Lincolns Infringements on Constitution?

[Patriot123]

Does anyone know of any scholarly, non-encyclopedic, 3+ page websites which offer an in-depth look at Lincoln's infringements on the Constitution? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Galileo Galilei]

Does anyone know of any scholarly, non-encyclopedic, 3+ page websites which offer an in-depth look at Lincoln's infringements on the Constitution? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Check the Abe Lincoln archive on www.lewrockwell.com

[danberkeley]

... 3+ page websites ...

lol.

[raiha]

I don't think the OP was looking towards Lew Rockwell.com for edification.
I know DiLorenzo (as one of Lew Rockwell's contributors) has been accused often of being unscholarly.Usually by followers of Henry Jaffa and his ilk.
Having gone through the accusations with a fine tooth comb, I found them to carry little weight. He was accused of lying once when, in fact, he was telling the truth. The footnote proof-reader had not picked up that the edition was different.
And another proof of his shoddy scholarship was that DiLorenzo had reached a conclusion about something that no-one could reach a conclusion about unless they were actually able to read Lincoln's mind. So the nit-picking was petty.


However perhaps the OP is looking for a more factual/ less emotional compilation of Lincoln's constitutional deviations. I like James Ostrowski. He is a lawyer and wrote about Lincoln's arguments against secession in a scholarly manner but he blogs on Lew Rockwell.
The ones to avoid are Harry Jaffa and others from the Claremont Institute and people from the Declaration Foundation. They are the ones who accuse DiLorenzo of being unscholarly.Those who DiLorenzo accuses of being the core members of "The Lincoln Cult." Doubt they'd be discussing Lincoln's unconstitional behaviour in any case.
If you find something could you flick it my way please. In the meantime I will go a-hunting too.

[Kludge]

Bump.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Does anyone know of any scholarly, non-encyclopedic, 3+ page websites which offer an in-depth look at Lincoln's infringements on the Constitution? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

No scholarly in depth look into Lincoln's infringement of the Constitution exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Legally speaking, the definition of the powers of the three branches and how they operate in the U.S. Constitution are dynamic and ever changing. The only concrete certainty regarding the U.S. Constitution is expressed in The Declaration of Independence as self-evident truths and unalienable rights. While the civil document of The Declaration of Independence was the reason our Founding-Fathers gave to divorce the American people out from under that of the ordained, God given rule of a tyrant king, the legal document of the U.S. Constitution was the practical means in which to marry a new nation to that of a more perfect government.

[wizardwatson]

Lincoln made it clear that the Constitution is not a 'voluntary' association and is therefore illegitimate.

[Chosen]

You have to take his actions on an individual basis to approach your question. No single compendium exists, but there are several texts written on each individual suspension of rights he committed.

For example, you could start with suspension of habeus corpus.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Lincoln made it clear that the Constitution is not a 'voluntary' association and is therefore illegitimate.

The Constitution was the necessary-evil created to empower Civil-Purpose over legal precedence. Our Founding-Fathers when creating the constitution were not being "legal" in the sense that they were creating a new government as its official rulers; but, they created a more perfect government in a civil sense in that they acted as unofficial members with the people.
So, in the case of the United States, Civil-Purpose should always be empowered over the corrupted powers of traditional legal-precedence.
The Civil-Purpose is that power which is always self-evidently true and unalienably a natural right. Whether or not law-makers perceive this Civil-Purpose as the greater power granted to the people is immaterial; for, a natural law of God cannot be destroyed. Civil-Purpose is not given by tyranny but is a sovereign power given by God to the people.

[danberkeley]

The Constitution was the necessary-evil created to empower Civil-Purpose over legal precedence. Our Founding-Fathers when creating the constitution were not being "legal" in the sense that they were creating a new government as its official rulers; but, they created a more perfect government in a civil sense in that they acted as unofficial members with the people.
So, in the case of the United States, Civil-Purpose should always be empowered over the corrupted powers of traditional legal-precedence.
The Civil-Purpose is that power which is always self-evidently true and unalienably a natural right. Whether or not law-makers perceive this Civil-Purpose as the greater power granted to the people is immaterial; for, a natural law of God cannot be destroyed. Civil-Purpose is not given by tyranny but is a sovereign power given by God to the people.

So you are saying it was okay for Lincoln to invade the South and have his troops murder, rape, steal, imprison dissidents, and burn down entire cities and farms?

[wizardwatson]

The Constitution was the necessary-evil created to empower Civil-Purpose over legal precedence.

Huh? :confused:


Our Founding-Fathers when creating the constitution were not being "legal" in the sense that they were creating a new government as its official rulers; but, they created a more perfect government in a civil sense in that they acted as unofficial members with the people.

What? :(


So, in the case of the United States, Civil-Purpose should always be empowered over the corrupted powers of traditional legal-precedence.

Ok... :confused:


The Civil-Purpose is that power which is always self-evidently true and unalienably a natural right. Whether or not law-makers perceive this Civil-Purpose as the greater power granted to the people is immaterial; for, a natural law of God cannot be destroyed. Civil-Purpose is not given by tyranny but is a sovereign power given by God to the people.

Ok, so it seems you are wanting to redefine 'natural law' as 'civil-purpose'. If we can't agree on vocabulary and semantics how are we ever going to get anywhere.

If the constitution is used, ever at anytime to justify the illegal use of force it is illegitimate. What I am saying is that Lincoln made that fact self-evident when he invaded the South. I'm all for voluntary associations, even perhaps one crafted in a manner similar to the Constitution.

But no group of men past or present can, as 'non-official members of the people' - whatever that means - bind another free man to any contract.

What Lincoln did, was not to free the slaves, but to make clear that we are all slaves, only of a different sort.

If this is what the Constitution means, "mandatory membership for your own good", it is not the embodiment of natural law, it is an affront to it. Regardless of how well-intentioned the founding "non-official members of the people" were.

[wizardwatson]

So you are saying it was okay for Lincoln to invade the South and have his troops murder, rape, steal, imprison dissidents, and burn down entire cities and farms?

He's saying that it was a 'necessary-evil' in order to realize the greater good of protecting our 'natural rights'. By breaking the law a little bit, it's better for everyone on the whole.

It's the utilitarian argument. Definitely not a libertarian one.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Huh? :confused:



What? :(



Ok... :confused:



Ok, so it seems you are wanting to redefine 'natural law' as 'civil-purpose'. If we can't agree on vocabulary and semantics how are we ever going to get anywhere.

If the constitution is used, ever at anytime to justify the illegal use of force it is illegitimate. What I am saying is that Lincoln made that fact self-evident when he invaded the South. I'm all for voluntary associations, even perhaps one crafted in a manner similar to the Constitution.

But no group of men past or present can, as 'non-official members of the people' - whatever that means - bind another free man to any contract.

What Lincoln did, was not to free the slaves, but to make clear that we are all slaves, only of a different sort.

If this is what the Constitution means, "mandatory membership for your own good", it is not the embodiment of natural law, it is an affront to it. Regardless of how well-intentioned the founding "non-official members of the people" were.

If something is self-evidently true and unalienably a natural right, your soul is going to know it just as well as mine. So, no definition for Civil-Purpose is necessary.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So you are saying it was okay for Lincoln to invade the South and have his troops murder, rape, steal, imprison dissidents, and burn down entire cities and farms?

Americans aren't blessed because we are winners. When the British Loyalist states are taken into account along with the rebel south, the majority of the nation has gone through a bitter history of defeat.
We are blessed as a nation because our Founding-Fathers narrowed down to an existential purpose which established the contentment of mankind as a self-evident truth and an unalienble natural right.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

List of Constitutional crimes by Lincoln:

- Maintaining a military base hostile to a foreign nation in contravention of the fact there was no declared war at that time
- Suspension of habeas corpus
- The Emancipation Proclamation

I'd have to dig deeper, but thats all that comes to mind at the moment. I didn't study as much of the political aspects of the Civil War as I did the military campaigns, etc.

[Deborah K]

The Constitution was the necessary-evil created to empower Civil-Purpose over legal precedence. Our Founding-Fathers when creating the constitution were not being "legal" in the sense that they were creating a new government as its official rulers; but, they created a more perfect government in a civil sense in that they acted as unofficial members with the people.
So, in the case of the United States, Civil-Purpose should always be empowered over the corrupted powers of traditional legal-precedence.
The Civil-Purpose is that power which is always self-evidently true and unalienably a natural right. Whether or not law-makers perceive this Civil-Purpose as the greater power granted to the people is immaterial; for, a natural law of God cannot be destroyed. Civil-Purpose is not given by tyranny but is a sovereign power given by God to the people.


Hmm...I was always of the understanding that civil rights were man made, (what man giveth, man taketh away) and that unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, were natural rights, or God given. Unalienable rights are not civil rights.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Where's the thread with "The Worst Presidents in American History" I think there were multiple threads on the Best and Worst Presidents, if I recall.

Didn't Lincoln make the top 3 worst? I remember extensive data posted on why they (Lincoln) was one of the worst and many had links. Lincoln did shut down the newspapers/print in the border states that were favorable to the South .

I think it was :

Worst Presidents ratings:

1.) Woodrow Wilson
2.) FDR
3.) Abe Lincoln

[Aratus]

So you are saying it was okay for Lincoln
to invade the South and have his troops
murder, rape, steal, imprison dissidents,
and burn down entire cities and farms?


if both lincoln and jefferson davis suspended the writ of habeas corpus,
had involutary drafts that called up fresh troops, and prison camps that
got worse when the P.O.W exchanges broke down, can we succinctly
blame lincoln for atlanta burning as we blame jefferson davis for each
slave who is unfree in the south and being kept in abysmal conditions?

[Aratus]

methinks neither side was saintly. kansas initially begins to flare with a bushwacking warfare.
after the war once sparked, having arrived ...now ends, as the grand armies seek to disband
with many privately committed crimes unpunished, in short order we have many ignoble acts
of terrorism committed by they who often weren't affiliated at all to the great armies of the era...

[Aratus]

if we talk and think strong potus or weak potus, or completely out to lunch potus...
i ask you if andy johnson or james buchanan was actually the much better potus?
was james buchanan totally out of touch and maybe had he been more charismatic,
could he have delayed the regrettable war by a few decades were he to have been
more assertive in the last six months of his presidency? if we concede both abe lincoln
and jeff davis had the approval to perhaps the halfway point concerning their seperate
presidencies, yet never had anything near to 75% or 80% percent of their own voters
with them at all when the north and south were seperated as de facto entities, is not
andrew johnson history's whipping boy for everything that is wrong in the presidencies
of james buchanan, jefferson davis and abraham lincoln? in 1861 as lincoln is sworn in,
even though de jure we are a nation, the de facto reality of gov't is that the states are
seceding. james buchanan could have delayed or prevented this. when andrew johnson
tries to step in after john wilkes booth's madness, his decisions are either brilliant or
totally lousy and ill-timed. when we get past his trial and look at president grant, the
wounds have not healed for us as a nation. we see a festering situation being handed
along. so who is worse? james buchanan who seemed out of touch, or andrew johnson?

[danberkeley]

if both lincoln and jefferson davis suspended the writ of habeas corpus,
had involutary drafts that called up fresh troops, and prison camps that
got worse when the P.O.W exchanges broke down, can we succinctly
blame lincoln for atlanta burning as we blame jefferson davis for each
slave who is unfree in the south and being kept in abysmal conditions?

The War of Northern Aggression didnt start because of slavery. I dont see how second part of the question follows the first part.

[Aratus]

james buchanan or andrew johnson? (slavery and civil rights)
herbert hoover or george w. bush? (can we say great depression?)
jefferson davis or abraham lincoln? (this was a civil war that is still healing)

[danberkeley]

james buchanan or andrew johnson? (slavery and civil rights)
herbert hoover or george w. bush? (can we say great depression?)
jefferson davis or abraham lincoln? (this was a civil war that is still healing)

I do not understand what you are asking.

[Aratus]

The War of Northern Aggression didnt start because of slavery. I dont see how second part of the question follows the first part.

way back in the 1830s we have the south carolina nullifiers and both hayne
and john c. calhoun. i admit the tariff issue lies underneath the free state and
slave state politics, yet the flare point was the supplies being sent into the
fort that was about to be fired on. bleeding kansas was in the interum. the
war had many myriad causes. i was making the point that both sides could
be equally fair or brutal in terms of how the war was waged, yet i concede
sherman's march to the sea could be said to be genocidal and andersonville
as a camp sounds like a chapter out of the abysmal 20th century, not the 19th...

andy johnson clearly found it easy to hang wirz, yet he may have agonized over
poor mary surratt. did the civil war start because henry clay dies ten years earlier?

[Aratus]

g.w bush had a market crash.

what if herbert hoover was the more
competant president of the two and
the market crash of 1929 dooms his
presidency? herbert hoover saw massive
unemployment. FDR was voted in for 4 terms.

G.W BUSH or HERBERT HOOVER?
if you had only two choises?

---------------------------------------------------

jefferson davis and abe lincoln for the longest
time only ruled half a nation, and also got carped
at dreadfully and badly by their own presses...

choosing lincoln over davis or davis over lincoln
often hints at what some of one's ancesters did...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

was james buchanan or andy johnson was the bigger fathead?
curiously enuff, both of 'em ruled over the same amount of land
in area. andy johnson began with high hopes and then was tried.
james buchanan was once the president of our ENTIRE nation...

[danberkeley]

way back in the 1830s we have the south carolina nullifiers and both hayne
and john c. calhoun. i admit the tariff issue lies underneath the free state and
slave state politics, yet the flare point was the supplies being sent into the
fort that was about to be fired on. bleeding kansas was in the interum. the
war had many myriad causes. i was making the point that both sides could
be equally fair or brutal in terms of how the war was waged, yet i concede
sherman's march to the sea could be said to be genocidal and andersonville
as a camp sounds like a chapter out of the abysmal 20th century, not the 19th...

andy johnson clearly found it easy to hang wirz, yet he may have agonized over
poor mary surratt. did the civil war start because henry clay dies ten years earlier?

The South seceded because of the tariffs Lincoln imposed and other BS that Lincoln did that was obviously targeted towards the South. Lincoln invaded the South because the South seceded. Fort Sumter was a customs house. The South had slaves. What does that have to do with what I originally said?

[Aratus]

the war between the states, our civil war was driven by an economics.
andrew johnson took our nation from slavery to sharecropper feudalism
and then was replaced by the voters with u.s grant, who was known for
the credit moblier scandal coming to a head. i think grant was perhaps more
corrupt than harding, who had no idea about teapot dome. the mid-1800s
were driven by the way the tariffs were applied. clay, calhoun and webster
had different economic backers, and had a divergence of political agendas.

[danberkeley]

Americans aren't blessed because we are winners. When the British Loyalist states are taken into account along with the rebel south, the majority of the nation has gone through a bitter history of defeat.
We are blessed as a nation because our Founding-Fathers narrowed down to an existential purpose which established the contentment of mankind as a self-evident truth and an unalienble natural right.

So is that a yes or no? :confused:

[Aratus]

william mckinley is a pro high tariff politician. andrew johnson was a low tariff politician.
henry clay was a political idol for the younger abraham lincoln. clay had his america plan...

[Aratus]

So is that a yes or no? :confused:

UEW is UEW...
i know what
he is saying...
methinks i think

[wizardwatson]

So is that a yes or no? :confused:

Yeah, I was reading his responses to my responses too.

He seems to be hopelessly ambiguous. Whether its deliberate or not I can't tell.

I get bored answering those types of responses as I know its an endless cycle of ambiguity until I eventually give up.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Hmm...I was always of the understanding that civil rights were man made, (what man giveth, man taketh away) and that unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, were natural rights, or God given. Unalienable rights are not civil rights.

Yes. Civil rights are different from natural rights. Unalienable natural rights reduce to that which is common in every human soul. There will always be conservatives and liberals, and Democrats and Republicans; but, a self-evident truth and an unalienable natural right is that which is common in every human being. This is what I refer to as Civil-Purpose. It supercedes all the long standing traditions of legal precedence regardless.
"Civil rights" deals with inequality. We deal with this inequality because it makes us happy and not because it makes us responsible. It makes us happy when we are responsible and not the other way around.
This subtle way in which authority serves others at the national dinner table is difficult to understand.

[RSLudlum]

The South seceded because of the tariffs Lincoln imposed and other BS that Lincoln did that was obviously targeted towards the South. Lincoln invaded the South because the South seceded. Fort Sumter was a customs house. The South had slaves. What does that have to do with what I originally said?

Don't forget the North had slaves also. ;)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So is that a yes or no? :confused:

Avoiding ambiguity was the reason science narrowed down to natural-law conclusions.
Example: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
This conclusion will never change.
The self-evident truths and the unalienable rights reduce the same in every human soul whether he or she be a king/queen or a slave. So, in comparison to our minor European, Hispanic, African American and Asian cultures, we should consider this to be our formal-culture.

[Mini-Me]

List of Constitutional crimes by Lincoln:

- Maintaining a military base hostile to a foreign nation in contravention of the fact there was no declared war at that time
- Suspension of habeas corpus
- The Emancipation Proclamation

I'd have to dig deeper, but thats all that comes to mind at the moment. I didn't study as much of the political aspects of the Civil War as I did the military campaigns, etc.

The Emancipation Proclamation may have been an overstep of federal authority in general (violating the Tenth Amendment) and executive authority in particular, but practically everything the government ever does nowadays oversteps the Constitution in the same way. Really, all the Emancipation Proclamation did was say, "Hey, states who seceded - guess what? We're no longer respecting your citizens' claims on the lives of their slaves. Suck on that." It was indeed an overstep of authority, because Lincoln was speaking on behalf of the sovereign states still remaining in the Union, overriding their own "decision" about whether consider southern slaves property and send them back down south. Still, all in all, I think the Emancipation Proclamation was probably the best use of usurped authority I've ever heard of. ;) Interestingly enough, the Emancipation Proclamation proves all by itself why the Civil War was never about freeing the slaves, and why it was really about asserting federal supremacy over all and keeping the union together at all costs. After all, there's no point in fighting a war with the Confederacy when you can just make an executive order saying, "Hey southern slaves, we're not going to send you back as property anymore or consider you as such."

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Really, all the Emancipation Proclamation did was say, "Hey, states who seceded - guess what? We're no longer respecting your citizens' claims on the lives of their slaves. Suck on that."

Of course, one of the problems being that the US Government did not recognize the secession. If it wasn't legal and didn't actually happen, then Lincoln took a big old shit on the 10th Amendment, or more specifically, violated The Bill of Rights.

[Aratus]

andrew johnson basically said de jure the south never seceded.
this is why he was in total tandem with honest abe when they
both ran. this is why he later quarrels with mr. thaddeus stevens

[Mesogen]

The War of Northern Aggression didnt start because of slavery. I dont see how second part of the question follows the first part.

It started because of secession, which started because of Lincoln's election, which he won with absolutely no support from the Southern states, because he was a Republican, which was the party that was moving for abolition and the advancement of 'free labor capitalism' which would destroy the 'southern way of life.'

Secession was about slavery. The civil war was about secession.

So, yeah, the war of southern secession followed by northern aggression, or whatever you want to call it, began because of the issue of slavery.



The South seceded because of the tariffs Lincoln imposed and other BS that Lincoln did that was obviously targeted towards the South.

South Carolina seceded before Lincoln was inaugurated. The CSA was founded before then too.

Lincoln was elected in Nov. 1860. The CSA was formed in February 1861. They wasted no time. Then Lincoln was inaugurated in March 1861.

So unless Lincoln stood up there with an "Office of the President Elect" sign and started unilaterally issuing tariffs then you have a few bits of misinformation there.

But South Carolina was looking to secede since 1852, when they wrote Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South%20Carolina).

Read it. After they go on and on about why they are a sovereign and independent state, they then talk about the reasons for secession.

Lookee thar. It mostly has to do with slavery.

After going on about the structure of the union and what all the states agreed to the FIRST grievance has to do with those damned yankees not returning fugitive slaves. When slaves would escape to the North, the northern states would not extradite them. They would be set free.


The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

Read the rest. Look at what the complaints are about. Tariffs? No. Federal bases? No.

Let's look at the Georgia Declaration. (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Georgia)


The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
...

The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. The main reason was that the North, even if united, could not control both branches of the Legislature during any portion of that time. Therefore such an organization must have resulted either in utter failure or in the total overthrow of the Government.

The Georgia one goes into more complaints about how lame the central government is but their central issue and #1 complaint was the the presidency was now held by the "abolitionist party."

Well, let's look at Mississippi's reasons for secession (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi):

That damned Federal government ...
t has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

How about the reasons Texas gave (http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Texas).


And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.



All you have to do to is read these things to realize that these states seceded over the issue of slavery, the north's intolerance of slavery, and the south's desire to continue it and expand it into new territories.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Polls & Inputs on Presidents... just to sum it up. The TOP 3 WORST presidents in history:

#1 Woodrow Wilson
#2 FDR
#3 Abraham Lincoln (see posters reasons/facts)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=134069&highlight=Worst+president (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=134069&highlight=Worst+president) WORST President? (Poll 1/3)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=134147&highlight=Worst+president (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=134147&highlight=Worst+president) WORST President? (Poll 2/3)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=135075&highlight=Worst+president (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=135075&highlight=Worst+president) WORST President? (Poll 3/3)

[demolama]

Yet they knew Lincoln was for the Corwin Amendment that would have easily been ratified to keep the federal government out of the slavery issue for good. His first inaugural address even admitted this.

Why then did the southern states still fully commit to independence knowing full well that the amendment was agreed upon by the federal government and was already being ratified in northern states?

Because the issue was greater than the slaves. Lincoln had let it known he intended to see to it that all the tariffs were collected. His party was put into power with the notion to increase the tariff rates. Tariff rates that were already unfavorable to the south because of the increased price of superior foreign goods for farming who had to settle for crappy American goods.

Now granted because slaves counted as 3/5th of a person for southern population this helped to boost their power in federal congress... however limiting slavery to just the south and not allowing it to move west surely would have made the southern minority even smaller. And that is exactly what the southern states saw... their power slipping. How else would Lincoln get elected if no southern states had him on the ballot? because the power in congress was shifting to the north. Lincoln refused to compromise about the expansion of slavery to the west. This threaten Southern philosophy more than all out abolition. Which no one except a few radicals in the Republican party wanted. With lack of political power in the federal congress surely the North would propose and pass more legislation that favors their section of society. Just look at what they accomplished when the southern states were not in Congress from 61-77... the country hasn't been the same since.

That is why they felt independence was more important than trying to preserve slavery by staying in the union... it was only a matter of time before they lost any nullifying power in Congress. Political power through slavery and economics tariffs that favored one section of the union over the other are the key to the civil war. The slaves were just the mode to keep power in the federal congress... The war was not to keep its existence for profit for the 1% of the population because if that was the case they surely would have stayed in the union and passed the Corwin amendment

[RSLudlum]

That is why they felt independence was more important than trying to preserve slavery by staying in the union... it was only a matter of time before they lost any nullifying power in Congress. Political power through slavery and economics tariffs that favored one section of the union over the other are the key to the civil war. The slaves were just the mode to keep power in the federal congress... The war was not to keep its existence for profit for the 1% of the population because if that was the case they surely would have stayed in the union and passed the Corwin amendment

Well said demolama.



Freedom and Federalism by Felix Morley pp.70-71

"Divergent political philosophies do not of themselves stir passioinate feelings in human breasts. But if the philosophy is directly associated with an economic interest, or with a racial prejudice, or possibly with both--then personal emotion is fortified and strengthened by use of the abstract idea. It makes individual self-interest collective and binds the parts firmly together with the mortar of honorable principle."


This is exactly what blinds most into thinking that the 'civil' war was just about slavery or also, just about taxes. And the national gov't won the war so they got to write most of the history therefore giving Lincoln the crown of 'honor'.

[Aratus]

methinks the crux of the issue is that there were 2 compromises that were frayed
after the Dred Scott decision. the north was barely tolerating the 50/50 alterating
between the new states, then Taney's court tipped a balance. when Clay, Webster
and Calhoun die, both sides polarize even further. James Buchanan had no ability to
talk down either side. part of the issue was "one man, one vote" and all definitions
we have for citizens that are inevitable when the nation is postwar. Andrew Johnson
was told by the North that as the South comes back into the Union, with the newly
franchised freedmen voting via "one man, one vote", the South could not increase its
representative clout when there were no other voter requirements other than the voter
being now free or a newly loyalty oathed to the union ex-Confederate. the recent Trefousse
biography has a backdrop to the prewar and postwar time periods and the hot topic issues...

[Aratus]

as was pointed out, james buchanan sees states leave the union.
was he a worse president for the times than andrew johnson?
admittedly the poll here did have wilson, FDR and lincoln being
the 3 worst potuses... however if we now conduct a poll to choose
between the four civil war era potuses where the south quasi-legally
is defined as being part of the union, yet in rebellion, who do we
rate as being better or worse than the others? what if andrew johnson
is not our worst potus of the four, insted we have to debate whether
jefferson davis, abraham lincoln or james buchanan is definately the
worst! what if andrew johnson is the better choise of the four and
would have been a much better potus between 1857 and 1861...
what if james buchanan had made several decisions that made the
war inevitable due to a failure to communicate and mediate between
both sides. abe lincoln and jeff davis only rule HALF a nation for the
longest time, co-jointly...and LEGALLY the south is in the union. the
people who question each civil war potus would have most likely
voted for the other guy. the issues inside our revolutionary war
articles of confederation that were delt with by george mason are
fogotten as to their import & intent in full. we see a compact fractured...

[Mesogen]

Yet they knew Lincoln was for the Corwin Amendment that would have easily been ratified to keep the federal government out of the slavery issue for good. His first inaugural address even admitted this.

Why then did the southern states still fully commit to independence knowing full well that the amendment was agreed upon by the federal government and was already being ratified in northern states?

Because the issue was greater than the slaves. Lincoln had let it known he intended to see to it that all the tariffs were collected. His party was put into power with the notion to increase the tariff rates. Tariff rates that were already unfavorable to the south because of the increased price of superior foreign goods for farming who had to settle for crappy American goods.

Now granted because slaves counted as 3/5th of a person for southern population this helped to boost their power in federal congress... however limiting slavery to just the south and not allowing it to move west surely would have made the southern minority even smaller. And that is exactly what the southern states saw... their power slipping. How else would Lincoln get elected if no southern states had him on the ballot? because the power in congress was shifting to the north. Lincoln refused to compromise about the expansion of slavery to the west. This threaten Southern philosophy more than all out abolition. Which no one except a few radicals in the Republican party wanted. With lack of political power in the federal congress surely the North would propose and pass more legislation that favors their section of society. Just look at what they accomplished when the southern states were not in Congress from 61-77... the country hasn't been the same since.

That is why they felt independence was more important than trying to preserve slavery by staying in the union... it was only a matter of time before they lost any nullifying power in Congress. Political power through slavery and economics tariffs that favored one section of the union over the other are the key to the civil war. The slaves were just the mode to keep power in the federal congress... The war was not to keep its existence for profit for the 1% of the population because if that was the case they surely would have stayed in the union and passed the Corwin amendment

There is a funny thing about the Corwin amendment. It would have banned certain future amendments. This is silly, if not impossible. Besides, only a couple of states had ratified it. And of course they were only northern states (Ohio and Maryland-a slave state) because the south had already seceded, the CSA had formed, and the civil war had already started.

The Corwin amendment was a last ditch effort to stave off war. The resolution only passed Congress after a few states had already seceded and Ohio didn't ratify it until after the war had already started.

So why would a proposed amendment to the constitution, dealing with the preservation of slavery, be proposed in order to prevent the coming war if the war had nothing to do with slavery?