quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Again I am confused by your statement's..The first thing that jumps out at me is your assertion that only the Constitution can deny rights to the states or the people...and thus because the Constitution does not explicitly deny the right to secede it is presumed to grant it....The Constitution as a suicide pact,with its own little trap drawer for any state that feels disaffected...it's a novel viewpoint but it is fallacy

quote:

What the Constitution specifically prohibits to the states is the right to coin money, enter into treaties or confederations, etc. Which makes the arguments that states are free (under the '... powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States...' wording of the 10th amendment), to secede for that purpose, nothing but pretzel logic.

If they aren't going to have their own money, etc, how long would they last after seccesssion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

What the Constitution specifically prohibits to the states is the right to coin money, enter into treaties or confederations, etc. Which makes the arguments that states are free (under the '... powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States...' wording of the 10th amendment), to secede for that purpose, nothing but pretzel logic.

If they aren't going to have their own money, etc, how long would they last after seccesssion?

Not at all.  The specific prohibitions of the Constitution necessarily do not apply once secession is consummated.  The moment a state removes itself from the Constitution's jurisdiction, all such limitations and impediments cease to exist.

Thus, no mixture of specific prohibitions contained within the Constitution can equate to a specific bar to the right of secession.  Of its very nature, the right of secession must be an absolute--it either exists or it does not; it cannot be moderated, mitigated, or regulated.

If a state is within the Union, it is wholly subject to the Constitution and its requirements.  If a state departs from the Union, it is wholly free from its restraints.  There is no third option.

quote:

  If a state is within the Union, it is wholly subject to the Constitution and its requirements.  If a state departs from the Union, it is wholly free from its restraints.  There is no third option.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

CL i agree with this ;

quote:

  If a state is within the Union, it is wholly subject to the Constitution and its requirements.  If a state departs from the Union, it is wholly free from its restraints.  There is no third option.

Surely though if the states were free from the Union, then Lincoln wasnt obligated to treat them as if the constitution applied. Im not sure how you can only aply this to one party and not both ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Now if you agree the South would have fared bettor under Lincoln what does this make Lincoln a BENIGN tyrant....

The argument can be made, quite persuasively I think, that a tyrant, regardless of his or her intentions, by definition is never benign. 

A President in the style of Buchanan would have likely allowed the southern states to secede, and the Civil War would never have been fought--extending your rationale suggests that Lincoln was a presidential mistake.

Lincoln was an historic President, of that there can be no doubt.  The Union might very well have lost the Civil War were it not for his leadership, and I am quite at ease acknowledging that. However, to proceed from decent respect for his powers of articulation and leadership to a near-canonization of him--especially for something he did not do (namely, free black slaves)--ignores large portions of the historical record of his Presidency and the Civil War.

CL I would actually be more interested in your answer to the first part of my question ,would not the South have fared better had Licoln not been asassinated.I realise this is a hypothetical and purely speculatve question but I am interested in your opinion if you don't mind

quote:

The question is how a state can claim the Constitutional right to ignore the Constitution by departing and doing the exact things the Consitution denied them when they were states.

quote:

Surely though if the states were free from the Union, then Lincoln wasnt obligated to treat them as if the constitution applied. Im not sure how you can only aply this to one party and not both ?

quote:

Than in response to Lincolns attempt to resupply Fort Sumpter(notice resupply not reinforce)they fired on same fort.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Now if you agree the South would have fared bettor under Lincoln what does this make Lincoln a BENIGN tyrant....

The argument can be made, quite persuasively I think, that a tyrant, regardless of his or her intentions, by definition is never benign. 

A President in the style of Buchanan would have likely allowed the southern states to secede, and the Civil War would never have been fought--extending your rationale suggests that Lincoln was a presidential mistake.

Lincoln was an historic President, of that there can be no doubt.  The Union might very well have lost the Civil War were it not for his leadership, and I am quite at ease acknowledging that. However, to proceed from decent respect for his powers of articulation and leadership to a near-canonization of him--especially for something he did not do (namely, free black slaves)--ignores large portions of the historical record of his Presidency and the Civil War.

CL I would actually be more interested in your answer to the first part of my question ,would not the South have fared better had Licoln not been asassinated.I realise this is a hypothetical and purely speculatve question but I am interested in your opinion if you don't mind

A fascinating question.  Lincoln's approach of "Let 'em up easy" was certainly NOT what transpired.

If had Lincoln not been assassinated, would his sentiment have been the prevailing policy of Reconstruction?  That is hard to say.  Certainly Radical Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens did not come to their hatred of the South in an instant following Lincoln's assassination.  The desire to punish the South was a dominant force in the Congress of the time. Would Lincoln have moderated such desires?  He might have.

However, Lincoln did not have much use for the rights and sovereignty of individual states, something that was apparent even before 1860.  Lincoln's view of the Union had power emanating from Washington, and not from diverse state capitols.  While he might not have looked towards the south with a vengeful heart, I am uncertain as to the true extent of his charity and benevolence towards the South.  He might not have placed the South under martial law, but neither do I see him defending states' rights, either.

Also of  interest, I think, is what Lincoln might have done with the newly emancipated slaves.  It is worth noting that his solution to the question of slavery and equality was to remove the slaves both from bondage and from the United States--he proposed prior to the Civil War to ship the lot of them back to Africa.  Lincoln's own words do not illuminate a man committed to the modern ideals of racial and ethnic equality.

It is fair to say that Radical Reconstruction would not have unfolded as it did had Lincoln survived.  Beyond that broad statement, I really cannot speculate on how Reconstruction might have proceeded under his leadership.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I would rather prefer to hear your thoughts on whether or not the South would have fared better under Lincoln's stewardship after the war,rather than the ineffctual and weak "leadership" of Johnson and the war hawks who advocated and implemented a harsh and vengeful occupation of the South....again I realise this would take us into the area of pure speculation,but I am curious all the same

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Than in response to Lincolns attempt to resupply Fort Sumpter(notice resupply not reinforce)they fired on same fort.

A fort that the South wanted Lincoln to evacuate.

IF we presume right of secession, then Lincoln's decision to maintain Fort Sumter was a decision to garrison troops on foreign soil after being told by a sovereign nation to leave.

Would Beauregard have fired on Fort Sumter had Lincoln sent a squadron of ships to evacuate the fort?

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Surely though if the states were free from the Union, then Lincoln wasnt obligated to treat them as if the constitution applied. Im not sure how you can only aply this to one party and not both ?

Lincoln was not obligated to ensure constitutional protections for the Confederate states.  However, his suspension of the habeas corpus was directed not at citizens of the Confederacy but at citizens of the Union in areas that did not secede.

quote:

But were in the case of the border states moving in that direction and he was Duty bound to do all that was necessary to forestall that occurance IMHO

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I would rather prefer to hear your thoughts on whether or not the South would have fared better under Lincoln's stewardship after the war,rather than the ineffctual and weak "leadership" of Johnson and the war hawks who advocated and implemented a harsh and vengeful occupation of the South....again I realise this would take us into the area of pure speculation,but I am curious all the same

I know you asked for CL's opinion on this question (and this has been a fascinating thread by the way) but I think Lincoln's own words as quoted in your OP answer the question very well.

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

There are other documents which can be cited that this is not just lip service. Lincoln never saw the CSA as a sovereign nation but always as part of the Union in rebellion. He was adament about the just treatment of emissary's sent to foreign lands while at the same time making it known, in no uncertain terms that recognition of the CSA was no less than collusion with the enemy.

Lincoln was a strong leader who, absolutely (and it should be acknowledged) made a few mistakes, but in my opinion, those mistakes were very few and his overall rating as a leader and statesman is remarkable.

I don't think it should be forgotten that as early as 1850, SC was talking secession. Lincoln's election may have been the catalyst, but I have no doubt that if it wasn't that it would have been something else. To says things were divisive at that time is a gross understatement and it was a pot which had been preparing to blow its top for years and years.

Lincoln was a statesmen and he attempted to come up with diplomatic solutions and compromise. Davis would have none of it and even the CS VP Stephans eventually split with Davis' radical views. The Confederates fired on federal troops and what followed was war. As they say, war is hell. Lincoln, a fallible, flawed human, presided over hell for both his terms of office, as short lived as his second term was and to call him a tyrant, to me, belittles the great achievements and deep committment he had to the Union and the people who reside within it.

I wonder if those who would call Lincoln a tyrant are equally ready to call Jefferson Davis a tyrant as well since, by its very definition, it describes him to a T. I wonder too, what anyone one of us would have done in Lincolns place when federal troops were fired upon not once but twice.

To answer the OP, was Lincoln a tyrant or a savior of the union .. as they say, history speaks for itself .. the Union is intact to this day ... obviously, given the great division between the two sides, Lincoln saved it or half of us would be using penny's with the head of Jeff Davis instead of Abe Lincoln.

quote:

Fort Sumpter still Federal Property and could not the evacuation still been negotiated after the Fort had been supplied with the necessities needed

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

But were in the case of the border states moving in that direction and he was Duty bound to do all that was necessary to forestall that occurance IMHO

Necessary and legal.  The legal assessment of Lincoln's suspension of the writ, and the Republican-dominated Congress' subsequent endorsement of the practice, is pretty clear--definitely not legal (see earlier post for applicable case law).

A President's ultimate duty is ever to the Constitution.  The Constitutionally prescribed oath of office makes this abundantly clear.  The oath is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."  A President cannot competently discharge his oath by contravening that which he has sworn to uphold.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Fort Sumpter still Federal Property and could not the evacuation still been negotiated after the Fort had been supplied with the necessities needed

One of those lovely Catch-22s.  Lincoln refused to negotiate, stating that to do so would recognize the Confederacy, which he refused to do.  As there was to be no negotiation, for what purpose would Beauregard even think of allowing resupply to occur?

quote:

Ah CL therein lies the dilemma ,is not his oath to defend the totallity of the Constitution and if suspending a particular part of same to uphold the document does he not accomplish his oath of office.If i were to subcribe to your view would not my nmind be drawn to Nero fiddling while Rome burned.You would have Lincoln sitting in the White House ineffectively while Maryland and Kentucky went the way of S.C.....