DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Politics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 22216--------------------------------------------------
Disputes about Abraham Lincoln
By: HOLLAND Date: April 16, 2019, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry put this posting on the Act III Thread. I thought it
deserved its own thread given there is a lot to unpack in this
posting. Here is the posting:
Quote from Kerry on April 16, 2019 08:18:00 am
[quote]Power can corrupt. I am no fan of Abraham Lincoln; and
this administration [the Trump Adminstration] is beginning to
remind me of his. The only thing missing is saying we're at war
and are under martial law. Lincoln often gets credit for
"freeing the slaves"; but the truth there is that his
"Emancipation Proclamation" freed zero slaves. That document
was produced to curry favor with European governments. He was
a racist.
Look at some of the outrageous things he did. He suspended
habeas corpus -- or tried to until the Supreme Court told him
no, he couldn't do it. Then he contemplated (according to one
account) of having the Chief Justice arrested. He imposed an
income tax, also contrary to the Constitution. He used the
military to frighten the legislature of Maryland. Well, some of
them also got arrested. He had a list of 866 political enemies
that were arrested; Maryland had 171 people on his hit list.
HTML http://archive.knoxnews.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/maryland-history-misrepresented-2ee1fe43-e8b4-5325-e053-0100007f9876-373583311.html/
The Maryland Legislature did not "refuse to secede from the
Union" as reported in a March 18 national brief, "State song
changed; 'Northern scum' out." In fact, President Abraham
Lincoln arrested without charge as political prisoners Maryland
legislators, the mayor of Baltimore and other governmental
officials because Maryland was going to secede.
To prevent secession of another state, patriots and political
officials were jailed without charge and were imprisoned in
Lincoln's "American Bastille." Lincoln unilaterally suspended
habeas corpus. Some orders from Lincoln and his cabinet stated
that political prisoners would not be allowed legal counsel.
Lincoln didn't care about the Constitution. His legacy was all
that mattered.
To cover up his despotic and tyrannical acts, Lincoln shut down
Northern newspapers that opposed him or his policies. So much
for freedom of the press. Lincoln destroyed and/or closed more
than 400 Northern newspapers that criticized his administration
or called for peace with the South.
. . .
The idea of the national government building roads was
unthinkable to previous Presidents; but Lincoln ignored the
Constitution on that too.
Consider too the creation of the state of West Virginia. If
Lincoln was right and Virginia couldn't secede, then Virginia
should have voted on having their state divided. The
Constitution says the federal government can't create new states
out of states without their permission. (Curiously enough,
although it got passed, it seems Lincoln never signed it to make
it "official.")
Let's look at a line from the Gettysburg Address, "that this
nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall
not perish from the earth." This sounds wonderful, doesn't it?
The entire speech is well written and inspiring; but it's based
on fraud. The Southern states wanted to secede, and Lincoln
said no. How can we say that Lincoln's government was "of the
people, by the people, for the people" when he wished to impose
it on people who did not want it? Several Northern states had
threatened to secede previously. They thought they had the
right to if they wanted. The Constitution does not say states
can't secede.
I believe the issues of slavery and secession could have been
handled better. [/quote]
I think before answering this posting in detail it would be good
to see the following:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFcMRXVfWOQ
#Post#: 22230--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disputes about Abraham Lincoln
By: Kerry Date: April 17, 2019, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
First a note about their wives. I'll give this to Melania, she
never threw hot coffee at Donald in public the way Mary Todd
Lincoln did once to Abe. Still there is something of the
gold-digger about both of them. Few people are told that the
Lincoln-Douglas debate had a personal angle since Mary had dated
them both.
Another note may be in order. I may be related to Lincoln. I
never bothered to do all the tedious research; but I know a
Hanks married into my family at some point. Indeed there were
still Hanks living on the other side of the mountain from where
I grew up. I never met them. These relatives of Lincoln lived
in a very rural woodsy place and largely kept to themselves.
While I may "brag" about the connection, by no means is it going
to cloud my opinions.
Now for a comment about the video. The story Lincoln tells
about a woman who jumped out of a window sounds fake to me. If
it was true, he should have been disciplined by the court if
they knew about it. It just sounds bogus to me. A folksy
story that is like the stories politicians tell today meant to
portray them in a favorable light. I didn't watch the video
twice; but if the man attacked her first, surely she wouldn't
have been convicted in a court of law. It would have been
self-defense.
I've no doubt that when Lincoln began practicing law, his
clients were mostly poor people; but let's not be mislead by
that or by how he tried to portray himself. Lincoln became the
highest paid lawyer in the country before becoming President.
HTML http://foxtalesint.com/index.php/15-library/articles/90-lincoln-the-lawyer
Don’t believe the stereotype of this backwoods country bumpkin
practicing law. Lincoln was the highest paid lawyer in America
in his day. The railroad companies, one of his regular clients,
could have easily hired wealthy lawyers from back East, but
Lincoln mastered the art of getting into the jury box, reading
the jury and telling them what they needed to hear to sway their
opinion. His use of colorful phrases and backwoods humor was his
way of connecting with these folks so he could nudge them in the
direction he needed them to go. Look beneath the façade.
Interesting, eh? Few people think of Lincoln as being a
"corporate lawyer," but he was. And it's said that Mary Todd
married him instead of Douglas because she figured he had a more
promising career -- and she was right. Let's hope Melania
doesn't wind up in a mental institution later the way poor Mary
did.
We also have to wonder how history would have been different if
Abe had decided to stay at home the night Mary said she had a
headache and did not feel like going to Ford's Theater. It
would have been better if he had stayed at home with her; but he
told her the newspapers had announced he'd be there so they both
had to go. What kind of husband could be so demanding and
inconsiderate? I think it says a lot about him that he didn't
care if she had a headache or not; and I think it's fair to draw
something of a comparison with Trump. In all fairness to
Trump, I don't think he'd do that to Melania. He might cheat on
her; but he'd try to spare her feelings by hiding it and lying
about it. Neither of them however strike me as considerate
loving husbands.
#Post#: 22294--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disputes about Abraham Lincoln
By: HOLLAND Date: April 26, 2019, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Kerry on April 16, 2019 08:18:00 am
[quote]Power can corrupt.[/quote]
I agree, Kerry.
[quote]I am no fan of Abraham Lincoln; and this administration
[the Trump Adminstration] is beginning to remind me of his. The
only thing missing is saying we're at war and are under martial
law.[/quote]
I would say that that is the main difference. Lincoln was faced
with a crisis and was exercising his "war powers", which, during
his time was an undefined Presidential power. He did have,
especially during the early days of the Civil War a serious
problem with sedition.
Trump doesn't have this excuse. Trump has a love of wealth,
power and public acclaim. He is also motivated by seeking power
to avoid his ever-increasing legal problems. As a natural born
tyrant, he seeks power for its own sake as for the benefits of
corruption.
I think of comparing Abraham Lincoln to Donald Trump as
grotesque.
[quote]Lincoln often gets credit for "freeing the slaves"; but
the truth there is that his "Emancipation Proclamation" freed
zero slaves. That document was produced to curry favor with
European governments.[/quote]
I disagree. It freed as a working principle the slaves as a war
measure in the affected states in all of those places where the
Union armies reached. It did prevent war intervention by the
European governments. Lincoln ultimately freed the slaves by
his major legislative accomplishment, the 13th Amendment.
[quote]He was a racist.[/quote]
Agreed, but he was coming out of it before his assassination. I
would agree that there were few white people at the time who
were not racists. The notable exceptions during the lifetime of
Lincoln would be U. S. Grant and the New England
Trancendentalists such as Emerson and Thoreau.
[quote]Look at some of the outrageous things he did. He
suspended habeas corpus -- or tried to until the Supreme Court
told him no, he couldn't do it. Then he contemplated
(according to one account) of having the Chief Justice arrested.
He imposed an income tax, also contrary to the Constitution.
He used the military to frighten the legislature of Maryland.
Well, some of them also got arrested. He had a list of 866
political enemies that were arrested; Maryland had 171 people
on his hit list.
HTML http://archive.knoxnews.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/maryland-history-misrepresented-2ee1fe43-e8b4-5325-e053-0100007f9876-373583311.html/
The Maryland Legislature did not "refuse to secede from the
Union" as reported in a March 18 national brief, "State song
changed; 'Northern scum' out." In fact, President Abraham
Lincoln arrested without charge as political prisoners Maryland
legislators, the mayor of Baltimore and other governmental
officials because Maryland was going to secede.
To prevent secession of another state, patriots and political
officials were jailed without charge and were imprisoned in
Lincoln's "American Bastille." Lincoln unilaterally suspended
habeas corpus. Some orders from Lincoln and his cabinet stated
that political prisoners would not be allowed legal counsel.
Lincoln didn't care about the Constitution. His legacy was all
that mattered.
To cover up his despotic and tyrannical acts, Lincoln shut down
Northern newspapers that opposed him or his policies. So much
for freedom of the press. Lincoln destroyed and/or closed more
than 400 Northern newspapers that criticized his administration
or called for peace with the South.[/quote]
These were war measures on the part of Lincoln who was fighting
sedition. We also have to remember this in historical context,
President Jefferson Davis was doing the very same thing. After
the Southern government gave wealthy planters who owned slaves
an exemption from military service, most of the white men in the
army and many of their supporters back home realized that it was
"a rich man's war but a poor man's fight". Many counties in the
Southern states actually did a lot to impede, if not fight
against the government in Richmond.
[quote]. . .
The idea of the national government building roads was
unthinkable to previous Presidents; but Lincoln ignored the
Constitution on that too. [/quote]
This was disputed among the Founding Fathers. Alexander
Hamilton was clearly for internal improvements in the country.
Lincoln needed more effective internal communications within the
Union and so furthered roads and communications. This was one
of the major reasons why the North overpowered the South.
[quote]Consider too the creation of the state of West Virginia.
If Lincoln was right and Virginia couldn't secede, then
Virginia should have voted on having their state divided. The
Constitution says the federal government can't create new states
out of states without their permission. (Curiously enough,
although it got passed, it seems Lincoln never signed it to make
it "official.")[/quote]
I concede that West Virginia's creation as a state was illegal,
but it is difficult for Virginia to argue against that
illegality when it was pursuing the greater illegality of
secession. If you grant the right of secession, where does it
stop? In a certain sense, Virginia conceded the secession of
West Virginia during the course of the war and gave its de facto
consent.
[quote]Let's look at a line from the Gettysburg Address, "that
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and
that government of the people, by the people, for the people,
shall not perish from the earth." This sounds wonderful,
doesn't it? The entire speech is well written and inspiring;
but it's based on fraud. The Southern states wanted to secede,
and Lincoln said no. How can we say that Lincoln's government
was "of the people, by the people, for the people" when he
wished to impose it on people who did not want it? Several
Northern states had threatened to secede previously. They
thought they had the right to if they wanted. The Constitution
does not say states can't secede.[/quote]
Abraham Lincoln answered that in the following way, in the First
Inaugural Address:
HTML http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the
Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity
is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all
national governments. It is safe to assert that no government
proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own
termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of
our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it
being impossible to destroy it except by some action not
provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an
association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it,
as acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties
who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it,
so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the
proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual
confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much
older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the
Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by
the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured,
and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted
and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of
Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared
objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to
form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the
States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than
before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of
perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere
motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and
ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of
violence within any State or States against the authority of the
United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to
circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the
laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I
shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins
upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in
all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my
part, and Ishall perform it so far as practicable unless my
rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the
requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the
contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but
only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will
constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
. . .
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to
destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to
do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I
need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love
the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our
national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its
hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it?
Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any
possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no
real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are
greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the
commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional
rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right
plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think
not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can
reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a
single instance in which a plainly written provision of the
Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of
numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly
written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view
justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital
one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of
minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by
affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the
Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But
no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically
applicable to every question which may occur in practical
administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of
reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible
questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national
or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say.
May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The
Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect
slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly
say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional
controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and
minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority
must, or the Government must cease. There is no other
alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on
one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede
rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will
divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede
from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such
minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new
confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again,
precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede
from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being
educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to
compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent
renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.
A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and
limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes
of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign
of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to
anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a
minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so
that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in
some form is all that is left.
[quote]I believe the issues of slavery and secession could have
been handled better.[/quote]
I agree, but the Southern wealthy planter class decided on
secession and war. They felt the South could decide the issue
by force of arms, and they were wrong. They failed to heed
Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.
#Post#: 22295--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disputes about Abraham Lincoln
By: Kerry Date: April 26, 2019, 4:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=HOLLAND link=topic=1394.msg22294#msg22294
date=1556304140]
I would say that that is the main difference. Lincoln was faced
with a crisis and was exercising his "war powers", which, during
his time was an undefined Presidential power. He did have,
especially during the early days of the Civil War a serious
problem with sedition.[/quote]Lincoln helped create the sedition
problem by refusing to allow the Southern states to secede
peacefully.
[quote]Trump doesn't have this excuse. Trump has a love of
wealth, power and public acclaim. He is also motivated by
seeking power to avoid his ever-increasing legal problems. As a
natural born tyrant, he seeks power for its own sake as for the
benefits of corruption.[/quote]Lincoln as a lawyer loved his
wealthy clients. I'd say he also loved power and assumed powers
not his constitutionally. Lincoln also loved public acclaim.
[quote]I think of comparing Abraham Lincoln to Donald Trump as
grotesque.[/quote]I grant you it strikes most people that way,
at least at first.
[quote]I disagree. It freed as a working principle the slaves
as a war measure in the affected states in all of those places
where the Union armies reached. It did prevent war intervention
by the European governments. Lincoln ultimately freed the
slaves by his major legislative accomplishment, the 13th
Amendment.[/quote]
It led motivated some slaves to escape to join the Union Army.
That benefited Lincoln.
It also created the possibility of a race war in the South. A
race war was feared in the South.
It was also beyond Lincoln's authority since slavery was allowed
by the Constitution. It was a real erosion of states' rights.
The 13th Amendment was not completely ratified when Lincoln was
President. Andrew Johnson encouraged "reconstructed" Southern
states to ratify it; and when Alabama, Georgia and North
Carolina did, it became officially part of the Constitution.
[quote]These were war measures on the part of Lincoln who was
fighting sedition. We also have to remember this in historical
context, President Jefferson Davis was doing the very same
thing. [/quote]We can't justify Lincoln by saying David was
doing the same thing.
[quote]After the Southern government gave wealthy planters who
owned slaves an exemption from military service, most of the
white men in the army and many of their supporters back home
realized that it was "a rich man's war but a poor man's fight".
Many counties in the Southern states actually did a lot to
impede, if not fight against the government in
Richmond.[/quote]The usual practice had been for the wealthy to
buy their way out of being drafted by paying others to take
their places. Most wars are over money, land, and power.
Thus most wars are rich men's wars.
[quote]This was disputed among the Founding Fathers. Alexander
Hamilton was clearly for internal improvements in the country.
Lincoln needed more effective internal communications within the
Union and so furthered roads and communications. This was one
of the major reasons why the North overpowered the South.
[/quote]
It should have been included in the Constitution if the Founding
Fathers thought the federal government should be involved in
such things.
[quote]I concede that West Virginia's creation as a state was
illegal, but it is difficult for Virginia to argue against that
illegality when it was pursuing the greater illegality of
secession. If you grant the right of secession, where does it
stop? In a certain sense, Virginia conceded the secession of
West Virginia during the course of the war and gave its de facto
consent.[/quote]This is grasping at straws since Virginia never
conceded it. The integrity of the borders of states is
guaranteed by the Constitution. Lincoln ignored that. He
argued for the perpetuity of the Union while undermining the
borders of Virginia.
Let me quote from his speech: "One party to a contract may
violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all
to lawfully rescind it?"
[quote]Abraham Lincoln answered that in the following way, in
the First Inaugural Address:
HTML http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the
Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity
is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all
national governments. It is safe to assert that no government
proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own
termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of
our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it
being impossible to destroy it except by some action not
provided for in the instrument itself.[/quote]
And the state of Virginia will be perpetual too . . . unless
someone takes action contrary to the Constitution. What is the
logic of saying the union of the states is perpetual when you're
undermining a state by dividing it?
[quote]Again: If the United States be not a government proper,
but an association of States in the nature of contract merely,
can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the
parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate
it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to
lawfully rescind it?[/quote]
Hardly! That is like saying a couple who marries without a
prenuptial contract could not get a divorce.
[quote]Descending from these general principles, we find the
proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual
confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much
older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the
Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by
the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured,
and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted
and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of
Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared
objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to
form a more perfect Union."[/quote]Why was the Constitution
written? The reason, of course, was that the "union" was
showing cracks. The Articles of Confederation were not working
that well. That proves the union was not perpetual, and the
Founding Fathers knew it. While they viewed the union as highly
desirable, they knew it was not, that it could fall apart.
[quote]But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only
of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect
than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of
perpetuity.[/quote]At what expense should we view this
"perfection" of the union? How many lives is it worth? How
much trampling of the Constitutional rights of people can be
trampled in the name of preserving the union? Can Lincoln
claim he was fighting to defend the Constitution while working
so hard to undermine it by his unconstitutional acts?
[quote]It follows from these views that no State upon its own
mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and
ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of
violence within any State or States against the authority of the
United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to
circumstances.[/quote]
An argument designed to benefit Lincoln. He was delusional,
inventing things that were not there. We have a written
Constitution; and he was pretending there is some unwritten
part.
[quote]I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and
the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability,
I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins
upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in
all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my
part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my
rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the
requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the
contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but
only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will
constitutionally defend and maintain itself.[/quote]What a
hypocrite to claim he's obeying the Constitution when history
shows he was willing to undermine it depending on what pleased
him.
[quote]That there are persons in one section or another who seek
to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext
to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I
need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love
the Union may I not speak?[/quote]I doubt there were that many
people who were seeking to "destroy the Union at all events." I
doubt there were many in the South who saw secession as the best
solution. The election of Lincoln who was seen as a radical is
what motivated them.
[quote]Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction
of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and
its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do
it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any
possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no
real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are
greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the
commission of so fearful a mistake?[/quote]
Lincoln, if he had been sincere, needed to ask himself what was
it about his agenda that seven states seceded after he won the
election without waiting for him to take office? What was so
objectionable about Lincoln to them that they would do that?
[quote]All profess to be content in the Union if all
constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that
any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I
think not.[/quote]He said this in his inaugural speech. History
tells us how far he was willing to go in trampling the
Constitutional rights of people.
[quote] Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party
can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a
single instance in which a plainly written provision of the
Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of
numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly
written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view
justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital
one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of
minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by
affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the
Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But
no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically
applicable to every question which may occur in practical
administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of
reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible
questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national
or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say.
May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The
Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect
slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly
say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional
controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and
minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority
must, or the Government must cease. There is no other
alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on
one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede
rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will
divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede
from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such
minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new
confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again,
precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede
from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being
educated to the exact temper of doing this.[/quote]
He had to know better than this. Minorities wish to secede when
majorities are too heavy-handed; and the Constitution allowed
for differences among the states. Some things did not need
federal solutions. Lincoln is being "too democratic" here
with his talk about majorities and minorities. His approach
seems to be if you have the majority, you have the right to
impose your views on the minority -- a clearly "democratic" idea
but ignoring the "republican" concept that some rights are so
important that the majority should not attempt to impose its
ideas on the minority. This is the reason for having two-thirds
requirements for some things. A simple majority would be too
divisive.
[quote]Is there such perfect identity of interests among the
States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and
prevent renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy.
A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and
limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes
of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign
of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to
anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a
minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so
that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in
some form is all that is left. [/quote]Oh, so he knew about the
"constitutional checks and limitations?" Why then did he
ignore them later?
I also find the statement that "secession is the essence of
anarchy" patently false. This kind of thinking leans to
fascism.
[quote]I agree, but the Southern wealthy planter class decided
on secession and war. They felt the South could decide the
issue by force of arms, and they were wrong. They failed to
heed Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.
[/quote]Actually, the South did not declare war. That was
Lincoln's choice.
Perhaps the most important question is why do people resort to
anger or violence? I believe they do that mostly when they
believe reason and logic can't work. If you feel someone is so
unreasonable that you can't solve a problem you have with him,
odds are you'll get angry and you might use force.
There had been a history of states threatening to secede,
largely Northern states. The idea that secession was not an
option was pure fiction invented by Lincoln; but prior to
Lincoln, we see politicians from both the North and South
hashing things out in Congress. They still trusted that
reasonable men could reach compromises; and the Union was
preserved. What I see in that history is that all the states
wished to remain in the Union and were willing to talk and to
make compromises.
What was it about the election of Lincoln that so alarmed the
Southern states that they seceded even before he took office? I
don't know for sure. It might have something to do with the
split in the Democratic Party that led to Southern Democrats
walking out of the Democratic Convention and nominating their
own candidate?
#Post#: 22385--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disputes about Abraham Lincoln
By: HOLLAND Date: May 7, 2019, 6:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought before proceeding to make further entries into this
thread, I would post the following:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8NABxlx2hk
This scene from "Gone With The Wind" aptly illustrates the
illusions most Southerners had about the North and serves as a
warning to all the illusions and miss-perceptions that people
have about the Civil War.
As my health allows, I will proceed with this thread. I'm sorry
again, Kerry, for any delays in answering your postings.
#Post#: 22974--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disputes about Abraham Lincoln
By: HOLLAND Date: June 22, 2019, 7:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Before I answer Kerry in this thread, I thought I'd post
reference sources so we could have a developed discussion. I'm
still recuperating from the cancer treatment so I can't begin my
response to Kerry just yet.
Sites that lists ALL of the Secession Convention Journals and
the records of each state that held secession conventions.
Alabama.
HTML http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/smithwr/smith.html
Arkansas.
HTML http://www.archive.org/details/journalofbothses00arka
Florida.
HTML http://www.archive.org/details/journalofproceed00flor
Georgia.
HTML http://www.archive.org/details/journalofpublics00geor
Mississippi.
HTML http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/msconven/msconven.html
Missouri (1861).
HTML http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=z-8LAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader
Missouri.
HTML http://www.archive.org/details/journalofmissour00miss
North Carolina.
HTML http://www.archive.org/details/journalofconven00nort
South Carolina.
HTML http://www.archive.org/details/journalofconvent00soutrich
Tennessee Special Assembly.
HTML http://www.archive.org/details/publicactsofstat00tenn
Texas.
HTML http://www.archive.org/details/journalofsecessi00texarich
Virginia.
HTML http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/vadel61/vadel61.html
#Post#: 22975--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disputes about Abraham Lincoln
By: HOLLAND Date: June 22, 2019, 7:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Timeline derived from the Official Records - The War of
Rebellion
HTML http://collections.library.cornell.edu/moa_new/waro.html
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 1 [S# 1] CHAPTER I.
OPERATIONS IN CHARLESTON HARBOR, S.C.
December 20, 1860-April 14, 1861.
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS.
December 20, 1860. -- Ordinance of secession adopted by the
South Carolina Convention.
December 27, 1860. -- Castle Pinckney and Fort Moultrie seized
by the State troops.
December 30, 1860. -- United States Arsenal at Charleston seized
by the State troops.
January 2, 1861. -- Fort Johnson seized by the State troops.
January 5, 1861 -- First expedition for the relief of Fort
Sumter sails from New York Harbor.
January 9, 1861. -- Steamship Star of the West fired upon by the
State troops.
January 11, 1861. -- Surrender of Fort Sumter demanded of Major
Anderson by the governor of South Carolina and refused.(*)
March 1, 1861. -- The Government of the Confederate States
assumes control of military affairs at Charleston.
March 3, 1861. -- Brig. Gen. G. T. Beauregard, C. S. Army,
assumes command at Charleston.
March 4, 1861 -- Abraham Lincoln is sworn in as 16th President
of the United States.
April 3, 1861. -- Schooner Rhoda H. Shannon fired upon by the
Confederate batteries.
April 10, 1861. -- Second expedition for the relief of Fort
Sumter sails from New York Harbor.
April 11, 1861. -- Evacuation of Fort Sumter demanded by General
Beauregard.
April 12-14, 1861. -- Bombardment and evacuation of Fort Sumter.
-------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 1 [S# 1] CHAPTER II.
THE SECESSION OF GEORGIA.
January 3-26, 1861.
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS.
January 3, 1861.--Fort Pulaski seized by State troops.
January 19, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted.
January 24, 1861.--United States Arsenal at Augusta, Ga., seized
by State troops.
January 26, 1861.--Oglethorpe Barracks, Savannah, and Fort
Jackson, seized by State troops.
March 4, 1861 -- Lincoln's First Inauguration
----------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 1 [S# 1] CHAPTER III.
THE SECESSION OF ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI.
January 4-20, 1861.
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS.
January 4, 1861.--United States Arsenal at Mount Vernon seized
by State troops.
January 5, 1861.--Forts Morgan and Gaines seized by State troops
January 9, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted in Mississippi.
January 11, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted in Alabama.
January 20, 1861.--Fort on Ship Island, Miss., seized by State
troops.
March 4, 1861. -- Abraham Lincoln sworn in as the 16th President
of the United States.
----------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 1 [S# 1] CHAPTER IV.
OPERATIONS IN FLORIDA.
January 6-August 31, 1861.
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS.
January 6, 1861.--United States Arsenal at Apalachicola seized
by State troops.
January 7, 1861.--Fort Marion, Saint Augustine, seized by State
troops.
January 10, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted. U.S. troops
transferred from Barrancas Barracks to Fort Pickens, Pensacola
Harbor.
January 12, 1861.--Barrancas Barracks, Forts Barrancas and
McRee, and the navy-yard, Pensacola, seized by State troops.
Surrender of Fort Pickens demanded.
January 14, 1861.--Fort Taylor, Key West, garrisoned by United
States troops.
January 15, 1861.--Second demand for surrender of Fort Pickens.
January 18, 1861.--Fort Jefferson, Tortugas, garrisoned by
United States troops. Third demand for surrender of Fort
Pickens.
January 24, 1861.--Re-enforcements for Fort Pickens sail from
Fort Monroe, Va.
February 6, 1861.--U. S. steamer Brooklyn arrives off Pensacola
with re-enforcements for Fort Pickens.
March 4, 1861. -- Abraham Lincoln sworn in as the 16th President
of the United States.
March 11, 1861.--Brig. Gen. Braxton Bragg, C. S. Army, assumes
command of Confederate forces.
----------------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 1 [S# 1] CHAPTER V.
THE SECESSION OF NORTH CAROLINA.
January 9--May 20, 1861.
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS.
January 9, 1861.--Fort Johnston seized by citizens of
Smithville, N. C.
January 10, 1861.--Fort Caswell seized by citizens of Smithville
and Wilmington, N.C.
March 4, 1861 - Lincoln sworn in as 16th President of the United
States.
April 15, 1861.--Governor of North Carolina refuses to furnish
quota of militia to the United States. Fort Macon seized by
State troops.
April 16, 1861.--Forts Caswell and Johnston seized by State
troops.
April 22, 1861.--United States Arsenal at Fayetteville seized by
State troops.
May 20, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted.
-------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 1 [S# 1] CHAPTER VI.
THE SECESSION OF LOUISIANA.
January 10-February 19, 1861.
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS.
January 10, 1861.--United States Arsenal and Barracks at Baton
Rouge seized.
January 10, 1861.--Forts Jackson and Saint Philip seized.
January 14, 1861.--Fort Pike seized.
January 26, 1861.--Ordinance of secession adopted.
January 28, 1861.--Fort Macomb seized. United States property in
the hands of Army officers seized at New Orleans.
February 19, 1861.--United States paymaster's office at New
Orleans seized.
March 4, 1861 --Lincoln sworn in as the 16th President of the
United States.
-----------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 1 [S# 1] CHAPTER VII
OPERATIONS IN TEXAS AND NEW MEXICO.
February 1-June 11, 1861.
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS.
February 1, 1861. -- Ordinance of secession adopted by Texas
Convention.
February 16, 1861. -- United States Arsenal and Barracks at San
Antonio, Tex., seized.
February 18, 1861. -- United States military posts in Department
of Texas surrendered by General Twiggs, U.S. Army.
February 19, 1861. -- General Twiggs superseded by Colonel
Waite.
February 21, 1861. -- United States property at Brazos Santiago,
Tex., seized.
February 26, 1861. -- Camp Cooper, Tex., abandoned.
February 26, 1861. -- Camp Colorado, Tex., abandoned.
March 1, 1861. -- General Twiggs dismissed from the service of
the United States.
March 4, 1861 ---Lincoln's first Inaugural as 16th President of
the United States.
March 7, 1861. -- Ringgold Barracks, Tex., abandoned.
-- Camp Verde, Tex., abandoned.
March 12, 1861. -- Fort McIntosh, Tex., abandoned.
March 15, 1861. -- Camp Wood, Tex., abandoned.
March 17, 1861. -- Camp Hudson, Tex., abandoned.
March 19, 1861. -- Fort. Clark, Tex., abandoned.
-- Fort Inge, Tex., abandoned.
-- Fort Lancaster, Tex., abandoned.
March 20, 1861. -- Fort Brown, Tex., abandoned.
-- Fort Duncan, Tex., abandoned.
March 29, 1861. -- Col. William W. Loring, U.S. Army, assumes
command of the Department of New Mexico.
March 23, 1861. -- Fort Chadbourne, Tex., abandoned.
March 29, 1861. -- Fort Mason, Tex., abandoned.
March 31, 1861. -- Fort Bliss, Tex., abandoned.
April 5, 1861. -- Fort Quitman, Tex., abandoned.
April 13, 1861. -- Fort Davis, Tex., abandoned.
April 21, 1861. -- Colonel Van Dorn, C. S. Army, assumes command
in Texas.
April 23, 1861. -- United States officers at San Antonio, Tex.,
seized as prisoners of war.
-- Company of Eighth U.S. Infantry (Lee's) captured near San
Antonio.
April 25, 1861. -- Capture of United States troops at Saluria,
Tex.
April??, 1861 -- Fort Stockton, Tex., abandoned.
May 9, 1861. -- Capture of United States troops at San Lucas
Spring, Tex.
June 11, 1861. -- Colonel Canby, U.S. Army, reports that Colonel
Loring has abandoned command of the Department of New Mexico.
----------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 1 [S# 1] CHAPTER VIII
OPERATIONS IN ARKANSAS, THE INDIAN TERRITORY, AND MISSOURI.
February 7-May 9, 1861.
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS.
February 7, 1861. -- The Choctaw Nation declares its adherence
to the Southern States.
February 8, 1861. -- United States Arsenal at Little Rock, Ark.,
seized.
February 12, 1861. -- United States ordnance stores seized at
Napoleon, Ark.(*)
March 4, 1861 -- Lincoln's first inauguration.
April 16, 1861. -- Fort Washita, Ind. T., abandoned.
April 17, 1861. -- The governor of Missouri refuses to furnish
quota of militia to the United States.
April 18, 1861. -- United States subsistence stores seized at
Pine Bluff, Ark.
April 20, 1861. -- United States Arsenal at Liberty, Mo.,
seized.
April 22, 1861. -- The governor of Arkansas refuses to furnish
quota of militia to the United States.
April 23, 1861. -- Fort Smith, Ark., seized.
May 4, 1861 -- United States ordnance stores seized at Kansas
City, Mo.
May 5, 1861. -- Forts Arbuckle and Cobb, Ind. T., abandoned.
May 6, 1861. -- Ordinance of secession adopted by Arkansas
Convention.
---------------
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 2 [S# 2] -- CHAPTER IX.
OPERATIONS IN MARYLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA,
AND WEST VIRGINIA.(*) April 16--July 31, 1861
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS. (+)
April 17,1861 -- Ordinance of secession adopted by Virginia
Convention.
#Post#: 22977--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disputes about Abraham Lincoln
By: HOLLAND Date: June 22, 2019, 7:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Another timeline based on the Official Records:
December 20, 1860. South Carolina secedes from the Union.
On that same day William T. Sherman says to his friends in the
South, "You, you people of the South, believe there can be such
a thing as peaceable secession. You don't know what you are
doing. I know there can be no such thing...If you will have it,
the North must fight you for its own preservation. Yes, South
Carolina has by the act precipitated war..."
December 27, 1860. The first Federal property to fall into South
Carolina hands is the U.S. revenue cutter William Aiken turned
over to secessionists by its commander, Capt. N. L. Coste, who
did not resign his commission and therefore was in violation of
his oath of office. The crew left the ship and went North.
Castle Pickney was seized by South Carolina militia and a
problem arose: were the two Federal soldiers captured in the
fort to be considered prisoners of war? If so, it would imply
that there was in fact, a WAR. Following a lengthy discussion,
the one Federal officer was allowed to go to Ft. Sumter while a
sergeant and his family were given safe conduct to remain in
their quarters at the fort. What was significant was that the
secessionists now held, for the first time, a U.S. fort. Union
officer Abner Doubleday called it "the first overt act of the
Secessionists against the Sovereignty of the United States."
Fort Moultrie is also occupied by South Carolina militia on this
day, after the fort was abandoned by Major Anderson and Federal
troops on December 26, 1860, who relocated to Ft. Sumter during
the night.
December 28, 1860. A detachment of South Carolina militia enters
and takes control of Fort Johnson. Three out of four Federal
forts have been seized and are now under the control of South
Carolina militia troops.
January 3, 1861. The War Department cancelled plans to ship guns
from Pittsburgh to the forts in the South. Former Secretary of
War Floyd, who resigned and went South, had been shipping
weapons and large guns South for the past several months to help
build up the Southern arsenals.
January 4, 1861. Even though it had not yet seceded from the
Union, Alabama troops seize the U.S. arsenal at Mt. Vernon, Ala.
January 5, 1861. Even though it STILL has not yet seceded from
the Union, Alabama troops seizes Fort Morgan and Gaines which
protect the harbor at Mobile.
January 6, 1861. Even though it has not yet seceded from the
Union, Florida troops seize the Federal arsenal at
Apalachiocola.
January 7, 1861. Even though it has STILL not seceded from the
Union, Florida troops seize Fort Marion at St. Augustine.
January 8, 1861. At Fort Barrancas, guarding the entrance to
Pensacola Harbor, Federal troops fired on a raiding party of
about twenty men, who then fled.
January 9, 1861. On this day, Senators Judah P. Benjamin and
John Slidell of Louisiana telegraphed Gov. Moore of that state
(which had not yet seceded from the Union), that Federal
gunboats were secretly bringing supplies to the forts at the
mouth of the Mississippi River. Both men had yet to resign from
the Senate. Gov. Moore ordered Braxton Bragg and 500 troops to
seize the forts and the United States arsenal at Baton Rouge.
On this same day, the Star of the West attempted to resupply
Fort Sumter but was fired on by a masked battery from Morris
Island and then by guns from Fort Moultrie. In spite of the fact
the ship was flying two United States flags, the ship was
repeatedly fired on. The ship turned and steamed away.
January 10, 1862. General Bragg and the militia seize the United
States forts and arsenals in Louisiana. William T. Sherman,
presiding as head of the Louisiana State Seminary of Learning
and Military Academy, stated that Bragg's actions were, "an act
of war and a breach of common decency."
On the same day in North Carolina, before that state had yet to
secede, citizens of Smithville and Wilmington occupied Forts
Johnson and Caswell. The State government at Raleigh later
repudiated these moves.
January 12, 1861. Captain James Armstrong, commander of the
Warrington Navy Yard at Pensacola, Florida, is captured and
"regarded [as] a prisoner of war, and...placed on his parole of
honor...not to bear arms against the State of Florida."
January 13, 1861. Several men are seen near Fort Pickens in the
night and were fired upon. These unknown men retired from the
area of the fort.
January, 18, 1861. In the United States House of
Representatives, John Sherman, brother of William T. Sherman,
rose to reply to his Ohio colleague, Pendleton, remarks that the
North should be concillatory towards the South. Sherman, in a
highly emotional speech, said that it was not the North that
should be concillatory, it was the South; were they not the ones
who had fired on the flag and seized government property? Was
not Mississippi stopping all traffic at Vicksburg for search?
(which Mississippi had begun on January 12, 1861.)
January 21, 1861. Mississippi troops seize Fort Massachusetts
off the coast, in the Gult. Ship Island is also taken.
January 24, 1861. Georgia troops occupy the U.S. arsenal at
Augusta.
January 26, 1861. At Savannah, Georgia, Fort Jackson and the
Oglethorpe Barracks are seized by state troops.
January 29, 1861. Louisiana state troops take possession of Fort
Macomb, outside New Orleans. The revenue cutter Robert
McClelland is surrendered to Louisiana state authorities by
Captain Breshwood, despite orders not to do so by the Secretary
of the Treasury.
Also on this date, a notice of truce was sent from Washington to
the army and navy commanders at Pensacola. It was the result of
an agreement between Secretaries Holt and Toucey and Florida
official Chase and Stephen Mallory.
January 30, 1861. President-elect Lincoln leaves Springfield,
Ill., to visit his step-mother in Coles County. He has not even
left for Washington yet. In Mobile Bay, the U.S. revenue
schooner Lewis Cass was surrendered to Alabama by its commander.
January 31, 1861. In New Orleans, the U.S. Branch Mint was
seized by state troops along with the revenue schooner
Washington.
February 8, 1861. Before it had yet to secede from the Union,
Arkansas seized the Little Rock U.S. arsenal.
February 11, 1861. Lincoln boards the train that will take him
to Washington.
February 16, 1861. Although it had yet to secede from the Union,
in San Antonio, Texas, state troops seize the U.S. military
compound, barracks and arsenal.
February 19, 1861. In New Orleans, the U.S. Paymaster's office
was seized by state troops.
March 2, 1861. Texas, now out of the Union, seizes the U.S.
revenue schooner Henry Dodge at Galveston.
March 6, 1861. The Confederate Congress authorizes an army of
100,000 volunteers for twelve months.
March 15, 1861. The State of Louisiana transferred over $536,000
in money taken from the U.S. Mint in New Orleans to the
Confederate government.
March 18, 1861. In the Florida panhandle, General Braxton Bragg
refused to permit further supply of Ft. Pickens, in effect,
nullifying the truce then in effect between Washington and
Florida from January 29, 1861.
March 20, 1861. Texas troops seize three more Federal forts. At
Mobile, a Federal supply ship, the U.S. sloop Isabella, was
seized before it could sail with supplies to Pensacola.
April 3, 1861. In Charleston, South Carolina, a battery placed
on Morris Island, fired at the Federal schooner Rhoda H.
Shannon.
April 12, 1861. At 4:30AM, Fort Sumter was fired on by
Confederate forces.
April 15, 1861. President Lincoln calls for 75,000 volunteers
for three months service.
#Post#: 22978--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disputes about Abraham Lincoln
By: HOLLAND Date: June 22, 2019, 8:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Memorandum of verbal instructions to Major Anderson, 1st
Artillery, commanding at Fort Moultrie, South Carolina:
You are aware of the great anxiety of the Secretary of War that
a collision of the troops with the people of this State shall be
avoided, and of his studied determination to pursue a course
with reference to the military force and forts in this harbor
which shall guard against such a collision. He has, therefore,
carefully abstained from increasing the force at this point, or
taking any measures which might add to the present excited state
of the public mind, or which would throw any doubt on the
confidence he feels that South Carolina will not attempt by
violence to obtain possession of the public works or interfere
with their occupancy. But as the counsel and acts of rash and
impulsive persons may possibly disappoint these expectations of
the Government, he deems it proper that you shall be prepared
with instructions to meet so unhappy a contingency. He has,
therefore, directed me verbally to give you such instructions.
You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly tend
to provoke aggression, and for that reason you are not, without
evident and imminent necessity, to take up any position which
could be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude.
But you are to hold possession of the forts in this harbor, and
if attacked you are to defend yourself to the last extremity.
The smallness of your force will not permit you, perhaps, to
occupy more than one of the three forts, but an attack on or
attempt to take possession of either one of them will be
regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your
command into either of them which you may deem most proper, to
increase its power of resistance. You are also authorized to
take similar defensive steps whenever you have tangible evidence
of a design to proceed to a hostile act.
D. C. Buell, Assistant Adjutant-General.
FORT MOULTRIE, S.C.,
December 11, 1860.
This is in conformity to my instructions to Major Buell.
John B. Floyd, Secretary of War.
#Post#: 22979--------------------------------------------------
Re: Disputes about Abraham Lincoln
By: HOLLAND Date: June 22, 2019, 8:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Fletcher v. Peck 1810
"But Georgia cannot be veiwed as a single, unconnected,
sovereign power, on whose legislature no other restrictions are
imposed than may be found in its own constitution. She is a part
of a large empire; she is a member of the American union; and
that union has a constitution the supremacy of which all
acknowledge, and which imposes limits to the legislatures of the
several states, which none claim a right to pass." [10 U.S. 87,
136]
McCullough v. Maryland 1819
"In discusing this question, the counsel for the state of
Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction
of the constitution, to consider that instrument, not as
emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and
independent states. The powers of the general government, it has
been said, are delegated by the states, who alone are truly
sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the states,
who alone possess supreme dominion. *It would be difficult to
sustain this proposition.* The convention which framed the
constitution was indeed elected by the state legislatures. But
the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere
proposal, without obligations, or pretenses to it. It was
reported to the then existing congress of the United States,
with a request that it might 'be submitted to a convention of
delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the
recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and
ratification.' this mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the
convention, by congress, and by the state legislatures, the
instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in
the only manner in which they can act savely, effectively and
wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is
true, they assembled in their several states--and where else
should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild
enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the
states, and of compounding the American people into one common
mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their states.
But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be
the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of
the state governments.
From these conventions, the constitution derives its whole
authority. The government proceeds directly from the people. . .
. *The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete
obligation, and bound the state sovereignties
the government of the Union, then, is, emphatically and truly, a
government of the people. In form, and in substance, it emanates
from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be
exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.
If any one proposition could command the universal assent of
mankind, we might expect it would be this--that the government
of the Union, though limited in its powers, is supreme within
its sphere of action." [17 U.S. 316, 405] The makeup of the
Union, without doubt, is within the sphere of action of the
Federal Government. We can see this from the fact that Congress
admits new states into the Union, and the Federal law admitting
those new states is signed by the President.
Gibbons v. Ogden 1824
"When these allied sovereigns converted their league into a
government, when they converted their Congress of Ambassadors,
deputed to deliberate on their common concerns, the whole
character in which the States appear, underwent a change." [22
U.S. 1, 187]
Cohens v. Virginia 1821
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important
purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we
are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all
commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. . ..
America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many
purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government
is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people
have declared, that in the exercise of all the powers given for
these objects, it is supreme. . . . The constitution and laws of
a State, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and
laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are
constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one
great empire."
"The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it.
It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.
But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake,
resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any
sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to
exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to
whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it." [19
US 264, 389]​
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page