President or Dictator?

[Rab Tull]

"(H)e launched a military invasion without the consent of Congress; blockaded ports without first consulting Congress; unilaterally and illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military imprison literally tens of thousands of political dissenters; shut down over 300 opposition newspapers, censored telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; allowed federal troops to interfere in elections; illegally created a state (the Constitution requires a vote of both the state legislature and Congress); imprisoned some twenty duly elected members of the Maryland state legislature, the mayor of Baltimore, and Congressman Henry May in violation of the constitutional requirement that the federal government assure that the states have a republican form of government; imprisoned and then deported the most outspoken member of the political opposition, systematically disarmed the border states in violation of the Second Amendment; and confiscated private property."

Full story here

Could it be happening again? It is "easier" to govern as a tyrant.

Grace & Peace, Rab

 

[Agrippa]

"(H)e launched a military invasion without the consent of Congress;

He supressed a rebellion.

blockaded ports without first consulting Congress;

Congress wasn't in session for him to consult.

unilaterally and illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military imprison literally tens of thousands of political dissenters;

The Constitution grants to the right to suspend habeas corpus during a time of rebellion.

illegally created a state (the Constitution requires a vote of both the state legislature and Congress);

The state legislature of Virginia did approve the measure; unfortunately, a number of Virginians declined to participate in that election.

and confiscated private property.

Justified according to the laws of seizure made by Supreme Court regarding prizes.

 

[wildthing]

In the end many would gain their freedom. This man is Lincoln.

 

[Rab Tull]

This man is Lincoln.

"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."

Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848 speech in Congress

Words to live by!

Grace & Peace, Rab

 

[Rab Tull]

He supressed a rebellion.



Congress wasn't in session for him to consult.



The Constitution grants to the right to suspend habeas corpus during a time of rebellion.



The state legislature of Virginia did approve the measure; unfortunately, a number of Virginians declined to participate in that election.



Justified according to the laws of seizure made by Supreme Court regarding prizes.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Grace & Peace, Rab

P.S. How is the weather up North?

 

[Agrippa]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Grace & Peace, Rab

P.S. How is the weather up North?

Quite warm tonight.

 

[kurabrhm]

"(H)e launched a military invasion without the consent of Congress; blockaded ports without first consulting Congress; unilaterally and illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military imprison literally tens of thousands of political dissenters; shut down over 300 opposition newspapers, censored telegraph communication; nationalized the railroads; allowed federal troops to interfere in elections; illegally created a state (the Constitution requires a vote of both the state legislature and Congress); imprisoned some twenty duly elected members of the Maryland state legislature, the mayor of Baltimore, and Congressman Henry May in violation of the constitutional requirement that the federal government assure that the states have a republican form of government; imprisoned and then deported the most outspoken member of the political opposition, systematically disarmed the border states in violation of the Second Amendment; and confiscated private property."

Full story here

Could it be happening again? It is "easier" to govern as a tyrant.

Grace & Peace, Rab

DIKtator.

 

[Palatka44]

He was a President with more wisdom than his contemporaries. Far from that of a dictator.

 

[TScott]

Lincoln had to do what he did or things would be mighty different today, in fact this country could look a lot like Europe with many independent countrys. There would be the USA, same as today, only it wouldn't probably include Texas, Arizona, Neveada or The west coast. It could be split up even more, especially if you consider that the CSA wouldn't even be a nation, it would be a confederacy of small nation-states.

Who knows what history would look like had there not been a President Lincoln, or had Lincoln not taken on enormous power.

 

[oldrooster]

Presidents must have some discresionary power, country would come to a stop if they didn't.

 

[WayneThe5th]

Dictator and rapist of the South.

He supressed a rebellion.

No he didn’t, he invaded a sovereign country. Though even among Southerners there is an unfortunate tendency to speak of the Confederate “rebels”, it’s not really accurate. It wasn’t even a civil war, because the South had no intention of trying to take control of the rest of the U.S. They just wanted to go their own way and be left alone. Therefore, it was a war to prevent Southern independence.

The Constitution grants to the right to suspend habeas corpus during a time of rebellion.

I think it’s well documented that Lincoln went far beyond this and did indeed assume dictatorial powers. And again, it wasn’t a rebellion. They had every right to leave.

Lincoln had to do what he did….

Well, no he didn’t.

…or things would be mighty different today, in fact this country could look a lot like Europe with many independent countrys.

So? What’s wrong with that?

There would be the USA, same as today, only it wouldn't probably include Texas, Arizona, Neveada or The west coast.

What would be so terrible about that?

It could be split up even more, especially if you consider that the CSA wouldn't even be a nation, it would be a confederacy of small nation-states.

The CSA would be republic with powers delegated to it from the States, the same as the USA originally was, until it was destroyed by Lincoln and replaced with the despotic, centralized “national” govt that we have today. I think everyone would be a lot better off is the South had won.

 

[Agrippa]

No he didn’t, he invaded a sovereign country. Though even among Southerners there is an unfortunate tendency to speak of the Confederate “rebels”, it’s not really accurate. It wasn’t even a civil war, because the South had no intention of trying to take control of the rest of the U.S. They just wanted to go their own way and be left alone. Therefore, it was a war to prevent Southern independence.

Yes, a rebellion and the Constitution grants the government the right to supress such things.

I think it’s well documented that Lincoln went far beyond this and did indeed assume dictatorial powers. And again, it wasn’t a rebellion. They had every right to leave.

No, the most flagrent abuses were conducted by generals in the field where Lincoln had little to no power to interfere.

So? What’s wrong with that?

War and lots of it. Do you think the USA and the CSA would have been able to live in peace? Hardly, they would have come into conflict at some point. And it probably wouldn't have just been the US and CS; after all, why one secession? If the Confederate States could secede because they lost an election why not any other state? If you can't leave if you don't like the results of an election, what's the point of the Federal govt?

The CSA would be republic with powers delegated to it from the States, the same as the USA originally was, until it was destroyed by Lincoln and replaced with the despotic, centralized “national” govt that we have today. I think everyone would be a lot better off is the South had won.

So the African Americans would be better off? When do you think they'd get the equiviliant of our Civil Rights Act, 2050? And the young men that are being conscripted each generation because of the proximity of an enemy nation. Why would the US and CS be at odds? Four reasons: West Virginia, East Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri. Those would be our Alscase and Lorraine, traded back and forth every generation. We'd all be a lot worse.

 

[oldrooster]

The states would have never been at peace, Lincoln knew this. Even the Confederate generals knew it as well. They were major assets in not letting the war degenerate into a guerilla war after april,1865.

 

[WayneThe5th]

Yes, a rebellion and the Constitution grants the government the right to supress such things.

You claim it was a “rebellion” but I’ve not seen any reasoning to make the case, while I have explained what it actually was i.e. something quite akin to the original 1776 Revolution (hmm, would a revolution be considered a rebellion? The Brits thought so!) If the South was rebellious, then the American colonies were moreso, being that the former merely wished to withdraw from what almost everyone (including New England which had previously done some secession saber-rattling of its own) up to that time had understood to be a voluntary union of sovereign states, while the latter enjoyed no such status at the time they opted to throw off British rule. I take it that you favor the course of action the colonists pursued?

No, the most flagrent abuses were conducted by generals in the field where Lincoln had little to no power to interfere.

It is true that the generals committed war crimes. That doesn’t mean that Lincoln didn’t also engage in his own brand of felonious behavior. Anyway, Lincoln was well aware of what his generals were doing in the field. He could have stopped almost all of it had he wished to do so. Instead, he chose to wage total war, not only on the Confederate Army, but on the civilian population as well.

War and lots of it.

That is sheer speculation, but irrelevant anyway. Does the ends justify the means?

Do you think the USA and the CSA would have been able to live in peace?

I don’t know.

Hardly, they would have come into conflict at some point.

Still speculative and impertinent…

And it probably wouldn't have just been the US and CS; after all, why one secession? If the Confederate States could secede because they lost an election why not any other state?

I don’t know. You’re suggesting that was or should have been some concern of the North’s, but it wasn’t. Whatever happened to freedom freedom of association and “tending you own garden?” Though it’s not quite accurate to say they seceded because they lost an election. Lincoln did not even win one Southern state, and even if he had, most of them probably would have left eventually, though I hate to speculate

and If you can't leave if you don't like the results of an election, what's the point of the Federal govt?

The problem is that none of them ever were divested – by the Constitution or anything else—of their right to secede for any reason. What’s the point of the Federal gov’t? What did the Founders say?

The states would have never been at peace, Lincoln knew this.

Was Lincoln God?

Even the Confederate generals knew it as well. They were major assets in not letting the war degenerate into a guerilla war after april,1865.

I don’t know that they knew any such thing. They just believed that they were beaten, given the overwhelming resources of the North, and were unwilling to continue the fight and have their men be pointlessly slaughtered at that time.

 

[Agrippa]

You claim it was a “rebellion” but I’ve not seen any reasoning to make the case, while I have explained what it actually was i.e. something quite akin to the original 1776 Revolution (hmm, would a revolution be considered a rebellion? The Brits thought so!) If the South was rebellious, then the American colonies were moreso, being that the former merely wished to withdraw from what almost everyone (including New England which had previously done some secession saber-rattling of its own) up to that time had understood to be a voluntary union of sovereign states, while the latter enjoyed no such status at the time they opted to throw off British rule. I take it that you favor the course of action the colonists pursued?

Of the course the American Revolution was a rebellion. When did I suggest otherwise? Not only was it a rebellion, but the British had every right to try to suppress it. The colonists were morally right but legally wrong. The South rebelled against the Federal government and the Federal government had the right to suppress that rebellion as stated by the Constitution.

rebellion: 1. Open, armed, and organized resistance to a constituted government. 2. An act or a show of defiance toward an authority or established convention.

Lincoln was legally elected to the office of the president, the south defied his authority and he had every right according to the Constitution to suppress it. I respect both the right of rebellion and the right of the duly elected government to suppress such a rebellion.

Of course, this system is quite...messy. It also leads to a situation where might makes right. So, we need a system of revolution without the destruction and bloodshed. Well, we have one: the ballot box. Everytime we vote, we are staging a revolution. The South, when it seceded because of the 1860 election, violated the rights of everyone who voted for Lincoln.

That is sheer speculation, but irrelevant anyway. Does the ends justify the means?

You asked me was wrong with the US becoming 'Balkanized' and I told you: war and lots of it.

I don’t know. You’re suggesting that was or should have been some concern of the North’s, but it wasn’t. Whatever happened to freedom freedom of association and “tending you own garden?” Though it’s not quite accurate to say they seceded because they lost an election. Lincoln did not even win one Southern state, and even if he had, most of them probably would have left eventually, though I hate to speculate

Lincoln won the election according to rules put forth by the Constitution. The states are obligated to accept the results of those elections.

The problem is that none of them ever were divested – by the Constitution or anything else—of their right to secede for any reason. What’s the point of the Federal gov’t? What did the Founders say?

The Founder's knew that a divided America would lead to war.

The history of Great Britain is the one with which we are in general the best acquainted, and it gives us many useful lessons. We may profit by their experience without paying the price which it cost them. Although it seems obvious to common sense that the people of such an island should be but one nation, yet we find that they were for ages divided into three, and that those three were almost constantly embroiled in quarrels and wars with one another. Notwithstanding their true interest with respect to the continental nations was really the same, yet by the arts and policy and practices of those nations, their mutual jealousies were perpetually kept inflamed, and for a long series of years they were far more inconvenient and troublesome than they were useful and assisting to each other.

Should the people of America divide themselves into three or four nations, would not the same thing happen? Would not similar jealousies arise, and be in like manner cherished? Instead of their being "joined in affection" and free from all apprehension of different "interests," envy and jealousy would soon extinguish confidence and affection, and the partial interests of each confederacy, instead of the general interests of all America, would be the only objects of their policy and pursuits. Hence, like most other bordering nations, they would always be either involved in disputes and war, or live in the constant apprehension of them...

Nay, it is far more probable that in America, as in Europe, neighboring nations, acting under the impulse of opposite interests and unfriendly passions, would frequently be found taking different sides. Considering our distance from Europe, it would be more natural for these confederacies to apprehend danger from one another than from distant nations, and therefore that each of them should be more desirous to guard against the others by the aid of foreign alliances, than to guard against foreign dangers by alliances between themselves. And here let us not forget how much more easy it is to receive foreign fleets into our ports, and foreign armies into our country, than it is to persuade or compel them to depart. How many conquests did the Romans and others make in the characters of allies, and what innovations did they under the same character introduce into the governments of those whom they pretended to protect.

 

[WayneThe5th]

Of the course the American Revolution was a rebellion. When did I suggest otherwise?

I wasn’t implying that you did. That’s the point. I was just trying to discover what you thought, whether all rebellions are unjust or wrong by definition.

Not only was it a rebellion, but the British had every right to try to suppress it. The colonists were morally right but legally wrong.

Well, at least you agree it was a rebellion. And I assume that you’re pretty happy they did rebel and succeeded, right? As to the rest, I’m not so sure. I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. I’m not even sure they were morally right. But I can see the differences between the colonial revolt against England and the subsequent Southern cause, and given the situation, and the nature of the political compact between the States, I think that the South was on much more solid moral and legal footing.

The South rebelled against the Federal government and the Federal government had the right to suppress that rebellion as stated by the Constitution.

Now wait a minute. I’ve not yet agreed that the South “rebelled”. See my initial post. In fact, the Federal gov’t was created BY the States, and had limited authority delegated to it FROM the States, none of whom ever signed away their sovereignty or right to secede. That means the States were (and are) superior to the Fed gov’t, not inferior. Which means that the Fed is the servant of –-not the master—the several States. Therefore, saying that a group of States which had each individually withdrawn from the Union and entered into a new alliance with each other “rebelled against the Federal gov’t” which had no legal authority whatsoever to prevent them, is pretty fuzzy logic. You claim that it is given this right in the Constitution, but I’d like to know where.

Lincoln was legally elected to the office of the president, the south defied his authority and he had every right according to the Constitution to suppress it.

How did the South defy his authority? Where is the President granted emperor-like powers to hold a State in the Union against its will?

I respect both the right of rebellion and the right of the duly elected government to suppress such a rebellion.

Of course, this system is quite...messy. It also leads to a situation where might makes right.

To be honest, to me it sounds like you do believe Might Makes Right. I think you’re also arguing both sides, saying they had the right to secede if they could fend off the North, but also that they didn’t have the right to secede.

So, we need a system of revolution without the destruction and bloodshed. Well, we have one: the ballot box. Everytime we vote, we are staging a revolution.

That sounds good on paper, but it really doesn’t work that way in real life. Voting rights are not the awesome tool they’re cracked up to be, especially in a system like ours where you have two major parties that aren’t all that far apart at their cores philosophically, and who collude to void the possibility of real leaders emerging that would bring about real, fundamental change. Add to that the Congress that has the authority, but refuses to rein in the Federal Judiciary which itself has assumed god-like powers that putatively can’t be challenged (Interposition? Nullification? Wha…?), and a good case can be made that we live under a form of centralized tyranny that the Founders would be horrified by.

The South, when it seceded because of the 1860 election, violated the rights of everyone who voted for Lincoln.

I don’t doubt that you believe that, but I just don’t think it’s true. Whose rights are you referring to; the people in the North who voted Lincoln, or the 5 in the South who did? Anyway, it doesn’t matter. Revolutions never have total consensus. There is always an unwilling group(s) who have to choose between moving, fighting their own people, or holding their peace. This was also true in the 1776 Revolution.

You asked me was wrong with the US becoming 'Balkanized' and I told you: war and lots of it.

Yes, I remember. Still, you’re only speculating and I don’t think that comparing the Balkans with a side-by-side USA and CSA makes for a very good analogy at all.

Lincoln won the election according to rules put forth by the Constitution. The states are obligated to accept the results of those elections.

Who says they’re obligated? They’re only obligated so long as they choose to remain associated with the country. They opted not to do that.

The Founder's knew that a divided America would lead to war.

Some might have thought so. That doesn’t necessarily mean they were right or that it’s a reasonable conclusion. After all, for all intents and purposes “America” started out divided into individual states. I maintain that my two main points have not been refuted:

1. The seceding States weren’t “rebels.”
2. Lincoln’s invasion of the South (a non-threatening, sovereign nation) was unconstitutional and therefore illegal, and immoral.

 

[Agrippa]

This debate would be much easier if the Constitution came out and said secession was legal or illegal. But it doesn't, thus it gets much more complicated.

There are three major interpretations of the Constitution. One is the view of Calhoun, that the Constitution is a compact of states and that each individual state can remove itself from the compact at will. Clearly, that's the viewpoint you're advocating. Then we have the view of people like Jackson and Webster, that the Constitution is a compact not of the states, but rather the people. Thus, the states cannot break it; only the people. As Andrew Jackson said during the Nullification Crisis, "secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms". Finally, we have the view of James Madison (the father of the Constitution) and Abraham Lincoln. They would argue that the nation came together not with the Constitution, but with the Declaration of Independence (Madison once said that "the DoI [was] the fundamental act of Union of the States"). Additionally, they agree with Jackson and the like that the nation was born out of a compact of the people, not the states.

Now, I'm inclined to side with the second or third view. The Constitution starts off, "We the People of the United States..." Not "We the people of the States of the United States", but the people of the nation. You say that the X Amendment gives states any powers not expressly forbidden in the Constitution, thus secession is legal. But that's not true. The X Amendment grants those powers to the states or to the people. (Note: once again, it is to the people, not the people of the states). If the people created the Constitution, then only the people can legally destroy it.

[EDIT]Further evidence for the creation of the Constitution by the people was the manner in which it was ratified. It was ratified by state conventions, not state legislatures. The Constitutional Convention knew very well that ratification by convention meant a compact of the people not the states.

Mr. Madison considered it best to require Conventions [to ratify the Constitution]; among other reasons, for this, that the powers give the General Government being taken from the State Government, the Legislatures would be more disinclined than conventions composed in part at least of other men; and if dinsinclined, they could devise modes apparently promoting, but really, thwarting the ratification...The people were in fact, the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them, all difficulties got over.

The measure to have the Constitution ratified by Conventions was then approved.[/EDIT]

There is also a serious problem with Calhoun's interpretation. If one state can secede, why can't 49 states secede and gang up on the one remaining?

The southern states were in rebellion when they failed to uphold their duties as stated in the Constitution. Once several states formed an alliance (forbidden by the Constitution) the south was in a state of insurrection, which the Federal govt. is allowed to suppress.