Violations of the Constitution by American Presidents – Lincoln and the War Between the States

Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War

We have all been taught that Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator who freed the slaves during the Civil War, but according to the Independent Review, “contrary to popular belief, the war was not fought primarily over slavery.” This statement counters everything we have been taught since grammar school. It appears that in reality most Northerners did not object to slavery; quite to the contrary, they graciously accomplished trade and most business matters with the south, without protest. Supposedly, the war was fought because of the different economic policies of the northern and southern states, wherein some of these policies were related, but other matters had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.

 

Therefore, the war with the south, which is more correctly identified as the “war between the states,” was a convenient vehicle to ensure the southern tax base was retained to fund the treasury to feed expansion. Lincoln may have made many decisions for what he considered the greater good of the country, but on the surface it appears that sinister forces were at work. Scholars have debated the issue of why the war was fought for over a hundred years, without an absolute conclusion. As far as this book, this is not the issue I wish to explore. The issue is how the Constitution has been suborned, misinterpreted, ignored or simply bypassed by the politicians, and in some cases by the judicial system itself, so I will leave the great debate to the scholars.

 

Let me be very clear about this. I am not attempting to demonize some of the most important figures, such as Abraham Lincoln, in American history, as many revisionists have reviled both Jefferson and Washington and other revolutionary visionaries because they owned slaves. We know little of the mindset of many of these people over one hundred to two hundred years ago. As incomprehensible as their thinking may have been in today’s society, in many quarters slaves were considered sub-human, to be used for menial labor in much the same manner as we use robots today. Therefore, the Founding Fathers did not see any contradiction between slavery and the “All men are created equal” clause of the Declaration of Independence.

 

Lincoln claimed in his First Inaugural Address “No state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union.”

 

Closely examining the Articles of Confederation, Article II states,

“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

By the standard definition in any randomly chosen dictionary, delegated means to pass down a chain-of-command to a subordinate agent by a superior authority – in this case, the individual state is passing authority to the Federal government. To reinforce this argument, The Declaration of Independence, in part, states quite clearly,

“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States… and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

“Power to levy War?” “Contract Alliances?  These words sound very much like the authority any nation would grant itself.

 

Remember that the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution very specifically designed the new government on the basis of a union of strong and independent states with a minimal Federal government solely responsible for defense and the judiciary, to avoid the pitfalls of powerful central governments such as England. In fact, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution specifically states

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

Common defence and general Welfare meant that their intention was simply to maintain a Federal army and the development of a nationwide judicial system. That was the main purpose of the Federal government – and not the mutation we have today. According to various legal interpretations, Lincoln had no more claim to bind Georgia or Alabama than it had in binding China or France to the Union. The key here is that somehow Lincoln and his supporters chose to believe that the states had magically surrendered their status as sovereign nations as justification to wage war against the south. Lincoln’s actions clearly violated the tenth amendment to the Constitution that states,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Legal experts, ad nauseum, can debate this argument but one seemingly indisputable fact stands out like a Times Square billboard. By almost all legal interpretations, the Constitution is fundamentally a treaty between separate and sovereign nation-states, which those states agreed to support, as opposed to being bound to obey by law. This is a very important point that illustrates the rape of the Constitution commencing with the administration of Lincoln. There are thousands of legal interpretations that are both pro and con on this issue, so consult your library (or the Internet) if you wish to pursue this matter in greater depth.

 

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus (a writ to release a party from unlawful restraint) and people were seized and confined on the possible suspicion of disloyalty. At least 13,000 civilians were held as political prisoners, often without trial or with minimal hearings before a military tribunal. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, but was overruled by Lincoln. Does this not ring a bell? The Patriot Act was not the first instance of suspension of the people’s rights under the Constitution.

 

Once Lincoln and his supporters had made the decision that states had surrendered their sovereignty, the Civil War caused a tremendous expansion of the size and power of the Federal government. A progressive income tax was imposed on the people to pay for the war, the start of the extortion of our paychecks that we live with today.

 

One of the key provisions of the Constitution is that it is a “living” document. Our Founding Fathers recognized that they could not foresee the needs of the people 100 or 200 years in the future, so they developed the system of amendments to permit continual update of the document. However, a very important point must be emphasized in that two-thirds of the states must ratify any change. Obviously since the south represented about one-half of the states in the Union, Lincoln would not have been able to modify any provision of the Constitution dealing with states rights – he would not have obtained approval on this issue.

 

Frank Meyer, in the August, 1965, issue of National Review, wrote an article that in part stated,

“Lincoln’s pivotal role in our history was essentially negative to the genius and freedom of our country.”

Pretty harsh words I would have to say. He also wrote:

“Lincoln…moved at every point …to consolidate central power and render nugatory (of little importance) the autonomy of the states…It is on his shoulders that the responsibility for the war must be placed.”

Many historians would agree with the following statement,

“If the premise upon which the US broke from England is legitimate then the ENTIRE PREMISE upon which Lincoln prosecuted the war against the Confederacy was ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL.”

There is no question the Lincoln freed the slaves, a terrible blot on the country, but “does the means justify the end?”

 

As un-American and contrary as this may sound, an argument can be made that if this democracy falls within the next 50 years because of excessive Federal government control and taxation, Lincoln’s freeing of the slaves by fighting the war may have been too high a price to pay for his usurpation of the Constitution.

read more at Violations of the Constitution by American Presidents.

Random Thoughts on the GOP

Image via Wikipedia

The first time I ever voted in an election was in 1984, and that vote was cast for Ronald Reagan.  Unfortunately I have not had the honor of voting for anyone even close to his caliber since.  In my mind, he was and is everything that Republican should be.  I wish that were the case to the GOP.  I’ve heard that the establishment never really liked Reagan, and have abandoned true conservatives since the defeat of Goldwater in ’64.

Since 1984, I have voted Republican except in 1996 and 2008.  In 1996 I voted for Harry Browne, Libertarian and author of the book “Why Government Doesn’t Work“.  I supported Harry Browne in 1996, and yes, I support Ron Paul now.

In 2008 I voted on every issue and every race except for President.  I loath John McCain.  I believe that Barack Obama won in 2008 not because he was such a great leader or speaker, but rather because McCain was so completely wrong.  The best thing McCain had going for him was Sarah Palin.  Conservatives did not like McCain, and although he won the nomination, he never had the support of the base.  The angry white RiNO was never going to win, and that was obvious when his campaign became one of defending Obama and not bringing real solutions to the table.

I would never have voted for Obama, and I will not in 2012.  The man had no experience, and when our nation needed leadership, he is what we got.  Of course his politics are pretty far removed from mine as well.  I am not liberal.  I lean libertarian, so there are issues I agree with liberals on, but my distrust of big government runs far too deep.

The primaries are going, and the race is down to Romney or Gingrich.  If Paul is still in I will vote for him in the primary, and in the general I will vote for Romney or Gingrich.  I’m not thrilled by either, and I am left wondering if the GOP isn’t going to see itself fall apart.

Simply put, the GOP has become Liberal Lite.  In the absence of the Soviet threat, and holding a disdain for Goldwater and Reagan, it is a party that has lost its soul.  You are not the party of vision when what you stand for is nothing more than “We aren’t them”.  Everything else is just lip service.  The party of small government and less regulation has grow government and increased regulation, but to a lesser degree than the Democrats.  Democrat Lite!!!

At a time when many in this country still subscribe to the Reagan Revolution, to the ideals of the Republic, it seems both parties are intent on growing government.  The Tea Party emerged not out of the GOP, but out of the people who observed a government that no longer reflected the will of the people.  Most Americans agree with the Tea Party.  In many ways the Occupy Movement reflects the same frustrations from the base of the other side.  Big government is rightly perceived as a threat, and a pawn to big business and big labor.  The people are betrayed, and it is time to reclaim our birthright.

Gingrich is the face of the post Reagan GOP, that gave lip service to the Gipper but followed corruption.  The GOP failed in their contract with America.  They did keep Clinton in check, thus his legacy is greater than it should have been, but for all the opportunity, the GOP went for power over principle.  In going after Clinton and not just keeping him in check, they laid the groundwork for what was later seen with the Democrats accusing Bush of masterminding 9-11.  Of course they also said he was the village idiot.  Politics doesn’t always make sense.

Romney is the face of the GOP today.  He is not a conservative.  I know what he says, but how much does it really mean?  I have no issue with the concept that what is fine at the state level is not fine on a federal level, and thus I can overlook RomneyCare.  I believe he will work to overturn ObamaCare.  He will not fulfill the ideals of the Reagan Revolution.  He will not work to restore our rights.  He will not work to scale back government.  He is better equipped to deal with our economic reality than our current president, but he is no Reagan.

So liberal lite, or conservative?  Conservatives are the single largest ideological group.  The future of the GOP hinges on that question, and if it is the former and not the latter, the GOP will go the way of the Whigs.

Introduce Yourself…

I’m Robert Ray, a husband, a father, a Christian, an American, a former Marine, a conservative/libertarian, trucker, and several other things to boot.  Hopefully the labels haven’t served to box me in!  (I rather detest labels, as too often they separate people.  Rather than see another human it is too easy to see “——–“.)   I am 46, and I was born on New Year’s Day 1966.  I have been married 18 years, and I have five children with my wife Courtney.

I use to blog often a few years ago, but I let it fall to the side.  Between things going on in my personal life and the election causing people to turn rabid on one another I gave it up.  I am back because Facebook doesn’t exactly give me the opportunity to express myself.  It is a little to broad in that in includes friends, family, coworkers, classmates, and people from all over.  Much as it has served to bring together people from all over life, it has also been destructive to relationships.  I won’t go further into that now, but a google search will bring up plenty of articles on the topic.

I had already written an introduction, but it was lost somehow.  Far better than this one too, but so it goes.

I’m not looking to write specifically about anything.  So far I’ve posted mostly political, but I don’t want a political blog at this point.  I don’t have the time or energy to engage in the sparring that such blogs often fall into.  I know, people like blogs about specific things, and if you need a label, at this point it is life as seen through the eyes of this cowboy.  depending on how much I take to this I may have separate blogs for different things.

Thank you to all who have come, and all who will come!  And thank you in advance for the friendships I’m sure will come from this experience.  Y’all are welcome!  Come on in and sit a spell!