Jefferson vs Lincoln

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Well, I’d take issue with a few of these - after all, Madison supported a national bank, and TJ’s uneveness on the issue is well-documented.
[/quote]
Madison waffled on this and many other issues. Watching the federal gov’t grow as it did quickly turned him from his federalist roots. Either that or jealousy of Hamilton. Jefferson traded support for central bank (edit - wrong issue. thinking it was assumption of state civil war debt.) in return for a capital in the south, if remember correctly. I wouldn’t call either a strong supporter of a central bank.

My impression is that Hamilton did more to grow federal gov’t than anyone one else in history. He list of accomplishments is pretty damn impressive. He was constantly seeking to expand federal gov’t and I am not aware of anything he did to actively limit or slow the growth of the federal gov’t. Setting up a federally funded industrial city seems pretty statist to me. I’ve only recently started reading specifically about Hamilton, so I am open to any new sources.

182

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Also, for all of TJ’s “strict construction” talk, in practice, he doesn’t quite live up to the ideals.[/quote]

Yeah, I’ve heard this but have read books that suggest otherwise. I’m especially thinking of a book I read about the Lewis and Clark expedition and how TJ was extremely thrifty to the point of being a miserly tightwad because he believed the federal government should have so little power and should exercise extreme frugality.[quote]

Well, I’d take issue with a few of these - after all, Madison supported a national bank, [/quote]

Madison switched sides from the Federalists to the antis. I honestly don’t know if his views on a national bank ever changed. The Bill of Rights, principally written by Madison, was an anti-federalist design. Madison of all people was wary of too much centralized power.[quote]

and TJ’s uneveness on the issue is well-documented. And, the Federalists were hardly “statists” - not saying you are suggesting they were, but Hamilton and Washington would be aghast at the role of the federal government today. Hamilton, for example, wanted a powerful commercial republic - anything that got in the way of that, such as high taxes and punitive regulation, would be abhorrent.

But to your larger point, I completely agree.
[/quote]

Hot dog! We can’t have too much of that goin’ on![/quote]

A little on Madison, an ambivalent creature.

If he was a federalist (small “f”) at the time of the Adoption, he became an Anti-Federalist Democratic-Republican only as an opposition party coalesced in opposition to Hamilton’s policies as Secy of Treasury, in particular, the Assumption of the War Debt by the federal government from the states, and the National Bank. Madison opposed both; the former policy because it disadvantaged Virginia, the latter because he could find nothing in the Constitution to support the chartering of a National Bank. (Hamilton was more than surprised.)

However, when President, his Secy of the Treasury, Gallatin (another noted anti-Bank Republican), recommended renewing the Charter. The Bank was necessary to financing the War of 1812. By 1815, Madison agreed, abandoning both his prior Constitutional argument and his agrarian principles.

Madison, on other occasions, could bend his own Constitution to fit his political needs. While he was Jefferson’s amanuensis in the House, he attempted to scuttle the Jay Treaty by demanding that it be reviewed only in the House, in direct contravention to the Constitution and to his own arguments in The Federalist.

But I am still waiting for the opinion of Rohnyn on the whole question.

183

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Ah, well…two of the authors of tb’s quotes were Yates and Clinton, New York’s other delegates to the Constitutional Convention. So these ARE the thoughts on the subject by the those who debated the Constitution, the dissenters. (You will note that Hamilton is a signer, and Yates and Clinton are not.) Madison did not write to refute them; he and Hamilton recognized the Union of the people as well as shared sovereignty of the States.[/quote]

It’s really too bad there are not very good accounts of what was actually discussed and agreed to in the closed door conventions. I have the federalist and anti-federalist papers. I wonder if anyone has a good source or summary of the various notes that made it out of the conventions? In a perfect world, we would have a solid timeline.

Anti-federalist publish concern.
discussion of concerns
agree that concern is unfounded

Federalist publish policy or interpretation
states say no way
All agree no way

This interpretation by Clinton and his cronies may have been propaganda. There is no guarantee that this is an accurate depiction of what was discussed behind closed doors. No retort by the federalists may suggest that they openly agreed with the anti-federalist interpretation. Or it could have been a calculated political move not to comment in public.

There are accounts of Hamilton reassuring representatives of one thing during the convention and doing quite the opposite after ratification. Going off of memory here, so no specific example.

I also seem to recall “we the people” vs “we the people of the several states” was decided in the style committee. Was there actual debat or discussion of the difference?

I find it hard to believe that the states accepted this as an unbreakable and permanent union. They had just fought for their independence and nothing they had agreed to before the constitution had suggested willingness to permanently commit themselves to a union.

185

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

I
[/quote]How do you know Madison editorially approved it? I’m not saying he didn’t, I’m just genuinely curious. Because I can see Hamilton saying that but not Madison. Madison directly inserted ultimate Congressional supremacy over the judicial branch (to an extent) in the Constitution.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Constitution does NOT have an equal separation of powers. The preponderance of power resides with the legislature as per the wishes of the anti-federalists.
[/quote]

Jay, Hamilton and Madison divvied up the work, but Jay eventually could not keep up with them. Hamilton by far was the more prolific (and verbose), and after the articles were collected and published in the first edition, both reviewed each others’ work. As far as I know, neither criticized the other’s contributions to The Federalist, although they were quite capable of bickering in the press subsequently.

For some of the articles, authorship remains uncertain. It is disputed whether it is Hamilton or Madison who wrote 51, about the checks and balances.

186

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Ah, well…two of the authors of tb’s quotes were Yates and Clinton, New York’s other delegates to the Constitutional Convention. So these ARE the thoughts on the subject by the those who debated the Constitution, the dissenters. (You will note that Hamilton is a signer, and Yates and Clinton are not.) Madison did not write to refute them; he and Hamilton recognized the Union of the people as well as shared sovereignty of the States.[/quote]

It’s really too bad there are not very good accounts of what was actually discussed and agreed to in the closed door conventions. I have the federalist and anti-federalist papers. I wonder if anyone has a good source or summary of the various notes that made it out of the conventions? In a perfect world, we would have a solid timeline.

Anti-federalist publish concern.
discussion of concerns
agree that concern is unfounded

Federalist publish policy or interpretation
states say no way
All agree no way

This interpretation by Clinton and his cronies may have been propaganda. There is no guarantee that this is an accurate depiction of what was discussed behind closed doors. No retort by the federalists may suggest that they openly agreed with the anti-federalist interpretation. Or it could have been a calculated political move not to comment in public.

There are accounts of Hamilton reassuring representatives of one thing during the convention and doing quite the opposite after ratification. Going off of memory here, so no specific example.

I also seem to recall “we the people” vs “we the people of the several states” was decided in the style committee. Was there actual debat or discussion of the difference?

I find it hard to believe that the states accepted this as an unbreakable and permanent union. They had just fought for their independence and nothing they had agreed to before the constitution had suggested willingness to permanently commit themselves to a union.[/quote]

The Convention was sworn to secrecy. Madison took copious notes, some of which were published decades later. I bet they are available and searchable.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp

So for example, on June 29:

“Mr. GERRY urged that we never were independent States, were not such now, & never could be even on the principles of the Confederation. The States & the advocates for them were intoxicated with the idea of their sovereignty. He was a member of Congress at the time the federal articles were formed. The injustice of allowing each State an equal vote was long insisted on. He voted for it, but it was agst. his Judgment, and under the pressure of public danger, and the obstinacy of the lesser States. The present confederation he considered as dissolving. The fate of the Union will be decided by the Convention. If they do not agree on something, few delegates will probably be appointed to Congs. If they do Congs. will probably be kept up till the new System should be adopted. He lamented that instead of coming here like a band of brothers, belonging to the same family, we seemed to have brought with us the spirit of political negociators.”

(Mr. Gerry, it is to be remembered was no Hamiltonian, but a fervent Democrat-Republican, and Madison’s VP, who preferred the Constitution but who did not sign because it did not include a bill of rights.)

187

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Ah, well…two of the authors of tb’s quotes were Yates and Clinton, New York’s other delegates to the Constitutional Convention. So these ARE the thoughts on the subject by the those who debated the Constitution, the dissenters. (You will note that Hamilton is a signer, and Yates and Clinton are not.) Madison did not write to refute them; he and Hamilton recognized the Union of the people as well as shared sovereignty of the States.[/quote]

It’s really too bad there are not very good accounts of what was actually discussed and agreed to in the closed door conventions. I have the federalist and anti-federalist papers. I wonder if anyone has a good source or summary of the various notes that made it out of the conventions? In a perfect world, we would have a solid timeline.

Anti-federalist publish concern.
discussion of concerns
agree that concern is unfounded

Federalist publish policy or interpretation
states say no way
All agree no way

This interpretation by Clinton and his cronies may have been propaganda. There is no guarantee that this is an accurate depiction of what was discussed behind closed doors. No retort by the federalists may suggest that they openly agreed with the anti-federalist interpretation. Or it could have been a calculated political move not to comment in public.

There are accounts of Hamilton reassuring representatives of one thing during the convention and doing quite the opposite after ratification. Going off of memory here, so no specific example.

I also seem to recall “we the people” vs “we the people of the several states” was decided in the style committee. Was there actual debat or discussion of the difference?

I find it hard to believe that the states accepted this as an unbreakable and permanent union. They had just fought for their independence and nothing they had agreed to before the constitution had suggested willingness to permanently commit themselves to a union.[/quote]

You may already be aware of this, but I’m pretty sure you can find a copy of Madison’s personal diary somewhere. I believe that he used his diary as a way to record the happenings going on behind closed doors. A primary source if ever there was one.

188

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Another point HeadHunter:

The term militia is used because there was no standing peacetime Army at the time. The Constitution also provides for the power to establish an army, navy and so on. Although the Continental Navy and Army had been established by 1776 (or was it the Marines?), there was no standing army, hence the language in 1789 giving Congress the power to establish one and the use of the word militia.

But the Constitution grants the ability to make war and to use the armed forces. What better and more appropriate time to use the armed forces than when a group of insurrectionists illegally seizes federal property, including federal forts, under threat of violence? [/quote]

Did I miss something? I keep waiting to see clauses like:

“No state may ever leave the Union upon becoming a state.”

“Should any state foment or be unable to suppress a rebellion, Federal troops may enter that state, for the purpose of suppressing said rebellion.”

I keep missing these. Surely brilliant men will be very careful to spell things out.

Well, I guess they naively didn’t anticipate con artist lawyers like Abe, Billy, and Barack, who can twist things every which way, trying to define what ‘is’ is.

189

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The US didn’t ratify the first Geneva Convention until 1882. Before then it wasn’t written anywhere that Sherman COULDN’T plow right through Georgia. [/quote]

Where is it written that he COULD plow through states in a 60 mile wide swath of destruction? Please show me the part of the Constitution that says that citizens of the United States (Lincoln wouldn’t let them leave the Union, remember?) can have their homes burned down by Federal troops, their crops torched, their animals slaughtered, leaving women and children standing by the side of the road to starve.

Somehow, I just don’t think the signers of 1789 had provisions for that.

[/quote]

Also, where is it written that the states had the right to SECEDE? And please do not confuse secession with revolution. The signers of 1789 certainly didn’t.[/quote]

Doesn’t the Constitution say something to effect of: “If it ain’t in here, its the State’s choice?” I think that’s somewhere in there.

190

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I’ve done this before, from Thomas Delorenzo’s book, and you simply pooh-poohed the author.[/quote]

Dilorenzo is a discredited hack, but I (and others) poo-poo’ed his Godawful arguments first and merely took liberty of calling a hack a hack. Not only did I address DiLorenzo’s buffoonish errors, but Jack Dempsey and DrSekptix did as well.

[/quote]

Like they say at the horse races: “And…they’re off.”

DiLorenzo lists (re-read that) quotes and statements from others. Again and again, he QUOTES OTHERS. But then… you dismiss him as a hack. A ‘hack’ that lists quotes and facts…

Yeah.

How about you show me the exact part of the Constitution that says the Federal government may send armed troops to invade a state? Show me where the civilians of the invaded states may have their possessions taken from them or burned.

Don’t give the tired out excuse of ‘Do your own work.’ You’re the expert. You know where it is. Enlighten us. Show us ‘the money’.
[/quote]

Since it has already been established (both here and by the Supreme Court in 1869) that secession is and was illegal, consequentially we know that the Southern states did not have sovereignty. A sovereign state means that its laws are the highest authority in that state; the highest authority in every state is the federal government.

The Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as an agreement between people, not states. Likewise, the Court established that state law can never override federal law and that a dispersement of the Union (secession) is illegal.

Now to the part where it says that the Federal Government may invade a state and so on. This is from Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution:

“To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…”

Since secession was illegal and the Southerners illegally seized federal property, I’d say that they fit into the category of insurrectionists. Let me know if this is not satisfactory enough for you and I will continue to fill this thread with similar evidence.[/quote]

So since secession was declared illegal in 1869, that must have meant that a ruling had not been made prior to 1869. Otherwise the court would not have taken it up, citing precedent.

Thanks! You just destroyed you and TB’s argument. Well done!

I also didn’t know that Federal troops are militia. Or that, if some citizens of a state seize Federal property, then all of them are ‘the enemy’. General Sherman didn’t distinguish between them (or even women and children) so why should you?
[/quote]

Really? The Supreme Court simply established that the Constitution NEVER provided for legal secession. This ruling didn’t serve to alter the Constitution, it simply confirmed what Lincoln, Buchanan, Andrew Jackson, James Madison, etc, etc had been saying all along. In other words the Supreme Court simply established that secession had ALWAYS been illegal.

But you already understand this. I can tell that you’re a very intelligent person by your posts; you’re just wrong on this particular issue and rather than admit it and move on, you’d prefer to question the semantics of my arguments instead of examining your own beliefs and accept that you may in fact be wrong.

Look, I don’t think you’re an idiot by any measure and if you were to say “you know what DB, after giving it a lot of thought and looking at things from a perspective different from the one that I’ve looked at this issue from for years, I’ve realized that you’re right,” I’m not going to ridicule you or declare myself the victor in this argument. I don’t look at this discussion that way at all.

But please, don’t stop looking at everything I or Thunderbolt say as some “apologist viewpoint”. It would probably surprise you to know that I felt much the same way you do at one point. But I didn’t know then what I know now, and as I gained more knowledge in this area, my viewpoint changed as I accepted that I was wrong.

So let’s stop with the bullshit nitpicking. You know full well that the 1869 Supreme Court ruling did not ever remotely imply that secession was in any way legal up to that point. [/quote]

Thank you, very well put.

But until I see something in the Constitution that explicitly says that states may not leave the Union, I’ll remain unconvinced.

If there is such a thing, I will know a big reason why we are collapsing now.

191

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You really should have known.[/quote]

As put by the noted Q&A author in Dirt Bike magazine, back in the late 70s or early 80s.[/quote]

You caught that! LOL I wondered if anybody would!

He still writes for Dirt Bike! And yes, I ride. KTM 300XC.[/quote]

Though dirt riding is absolutely great, I haven’t had or managed to make for myself the opportunity for basically forever: only pavement. I’ve thumbed through Dirt Bike a few times since then and saw Rick was still writing, but I hadn’t thought I’d seen him in the tuxedo and dispensing knowledge in the unique Mr Know-It-All fashion.

It is a great line, for sure.

192

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dhickey wrote:

…I find it hard to believe that the states accepted this as an unbreakable and permanent union. They had just fought for their independence and nothing they had agreed to before the constitution had suggested willingness to permanently commit themselves to a union.[/quote]

I can’t help but agree with this. My gut tells me, based on my entire knowledge of the era which admittedly could be much, much better, that it had to have been that way.[/quote]

See, I find this amazing. Under the Articles, states could not unilaterall secede. We know this. In forming a Union and ratifying a Constitution that made the federal government stronger, why would there be any presumption that states “accepted an unbreakable and permanent union”?

And secession of even one state has an enormous impact on the Union itself, and would have at any point in history - how is it even conceivable that any one state, through the passage of nothing more than a state law with no input from its other “contractees” under the Constitution, could break apart a Union and force it to reorganize its entire federal structure to accommodate the removal of a state?

Think it through. It isn’t credible. Think of the consequences of that power of one state to pass one state law having this kind of an effect on the workings of the entire nation. The blackmail power alone has the potential to halt all federal operations - envision a scenario where one state becomes exceptionally wealthy (modern day New York, for example) and uses its threat to leave to ride herd over the other smaller states’ representation and politics at the Congressional level.

That is the exact opposite of what the Founders were trying to accomplish with the concept of federalism. Secession power - if available - would do nothing to advance the goal the constitutional Union. Stop thinking about theoretics and begin to consider real-world scenarios where this vaunted secession power would lead the nation.

It’s simply implausible.

193

Headhunter:

The Constitution is infamously ambiguous in nature, so of course there is no language in it that specifically says “SECESSION IS ILLEGAL”. The document is open to interpretation. No less an expert on the interpretation of the Constitution than the Supreme Court gave their legal opinion stating that the Constitution never granted the right to secede. Not all opinions are of equal soundness and I think everyone here, myself included, would be foolhardy to even insinuate that they are more capable of forming an accurate legal opinion regarding the interpretation of this document than Supreme Court justices.

Terms and phrases like “We the people” or “a more perfect Union” (a direct reference to the replacing of the Articles of Confederation by the Constitution) and “the Union is perpetual” are open to interpretation and have been determined by the Supreme Court to mean that the United States is a union of states, not a confederation.

You’ve interpreted the Constitution one way, but when bombarded with primary evidence, factual information and a slew of arguments that have not been refuted in a satisfactory way by any legal expert (hence the fact that the 1869 Supreme COurt ruling has never been overruled and never will be), you have been unwilling to reconsider your stance.

This would seem to fly in the face of rational behavior and intelligent thought. You’re no dummy, but in this instance you are testing my assertion that you are intelligent and capable of rational thought.

Of course, pushharder will point to the above statements as evidence of some head injury I’ve sustained, rampant egotism, or something else along those lines. But none of that shit distracts from the legitimacy of the argument that I, Thunderbolt and almost the entire academic community have been making; namely that Lincoln’s motivation for war was to save the Union for the sake of the nation’s integrity (not for monetary reasons), secession is NOT provided for in the Constitution, Lincoln did everything he could to free all the slaves he felt he legally could once he decided that freeing the slaves would hasten the end of the war, and that Sherman’s March to the Sea was not nearly as horrific as some would claim and in fact was no different than anything Southerners were doing to themselves since 1862.

Which reminds me: Pushharder, you STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION! How do you feel about the treatment of Southerners at the hands of other Southerners? Do you direct the same ire toward the “extortionists” (to quote John B. Jones) that you do toward Sherman, Lincoln and Northerners in general? Or do you not accept any of this?

194

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Headhunter:

The Constitution is infamously ambiguous in nature, so of course there is no language in it that specifically says “SECESSION IS ILLEGAL”. [/quote]

If a law is not codified, where all parties are within reason aware of said law, then the law is without substance.

Thus, from your point of view, men become the tools of men. The rule of whimsy becomes predominant, with one only behaving in a manner so that the cattle will vote for him or her.

Finally! I have it figured out!!

196

Uh…actually, foraging for subsistence, along with destroying the Southern infrastructure in order to end their war-making abilities, is exactly what Sherman was doing in Georgia. Nothing in the historical record suggests that Sherman himself deliberately advocated a campaign of terror, however there are many examples of Southerners deliberately starving their fellow Southerners for monetary gain. It seems that my “absurd” comparison of the two doesn’t gel with your irreversible hatred of Northerners, so you choose to ignore the actions of some greedy Southerners. Southern pride, indeed.

Let’s see: you hate Lincoln for his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus (an admittedly unfortunate affair), yet you do not apply that same hatred to the Southern states that illegally seceded and illegally seized federal forts.

You hate Sherman for confiscating Southern property and killing Southerners, yet you won’t even acknowledge that Southerners had essentially been starving the poor throughout the South for profit and confiscated property from Southerners for the war effort.

You attack me for “screeching hysterically”, make reference to me allegedly “squealing like a girl”, and lambast me for referring to the “entire academic community” when what I really said was “almost the entire academic community” (how DiLorenzoan of you). And I’m the one dealing with absurdities and who is “totally fucking irrational”? I laugh.

198

How is burning down a civilian’s home and setting fire to their crops foraging?

And, if secession had to be declared to be illegal by an 1869 Lincoln-esqe court, then maybe it was unclear to the Southerners that they couldn’t leave?

I’ve had ancestors fight for this country from Valley Forge on up. My son is a plebe at Annapolis. I described how my very own ancestors actually participated in the looting of the South as members of the Illinois 57th. I’m simply stating: the Civil War was an unjust war.

199

Wait, wait, wait. Pushharder, are you really trying to tell me that the starving/extortion of Southerners by other Southerners is a falsehood? Do you totally disregard the primary evidence I provided? Do you think I made that up? If that’s the case, then there’s no point in me even acknowledging anything you have to say from here on out. You’re unreachable.

I will add this though. While I remain somewhat neutral on this particular issue, many scholars have argued that Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus was not illegal. Personally, I think to say that is a bit of a stretch. But the justification of it addresses the treasonous nature of those who would encourage and incite illegal actions against the United States. Those who make the argument that people like Vallandigham were acting in a treasonous manner, also make the case that Lincoln therefore (in time of war or when under attack from enemies either foreign or domestic) could suspend habeas corpus in order to prevent them from further crimes against the country. I think this is a stretch, but not totally off-the-wall. That is why I use the words “an unfortunate affair” rather than stating unequivocally that Lincoln’s actions were unconstitutional.

Oh yeah, I don’t drink and I don’t smoke and I have a pitbull, not an Irish Setter. I do have a fireplace though.

200

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
How is burning down a civilian’s home and setting fire to their crops foraging?

And, if secession had to be declared to be illegal by an 1869 Lincoln-esqe court, then maybe it was unclear to the Southerners that they couldn’t leave?

I’ve had ancestors fight for this country from Valley Forge on up. My son is a plebe at Annapolis. I described how my very own ancestors actually participated in the looting of the South as members of the Illinois 57th. I’m simply stating: the Civil War was an unjust war.[/quote]

Maybe this is a bad time to mention that John Brown was my great, great, great, great, great grandfather. Be that as it may, I totally disagree with his actions, so please do not think that particular apple fell very close to the tree.