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

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



Message


slvemike4u -> Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 9:01:34 AM)

On a seperate thread here some posted the view of Lincoln as a tyrant,wonderng if those that adhere to that opinion have ever read his second inaugral.I thought it might be illuminating not to mention entertaining to see the responses to this speech,which was amazingly restrained and charitable considering it was made as this horrible war wound down wth the ultimate victory assured......... 



Countrymen:

AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
   1

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
2

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
3

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.
4


[Mod Note:  image removed]





Irishknight -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 3:17:42 PM)

To answer the OP.... Yes, he was.




Alumbrado -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 3:22:46 PM)

Damn right he was.




celticlord2112 -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 3:22:48 PM)

Lincoln preserved the Union at the expense of the Constitution. As Irishknight has already said...the answer to your question is "yes".




slvemike4u -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 4:10:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Lincoln preserved the Union at the expense of the Constitution. As Irishknight has already said...the answer to your question is "yes".

Confused about preserving the Union being at the expence of the Constitution...Weren't those in rebellion also rending the Constitution  irrelevant...If he had allowed the states to secede he would have violated his oath of office ? The powers vested in the President during wartime and or rebellion include but are not limited to the suspension of habeas corpus ,to do any less would not have adhered to his oath to "defend the Constitution against all enemies foriegn and DOMESTIC"




celticlord2112 -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 5:03:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Lincoln preserved the Union at the expense of the Constitution. As Irishknight has already said...the answer to your question is "yes".

Confused about preserving the Union being at the expence of the Constitution...Weren't those in rebellion also rending the Constitution  irrelevant...If he had allowed the states to secede he would have violated his oath of office ?

Not so.

The 9th Amendment provides for the existence of rights not ennumerated in the Constitution, and reserves them for "the people".

The 10th Amendment reserves powers not explicitly accorded the United States (the Federal government) to the states or the people.

Thus there is sound constitutional grounds for arguing a "right of secession".  Additionally, common law has for centuries argued against perpetuities in contracts and other legal documents.   Thus, the supposition that the Constitution represented an "irrevocable compact" is a rather flimsy one.

Moreover, Lincoln refused to support the Crittenden Compromise which would have kept the southern states in the Union.

Finally, he refused to negotiate with the seceding states on the proper return of federal property (or the reasonable purchase thereof).

As President, Lincoln had a duty to uphold and protect the Constitution.  In this case, that should have meant honoring the southern states' right to secede, recognizing the Confederacy, and negotiating in good faith on the topic of federal property.  At a minimum, given that the Constitution at the time recognized and gave protections to slavery, Lincoln should have accepted the Crittenden Compromise, supported it, and otherwise worked to avert a secession crisis.  Lincoln did neither.

Moreover, the states, having a right of secession assured them through the operations of the 9th and 10th Amedments, did not "rend" the Constitution, but rather honored it.

Lincoln placed the Union above the Constitution--and basically says as much in his Second Inaugural Address.  Perversely, the Confederate States put the Constitution above the Union. 

End result?  The Union won.  The Constitution lost.




slvemike4u -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 5:33:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Lincoln preserved the Union at the expense of the Constitution. As Irishknight has already said...the answer to your question is "yes".

Confused about preserving the Union being at the expence of the Constitution...Weren't those in rebellion also rending the Constitution  irrelevant...If he had allowed the states to secede he would have violated his oath of office ?

Not so.

The 9th Amendment provides for the existence of rights not ennumerated in the Constitution, and reserves them for "the people".

The 10th Amendment reserves powers not explicitly accorded the United States (the Federal government) to the states or the people.

Thus there is sound constitutional grounds for arguing a "right of secession".  Additionally, common law has for centuries argued against perpetuities in contracts and other legal documents.   Thus, the supposition that the Constitution represented an "irrevocable compact" is a rather flimsy one.

Moreover, Lincoln refused to support the Crittenden Compromise which would have kept the southern states in the Union.

Finally, he refused to negotiate with the seceding states on the proper return of federal property (or the reasonable purchase thereof).

As President, Lincoln had a duty to uphold and protect the Constitution.  In this case, that should have meant honoring the southern states' right to secede, recognizing the Confederacy, and negotiating in good faith on the topic of federal property.  At a minimum, given that the Constitution at the time recognized and gave protections to slavery, Lincoln should have accepted the Crittenden Compromise, supported it, and otherwise worked to avert a secession crisis.  Lincoln did neither.

Moreover, the states, having a right of secession assured them through the operations of the 9th and 10th Amedments, did not "rend" the Constitution, but rather honored it.

Lincoln placed the Union above the Constitution--and basically says as much in his Second Inaugural Address.  Perversely, the Confederate States put the Constitution above the Union. 

End result?  The Union won.  The Constitution lost.

Sound Constitutional grounds for "arguing"the right of secession is not the same thing as an absolute right to secede.Supporting the Crittenden Compromise would have meant allowing slavery to expand all the way to the Pacific coast,a course that would have done little more than perpetuate and stregnthen an immoral institution(there was no Constitutional imperitive to allow the spead of slavery)And finally should he have negotiated a discount price for Fort Sumpter after it was fired on by southern patriots....END RESULT UNION PRESERVED  THE CONSTITUTION still in effect.....no question of secession since ,no Civil War since




Irishknight -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 5:40:22 PM)

To further discuss my answer to your question of "Tyrant or Savior," I believe it to be a matter of point of view.  To many southerners at the time, he was a tyrant.  To many northerners, savior of the union.  To tell the truth, he was probably a little of both.  I stick with my answer of "YES."




slvemike4u -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 5:51:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

To further discuss my answer to your question of "Tyrant or Savior," I believe it to be a matter of point of view.  To many southerners at the time, he was a tyrant.  To many northerners, savior of the union.  To tell the truth, he was probably a little of both.  I stick with my answer of "YES."
Once again IK you impress me with your willgness to allow at the least for a differing point of view or perspective if you will....answer me this though did you read the speech...Now keep in mind he was at the threshold of realizing his stated goal of preserving the Union was the speech not magnanimous in its reach and its tone....There is a marked absence of anger or retribution   does this speech not posess the nobility of a statesman




Irishknight -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 5:56:07 PM)

I've always found that he was a masterful speaker.  I was one of the few people in my class in high school who enjoyed memorizing the Gettysburg address.

I did get in trouble for standing up and saying that the address was "312 main st, Gettysburg,...."  Apparently, my history teacher wanted the other Gettysburg address.




slvemike4u -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 6:00:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

I've always found that he was a masterful speaker.  I was one of the few people in my class in high school who enjoyed memorizing the Gettysburg address.

I did get in trouble for standing up and saying that the address was "312 main st, Gettysburg,...."  Apparently, my history teacher wanted the other Gettysburg address.
HILARIOUS...Four score and seven......




celticlord2112 -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 7:17:40 PM)

quote:

Sound Constitutional grounds for "arguing"the right of secession is not the same thing as an absolute right to secede.

You misunderstand.  I am arguing an absolute right to secede.  A right which the states still possess, and a right which Lincoln disrespected, in direct contravention of the Constitution and his sworn duty to protect it.




slvemike4u -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 7:43:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Sound Constitutional grounds for "arguing"the right of secession is not the same thing as an absolute right to secede.

You misunderstand.  I am arguing an absolute right to secede.  A right which the states still possess, and a right which Lincoln disrespected, in direct contravention of the Constitution and his sworn duty to protect it.

I believe its you who misunderstands,there is no absolute right to secede in the Constitution ,there never has been and to take your argument in to the present day is truly mind boggling.Are you seriously suggesting that if Arnold decides today he would rather be President of California than Governor the only thing standing in his way is the State legislature....That this Union is nothing more than a loose confederation of soveriegn states is a theory put to bed a long time ago...Thanks Mr. Lincoln...of such acts monuments are built




celticlord2112 -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 8:32:19 PM)

quote:

I believe its you who misunderstands,there is no absolute right to secede in the Constitution ,there never has been and to take your argument in to the present day is truly mind boggling.Are you seriously suggesting that if Arnold decides today he would rather be President of California than Governor the only thing standing in his way is the State legislature....That this Union is nothing more than a loose confederation of soveriegn states is a theory put to bed a long time ago...Thanks Mr. Lincoln

That is exactly what I am asserting.  Moreover, it is what was implicitly acknowledged by the Radical Republicans by passing the Reconstruction Act of 1867, when they placed the South under martial law and compelled them to be "readmitted" to the Union, the first article of which explicitly denied the existence of legal state governments in the former Confederacy (if there was no right to secede, the states could never have left the union and therefore could not have been re-admitted).

There has been no Amendment to the Consitution since the Civil War which explicitly denies the right of secession.  The only clear rebuke of that right has been force of government arms.  Thus, the right, undeniably implicit in the 9th and 10th Amendments, still exists.

Further, the Founding Fathers understood the right to be very much in existence.  James Madison, in Federalist Paper 39, wrote that ratification was by the people "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."  Thomas Jefferson, in his First Inaugural Address, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."  Later, when New England Federalists agitated for secession, Jefferson commented that "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'"

Secession was widely acknowledged as a valid state right as late as 1861.  The New York Tribune, in a 5 February 1860 editorial, asserted "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."  The following year the Detroit Free Press stated "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."

The Republican's answer to the challenge of secession was war.  The Civil War settled the fate of the Confederate States of America, but, being but warfare and not evolution of law, could never abrogate the right of states to withdraw from the United States.  Absent a specific amendment to the Constitution removing the right of secession from the states, the right stands.





dcnovice -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 8:47:43 PM)

<fast reply>

Fwiw, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution expressly forbids states from entering into alliances or confederations.




Irishknight -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 8:50:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

<fast reply>

Fwiw, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution expressly forbids states from entering into alliances or confederations.

If they seceded first then that article would not matter.  They would no longer be bound by it.  Then they could join in such a group.




slvemike4u -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 8:55:36 PM)

So the heart of your argument is the re admittance of the states after the cessation of hostilities,and than you go on to state that since no amendment to the Constitution has been added since the Civil War that right still exists.A large semi truck can be driven through the holes in your argument....first off why pass an amendment that clearly wasn't needed when the right to secede was never there..second The Federalist Paper 39 was a position paper and does not hold the rule of law .As for Jefferson he is famously quoted as suggesting something along the lines that a little rebellion every twenty years or so is a good thing....Now I don't know about You but I'll take Lincoln's more permanent UNION over Jefferson's revolution every twenty year thing.Than you quote The New York Tribune...what papers in those days weren't incredibly slanted and give to vitriol...You have not and I don't believe can convince me with these arguments




celticlord2112 -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 8:55:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

<fast reply>

Fwiw, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution expressly forbids states from entering into alliances or confederations.

If they seceded first then that article would not matter.  They would no longer be bound by it.  Then they could join in such a group.


Exactly.  As James Madison wrote in Federalist #45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."




slvemike4u -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 9:09:38 PM)

Again with Madison's Federalist papers,has it occurred to you CL these were merely position papers for the formation of a political party.A declaration of a particular political point of view.Your arguments are intriguing ,the conviction  of your views admirable but flawed.You put forth that the absence of an amendment after the war is proof of the right to secede,when the opposite viewpoint can be argued as well.,that being even after a bloody and costly war no one saw the necessity of closing this secession loophole.Could not that be the reason no amendment has been added to the Constitution




celticlord2112 -> RE: Lincoln:Tyrant or Savior of the Union (6/7/2008 9:10:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

So the heart of your argument is the re admittance of the states after the cessation of hostilities,and than you go on to state that since no amendment to the Constitution has been added since the Civil War that right still exists.A large semi truck can be driven through the holes in your argument....first off why pass an amendment that clearly wasn't needed when the right to secede was never there..second The Federalist Paper 39 was a position paper and does not hold the rule of law .As for Jefferson he is famously quoted as suggesting something along the lines that a little rebellion every twenty years or so is a good thing....Now I don't know about You but I'll take Lincoln's more permanent UNION over Jefferson's revolution every twenty year thing.Than you quote The New York Tribune...what papers in those days weren't incredibly slanted and give to vitriol...You have not and I don't believe can convince me with these arguments

If there is no right of secession, re-admittance is a legal impossibility.

If there is no right of secession, those individuals within the state governments would be guilty of rebellion, insurrection, and arguably treason.  However, such acts by individuals would not--indeed could not possibly--invalidate the structures of government within the seceded states.  The Reconstruction Act of 1867 stated there were no legal governments within the seceded states.  There is not to this day Constitutional authority for the federal government to dissolve a state government--but that is exactly what the Act accomplished.

The only way this could be is if the southern states were not portions of the Union but in fact conquered territories, just like territories acquired from Mexico after 1848.  For the states to be conquered territories, the Confederate States of America had to be a valid and sovereign nation--which necessarily requires the states have the right to secede from the Union.

quote:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

If there were no right of secession, the Constitution would make a mockery of the American Revolution.  Fortunately, the right remains, and the Constitution thus was the culmination of the American Revolution.  So it remained until the Civil War.




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875