Industrial-Sized Deals Shop all Back to School Shop Women's Handbags Learn more nav_sap_plcc_6M_fly_beacon Beach House $5 Off Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Shop Popular Services pivdl pivdl pivdl  Amazon Echo Starting at $99 Kindle Voyage Nintendo Digital Games Gear Up for Football STEM Toys & Games
Customer Discussions > History forum

Was Lincoln's invasion of the South Constitutional?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 601-625 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 8:57:51 AM PDT
AT: That Levenson character telling me I should eat him, for example. Oh GAG! And him, touting himself as an elder in his church, no less.

BPL: Yeah, imagine a PCUSA elder being angered enough to respond with a vulgarism. _That_ never happened before.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 8:59:32 AM PDT
RL: You have a point there ("It makes me think of Preston Brooks nearly killing Charles Sumner in the Senate, after Sumner viciously insulted Andrew Butler in a speech").

AT: I had forgotten aboout that. Can't you just SEE those old coots going at it.

BPL: And here we see AT's historical expertise again. Neither Brooks nor Sumner were "old coots" at the time.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 9:00:55 AM PDT
f: Lincoln was willing to deal and said so. I know that is hard to take as we have put Lincoln among the demigods.

BPL: Notice how f tries to make this about Lincoln's personality instead of the issue at hand, which is the constitutionality and/or morality of secession.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 10:22:09 AM PDT
DonM says:
Of course, the southern states did not have legal authority to break what was a union of all the states. Thus the Union did not invade the south, rather the Union put down an insurrection too powerful for normal measures.

Texas v. White is the supreme court case that held as a matter of law that the southern states never legally seceded.

The right of secession is retained by the people, which would be the whole people. Secession could legally take place by constitutional amendment, or perhaps even by federal law. When state governments pretended to secession, they lost legitimacy.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 10:23:54 AM PDT
DonM says:
Ft. Sumter soldiers were not on south carolina land. Ft. Sumter was build on a shoal, using stone from NY and MA. States had and have no unilateral right to break a union of all the people per Texas v. White.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 10:25:20 AM PDT
DonM says:
Except the Union did not abrogate any terms of the constitution.

If the south had that point of view, the correct constitutional remedy would be to file suit, and the SCOTUS would be the original venue. They didn't do that because they had no case. The rebels appealed to the sword, and lost that too.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 10:27:41 AM PDT
DonM says:
US treaty with Mexico in 1898 paid mexico 15 million for the southwest, and also paid mexican debts. After that, US paid another 10 million for the gasden purchase.

No, Mexico has no legal right to the southwest. If they appeal to the sword, as they did in 1848, by invading the US between the Rio Grand and the Nueces, the US has every right to counter with the sword as we did.

Posted on May 23, 2012 11:17:58 AM PDT
Vlad imPalin says:
EC:
I believe what f4a is talking about when he says: "He was for sending back to Africa, the freed slaves..." is the fact that Lincoln was a member of the Colonization Society which DID send freed slaves to Liberia.

I believe he said Lincoln was "for" it. Not that he did it as president. And yes, as a member, Lincoln WAS for it. There have been a few books written about the Colonization Society. The American Colonization Society and the Creation of the Liberian State: A Historical Perspective, 1822-1900 Slavery and the Peculiar Solution: A History of the American Colonization Society (Southern Dissent) are just two.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 12:06:36 PM PDT
Yes I am aware of this, but not as policy pursued by Lincoln _as president_. Would you say that the Emancipation Proclamation is a continuation of the Colonization policy, or a departure from it?

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 12:47:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2012 12:50:00 PM PDT
Vlad imPalin says:
EC:

Right, I don't think I've ever come across anybody that has claimed it was policy pursued by Lincoln, as president. I imagine Frank Blair, Jr would have liked to see it become policy but with a change of venue from Africa to South America. I don't recall now if any land down there was even bought. I do know that he was the one who was urging Lincoln to consider a dual policy of emancipation and deportation.

Nothing ever came of that, despite Lincoln seeming to be very much in favor of deportation as late as '52. As he said: "If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery, and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost fatherland, with bright prospects for the future, and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation."

So taking the fact that he didn't follow up on it into consideration, I imagine you might call the Emancipation Proclamation a departure. Although, had he taken Blair's suggestion under advisement, emancipation would simply have been the first step in the process.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 1:09:55 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
And Lincoln later changed his mind about the efficacy, practicality, and even morality of expecting freed blacks to leave the U.S. for Africa. He eventually realized that blacks born for many generations on U.S. soil were, indeed, American. The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 1:13:02 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
I think there was an attempt to investigate the feasibility of former slaves in Colombia on plantations or mines where they would work for wages. The plan was ridiculous, the land that was proposed was poor, and the idea dropped before it became very serious. It's also discussed in "The Fiery Trial".

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 1:28:42 PM PDT
Vlad imPalin says:
That sounds like Blair's doing. He had some notion that it would help stem the British tide in south and central America. Although maybe he wasn't responsible specifically for the tract of land you mention.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 1:39:44 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
It may have been Blair. But I read the book months ago, so I'm not remembering the specifics of the proposal. I'll see if I can find it in my kindle copy.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 1:53:24 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
I found the section of Fiery Trial that discusses the colonization proposals for Mexico, Haiti, Central America, and The Isthmus of Panama (then, Colombia). There were suggestions for all of these places and no e panned out. There were two different Blairs who were involved at different points. Montgomery Blair in the cabinet, who was a strong advocate of colonization, and Francis Blair, Jr., who Lincoln deputized to check out the Panama/Colombia location (Chiriqui). Nothin came of the latter, either. But in Lincoln's message to Congress in December, 1861, he was still promoting the idea of establishing colonies for freed slaves.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 2:00:56 PM PDT
Vlad imPalin says:
Thank you. My daughter just recently gave me a Kindle but I don't have much on it yet. I had a hard copy book about the Colonization Society but when I went to look for it just now it wasn't on my shelf. Must have lent it to somebody.

You know (this is OT) but I have a copy of a book called "The North and South" which was owned by Blair and he wrote all sorts of things in the margins. Mostly his opinions about how blacks and whites would never be able live together. Then he very strangly got into "breeding" practices of slave owners. Somebody's dog chewed up the corner of it real bad though. Probably why I got it so cheap. People didn't know what it was. Thought it was trash.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 2:11:02 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
Eric Calistri's post: Obviously, preserving the United States and the freedom of 4 million slaves is something you find despicable.

f4a: Obviously not. Anyone who has read by post on all of the political and history discussion that I stand for individual freedom and liberty over the inherent oppression of all governments.

Slavery was a crime. Lincoln wanted to make a deal with those who held slaves.

Eric Calistri's post: Can you provide any examples of Lincoln as president sending the freed slaves back to Africa?

f4a: I said he wanted too and said so. Of course it was impractical. But he may have attempted it after the war if he had not be murdered.

The use of force on Lincoln was immoral, just as the use of force by him on those who desired to leave the Union was. All aggressive force no matter the form is immoral and evil.

But what I cannot understand is why those who support Lincoln's war that killed 620,000 Americans was moral? It was fought over money and territory. The freeing of the slaves was a lucky outcome.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 2:14:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2012 2:17:58 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
DonM says: States had and have no unilateral right to break a union of all the people per Texas v. White.

f4a: So ruled Lincoln's judges to the court after the war. Why didn't Lincoln get Taney to rule before invading the South and waging a war that killed 620,000 Americans? After all he was a lawyer. What did five living ex-Presidents say about Lincoln's war, in 1861?

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 2:32:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 23, 2012 2:37:56 PM PDT
f4a: Obviously not. Anyone who has read by post on all of the political and history discussion that I stand for individual freedom and liberty over the inherent oppression of all governments.

Perhaps then you need to improve your communication skills.

Posted on May 23, 2012 3:26:04 PM PDT
Except that, of course, in at least two cases (New York and Virginia) those two states explicitly stated that they would not ratify the Constitution in the first place unless they retained the right of unilateral seccession from the Union if they should choose to do so in the future. No one objected to that stipulation at the time. Furthermore, do you really think that ANY state, at the time of the writing and ratification of the Constitution, having just fought a bloody war for independence from Britain, would willingly have agreed to enter a union which they knew they would never be allowed to leave? I think not. I'm quite certain they simply assumed they could change their minds and leave the Union if it suited them to do so.

Thomas Jefferson talked quite cheerfully about secession on a number of occasions, as if it were fully to be expected at some point.

Moreover, the explicit words of the Constitution itself are that any power not explicitly granted to the federal goverment are retained by the states or the people. Secession is never mentioned at all. Therefore, it's a power retained by the states (or, perhaps, by the people). Every state which seceded (except Missouri) did so by means of either a direct statewide vote or by means of a special convention directly representing the people of that state. There was no question about what the will of the people might be.

Besides that, if a national government claims to rest on the consent of the governed, then it becomes hypocrisy of the foulest sort to refuse to allow secession when a large majority of the people in an open election have voted for it (which is exactly what happened). In some areas the vote for secession approached 80 percent of the populace. That may be a philosophical rather than a legal reason, but I think it's the one that stings most of all. At least in my mind it does. One could come up with a dozen legal loopholes for not allowing it, but there's no way past that one stubborn fact. In fact, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia left the Union very largely because they were so appalled that Lincoln would even consider violating this bedrock principle. It was part of the reason given by the Cherokees in their own declaration of secession in Oklahoma.

Lincoln's goal was to preserve the Union, even if it meant destroying the Republic in the process. Which is exactly what he succeeded in doing. I don't doubt that he meant well, but he had no respect for the Constitution whatsoever. He jailed people without charges, he took illegal action in admitting West Virginia and Nevada to the union, he illegally blockaded ports, he tacitly approved the massacre of civilians in Saint Louis and the illegal overthrow of the entire government of Missouri, he arrested lawmakers who disagreed with him, and the list could go on for days.

The Republic died in 1861, regardless of who won, and what we have now is something quite different from what the Founders envisioned. One could argue about whether that was a good thing or a bad thing; that's a completely different question. But it's true nonetheless.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 3:26:50 PM PDT
f: Slavery was a crime. Lincoln wanted to make a deal with those who held slaves.

BPL: But you condemn him and not the actual slave-holders. Hypocrisy, thy name is freedom4all.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 3:27:55 PM PDT
f: Why didn't Lincoln get Taney to rule before invading the South and waging a war that killed 620,000 Americans?

BPL: Probably because fighting had already started. What a stupid question. Hello? THE SOUTH FIRED FIRST. When you have enemy troops a few miles from your capital, you don't go to a court to decide if you have the legal right to fight them.

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 3:30:50 PM PDT
WW: Every state which seceded (except Missouri) did so by means of either a direct statewide vote or by means of a special convention directly representing the people of that state.

BPL: The white people. Specifically, the wealthy white people. Why don't the slaves qualify as people in your view?

WW: [Lincoln] jailed people without charges

BPL: As specifically provided for in the constitution, which states that the right of habeas corpus can be suspended during a national security emergency. Article I, section 9: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 3:35:10 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
Eric Calistri says: Perhaps then you need to improve your communication skills.

f4a: Eric do you expect a complete dissertation every time I post?

In reply to an earlier post on May 23, 2012 3:36:28 PM PDT
freedom4all says:
William Woodall's post: The Republic died in 1861, regardless of who won, and what we have now is something quite different from what the Founders envisioned.

f4a: Well said William.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the History forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  108
Total posts:  2033
Initial post:  May 10, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 20, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions