Dissing History

[unionblue]

Why pay taxes for a Government if you dont get the benefit.

They didn't pay taxes! There was no such thing at the time. The government operated from the collections of the tariff and the sale of federal lands.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Texas, the Federal government, and Indian policy seems like a topic worthy of a whole thread.

Thus the Northern mind thinks of the war as a gigantic rebellion to destroy the American Government, while the South conceived it to be a struggle for the preservation of constitutional freedom and their peculiar institutions.

I am really intrigued by reframing the central conflict of the war along these lines (if not those exact words). It describes the two sides into opposing viewpoints yet does not deny the significance of slavery.

 

[contestedground]

But CSA Today continually tells us that Lincoln was a tyrant. Do you mean to imply that he has been in error and Abe did not possess unlimited power?

Please don't ask people to offer consistent logic. It gets in the way of refighting the war in cyberspace.

 

[kicksavedave]

I think that is a very weak argument.

Lincoln could have taken no action in response to the firing on Fort Sumter. He possibility had the authority to negotiate a cease fire which is not a treaty and does not need congressional approval.

All of which effectively lets the South go.

Lincoln did not let the South go, because he affirmatively chose to suppress a hot rebellion. It was Davis that forced Lincoln to take action by his order to attack Fort Sumter making a cold war into a hot one.

Lincoln could also have used the considerable power of his position to lobby that it was good and right to let the South go, and worked his political effort towards a Constitutional Amendment that would have expressly allowed Secession. My dad actually thinks this was the proper way to have gone - to allow for self governance at whatever level people find common ground.

But Lincoln believed in preserving the Union and the Constitution (as it existed), and of course as the President he swore to uphold the Constitution (as it existed) which clearly called for levying war against the US to be an act of treason, Ft Sumpter being part of the US.

 

[cash]

I think that is a very weak argument.

Lincoln could have taken no action in response to the firing on Fort Sumter. He possibility had the authority to negotiate a cease fire which is not a treaty and does not need congressional approval.

All of which effectively lets the South go.

Lincoln did not let the South go, because he affirmatively chose to suppress a hot rebellion. It was Davis that forced Lincoln to take action by his order to attack Fort Sumter making a cold war into a hot one.

Lincoln's constitutional duty was to take care that the laws of the United States were enforced. Levying war on the United States [firing on Fort Sumter] is treason, and in order to enforce the laws of the United States he had to respond. So if he ws going to honorably do his job as President of the United States, he had no choice but to respond to the firing on Fort Sumter.

 

[jgoodguy]

Lincoln's constitutional duty was to take care that the laws of the United States were enforced. Levying war on the United States [firing on Fort Sumter] is treason, and in order to enforce the laws of the United States he had to respond. So if he ws going to honorably do his job as President of the United States, he had no choice but to respond to the firing on Fort Sumter.

I see it more as a political affirmation of his beliefs. There is no one forcing him to anything. He affirmatively suppressed the rebellion because he believed it was the right thing to do.

 

[kicksavedave]

I see it more as a political affirmation of his beliefs. There is no one forcing him to anything. He affirmatively suppressed the rebellion because he believed it was the right thing to do.

Well, technically he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, so it wasn't so much as his personal belief, it was his sworn duty.

His interpretation of the Constitution is also not really that debatable, its entirely cut and dry. Accepting Secession was debatable. Tolerating the attack on Ft Sumpter was not. He was president for 30 some days with many states already having seceded, but he did not actively wage war until Ft Sumpter.

 

[cash]

I see it more as a political affirmation of his beliefs. There is no one forcing him to anything. He affirmatively suppressed the rebellion because he believed it was the right thing to do.

It was his duty. He had sworn an oath to perform his duty, and the Constitution clearly enjoins him to take care that the laws are enforced.

 

[jgoodguy]

It was his duty. He had sworn an oath to perform his duty, and the Constitution clearly enjoins him to take care that the laws are enforced.

However it is his prerogative to interpret his duty and to uphold his oath. There is no power forcing him. Lincoln is not a victim of his fate, but the master.

 

[cash]

However it is his prerogative to interpret his duty and to uphold his oath. There is no power forcing him. Lincoln is not a victim of his fate, but the master.

Seems very clear that when people commit treason enforcing the law means ending the treason.

 

[jgoodguy]

Well, technically he took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, so it wasn't so much as his personal belief, it was his sworn duty.

His interpretation of the Constitution is also not really that debatable, its entirely cut and dry. Accepting Secession was debatable. Tolerating the attack on Ft Sumpter was not. He was president for 30 some days with many states already having seceded, but he did not actively wage war until Ft Sumpter.

His oath and duty are subject to his interpretation. Impeachment is the only deterrence.

 

[jgoodguy]

Seems very clear that when people commit treason enforcing the law means ending the treason.

I have made my position clear. Lincoln was not a victim of circumstance. He chose his path.

 

[uaskme]

Hmm, an eternal question. But what if the Federal gov't was impeded from providing the now complained about protection by the state of Texas itself?

From page 79 of a thesis entitled, States Rights in Texas: The Growth of an Idea, 1850-1860

While the federal government was unquestionably sincere in its efforts to safeguard the frontier, its policies, from the beginning, were constantly criticized by Texans. Many were the weaknesses of the federal In¬ dian policy and none went unnoticed. First, the military force was inadequate to afford protection. Scattered over hundreds of miles, the unmounted soldiers had little opportunity to encounter Indians on horseback.

Second, because Texas was a state rather than a territory, the army and the federal Indian agents had less authority than they otherwise would have possessed. To regulate intercourse among citizens, traders, and Indians was the state's function; Texas, however in the late 1850's was unable to do this. Still the state would not give *the federal agents or the army unlimited power to handle the problem.27

Third, frontier defense was an expensive undertaking. Sam Houston charged in 1852 that the national government was spending .$6,000,000 & year to preserve the Indian peace; that the sum was uselessly ex¬ pended; and that, given $100,000, he could guarantee peace on the frontier.When the inefficiency of the federal troops (especially after 1856) forced Texas to summon its Rangers to defend the frontier, the state naturally expected to be reimbursed by the federal govern¬ ment . That it was not only intensified the criticism of that government.29

27 See Webb, Texas Rangers,pg. 128.
28 See Clarence R. Wharton, Texas Under Many Flags (5 vols., Chicago, 1930), II, 3
​

But, it appears that the Texans, in conflict with a Federal policy of peaceful coexistence, were more interested in Indian extermination and were forced to rely upon the valiant Texas Rangers.

Those weaknesses in governmental policy were significant, but it was the government's attitude towards the Indians which provoked greater condemnation. Essentially the federal government strove to protect the Indians against extermination as long as they were peaceful. The Texans, however, impatient with the clumsy methods and humanitarian policy of the United States army, believed that the federal government should enroll the Rangers, pay them, then allow them to !,run all the Mexicans into the Rio Grande and all the Indians into the Red River."3°

https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/89083/RICE0120.pdf?sequence=1
​

This to appears to be less than a failure of protection than a straight out advocacy by the state of Texas of a policy of extermination. But, I suppose if Texans WERE DEMANDING IT, then it must be OK.

Well, it might b a little difficult to determine the threat levels and responses from 150 years ago. Each of these States re evalued the Value of Union and said , we are Done. The Northern States did the same thing. It wasn't worth it to them to Compromise with the South, again.

Southern States made it known after the 1850 Compromise they were considering Succession. The Election of a purely Sectional Party was known to be a Trugger. Republicans didn't respect Union the same way the National Parties of the Whigs or Democrats. All are Historical Facts.

 

[kicksavedave]

I have made my position clear. Lincoln was not a victim of circumstance. He chose his path.

You mean he chose to defend the country he lead when it was attacked? He would have been derelict in his duty had he not. How can this even be spun any other way?

Part of his oath was defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

In fact he did attempt to negotiate with the secession movement, but ignoring an all out attack on a US military base was an act of war. In what world is the President supposed to insert his own judgement to ignore that?

 

[kicksavedave]

You mean he chose to defend the country he lead when it was attacked? He would have been derelict in his duty had he not. How can this even be spun any other way?

Part of his oath was defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

In fact he did attempt to negotiate with the secession movement, but ignoring an all out attack on a US military base was an act of war. In what world is the President supposed to insert his own judgement to ignore that?

Actually I correct myself. The presidential oath does NOT state "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" Those words are found in the oath of office for the Vice President and members of Congress, but that oath is made in statute, not in the Constitution. The President's oath is merely as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[WJC]

What authority did Lincoln have to "let the South go"?
It wasn't up to him.

Do you suppose that's why he refused to "let the South go"? Maybe it had something to do with honoring his oath of office, something many rebels were reluctant to do....
Lincoln swore to "preserve, protect and defend" our Constitution. Once shots were fired, it was his responsibilty as Commander in Chief to put down the rebellion.

 

[WJC]

A Southern Record The History of the Third Regiment, Louisiana Infantry by W H Tunnard published in 1866, written by a soldier

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa;cc=moa;rgn=main;view=text;idno=abj7391.0001.001

Chapter I. TRUTHFULNESS is the gem which gives to History its greatest charm; the golden light which adorns it with mellow rays for all coming time. Hence in making History by our own deeds, or writing them for present and future ages, we should , surprisingly, it really was about slavery....adhere strictly to the promulgation of facts alone. It is a lamentable circumstance that deep-seated, ineradicable prejudices have been ingrafted into every published record which has been given to the public concerning the late struggle. Men must be governed by fixed principles, must adhere to cherished thoughts and feelings, and hence act, speak and write in conformity with these controlling influences. Thus the Northern mind thinks of the war as a gigantic rebellion to destroy the American Government, while the South conceived it to be a struggle for the preservation of constitutional freedom and their peculiar institutions. No one at the present time can properly determine the truth. Justice, with her nicely-balanced scales, must wait for historians of the next century to properly weigh facts, in order to discriminate between the North and South, and give to the world a correct record of events connected with this gigantic internecine strife. Fanaticism, that foul demon of discord and strife, first reared its hydra-head among the mountains and hills of New England. From an insignificant birth, it grew in strength and power until its influence extended over the whole North. The first aim and object of this foul spirit was the eradication of slavery on this continent, an interference with the peculiar institutions of one section by the powerful arm of the opposing section. In opposition to fanaticism grew up an equally malignant spirit in the South. As years passed by, feelings of hatred and enmity first engendered, grew in intensity and bitterness until all compromise was rejected and the sword was unsheathed to settle the differences which existed. Of the opening acts of the war it is needless to write. They are known by every man, woman and child in the land, and are engraven in characters.

So, surprisingly, it really was about slavery....

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

I think Lincoln did a dang good job with what was thrust upon him so early in his term of his Presidency. No matter if you like him or not, which I personally do like him, he had what I think the most intense pressure that any President has had to face......a nation divided.

 

[John Hartwell]

Do you suppose that's why he refused to "let the South go"? Maybe it had something to do with honoring his oath of office, something many rebels were reluctant to do....

Exactly. He could have done nothing, but his oath required that he defend the nation and the constitution "against all enemies foreign and domestic." As President, he had no right/authority to do otherwise.

Of course, now we're likely to hear some blather about the secessionists being the "real" defenders of the constitution ... somehow to be accomplished by tearing apart the "perpetual Union" it created.

For Lincoln to have "done nothing" would have been tantamount to complete and abject surrender to the threat of force. It would have been both cowardly and treasonous.

 

[WJC]

Why pay taxes for a Government if you dont get the benefit.

Perhaps because everyone agreed to that system.