Lee's High Hopes for Maryland

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by unionblue

The numbers I gave you, though, specifically concerned the State of Maryland, and were provided from historical sources that are on record and can be verified.

As we have seen by the statement of Gen. Ainsworth, Chief of the Records and Pension office, there were possibly thousands not recorded.

Usurped powers? Kinda hard for me to go for that when Congress endorsed his actions and even provided for the President to make further suspensions of the writ in the future if required.

The northern Congress covered Lincolns tracks with the Act they passed, but this was after the fact.

Please see such rulings as Merryman, Milligan, etc. if you have any doubts regarding the powers usurped by Lincoln.

I am also puzzeled how you can make claims that you know my views regarding the Constitution and how far apart we are from a few posts, especially how you can claim the document in question is the Supreme Law of the Land and then turn around and support secession.

Yes, I support secession precisely because of that document. Given only your statement above, the width of said gulf is in plain view.

As for my views on self-determination, I fear you are reading your own views over mine, but I expect that, but I caution you that you do not have all the information you need to make that judgment call.

You have avoided a direct statement on self-determination for years now, on various threads, and in spite of my asking of the question from many and diverse angles. So, I am left only with your statements that consistently and repeatedly come down in support of coercion and government over self-determination.

If you have witheld any information on that point from me, it is not because I haven't been persistent and determined in my various and repeated attempts to squeeze it out of you. I've given you ample and varied opportunities to express them fully and directly. In spite of my efforts over the months and years, I have failed miserably in wrenching a direct answer from you.

So, I am left only with what you've given me.

My own research in this area has led me to about 30 newspapers shut down (in the North) during the war, many for reasons other than voicing opinions, and no one has been able to point me to a list of said papers to prove this statement.

I would very much like examples of Northern papers shut down for just voicing their opinions...

To make sure I understand the information you seek, perhaps another round of defining is called for. "Shutting down," in my usage, includes anything from actually closing of the doors, to witholding means of distribution.

Secondly, please define "northern."

Were some arrested for political opposition and voicing views contrary to the Administration? It is possible, even likely, but not in the numbers suggested by yourself or others who trot out the 38,000 number.

It is not only possible, or even just likely. It is known by any and all that have researched the topic to any appreciable extent. Given your statement suggesting you have done the reserch, I must assume you know that already, and don't need me to prove that point to you. Is that an accurate and fair assumption?

As to the number, as I have stated several times, I don't see how there is any way of knowing the exact number.

Surely we can agree on that!

And again, the Confederacy seems to get a pass if it commits the same sort of actions...

I don't believe there is any parallel to the Lincoln adminstration's usurpation in the Davis adminstration.

If Lincoln was such a dictator, a man who gave no concern to rights and free speech, why have an election at all in 1864? I know that Lincoln was told by some of his advisors NOT to hold an election in the middle of a war, but he insisted it take place. Even when he thought he was going to lose it. Does this in any way makes sense if you are a despot bent on keeping power?

Even the Communist Chinese and other such regimes hold "elections." And yes, they are despots bent on keeping power. Lincoln's concern for rights and free speech were clearly subordinate to his concern for disallowing self-determination of the people of the various States -- like other regimes that hold "elections."

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

So many statements, so many wrong conclusions!

I have avoided a 'direct statement' on self-determination for 'years now on various threads?' I feel that because I have failed to arrive at your own point of view on the matter of secession that you place me in the 'coercion' and 'government over self-determination' column.

More percisely, if you kwould like my view on the subject, I view the action of secession in 1861 an attempt to deprive the majority of their self-determination, not some act of brave souls trying to define a new concept of liberty. I view that rebellion as one of the most selfish attempts by men to deny self-determination to their fellow citizens, an attempt to keep a social order intact that looked down at the majority of men as inferiors, to be kept in their place.

In my own view, the rebellion of 1861 was a massive attempt by a selfish minority to apply coercion onto the entire nation and to hell with what anyone else thought or wished. An attempt to overthrow a weak central government and set up shop in their own section of that nation, and have things their own way, in spite of a free, national election and in spite of the world at large passing them by. I hope this answers some of your many questions on the subject over the years.

As for your definition of shutting down newspapers, I agree with it, just provide those instances please.

As for my research in to the types of arrests made during the war, it is because of that research that we are somewhat at odds. I simply do not agree with you over what you seem to believe indicates what was the extent of political arrests. We can agree over not knowing the exact number, but we have indications that clearly seem to indicate that Lincoln was not the dictator you presume him to be.

And here is my primary complaint when it comes to the sins of the Confederacy, you don't 'believe' there is any parallel to the Lincoln administration's 'usurpation' in the Davis administration. And the research you have done in this area, the books you have read, etc? In my own patch of the research woods, there are plenty of 'sins' to be visited upon the Davis administration and they were loud enough to be recorded by members of his own cabinet.

And now your last comments concerning the election of 1864. Are you now claiming that Lincoln 'threw' or 'fixed' the election of 1864? Please, Hal, what evidence do you have to support this claim?

Unionblue

[unionblue]

Hal,

Here is the quote I was looking for in response to you on the election of 1864.

Abraham Lincoln was urged by some aides to suspend the election of 1864 - but despite the expectation that he would lose, he refused.

"The election is a necessity," Lincoln said. "We cannot have a free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forgo, or postpone, a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered us."

Here are a couple of web sites on the election of 1864:

Election of 1864.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h201.html

http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/...ection14.rhtml

From reading both these sites, I do not understand how anyone could come to the conclusion that Lincoln or his party thought they had the 1864 election 'in the bag' sort-of-speak. From some of the books I have read concerning this time period before the election, even his own party had asked him to step aside so someone 'electable' could take Lincoln's place and to give the Republican party a chance at the polls.

This simply does not come across as a man in complete control of the country nor of the press nor of the voting public themselves. If you have such evidence, I would appreciate you sharing it with me.

Unionblue

[unionblue]

Hal,

Found an article on the breakdown of arrests during the war.

Lincoln Administration & Arbitrary Arrests: A Reconsideration, by Mark E. Neely Jr.

http://www.historycooperative.org/jo...a/5/neely.html

I hope you and others find the figures interesting.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[whitworth]

Robert E. Lee seemed to have some strange notions that all Virginians and all Marylanders would hold a similar political position as his.

Before his move into Maryland, he requested the use of a former Maryland governor, from Jefferson Davis, "to be able to collect supplies to advantage in Maryland..."

Later Lee would write Davis, "Some cattle, but not in any great numbers, are obtained in this country, the inhabitants are said to have driven many off to Pennsylvania."

In 1861, he had written an officer in western Virginia, "regret that you have been unsuccessful in organizing the companies of volunteers you expected."

Lee missed the mark on a number of occasions. Apparently at the beginning of the war, Lee was unaware how desperate the Confederate armies would be for supplies, and that the Confederate States, would never meet the needs of the army.