Was Abe Lincoln a cold blooded murderer?

[Doug Stevens]

The US Constitution gave the Federal government no legal right to attack the Confederate States of America, yet they attacked anyway. Since anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is a right granted to the States, the Federal government was wrong in attacking the Confederacy. Therefore, doesn't that make Abe Lincoln a cold blooded murderer when he used the Union troops in order to force the Confederacy back into the Union?

 

[eric_b]

Originally posted by Doug Stevens:
The US Constitution gave the Federal government no legal right to attack the Confederate States of America, yet they attacked anyway. Since anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is a right granted to the States, the Federal government was wrong in attacking the Confederacy. Therefore, doesn't that make Abe Lincoln a cold blooded murderer when he used the Union troops in order to force the Confederacy back into the Union?

Wait... is that a rhetorical question?

Eric

 

[blackbird]

Lincoln was the President of the United States! And critics still abound even 100 years after the fact. I'm sure that I would have issued the exact same orders had I been in his awesome shoes!
And I would have kept it up until I saw General Lee with that white flag--waveing it like everything in my General's face!

Blackbird

 

[Chemnitz]

My history is a little rusty but didn't the Confederates shoot first?

There are no innocents in war and there are even fewer in a civil war. So who really cares?

 

[Candide]

The Constitution was intentionally vague, to address the mending views of society through the ages. We place interpretations on the Constitution now that would not have been placed on it in the 19th century. The Supremacy Clause is one of those examples.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Federal law supercedes state law.

If one examines the Constitutional Convention, the notion of a bustling movement to preserve states rights is quite the myth. It's interesting to read the comments of Paterson (author of the NJ Plan). He wasn't expressing his own desire to preserve states as were known at the time, but rather he was merely providing a law that he thought could pass while extending the National government as much as possible.

I would also argue that the Senate is the single most undemocratic body we have in present day American Government, but it has prevented a lot of legislation that I find quite scary. I am scared of majoritarian democracy, but I'm even more scared of many other alternatives. The Constitution in many ways successfully prevents tyranny by the majority, and for that we should all be thankful.

[ September 17, 2002, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Candide ]

 

[blackbird]

Looking back and rehearsing in my mind what "could have been" now had the CSA won the war makes me proud and glad that I don't live in the CSA but I live in the USA!! I don't fly the "Stars and Bars"--I fly the "Stars and Stripes"!!

Ole Abe probably realized just how close he came to loosing the whole "shoe-bang" but he sure wasn't planning to tell anyone for sure! Just glad that the last flag General Lee waved in General Grant's face was white!

Blackbird

 

[Rosa]

The sitting government had the right to preserve the nation as a whole. Here is what the Constitution itself says.

Article I.
Section. 10.
Clause 1:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

As some of the southern States entered into an Alliance they were in direct violation of the previously sited Constitutional Article, which that State ratified on a specific date.

Your question is out of ignorance, because you do not know own Constitution. I personaly find it offensive that you would slander the name of a past President of our nation.

 

[Kiffin]

Actually the idea that one cannot secede from the Union seems to be a post Civil War idea. The idea that Federal law supercedes state law is also a modern idea. The states created the Federal government not vice versa. There was talk of secession by northern states in the early 1800's and both Madison and Jefferson were for small central government with limited power.

As for as the question, "Was Abe Lincoln a cold blooded murderer?" I would say that might be too strong. Lincoln though in modern terms would be a war criminal in that his actions were not to much differant than the Serbs in Kosovov through his actions through Sherman's rape of the South. Almost forgotten was Lincoln's support of the Kansas Jayhawkers militia (or terrorists) raids into Missiouri where they killed civilians, stole and raped. The Missiori Guerilla's who reacted to the Jayhawkers by burning and destroying Lawrence Kansas were never supported by President Davis of the CSA.

So I would say Lincoln was a trasher of the Constitution and in modern times would be a war criminal. Are we better off that the USA won? None of us can conclusively say yes or no to such a question.

 

[Ernie Brazee]

Kiffin,

You have made some good points. Why, when men become president, do they want to play chess using our countries youth as pawns?

Another good example is "I'll not send Amercian boys to die for Asian boys" 58,162 American boys later.........

 

[Candide]

The idea that Federal law supercedes state law is also a modern idea.

While Supreme Court decisions have extended its interpretation, the Supremecy clause always allowed federal law to trump state law.

The states created the Federal government not vice versa.

A committee of representatives from 12 states created the Federal government. Most of them supported a strong national government. The Constitution was the compromise reached not between conflicting goals of the Convention, but rather what was thought approvable by the general populus.

There was talk of secession by northern states in the early 1800's and both Madison and Jefferson were for small central government with limited power.

Talk of secession by northern states? What are you referring to?

Jefferson supported a small central government with limited power. Madison supported a very strong national government. Have you read his notes on the Constitutional Convention? He was part of the majority, not the minority. It is qutie humorous that he and Hamilton are viewed as the Fathers of Federalism. The Federalist papers are masterful propaganda, but hardly reflect the private views of Madison and Hamilton. Both men supported a strong national government and with far superior power over the states.

As for as the question, "Was Abe Lincoln a cold blooded murderer?" I would say that might be too strong. Lincoln though in modern terms would be a war criminal in that his actions were not to much differant than the Serbs in Kosovov through his actions through Sherman's rape of the South.

That's hardly fare. Sherman's march wasn't directly approved by Lincoln. Furthermore, even if it was, he was not committing ethnic cleansing. Give me a break. He destroyed a lot of property, burned down a lot of farms. Sure, some died in the process, but it was not genocide.

Almost forgotten was Lincoln's support of the Kansas Jayhawkers militia (or terrorists) raids into Missiouri where they killed civilians, stole and raped. The Missiori Guerilla's who reacted to the Jayhawkers by burning and destroying Lawrence Kansas were never supported by President Davis of the CSA.

Much worse things were supported by President Davis.

So I would say Lincoln was a trasher of the Constitution and in modern times would be a war criminal. Are we better off that the USA won? None of us can conclusively say yes or no to such a question.

Lincoln is no more a war criminal than any other victor from WWI to the present. In fact, he's far less of one. The US has supported terrorist groups in its day (especially during Reagan's term). The US has supported bombings of various nations that resulted in far more destruction than Sherman's March. Is all of this wrong? I think so, of course. Are they war criminals? I'd say some are. Have they been prosecuted under modern law? No.

I am no fan of Lincoln, do not get me wrong. I think all in all he was a rather subpar president. And he doesn't deserve his position as the "freer of the slaves" either. He was thrust into that position. He would have accepted slavery for peace. Kudos to him for eventually freeing the slaves, but he was hardly Frederick Douglas.

 

[blackbird]

Every book I've ever read about President Lincoln noted him to be top notch! I'm proud of him and his acievements and I believe he was a man of God and that one day I'll get to meet him in heaven and shake his awesome hand!

Blackbird

 

[Candide]

I suppose my summation of Lincoln is a bit harsh. We don't really have the option of judging him as a peace time president. I don't think he would have been all that effective. He did what was necessary during the war, I grant you that. But he was no abolitionist saint nor awe-inspiring philosopher.

 

[ChristianCynic]

Articles I, Section 10 has been quoted in this thread, and it needs to be noted that a state must be in the union of states subject to the Constitution for the clauses to be valid. If a state had seceded from this union, which the Constitution does not prohibit (and Amendment 10 indicates the right to secede), they have no application.

But IF the clauses of Article I, Section 10 are valid, then the rights under the first 9 Amenements of citizens of many states were violated by the deprivation of life, liberty, and property by such piles of crap as Sheridan and Sherman.

So this is an either/or question. If the southern states were always part of the union, then they could not form such an alliance, but the federal government also could not violate their property rights by destroying their homes and stealing and burning their crops. If the southern states were a nation at war against the US, the southerners' rights under the Constitution need not be recognized by the Union after each state seceding voluntarily and not as part of any alliance. And in fact, the states seceded, then formed their alliance-- not that they formed an unconstitutional alliance and then seceded.

 

[eric_b]

Let's talk about the War of 1812 for a change. That way we can all be on the same side

Eric