By Kevin Patmore, Guest Blogger
In an effort to continue my "Be critical of Lincoln" week, the following are my interspersed thoughts on the Gettysburg Address.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers [Thomas Lincoln was born in 1778] brought forth on this continent a new nation , [Actually, the U.S. Constitution -- which founded out nation -- was not adopted until 1787, and ratified, or effective on March 4, 1789] conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. [Dedicated to the proposition that white, free men and indentured servants were all equal, as slaves were only 3/5 of a person, and women could not vote].
Now we are engaged in a great civil war [A civil war is an internal war for control of the national government. The South had no desire to seize control of the national government, so it was NOT a civil war], testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. [This was not a test of whether that nation would endure. If the South had won, the United States -- operating under the United States Constitution -- would still have existed, albeit with about 20 fewer States. The only reason why it a nation conceived and dedicated in liberty would not endure was because Lincoln had disposed of these notions during his presidency]. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. [Going back to "war," not only was this not a "civil war," but it never was a war at all.
Under the Constitution, only the Congress has the authority to declare war. Lincoln "proclaimed" the onset of hostilities and called up the militias to invade the South, and Congress never declared any war]. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. [Or, more accurately, "that that nation might force States to remain a part of it]. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. [OK -- repetition is good politics, but again, whoever believes that the US would not have continued to exist should raise their hand. Actually, the superiority of the State government is paramount in a republican form of government, and Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution REQUIRES that each State have a republican form of government.
Those republican governments had determined to secede. Having a "conflict"
which forced the republican State governments to remain part of the United
States was actually what caused "government of the people, by the people,
for the people [to] perish from the earth.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting post, I enjoyed reading it. It's not every day you read a critical view of what is considered one of the greatest speeches ever written.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with all your criticisms.
So let's break it down
(Actually, the U.S. Constitution -- which founded out nation -- was not adopted until 1787, and ratified, or effective on March 4, 1789) I believe Lincoln was talking about the year the Declaration Independence was signed which is regonized even today as the year the nation began.
(Dedicated to the proposition that white, free men and indentured servants were all equal, as slaves were only 3/5 of a person, and women could not vote) this may be true from a constituional point of view. But Lincoln was quoting from the Declartion of Independence not the constitution. And the ultimate outcome of this war was to take the 3/5 designation out of the constitution, via the 13th and 14th amendments
(A civil war is an internal war for control of the national government. The South had no desire to seize control of the national government, so it was NOT a civil war])
Here is how Civil War is defined in Merriam Webster
--a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country-- The definition you provided for a Civil war, I believe, can be applied to a revolution. So calling the Civil War a civil war is %100 dead on
Going back to "war," not only was this not a "civil war," but it never was a war at all.
(Under the Constitution, only the Congress has the authority to declare war. Lincoln "proclaimed" the onset of hostilities and called up the militias to invade the South, and Congress never declared any war])
I guess you are right from a constitutional pov in that it was not a "declared" war, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a war. One of the defintions of war from Mirriam Webster is --a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism-- 600,000 people died in this state of hostility. I think it is only fitting that we use the term "war" do describe it.
[OK -- repetition is good politics, but again, whoever believes that the US would not have continued to exist should raise their hand. Actually, the superiority of the State government is paramount in a republican form of government, and Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution REQUIRES that each State have a republican form of government.
(Those republican governments had determined to secede. Having a "conflict"
which forced the republican State governments to remain part of the United
States was actually what caused "government of the people, by the people,
for the people [to] perish from the earth.])
I don't pretend to be constitutional expert but I do not think there is section of the constitution that would not allow secession. But nor is there a section that allows for it. Licoln and Northern states believed that it was not allowed. Jeff Davis and the Southern states believed that it was allowed. Lincoln's view won out. Which I believed effectively answered that constitutional question. So I believe that a government for the people by the people and so on still exists. I live in it. I am a citizen of it.
As to the raise the hands question, a historian such as Jay might be able to more accuratly answer the question of if the United States would have survived if the South won.
My opinion is no it would not have. It would have set a precedent that to me would have led to the dissolution of the United States and Confederate States for that matter. There were already cracks showing the CSA in 1864. New York City was making noises of leaving the United States. A south victory would have been a disaster for not only the black man but for the idea of a large nation-state existing in the Middle part of North America.
As, I said, I enjoyed your view on the Gettysburg address. I can't agree with you though. He summed up in only a few what he thought that war is about. I agree with him. I am glad I am a citizen of THE United States of America and not a citizen of Indiana or the Big 10 nation or THESE United States of America.
Joe-
ReplyDeleteI agree that some of my comments were parsing, as this was a follow-up on my earlier entry, and one which I did not know GAV would post. Some of your comments, however, were a bit off the mark:
1. The Declaration had nothing to do with the formation of the nation. It was a resolution by the constituencies of each of the independent colonies that they were independent of the British Sovereign. (Notably, the July 4 day we celebrate independence on is also wrong, as the 2nd Continental Congress actually passed the resolution of independence on July 2. The Declaration of Independence, adopted July 4, 1776, is just an explanation of why they did what they had done on July 2. It actually was not put in final form until after July 19, and signed at various times, with most delegates signing it on August2). The 2nd Continental Congress, which adopted the DoI, had virtually no authority, except the specific powers granted to each delegate by either his respective colonial legislature, or a group of influential citizens who got together and decided to send a person as a delegate (since the colonies were basically ruled by oligarchy).. You also had a period there with hte Articles of Confederation. Lincoln should have known that the Declaration had nothing to do with the "bringing forth" of our nation. He WAS a lawyer, albeit one born in Kentucky.
2. “. . . the ultimate outcome of this war was to take the 3/5 designation out of the constitution. . .” Unless Lincoln was a liar, the war had absolutely nothing to do with the 3/5 designation, or slavery, or equality, since Lincoln had stated specifically in his inaugural address that he did not want to prohibit slavery, and that he lacked the legal authority to do so. The reason for the war was officially “preservation of the union.” The issue of slavery would have been the “missing WMDs” of the war.
3. With regard to the issue of secession: “Li[n]coln and Northern states believed that it was not allowed. Jeff Davis and the Southern states believed that it was allowed. Lincoln's view won out. Which I believed effectively answered that constitutional question.”
War does not answer a constitutional question. Rather, war among fellow citizens is contrary to a civilized society and merely decides whose army is more powerful.
Actually, this is where the brilliance of Lincoln as a politician is evident, because pretty much everyone but Abraham Lincoln believes that secession was permitted by the Constitution. Although Lincoln’s official reason for the war was “preservation of the Union” – which was an illegal reason for the war – the PR in the north seized upon slavery as an economic and humanitarian reason for the war. Poor whites in the North – who would be fighting for Lincoln – did not give a rip about the equality of blacks, and even Lincoln believed blacks were and would always be inferior to whites (read the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate). The fact that the presence of slavery threatened employment, artificially deflated wages and prevented the formation and power of labor unions in the North certainly got their attention, and caused them to want to fight for the North to defeat slavery.
As for the Constitutional question, the only national leader besides Lincoln who had every really argued that secession was not permitted was Alexander Hamilton, who advocated the use of military force to enforce federal laws in States which refused to enforce them. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison – one of whom was the principal author of the Declaration and the other of whom wrote most of the Constitution – in 1798 wrote the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, which explained that the Constitution was a compact and the acts of the central government were subject to nullification by the respective State governments. In 1800, Madison also had the Virginia Legislature pass the Report of 1800, which again affirmed the States' individual sovereignty, and the 1700's and 1800's were rife with State nullification of federal laws with which the State government did not agree.
Furthermore, this was not merely a North v. South issue. As noted in my other entry, during the war of 1812, it was the New England states which – impacted by the federal government’s blockade and economically ruined by the disruption caused by the war – nearly seceded (without any action to the contrary by President Madison at the Hartford Convention and other meetings. It is believed that these states went so far as to send their own delegates to Britain in an attempt to negotiate a separate peace in anticipation of secession.
I agree with your sentiment, and my entry was not to advocate that the US should split, as I likewise and quite happy to be a US citizen, and happy that I do not need a visa to go to South Carolina. Admit, though, that it would be nice not to have SEC teams playing in the NCAA.
1. True, but in my opinion totally irrelevent. Maybe we should celebrate some other date as the formation date as our nation. We don't, though.
ReplyDeleteJuly 4th 1776 is the day that we do. So that is the year Lincoln used. Remember, Lincoln was not talking to historians or lawyers. He
was trying to convey his reasons for the war to everyday people.
2. I should have clarified better in my post. Lincoln was quoting from the Declaration on all men are created equal. He was not quoting from the
constitution, which has the 3/5 clause. Lincoln was not a dumb man. I believe he used that quote for a reason. By 1863 the stated reason
of war(save the union) was starting to expand to end slavery. Granted it may have only been for political reasons(keep England and France out of the
war among others). But the fact is at the end of war the 3/5 issue and slavery was finished by the 13th and 14th amendment.
3. You have good points, better answered by historian. All I could give is my opinion. You maybe right about the intent of the founders. But intent
did not lead to the founders actually putting a clause in the constitution allowing exit. I can read it and see where states can join with no mention
of being able to leave. And I can see where the constitution is the supreme law of the land superseding all state laws. And I can see where the President
took a oath swearing the he would uphold that constitution. With that and the the more prosaic economic reasons you mentioned, Lincoln saw it has his duty to stop
secession even if it meant war. I agree that war is not a good way to answer a constitutional question but in this case it did. And war takes two sides. It seems
to me the south, was perfectly willing to use war as a means to settle its differences with the North.
It would also be interesting to point out that the first two presidents who balked at the States' Rights arguments were both southerners - Andrew Jackson from Tennessee and Zachary Taylor from Louisiana - both threatened southern states with federal troops to enforce federal law at the expense of state law if pushed. More to come - when I'm not working. Jay V.
ReplyDeleteIf we are to point out the errors in the logic of Lincoln based on the evolution of federal, state and local governments over the last 150 years, then we are making a grave error. Our constitution has amendments for this reason, and all things that a president must endure to protect the union from enemies - foreign or domestic all have to be placed in a frame of reference to what those threats are.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the ACLU came unglued when the Department of Homeland Security were making provisions for wiretaps that some deemed unconstitutional. However - the elitist left failed to realize that there was a big hole in the floor in the intelligence community that had occurred, and sometimes to protect the welfare of the animals in the zoo, those very truths that we hold self evident have to be silenced for a brief moment to prevent more blood flow.
We had a major hole in the intelligence community - it had to be repaired. The government allowed it to happen, they had to repair it. The ACLU can go sue someone after it's fixed. But fix the damn thing first.
In the civil war: The founding fathers made the GRAVE error of creating a utopia of libertarianism and individualism for all with the exception of an entire race of people who were seen as nothing more than farm implements. They knew this during the constitutional convention. William Lloyd Garrison stated that "during the delegation slavery was on everyone's mind, however not on everyone's tongue."
The Civil war was the 9-11 of the 19th century. A hole of our own making had occurred, and the president had to make provisions to go fix that hole. I am sure that if the ACLU were around in the 19th century then the revisionist historians would be singing their praises, as I am sure that Mr. Patmore is?
Look at the calamity that the second amendment has caused:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Does this mean that the state has the right to have a national guard and IT shall be well armed? Or does it mean that I have the right - if I am 18 to purchase an AK-47?
And this is why we have the ACLU. They are the first ones to stand in line to say "Get that cross off the courtyard lawn and my client has the right to own as many AR-15's as he wishes, your honor."
"But Mr. Attorney - is your client a member of the Indiana National Militia-Guard?"
"...Uh - no you your honor. He's just a computer geek."
"Then - Mr. Attorney - why does he need a fully-automatic weapon in his house? I mean - you do know who your client is, don't you?"
Gary, Gary quite contrary:
ReplyDeleteI am not sure the fact that the Constitution has amendments is a valid defense of the Civil War or Lincoln. Rather, the fact that the Constitution can and has been amended is somewhat of condemnation of the fact that Lincoln chose war over a peaceful resolution.
Anyway, its also funny that you mention the 2d amendment and automatic weapons, as I have been wanting to buy a Thompson submachine gun a friend has for sale for the Patmore Unorganized Militia. Please help me convince Jodi that it is a necessary addition to the arsenal.
You should know, however, that the 2d Amendment is the one and ONLY constitutional right which the ACLU does NOT defend. Rather, the ACLU position is that the 2d amendment does not give an individual the right to keep and bear arms, but only the collective right to keep and arm bears, or something of that nature.
You need to do a little checking on the "National Guard" versus the militia, as they are not the same animal. As the Supremes recently rules, the 2d amendment is an individualized, and not a collective or governmental right: It is "the right of the people ..." that is protected, and not the right of "the government, through its actors, the national guard."
I am not sure the fact that the Constitution has amendments is a valid defense of the Civil War or Lincoln. Rather, the fact that the Constitution can and has been amended is somewhat of condemnation of the fact that Lincoln chose war over a peaceful resolution.
ReplyDeleteI know your whole tint of your posts is to pretty much blame Lincoln for the war. Why?
The southern states did everything they could to keep slavery as a legal institution in the United States. Southern politicians forced compromises in the constitution so it would be legal. They forced compromises so a non slave state could not be admitted to the union with out a slave state. One would even beat down a northern politician on the senate floor when he spoke against slavery. And when a president was finally elected who showed the slightest backbone against slavery, they bolted from the union. And when that same President resupplied a federal fort in South Carolina, they fired. They convinced the poor non slave holder citizens of their states that the war was about state rights glossing over the fact that the right was keep a slave. They were perfectly willing even eager to go to war. Maybe Lincoln deserves some guilt, but to absolve the South of all blame is revisionism at its worst.
Holding it against Lincoln that he took a little liberty (no pun intended) with his job and then pointing out that "how dare he do that" is somewhat like getting pissed off at the Pharisees for the death of Jesus. Hey - it was bound to happen, it going to happen, and to make it happen - someone had to do it. And sometimes making harsh choices that step on feet or that put nails in people have to be made for a greater common good. I will put it in the words of the Philosopher James Tiberius Kirk: "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"
ReplyDeleteSome final thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe blaming Lincoln/the Union entirely for the Civil was is, as Joe states, revisionism. As Joe notes, the Constitution specifically included provisions which institutionalized slavery. Regardless of whether you believe that the Constitution in a contract or a compact, it is undisputed that unless a State agreed to the Constitution, they would have remained a sovereign and independent nation. Thus, the provisions legitimizing slavery were a necessary and negotiated compromise to cause the Southern states to ratify the constitution, and it is pretty much accepted that they would not have joined the US but for these provisions. Consequently, and regardless of who fired the first shot, having the other States disregard and the national government support the wholesale disregard of these constitutional provisions (e.g. not returning fugitive slaves, etc.) would have been a breach of the contract, such that the States' secession would be justified. Of course, if it was a compact, as Jefferson and Madison believed, secession was perfectly legitimate without any cause.
If you read the southern pamphlets from the day, they (with few exceptions) were hardly eager to go to war, as they knew it would be a defensive battle, ie, on their own turf, and the intelligent ones recognized the inferior war machine they had in the south. Sure it was about keeping their slaves, which they (including Lincoln) viewed as lesser beings, an in fact as property which they had purchased. Both slavery as an institution, and private property rights, were part of the deal to which they agreed in entering the Union.
Dum Spiro Spero.
Animus Opibusque Parati.
OK - enough with the politics. Can we talk about something serious - like - I dunno - poonani?
ReplyDeleteWow. Poonani. I guess I live a sheltered life. I had to google that. Color me stupid
ReplyDeleteKevin, enjoyed the debate. I am not in full disagreement with some of your points but I do disagree with your conclusion. Of course, what is amazing is that it has been over 140 years since the wars end and it can still raise deep emotions. That war was like throwing a big rock in a small pond. We are still feeling the ripples. Thanks for starting the debate.
Jay V. said:
ReplyDeleteThe south chose war by firing the first shots at Fort Sumpter. Lincoln went at great lenghths to tell the south that he did not want war:
"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
Poonani. New one for me also.
ReplyDeleteSure Lincoln said he didn't want war. He was a GREAT politician. Although he was a close friend of my family, I would have to differ with his reputation as being "Honest Abe," however. Just look at the same inaugural quoted by Jay, where Lincoln quotes and affirms an earlier speech and the Republican platform: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
54 days later he ordered the "invasion by [US] armed force of the soil of" 7 States,and less than 2 years later he decided that he did indeed have the "lawful right" to end slavery.
Good day.
Jay said,
ReplyDeleteKevin, Kevin, Kevin.....the local tourism commision should castrate you....I would think that you would be a better historian than that. Since it was always his position that it was his constitutional duty as president to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitution, and therefore, the government, one must draw the logical conclusion that he would use anything at his disposal to save the union - which he saw as perpetual. Perpetual you ask? Yes, perpetual. Since we are taking information from his first inaugural address, let's continue - shall we? In this address, Lincol make a very important point about whether secession was legal or not. Granting that the founding fathers were not inept or ignorant, what group of governmental framers, in their right minds, would construct a form of govenment with a method of destroying it imbedded in it (like secession for instance)? The simple answer is that they did not. As for suspending the writ of habeus corpus without congressional approval (initially), issuing the emancipation proclomation and a host of other actions during the Civil War, he did these as war measures and stated as such. I would argue that the actions he took during a time when events threatened to destroy the country - both north and south, were much more appropriate that the actions that Bush 43 took, making the same kind of aguments, to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitution during the "war on terrorism."
But you keep trying, Kevin.
Only a couple of problems with Jay's reasoning:
ReplyDelete1. The founders -- especially Jefferson and Madison -- expressly states their opinions and were pretty well unanimous that the States had the right to secede. Furthermore, several States EXPRESSLY reserved the right to revoke ratification. Virgina, for example, stated "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." Following the Hartford Convention, Jefferson stated: 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.'" In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison stated that "the people" as described in hte Constitution, meant: "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." Since he wrote the Constitution, he should have know what he meant by "the people" who reserved all power and right not granted to the central government.
2. If Lincoln's power to free the slaves in the South was only a war-time power which otherwise would have been illegal, then should that authority not have ended -- and the slaves have been reinvested in their owners -- at the end of the war. Although one may argue that the 13th amendment caused this not to occur, would not the slave owners then be entitled to just compensation for the government's exercise of eminent domain over their property.
Obviously not defending slavery, but just some thoughts.
Regarding the habeas argument, it is ironic that neither Congress nor the President, nor both acting in concert, have the right to suspend habeas for foreign nationals being held in Cuba, according to the "conservative-packed" US Supreme Court, yet US Citizens in the 1860's could be jailed without habeas for such offenses as printing editorials in the newspaper which criticized Lincoln, or who merely refused to affirmatively state their support for the war effort;conscription, etc.
krp
TRevolutionary War was not wildly popular; our white-Masonic Founding Fathers were almost all rich, white property holders and created a government of, for, and by rich white property holders. Because Lincoln gave campaign speeches in favor of slavery and his public stance was far more ambiguous than one might wish to believe; FDR was under intense pressure from the left and many of his actions can be seen as compromises to maintain some political status quo and head off even more sweeping reform; World War Two was wildly helpful for the profits of corporations and saw an abnormally high number of labor strikes. These are not the sides of those stories normally presented. You don't often hear about the pre-revolutionary and early US politicians playing off poor whites against blacks and Indians as a premeditated political maneuver, or about the reimposition of economic slavery on freed slaves immediately after the Civil War (complete with work contracts that differed from slavery only in the details).
ReplyDeleteThe discussion can be muddied with morality judgements forgetting the most important key element: Frame of Reference. In 1865, once could by tried, found guilty of robbery, and hanged in America. Even the most staunch John Birchy kind of person now would think that insane. Back then it was common place. We have to keep in mind that we raised in an era of common sense, knowing in our hearts that we are no better or worse as humans than any other minority. Lincoln's war that forever changed the United States from being and "are" to an "is" was in a time where that concept was not engraved in the knowledge of all americans. Even into the 1960's in the deep south - it still was not. And we also have to look at what Lincoln was having to deal with; a disnetegration of the union was one thing - but there was something else going on here. There was a higher moral cause here. There was the larger issue of what freedom meant in our coountry. Lincoln knew this. Can a state freely elect to escape unionship? As Jay points out - the founding father's being intelligent people would have never sat and delegated over the constitution if they felt one could opt out of this contract. The other issue was as a nation of free men - with a constitution that guarantees freedom for all - continue to exist with an entire race of people not included in the contract? This was a two-issue war - and no where in history had an issue come to a boiling point like this. And being the master politician he was, he to think both like a plantation owner, a union iron worker, a northern farmer, and the president. He had to save the union based on a unilateral interpretation of the constitution and as it applies to statehood, and he had to put an end to the institution of slaveholding. Of course - he did both the best way he could, and we all know - that the south, being both threatend by the loss of their farming-income and the other having egotistical thoughts of independance were the ones who caused the bloodshed. And Thank God for people like William Tecumseh Sherman who rightfully put their blind ego in check.
I think we should be asking - if we are so inclined to criticize a leader who had to deal with a crisis never before seen in the history of a democracy, propose manners and plans on how they would have handled the situation, and somehow predict the outcome of THEIR actions as acting commander in chief.
For myself, I will go on record as saying I think Lincoln was the most brilliant man this country has ever produced - running a close second to Thommas Jefforson. And I think Jefforson would be rolling over in his slave if he knew we were having this discussion. ;)
The founders -- especially Jefferson and Madison -- expressly states their opinions and were pretty well unanimous that the States had the right to secede.
ReplyDeleteThey had opinions sure. But where is it in the constitution where it gives even a hint of that intent. I don't see it.
2. If Lincoln's power to free the slaves in the South was only a war-time power which otherwise would have been illegal, then should that authority not have ended -- and the slaves have been reinvested in their owners -- at the end of the war. Although one may argue that the 13th amendment caused this not to occur, would not the slave owners then be entitled to just compensation for the government's exercise of eminent domain over their property.
I maybe wrong here but I think the South lost the Civil War. Losers of rebellions or wars are usually not rewarded with war damages or compensation.
That leads me to a separate point. I know I look at that war with 21st century eye. But slavery is and was a barbaric institution. The South did everything in its power to keep that institution up to and including war. Do defenders of the South really feel that the South had the moral high ground just because it was allowed in the constitution? That allowing of slavery was a moral flaw that the founders knew future generations would have to deal with. They did not have the courage to deal with it themselves. Lincoln did have that courage and and maybe more important the skill to pull it off. And thankfully because of him we were left a stronger nation and a nation that had the potential to be a place where all men are truly created equal
The 9th and 10th Amendments are on point. As Madison later explained, the central government was only a tool of the States, and if the people (meaning the people of an individual State) later wanted to dissolve that union, they were only exercising their reserved powers.
ReplyDeleteI agree the founders should have dealt with the issue, but the problem is that the 13 individual States never would have ratified the Constitution had the founders either 1.Banned slavery; or, 2. Allowed slavery and the slave trade to continue forever; or, 3. Counted slaves as a equal person. Of course, one also must keep in mind that, as GAV points out, Jefferson and many if not most other founders were "rolling over in their slaves'" poonani [not sure on the plural of this , poonana, perhaps? Help me out, although I have the BA in English]
Anyhoo, I am hardly a defender of the South. Rather I tend to be a critic of everything and anyone and, as either Jay or Al can tell you, I just like to stir shit up. I think this did a pretty good job of it, along with inspiring me to order some more books from Amazon. Since, as I like to remind my British friends, my family saw fit to "hop across the pond" beginning with a short, 10 week trip in 1620, and I count Sammy Adams and somewhere around 50 Revolutionary War soldiers among my ancestors including one who spent a winter at Valley Forge (along with several Union and NO Confederates), AND one whose 5th great grandparents were employers and friends of Abraham Lincoln, I am quite the defender of the US as it exists.
One of my favorite Military commanders of the War was Benjamin Butler. At the onset of the war southerners - and namely in Virginia, were demainding from the Union army for them to return any and all liberated slaves to them based on the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act. He explained to the Commander in Cheif of the Country that "I refuse to return them to their masters. The Fugitive Slave Act only applies to the United States of America, and not a foreign country, which Virginia claimed to be!"
ReplyDeleteThe very second the bell of secession rang in Charleston - where the originator of this blog went to undergraduate school, all bets were off, as far as I am concerened. I am sure even Lincoln had many private thoughts to himself - especially when he placed Grant at the head of the Union Army like, "Ok rednecks - you wannna play wit me? Say hello to my little friend!!!"
I think you all have too much free time.
ReplyDeleteEverybody knows that the Civil War was about booze and hookers.
The North had all the best Hookers, and Kentucky and Tennessee had all the good booze.
Hookers won. Get over it ... Drunky.
OK, that does it. I am now breaking out the Makers I have in my desk drawer.
ReplyDeleteJay said....
ReplyDeleteYou've started too late, Kevin - been enjoying the beer I've taken from a secret tap located in the bust of Lincoln I've got in my office for most of the day now.
Now that I have cleared my mind with fine Kentucky bourbon, I assumed that Jeff's entry was about hookers of the "poonani" variety and not a play on words. If you were talking about THE Hooker -- as in "Fightin Joe Hooker" -- whose ass was royally handed to him by Lee at Chancellorsville, it is ironic that you should mention him. In his appointment of Hooker to command, Lincoln wrote to him: "I have heard, in such way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the Army and the Government needed a Dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain successes, can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship. The government will support you to the utmost of it's ability . . ."
ReplyDeleteIf you have never seen a picture of Hooker, be sure to google him. I hardly think you would trust him as your Mark Antony or Brutus if you were Caesar.
Sic semper tyrannus.
Nope. I be talkin' about bitches. As in: "Bitch Better Have My Money!"
ReplyDeleteDoes that make Lincoln a pimp under my reasoning? I can image a modern-day pimp, all in black with a stove pipe hat.
"Four ho's and seven blow's ago, my bitches done gone and got their asses whipped for holdin' out on me!"
Going back to the subject of the lexis diem, poonani, I was wondering if Allen had considered having Callie Wade add this to her vocabulary list? I am sure she would be thrilled.
ReplyDeleteSo our spirited civil war debate has sunk to poonani,bitches and Hooker. This is all I have to say
ReplyDeleteego diligo poonani
The bitches better be giving me some money.
And this is whay I think Lincoln really thought of Hooker:
I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, fore-fleshing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey shit he is. Hallelujah. Holy shit. Where's the Tylenol?
Should we start on the subject of Lincoln's homosexuality, in honor of the 200th anniversary of his birth today. I can just see Joshua Speed in a sparkling evening dress with a sultry look crooning "Hap-py Birth-day Mis-ter Pres-i-dent . . ."
ReplyDeleteEeeeeeewwwwwwwwuuuuuh.
ReplyDeleteOK - I've been writing code all day, and I look to see what's been going on - what the hell?????
ReplyDeleteBut if we're all talking in this mode? Booth did Lincoln a favor. More than likely he was going into stage 2 Syphallis from the whore houses he visited as a young man. Indeed his wife (his second choice as a spouse) was a little-bit "Tonya" shall we say, but he probably gave he a few shots of the nasty syph beetle. She had to be later locked up by her son in the asylum. I think it better that Abe went out like Joplin, Hendrix, etc. and die while being seen at the top of his game as opposed to a lunatic syphlatic, as is the case with myself. Sic Semper Chlamydia!
See. I was right about the Hookers.
ReplyDeleteSic semper $20 for Happy Ending....
Valentines coming up. I have been trying to find one of those manicure/pedicure/massage deal for Jeni - but keep getting hung up on when I ask about how much extra they charge to give Jeni "the happy ending."
ReplyDeleteI love her that much.
J. Hagedorn could probably refer her to another attorney in Tell City who could do it, but he might beat the hell out of her also. Sorry, I was just in Continuing Ed. all day in Corydon with Chris Goffinet, and we were trading stories about a certain Perry County attorney. Continuing Ed is like "doing time," without the anal rape. If it included the latter, Allen would REALLY want to be an attorney.
ReplyDeleteI get most of my CLE at our annual Co-op attorney conference. This past year was at Amelia Island, Florida. Next year will be in Seattle.
ReplyDeleteChris was stuck here and couldn't go last November, hence he was there in Corydon with you. I'm sure he'll find a way to be free for Seattle.
That other attorney certainly wouldn't provide a "happy" ending. Nothing ends up happily with him.
Yeah, well, that's what happens when you work at a silk-stocking big-city firm. Us small town ham-and-eggers have to slog through the enjoyment of CLE in such exciting places as Evansville or Corydon.
ReplyDeleteI concur on the other attorney, although his kid nearly made it end happily for all, and to all a good night.
I sort of fogot, isn't this a thread about Lincoln and the Gettysburg address. Let me look, holy cow it is, or at least it was. Now it is about "happy endings" and attourney talk. I believe it is official, this comment thread has been hijacked. Do I call the Delta Force or a Seal Team to save it. Is it even worth saving? Or should it be put down so it is out of its misery? Poor poor Lincoln thread.
ReplyDeleteLincoln's syphilis kicked in and I lost track of the subject....
ReplyDeleteApologies, but note that our esteemed moderator, G. Allen, embarked on the V-tines theme, from a semi-legitimate digression concerning Maj.Gen. Hooker.
ReplyDelete