-Caveat Lector-
"Jim Condit Jr." wrote:
>
...example: the argument that the
> Civil War wasn't over slavery --- I've seen some people on Politically
> Incorrect and elsewhere argue this passionately, -- but can anyone
> succinctly state their case? States Rights isn't good enough, because what
> States Rights were they fighting for? The right to enslave fellow human
> beings? That as absurd as the right to abortion. Jim Condit Jr.
>
from Lincoln's first inaugural address at:
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Lincoln/lincoln-1.html
"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States
that by the
accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace
and personal
security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause
for such
apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all
the while
existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published
speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches
when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to
interfere with the
institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right
to do so, and I have
no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full
knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never
recanted them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance,
and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution
which I now
read:
"Resolved: that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the
States, and especially
the right of each State to order and control its own domestic
institutions according
to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of
power on which the
perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we
denounce the
lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or
Territory, no matter
under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press upon
the public
attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible,
that the
property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise
endangered by the
now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the protection which,
consistently with
the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to
all the States
when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause-- as cheerfully to one
section as to
another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from
service or labor.
The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any
other of its
provisions:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
thereof, escaping
into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein
be discharged
from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of
the party to whom
such service or labor may be due."
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who
made it for the
reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the
lawgiver is the law.
All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--
to this
provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves
whose cases
come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up", their
oaths are unanimous.
Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with
nearly equal
unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous
oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be
enforced by
national or by State authority; but surely that difference is not a very
material one. If
the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to
him or to others by
which authority it is done. And should any one in any case be content
that his oath
shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to HOW it shall
be kept?
Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of
liberty known in
civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man
be not, in any
case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time
to provide by
law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which
guarantees that "the
citizen of each State shall be entitled to all privileged and immunities
of citizens in the
several States?"
I take the official oath today with no mental reservations, and with no
purpose to
construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. And while
I do not choose
now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I
do suggest that
it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to
conform to and
abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of
them, trusting to
find impunity in having them held to be unConstitutional."
If my understanding of the above is correct, Lincoln is saying that
he not only does not intend to end slavery, but will enforce laws for
their return. Am I not correct in this reading? Later he even suggests
that he would favor the amending of the Constitution to protect slavery.
Yet the southern states did not return to the Union. Why not? Though
Lincoln states that the Union is perpetual and has arguments opposing
the legality of states leaving the union, he does not address the
argument put forth by the southern states that when Virginia ratified
the Constitution it made the provision that the state could leave the
union if it desired. It was also argued that by putting that provision
into its ratification agreement all other states were given the same
right. Lincoln does not touch this. Also, "perpetual" in a contract does
not necessarily mean that the contract cannot be ended. It merely means
that it has no ending date, but can be ended by either party. For
instance, if I agree to be a partner in a business for a non-specified
length of time, it would be perpetual. But it would not mean that I
couldn't end the agreement.
What is not mentioned in the inaugural which may be a more important
reason for the south to secede was the Republican plan to greatly raise
tariffs and use the proceeds for building rail lines which would
primarily benefit the northern states. My understanding is that Lincoln
affirmed this policy and planned on implementing it. This was a more
direct threat to the southern economy since the ships which brought the
southern cotton to Europe would not be able to fill their holds with
European trade goods and instead the south would be forced to buy at
higher prices from northern manufacturers.
If the Civil War was about slavery, why did Lincoln make it so clear
that he was treat it in the same way as it had been treated by the past
15 presidents? There is nothing in this speech which seems to indicate a
plan for its ending.
Howard Davis
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
