It's honest Abe's birthday. And it's the presidential primary season. A good time to look back at a presidential primary that was pivotal in American history. At the Republican Convention in 1860, Lincoln's acceptance speech declared that "a house divided against itself can not stand". http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/house.htm
He proclaimed that the issue of slavery had to be resolved once and for all with the entire country either outlawing or legalizing slavery. He, of course, strongly favored outlawing it.

His opponent, Stephen Douglas (the Democrat nominee for president) responded by saying:

"I am free to say to you that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such manner as they should determine."
This was Lincoln's response (in part):

We are now a mighty nation, we are thirty---or about thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country,---with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men,---we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these [Independence Day] meetings in better humor with ourselves---we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men---descended by blood from our ancestors---among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe---German, Irish, French and Scandinavian---men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration [loud and long continued applause], and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.]

Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of "don't care if slavery is voted up or voted down" [Douglas's "popular sovereignty" position on the extension of slavery to the territories], for sustaining the Dred Scott decision [A voice---"Hit him again"], for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices---"me" "no one," &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of "no, no,"] let us stick to it then [cheers], let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.] http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?type=boolean;c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;sid=10bbb949 054d75f198b923fa56686c80;rgn=div1;q1=electric;op2= and;q2=cord;op3=and;view=text;subview=detail;sort= occur;idno=lincoln2;node=lincoln2%3A526
Lincoln won the election, and the nation was soon plunged into a civil war over the issue of slavery. We paid for our "original sin" of slavery with the bloodiest war in our history.

Our present presidential primary seems a farce in comparison. But who knows? You have to wonder, had Lincoln known the price in blood that would be paid for what he was unleashing, would he have gone thru with it?

And just what are we unleashing with our choice of president this year?

We paid for our "original sin" of slavery with the bloodiest war in our history.

Our present presidential primary seems a farce in comparison.

We also pay for our own sins, its just that wars change...

The only issue is that unlike Lincoln, Bush cannot speak out these faults. Lincoln had a courage to say the truth.

, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. Which was of course the original intent - the strict Constitutionalist judicial - interpretation.

Douglas was State Supreme Court judge, a "deeply religious" Baptist, and a champion of democracy and individual rights against Federal tyranny.

Ron Paul would have to agree with Judge Douglas. So would the people who argued for the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and before them Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, to the Supreme Court. So would every Republican candidate for President appearing in the latest campaign.

Ron Paul would have to agree with Judge Douglas. So would the people who argued for the appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and before them Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, to the Supreme Court. So would every Republican candidate for President appearing in the latest campaign.BS. The first draft of the Declaration of Independence included among the list of grievences the perpetuation of the institution of slavery in the colonies. Jefferson's intent was to abolish slavery in the new nation. Unfortunately, the Southern states would never have signed such a declaration, so he had to compromise. Nevertheless, his actual intent is clear.

You'll also note that the founding fathers refused to sully the constitution with the word "slave", which is why it refers to slaves as "other persons". Politics required that slavery not be immediately banned in the new republic, but many of the Founding Fathers were not happy with that situation.

Although he himself was a slaveowner, he believed that slavery was an evil that should not be permitted to spread. In 1784 the provision banning slavery was narrowly defeated. Had one representative (John Beatty of New Jersey), sick and confined to his lodging, been present, the vote would have been different. "Thus," Jefferson later reflected, "we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful moment." http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:MEbIXSXuB-IJ:sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/tjefferson.html+thomas+jefferson+slavery&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=firefox-a
I never knew that slavery was almost banned that early in our history. I especially didn't know that the attempt failed by only one vote! And that vote wasn't cast because a guy was sick!

The only issue is that unlike Lincoln, Bush cannot speak out these faults. Lincoln had a courage to say the truth

Ask the Native Americans about his "truth". He sent more troops to wipe them out so that his constituants would be able to take away their lands and tried to exterminate them as well. A truely great man. :(

here's my favorite lincoln quote:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

Jefferson's intent was to abolish slavery in the new nation. Unfortunately, the Southern states would never have signed such a declaration, so he had to compromise. Nevertheless, his actual intent is clear. So? Jefferson is just one man. Others approved the document as written, as they intended, and their intention in approving it was not to ban slavery. The original meaning of the document is clear - it did not ban slavery at the time, it was approved specifically because it did not ban slavery, and no interpretation of it as banning slavery when it was written is supportable.

You're arguing like one of those activist judges, who go back and read minds and find "spirit of liberty" or "right to privacy" buried in there, and decide these fantasies are more important than the plain words as originally meant.

ant: I agree with Iceaura, he's completely correct on the issue.

You're arguing like one of those activist judges, who go back and read minds and find "spirit of liberty" or "right to privacy" buried in there, and decide these fantasies are more important than the plain words as originally meant.
The plain words, as written, clearly can not condone slavery. Jefferson's intent when he wrote that all men were created equal was that all men were created equal. That part of the document wasn't changed, just the part specifically complaining about slavery.

The words mean what the man who wrote them meant when he wrote them. That man was Jefferson.

We seems to be talking about two different things. Iceaura originally mentioned that it would be the proper constitutional position to uphold slavery. This is undoubtedly true until a constitutional amendment abolished slavery, regardless of what the Declaration says.

We seems to be talking about two different things. Iceaura originally mentioned that it would be the proper constitutional position to uphold slavery. This is undoubtedly true until a constitutional amendment abolished slavery, regardless of what the Declaration says.Well, of course, slavery was perfectly legal in certain states at the time. But Lincoln was pointing out, and I was agreeing with him, that Jefferson's intent when he wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, ... was not that this should apply only to white men, but to all men.

Let's make sure we are on the same page:

1. Lincoln didn't give a shit one way or other about slavery.
2. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free ANY slaves...
3. Lincoln was a traitor.
4. The War between the states wasn't based on the slavery issue...
5. It was perfectly legal for a State to be removed from the Union, if they wish to do so...

Let's make sure we are on the same page:

1. Lincoln didn't give a shit one way or other about slavery.
Did you read any of the above? His election is pretty much what touched off the civil war. He was opposed to slavery, there's no doubt about that.

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I
can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never
understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to
act officially upon this judgment and feeling."
Abraham Lincoln
Source: April 4, 1864 - Letter to Albert Hodges

Well, of course, slavery was perfectly legal in certain states at the time. But Lincoln was pointing out, and I was agreeing with him, that Jefferson's intent when he wrote: And Douglas was pointing out, and every Republican candidate this year agrees with him, the Jefferson's private mental philosophy is not to be imagined and invoked as if it were of legal import,

that the intent of the Declaration as approved by the people who signed it and backed it and made law from it was not to free any slaves.

Your "strict Constitutionalist" explicitly dismisses the kind of mindreading and interjection of fuzzy philosophy that Lincoln was engaged in.

Your modern Republican Party would feature Douglas, not Lincoln, as its spokesman.

Did you read any of the above?

Yes, I read The Real Lincoln and I also read post #6:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. "

He was a politican, thus he lied. End of story...

t,
Your "strict Constitutionalist" explicitly dismisses the kind of mindreading and interjection of fuzzy philosophy that Lincoln was engaged in.

Your modern Republican Party would feature Douglas, not Lincoln, as its spokesman.
You'll note that Lincoln had to pass a new law to free the slaves. In fact, he had to amend the constitution. He didn't try to re-interpret the law to mean the opposite of what it meant.

Now a Liberal would have simply said that the constitution, as written, already banned slavery.

Apparently Lincoln was a strict constructionist too. Neither he nor Douglas would fit in with post modern "living, breathing document" Liberals.

Lincoln did do a few things that were in violation of the Constitution though, like suspending habeas corpus on his own initiative without Congress (despite that being an Article I, congressional, power) and he blockaded southern ports (before then clearly understood to be an "act of war") without a Congressional declaration of war.

Today, on declarations of war, we are used to the idea that the President can take military action without a declaration being made beforehand, but a lot of that is because Lincoln did it first, and our understanding of the document "adapted" to that historical fact. Is that the "living document" theory?

Many of the framers (like James Madison) assumed and wanted the meaning of the Constitution to be settles "by practice" rather than by the framers' intent. For example Madison, the "father of the Constitution", who kept the most extensive notes during the course of the Convention, also refused to publish that journal until after his death


or, at least, . . . till the Constitution should be well settled by practice, and till a knowledge of the controversial part of the proceedings of its framers could be turned to no improper account . . . . As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution, the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character.

He also wrote:


But, after all, whatever veneration might be entertained for the body of men who formed our Constitution, the sense of that body could never be regarded as the oracular guide in expounding the Constitution.

and:


It could not but happen, and was foreseen at the birth of the Constitution, that difficulties and differences of opinion might occasionally arise in expounding terms and phrases necessarily used in such a charter . . . and that it might require a regular course of practice to liquidate and settle the meaning of some of them.

which follows from:


all new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill, and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation, are considered as more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning be liquidated and ascertained by a series of particular discussions and adjudications.



His position explains pretty well why he railed against the Bank of the United States being unconstitutional, then years later reauthorized the bank, as President. He simply believed that, whatever he initially thought about its constitutionality, years of practice—the Bank having existed and operated— had set the meaning of the Constitution in such a way that the Bank was now legal.

In any event, suppose the "original intent" of the framers was, as with Madison, that we ignore their original intent? What do we do then?

His position explains pretty well why he railed against the Bank of the United States being unconstitutional, then years later reauthorized the bank, as President. He simply believed that, whatever he initially thought about its constitutionality, years of practice—the Bank having existed and operated— had set the meaning of the Constitution in such a way that the Bank was now legal.

In any event, suppose the "original intent" of the framers was, as with Madison, that we ignore their original intent? What do we do then?
It seems to me that what Madison was saying that when the meaning is unclear or the precise application of the constitution in a particular situation is unclear, interpretation would be needed. Which is perfectly reasonable.

Regarding the banking situation, the fact that he initially railed against it implies that he believes the constitution has a particular meaning. However, over time he simply decided that continuing to oppose it would cause a greater disruption than accepting it. It was"settled law".

Whether it was one of his primary goals or just an afterthought, Lincoln's emancipation of the slaves through warfare has turned out to be a disaster. Everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere except Haiti (not a good role model), slavery was abolished peacefully, by attrition, because it proved not to be economically viable. And everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere except Haiti you do not see separate "black" and "white" communities, each with its own dialect, music and social customs.

The blood that was shed in the Civil War cast a pallor, both over relations between Americans of European and African ancestry, and over relations between Southerners and everybody else, whom they insist on lumping together as "Yankees" even though precious few of us are New Englanders.

If Lincoln had simply let the South go, within less than a generation its fairytale medieval feudal economy would have collapsed. Queen Victoria would probably have made them an offer they could not refuse and once they rejoined the Commonwealth their slaves would automatically be free. Today the Confederacy would be an independent nation like Canada and Australia. The border between Maryland and Virginia would be as easy to miss as the one between Minnesota and Manitoba. And we would not have separate "black" and "white" Americans. We'd all be different shades of brown like the people of Brazil.

Of course we'd still be ragging on our Indians, that's a racial problem that no country in this hemisphere has solved.

Everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere except Haiti (not a good role model), slavery was abolished peacefully, by attrition, because it proved not to be economically viable.
That was basically the thesis of the Harry Turtledove novel, The Guns of the South. South Africans go back in time and give machine guns to the south so they'll win the war. The plan works, but the white supremecist paradise the South Africans created doesn't last long as the institution of slavery begins petering out anyway.

Good book, by the way.

It seems to me that what Madison was saying that when the meaning is unclear or the precise application of the constitution in a particular situation is unclear, interpretation would be needed. Which is perfectly reasonable.

Though he does go somewhat further to suggest that the original intent of the framers is not a legitimate source of interpretation in those unclear areas.

What would that mean (to take a specific example) for the DC Gun Ban case the Supreme Court will be hearing this year? The second amendment can be read either as an absolute prohibition ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") with a non-binding, fear allaying, clause attached to it for some reason, or it can be read as an "absolute contruction (http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/001.html)," (which modifies the rest of the sentence) followed by a command. In the former case, the DC gun ban is out and citizens there are allowed to defend their lives with firearms. Under the latter, it seems that the "reason" for the command (the preservation of State militias against federal interference) likely constrains its applicability. Since DC is not a State and cannot therefore have a State militia, the command is (under that reading) not really applicable to their situation, and the residents of DC are left to relying on police to safeguard their lives from criminals.

Those are the two primary ways the clause gets read, and there's no really clear way to say which is "right." We do know, though, that gun bans have been in effect for decades, without too much controversy (less controversy that the Bank of the United States drew, in any event). In that case, would we not have an unclear clause, susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, followed by years of settled practice?

That would be bad news for people like me, who think gun bans are bad ideas (though I don't own a gun), since under the Madisonian rule, that would seem to win out over the interpretation I prefer. (Edit: Not to suggest that *my* personally preferred interpretation should control, as it's the wrong approach to decide what interpretation I want, then strive to justify that.)

If Lincoln had simply let the South go, within less than a generation its fairytale medieval feudal economy would have collapsed.

Though that runs smack into the arguments raised in Time on the Cross and its intellectual progeny, some of which suggest that American slavery was just as efficient as free labor, and the institution not moribund. So far as I know, the debate over those points continuies among economists and historians.

To be honest, though, I doubt we'd see a full-fledged Confederacy today. I think they'd have started splitting off from one another (as, indeed, many advocated during the Civil War, despite the common enemy they faced). That would have been especially true if they'd joined up with the U.K. and been forced to give up their slaves. Vice President Alexander Stephens declared that the "cornerstone" of the new government "rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." It's hard to imagine people like that accepting free slaves and dominion from far away England to boot.

I could see them living with it, if all the slaves were deported, I suppose, which Lincoln himself also favored for a time.

Then again maybe the country would have been better if Lincoln would have simply deported every free black out of the USA as was his origional plan?

Maybe it would have been best that Lincoln's Constitutional amendment protecting the institution of slavery would have passed?

"Any man can withstand adversity, If you want to test his true character give him power" I wonder if he said that.