You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Poll: Who has been the WORST President in United States History?
- Thread starter LanceOregon
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I'll take one last stab at the Federalists
Consider the following as an insight into how the Founders would have regarded Lincoln's vision of a perpetual union of the American states, held together by the strong arm of the federal government.
The scene is the ratification debate in New York state in the summer of 1788. Alexander Hamilton is defending, against anti-federalist objections, the power granted to the federal government, under the proposed system, to levy taxes directly on the citizens rather than making requisitions from the states. This is one of the Constitution's specially enumerated powers. It is a defined path for the federal government to override state authority. Hamilton points out the obvious necessity for a government to be able to pay its bills: "if we have national objects to pursue, we must have national revenues."
Remember, this is the arch-Federalist speaking, the man whose name is associated more than any other in the Constitutional Convention with the authority of the federal government. He paints the picture of the country without this power, and of a state refusing a federal requisition:
"It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war?
"Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against the federal head.
"Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible."
The Constitution enumerated the powers of the federal government, not those of the states or the people. It gave the federal government just such powers as, the Founders understood, would prevent this kind of conflict. The power to tax citizens directly was among them. It did not give the federal government broad, unspecified powers of coercion to do the very thing Hamilton abhorred here.
Damn our founders were smart, even the ones whose ideology I disagree with. Too bad our so called leaders today can't demonstrate the same wisdom.
Consider the following as an insight into how the Founders would have regarded Lincoln's vision of a perpetual union of the American states, held together by the strong arm of the federal government.
The scene is the ratification debate in New York state in the summer of 1788. Alexander Hamilton is defending, against anti-federalist objections, the power granted to the federal government, under the proposed system, to levy taxes directly on the citizens rather than making requisitions from the states. This is one of the Constitution's specially enumerated powers. It is a defined path for the federal government to override state authority. Hamilton points out the obvious necessity for a government to be able to pay its bills: "if we have national objects to pursue, we must have national revenues."
Remember, this is the arch-Federalist speaking, the man whose name is associated more than any other in the Constitutional Convention with the authority of the federal government. He paints the picture of the country without this power, and of a state refusing a federal requisition:
"It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war?
"Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against the federal head.
"Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible."
The Constitution enumerated the powers of the federal government, not those of the states or the people. It gave the federal government just such powers as, the Founders understood, would prevent this kind of conflict. The power to tax citizens directly was among them. It did not give the federal government broad, unspecified powers of coercion to do the very thing Hamilton abhorred here.
Damn our founders were smart, even the ones whose ideology I disagree with. Too bad our so called leaders today can't demonstrate the same wisdom.
Maybe if you and your ancestors homeland was occupied by a foreign power for 140+ years you might bear some animosity as well.
Oh for pete's sake, nobody currently is occupied by a foreign power in the US. Anybody who seriously believes that is simply being self-indulgently ahistorical and deliberately resistant to fact. Any animosity born by southerners toward yankees for the Civil War is equally self-indulgent and ahistorical. It's ridiculous and it's fantasy.
This is the type of rhetorical nonsense that makes most non-gun-owners wonder what we have been smokin' for the past several decades.
ok im about to call it quits on this one, HJB if you dont think my info is on the ball google it, to find out for yourself before you say i dont know what im talking about. i mean this is a message board, so we do have to look some stuff up for ourselves, since i dont have a scanner to show you compies of every referance i have. as far as taney, there is much more documented stuff on this then just the us marshels letter(which i assume to which you refer)
anyhow as far as i can see from now on no one involved in this gonna change thier mind about this any time this century, sooo......maybe we can just exchange coffee, chocalate, and tobbaco and be friends?
R4C, no offense intended, we'll agree to disagree...
Coffee and chocolate sound good, but have to pass on the tobacco. Quit that a few years back and as hard of a habit as it was to kick, I steer clear now.
Hugh Damright
New member
we could end up with a Country that is nothing but yankees
You say that like it's such a bad thing.
Yes, that was my point. Perhaps I didn't make it clear. In the 1860's we had a real life example of what happens when yankees take over. The US was reduced to the level of a third world country. Military rule. Staying in office by barricading the door. It was a complete disgrace.
Further, yankees are imperialists. They do not have proper respect for the sovereignty of others. And that leads to terrorism and war and such.
Hopefully I am making it more clear why I said that what worries me most about secession is the thought of bringing into the world a Nation that is nothing but yankees.
Citizen Carrier
New member
apr1775:
They don't just mention slavery. It is the headline act of their documents and speeches. And what is the proper context when discussing holding people against their will and using them like grit-powered John Deere tractors?
Well, we start with the speech of E.S. Dargan to the Alabama secession convention:
http://www.americancivilwar.com/documents/dargan_speech.html
Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give.... [i.e. "if this was just about money and economics, I probably wouldn't be going for secession"]
...They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. [i.e. "if we set them free, we'll either end up killing all of them or we ourselves will be degraded and debased by having free blacks living among us."]
Is that the context you were talking about, apr1775?
Speech of Governor Isham G. Harris to the Tennessee convention:
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/isham_harris.html
[Ishy starts out talking about slavery and property rights, but then he elaborates on the horrors of emancipation...]
...the Southern man who is unwilling to live under a government which, may by law recognize the free negroe as his equal...
It has, in the person of the President elect, asserted the equality of the black with the white race. [I think Harris is either lying or grossly misinformed here saying that Lincoln asserted this. Either that, or Harris believes Lincoln to be the emancipator and abolitionist people HERE on this forum assert Lincoln wasn't.]
Harris' long, rambling speech touches upon many aspects of slavery, but make no mistake that is all he is talking about. Even economics is discussed in the context of slavery. Notice how failure to return escaped slaves by Northern peoples [Harris calls this "slave stealing"] to their masters is particulary upsetting to Harris. Ironic in that a successful secession would've meant that nobody would EVER have been required by law to return slaves anyway. It was a lose-lose situation.
The Texas Declaration of Secession:
...based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color - a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.
...that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
...the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. [I don't think they're talking just, or even mostly, about economics]
It appears that the positions have gone from "Secession wasn't about preserving slavery" [even though that's all the secessionists were talking and writing about up to the point the seceded] to "well, they were talking about slavery in a more benign context".
Look, if Lincoln and the North was seeking to disarm the Southern states, or abolish the freedom of the press, or public assembly, or establish an official religion, or abrogate the protection from cruel and unusual punishment, I'd have a lot more sympathy for secession. Heck, if it was about no taxation without representation, I'd have some sympathy. Not just sympathy, but outright support.
But not for this tawdry and shameful reason. Any other reason but this one.
It is interesting to note that many of the speeches and documents of secession touch upon the failure or unwillingness of Northern free states to adhere to the Fugitive Slave Acts and return escaped slaves to servitude.
I guess in some instances, Southern states were OKAY with using federal power to force individual states to do things against their will. One would like to see where in Constitution it gives Congress the power to force individual states to dance to the slavery tune and return escaped slaves. That sounds like a lot like a violation of the intent of the 10th Amendment.
Their reverence for the Constitution is underwhelming.
For those who claim secession was about slave owners wanting to maintain their ownership, and keep saying the secession documents prove it, can you do a simple cut and paste from those documents? Yes, they mention slavery, but not in the context some might have us believe.
They don't just mention slavery. It is the headline act of their documents and speeches. And what is the proper context when discussing holding people against their will and using them like grit-powered John Deere tractors?
Well, we start with the speech of E.S. Dargan to the Alabama secession convention:
http://www.americancivilwar.com/documents/dargan_speech.html
Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give.... [i.e. "if this was just about money and economics, I probably wouldn't be going for secession"]
...They therefore must remain with us; and if the relation of master and slave be dissolved, and our slaves turned loose amongst us without restraint, they would either be destroyed by our own hands-- the hands to which they look, and look with confidence, for protection-- or we ourselves would become demoralized and degraded. [i.e. "if we set them free, we'll either end up killing all of them or we ourselves will be degraded and debased by having free blacks living among us."]
Is that the context you were talking about, apr1775?
Speech of Governor Isham G. Harris to the Tennessee convention:
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/isham_harris.html
[Ishy starts out talking about slavery and property rights, but then he elaborates on the horrors of emancipation...]
...the Southern man who is unwilling to live under a government which, may by law recognize the free negroe as his equal...
It has, in the person of the President elect, asserted the equality of the black with the white race. [I think Harris is either lying or grossly misinformed here saying that Lincoln asserted this. Either that, or Harris believes Lincoln to be the emancipator and abolitionist people HERE on this forum assert Lincoln wasn't.]
Harris' long, rambling speech touches upon many aspects of slavery, but make no mistake that is all he is talking about. Even economics is discussed in the context of slavery. Notice how failure to return escaped slaves by Northern peoples [Harris calls this "slave stealing"] to their masters is particulary upsetting to Harris. Ironic in that a successful secession would've meant that nobody would EVER have been required by law to return slaves anyway. It was a lose-lose situation.
The Texas Declaration of Secession:
...based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color - a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.
...that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
...the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. [I don't think they're talking just, or even mostly, about economics]
It appears that the positions have gone from "Secession wasn't about preserving slavery" [even though that's all the secessionists were talking and writing about up to the point the seceded] to "well, they were talking about slavery in a more benign context".
Look, if Lincoln and the North was seeking to disarm the Southern states, or abolish the freedom of the press, or public assembly, or establish an official religion, or abrogate the protection from cruel and unusual punishment, I'd have a lot more sympathy for secession. Heck, if it was about no taxation without representation, I'd have some sympathy. Not just sympathy, but outright support.
But not for this tawdry and shameful reason. Any other reason but this one.
It is interesting to note that many of the speeches and documents of secession touch upon the failure or unwillingness of Northern free states to adhere to the Fugitive Slave Acts and return escaped slaves to servitude.
I guess in some instances, Southern states were OKAY with using federal power to force individual states to do things against their will. One would like to see where in Constitution it gives Congress the power to force individual states to dance to the slavery tune and return escaped slaves. That sounds like a lot like a violation of the intent of the 10th Amendment.
Their reverence for the Constitution is underwhelming.
Citizen Carrier
New member
S832, I just posted three excerpts from speeches or documents showing that far from just economic concerns, those people were terrified of a future in which blacks walked the streets thinking they were the equal of anybody else.
Were economics the case, then the atrocities against blacks during Reconstruction, after it, all the way up to the 1960s really have no reason to exist, do they?
After all, they were no longer slaves, so the concerns about slave economics no longer applied, right?
Quite a bit of it, especially in light of everything that happened after the war and for most the 20th Century strongly suggests the "social" element was as important for some as was the "economic" angle. For some, the "social" part of it eclipsed the economic.
After all, as many point out, most southerners didn't personally own slaves. So what was their economic angle? No, for them it was likely more about making sure certain people do not upset the pecking order by trying to rise above their station.
Were economics the case, then the atrocities against blacks during Reconstruction, after it, all the way up to the 1960s really have no reason to exist, do they?
After all, they were no longer slaves, so the concerns about slave economics no longer applied, right?
Quite a bit of it, especially in light of everything that happened after the war and for most the 20th Century strongly suggests the "social" element was as important for some as was the "economic" angle. For some, the "social" part of it eclipsed the economic.
After all, as many point out, most southerners didn't personally own slaves. So what was their economic angle? No, for them it was likely more about making sure certain people do not upset the pecking order by trying to rise above their station.
Its true, they also didn't want slaves taking areas over and destroying them. In some respects they were right in their fear, its my belief you can't force two separate cultures and people together successfully, causes too many problems.
The civil war wasn't about slavery, like I said before it was about power and economics. Slaves helped the south gain allot of wealth.
The civil war wasn't about slavery, like I said before it was about power and economics. Slaves helped the south gain allot of wealth.
Citizen Carrier
New member
I've maintained from the beginning that the Civil War was not waged by Lincoln for the expressed purpose of ending slavery.
But secession was about preserving slavery. And no, not for just economic reasons.
It is...strange...to say the least, to see poster after poster declare that wasn't what motivated secession, but without actually citing anything to back that up. Just opinion stated as if that were enough to make it fact.
Still, if one side seceded over slavery--and they did--and then proceeded to wage war in order to preserve that secession, that clearly shows that for that side, slavery was the defining issue of the war.
Would there have even been a war without that issue?
But secession was about preserving slavery. And no, not for just economic reasons.
It is...strange...to say the least, to see poster after poster declare that wasn't what motivated secession, but without actually citing anything to back that up. Just opinion stated as if that were enough to make it fact.
Still, if one side seceded over slavery--and they did--and then proceeded to wage war in order to preserve that secession, that clearly shows that for that side, slavery was the defining issue of the war.
Would there have even been a war without that issue?
The Federal Government wanted control of states, slavery was just one issue that they chose to create the conflict on. The south was gaining too much power so the federal government wanted to put them in their place, they also knew forcing the south to abide by their laws would damage the southern economy. So its why they chose that issue.
I would prefer if states still had control instead of the federal government.
I would prefer if states still had control instead of the federal government.
Citizen Carrier
Lets say they did succeed, primarily because of slavery. They had that prerogative.
The first union of the original 13 colonies was effected by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. The articles established a confederation of sovereign states in a permanent union. The "permanence" lasted only until 1788, when 11 states withdrew from the confederation and ratified the new Constitution, which became effective on March 4, 1789. The founding fathers recognized the defects in the Articles of Confederation, learned from these defects, and scrapped the articles in favor of the "more perfect union" found in the Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."
It took the civil war and 620,000 deaths to prove them wrong and I fully concede, that the questions we are debating have already been completely settled and decided, on the bloody battlefields of that war.
Lets say they did succeed, primarily because of slavery. They had that prerogative.
The first union of the original 13 colonies was effected by the Articles of Confederation, adopted in 1781. The articles established a confederation of sovereign states in a permanent union. The "permanence" lasted only until 1788, when 11 states withdrew from the confederation and ratified the new Constitution, which became effective on March 4, 1789. The founding fathers recognized the defects in the Articles of Confederation, learned from these defects, and scrapped the articles in favor of the "more perfect union" found in the Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the union of the states being permanent. This was not an oversight by any means. Indeed, when New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratified the Constitution, they specifically stated that they reserved the right to resume the governmental powers granted to the United States. Their claim to the right of secession was understood and agreed to by the other ratifiers, including George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and was also a delegate from Virginia. In his book Life of Webster Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge writes, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."
It took the civil war and 620,000 deaths to prove them wrong and I fully concede, that the questions we are debating have already been completely settled and decided, on the bloody battlefields of that war.
It is...strange...to say the least, to see poster after poster declare that wasn't what motivated secession, but without actually citing anything to back that up. Just opinion stated as if that were enough to make it fact.
Too much kool-aid drinking ... people believe what they want to. The die-hard secessionists and states-rights folk want to separate slavery as much as possible so as to make their position somehow legitimate. If slavery wasn't the underlying cause, if slavery wasn't involved, then secession wouldn't have the taint of it. Then we could have a state or states secede, and everybody could have guns without any restrictions, and nobody would have to pay that horrible income tax, and we could use golden money, and we wouldn't have despotic liberal marxists telling us we can't pray in school but who allow homosexuals to marry, and men could be men and everybody would do what they were supposed to do and take care of themselves and it would be wonderful because they would all be living in libertarian happyland.
Never mind the facts, and never mind the fact that secession was, and is, rebellion. That, and never mind the fact that aforementioned scenario also is fantasyland.
C'mon people, slavery played a big part, no matter how you slice it.
... and the worst president is still Buchanan.
Citizen Carrier
New member
Look, the struggle between state and federal didn't begin OR end with the Civil War and calling slavery a convenient issue Washington just happened to seize upon reeks of conspiracy theory and a simplistic approach to history.
Hugh Damright
As opposed to how the South conducted itself after Rutherford B. Hayes ended Reconstruction? Anything disgraceful about that?
Election laws cooked up to supress the votes of American citizens? It would be interesting to go back and see if anybody in this thread damned FDR for interning Japanese-Americans, but who would at the same time ignore all the unconstitutional stuff that went on down south for decades and decades.
Poll taxes? Anything disgraceful about fixing it so people who can't pay the tax don't get to vote?
Lynchings? How about a trial by a jury of your peers when nobody on the jury even looks like you?
Sorry, but the period immediately following Reconstruction up into the 1960s was a showcase of states abusing their rights and failing to provide the rights and protections due to ALL Americans.
Hugh Damright
Yes, that was my point. Perhaps I didn't make it clear. In the 1860's we had a real life example of what happens when yankees take over. The US was reduced to the level of a third world country. Military rule. Staying in office by barricading the door. It was a complete disgrace.
As opposed to how the South conducted itself after Rutherford B. Hayes ended Reconstruction? Anything disgraceful about that?
Election laws cooked up to supress the votes of American citizens? It would be interesting to go back and see if anybody in this thread damned FDR for interning Japanese-Americans, but who would at the same time ignore all the unconstitutional stuff that went on down south for decades and decades.
Poll taxes? Anything disgraceful about fixing it so people who can't pay the tax don't get to vote?
Lynchings? How about a trial by a jury of your peers when nobody on the jury even looks like you?
Sorry, but the period immediately following Reconstruction up into the 1960s was a showcase of states abusing their rights and failing to provide the rights and protections due to ALL Americans.
Sorry, but the period immediately following Reconstruction up into the 1960s was a showcase of states abusing their rights and failing to provide the rights and protections due to ALL Americans.
That, and a good argument for strong Federal intervention when the states refuse to protect the Constitutional rights of their own citizens. Sometimes strong Federal government isn't such a bad thing after all ...
Silver Bullet
New member
Funny ...Absolutely.
Sometimes you have to stand for what's right, and sometimes that costs plenty. Lincoln understood that.
One could argue whether or not the keeping of slaves was worth the price the secessionist states paid for it. Was it worth it? Was the death of over 1/2 million Americans justified because an elite southern minority felt its ability to own and use slaves was jeopardized, even though that system was slowly dying anyways? Was that a good trade? Does that make any sense to you?
Of course, the yankees are nothing but tyrants, and the war is all their fault. The southerners were simply oppressed. Right ...
One could argue whether or not the keeping of slaves was worth the price the secessionist states paid for it. Was it worth it? Was the death of over 1/2 million Americans justified because an elite southern minority felt its ability to own and use slaves was jeopardized, even though that system was slowly dying anyways? Was that a good trade? Does that make any sense to you?
Of course, the yankees are nothing but tyrants, and the war is all their fault. The southerners were simply oppressed. Right ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.