Lincoln vs Jefferson

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Had the South one, they would have written the law and history books and made sure all the “subtleties” were in the right place.

What exactly are you trying to say? You sound awfully apologetic about that the South lost, and seem to think that they were justified in starting a war that killed a million.

Correct me if I’m wrong. [/quote]

Yes, I think the were right to rebel.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”

Obviously they thought the time had come.

Now who is to be the final judge when it comes to the question if a government is legitimate or not?

It obviously won`t be the government, so that leaves us with one group left, the governed.

They had enough. They wanted to go. They were dead serious about it.

They were crushed by an organisation led by a man that was all pro secession when it pleased him and killed hundreds of thousands when it did not.

To argue legal technicalities is absurd, might makes right and that is the end of that.

You could have been Switzerland and now you become France.

Congratulations.

A very, very, large Switzerland.

42

HH,

If one wants to understand Lincoln’s position, read his First Inaugural.

Here are the relevant passages:

www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

“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. 12
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? 13
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.” 14
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. 15
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.”

JeffR

43

As far as the toughest MOFO to ever grace the oval office, there was no one harder than Andrew Jackson. He used to horse-whip anyone who argued with him. He went to fist fight an assassin when he was 65 years old. Finally, he stood in front of 1500 men, while suffering the screaming shits, and told them he’d shoot the first sob to try and desert. He then went back to his tent, and kept shitting.

However, in a straight up street fight, I’d have to go with Abe over anyone. Before his serious depression set in, he stood 6 foot 4 inches and weighed in at well over 200 pounds. That’s 4 times heavier than orion’s entire family put together. That’s 1/2 of round-mound reckless’ left thigh.

That’s one strong, and thick MOFO.

Remember, dems, that Abe took on all comers in New Salem and tossed the best of them. There was even a story that he hoisted 350 pounds above his head from a seated position.

Now that’s ‘RAW’ as in biscuits and gravy strength. No roids, just straight up book-keeping strength.

Tied for second on the strength scale were Teddy “I’m gunna whop your ass” Roosevelt, and George, “All this without teeth” Washington. Remember, TR built up a bull-moose chest and was a champion boxer at Harvard. Washington was six foot two and apparently was able to chuck things great distances.

Third, as far as sheer pushing power, one has to give the nod to taft. We are talking about 300 plus pounds of sheer ass. Imagine taft and reckless. That’s one hell of a lot of greasy, pork fat.

Fourth on our list, would have to be George “screw you bradley” W. Bush. He inclines 205 at age 60.

Fifth on the list, has to go to Zachary “pre-arsenic” Taylor.

Sixth, on the all bad-ass crew list would have to be 6 foot 6 LBJ. He used to use physical intimidation to get bills passed.

Seventh on the “I’ll kick your ass list,” would be Gerald “look at my neck in 1974” Ford. He had NFL offers and was a starting lineman at the University of Michigan.

I’d love to see him with harry “hear me squeak” reid.

As far as the weakest President, jimmy carter has to be number one. That guy is a paper clip.

I give FDR a pass due to polio. Futher, Wilson must be excluded due to stroke. Finally, JFK has to be left out due to addison’s.

Coming in a close second would have to be herbert “shiver” hoover.

Third, would be the undesirable james “let me out” buchanan.

Fourth, has to be james “I’m tiny by 1776 standards” madison.

Fifth, would be occupied by martin “touch my sideburns” van buren.

Sixth on the list of weiners has to go to calvin “stick daddy” coolidge.

Hope I’ve cleared everything up.

JeffR

44

As a warning,

I’m going to put a hex on any tool who regurgitates the garbabe about Lincoln not wanting to free the slaves.

Invariably, some dink will cough up some post-modernistic interpretation of the Civil War. They will have heard some sweaty, physically weak, sandal wearing jackass try to make the case that Lincoln didn’t care about slavery. Usually, said pud will the proceed to type it on this or a similar forum.

If you write it, you are going to have to deal with a curse that causes your skin to fall off at random times.

You will molt like a snake in the grass.

Just don’t do it!!!

JeffR

45

[quote]orion wrote:

Yes, I think the were right to rebel.

Obviously they thought the time had come.

Now who is to be the final judge when it comes to the question if a government is legitimate or not?

It obviously won`t be the government, so that leaves us with one group left, the governed.

They had enough. They wanted to go. They were dead serious about it.
[/quote]

Yes, nothing like slave owning men clamoring for freedom of brutal oppression, huh? No irony there anywhere…

The question is not whether its a moral right, the question was was there a legal right. There was no legal right to secede.

He was neither pro secession or pro slavery. I think he proved that pretty well.

46

[quote]JeffR wrote:
you are going to have to deal with a curse that causes your skin to fall off at random times.

You will molt like a snake in the grass.

Just don’t do it!!!

JeffR[/quote]

Holy crap, and all this time I just thought I had psoriasis. JeffR has been putting curses on me!

47

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The question is not whether its a moral right, the question was was there a legal right. There was no legal right to secede.[/quote]

Both questions must be considered. Regardless of legal right - for the American Revolution was in no sense legal - is there ever a point at which it is justifiable to decide to “opt out” of the system? Especially given the fact that there really are no new lands one could hope to inhabit and begin anew.

Of course, there is some speculative, intellectual interest in whether or not the founding fathers would have felt that secession was a valid expression of the will of the states. That philosophical position is not to be confused, however, with legality.

The Constitution is wholly bound to the institutions of government, and cannot provide for or legalize those actions which occur outside of those same. It is therefore virtually meaningless to speak of the legality of secession. By seceding, one has rejected the laws of the Union and refused to adhere to it, and the only meaningful legality to speak of are the constraints the Constitution might place upon those remaining states who remain loyal to it.

48

[quote]nephorm wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
The question is not whether its a moral right, the question was was there a legal right. There was no legal right to secede.

Both questions must be considered. Regardless of legal right - for the American Revolution was in no sense legal - is there ever a point at which it is justifiable to decide to “opt out” of the system? Especially given the fact that there really are no new lands one could hope to inhabit and begin anew.

Of course, there is some speculative, intellectual interest in whether or not the founding fathers would have felt that secession was a valid expression of the will of the states. That philosophical position is not to be confused, however, with legality.

The Constitution is wholly bound to the institutions of government, and cannot provide for or legalize those actions which occur outside of those same. It is therefore virtually meaningless to speak of the legality of secession. By seceding, one has rejected the laws of the Union and refused to adhere to it, and the only meaningful legality to speak of are the constraints the Constitution might place upon those remaining states who remain loyal to it.[/quote]

I hear you. Maybe I phrased it wrong. Lincoln had every right to try to keep the South from leaving- it is not Orion’s bullshit that plays into the whole ridiculous notion that it was a “War of Northern Aggression” or whatever other bullshit the uneducated neo confederate types say.

49

[quote]orion wrote:

You could have been Switzerland and now you become France.

Congratulations.

A very, very, large Switzerland.[/quote]

That’s a very profound statement, Orion. I like it.

I’ve always thought something along those lines, but more like, “America could have been Athens, but instead it became Rome.”

50

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
orion wrote:

You could have been Switzerland and now you become France.

Congratulations.

A very, very, large Switzerland.

That’s a very profound statement, Orion. I like it.

I’ve always thought something along those lines, but more like, “America could have been Athens, but instead it became Rome.”[/quote]

At times the parallel to Peloponnesian War era Athens has been quite significant though. The gunboat diplomacy in Latin America during the first half of the 20th century followed by the third world interventionism of the Cold War come to mind. That’s generic maritime hegemony though.

51

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I hear you. Maybe I phrased it wrong. Lincoln had every right to try to keep the South from leaving- it is not Orion’s bullshit that plays into the whole ridiculous notion that it was a “War of Northern Aggression” or whatever other bullshit the uneducated neo confederate types say.[/quote]

And a few other things related to this.

First, the Southern plantationists themselves asserted a legal and constitutional right to secede. This isn’t mere coffee house speculation - it was the thrust of their justification. So whether it was “legal” or not may be a bit academic, but at the time, that is what the debate centered on, because if it were legal, the Union had no justification for putting down the rebellion.

Second, and I can’t stress this enough - rebellion was contemplated by the founders and expressly mentioned in the Constitution. The Framers took a particular view of rebellion - and empowered the executive to squash it and even suspend habeas corpus in furtherance on said squashing.

The South may have decided they were ready to quit the Union, constitutionally justified or not, but the executive of the Union is compelled to follow the law if the Constitution still means anything in the nation where it still governs. Irrelevant to what the South did, Lincoln was prepared to faithfully execute the laws of the US.

As for Jefferson’s Declaration, I am still trying to discover at what point the South was denied its opportunity to participate in the government. Slavery was always a legislat-able topic - it was destined to be put to the legislative test at some point. Southern states knew that, and they ratified the Constitution anyway.

So the Southern states got mad when it finally happened? They consented to the Constitution, knowing full well slavery would be up for grabs in the future. How is this a denial of their right to be “governed by consent” and therefore grounds for revolting? I’m no relativist, so the answer “they thought it was just, and there is no way to quantify when the right time is to revolt, so I reckon it must have been justified” doesn’t satsify me.

And if these liberty-loving Princes of the South were so right about their cause, where were they when the Army of Tennesee came down to Georgia to Savannah, and then up to Virginia?

Confederates I have sympathy for - the issues then were complicated, even if I thought them to be wrong. Neo-confederate revisionists of the libertarian variety - not so much. The bizarre irony is that the one thing that should turn every libertarian’s stomach the most - the idea that people are enslaved and denied the right to their rights and property - is buried under a bunch of rhetoric about the “mean old federal gummit”. Mention slavery to the libertarians, and the response is “oh, that” - when there should have been no greater cause for liberty than to abolish the peculiar institution.

But, for the sake of liberty, the libertarians are for "the “gur-reat pur-rinciple” that “if one man would enslave another, no third man should object,” fantastically called “Popular Sovereignty”.

52

I read the Texas and South Carolina declarations of secession, and both state that they were leaving primarily due to the refusal of Northern States to return runaway slaves. They thought that they were following the ‘rules’ but the northern states were not.

The Federal Government was also continually raising tariffs, to protect industries. Since the South had few industries, it meant they were paying a lot of tax, but seeing little benefit, as most spending was in the more heavily populated North.

53

Lincoln is the Founding Father of the modern American Federal system. He set many precedents:

(1) He blockaded southern ports, without a declaration of war (unconstitutional).

(2) He suspended Habeus Corpus, which was supposed to be something only the Legislature could do (unconstitutional).

(3) He suspended the right of citizens to a trial and initated military tribunal of citizens (unconstitutional).

(4) He suspended or forced to close numerous newspapers, the editors and publishers being confined by the thousands in prisons, especially an island off New York (unconstitutional).

(5) He had a Congressman from Ohio arrested and deported for criticizing his actions on the floor of Congress (unconstitutional).

On and on…

No wonder the Southerners wanted to get away from this man!!

54

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Lincoln is the Founding Father of the modern American Federal system. He set many precedents:

(1) He blockaded southern ports, without a declaration of war (unconstitutional).

(2) He suspended Habeus Corpus, which was supposed to be something only the Legislature could do (unconstitutional).

(3) He suspended the right of citizens to a trial and initated military tribunal of citizens (unconstitutional).

(4) He suspended or forced to close numerous newspapers, the editors and publishers being confined by the thousands in prisons, especially an island off New York (unconstitutional).

(5) He had a Congressman from Ohio arrested and deported for criticizing his actions on the floor of Congress (unconstitutional).

On and on…

No wonder the Southerners wanted to get away from this man!![/quote]

Well, aside from the merits of each (which are worth discussion), you suffer from one problem: Southerners wanted to “get away” from that man before he did any of that stuff.

If all that stuff be questionable, it still can’t be viewed outside of the context of what set all of it in motion. Remember, the Southern states seceded first, then came Lincoln’s actions.

We can discuss the merits of Lincoln’s actions, but to suggest that the South’s actions can be evaluated post hoc - i.e., illegal suspension of habeas corpus would justify a secession, etc. - is exactly backwards in time.

55

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Lincoln is the Founding Father of the modern American Federal system. He set many precedents:

(1) He blockaded southern ports, without a declaration of war (unconstitutional).

See Prize Cases.

(2) He suspended Habeus Corpus, which was supposed to be something only the Legislature could do (unconstitutional).

So did Jeff Davis. Nobody seems to remember that. Several Southern ports had habeas corpus suspended for decades before the Civil War (fearful that free blacks would instigate a rebellion.) Wilkinson suspended habeas corpus in New Orleans when he went after Burr, I believe. Presidenty Jefferson stood on the sidelines and congratulated him.

(3) He suspended the right of citizens to a trial and initated military tribunal of citizens (unconstitutional).

So did Jefferson in the Revolutionary War.

(4) He suspended or forced to close numerous newspapers, the editors and publishers being confined by the thousands in prisons, especially an island off New York (unconstitutional).

Bullshit. He personally ordered one closed – The New York World – for printing a faked proclamation (in his name) asking for 300,000 new soldiers. They were shut down for a week. They reopened and attacked him for the rest of the war with no more reprisals. He was constantly overruling Butler and Burnside.

(5) He had a Congressman from Ohio arrested and deported for criticizing his actions on the floor of Congress (unconstitutional).

Bullshit. He read about Vallandingham’s arrest in the newspaper and rescinded it, despite the fact that Vallandickhead was a traitor who was instigating rioting and violence at government meetings.

On and on…

No wonder the Southerners wanted to get away from this man!!

[/quote]

56

Who financed Lincoln?

Every politician has someone in the background whose got a fistful of dollars, like George Soros is backing Obama. I suspect that Lincoln got the nod from the financial heavyweights because he agreed to increase tariffs. I’ll do some searching.

57

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
On and on…

No wonder the Southerners wanted to get away from this man!!

[/quote]

The South started seceding – and entered armed rebellion, seizing federal property and openly defying US law – before Lincoln even got onto the train to go from Illinois to Washington D.C. Your argument is silly on its face.

58

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I read the Texas and South Carolina declarations of secession, and both state that they were leaving primarily due to the refusal of Northern States to return runaway slaves. They thought that they were following the ‘rules’ but the northern states were not.
[/quote]

So why would the hiring of Lincoln – a man who had only vowed to uphold federal law while personally opposing slavery – lead to armed insurrection?

The South was not going to be able to dominate the government as it had since the founding. Ironically, in so doing, they caused the desolation of their states and the permanent freeing of their slaves. They gave the government everything it needed to grow in response to their threat.

So they rebelled, and fought well for a terrible cause. A cause that not only would have left millions in bondage, but also would have ushered in an era of chaos. When laws were passed that particular governmental sections didn’t approve of, they would simply secede.

Your village doesn’t like a state tax? Secede! Your state doesn’t like a new foreign policy? Secede! That is no exaggeration – there were smaller municipalities than states that held that “opting out” was as intrinsic a right for towns and individual properties as it was for states.

We know, in fact, how the Confederates would have handled this by their brutal repression of Unionist areas of Tennessee. Imagine what would have happened when somewhere powerful regions like Texas seceded from the Confederacy? The phrase used at the time was that the success of the South would lead to wars of a thousand generations.

Fortunately thousands and thousands of Ohioans were clearer sighted than you and understood the stakes.

59

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Who financed Lincoln?

Every politician has someone in the background whose got a fistful of dollars, like George Soros is backing Obama. I suspect that Lincoln got the nod from the financial heavyweights because he agreed to increase tariffs. I’ll do some searching.[/quote]

Ahahahahahaha

60

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
On and on…

No wonder the Southerners wanted to get away from this man!!

The South started seceding – and entered armed rebellion, seizing federal property and openly defying US law – before Lincoln even got onto the train to go from Illinois to Washington D.C. Your argument is silly on its face. [/quote]

Did those things happen before or after the November elections?