Do we need to hold another Constitutional Convention?

[Nowhere Man]

I won't repeat myself agian, this country is not what the Founders intended. My ideas are the best way to return us to that Republic, but still retain all of the rights we have now. The fact that this country is not the country that was intended is all the reason I need. I want to return this country to the original intent. Retain the freedoms we have, but decentralize the government. Let the States share the power with the Federal government.

I am informed again and again that "original intent" arguments are bullshit.

Yeah, it's a load of BS. The Founders went out of their way to hide their intent. They wanted the Constitution to stand on its own and evolve to the needs of future generations. Some people think the Founders would be aghast at how we've warped what they created.

I think they'd be annoyed to see people still trying to divine their intentions almost 250 years later and completely missing the point.

They based their ideas on the Republics of Rome and the Greeks, which were thousands of years from the 18th century. The same principles still stands. Just because an idea is old doesn't mean it is bad or not usefull anymore. The same principles apply. You base your argument off of asumptions. This is just what lawyers and politician use to justify their trampling of the Constitution. Sure, it was meant to be amended and evolve, but the basic structure of the government remains the same.

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction period dismantled the original Constitution and replaced it with one that the North could be happy with. Following that the US. went into Empire building mode and created a strong central government that can't be stopped. It grows and grows. They destroyed the Native Americans, used blacks for thier own purposes, and began expanding teritories. In the 20th Century this just continued. We have been at war for over 60 years. We have military bases all around the world and are involved in foriegn afairs where we have no business bieng. We interfere with the developement of other countries and try to police the whole world, yet do nothing about our own problems. We were not meant to do all of this.

I don't think intent is bullshit, it is what the government is structured under. If you are against that, then there should be a formation of another country. I think what would be annoying is to see this country become an Empire. The Constitution was written in a way that was a safe gaurd agianst aristocracy and monarchy, they had lived it first hand. They also knew the causes of the fall of Rome and Greece. It was all the things I have mentioned. Overreaching military, and such. That is why the intended it to be a certian way and not change. Amend the Constitution, but not alter the structure and the way the government is suposed to be. If you look at the Founders other writting, you can get a clear understanding of why they set it up that way and what they intended. Jefferson didn't just write one document you know.

Here is an exerp from the Decloration of Independence:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The Founders went out of their way to hide their intent? That's a conveinent argument, wheres the proof. Their intent is clear in their writtings.

 

[iguana_tonante]

They based their ideas on the Republics of Rome and the Greeks, which were thousands of years from the 18th century.

This sentence alone shows that, your claims notwithstanding, you don't know very much about history.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

They based their ideas on the Republics of Rome and the Greeks, which were thousands of years from the 18th century.

And on English Philosophers, the Iroquois, and their own ideas based on nothing that they felt would work. There's no question every single one of them knew that their idea was a novel one never tried before.

This is just what lawyers and politician use to justify their trampling of the Constitution. Sure, it was meant to be amended and evolve, but the basic structure of the government remains the same.

Damn those lawyers and politicians. It's not like any of the founding fathers were those!

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction period dismantled the original Constitution and replaced it with one that the North could be happy with.

Yes, allowing the bill of rights to apply to everyone (which the Supreme Court almost immediately ignored), abolishing slavery, and allowing black people to vote is clearly dismantling the Constitution. I also feel it's a good time to point out that the three branches of government, 2 houses of congress, and the basic structures and procedures of the original government are still in place. I'd say that fits your amend and evolve approach.

Following that the US. went into Empire building mode and created a strong central government that can't be stopped. It grows and grows. They destroyed the Native Americans,

Which they did before.

used blacks for thier own purposes,

Yes, because the south never used blacks for their purposes. There's nothing that the federal government ever did after the Civil War that forced blacks to do something without giving them a choice. Go ahead, name one thing.

and began expanding teritories.

Yeah, that Manifest Destiny, Oregon Purchase, and Mexican-American War thing never happened.

I don't think intent is bullshit, it is what the government is structured under.

Alexander Hamilton wanted a President elected for life with broad powers that even our current President doesn't enjoy. James Madison wanted a federal government that could nullify any state law. Should we follow their original intent?

Here is an exerp from the Declaration of Independence:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

He did write that. I think that says a lot, doesn't it? It says we shouldn't throw out 200 years of progress to go back to 1790.

Also, he wrote this:

Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

 

[Nowhere Man]

They based their ideas on the Republics of Rome and the Greeks, which were thousands of years from the 18th century.

This sentence alone shows that, your claims notwithstanding, you don't know very much about history.

I'm sorry, when were the Rublics of Rome and Greece? Was it it a couple of hundred years ago? I do know a lot about history, I study it daily and am a history major. I don't like your insults. It was over a thousand years ago, so thousands would apply. Look, none of you believe anything I say, fine, don't take my word for it. Do your own research. I study history, which is based on facts and events that happened, not conjecture or half truths that have been distorted over time.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

Let's just all live by the Book of Mormon! (It's the second gospel of Jesus Christ.)

 

[RandyS]

I won't repeat myself agian, this country is not what the Founders intended. My ideas are the best way to return us to that Republic, but still retain all of the rights we have now. The fact that this country is not the country that was intended is all the reason I need. I want to return this country to the original intent. Retain the freedoms we have, but decentralize the government. Let the States share the power with the Federal government.

I am informed again and again that "original intent" arguments are bullshit.

Yeah, it's a load of BS. The Founders went out of their way to hide their intent. They wanted the Constitution to stand on its own and evolve to the needs of future generations. Some people think the Founders would be aghast at how we've warped what they created.

I'm reminded of the famous quote by John Adams regarding the White House, "May none but wise and honest men rule under this roof".

Look how well that has turned out.

 

[Nowhere Man]

They based their ideas on the Republics of Rome and the Greeks, which were thousands of years from the 18th century.

And on English Philosophers, the Iroquois, and their own ideas based on nothing that they felt would work. There's no question every single one of them knew that their idea was a novel one never tried before.

Their ideas based on John Locke and other ideas, your taking my quotes out of context. I said that just because an idea is old, doesen't mean it doesn't work. The golden rule is two thousand years old, we should throw it out then because it's too old.I don't understand how it's such a hard concept to understand. THe country has changed, some for the good, some for the bad. I want to return it to it's basic, simplest form. Back to the roots ,if you will. I am not agianst change. I'm just saying return it back to it's original condition. That is the way it was suposed to be. It's just like Star Trek. It was a show about space exploration, seeking out new worlds, new civilizations. It was about discussing social change and the like. Somewhere along the line it became about tachion emissions and magnetic flux and all the trechnobablle. Then JJ. came along and took the best parts of trek and filtered out the bull. We got a pretty good Trek movie that seemed new, but still had that old foundation. That is what i'm talking about. Take out all the bullshit that clearly isn't working. Keep the good, equal voting rights, no slavery, equal protection, bla bla bla. But take that core foundation that did work and keep it. State and Federal government shared power. State soveriegnty, provided wthey obey the equal protections. States's rights, provided they don't hinder anyones rights. all of the other stuff I mentioned. A smaller, limited central gov. I don't want to take away anyones rights, I just don't see the current condition working. Aparently everyone else is fine with status quoe.

This is just what lawyers and politician use to justify their trampling of the Constitution. Sure, it was meant to be amended and evolve, but the basic structure of the government remains the same.

Damn those lawyers and politicians. It's not like any of the founding fathers were those!

Don't act like you don't know what I mean, your bieng condecending. Lawyers now, politicians now. They twist things around to make it interpet the way they want, so they can win the argument.


Yes, allowing the bill of rights to apply to everyone (which the Supreme Court almost immediately ignored), abolishing slavery, and allowing black people to vote is clearly dismantling the Constitution. I also feel it's a good time to point out that the three branches of government, 2 houses of congress, and the basic structures and procedures of the original government are still in place. I'd say that fits your amend and evolve approach.

The 3 civil war amendments are fine, I'm talking about the expansion of the Federal Gov. the States were meant to share power, which I have repeated several times.The 3 branches do exist, but there is no balance, no checks. The whole government does whatever it wants and no one calls them on it.



Which they did before.



Yes, because the south never used blacks for their purposes. There's nothing that the federal government ever did after the Civil War that forced blacks to do something without giving them a choice. Go ahead, name one thing.

Forced blacks to vote Republican in Reconstruction states, forced them to serve in the military during the war after "freeing" them. Didn't allow them to vote in the North only in the South. didn't allow them to play important roles in the gov. Used them for votes. Oh yeah they had a choice, do what we sar or face the rifle. The North is not as innocent as you would like to believe

Yeah, that Manifest Destiny, Oregon Purchase, and Mexican-American War thing never happened.

I never said it didn't happen, but it wasen't suposed to happen. The Mexican-American war was provoked by Polk, I think it was. It was a war that never should have been. Manifest destiny, if you are defending that, then there is a problem. If there is a god, I doubt that god is taking sides. Manifest destiny also caried on after the Civil war. The Luisiana purchase was considered unconstitutional too, but we can't roll back everything, what's done is done. I'm talking from a legislature point of view. We can't give the Indians thier lands either, I wish we could. I'm saying after the Civil War it took off in massive numbers, before settlers just went out West and sort of fought on thier own. After the Civil War the military was used as a police force for the entire country, especially in the South. It is the same thing we are doing in the mid -East, we are essentially fighting the Indian wars again except this time it's Muslims and Arabs.


Alexander Hamilton wanted a President elected for life with broad powers that even our current President doesn't enjoy. James Madison wanted a federal government that could nullify any state law. Should we follow their original intent?

Yeah, and then they came up with a compromise. Hamilton wanted a strong Central Gov,but never this.

Here is an exerp from the Declaration of Independence:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

He did write that. I think that says a lot, doesn't it? It says we shouldn't throw out 200 years of progress to go back to 1790.

It does say a lot. It says that when the Gov. is not working anymore, we should overthrow it. Hence the call for a new Convention.

Also, he wrote this:

Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

I don't disagree that the law should change to reflect the times, but the government structure should remain the same. It's foundation should stay intact.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

If that's how you feel then I'm glad you don't make the rules. I don't like the idea of being governed by 18th century political philosophy.

 

[St. Squigolas]

Yeah, that Manifest Destiny, Oregon Purchase, and Mexican-American War thing never happened.

I'm pretty sure that we expanded more from 1790-1860 than we did in the next 150 years.

I don't disagree that the law should change to reflect the times, but the government structure should remain the same. It's foundation should stay intact.

And just who started the thread proposing to hold a Constitutional Convention?

For being a history major, your knowledge of history is tenuous at best. You don't seem to know anything about the United States prior to the Civil War, which you attribute to an incorrect reason. Everything you say happened post-war actually also happened ante bellum. You also know know the definition of "total war". You seem to think that the working poor are worse off than slaves. I could go on and on but if you're going to say that you're a "history major" (which means fuck all) then you should perhaps say something knowledgeable regarding history. Having a major doesn't magically impart all the wisdom of a subject on you.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I am informed again and again that "original intent" arguments are bullshit.

Yeah, it's a load of BS. The Founders went out of their way to hide their intent. They wanted the Constitution to stand on its own and evolve to the needs of future generations. Some people think the Founders would be aghast at how we've warped what they created.

I'm reminded of the famous quote by John Adams regarding the White House, "May none but wise and honest men rule under this roof".

Look how well that has turned out.

My point exactly.

 

[JiNX-01]

33. Public financing of campaigns only. Absolutely not, violates freedom of speech.

Sadly that is the problem. Money talks and it shouldn't be allowed to in elections.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

Let's just all live by the Book of Mormon! (It's the second gospel of Jesus Christ.)

We might as well govern by the thoughts set down in The Lord of the Rings. Same basic fantasy.

 

[iguana_tonante]

They based their ideas on the Republics of Rome and the Greeks, which were thousands of years from the 18th century.

This sentence alone shows that, your claims notwithstanding, you don't know very much about history.

I'm sorry, when were the Rublics of Rome and Greece? Was it it a couple of hundred years ago? I do know a lot about history, I study it daily and am a history major. I don't like your insults. It was over a thousand years ago, so thousands would apply.

I was not nitpicking about the issue of "thousands of years" (even if, for two thousand years, it still sounds sounds a bit over-the-top). I was commenting on the fact that you seem to think the Founding Fathers drew much inspiration from the Roman Republic, or even the Greek antecedents, to create the US. The Roman Republic was actually an aristocracy with elements of democratic supervision. Athens was a direct democracy, but only for small part of the actual population. None of them was a constitutional republic. And none of them was a federation of states. So the parallel is flimsy at best.

I study history, which is based on facts and events that happened, not conjecture or half truths that have been distorted over time.

Actually, this makes me doubt about your familiarity with the historical method.

 

[sidious618]

I'm sorry, when were the Rublics of Rome and Greece? Was it it a couple of hundred years ago? I do know a lot about history, I study it daily and am a history major. I don't like your insults. It was over a thousand years ago, so thousands would apply. Look, none of you believe anything I say, fine, don't take my word for it. Do your own research. I study history, which is based on facts and events that happened, not conjecture or half truths that have been distorted over time.

I'll be honest and say I'm having a hard time believing this. So much of what you have posted in incorrect that you can't possibly be a History major.

 

[Nowhere Man]

This sentence alone shows that, your claims notwithstanding, you don't know very much about history.

I'm sorry, when were the Rublics of Rome and Greece? Was it it a couple of hundred years ago? I do know a lot about history, I study it daily and am a history major. I don't like your insults. It was over a thousand years ago, so thousands would apply.

I was not nitpicking about the issue of "thousands of years" (even if, for two thousand years, it still sounds sounds a bit over-the-top). I was commenting on the fact that you seem to think the Founding Fathers drew much inspiration from the Roman Republic, or even the Greek antecedents, to create the US. The Roman Republic was actually an aristocracy with elements of democratic supervision. Athens was a direct democracy, but only for small part of the actual population. None of them was a constitutional republic. And none of them was a federation of states. So the parallel is flimsy at best.

I study history, which is based on facts and events that happened, not conjecture or half truths that have been distorted over time.

Actually, this makes me doubt about your familiarity with the historical method.

I use this method when doing my research papers, but because so many of you don't believe me, I guess I will have to prove it to you, even though I shouldn't have to. I will probably have to break it down into several posts. Please forgive double posting. Because I do not want this thread to be closed, I will refrain from responding to the insulting of my intellegence. I do wish to remain civil or dare I say friends. Ok, so I will start a new post providing my knowledge as briefly as possible and my proof of that knowledge as much as possible. Then hopefully I can explain every though in a clear manner.

 

[Shaw]

Because I do not want this thread to be closed, I will refrain from responding to the insulting of my intellegence.

Yeah, but didn't you start it?

You don't understand history at all.

-and-​

You need to study history more,

Glass houses and all that...

At any rate, you told me exactly what I expected to hear from you... I just wanted to make sure you said it clearly.

Thanks!

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I don't disagree that the law should change to reflect the times, but the government structure should remain the same. It's foundation should stay intact.

As it has, for the most part.

The biggest changes to government structure were the 12th, 17th, 22nd, 25th amendments. One of those happened very early on and none of them were Reconstruction amendments.

The rest were small constitutional changes working within the framework already established.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I'm sorry, when were the Rublics of Rome and Greece? Was it it a couple of hundred years ago? I do know a lot about history, I study it daily and am a history major. I don't like your insults. It was over a thousand years ago, so thousands would apply. Look, none of you believe anything I say, fine, don't take my word for it. Do your own research. I study history, which is based on facts and events that happened, not conjecture or half truths that have been distorted over time.

I'll be honest and say I'm having a hard time believing this. So much of what you have posted in incorrect that you can't possibly be a History major.

If he's a history major he should probably ask for his money back.

 

[Nowhere Man]

Ok, This is going to take a while.

July 4th, 1776 the various delegates from the 13 colonies declare their independence from the British. War had already begun though, the first gun fire at Lexington and Concord in Mass. The war began because after the 7 Years War England began taxing the Colonists in order to pay for the war. The colonists did not like that because they had faught in the war and England had faught wars in other places. It wasen't fair to only tax the colonists. They were bieng taxed without representation, which was the big issue. Tensions built up over the years and finally came to a hilt in Lexington. Ok, so if you want more detail, I can give, but I don't see it relevant to the narrative i'm laying out.

At the beggining of the war, the Continental Congress came together to decide what kind of government to have. They came up with the Articles of Confederation. This was a flawed plan because it created problems in all the States. There was no clear distinction between the Federal gov. and State gov.

1787 The US. Constitution is adopted. This came from a compromise in congress.

1803 New Territory gained by Luisiana Purchase

1830s Industrial Revolution hits in America, cities begin to pop up, big poulation jump. Imigrants begin leaving Europe and coming to US. in mass.Towns sprung up aroun factories. Lots of people in Europe are overworked and underpayed.Steam engine invented, bringing people closer together.

90% of population is agricultural. The Founders based some of their ideas on the Magna Carta, the Spartan Constitutio, the Republics of Rome and Greece. John Locke.Constitution was suposed to be like aold typewritter. Slow to change on purpose. Not radical and fast. The North Industrialized first, the South did not. The South did not change because of cotton, which was king. The South grew the cotton, the North shipped the cotton, England makes clothes and what not and ship it back. Families in the North have no problem with slavery. Both North and South are filled with racists who don't like blacks.

Transcendentalist philosophy and utopian societies arise. In the North slavery begins to become abolished,not on moral grounds so much as it is just not cost effective. It costs a lot to own a slave. It is abolished for economic reasons in the North. The old Colonial elite isbieng replaced by merchants and bankers, the old gentry is disapearing. Southerners begin enheriting their slaves from their fathers and grandfathers. The idea of slavery bieng wrong begins in the South, they realize that slavery will die in it's own time.

Panic of 1837- Over speculation capitalism is a system of bear and bull, peaks and valleys. The South was getting in the way of "Manifest Destiny". Capitalists need more territory to expand progress. South was originally at the fore front of the Wesward movement. Farmers braught in slaves. New England began protective tariffs.House has taxing and spending, House dominated by North. Eire canal creates a link with the West. The North begins building rail roads to bring suplies from the West to the North. The tariff artificially inflates the price of a good. Southerners paid 90% of the tariff and recieved 10% of the proceeds.

The North wanted to expand Westward, the South didn't want to spend money on internal improvements. Western population begins to abandon the South. Slavery was not a major issue until the Mousouri Compromise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise

Which literally cut the country in half.

80% of Souther population did not own slaves. The North had 50% farmer population. The Constitution did not change for the South, it didn't work for the North. Tariff of Abominations- Really high tax, Congress revised the tariff in 1838. SC. wanted the tariff nullified and threatened secession.Constitution only allows for revenue tariffs, not protective tariffs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_of_Abominations

John C. Calhoun was able to come up with a compromise as Andrew Jackson was prepared to invade SC. By 1833 South begins to dominate the house.The battle for control over the West shifts to South. Southerners want to bring their slaves into the West.

1839-1848, Mecican-American war, more territory gained. New problems over tariffs arise. Free homesteads in the West cause problems. Southerners complain because people are given free land unlike in the past where they baught the land and worked it. Free soilers complaining Wilmont Proviso offers amenment for prohibiting slavery in new territories that might be won by Mexican cession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmont_Proviso

The South was responsible for 70% of the War effort in Mexican-American war Wilmont provis was considered an agressive move from the North. Some in the South were agianst the proviso, but not willing to seceed.

Stephen Douglas came up with the idea of Poular Soveriegnty which said that the settlers could decide for themselves, no interference from the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty

Miss. Congressmen Jefferson Davis extends Missouri Compromise line. Compromise of 1850. Admission of California as a free state. Utah and NM. teritory opened up with the idea of popular soveriegnty. Interstate slave trade abolished in DC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850

Nashville Convention held in 1850.Political meeting held delegates from the South to decide on secession. Most states agree not to seceed.

Kansas-Nebraska act 1854. Southern leaders want new states. Federal government can't take property without compensation under 10th amendment. Slaves are considered property under 3/5ths compromise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas-Nebraska_Act

Small number of Southerners are trying to bring in slaves int Kansas.John Brown kills Southern sttlers along pattowomic creek.Election of 1856. John C. Freemont, Freemont society wants only free white men in territories. Democrats nominate James Buchanan who is for poular soveriegnty. 1857Lincoln Douglas debates. Lincoln does not want to abolish slavery, only stop it from going into the territories.

"I am not an abolitionist"-Lincoln
He would not try to end slavery where it existed already.

Jon Browns raid on Harpers Ferry. wants to ensight a slave rebellion. Was found guilty of murder and hanged. North condemed Brown's actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)

Lincoln elected 1860, South seceeds. President Buchanan rejected a demand from SC. to turn over fort. Fort Sumpter took over with no blood lost. Northern businessmen get woried because the coe+l of the fort meant they couldn't control the harbors, which meant they could not collect the tariff. Before 1861 would do anything to apease the South. A majority of Lincolns cabinet did not want war. It wasen't untill they realized that the tariff would be lost, they urged Lincoln to invade. Taxes on Iron were at 50%. The South passeda new tariff that was low and created a free trade zone. There was a war of tarriffs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff#Secession_and_tariffs

80% of Federal income came from the South. North realized what free trade would mean. Trade would be drawn to the South,South would impose tariffs on exports. NY. City threatened to seceed. The South turned the tables on the North. The North realized to lose the South would be an "economic dagger.'' In march Lincolns cabinet changes it's mind. Lincoln sends military in to attack fort Sumpter. SC. defends the fort. Lincoln raises an Army of 75,000 troops. This promps other states to seceed, where as before they wanted to stay nuetural. South wanted to maintain the "Old Republic" . Lincoln wanted to force the South into the war.The tariff was the main issue of secession, not slavery. Slavery was a background issue.Lincoln only wanted to restore the Union, not abolish slavery.

That concludes part one. All of this comes from my notes and from memory and wikipedia as far as souces go. Other sources include, An American Illiad, by Charles P. Roland. The University of Kentucky Press. 2004., When in the Course of Human Events, Arguing the Case for Secession by, Charles Adams.Rowman and Littlefield Publishers,Inc. 2000,The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, by Thomas J. Dilorenzo. Three Rivers Press, New York, New York. 2003.

Here is some of my papers which I got A's on and one B.

 

[Nowhere Man]

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, by Thomas J. Dilorenzo. Three Rivers Press, New York, New York. 2003.
This book is an investigation into the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln and his conduct during the Civil War. Dilorenzo provides a controversial point of view about Lincoln’s motives throughout the war and maintains that Lincoln’s prosecution of the war was unconstitutional. Delorinzo goes on to insist that Lincoln’s actions elevated him to the status of a dictator. In this book Delorinzo is trying to prove that Lincoln’s agenda was not to free the slaves, but to implement the Whig party’s “ American System “ by consolidating the Government. Delorinzo also maintains that Lincoln along with his generals and the Republican Party did not want to find a peaceful solution to the war and in fact wanted to put an end to Southern society completely.
Delorinzo uses several sources in his book, most which are primary. One of the main sources used in the book comes from Mark Grimsley’s book The Hard Hand of War. Delorinzo uses this book as a reference and makes several counterclaims to the book. Other sources includes: The Declaration of Independence, The United States Constitution, as well as quotes from Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln himself. These are legitimate sources that back up Delorinzo’s thesis. They are well organized and thoroughly explained. The book is organized in a topical way. Each chapter is broken into smaller topics related to Lincoln and the war. This makes the book easier to read and understand. Each topic is intruded with one or two quotes that inform the reader of the tone the topic Delorinzo is discussing. There are not any maps or photographs in the book, however there is a useful table that shows examples of newspaper editorials that were both for and against the war.
Delorinzo maintains in the beginning of the book that it was Lincoln that instigated the war, not the South. Lincoln wanted bring about the end of southern society and not end slavery as Delorinzo states, “A war was not necessary to free the slaves, but it was necessary to destroy the most significant check on the powers of the central government: the right of secession.” (9) Lincoln did not believe in the States rights to succeed, but offered little constitutional authority to back up his beliefs. Lincoln pushed the south into war by purposely sending provisions to Fort Sumter and even though there were no casualties, Lincoln did not seek a peace agreement. Delorinzo maintains that Lincoln had no intention of freeing the slaves and as a lawyer, “In twenty-three years he never defended a runaway slave, but he defended a slave owner.” (15) Lincoln was not the “Great Emancipator” that most historians have portrayed him to be. It was the preservation of the Union, not emancipation that motivated him.
Throughout the course of the war Lincoln exerted powers that are not in the Constitution. Delorinzo maintains that Lincoln elevated himself to the status of a Dictator. Lincoln wanted to consolidate the Government and implement the Whig party’s “American System”. Delorinzo offers much evidence to support his claim of Lincoln being a dictator. He cites Lincoln shutting down newspapers that disagreed with him or were for peaceful emancipation. Another example that Delorinzo gives is Lincoln’s use of military force to keep the upper South Border States in the Union. Lincoln also suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and imprisoned the remaining Democratic legislatures in Maryland along with other political enemies. Delorinzo maintains that while Alexander Hamilton was a supporter of a centralized Government, he claims, “Even to Alexander Hamilton, who would have fully supported Lincoln’s cosolidationist agenda, using military force to keep a state from seceding was unthinkable.” (171) Alexander Hamilton along with most of the founders believed in the right of a peaceful secession.
Delorinzo also maintains that Lincoln and his Generals did not adhere to the rules of war and code of conduct that had been set in place by international law and established before the war began. International laws had been established that women, children and the elderly were to be left alone and anyone who is a non-combative should not be considered an enemy. The civilian population should be protected at as much as possible. Delorinzo points to three Generals in particular who broke these rules. It was Grant, Sherman and Sheridan, who pillaged and burned entire towns. Delorinzo maintains that Lincoln knew of these atrocities. He argues that Lincoln was deeply involved in the military aspect of the war stating,” one cannot praise Lincoln for his pervasive intervention in war management on one hand, while on the other hand claiming that Lincoln had no idea what was occurring on a massive scale for years.” (173) it becomes clear that despite what others may claim Lincoln was fully involved in every aspect of the war, militarily and politically. The goal of Lincoln and his Generals was not to just win the war, but to completely destroy the South. All efforts in the North and the South to forge a peace were completely stopped. Delorinzo states that, “Lincoln wanted Southern civilians to suffer.” (179) the war was purposely being continued in order to push the Republican agenda.
Delorinzo’s book is most certainly a controversial look at Lincoln’s Presidency. Lincolns’ myth has been a part of American history since his death. Most historians look at Lincoln as one of the greatest Presidents in American history. Delorinzo separates the man from the myth and de-constructs it. Delorinzo points out,” in reality Lincoln was a glutton for Tyranny.” (162) this is contrary to what most of us think about Lincoln. In the final analysis, Delorinzo claims,” the purpose of American Government was transformed from defense of individual liberty to quest for empire.”(2) In summary, I would recommend this book to anyone that wants to have an objective look at the true nature of Lincoln and Civil War. In order to fully appreciate it, one must maintain an open mind. Hopefully history books will be altered in the future to include this revelation of who Abraham Lincoln really was.





If you need more proof than that, that I am a history major and know what the fuck i'm talking about, let me know, I'll photocopy some other work of mine. Otherwise, please refrain from the insults. Part two is comming later. I'm tired right now. Hopefully you believe me, if not, well all I can say is look it up. I've offered proof of my writting, my knowledge of the subject and my ability to research and analize facts. Essentually sort fact from fiction. At some point you just have to take my word for it. Not that I had to prove anything in the first place.