- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
It wasn't in the last part and I didn't say it was.. It was in a later speech, which I have already posted to you numerious times..
-
Welcome to CivilWarTalk, a forum about the American Civil War! - Join today! It's fast, simple, and FREE!
The Imaginary Abe Lincoln
- Thread starter CSA Today
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
Hmmmmm so I guess its ok for you to hold Lincoln to one part of a paragraph but not another part?
I guess the majority did put down the minority who opposed their movement to a free soceity..
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Location
- Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
FrazierC,
I agree totally.
Thomas DiLorenzo get its completely wrong in his book, The Real Lincoln, by misquotes, twisting of sources, etc. The man writes for the believers of the 'Lost Cause' and no one else.
If you keep reading past his first three chapters you will encounter more of the same. BUT READ THEM ALL Be sure of what you yourself has found out and do not rely upon the opinions of others.
Source checking DiLorenzo and his many misuses of others published works is well worth your effort to find out the historical facts vice the fantasy the man spins for his hard-core fans.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
link doesn't work UB
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Location
- Near Kankakee
I find it more amusing than regretful. What fools these mortals be.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Location
- Near Kankakee
I can't either. Obviously, you and I weren't there to fight for the Union. I'm glad I was't.
We have those who want to continue that fight. I'd rather remember those who fought more recent fights. As Americans.
damYankee
Captain
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2011
How much would you bet, many of them are the descendants of Confederate veterans?
I wonder how many grandsons of Confederate veterans died on D-Day, or on Iwo Jima, or on some piece of floating iron, so we could sit here on our soft sofas and argue about such things as this?
I wonder how many grandsons of Confederate veterans died on D-Day, or on Iwo Jima, or on some piece of floating iron, so we could sit here on our soft sofas and argue about such things as this?
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Location
- Laurinburg NC
I would say yes since it is clear Lincoln was saying something quite different from his 1848 speech by the time of his presidency.
You wrote: "I guess the majority did put down the minority who opposed their movement to a free soceity.."
If you mean by "free society" the North and West, there was strong opposition toward the movement of blacks (slave or free) into those areas during the 19th century.
"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements."
Abraham Lincoln January 12 1848
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Location
- Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
"...we must not be asked to say that the South was right in the rebellion, or to say the North was wrong. We must not be asked to put no difference between those who fought for the Union and those who fought against it, or between loyalty and treason....It was a war of ideas....between a government based upon the broadest and grandest declaration of human rights the world ever heard or read, and another pretended government, based upon an open, bold, and shocking denial of all rights, except the right of the strongest." Frederick Douglass "There Was A Right Side in The Late War," May 30, 1878.
Unionblue
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Location
- Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The Imaginary Secessionist: A Reply to Joe Sobran's Imaginary Abe, by Harry V. Jaffa, 11/13/2001.
"Joe Sobran is writing a book about Lincoln in which he will "argue that if there is a right of secession it follows that Lincoln had no authority to suppress secession by force." That is the one point upon which Sobran and I agree. If secession was a lawful right, then certainly Lincoln's action against the Confederacy was wrong. But if secession was not lawful, not authorized by the Constitution itself, then secession was indistinguishable from rebellion, and Lincoln, having taken an oath that the laws be faithfully executed, had both a right and a duty to suppress it.
In our dispute, everything turns upon whether or not secession, as a right to withdraw from the Union, without the consent of the Union, or of any other state, really can be considered a constitutional right. Whether or not secession can be considered a lawful right, depends in its turn upon whether the states can be considered individually sovereign. That in turn depends a priori upon whether, as Sobran asserts (following John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, Willmoore Kendall, Mel Bradford, and Garry Wills) the thirteen states that declared their independence from Great Britain, on July 4, 1776, at the same time and by the same act, declared their independence from each other. This contention, that the original states were as separately sovereign from each other as from any foreign state, is the fundamental premise of the secessionist argument. Without it, everything else they say falls to the ground.
Sobran, following the long tradition going back to Calhoun, makes much of the fact that the Declaration ends by saying "That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states..." A free and independent state, says Sobran, means one that can either join or withdraw (i.e. secede) from a confederacy with other states. But Sobran does not quote the following, from the same sentence, viz., "that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." In a review of Garry Wills' Inventing America, in which Wills makes the same point as Sobran, Edmund Morgan, Sterling Professor of American History at Yale, after quoting the foregoing passage of the Declaration, asks:
Which of these free and independent states undertook to do the acts and things that Jefferson specified as characteristics of a state? It was the Congress that levied war through the Continental Army; it was Congress that concluded peace through its appointed commissioners; and it was Congress that contracted the alliance with France. Congress may not have established commerce, but in the Association it had disestablished it, and in a resolution of the preceding April 6, it had opened American ports to all the world except England.
I think it is utterly absurd to think that the states that declared their independence from Great Britain imagined for a moment that they were declaring their independence from each other. As Benjamin Franklin remarked, if they didn't hang together they would hang separately. They had no chance of independence except by union, and they never thought that they were sovereign except by means of union. They were indeed sovereign, but only as joint and several participants in the sovereignty of the union they had formed.
If we look back at the political process by which the Congress reached the decision for independence, we find that the resolutions of the revolutionary colonial assemblies, by which their representatives in the Continental Congress were authorized and instructed, were resolution for both independence and union. New Hampshire for example instructed its delegate "to join with the other colonies in declaring the thirteen United Colonies a free and independent state..." No one apparently noticed, or thought it unusual, that New Hampshire referred to the thirteen states as one state! In all the resolutions for union however, each colony reserved to itself the exclusive jurisdiction of its "internal police," or "internal polity." In these resolutions one sees the origin of that division of sovereignty which became the hallmark of American federalism, a system of dual sovereignty which had never before been seen in the world. The world had seen powerful empires, and small republics. But it had never seen a system of government which combined the power of a great empire with the freedom associated heretofore only with small republics. All this was made possible by what Madison called a form of government "partly federal, partly national." Calhoun however denied that sovereignty was divisible: he said that like chastity it could not be surrendered in part. He would not admit that by the adoption of the Constitution the meaning of the word "federal" had changed. But he was wrong, and anyone who wants to know why should read Madison's strictures against Calhoun at the time of the nullification crisis. And Calhoun's followers, to this day, misunderstand the nature of sovereignty under the Constitution.
The dual federalism that reached maturity in the Constitution of 1787 had its origin, as we see, in the movement for independence itself, which was a movement for independence and union. This confirmed in the resolutions of Jefferson and Madison for the Board of Overseers of the Univeristy of Virginia in 1825, when they referred to the Declaration of Independence as "the act of Union of these states."
But the process by which sovereign powers were transferred to the government of the union was a difficult one, and was deeply involved in the struggle for ratification..."
To be continued...
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Location
- Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Continued from above...Part 2.
The Imaginary Secessionist: A Reply to Joe Sobran's Imaginary Abe, by Harry V. Jaffa, 11/13/2001.
"...The states were and remained individually sovereign as to their internal affairs, but not with respect to the common defense and the general welfare. How in practice the line was to be drawn between the two kinds of sovereign power would be an unending task, one that continues to the presnet day. However difficult to apply, the distinction remains fundamental for American federalism, and for the blessings of libert that we enjoy.
Sobran tries to find support for his obsolete federalism in the first part of Article II of the Articles of Confederation. The whole Article reads as follows:
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.
Sobran thinks that the "sovereignty, freedom and independence" said to be retained by each state supports his case. But what is retained is qualified by the subtraction of the "power, jurisdiction, and right expressly delegated to the United States." The sovereignty of the states had already been limited, in the act of union in the Declaration of Independence, to their internal government. Sovereignty with respect to internal government is what is retained. It detracts not at all from the sovereignty of the Union in respect to common defense and general welfare. Nor can Sobran find any comfort in the fact that the Articles are "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union." A Union incorporating the right of secession could hardly expect to be "perpetual."
The Articles of Confederation, forged in the midst of a hard won war, proved inadequate to the government of a federal union. Lacking an executive or judiciary, and with no power to collect taxes by its own instruments, it was not a real government. The United States was suffering many of the ills of anarchy, or of an unrelieved state of nature. The states simply had not transferred enough sovereign powers to the government of the union. These deficiencies had to be and certainly were overcome by the Constitution of 1787. The Convention, working in peacetime, and having no other responsibility other than to devise the best government it could agree upon, gave the world the first example ever of government by reflection and choice, and not of accident and force. In so doing, it completed the transformation of the meaning of the word "federal" begun in the Declaration of Independence. This is shown by the letter by which Washington transmitted the Constitution to the then existing Congress, which thereupon set in motion the ratifying conventions of the people of the several states. Washington wrote, in part, that:
It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all--individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.
Of the greatest interest is Washington's remark about "individuals entering into society." He assumes as a matter of course, as did all the Founding Fathers, a pre-political state of nature, in which men's liberty--which is the same as their sovereignty--is perfect, but in which life is precarious. They join with other human beings, to form a government in which the organized collective power of all protects each. What Locke calls the executive power of the state of nature is now transferred from the individual to the government. In the state of nature men have "no common judge." In civil society government furnishes such a judge, and men must submit their disputes to the rule of law. The perfect sovereignty of the state of nature is now diminished, but only to the extent necessary to gain protection for men's lives, liberty, and property. But all sovereignty is understood to be a transfer of power from the source of sovereignty--individuals in the state of nature--to government. According to Washington, the states stand to each other a priori as individuals in the state of nature. They can only gain what is necessary "for the interest and security of all" by surrendering some of the rights of independent sovereignty to the government of the Union. The idea that the states remained in full possession of sovereignty is simply inconsistent with the political theory upon which this nation was founded. For this we have the assurance of George Washington.
Sobran objected to Lincoln's calling the United States a "nation" in the Gettysburg Address. Washington, in commending the work of the Convention to the Congress--and to the American people--also wrote:
In all our deliberations...we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence.
Washington has addressed himself to "every true American," whose "greatest interest" is in "the consolidation of our Union," that is to say one in which the sovereignty of the states has been merged into that of the nation. At the end Washington also speaks of "the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all..." That country is not Virginia, or New York, or Massachusetts, but the Union of Abraham Lincoln, the United States."
The Imaginary Secessionist: A Reply to Joe Sobran's Imaginary Abe, by Harry V. Jaffa, 11/13/2001.
"...The states were and remained individually sovereign as to their internal affairs, but not with respect to the common defense and the general welfare. How in practice the line was to be drawn between the two kinds of sovereign power would be an unending task, one that continues to the presnet day. However difficult to apply, the distinction remains fundamental for American federalism, and for the blessings of libert that we enjoy.
Sobran tries to find support for his obsolete federalism in the first part of Article II of the Articles of Confederation. The whole Article reads as follows:
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.
Sobran thinks that the "sovereignty, freedom and independence" said to be retained by each state supports his case. But what is retained is qualified by the subtraction of the "power, jurisdiction, and right expressly delegated to the United States." The sovereignty of the states had already been limited, in the act of union in the Declaration of Independence, to their internal government. Sovereignty with respect to internal government is what is retained. It detracts not at all from the sovereignty of the Union in respect to common defense and general welfare. Nor can Sobran find any comfort in the fact that the Articles are "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union." A Union incorporating the right of secession could hardly expect to be "perpetual."
The Articles of Confederation, forged in the midst of a hard won war, proved inadequate to the government of a federal union. Lacking an executive or judiciary, and with no power to collect taxes by its own instruments, it was not a real government. The United States was suffering many of the ills of anarchy, or of an unrelieved state of nature. The states simply had not transferred enough sovereign powers to the government of the union. These deficiencies had to be and certainly were overcome by the Constitution of 1787. The Convention, working in peacetime, and having no other responsibility other than to devise the best government it could agree upon, gave the world the first example ever of government by reflection and choice, and not of accident and force. In so doing, it completed the transformation of the meaning of the word "federal" begun in the Declaration of Independence. This is shown by the letter by which Washington transmitted the Constitution to the then existing Congress, which thereupon set in motion the ratifying conventions of the people of the several states. Washington wrote, in part, that:
It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all--individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest.
Of the greatest interest is Washington's remark about "individuals entering into society." He assumes as a matter of course, as did all the Founding Fathers, a pre-political state of nature, in which men's liberty--which is the same as their sovereignty--is perfect, but in which life is precarious. They join with other human beings, to form a government in which the organized collective power of all protects each. What Locke calls the executive power of the state of nature is now transferred from the individual to the government. In the state of nature men have "no common judge." In civil society government furnishes such a judge, and men must submit their disputes to the rule of law. The perfect sovereignty of the state of nature is now diminished, but only to the extent necessary to gain protection for men's lives, liberty, and property. But all sovereignty is understood to be a transfer of power from the source of sovereignty--individuals in the state of nature--to government. According to Washington, the states stand to each other a priori as individuals in the state of nature. They can only gain what is necessary "for the interest and security of all" by surrendering some of the rights of independent sovereignty to the government of the Union. The idea that the states remained in full possession of sovereignty is simply inconsistent with the political theory upon which this nation was founded. For this we have the assurance of George Washington.
Sobran objected to Lincoln's calling the United States a "nation" in the Gettysburg Address. Washington, in commending the work of the Convention to the Congress--and to the American people--also wrote:
In all our deliberations...we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence.
Washington has addressed himself to "every true American," whose "greatest interest" is in "the consolidation of our Union," that is to say one in which the sovereignty of the states has been merged into that of the nation. At the end Washington also speaks of "the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all..." That country is not Virginia, or New York, or Massachusetts, but the Union of Abraham Lincoln, the United States."
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Location
- Laurinburg NC
Frederick Douglas is entitled to his opinion, but it is no more than that – his opinion.
"He alone deserves to be remembered by his children who treasures up and preserves the memory of his fathers."
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Battalion
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2005
Wasn't this the guy who was complicit in the raid on a Federal arsenal?...where several innocent people were killed?
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Location
- Laurinburg NC
Sobran's new book sounds like a good read –can't for it to come out.
" If we were wrong in our contest, then the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was a grave mistake and the revolution to which it led was a crime. If Washington was a patriot; Lee cannot have been a rebel."
Wade Hampton
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2011
Well, you can't say that about the slave states. They typically required newly-free blacks to move out of their state or face re-enslavement, so they were all for movement.
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Location
- Laurinburg NC
Well, you can't say that about the slave states. They typically required newly-free blacks to move out of their state or face re-enslavement, so they were all for movement.
They were all for movement where, another slave state that didn't want them or to a Northern or western state that didn't want them? In any case, the law wasn't strongly enforced in the South, Maryland and Virginia had the largest population of free blacks in the country, North Carolina was in the top five or six and all Southern Sates had free blacks with long time residency.
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants."
Albert Camus
KeyserSoze
Captain
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2011
- Location
- Kansas City
Sounds like fightin' the war that the South started to me.
KeyserSoze
Captain
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2011
- Location
- Kansas City
Thomas Dilorenzo is to scholarship what Helen Thomas is to beauty pagents.
Similar threads
Similar threads
- Learn About Us
- ►About CivilWarTalk
- ►Contact the Webmaster
- ►Meet the Staff
- ►Link to CivilWarTalk
- Join Our Community
- ►Register
- ►Browse Forums
- ►View Today's Discussions
- ►Search the Forum
- Get Help
- ►FAQ
- ►Student Guide
- ►Forum Rules & Etiquette
- ►Copyright / DMCA
Bringing the