Answer This Query

Jarrett Clifton from Cape Girardeau, Missouri left the following query on this blog. I thought it might be interesting if y’all took a shot at answering it.

Why wasn’t that Marxist Lincoln and his Bolshevik Generals able to prosecute our President, Jefferson Davis for his role in Secession ??? Because the US Supreme Court told them that their allegations had no Standing with the Court. Secession has always been Constitutional. Abraham Lincoln Springstein, committed Treason against the Constitution as the compact between independent sovereign countries which it joined together in a Confederated general government…Y’all might want to do a little more research before y’all start demonizing what y’all don’t fully understand. Jest a thought.

About these ads

44 thoughts on “Answer This Query

  1. In the face of such insight and historical acumen, what can we do but gape in awe? I just with I had done a little more research before I started demonizing what I didn’t understand. Though, I will gently point out that Lincoln was dead before Davis was in custody, so he’d have had a hard time prosecuting anyone.

      • The ironic thing is evilizing and demonizing white Southerners is the last thing a serious student of history would do. That’s a cop-out. It’s so much more fascinating to examine the life of someone like Henry Laurens, a signer of the Declaration of Independence as a representative of South Carolina and one of the delegation that negotiated the peace treaty between the US and the UK that ended the Revolutionary War. He was a sophisticated man who came from a wealthy family. He also made his own great fortune in ALL of the aspects of the triangular trade and owned hundreds of slaves. He eventually expressed doubts about the institution to his son, John, but that was after he made a fortune in the slave trade.

        • That was a very thoughtful comment; you hit the nail right on the head. Historians have a duty to try to portray people like Henry Laurens as they really were: a mixture of both good and bad qualities; just like the rest of us.

          Another good example is William T. Sherman. He could be ruthless in war and was noted for his blatant racism, but he also had the capacity for a great deal of compassion. While his troops were laying waste to South Carolina, Sherman sent his personal surgeon to care for an ailing Mayor MacBeth of Charleston, who was a friend of his. He personally organized efforts to try to extinguish the blaze in Columbia. His initial surrender terms to Johnston were even more generous than those given to Lee at Appomattox (so generous in fact, that the administration forced him to rescind them). Sherman doesn’t really fit any mold that people have made for him.

  2. Well, perhaps Mr. Clifton could list the qualities of Lincoln and his Generals that made them Marxist and Bolshevik.

    If it was emancipation that causes him to levy the charge of Marxism at Lincoln, then perhaps he can explain why he thinks the slaves did not deserve to be included under the “all men are created equal” phrase in the Declaration of Independence.

    As to the Generals, I find it difficult to ascribe extremism of any kind except being Unionists, to any of them [even McClellan! 8-)]

    As far as Davis goes, he was not tried for the same reason that Lee was not tried, nor was Alexander Stephens, nor any of the members of the Confederate government, or military [except a few guerrilla leaders who were tried and convicted of what amounts to terrorism, rather than making war. The nation needed to heal, And having martyred Confederate leaders would not have allowed that.

    I think perhaps Mr. Clifton needs to read up on the meanings of Bolshevism, and Marxism. None of that applies to Lincoln or his Generals [well, maybe Butler unchained...].

    As for secession, it has not always been legal, and Mr. Clifton should familiarize himself with Texas v. White, and the comments Justice Antonin Scalia made recently about that case and secession.

    So, who is this guy Abraham Lincoln Springstein?

  3. Well, just for starters in disassembling this pile of fermenting fabrications, the Supreme Court never ruled in the case. Chase, acting in his Circuit Justice capacity for the circuit, did state his views but they had nothing to do with the legality of “secession”. Instead, Chase’s public (and private) view was based on the language of the Fourteenth Amendment which barred Davis from holding office, meaning in Chase’s view that he had already been “punished” once and a treason prosecution would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. In fact, in another opinion issued by him in his Circuit Justice role, Chase strongly indicated that secession had no legal protection, Constitutional or otherwise. Shortridge v. Macon, 22 F. Cas. 20, 21 (C.C.D. N.C. 1867). That case involved a suit to collect on a debt and the defendant raised a defense based on a CSA statute. Chase wrote “But these acts [of secession] did not effect, even for a moment, the separation of North Carolina from the Union, any more than the acts of an individual who commits grave offenses against the state by resisting its officers and defying its authority, separate him from the state acted pursuant to it authority.”

    The Davis matter never got to the full Court. Although Chase and the two other judges assigned to the case disagreed on the Double Jeopardy issue and it was therefore certified to the Suprene Court, the Court never ruled because Johnson issued pardons before that stage. So maybe y’all ought to do a little readin’ and cipherin’ afore y’all start bloviatin’ about history, the law, etc.

    • Andy, you’re mean. You know that if reality were allowed to enter their fevered brains it would be like matter and anti-matter coming into contact on Star Trek. These people will also never be able to understand that ex parte Merryman (1) is not and never was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.but is the equivalent of a modern US District Court decision, and (2) although Merryman was in jail, at least he was alive, unlike his Unionist bridge burning counterparts in East Tennessee who were executed, after drumhead court-martials, with the written approval of Judah Benjamin and Jefferson Davis. .

  4. WTF? Although I doubt Lincoln was familiar with Marx, the Bolshevik Party didn’t come into existence until long after Lincoln’s death. Moreover, by the time attempts were made to prosecute Davis, Lincoln was long dead.

    In addition, each state was never a separate sovereign nation but separate states under the Articles of Confederation.

    I believe the Springstein reference is supposed to be an anti-Semitic reference or maybe he thinks Bruce looks like Lincoln.

    Who knows?

  5. If we look at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, we see men realizing that a confederation of States was not working well. They in turn created a much stronger national government. I do not believe secession was paramount on the minds of the 55 men who met in Philadelphia. Isn’t it also true that Jefferson Davis himself had serious issues with a confederation government?

  6. Do we really even need to respond to the same old stupid garbage over and over again? How many times have we laid out the facts before the idiots who think secession was and is legal only to have them ignore them in favor of what they want to believe?
    Go back to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist letters during the ratification of the US Constitution and you have your answer. Once a state joined the rest under the Constitution it was not possible to leave. I’m sorry if you don’t like the answer, but that’s the way it is.

  7. For starters, Lincoln was dead when Davis was arrested, so if he could cause Davis’ prosecution from the dead, even Thomas DiLorenzo would have admit amazement.

    I’m assuming the original poster knows Lincoln actually died, and that the Vampire movie isn’t a documentary.

  8. The thing is, it is just too over-the-top perfect. The only thing missing would be some ALL CAPS sentences…

    I think it is Rafuse pranking you…

  9. The U.S. Supreme Court DID rule on the legality of secession in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 726 (1868) http://laws.findlaw.com/us/74/700.html.

    The opinion of the Court, written by none other than the Hon. Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the United States, held among other points,

    >> The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

    Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired.<<

    The decision not to try former Confederates was based on prosecutorial discretion (which rested, in part, on fear that an extralegal phenomenon known as jury nullification would destroy even the most perfect case, IMHO)

    While I've heard that Lincoln was adept with an ax, It was an ax as a chopping implement not as a nickname for a guitar.

    • Yes, what is with that weird vernacular they write in? I live in Virginia and most of the “southroners” I know can spell. Well, gotta scoot. Gonna pick the ticks off my huntin’ dog, Reb, then me and Crawdad’s gonna get frisky if’n his sugar aint actin’ up.

  10. My first job with NPS was a six month season giving tours of Lincoln Home. There were ten seasonals that year. Nine of us were history students.One guy had a graduate degree in geology. He also was from Cape Girardeau. We had two weeks of training, which included a few days of discussing Lincoln. I remember the guy from Cape Girardeau expressing amazement, and saying he hadn’t heard anything like what he was hearing in those discussions when he was growing up.

  11. In response to (or in further of) Michael Confoy’s comment that “It’s posts like this that makes you wish that they had hung all of the treasonous rabble,” I’d just be happy if some people would just do a little basic reading but I guess that’s too much to ask.

  12. So if he is saying that Lincoln was a communist and everyone knows that Lincoln was a Republican, does that man the Republican Party is a communist party?

  13. You’ve only scratched the surface, Brooks. According to New World Order conspiracy theory, the Rothschilds and Illuminati took over much of the American economy after a jealous and drugged Mary Todd Lincoln Springsteen murdered her secretly Jewish husband, an Illuminati protegee who had betrayed the Rothschilds by creating greenbacks, for fathering illegitimate children with European nobles also controlled by the Illuminati. She then framed her opium dealer, Rothschild agent John Wilkes Booth, although luckily for Booth (who escaped to Asia) he had sent an imposter to Ford’s Theater. Or maybe not. But anyway Lincoln’s eldest daughter did become Howard’s Hughes’s grandmother. Or Herbert Hoover’s.

      • I’d love to say I made this up, believe me, but I found all of this online this morning after googling “Abraham Lincoln Springsteen.” Apparently, some people actually believe this.

        • It gets even worse, I’m afraid. This is off-topic, but many of these same people believe that the Jesuits built the RMS Titanic for the sole purpose of killing John Jacob Astor and Benjamin Guggenheim, who supposedly were against the creation of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. I think they believe the Illuminati were involved too, but I’m not sure. Then again, I don’t think they are, either.

          It makes some of the neo-Confederate tripe we’ve commented on seem almost dignified by comparison.

          • Been there, done that. In the immortal words of Senator Joeseph McCarthy (1951),

            “How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, which it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men.…”

            The one great constant that seems to run through the thread of American history is how demagogues frequently use the irrational fear of dark unseen conspiracies to whip up suspicion and create paranoia. Richard Hofstadter wrote The Paranoid Style of American Politics back in 1964 and it’s still relevant today. Sadly, some things never change, I suppose.

    • This is actually good. Can I have the movie rights? I’ve got Spielberg and Hanks on speed dial.and a guy in New Jersey who’s ready to do the theme.

      • They missed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion but I have to give them
        sheer surprise points for slipping in the Clintons murdering Vince Foster myth.

  14. Given his somewhat suspect relationship with reality, Mr. Clifton probably believes that if President Lincoln had his way, the conclusion of the Second Inaugural Address would have gone something like this,

    “With malice towards the oppressing class, with regard to dialectic materialism upon the needs of the masses, with firmness in the right to believe that there is no God and that religion is the opium of the people, let us strive to advance our revolutionary cause, to care for the material condition of our comrades who have borne the revolution, to do all which may achieve the control of the means of production and the destruction of capitalism in other nations.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s