lincoln

[rodney727]

It's like having an argument with a rock....

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: rogo727

It's like having an argument with a rock....

A very hard rock.[:D]

But I don't agree with you that the Republican party was more like the Democratic party.[X(][:D] They were and are the party of FREEDOM-except during civil war.

[rodney727]

Republican Party was for the poor and middle classes. Demarcates the rich and powerful land owners. Both north and south.

[rodney727]

So what's next? Oh gosh the income tax.... What an outrage against human rights.... Damn you Lincoln !!!!!!

[Mike Dubost]

I notice that to date, no one has attempted to actually justify Lincoln's actions or positions. I hereby pick up that guantlet.

First, the question of the constitutionality of secession. Lincoln made his case against it based on two facts: 1) the Articles of Confederation were expressly declared to be a perpetual union. 2) Although the constitution contained no such statement, one of the objectives (as stated in the preamble) is "to form a more perfect union". Since a non-perpetual union is less perfect than a perpetual union, the inference is that the constitution is a perpetual union. Speaking for myself, I find this logic convincing enough that I believe secession is and always was unconstitutional. Keep that statement in mind as you read the next paragraph.

Next, the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Lincoln based his case for that on the language of the Constitution. As quoted by him in a letter to Erastus Corning and others (The Portable Abraham Lincoln, edited by Andrew Delbanco, pages 274 to 283), the constitution states "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". IF you, like me, believe that secession is unconstitutional, then the attempt constitutes a rebellion. In the same letter, Lincoln submitted for the consideration of Mr. Corning a case in which General (later President) Jackson refused to honor a writ of Habeas Corpus shortly after the Battle of New Orleans. Apparently, Congress later (30 years later, according to the letter) voted to refund the principle and interest on a fine which Jackson paid for this action. This indicated a belief that the suspension of the writ was acceptable in the then-prevailing circumstances (an invasion by the UK).

Therefore, I consider that there are 3 points of reasonable debate. 1) Is secession unconstitutional? I think so, but will conceed that the constitution is not explicit on the matter. 2) If secession is unconstitutional, who gets to decide that "the public safety may require" the suspension of the writ? 3) where is it OK to suspend the writ?

In Ex Parte Milligan, the Supreme Court accepted that the suspension was constitutional, but stated that in places in which civilian courts were operating, military tribunals could not be used to try civilians. The Supreme Court decision is something I would weigh heavily in considering the suspension, even though I don't worship the court nor consider it to be infalible. Heck, even the Pope is only infalible when speaking "Ex Cathedra", if you are one of my fellow Catholics, and not even then if you aren't.

Anyone else care to take up the debate on these grounds?

[rodney727]

I can't take seriously the Supreme Court in 1861... Pro slaverly and almost all appointed by democrats ......in all honesty it was war.... The southern states the aggressor . Slavery our national guilt and sin. They had an election in 1864 the people spoke and what we think today is right or wrong was clearly the right thing to back then. We are a better country for it.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: parusski

ORIGINAL: rogo727
It's like having an argument with a rock....

A very hard rock.[:D]

I thought we were all piping in our perspective of Lincoln’s presidency ? , I voice and listed my rub with his tyrannical rule over citizens (all legit) and I get back “he did what he had to do “ or “Well I can't win you over on that line of thinking” …….. maybe if you two actually articulated you argument or whatever is offended you girls in my reply’s and dropped the one liners there wouldn’t be so much confusion on my part ........my bad


PS: parusski,how is it your sooooooo up in arms in the “New ACW” over infringement of your Rights but can discount Lincoln suspending all citizens theirs in this thread ? …………..truly odd

[Mike Dubost]

ORIGINAL: rogo727

I can't take seriously the Supreme Court in 1861... Pro slaverly and almost all appointed by democrats ......in all honesty it was war.... The southern states the aggressor . Slavery our national guilt and sin. They had an election in 1864 the people spoke and what we think today is right or wrong was clearly the right thing to back then. We are a better country for it.

I neglected to state that Ex Parte Milligan was after the Civil War. My quick look at Wikipedia indicates 1866 was the year in question. At that time, I think the court was mostly Republican appointees.

[SLAAKMAN]

I can't take seriously the Supreme Court in 1861... Pro slaverly and almost all appointed by democrats ......in all honesty it was war.... The southern states the aggressor . Slavery our national guilt and sin. They had an election in 1864 the people spoke and what we think today is right or wrong was clearly the right thing to back then. We are a better country for it.

Ludicrous brainwashing. The war was prosecuted for "Manifest Destiny" dogma, not "ending slavery".

1) Is secession unconstitutional? I think so, but will conceed that the constitution is not explicit on the matter. 2) If secession is unconstitutional, who gets to decide that "the public safety may require" the suspension of the writ? 3) where is it OK to suspend the writ?
Anyone else care to take up the debate on these grounds?

1) No.
2) No one.
3) Nowhere.
4) Case closed.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Gents

If this is kept civil, I will - an an "outsider" - be really interested to hear American views on this subject. I know very little about the US Civil War ...

Didn't Europe have officers and ambassadors observing that conflict for both its military and political edification?

Didn't one such Prussian officer call the American Civil War a riot between two opposing rabbles, or words to that efffect?

warspite1

WHAT??????

[ilovestrategy]

It's because of Lincoln that I have the privilege of living in the strongest country in the Western World. If it wasnt for him I would not have the honor of living in a vast country that stretches from one ocean to another. I'm thankful to him for abolishing slavery. Did he do it out of the kindness of his own heart? Probably not. And I don't give a :&$/.

The result is that I have a really good life and am proud to be a citizen of a kick ass country that kicked butt in WW2. And Lincoln had a lot to do with it.

Call him a dictator if you want and quote legal law all you want but I bet there is a lot of black people in the South that like him a lot better than they like you.

[Sarge]

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy
Call him a dictator if you want and quote legal law all you want but I bet there is a lot of black people in the South that like him a lot better than they like you.

[>:]......

edit:nevermind

[barkman44]

The south was the aggressor??the country of south carolina fired on ft.sumter after it fired at them for firing at a resuppy and reinforcment fleet illegally sailed into charleston harbor.the north invaded the country of virginia and was repulsed at the 1st battle of bull run.
the only examples of southern agression was antietam and the invasion of peensylvania which culminated with gettysburg.
the north attacked the south over and over again.
i knew i would be called a racist somehow and the dancing around comment proves it what better way to end a debate but throw in the race card
plllease

ORIGINAL: rogo727

I can't take seriously the Supreme Court in 1861... Pro slaverly and almost all appointed by democrats ......in all honesty it was war.... The southern states the aggressor . Slavery our national guilt and sin. They had an election in 1864 the people spoke and what we think today is right or wrong was clearly the right thing to back then. We are a better country for it.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: Mike Dubost

I notice that to date, no one has attempted to actually justify Lincoln's actions or positions. I hereby pick up that guantlet.

First, the question of the constitutionality of secession. Lincoln made his case against it based on two facts: 1) the Articles of Confederation were expressly declared to be a perpetual union. 2) Although the constitution contained no such statement, one of the objectives (as stated in the preamble) is "to form a more perfect union". Since a non-perpetual union is less perfect than a perpetual union, the inference is that the constitution is a perpetual union. Speaking for myself, I find this logic convincing enough that I believe secession is and always was unconstitutional. Keep that statement in mind as you read the next paragraph.

Next, the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Lincoln based his case for that on the language of the Constitution. As quoted by him in a letter to Erastus Corning and others (The Portable Abraham Lincoln, edited by Andrew Delbanco, pages 274 to 283), the constitution states "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". IF you, like me, believe that secession is unconstitutional, then the attempt constitutes a rebellion. In the same letter, Lincoln submitted for the consideration of Mr. Corning a case in which General (later President) Jackson refused to honor a writ of Habeas Corpus shortly after the Battle of New Orleans. Apparently, Congress later (30 years later, according to the letter) voted to refund the principle and interest on a fine which Jackson paid for this action. This indicated a belief that the suspension of the writ was acceptable in the then-prevailing circumstances (an invasion by the UK).

Therefore, I consider that there are 3 points of reasonable debate. 1) Is secession unconstitutional? I think so, but will conceed that the constitution is not explicit on the matter. 2) If secession is unconstitutional, who gets to decide that "the public safety may require" the suspension of the writ? 3) where is it OK to suspend the writ?

In Ex Parte Milligan, the Supreme Court accepted that the suspension was constitutional, but stated that in places in which civilian courts were operating, military tribunals could not be used to try civilians. The Supreme Court decision is something I would weigh heavily in considering the suspension, even though I don't worship the court nor consider it to be infalible. Heck, even the Pope is only infalible when speaking "Ex Cathedra", if you are one of my fellow Catholics, and not even then if you aren't.

Anyone else care to take up the debate on these grounds?

Outstanding analysis Mike Dubost. The United States was in imminent and mortal danger in 1861, and action was required. Most people never give much serious thought to the issues surrounding Lincoln's decisions. I hazard the the huge majority of Americans have never heard of Letter to Erastus Corning and Others, much less appreciate the brilliant defense it offers for Lincolns actions.

Is is disturbing the Americans do not know about in the constitution Suspension Clause(Clause 2)located in Article 1, Section 9, which states, without ambiguity:

"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."

I have pointed this Constitutional provision out to people before and the reaction is "so what".

As to "2) If secession is unconstitutional, who gets to decide that "the public safety may require" the suspension of the writ?" I believe only the President, as Commander in Chief, can make that decision, if for no other reason that the unwieldy task of getting the members of Congress to take action.

When it comes to the Judiciary, I too understand their fallibility. Of the many unjust decisions made one need only look at Dred Scott. So again, who would we want to suspend habeas corpus? I appreciate Lincoln's argument that the people decided by re-electing him. That may be a simple response, but it I think it the strongest. Oh, and history will be offer judgement too.

[wodin]

Just read this very interesting...



‎"What brought about the hanging of 38 Sioux Indians in Minnesota December 26, 1862 was the failure "again" of the U.S. Government to honor it's treaties with Indian Nations. Indians were not given the money or food set forth to them for signing a treaty to turn over more than a million acres of their land and be forced to live on a reservation.

Indian agents keep the treaty money and food that was to go to the Indians, the food was sold to White settlers, food that was given to the Indians was spoiled and not fit for a dog to eat. Indian hunting parties went off the reservation land looking for food to feed their families, one hunting group took eggs from a White settlers land and the rest is history.

Information below tells how President Lincoln and Minnesota Governor Alexander Ramsey set out to exterminate Indians from their home land.

Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.

So, on December 26, 1862, the Great Emancipator ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota."

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Just read this very interesting...



‎"What brought about the hanging of 38 Sioux Indians in Minnesota December 26, 1862 was the failure "again" of the U.S. Government to honor it's treaties with Indian Nations. Indians were not given the money or food set forth to them for signing a treaty to turn over more than a million acres of their land and be forced to live on a reservation.

Indian agents keep the treaty money and food that was to go to the Indians, the food was sold to White settlers, food that was given to the Indians was spoiled and not fit for a dog to eat. Indian hunting parties went off the reservation land looking for food to feed their families, one hunting group took eggs from a White settlers land and the rest is history.

Information below tells how President Lincoln and Minnesota Governor Alexander Ramsey set out to exterminate Indians from their home land.

Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.

So, on December 26, 1862, the Great Emancipator ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota."

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html

Going down this rabbit hole is fraught with problems. Now let's discuss crimes against humanity. Churchill and Roosevelt both approved of the bombing of German civilian targets, resulting in the deaths of hundred's of thousands of people. We start running in circles with these arguments. Was a greater good served by the deaths of civilians in order to defeat a regime such as the Nazi Third Reich? The same can be asked of the use of atomic weapons against Japan. As to Japan, the U.S. went all out to annihilate the country but allowed Emperor Hirohito to stay in power. My point is that decision made by politicians, and generals, are almost NEVER clear cut and sanitized. Actions are taken in the moment, without the brilliance of hindsight, in order to achieve a desired(and righteous?) goal. We have the luxury of having a vast amount of knowledge at our disposal to study, which was not the case in 1861 or 1863 or 1942...

[wodin]

Dresden was out of order..no need for it at all and a War Crime..but War Crimes are only crimes if you lose the war.

I think it's a pointer that maybe we shouldn't idolise these past leaders so much. Lincoln probably wasn't the great upholder of human rights, he probably was a racist as everyone else was back then, blimey it's only in recent years that racism wasn't the norm throughout society. Which brings us to the fact you can't judge people from the past with our own standard of ethics and morals.

[parusski]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Dresden was out of order..no need for it at all and a War Crime..but War Crimes are only crimes if you lose the war.

I think it's a pointer that maybe we shouldn't idolise these past leaders so much. Lincoln probably wasn't the great upholder of human rights, he probably was a racist as everyone else was back then, blimey it's only in recent years that racism wasn't the norm throughout society. Which brings us to the fact you can't judge people from the past with our own standard of ethics and morals.

I do agree with you Mc Collegue. I can, and do, respect past leaders who engaged in contradictory behaviors. It is just not possible to ONLY admire totally 'good' men. For the most part morally pure men just don't exist. Sometimes you really must look at the totality of the situation that leaders faced when they made their decisions.

Hindsight bias allows people to position themselves on the side of foresight and knowledge, whereas in reality people who are in the midst of world changing events never see where the process is headed. Lincoln's decisions were astronomically more difficult to make than our self-righteous hindsight.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Just read this very interesting...



ý"What brought about the hanging of 38 Sioux Indians in Minnesota December 26, 1862 was the failure "again" of the U.S. Government to honor it's treaties with Indian Nations. Indians were not given the money or food set forth to them for signing a treaty to turn over more than a million acres of their land and be forced to live on a reservation.

Indian agents keep the treaty money and food that was to go to the Indians, the food was sold to White settlers, food that was given to the Indians was spoiled and not fit for a dog to eat. Indian hunting parties went off the reservation land looking for food to feed their families, one hunting group took eggs from a White settlers land and the rest is history.

Information below tells how President Lincoln and Minnesota Governor Alexander Ramsey set out to exterminate Indians from their home land.

Authorities in Minnesota asked President Lincoln to order the immediate execution of all 303 Indian males found guilty. Lincoln was concerned with how this would play with the Europeans, whom he was afraid were about to enter the war on the side of the South. He offered the following compromise to the politicians of Minnesota: They would pare the list of those to be hung down to 39. In return, Lincoln promised to kill or remove every Indian from the state and provide Minnesota with 2 million dollars in federal funds. Remember, he only owed the Sioux 1.4 million for the land.

So, on December 26, 1862, the Great Emancipator ordered the largest mass execution in American History, where the guilt of those to be executed was entirely in doubt. Regardless of how Lincoln defenders seek to play this, it was nothing more than murder to obtain the land of the Santee Sioux and to appease his political cronies in Minnesota."

http://www.unitednativeamerica.com/hanging.html

The web site you quoted seems to have somehow left out the fact that the "entirely" innocent Indians had, in a six-week period, brutally raped, murdered, and tortured between 450 and 800 white settlers. And contraryto what that web site claims, Lincoln was not at all concerned with any reaction from Europe; rather he carefully studied the list of accused Indians, and pardoned 264 whom he believed not guilty.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

The south was the aggressor??the country of south carolina fired on ft.sumter after it fired at them for firing at a resuppy and reinforcment fleet illegally sailed into charleston harbor.the north invaded the country of virginia and was repulsed at the 1st battle of bull run.
the only examples of southern agression was antietam and the invasion of peensylvania which culminated with gettysburg.
the north attacked the south over and over again.
i knew i would be called a racist somehow and the dancing around comment proves it what better way to end a debate but throw in the race card
plllease

ORIGINAL: rogo727

I can't take seriously the Supreme Court in 1861... Pro slaverly and almost all appointed by democrats ......in all honesty it was war.... The southern states the aggressor . Slavery our national guilt and sin. They had an election in 1864 the people spoke and what we think today is right or wrong was clearly the right thing to back then. We are a better country for it.

Yes, the South was the aggressor.

On 9 January 1861, the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West attempted to reach Fort Sumter. Batteries on Morris Island and the recently occupied Fort Moultrie opend fire on the ship and forced her to turn back. No shots were fired from Fort Sumter during this blatent attack on a United States vessel, since the commander of Fort Sumter was under orders to remain on the defensive.
At 4:30 a.m. on 12 April 1861, having demanded and been refused the surrender of Fort Sumter, Confederate general P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire on the fort, starting the war. Fort Sumter did not return fire until 7:00 a.m.