Congress and the Constitution: What Would Lincoln Do?
You’d think Republicans read the Communist Manifesto from the floor of Congress this week.
Perhaps the activist old media, or their friends in the Democrat Party would’ve been happier with a little Karl Marx, or maybe bring out Steven Colbert to read some Groucho Marx on the floor would’ve made them happier. The outrage over the reading of the U.S. Constitution is as despicable as it is instructive of who the left is in this country.
The examples of the media calling it a “fetish” that conservatives wanted to have the Constitution read from the floor of the House are everywhere on the internet. Norah O’Donnell called it “a gimmick” and of course, Ezra Klein, the 24 year old child star of the Washington Post, thinks that the text is confusing because it’s more than 100 years old. It’s actually 223 years old (not counting amendments) and next Sept. 17th it will turn 224. Maybe the left thinks I have a fetish because I have those dates committed to memory.
Here’s what another youngster once said about the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln’s Lyceum Address, given when he was just 28 years old, contains a brilliant paragraph about the reading of the Constitution.
Let it [the Constitution] be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation.
You may have heard that Lincoln was a Republican and that both the left and the right in this nation have put him in a rather prestigious place of reverence. Abe says read the Constitution early and often and even went the next step by referring to it as the political religion of the nation.
Lincoln had reverence for the Constitution.
Good thing this group of activist old media folk were not around when he was rising to power. Norah, Ezra and the rest of their ilk would’ve tried to ridicule him out of Congress.
The Founders called it the “miracle in Philadelphia” that they were ever able to craft and pass this divine document during three sweaty months in that city. George Washington and James Madison used that phrase to describe the results of the Constitutional Convention. You can’t turn a page in the Founders writings without them giving credit to God for the words on those four pages of parchment. You can read their writings in something called the Federalist Papers. Maybe they should be read aloud next (at least read Federalist 10 and 51.)
The activist old media, that so often points to the First amendment as their Holy Grail that allows them to freely exist without government intervention, is the first to blast Republicans for wanting to follow the words of Lincoln and put the Constitution in a special place of reverence.
The battle lines are drawn, are you with the Founders or not? Some liberals and members of the activist old media could’ve easily joined in this celebration of our Founding documents. Instead, they chose to try to ridicule those who did.
Fine, let’s go. I’m happy to be on the side of Lincoln.
- Ron Futrell's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Some things never change.
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 4:03pm.
Some things never change. When Lincoln was trying to preserve the union he had two fronts to battle at the same time. One was the field of military battle and the other was the battle against his democrat opponants who wanted 'Peace' by what ever means it took, even if it meant the splitting of the country into two nations. Even back then democrats were more concerned about the aquisition of power than the health and safety of the nation.
The union wasn't Lincoln's to preserve.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 4:18pm.
I mean that respectfully. The original founding of these United States were intended for their mutual benefit. They were not intended to be bound like Siamese twins with only one twin having all the vital organs. That's why there is no "Hotel California Clause" ("You can checkout any time you like,
But you can never leave!") in the U.S. Constitution, nor, to my knowlege, any state's Constitution.
But, then, that's a different argument. Isn't it?
War of Northern Agression?
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 5:00pm.
Yeah that's another 'discussion' altogether. But let me put it this way. The South lost the argument because they lost the war. You know what they say, the victors write the history books. Had the original colonies lost the war for independance from England we would find ourselves today in a far different country and we would be very different people. AND we would have learned in school about a traitorous band of men in the late 1700's who fought a criminal rebellion against the crown. Bennedict Arnold's birthday would today be a national holliday.
(loud sigh) I love the
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 7:04pm.
(loud sigh)I love the "defenders of the Constitution" who end up sounding like Confederate appologists . . . /sarc
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
The Union did not belong to
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 4:45pm.
The Union did not belong to Lincoln. It was not his to save or destroy. By going to war with the southern states, he shreaded the Constitution. The split was not over slavery. The myth that Lincoln freeded the slaves is nonsence. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and it freeded only the slaves in the south. It did not free the slaves in VA, W.VA., Tenn., KY., and MO. Lincoln deliberately bated the southern states into war simply to eradicate the question of States Rights.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
The issue of slavery was
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 5:10pm.
The issue of slavery was one argued over from the founding of the country. Slavery was dividng the country prior to Lincoln's rise to prominence. The South, the North, the congress, the courts were all dealing with the issue of slavery in one form or another. Civilian abolitionist groups were helping run-away slaves and pushing the government to end slavery. Slaveowners in the South were demanding protection for their 'property'. New states to be admitted to the Union got embroiled in the slavery question because the Southern states demanded creating an equal amount of new slave state as free states so that free states did not outnumber the slave holding states in congress. It was a mess.
So there were some states rights issues but not enough to push states into rebellion. Slavery was the issue that could not be resolved.
Session was not "Rebellion"
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 6:37pm.
Regardless of the reasons, as previously pointed out there was nothing in the Constitution that gave the federal government the right to interfere with states choosing to leave. The Constitution is very specific about the enumerated powers of the federal government and this one was noticably absent.
I don't want to hijack the thead, but the notion that Lincoln was a lover of the Constitution is utter hogwash.
Lincoln didn't get the Union
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 7:07pm.
Lincoln didn't get the Union Army fighting "the south" until after the attack on Fort Sumter.The Confederate appologists come out of the woodwork . . .
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
It is true that the
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 7:10pm.
It is true that the Constitution did not deal with the question of states leaving the union. I believe that's because at the time the document was written signing to join the Unoin was voluntary and the idea that any would want to back out later was not a point they were considering.
But here's the area of contention. When the states joined the union did they also give up their rights as independant states? Most of the North and Lincoln included believed this to be so. Holding that idea then makes any secessionist rebellion an illegal revolt of persons not the states. It's the same as commiting a crime. I believe it was General Lee who stated that he had to go with the South because he could not fight against his country, which for him was Virginia. But for the Northerners the country was the United States, indivisible.
So there is some truth to the South's argument that it was about states rights and the right of a state to go it's own way if it chose to and it was not just slavery that brought on the Civil War. However that is a cultural and political viewpoint that could not be sustained against a stonger combatant who viewed secession as a criminal act.
So there is some truth to the
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:22pm.
So there is some truth to the South's argument that it was about states rights and the right of a state to go it's own way if it chose to
Sorry but I must disagree.
The Slave states were so concerned about "states rights" that they had no problem using The Fugitive Slave Act to force Free States to return escaped slaves. So much for letting states "go their own way".
"States Rights" was a mantra used by Slave States only when it suited their purposes. When it suited their purposes to have the Federal Government force something on Free States, well then they thought the Federal governmnet was just dandy.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
As a native of the South with
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:34pm.
As a native of the South with Confederate ancestry, I must say "well said, Free Stinker."
You are absolutely correct.
Jer
"Lincoln had reverence for the Constitution."?
Submitted by almostacowboy on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 4:32pm.
Like when he suspended habeus corpus and the 1st Amendment? He may have had "reverence" for the Constitution, but he certainly didn't feel bound by it or the Declaration of Independence, which I know is not a "binding" document. Just the same, he certainly must not have believed that States had the right to exercise their "duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security" when they felt put upon to the point they had no recourse.
I'm happy to be on the side of the "founders". Lincoln was no "founder".
I am a free man protected
Submitted by MidAmerica on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 5:20pm.
I am a free man protected by the constitution from unreasonable search and seizure and other guarantees provided by the founding document of this country. But..... If the police have a reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed by me they have a right to break down my door, hold me at gunpoint while they handcuff me. I have lost most of my constitutional rights as a free person at this point. Same way for states.
True
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 6:46pm.
Except for the whole "crime" thing. Someone breaking down your door and handcuffing you without reasonable cause still de-facto takes away your constitutional rights, but that doesn't make them lovers of the constitution. Same for dead presidents.
You still would not have lost
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:25pm.
You still would not have lost any rights in the example you cite. You are still protected against unreasable searches and seizures.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Yes, Lincoln revered the Costitution.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 6:53pm.
Yes, Lincoln revered the Constitution, and it was that Constitution which gave him the authority to "shred it" as you claim, in times of rebellion. It was a rebellion which Lincoln was facing because the southern states were the ones that actually shredded the Constitution, and not Lincoln as you claim.
Article 1, section 10 of the Constitution states: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation..." and, as you known, the Confederate States did all three in direct violation of the Constitution, a Constitution that each and every state and federal officer was sworn to defend and uphold. They individually made trade treaties with foreign countries like France, they formed a trade alliance between themselves and boycotted commerce from non-aligned states, and, when charged with the illegality of what they were doing by other members of the Union, they formed their own Confederation, complete with their own form of a Constitution and their own separate governments. That is, as we all know, an insurrection, also know as rebellion.
So, you see, it wasn't Lincoln who shredded the Constitution, it was the insurrectionists of the southern states who shredded it. They paid the price for the total disregard of the Constitution in blood, as did every other State in the Union at the time who had their men die large numbers in that war, a war which didn't have to happen had certain Congressmen, Governors, and State legislators fulfilled their oaths to the US Constitution.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
JustAl
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 7:02pm.
They didn't join the Confederacy until after they sesseded. Which means they were no longer bound by the Constitution including the article you site.
So, I suppose all states that have reciprocity of concelled carry permits are also in violation because they formed an "alliance"? Or are the non-concelled states in violation because obviously the prvileges enjoyed by those in right to carry states are not enjoyed by all?
Or is the real issue that such a huge portion of the federal revenue stream at the time came from tarriffs originating in southern ports?
To say Lincoln "revered" the Constitution is like Bush saying he abandoned free market principles to save them.
You've got it backwards.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 7:39pm.
You've got it backwards. Those States seceded from the Union because of the legal repercussions they were facing due to their Unconstitutional state actions, actions which included the creation of treaties with foreign governments, allegiances between southern states, the raising and arming of their own armies and navel forces (not militias but regular standing armies under a unified central control not governed by the US President, something states are forbidden to do under the Constitution) and even coining their own separate money, money that wasn't taxable or regulated by the federal government. They did this YEARS before they ever seceded from the Union. They seceded because people like Lincoln told them to stop violating the Constitution or face grave repercussions. Even that very act of secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
You may believe that Lincoln didn't revered the Constitution, but you are wrong in that belief. Lincoln did all he could to uphold and defend the Constitution including commanding US forces during a war that killed over 600,000 Americans. That's NOT the action of someone who, as you claim, doesn't revere it and wishes to uphold his oath to uphold and defend it from all threats, foreign and domestic. Had he not revered it, like you claim, he would have allowed the Confederacy to exist. After all, what would a Confederacy matter to someone who didn't revere the Constitution?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
As for the rest of your strawman arguments...
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 7:35pm.
As for the rest of your strawman augments, none of those have or had anything to do with Lincoln and the Civil War so why do you even mention them? President Bush, as you know, wasn't alive then.
So,please, explain to me what concealed carry permits and Bush have to do with Lincoln and the Civil war? They have absolutely NOTHING to do with it. You may as well refer to abortion in your arguments, for it's as relevant to the discussion of the Civil War as the existence of TV or computers, or concelled carry permits or Bush.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Now, on the matter of secession itself, it's not allowed.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 7:52pm.
You seem to be under the impression that states, ether individually or groups , are allowed, Constitutionally, to secede from the Union by a simple declaration of independence, but that impression is wrong, as the Civil War has proven.
Since only a Congressional act can admit a State into the Union, can allow a territory to achieve statehood, only a Congressional act can allow any statehood to be dissolved, for a state to revert back to a federal territory. In NO instances can a State secede from the Union itself. The most it can do is revert all or part of itself back into a federal territory, from whence it came.
By unilaterally announcing their secession from the Union, an act that was not authorized by Congress itself, those states VIOLATED the Constitution. Contrary to your beliefs, those "seceded" states were, and would still be now, liable to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land. No matter how many times the legislature of a state announced "independence" or secession, that State would STILL be bound to the Constitution as their supreme law.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
So, what you're saying is...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 6:34pm.
.that the States are imprisoned by Congress, since they can't leave when they want.
Contract
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 7:09pm.
The States signed a little binding contract called the Constitution. But apparently contracts mean nothing to you; or possibly you just follow contracts when you want to.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane what happens when the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 7:08am.
Unsane what happens when the Feds overstep their contract specified authority? Could the signers declare the contract null and void?
Interesting...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 1:08pm.
Example?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Lincoln certainly revered the
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:57am.
Lincoln certainly revered the Constitution, but I do think no matter what conservatives think about the constitutional merits of the issue of secession as a theoretical matter now, we have to acknowledge that historically, at the time, the question was unsettled constitutional law.
The Civil War settled the matter by force of arms, but as conservatives we don't believe might makes right. Texas v. White examined some legal issues arising from secession and ruled that Texas never really left the Union and that no state did or could, although it left open, as I understand it, the possibility that a state and the Congress could mutually agreed for a state to exit the Union, much like the Congress and a territory's legislature agree to confer statehood upon said territory.
So maybe that's how we can get rid of California.
For what it's worth, I think the Framers of the Constitution did not want to create a Constitution that either explicitly forbade secession or encouraged it. The goal of the Constitutional Convention was to form a "more pefect union" that secured the blessings of liberty more successfully for the people of the United States. I think the Founding generation sincerely wanted a nation that would last perpetually because of the mutual bonds of affection for liberty and the compelling interests in maintaining the union, not because member states feared federal action to maintain that Union by arms.
I suspect, though, it's likely folks like Hamilton and Jay may have been with Lincoln if they could have peered down history's corridor, but Madison may have sided with his fellow Virginian.
The Territory of CA
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 01/10/2011 - 1:13pm.
Ken, here's a thought I had. Let's say that in five years or so, we have CA in even worse financial shape than it is now. And that CA seriously can't pay its bills. CA then pleads for the federal government to bail them out. The federal government agrees to! But with ONE SLIGHT CATCH...
In order for the feds to pull their feet out of the fire, CA has to surrender its status as a state, and the federal government reorganizes that state as a territory.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Seriously...
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 8:41pm.
The South lost. And deservedly so. Get over it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So, By Your Logic
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 7:59pm.
They were "in rebellion" before Lincoln took office. Yet, there was no federal action. Once again, the central point is this. Regardless of what they may or may not have done before they sesseded, regardless of theri reasons, once they did, they were legally beyond the reach of the Constitution. I'm no lawyer, for all I know you are. But I can guarantee you that the legislators of those southern states were more expert on the status of Constitutional law in 1861 than you are.
And to the previous poster, I'm not "a Confederate apologist" I am merely pointing out the falacy of Lincoln being a Constitutionalist. You can hide behind one liners and legend all you want. The federals had all the time in the world to leave Sumter, they didn't leave intentionally to provoke a military response to their presence on what was then foreign soil. I'm not say what they did was right, or why they did it was right, I'm saying what Lincoln did went against the Constitution. Your dismissive attitude, like that of CobraMan does not lend itself to discussion.
My points about the concelled carry law is that, by your interpretaton of the article you state, we have states to day that are "in a state of insurection" as you put it. So where is the cry for federal troops to intervene? This point has nothing to do with sessision but is directed at your interpretation of the Constitution.
Obviously, to anyone paying attention the reference to Bush is an anaolgy.
There's your mistake
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 01/07/2011 - 8:19pm.
"Regardless of what they may or may not have done before they sesseded, regardless of theri reasons, once they did, they were legally beyond the reach of the Constitution. "
There's you mistake. You see, States can not secede from union. The Civil War decided that once and for all. Despite their claims to the contrary, those states would be still liable to the Constitution.
As for federal action prior to secession, that was just what was occurring. It was that federal action that "forced" the states to declare, illegally, their independence when the southern Congressmen couldn't convince the rest Congress to exempt those states from their constitutional requirements via a Constitutional Amendment, and, in doing so, "free" them from federal punitive actions.
As far as the concealed-carry issue, that's for the modern age to work out. Lincoln never faced that issue, nor did anyone else in that era, so what does that have to do with it? Personally, I believe the permits themselves violate the constitution, but, then again, that's not for me to decide. That's up to the courts to decide, just as they decided back before the Civil War that, yes, the southern states were violating the Constitution. Will it eventually reach the Supreme Court? Yes, it most likely will, just as the "issues" that lead to the Civil War reached the Supreme Court over 100 years ago. Will one or more states seceded from the union because of this, or other, issue or issues? NO WAY! The Civil War has already taught us the futility of such unconstitutional actions.
Oh, and that Bush analogy? That's worthless as Bush never had to face the situation that Lincoln was facing. A better analogy would be King George the III, who faced the same type of situation that Lincoln faced. Unfortunately for King George they lost that war. Lincoln won his.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Actually, Ft. Sumter was
Submitted by Ken Shepherd on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:13am.
Actually, Ft. Sumter was unoccupied by federal forces until after Maj. Anderson moved his command from Ft. Moultrie in the middle of the night on 26 December 1860, six days after South Carolina seceded. The move was not authorized by Washington but Anderson judged the fort much more defensible than Moultrie and hence moved his command in the dead of night to avoid detection and seizure by the South Carolina militia.
In January 1861, lame-duck President Buchanan sent a civilian steamer, the Star of the West, to provision Ft. Sumter, but it turned tail after being fired on by South Carolina cannon.
So technically those were the first shots of the war, not the shots fired at Ft. Sumter in April.
Buchanan, of course, did not retaliate.
Another fun fact about Sumter, there was only one Union fatality during the siege in April 1861, but that resulted from a cannon misfiring during the cannon salute in the surrender ceremonies, not from hostile fire from the Battery in Charleston.
Another fun Sumter fact...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 9:15pm.
A near-fatal incident occurred when a Confederate emissary--who had been sent to the fort to formalize the surrender protocol--attempted to slake his thirst with what he thought was a bottled libation but in fact was highly toxic iodine of potassium. A fast-acting federal surgeon pumped his stomach and quite likely saved his life.
Jer
Actually...
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 8:43pm.
Actually, because Lincoln did everything in his power to save the union under the Constitution, I'd say that makes him a Constitutionalist. Last I checked, it was not replaced after the Civil War.
Repeat after me: the South lost the Civil War.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Civil War--Morrill Tariff
Submitted by milootoole on Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:44am.
"Historians are not unanimous as to the relative importance which Southern fear and hatred of a high tariff had in causing the secession of the slave states, but there has been a growing tendency to lay more emphasis on it than formerly. Historical opinion of the bill's role dates to the commentators of the 1860's itself.
A debate was waged in England over which side to support in the war. Two irreconcilable views emerged. The tariff hurt the British economy and most British newspapers opposed it, siding with the South, and contending that the tariff was the major reason why the Southern states wanted to secede. One notable writer who supported this view was Charles Dickens who in All the Year Round 28 December 1861, wrote "The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel", attacking the tariff as an unjust economic measure, and calling Lincoln's unionist rhetoric "specious humbug".
One of the early voices in Britain opposing that view was that of Karl Marx, contending that the major cause of secession was slavery – and that the tariff was just a pretext.
Naturally, in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place.[3] (http://www.aotc.net/Marxen.htm)Marx's paragraph, part of a much larger argument, suggests the interpretation that the Morrill tariff could not have been a cause for secession since it was passed after the first round of secession took place, and perhaps even that it was passed to finance the Civil War. However, as explained above, the Morrill Act had been debated in both the House and the Senate for many months even before the election of 1860. Several southern politicians cited its anticipated adoption as one of their reasons for secession, so its role as a cause cannot be dismissed.
Many modern historians have tended to preserve these opposing positions that developed in England, with few if any exploring any middle ground. Some historians such as Charles Beard and most economists, especially Thomas DiLorenzo, follow Dickens and have identified the Morrill Tariff as an underlying cause for the Civil War. They contend that the tariff was a source of major irritation for the south, and also note that many northerners opposed secession for fear that it would undermine the Morrill Tariff's implementation and the protection they received from it."
Seriously...
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 01/09/2011 - 7:11pm.
So you are saying that if you were anti-slavery, you were Marxist.
Another Confederate apologist strikes again.
The South lost. Get over it.
(Nice monocausal theory, by the way.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)