ADVERTISEMENT

A. Lincoln, on Dred Scott

Marshal Jim Duncan

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Dec 22, 2013
29,761
35,323
113
I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration, in all l cases, by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal. .
 
I believe you misunderstood Mr. Lincoln's point.
"Mr. Lincoln's opinion"--FIFY

His point: "...nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration, in all l cases, by all other departments of the government.

That's the point. We may not always agree, but SC has final say, under our Constitutional Democracy, unless and until the Court changes its mind. ----regardless the opinion of "the candid citizen". World's full of "candid citizens".

Only one SCOTUS.
 
My read is ole Abe was saying - "live with it, thats how the system works..."

Pretty much. He's saying hey, you all gave up the right to self-govern. Then he went to war and proved it to save the precious union.
 
My read is ole Abe was saying - "live with it, thats how the system works..."

Seems odd then that immediately upon taking office Lincoln reversed two prior executive branch decisions that were directly tied to extending the effect of Dred Scott.

If you've ever read anything about his speeches prior to becoming President, you'd (possibly) come to realize that you don't understand what he said in the quote above, which, incidentally, is from his 1st inaugural address.
 
He would have been considered a grade a liar and flip flopper in an age were media moved like it does today. Him being called "honest" Abe is a joke.
 
He would have been considered a grade a liar and flip flopper in an age were media moved like it does today. Him being called "honest" Abe is a joke.

Lincoln was far from perfect, and there are legitimate criticisms of the manner in whcih he expanded the executive. But, with all due repsect (and I mean that sincerely), your comments about Lincoln (e.g. here) frequently cross the line to irrational.
 
I'm sorry, he wasn't a good president. Perhaps not as bad as I make him out to be, but certainly not what he's been blown up to be. He did several things the exact same way as any other tyrant would have and is praised for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitter Creek
I'm sorry, he wasn't a good president. Perhaps not as bad as I make him out to be, but certainly not what he's been blown up to be. He did several things the exact same way as any other tyrant would have and is praised for it.

Thor, he ended slavery. Does that not resonate with you?
 
Dred Scott was a morally awful decision and I think everyone has the right to bitch about awful decisions, even conservatives. If anything Dred Scott shows that the SCOTUS may be able to move our country forward by leaps and bounds, but it can only temporarily hold us back.
 
Even if you disagree with Lincoln you have to admit he was great. Same with Stalin. It takes a great man to win the American Civil War and to pull off what Stalin did during WWII. Maybe tyrants who you disagree with, but winners and great(as in grand not good) figure's in their countries" histories.
 
Thor, he ended slavery. Does that not resonate with you?

Slavery could have ended peacefully (even with secession) and it's likely we wouldn't have the racial tension we have today. Lincoln set race relations back in this country at least, what is it now, 150 years?

And while we're at it. His actions didn't resonate with some ardent abolishonists either.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bitter Creek
Even if you disagree with Lincoln you have to admit he was great. Same with Stalin. It takes a great man to win the American Civil War and to pull off what Stalin did during WWII. Maybe tyrants who you disagree with, but winners and great(as in grand not good) figure's in their countries" histories.

By that standard Mao Zedong was a great too. Anyone else you want to add? Sadam Hussein, Amin, Pinochet?
 
Last edited:
Seems odd then that immediately upon taking office Lincoln reversed two prior executive branch decisions that were directly tied to extending the effect of Dred Scott.

If you've ever read anything about his speeches prior to becoming President, you'd (possibly) come to realize that you don't understand what he said in the quote above, which, incidentally, is from his 1st inaugural address.
Not that up on Lincoln... perhaps should add a book or two to the iPad on the topic...
 
Slavery could have ended peacefully (even with secession) and it's likely we wouldn't have the racial tension we have today. Lincoln set race relations back in this country at least, what is it now, 150 years?

And while we're at it. His actions didn't resonate with some ardent abolishonists either.
You think slavery could end peacefully? With secession?

And race relations are Lincoln's fault? That's something else Thor.
 
You think slavery could end peacefully? With secession?

And race relations are Lincoln's fault? That's something else Thor.


It's not if you take the time to sit down and think about it. The CSA would have been forced to give it up economically because nations like Britain, France etc refused to trade with them or even recognize them as a nation. Look no further than the fact that toward the end of the war they worked up a deal to abolish it within 5 years so they could get recognition from those countries.

Sherman and his scorched earth policy probably shoulders as much or more blame for much of the hate toward blacks that began after the war. The common southerner wasn't fighting so the elites could own slaves. They were defending their homeland and loyalty was to state. Union soldiers going in burning homes, farms, raping and killing women and children brought animosity toward blacks when survivors and victims heard Union soldiers where doing this to them "for the black man." That animosity was passed down generation to generation with the original reason for the animosity evolving and other reasons taking its place.

I'm not saying racism would not have existed. It always will. I'm saying the extreme large scale hatred for blacks in large portions of the south would have been greatly reduced to probably more of what is the norm nationally (small hate groups here and there).

Like it or not, slavery could have been abolished peacefully, it was not Lincoln's reason for war, it was the reason for the secession, and much of the southern hatred for blacks is rooted in that war. It has only evolved over time. I'll never understand why people think its completely unrelated or a stretch to see a relation.
 
Thor, where do you come up with this stuff? What possible interest would there be in justifying the continuation of slavery and it's attendant evils? In any age? For even a day? You didn't take the time to consider the other spectrum of possibilities -- you know, if it continues for another 50 years? Lots of things maybe - might - probably - insert qualifying probability language -- happen if you just let slavery continue. Lots of things might be worse or might NOT happen, too.

Blaming Sherman forany contemporary attitute towards blacks is just.... insane. First, I doubt most Southerners couldn't tell you what he did, or when, or who he hurt. But okay -- what were the attitudes before Sherman? I mean, other than the mutilation, killing, rape, imprisonment and all that. So if Sherman wouldn't have done what he did, those white people that were complicit in torture and slavery of blacks would've had a kinder disposition, huh?

Where are you coming from?
 
The confederacy would have failed economically had they continued slavery, probably within a decade. Even some ardent abolitionists of the time said it could have been done peacefully.

Not kinder, just no different than the north. Don't act like the northern states embraced and loved blacks. They didn't want them coming up there. Just because it doesn't meet your predetermined world view doesn't make it any less plausible. You haven't refuted the theory at all. I said it was a root cause passed down generation to generation with reasons evolving.


This about slave treatment:

I mean, other than the mutilation, killing, rape, imprisonment and all that. So if Sherman wouldn't have done what he did, those white people that were complicit in torture and slavery of blacks would've had a kinder disposition, huh?

Hyperbole mostly not based in fact except for a few extenuating circumstances like Madam LaLaurie who was one sick individual.
 
At this point, you've so marginalized yourself there's no point in continuing. Those Northerners probably just didn't like Sherman, either.

Hey, ol' Abe might've joined the circus with Jefferson Davis, and just worked it all out one night while weighing the fat lady, too. Lots of variables in the unknown. I admire anyone that had the challenges Lincoln did, and the conscious he did, and was as smart as him,and got the country through what he did. If the republican party had his heart I'd be wearing a GOP button right now.
 
No, your being intentionally obtuse. In fact, you've just engaged in hyperbole in an attempt to marginalize while not ever addressing any facts or having an honest conversation. In your mind the only option in history was the option that occurred.
 
Thor, if you have facts, let's see them, particularly the one where most abolitionists say it could've been done wihtout war. I'd venture to suggest that many abolitiionists also tended to be anti-war if not outright pacifists.

What was it exactly that was going to cause the south to fail economically and thereby do away wiht slavery, wihtin a decade?

Why did 7 southern states secede before Lincoln was ever inaugurated? Since they did, if Lincoln believed that preservation of the Union was his ultimate duty (and I know you don't agree with this, and that is your ultimate beef with Mr. Lincoln), how could that have been achieved without war?
 
Slavery could have ended peacefully (even with secession) and it's likely we wouldn't have the racial tension we have today. Lincoln set race relations back in this country at least, what is it now, 150 years?

We are the only country to have used war as the solution to the problem
 
Thor, if you have facts, let's see them, particularly the one where most abolitionists say it could've been done wihtout war. I'd venture to suggest that many abolitiionists also tended to be anti-war if not outright pacifists.

What was it exactly that was going to cause the south to fail economically and thereby do away wiht slavery, wihtin a decade?

Why did 7 southern states secede before Lincoln was ever inaugurated? Since they did, if Lincoln believed that preservation of the Union was his ultimate duty (and I know you don't agree with this, and that is your ultimate beef with Mr. Lincoln), how could that have been achieved without war?

First of all, I didn't say most. I said some, I'm not going to do the research on "most.". If you want, you can look up Lysander Spooner. He was a an ardent abolitionist, wrote about the unconstitutionality of slavery, and did not support war.

I've already addressed why the CSA would have failed economically had they not given up slavery. I think the CSA would have been forced to abolish it economically or face collapse. In the case of the latter I think states would have reapplied for the Union, I could be wrong though. I also think that it is highly likely that even had the CSA succeeded as a country we would have another union in place today.

I've also addressed that yes, the states seceded due to the institution of slavery being threatened. Political alarmism played a large role. People can argue they seceded over states rights which is technically true but that state right was over the right of men to own slaves, hence it was over slavery for the states and the elites that ran the states. I've even brought up the cornerstone speech in the past as proof.

You are right about my beef with Lincoln. War was the only option in his mind but the fact is that it was not the only option in reality. He was very concerned about revenue and the economic impact of secession on the US. Like I said, Jefferson did not threaten war in the face of northern states threatening secession in the wake of his election.
 
First of all, I didn't say most. I said some, I'm not going to do the research on "most.". If you want, you can look up Lysander Spooner. He was a an ardent abolitionist, wrote about the unconstitutionality of slavery, and did not support war.

I've already addressed why the CSA would have failed economically had they not given up slavery. I think the CSA would have been forced to abolish it economically or face collapse. In the case of the latter I think states would have reapplied for the Union, I could be wrong though. I also think that it is highly likely that even had the CSA succeeded as a country we would have another union in place today.

I've also addressed that yes, the states seceded due to the institution of slavery being threatened. Political alarmism played a large role. People can argue they seceded over states rights which is technically true but that state right was over the right of men to own slaves, hence it was over slavery for the states and the elites that ran the states. I've even brought up the cornerstone speech in the past as proof.

You are right about my beef with Lincoln. War was the only option in his mind but the fact is that it was not the only option in reality. He was very concerned about revenue and the economic impact of secession on the US. Like I said, Jefferson did not threaten war in the face of northern states threatening secession in the wake of his election.



But, in Lincoln's case, they actually DID secede, before he even officially took office. And efforts to bring them back, such as the Corwin Amendment (which would've made it much more difficult to get rid of slavery), did not work.

And soon thereafter the government of SC (and other seceding states) seized several pieces of federal property and laid siege to Fort Moultrie (sp?) in Charleston's harbor. And cadets at The Citadel fired on a transport vessel bringing supplies to a U.S. fort in SC (Moultrie). A little over a month after Lincoln took office, Jefferson Davis made the decision to demand surrender of Fort Sumter and to take it before an expedition coming from the north could bring supplies.
 
Well, Thor?

I'm not being obtuse. I'm not arguing the finer points of the history like Glove, because I know almost nothing about civil war history. I just can't figure out where you get these huge factual leaps, and Glove's facts, if true, just demolish your argument that Lincoln was somehow an aggressor.

The CSA would have been forced to give it up economically because nations like Britain, France etc refused to trade with them or even recognize them as a nation. Look no further than the fact that toward the end of the war they worked up a deal to abolish it within 5 years so they could get recognition from those countries.

1. Where's a reference for the confederacy agreeing to abolish slavery within 5 years? I've never heard that.

2. So the "etc" part (the rest of the world?) would have prevented the south from selling cotton to other willing buyers? Or something else that required cheap labor?

3. Is there an other non-confederate, thinking person that agrees with characterizing Abe as a tyrant?
 
Glove,

First, there was no 'siege" of Moultrie. Anderson moved his troops at night on his own accord to a more defensible position (Sumter) days after SC seceded.

Second, in March (maybe late February) the CSA sent represtatives to Washington to negotiate back payment of debt, payment for forts, federal lands, etc. Lincoln refused to meet with them. He instead chose to play chicken by trying to re-supply the fort. After the snub by Lincoln, Davis demanded surrender. Lincoln wanted that shot to be fired.

By the way, I think Lincoln seriously underestimated how bloody it would be. I think he thought it would end quickly. I also think he may have had some regret and that's why he didn't want continued punishment after the war ended. But I digress.

Sys,

1. They negotiated with Napoleon the III and he agreed. Prime minister Temple denied the proposal and Lee surrendered before further negotiation could occur. It was recorded by William Henry and can probably be found in the library of congress.

2. They needed recognition and trade from the current super powers.

3. Lysander Spooner was not a confederate. He wrote no treason. Lincoln jailed non-confederate dissenters for disagreeing with the war and voicing it. Is it possible they thought he was a tyrant?
 
I agree with on the last point. I think you are mostly wrong on the first two. Lincoln sent letters to the governor of SC telling him he was sending supplies to the fort and no weapons or ammunition. Jefferson Davis (amongst others) was spoiling for a fight.
 
I agree with on the last point. I think you are mostly wrong on the first two. Lincoln sent letters to the governor of SC telling him he was sending supplies to the fort and no weapons or ammunition. Jefferson Davis (amongst others) was spoiling for a fight.

That is true. He did send a letter....after he refused to meet with representatives sent to negotiate... and likely knowing it would shift the possibility of aggression to the CSA. He didn't want to appear to be the aggressor and he didn't want the SCOTUS hearing a case on the legality of secession. He did all he could to keep from acknowledging their legitimacy as a government and goading them into the first shot.

I've said it before, he was a brilliant politician. I still think he never had any other intention than forcing them to stay in the union. Which shows the hypocrisy of his quote about a government of the people and by the people. He went to war against the very principle of self-government (not a condonement of slavery). A principle established in our declaration. I have no doubt that most of the founding generation would have considered him a tyrant. Wasn't it Henry, maybe Mason, that predicted war if the Constitution were ratified? I'm finding that the anti-federalist were more right than wrong.
 
I guess you're a mind reader. He appears to have been as much of a mastermind as George Bush, the way he was able to force his opponents to do exactly what he wanted against their benevolent wills.

He refused to meet with anyone representing the national government of the CSA. Tell me, where within the Constitution do you find a legal basis for secession ? I have no doubt that you're wrong about most of the founding generation, at least so far as pertains to preserving the union.
 
. He went to war against the very principle of self-government (not a condonement of slavery). A principle established in our declaration.

This is what blows my mind. The very self-governance that the south wanted to protect was denying the right of self governance. Why doesn't that count in your calculus? If self governance is so important, isn't allowing black people the right to self-govern the antithesis of tyranny?

Again, where are you coming from? Lincoln was an affront to self governance by enabling millions of people to finally govern themselves? Stated another way, why is your perspective from the oppressor?
 
This is what blows my mind. The very self-governance that the south wanted to protect was denying the right of self governance. Why doesn't that count in your calculus? If self governance is so important, isn't allowing black people the right to self-govern the antithesis of tyranny?

Again, where are you coming from? Lincoln was an affront to self governance by enabling millions of people to finally govern themselves? Stated another way, why is your perspective from the oppressor?
The answer to this is that Lincoln didn't go to war to free the slaves, but to preserve the union.
 
Sherman and his scorched earth policy probably shoulders as much or more blame for much of the hate toward blacks that began after the war. The common southerner wasn't fighting so the elites could own slaves. They were defending their homeland and loyalty was to state. Union soldiers going in burning homes, farms, raping and killing women and children brought animosity toward blacks when survivors and victims heard Union soldiers where doing this to them "for the black man." That animosity was passed down generation to generation with the original reason for the animosity evolving and other reasons taking its place.

I'm not saying racism would not have existed. It always will. I'm saying the extreme large scale hatred for blacks in large portions of the south would have been greatly reduced to probably more of what is the norm nationally (small hate groups here and there).

Like it or not, slavery could have been abolished peacefully, it was not Lincoln's reason for war, it was the reason for the secession, and much of the southern hatred for blacks is rooted in that war. It has only evolved over time. I'll never understand why people think its completely unrelated or a stretch to see a relation.

I am sorry but this is ridiculous. The South has held a long term grudge against black people because the people who set about freeing the black people were mean? That would certainly explain a long term grudge against the North, but how does it explain it against black people.

Maybe just maybe, southern hostility towards blacks is based on white supremacy and the humiliation of being equal in the eyes of the law to people you consider subhuman and chattel. 'If you ain't better than a n-----, son, who are you better than?'

Thought experiment: If, like you said, the CSA abolish slavery in 1870, how long until blacks get equal rights? Do the people not harbor resentment towards the freed slaves?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marshal Jim Duncan
He refused to meet with anyone representing the national government of the CSA. Tell me, where within the Constitution do you find a legal basis for secession ? I have no doubt that you're wrong about most of the founding generation, at least so far as pertains to preserving the union.

Here you go. The author lays it out pretty well. You can start with the Declaration.
 
I am sorry but this is ridiculous. The South has held a long term grudge against black people because the people who set about freeing the black people were mean? That would certainly explain a long term grudge against the North, but how does it explain it against black people.

Maybe just maybe, southern hostility towards blacks is based on white supremacy and the humiliation of being equal in the eyes of the law to people you consider subhuman and chattel. 'If you ain't better than a n-----, son, who are you better than?'

Thought experiment: If, like you said, the CSA abolish slavery in 1870, how long until blacks get equal rights? Do the people not harbor resentment towards the freed slaves?

It's not the reason now, it has evolved with those that still hate blacks. My goodness, how many times do I have to say that? It was the root of generational racism passed down and it has evolved. You still have whole families that hate blacks. There still would have been bias and racism, just as there is and was in the north. I'm saying the war made it exponentially worse. They blamed their plight from Sherman on blacks when they heard that blacks were the reason it happened. That is not a stretch in any form or fashion. Of course, there was some beliefs that they were below whites and there was some supremacy involved, just as there was in the north.

The deal was they would abolish slavery within 5 years after hostilities ended. They still had to get it passed by the congress but they felt confident it would occur. How long until equal rights? I don't know but an argument can be made that it would have been much earlier.

Lincoln was just as much a white supremacist as most anyone else in that time was. This idea that it was only the south is ludicrous.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT