh hell nohorse,they will say it is a lie and written by some bigoted southerner, never mind the fact that this fella is black, or well, lets see what happens.
Lt. J.M. Rodriguez II
Captain- K Company-- 37th Texas Cavalry C.S.A.
 Lt---2nd  Louisiana  Zouave Cavalry
( Coppens Zouaves Trans-Mississippi)
Lt.---1st Battalion of Louisiana Zouaves
WoNA historian
Un-Reconstructed Confederate

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2004, 02:04:56 AM »
Those thoughts, as written, are sound findings. There are others which would disagree, as we have seen.
I, too, am kinda overwhelmed by the amount (as in pounds) of information shared here and there.
Too be concise, there are three thoughts which keep coming back too me.
1) If there ever was a real legal question it was settled by force of arms.
2) What is the legal question for today?
3) Are you really suggesting, considering the climate, this is a viable position for this day.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline nohorse

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 109
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2004, 03:31:44 AM »
Let’s start by looking at how some of the precedents that Lincoln made that laid the foundation for the government and many nationalistic attitudes that exist through today. First of all Lincoln was an excellent lawyer and well versed in constitutional law as well as the other political issues of his time such as abolition.  Thus, he was very influential and quite successful at implementing his opinion and perspective upon how the government should operate and function.  A sharp, crafty orator and excellent author – the right man for the moment? Perhaps.

Many of the Southern states considered him to be a dictator because he did maximize his use of presidential powers such as by suspending habeas corpus and the arrest and detention of persons under military process and tribunals rather than civil law and the courts.

He also allowed the wholesale destruction and confiscation of personal property throughout the war and encouraged an aggressive military posture.  This may be paradoxical if you believe Lincoln’s belief that the Southern states never actually seceded but were merely states in rebellion.  Keep in mind that under the American form of government the people are sovereign. To say that US government is supreme and absolute is simply a mistake as all units of US government are subject to the constitution and as the Virginia Assembly noted: “the sovereign people of each state ratified the federal Constitution, so it is the people of each state that retains sovereignty - as expressed, for example, in the power to amend the federal Constitution.”  Lincoln obviously believed that a more powerful federal government was a more sovereign one. Thus the argument consolidates into three distinct doctrines debated during this time:

Lincoln – The federal government was the predecessor of the states and thus the union was perpetual.

Hamilton – When the states adopted the constitution they transferred sovereignty to the federal government.

Calhoun – The states retained their sovereignty and inalienable rights as well as those rights not prescribed to the federal government by the constitution. Including the right to form a new government if needed.  

Regretfully both Lincoln and Hamilton’s doctrines were required for the formation of ‘big government’ and that is exactly what Lincoln set out to do.  Lincoln needed this sovereignty to quash the rebellion of the Southern states.

Why would Lincoln authorize such an extensive use of force against those persons he believed were still citizens?  And note that once the South seceded he did not interface with the new Southern government as a foreign nation.  He did not propose treaties and sanctions [which is still the accepted norm for international relations] he immediately pursued an aggressive military campaign – thus I also do not understand why many do not believe that this was indeed a war of ‘northern aggression”?

Regarding slavery it has been established that this was an ‘American’ institution that was beyond the reach of Federal power.  Although I do believe in this instance Lincoln did the right thing his emancipation proclamation was not federal law and was not voted on by the congress, it was simply a presidential directive that was very limited in its authority and purpose. Although the right thing to do I believe [my opinion] this was simply Lincoln’s attempt to appease the abolitionist lobby in Washington.
GG-father: 6th Ala Inf
GG-uncles: 6th Ala Inf; 19th Tn; Wirt Adam's Cav.

Offline doc_kreipke

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • Gender: Male
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2004, 06:23:53 PM »
From what I've read, I take Lincoln's argument to be that the States and Union acquired existence simultaneously when recognized by the Treaty of Paris at the end of the Revolution. Therefore, the states had no existence, or sovereignty outside the Union and could not legally withdraw. It was therefore an armed rebellion and justified an invasion to put it down.

I must agree with Ironfoot that the Emancipation Proc. was legal in that it was a confiscation of rebel property that helped them sustain the rebellion. However, it, of course, had no legal enforcability. I find it amusing that a goodly number of Confederate politicians & pundits responded with outrage. I would have thought that they would have responded with a :-D  if smileys had existed at the time.

With the EP, Lincoln was acting consistently with his personal desire to free slaves, but agree that it was to appease yowling abolitionists who wanted the EP issued yesterday. Also the timing was a clever foreign policy maneuver. I think that it ultimately put the brakes on England & France's recognition of the CSA, which may have been Lincoln's primary motivation for issuing it in the first place.
-K

Offline El Confederado

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 171
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2004, 07:32:35 PM »
I have a question. When did Lincoln learn more about what the founding fathers ment when they wrote the Constitution, The Articles of Confederation and the Declartion of Independence, then those founding fathers themselves? I mean come on , they wrote in English, read it, it is right there. Just because Lincoln thought they ment something different, dosen't make it so, does it?If we use that train of thought, then we have no 2nd amendment, because people like Clinton, Gore and Kerry say that, that is not what the founding fathers ment, see the logic?
Lt. J.M. Rodriguez II
Captain- K Company-- 37th Texas Cavalry C.S.A.
 Lt---2nd  Louisiana  Zouave Cavalry
( Coppens Zouaves Trans-Mississippi)
Lt.---1st Battalion of Louisiana Zouaves
WoNA historian
Un-Reconstructed Confederate

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2004, 12:30:22 AM »
Good responses Doc and Nohorse.
The thought on offenses is the one I keep hanging onto. It was a war with a rebelling population, no matter that they were citizens of the Union. The rules of any conflict, that is a funny thought, do give authority above and beyond the scope of authority during peace.
I would , therefore, give a nod of agreement to Doc.
I also believe that the Union preceded the states, it is a philosophical thought, IE the chicken and egg thing. To me the states were not states until there was a union. To me they were colonies calling theirownsselves something they could not be until it was a done deal. Theologically, calling something real as though it were.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline El Confederado

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 171
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2004, 08:16:20 AM »
I give up,Merry Christmas. Reading this it is now no surprise to me how our nation has got in the hole it is in.
Lt. J.M. Rodriguez II
Captain- K Company-- 37th Texas Cavalry C.S.A.
 Lt---2nd  Louisiana  Zouave Cavalry
( Coppens Zouaves Trans-Mississippi)
Lt.---1st Battalion of Louisiana Zouaves
WoNA historian
Un-Reconstructed Confederate

Offline maggot

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 181
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2004, 09:21:39 AM »
One final question for william

If in the future the United States overturned the 1st or 2nd amendment,and it was possible for your home state to leave the Union (legally or not) would you support it? (yes or no only PLEASE!)

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2004, 10:31:36 AM »
Not sure, would have to know more about the hypothesis. There are some issues woth fighting and dieing for, there are some I hear that are laughable.
This union is a pretty stong one, and while there are issues I believe in very strongly, I think most will work out for advantage of this nation.
Those issues I champion, I do the best I can to beat the drums loudly.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline maggot

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 181
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2004, 10:42:36 AM »
William do you know what the definition of "IS" is?



I'm saying all your rights and freedoms spelled out in the 1st and 2nd amendment being revoked and made illigal! Punishable by prison!

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2004, 12:36:19 AM »
I did answer you, or there was an attempt too. Evidently a bad attempt.
IF you are suggesting that these be completely abolished, not in part, then I would suggest we do not have a union anymore anyway so separation has already been accomplished. Re-establishment of the union would be needed and, yes, that would be a worthy cause.
Again, and not to belabor the point, The abolishment in part would need definement, the abolishment in whole is  another set of circumstances.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2004, 12:55:57 AM »
NOW, if you are trying to make a point, please explain the point. It is very evident I do not understand what you are trying to say. I will admit to being dull, hard of hearing and not very smart.
I cannot answer a question until I understand the full context of the question.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline maggot

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 181
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2004, 04:41:22 AM »
William, are you saying you feel so strongly about your right to worship the way you do, and your right to bear arms that you would oppose the Union? But why would you do this? Isn't maintaining this great Union more important then these things which you can live without?

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2004, 05:26:16 AM »
Two postulations-
1) The people of the Union voting another amendment which would in effect abolish the first two amendments.
My worship of the Lord God would never be affected under any circumstance, nor would my sharing of the gospel. Now this will happen at some point in what we call time. It will not be under a circumstance, I do not believe, in the world order as we know it and force of arms under these conditions would not be a viable choice. Now sharing under the circumstances given will lead to death for the believer.
If the second amendment were in question I would, at this point in time (always subject to change depending on a number of things ), ask a question as part of my answer. If the majority of citizens wanted this change, as well as our representatives, I wonder would there be enough folks in any state to effectively secede that state. Having that thought in mind, I find it would be impractical to kick against the pricks. I think a better choice would be a legal one. If there was a new amendment then we could have hope that this amendment could be repealed. It has happened.
2) This second postulation is the most practical. If the government suspends the first two amendments, the government of the people has, in all practicality, been abolished and yes it would be necessary by force of arms to re-establish the union. Now, it might be very possible to effect a recall of the officials depending on who and how many in leadership are involved in this coupe.
If the nation is under a seige or in a declared war, the president will, for a time, have many powers. These powers will allow him to suspend many freedoms for the duration of the conflict. Hopefully we will return to a nation with all rights restored. This of course is a possible third postulation.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline maggot

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 181
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2004, 05:40:29 AM »
William, it sound like you'd fight for, and if neccecary die for your freedoms.

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2004, 05:57:49 AM »
Depending on the postulation.
It is really difficult for anyone to say, in absolute terms, without any resevations, etched in stone they would do "X" without knowing what "X" involved, therefore the hedging.
Now boys lest ya git your hopes up--I woulda headed fer tha Nueces strip in 1860. Them dang sodbusters in East TEXAS-by GOD aint gonna speak fer me since me an ol RIP didn't want nuthin to do with this joinin tha Union to begin with.
I got sum boys down south I got more of a fight with than this here thing ya'll got goin on.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2004, 08:23:55 AM »
nohorse
You asked:
Why would Lincoln authorize such an extensive use of force against those persons he believed were still citizens?  And note that once the South seceded he did not interface with the new Southern government as a foreign nation.  He did not propose treaties and sanctions [which is still the accepted norm for international relations] he immediately pursued an aggressive military campaign – thus I also do not understand why many do not believe that this was indeed a war of ‘northern aggression”?


Lincoln touched on this in his last public speech:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/last.htm

Here is an excerpt:

"We all agree that the seceded States, so called, are out of their proper relation with the Union; and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those States is to again get them into that proper practical relation. I believe it is not only possible, but in fact, easier to do this, without deciding, or even considering, whether these States have ever been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these States and the Union; and each forever after, innocently indulge his own opinion whether, in doing the acts, he brought the States from without, into the Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it."

Lincoln did not think it worth arguing whether the seceding states left the Union and were brought back in, or whether they had never really left.

As to the use of force, how else could Lincoln have kept the country together as one country, not two?
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.

Offline El Confederado

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 171
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2004, 08:55:24 AM »
It realy sounds like most of y'all think that what the south did was wrong, but if put in the same way, you would fight for your rights. God talk about double sided  and selfserving, oh well, lets you see into a persons soul.
Lt. J.M. Rodriguez II
Captain- K Company-- 37th Texas Cavalry C.S.A.
 Lt---2nd  Louisiana  Zouave Cavalry
( Coppens Zouaves Trans-Mississippi)
Lt.---1st Battalion of Louisiana Zouaves
WoNA historian
Un-Reconstructed Confederate

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2004, 02:16:39 PM »
El, OH El--
You can read into any discussion anything you want, and you usually do.
Go back and read, no doan read, read and think.
Blessings
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline ironfoot

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • A Real Regular
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
WHAT ABOUT LINCOLN?
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2004, 05:12:13 PM »
Quote from: El Confederado
It realy sounds like most of y'all think that what the south did was wrong, but if put in the same way, you would fight for your rights. God talk about double sided  and selfserving, oh well, lets you see into a persons soul.


You mean the right to own other people and live off of their labor?
Act the way you would like to be, and soon you will be the way you act.