Civil War

[eted]

I was listening to the first Bill Maher interview of Ron Paul and I became aware of Dr. Paul's views on the Civil War. I have become somewhat well-versed in my Lincoln history over the last few years working at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum and my resulting change of attitude toward him was one of the reasons I was drawn to Ron Paul.

But I can't believe that Paul, who I thought was supposed to be a political expert, would think that Lincoln fought the war for centralized power of the Fed. I know this is a hotly debated issue in some circles but I have to point out a few facts surrounding this.

Lincoln did not want the war. In his second inaugural address he clearly states that the people wanted the war:

"On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."

Plus consider that the war was orchestrated by a band of traitorous senators, Senator Jefferson Davis chief among them. Many compromises had been attempted over the years preceding the war. Certainly no one was *for* the Civil War, and Paul's point is true that other countries had peacefully abolished slavery but an unholy union of senators and Southern businessmen intending to secure future profits from slave labor had conspired to overthrow the government by contesting Federal authority and convinced seven states to secede as soon as Lincoln had been elected. The war broke out officially due to the attack on Fort Sumter by Southern rebel forces.

Ironically, there wasn't anything Lincoln could do about slavery until war broke out. Essentially, the Judicial branch interprets the law: Justice Tawney said that slavery was law during the Scott case and that slaves were property without rights under the law, the Executive branch implements the laws, cannot break them or change them, and the Legislative makes and/or changes them. Lincoln utilized his war powers granted him by the Constitution to seize the property of rebellious citizens as an "act of military necessity," which are the exact words in the Emancipation Proclamation.

Later he wrote a new amendment to the Constitution which Congress passed after the war, abolishing slavery once and for all. I don't think it's fair at all to say that Lincoln was a tyrannical president who lusted for federal power. He simply felt, as I believe all citizens of the United States do, that the states should not be separate autonomous countries and that human rights matter more than states rights. That is, that the rights of the individual should not be infringed upon by state government and that states do not have the inherent right of secession. Had Congress chosen to listen to him as a Representative, and perhaps if they had acted with more resolve to peacefully end slavery, the treasonous senators would not have been so successful in nearly toppling our then 60-year-old country.

 

[Abobo]

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." -- Abraham Lincoln

 

[Spirit of '76]

Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes
Which Have Impelled Them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the
Confederate States of America.​

When circumstances beyond their control compel one people to sever the ties which have long existed between them and another state or confederacy, and to contract new alliances and establish new relations for the security of their rights and liberties, it is fit that they should publicly declare the reasons by which their action is justified.

The Cherokee people had its origin in the South; its institutions are similar to those of the Southern States, and their interests identical with theirs. Long since it accepted the protection of the United States of America, contracted with them treaties of alliance and friendship, and allowed themselves to be to a great extent governed by their laws.

In peace and war they have been faithful to their engagements with the United States. With much of hardship and injustice to complain of, they resorted to no other means than solicitation and argument to obtain redress. Loyal and obedient to the laws and the stipulations of their treaties, they served under the flag of the United States, shared the common dangers, and were entitled to a share in the common glory, to gain which their blood was freely shed on the battlefield.

When the dissensions between the Southern and Northern States culminated in a separation of State after State from the Union they watched the progress of events with anxiety and consternation. While their institutions and the contiguity of their territory to the States of Arkansas, Texas, and Missouri made the cause of the seceding States necessarily their own cause, their treaties had been made with the United States, and they felt the utmost reluctance even in appearance to violate their engagements or set at naught the obligations of good faith.

Conscious that they were a people few in numbers compared with either of the contending parties, and that their country might with no considerable force be easily overrun and devastated and desolation and ruin be the result if they took up arms for either side, their authorities determined that no other course was consistent with the dictates of prudence or could secure the safety of their people and immunity from the horrors of a war waged by an invading enemy than a strict neutrality, and in this decision they were sustained by a majority of the nation.

That policy was accordingly adopted and faithfully adhered to. Early in the month of June of the present year the authorities of the nation declined to enter into negotiations for an alliance with the Confederate States, and protested against the occupation of the Cherokee country by their troops, or any other violation of their neutrality. No act was allowed that could be construed by the United States to be a violation of the faith of treaties.

But Providence rules the destinies of nations, and events, by inexorable necessity, overrule human resolutions. The number of the Confederate States has increased to eleven, and their Government is firmly established and consolidated. Maintaining in the field an army of 200,000 men, the war became for them but a succession of victories. Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted by the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of the Northern States themselves to self-government is founded, of altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties.

Throughout the Confederate States we saw this great revolution effected without violence or the suspension of the laws or the closing of the courts. The military power was nowhere placed above the civil authorities. None were seized and imprisoned at the mandate of arbitrary power. All division among the people disappeared, and the determination became unanimous that there should never again be any union with the Northern States. Almost as one man all who were able to bear arms rushed to the defense of an invaded country, and nowhere has it been found necessary to compel men to serve or to enlist mercenaries by the offer of extraordinary bounties.

But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated Constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all the rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In States which still adhered to the Union a military despotism has displaced the civil power and the laws became silent amid arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any law warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men. The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into regiments and brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion and without process of law in jails, in forts, and in prison-ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet ministers; while the press ceased to be free, the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in battle were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of their Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by Southern hands.

Whatever causes the Cherokee people may have had in the past, to complain of some of the Southern States, they cannot but feel that their interests and their destiny are inseparably connected with those of the South. The war now raging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the South, and against the political freedom of the States, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those States and utterly change the nature of the General Government.

The Cherokee people and their neighbors were warned before the war commenced that the first object of the party which now holds the powers of government of the United States would be to annul the institution of slavery in the whole Indian country, and make it what they term free territory and after a time a free State; and they have been also warned by the fate which has befallen those of their race in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oregon that at no distant day they too would be compelled to surrender their country at the demand of Northern rapacity, and be content with an extinct nationality, and with reserves of limited extent for individuals, of which their people would soon be despoiled by speculators, if not plundered unscrupulously by the State.

Urged by these considerations, the Cherokees, long divided in opinion, became unanimous, and like their brethren, the Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, determined, by the undivided voice of a General Convention of all the people, held at Tahlequah, on the 21st day of August, in the present year, to make common cause with the South and share its fortunes.

In now carrying this resolution into effect and consummating a treaty of alliance and friendship with the Confederate States of America the Cherokee people declares that it has been faithful and loyal to is engagements with the United States until, by placing its safety and even its national existence in imminent peril, those States have released them from those engagements.

Menaced by a great danger, they exercise the inalienable right of self-defense, and declare themselves a free people, independent of the Northern States of America, and at war with them by their own act. Obeying the dictates of prudence and providing for the general safety and welfare, confident of the rectitude of their intentions and true to the obligations of duty and honor, they accept the issue thus forced upon them, unite their fortunes now and forever with those of the Confederate States, and take up arms for the common cause, and with entire confidence in the justice of that cause and with a firm reliance upon Divine Providence, will resolutely abide the consequences.

Tahlequah, C. N., October 28, 1861.

 

[eted]

Finish the quote . .

Finish the quote though, I can do it from memory:

"I have here stated my view of official duty, but I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal desire that all men everywhere should be free."

What about individual rights? Should the States be allowed to infringe on individual rights by allowing slavery? The states made the decision to start killing rather than change the laws so that no man, woman, or child should have to be chained up and beaten into submission to do other's work for no pay and against their will.

Southern congressmen conspired to start the war with the help of Southern generals.

Should States be allowed to be separate countries if they want? Should they be allowed to enslave people?

 

[apropos]

The thing about Lincoln is that his decisions set us on the path of a centralized federal government - one more powerful than any individual state. Arguably, without Lincoln there could be no Bush, no Patriot Act, no Fed, etc.

 

[Abobo]

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." -- Abraham Lincoln

 

[ARealConservative]

I was listening to the first Bill Maher interview of Ron Paul and I became aware of Dr. Paul's views on the Civil War. I have become somewhat well-versed in my Lincoln history over the last few years working at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum and my resulting change of attitude toward him was one of the reasons I was drawn to Ron Paul.

But I can't believe that Paul, who I thought was supposed to be a political expert, would think that Lincoln fought the war for centralized power of the Fed. I know this is a hotly debated issue in some circles but I have to point out a few facts surrounding this.

Lincoln did not want the war. In his second inaugural address he clearly states that the people wanted the war:

"On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."

Plus consider that the war was orchestrated by a band of traitorous senators, Senator Jefferson Davis chief among them. Many compromises had been attempted over the years preceding the war. Certainly no one was *for* the Civil War, and Paul's point is true that other countries had peacefully abolished slavery but an unholy union of senators and Southern businessmen intending to secure future profits from slave labor had conspired to overthrow the government by contesting Federal authority and convinced seven states to secede as soon as Lincoln had been elected. The war broke out officially due to the attack on Fort Sumter by Southern rebel forces.

Ironically, there wasn't anything Lincoln could do about slavery until war broke out. Essentially, the Judicial branch interprets the law: Justice Tawney said that slavery was law during the Scott case and that slaves were property without rights under the law, the Executive branch implements the laws, cannot break them or change them, and the Legislative makes and/or changes them. Lincoln utilized his war powers granted him by the Constitution to seize the property of rebellious citizens as an "act of military necessity," which are the exact words in the Emancipation Proclamation.

Later he wrote a new amendment to the Constitution which Congress passed after the war, abolishing slavery once and for all. I don't think it's fair at all to say that Lincoln was a tyrannical president who lusted for federal power. He simply felt, as I believe all citizens of the United States do, that the states should not be separate autonomous countries and that human rights matter more than states rights. That is, that the rights of the individual should not be infringed upon by state government and that states do not have the inherent right of secession. Had Congress chosen to listen to him as a Representative, and perhaps if they had acted with more resolve to peacefully end slavery, the treasonous senators would not have been so successful in nearly toppling our then 60-year-old country.

Why didn't the earliest states have a right of secession though?

For the south, the civil war might as well of been named the Revolutionary War II. they fought for self determination.

 

[Spirit of '76]

Southern congressmen conspired to start the war with the help of Southern generals.

False.

The states of the Confederacy exercised their right to dissolve the political bonds that held them to another and to institute a new government of their own choosing.

The US militarily occupied South Carolina's territory, and they were given every opportunity to leave peacefully. Having refused to do so, they were then fired upon.

 

[klamath]

I used to think that there was a clear cut right and wrong about the civil war however there was both good and bad on both sides. It did become These United States from The United States. States lost a lot of power which I hate but in the end I think that the right of the individual to not be a slave outweighs the rights of states. I will choose individual rights over States rights any day.

 

[Abobo]

States lost a lot of power which I hate but in the end I think that the right of the individual to not be a slave outweighs the rights of states. I will choose individual rights over States rights any day.

But that's not why the war was fought! Over half a million people died, and entire cities were burned to the ground, and for what? It sure as hell wasn't to end slavery, that was just a happy accident.

Believing the civil war was about slavery is worse than thinking the Iraq war is about freeing the people of Iraq. It's simply false.

 

[hmurchison]

Lincoln "was" for the preservation of the Union thus the usurpation of authority over the states.

I don't remember anything in the BoR or Constititution that stated a State could not leave the Union. Regardless of whether slavery was an ill or not the issue of the Civil War was definining what power comes under the auspices of State Govt and what powr comes under Federal control.

 

[katao]

What part of:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

did Lincoln not understand?

 

[ARealConservative]

Lincoln "was" for the preservation of the Union thus the usurpation of authority over the states.

I don't remember anything in the BoR or Constititution that stated a State could not leave the Union. Regardless of whether slavery was an ill or not the issue of the Civil War was definining what power comes under the auspices of State Govt and what powr comes under Federal control.

The original states should of certainly had the right to leave the union. I believe Virginia even made sure of this prior to approving the constitiution.

The question is how to handle the later states? Land was bought using tax dollars - so should a state that came into existance after ratification of the constitution be allowed to leave when their land was paid for by citizens that wish to remain in the union?

 

[jblosser]

Lincoln did not want the war. In his second inaugural address he clearly states that the people wanted the war:

Lincoln was a master politician who said what would favor him most depending on the situation. You can find as many quotes from him saying he opposed slavery as you can saying he didn't care. The fact he said both tends to point toward the latter being true.

Of course the southern states had the right to secede. They entered into a Union of states voluntarily as sovereign states and gave no indication they were signing over that sovereignty. Trying to stop them from leaving was an act of war by itself.

Lincoln "changed the deal" to suit his own ends, at best went along with the escalation this set in motion and more likely pushed the escalation along, brought the slavery issue in and out of the war as suited his own PR ends (if you work at a Lincoln museum surely you know the EP didn't free a single slave in Northern territory), and presided over the largely illegal ratification of the amendments that made his notions of central government permanent. And never forget that the winners write the history books.

 

[ctb619]

What part of:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

did Lincoln not understand?

But...but...Lincoln freed the slaves!

 

[eted]

The Cherokee question is a little off topic I think. There was a huge division among them and Watie chose the South. They continued to fracture after that just like the U.S. would have if the rebels would have gotten what they wanted.

If Paul's individual rights are something we can agree on, then it is wrong to have laws taking those rights away. If we are interested in our national sovereignty, then states leaving the Union is as bad as us joining Canada and Mexico.

I don't see anyone on here addressing these points.

 

[ARealConservative]

The Cherokee question is a little off topic i think. There was a huge division among them and Watie chose the South. They continued to fracture after that just like the U.S. would have if the rebels would have gotten what they wanted.

If Paul's individual rights are something we can agree on, then it is wrong to have laws taking those rights away. If we are interested in our national sovereignty, then staes leaving the Union is as bad as us joining Canada and Mexico.

I don't see anyone on here addressing these points.

I'm waiting for you to defend the indefensible.

Why is a state not free to leave the union?

ps. - Paul is a constitutionalist - your rights can be taken away. You ever here Paul complaining about local zoning laws?

 

[Abobo]

If Paul's individual rights are something we can agree on, then it is wrong to have laws taking those rights away. If we are interested in our national sovereignty, then states leaving the Union is as bad as us joining Canada and Mexico.

I don't see anyone on here addressing these points.

So, being able to leave a union is just as bad as being forced into the one ( the NAU ) in your mind?

 

[eted]

Fragmentation of the United States would and will lead to our downfall. Lincoln did not start the war. The States left as soon as he was elected, seven of them. Why? Because they knew he didn't like slavery and wanted to do something about it. Ironically, when they began to kill U.S. soldiers, they legally lost the rights to their property. Before that, the executive had no power to confiscate property or change laws.

I can't believe so many posts on here defend States leaving the Union. Divided we fall . . . and if a State was going to leave, then doing it for a better reason than to continue to enslave people would be more defensible.

 

[ctb619]

Do you disagree with the premise of the Declaration of Independence?