RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union

RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

celticlord2112 -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/8/2008 12:52:12 PM)
quote: So Lincoln is a tyrant for prosecuting a war,while Beauregard is a Southern Hero for precipitating the hostilities....Was the purpose of avoiding bloodshed not a noble enough endeavor....The troops in Fort Sumpter posed no threat to Beauregard ,in fact they could have been nothing more than an annoyance certainly not worth the conflagration that followed Fort Sumter had a commanding position in Charleston Harbor--resupplied and well stocked with ammunition, Fort Sumter could at any time have closed the harbor. It was a decided latent threat to the Confederacy--and no military professional would have considered otherwise. As for Beauregard "precipitating" hostitilies....might it not also be said that Lincoln bears some measure of blame by refusing to entertain negotiations, and then sending in a supply convoy on top of that? Both North and South chose a path that led inexorably to war. There were many defects in the manner in which the Southern states seceded--THAT I do not deny, and it should be fairly stated here. However, as the focus of this discussion is Lincoln, the focal point of my statements here is that Lincoln had myriad opportunities to step off a path leading to war and chose war instead. Choosing war and forcible subjugation of a people determined to separate and be sovereign unto themselves--I am quite comfortable with that definition of tyranny.

slvemike4u -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/8/2008 12:53:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 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..... Suspending the habeas corpus is not suspending a part of the Constitution--that is impossible, since the Constitution explicitly allows for such expediency in time of crisis. Lincoln's mistake in this regard was to suspend habeas corpus illegally. Keep in mind the that the power of the Congress to suspend the writ was established in 1807, in Ex Parte Bollman. Lincoln stepped outside clearly established boundaries of Presidential authority with his suspensions of the writ prior to the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863. And again I must hide behind my belief that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.Exigent circumstances demanded extroidanary action from Lincoln.While I would certainly denounce any present day President(pause for irony here)gutting the Constitution I would argue the issues faced by Lincoln were unique and demanded the actions he took ....to PRESERVE the Union and the Constitution

slvemike4u -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/8/2008 1:07:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: So Lincoln is a tyrant for prosecuting a war,while Beauregard is a Southern Hero for precipitating the hostilities....Was the purpose of avoiding bloodshed not a noble enough endeavor....The troops in Fort Sumpter posed no threat to Beauregard ,in fact they could have been nothing more than an annoyance certainly not worth the conflagration that followed Fort Sumter had a commanding position in Charleston Harbor--resupplied and well stocked with ammunition, Fort Sumter could at any time have closed the harbor. It was a decided latent threat to the Confederacy--and no military professional would have considered otherwise. As for Beauregard "precipitating" hostitilies....might it not also be said that Lincoln bears some measure of blame by refusing to entertain negotiations, and then sending in a supply convoy on top of that? Both North and South chose a path that led inexorably to war. There were many defects in the manner in which the Southern states seceded--THAT I do not deny, and it should be fairly stated here. However, as the focus of this discussion is Lincoln, the focal point of my statements here is that Lincoln had myriad opportunities to step off a path leading to war and chose war instead. Choosing war and forcible subjugation of a people determined to separate and be sovereign unto themselves--I am quite comfortable with that definition of tyranny. While it is true no competant military professional would deny the importance of a fort that commands a harbor,my point still stands you say Lincoln refused to negotiate,this is true but till the guns started firing(southern guns)the possibility existed for talking even given Lincoln's refusal.Wasn't it the moral duty of statesman to exhaust ALL avenues of peace before nresorting to war

celticlord2112 -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/8/2008 1:15:22 PM)
quote: Wasn't it the moral duty of statesman to exhaust ALL avenues of peace before nresorting to war That is itself a rather expansive topic. Some avenues of peace arguably are not preferable to war. For the Confederacy, backing down and returning meekly to the Union fold was one such unacceptable avenue. However, it may be fairly stated that statesmen have a moral duty to their nations to seek peace in preference to war as much as the national interest will allow. Lincoln was a stateman--so do you say he should have negotiated? On the other hand, Beauregard was a soldier, not a statesman.

slvemike4u -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/8/2008 1:22:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Wasn't it the moral duty of statesman to exhaust ALL avenues of peace before nresorting to war That is itself a rather expansive topic. Some avenues of peace arguably are not preferable to war. For the Confederacy, backing down and returning meekly to the Union fold was one such unacceptable avenue. However, it may be fairly stated that statesmen have a moral duty to their nations to seek peace in preference to war as much as the national interest will allow. Lincoln was a stateman--so do you say he should have negotiated? On the other hand, Beauregard was a soldier, not a statesman. Yes Lincoln was a statesman one who saw it to be his sworn duty to preserve the Union and one who had promised the South he would not draw his sword first,promised not to molest in any way or try to reposess Federal Property illegally siezed by the South.Now on the other hand you had the South which has Lincoln so eloquently put it had no sworn duty to tear the Union assunder...I did not mean to let old Jeff Davis off the hook on the Sumpter issue surely Beauregard was not acting unillaterly on his own hok so to speak

celticlord2112 -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/8/2008 1:30:53 PM)
quote: Lincoln was a statesman one who saw it to be his sworn duty to preserve the Union Therein lies the problem. Lincoln's sworn duty was to the Constitution. That above all else he was obligated to preserve, like all President's before and since. Does Jeff Davis bear a measure of accountability for the onset of the Civil War? Absolutely. Neither side is wholly blameless. However, discussion of Davis' sins, even of Beauregard's sins, is, quite simply, outside the scope of this particular discussion. Even if Davis had been the worst war criminal imaginable, such criminality would still not serve as a defense to actions taken by Lincoln which lay in contradiction to his sworn duty to the Constitution. The crux of the matter is this: As the states had (and have) an absolute right of secession via the 10th Amendment, Lincoln's sworn duty as President was to either a) negotiate in good faith to persuade the states not to secede or b) negotiate in good faith to forge a new relationship with the Confederacy as a new neighbor, a sovereign nation separate and distinct from the Union. Lincoln did neither. Regardless of the myriad failings of other actors in this national tragedy, Lincoln's actions on their own merits do not measure up to the oath he swore in March of 1860.

BitaTruble -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/8/2008 1:51:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Choosing war and forcible subjugation of a people determined to separate and be sovereign unto themselves--I am quite comfortable with that definition of tyranny. Lincoln absolutely suspended the writ. No one can argue that nor can anyone argue that it was legal, even at that time and in those circumstances, to do so. In an emergency and the fact that congress wasn't seated at the time, I think a case could be made if it had been necessary to ensure the welfare and safety of the general public. Clearly, it was not and Lincoln mostly spewed rhetoric to justify the decision but he did make one valid point that I don't think should be overlooked in making that decision: do you cut off your nose to spite your face? In other words, is it better to let the Union fall so that one law not be broken or is it better that one law be broken so the Union does not fall? Clearly Lincoln (and Davis as well) thought the latter. With hindsight, we now know that the safety of the general population was not under dire threat and there was no reason to suspend habeas corpus in Maryland (or later for the rest of the Union). I would not be surprised, though, if Lincoln didn't see that while in the midst of the situation. The very seat of Government for the union was surrounded on 3 sides by Maryland. I'm sure I would have had a healthy paranoia myself. I think it would make for a very interesting thread to discuss the suspension of habaes corpus by Lincoln and Davis and what commonalities it has with the Patriot Act .. but, that might be too much for the mods to oversee. ::chuckles::

slvemike4u -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/8/2008 2:09:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Choosing war and forcible subjugation of a people determined to separate and be sovereign unto themselves--I am quite comfortable with that definition of tyranny. Lincoln absolutely suspended the writ. No one can argue that nor can anyone argue that it was legal, even at that time and in those circumstances, to do so. In an emergency and the fact that congress wasn't seated at the time, I think a case could be made if it had been necessary to ensure the welfare and safety of the general public. Clearly, it was not and Lincoln mostly spewed rhetoric to justify the decision but he did make one valid point that I don't think should be overlooked in making that decision: do you cut off your nose to spite your face? In other words, is it better to let the Union fall so that one law not be broken or is it better that one law be broken so the Union does not fall? Clearly Lincoln (and Davis as well) thought the latter. With hindsight, we now know that the safety of the general population was not under dire threat and there was no reason to suspend habeas corpus in Maryland (or later for the rest of the Union). I would not be surprised, though, if Lincoln didn't see that while in the midst of the situation. The very seat of Government for the union was surrounded on 3 sides by Maryland. I'm sure I would have had a healthy paranoia myself. I think it would make for a very interesting thread to discuss the suspension of habaes corpus by Lincoln and Davis and what commonalities it has with the Patriot Act .. but, that might be too much for the mods to oversee. ::chuckles:: Thank You Bitatrouble for making the point I so miserbly failed to do earlier...The whole question pretty much boils down to that one simple fact,Was Lincolns first and foremost duty to the Constitution not compromised by the very act of rebellion in the first place ad if so were not his actions,if not wholly understandable,reasonable in the face of rebellion.Now I can see the answers allready "not rebellion but legal secession"We sitting comfortably in the 21st century all under one flag can argue the legallity all we want.We have that comfort due to Lincoln holding the Union together a lesser President and the map of North America might have some new lines on it....and not just the one line but imagine some new borders in the west too..maybe an occasional war on this continent between those same new neighbors ala Europes troubled history....As far as comonallities with The Patriot Act I would rather restrict this discussion to the actions of giants than add to it the actions of pygmies

celticlord2112 -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/8/2008 2:18:42 PM)
quote: No one can argue that nor can anyone argue that it was legal, even at that time and in those circumstances, to do so. In Ex Parte Merryman, Chief Justice Roger Tawney, riding Circuit Court, ruled that Lincoln's suspension of the writ was in fact illegal. In Ex Parte Milligan, decided after the Civil War ended, in 1866, the Supreme Court ruled that suspending the writ where civilian courts were in operation was unconstutitional. Essentially, it is a matter of settled case law that the suspensions were in fact illegal. quote: In other words, is it better to let the Union fall so that one law not be broken or is it better that one law be broken so the Union does not fall? My issue with this concept is that Lincoln arrogated to himself a duty to preserve the Union more or less at all costs. That is not the duty of any President, nor has it ever been such. The Constitutionally prescribed oath of office is to preserve the Constitution. In short, the Constitution itself answers this question. The law must ever be the supreme virtue of government, transcending even nationhood. The duty of every federal official is to preserve the Constitution and the system of laws promulgated under its authority. Only thus can our government truly be called a "government of laws, not men". quote: I think it would make for a very interesting thread to discuss the suspension of habaes corpus by Lincoln and Davis and what commonalities it has with the Patriot Act Indeed....there are a disturbing number of parallels between their actions then and GWB's actions in recent years. In fact, these same habeas corpus rulings were revisited and re-iterated by the Supreme Court post 9/11, most notably Hamdi v Rumsfeld.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125