Showing posts with label President Lincoln. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Lincoln. Show all posts

Friday, August 30, 2013

President and War Powers, aka War Powers Clause

President and War Powers: A History

Introduction

Historically, to avoid a vote by congress and a formal declaration of war, past U.S. presidents have used semantics to circumnavigate an outright declaration of war. The office of the presidency has avoided the Congress with numerous precedents and under the guise of fanciful phrases such as: the United Sates is currently "suppressing a rebellion," the U.S. is employing "limited military action," or, here are the most common two words from former American presidents -- the nation is currently involved in a "humanitarian mission." Without the consent of Congress, President Abraham Lincoln is a prime example for going to war without declaring war. Lincoln mobilized the military, in what was known as Lincoln's Call For Troops (1861), and marched it into the Southern states (1861--1865) and the end result was the death of at least 620,000 Americans, including men, women, and children.

The United States Constitution was created with checks and balances and with each of the three branches of government limited in its power.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, often referred to as the War Powers Clause, furthermore, also vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war, in the following wording: [Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water[.]" Notice that the Executive branch, the President, is not reserved the power to declare war, period.

With the Mexican-American War looming in 1846, (then) Congressman Lincoln believed and stated that only Congress possessed absolute authority for war powers or war-making power. He referred to any president who declared any war without the consent of Congress as an oppressive king. Congressman Lincoln then moved for a Resolution issuing the President (Polk) interrogatories (questions) so the Congress could determine and declare war against Mexico. Years later as president, Lincoln, however, without the consent of Congress, declared war on the rebellion in the Southern states.
“The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.” ---1846 Congressman Abraham Lincoln
War Powers and What Caused the Civil War?
According to the Southern states, they never sought to overthrow the U.S. government or its institutions; they merely wanted independence from Washington. They did not seek war, but, to the contrary, they desired a peaceful withdrawal from the Union.
 
"The right to the writ of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the Constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was set at naught by the military power, and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the Constitution." October 28, 1861, Cherokee Nation Declaration of Secession and War Against the United States of America
 
President Abraham Lincoln made it clear that the North was fighting the Civil War to preserve the Union, and that the principal or paramount cause of the Civil War was Secession itself.
 
What is secession? It is the withdrawal of a state (or states) from the Union.
 
A fair question is whether or not there is a person or party responsible for the Civil War? Or is there culpability?
 
Question: Who was commander-in-chief and chief executive for the nation prior to and during the Civil War? In other words, who was responsible for the United States at that time?
 
Answer: President Abraham Lincoln.
 
Question: What are the responsibilities and duties of the President of the United States as chief executive for the nation as well as commander-in-chief of the United States military?
 
Answer: The powers of the President of the United States are set forth in Article II of the Constitution. The President is the head of the executive branch and his job is to approve the laws that Congress creates. When the Senate and the House approve a bill, they send it to the President. If he agrees with the law, he signs it and the law goes into effect. The Supreme Court, not the President, decides if a law or government action violates the Constitution.
 
If the President does not like a bill, he can refuse to sign it. When he does this, it is called a veto. If the President vetoes a bill, it will most likely never become a law. Congress can override a veto, but to do so two-thirds of the Members of Congress must vote against the President.
 
Despite all of his power, the President cannot write bills. He can propose a bill, but a member of Congress must submit it for him.
 
In addition to playing a key role in the lawmaking process, the President has several duties. He serves as the American Head of State, meaning that he meets with the leaders of other countries and can make treaties with them. However, the Senate must approve any treaty before it becomes official.
 
The President is also the Chief of the Government. That means that he is technically the boss of every government worker.
 
Also, the President is the official head, known as commander-in-chief, of the U.S. military. He can authorize the use of troops overseas without declaring war. To officially declare war, though, he must get the approval of the Congress.
 
What are the responsibilities and duties of the President of the United States?
The President is the head of the Executive Branch. The powers of the President of the United States are set forth in Article II of the Constitution. Some of these powers the President can exercise in his own right, without formal legislative approval. Others require the consent of the Senate or Congress as a whole. The following is a list of duties of the President of the United States:
 
National Security Powers:
  • Serves as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. He can authorize the use of troops overseas without declaring war. To declare war officially, though, he must get the approval of the Congress.
  • Makes treaties with other nations; however, the Senate must approve any treaty before it becomes official.
  • Nominates ambassadors, with the agreement of a majority of the Senate.
  • Receives ambassadors of other nations, thereby recognizing those lands as official countries.
Legislative Powers:
  • Presents information on the state of the union to Congress.
  • Recommends legislation to Congress. Despite all of his power, the President cannot write bills. He can propose a bill, but a member of Congress must submit it for him.
  • Convenes both houses of Congress in special sessions.
  • Approves laws passed by Congress.
Administrative Powers:
  • "Take care that the laws be faithfully executed" -- Article II, Section 3
  • Appoints the heads of each Executive Branch department as Chief of the Government. He also appoints ambassadors, Supreme Court Justices, and other officials, with the agreement of the majority of the Senate.
  • Requests written opinions of administrative officials.
  • Fills administrative vacancies during congressional recesses.
Judicial Powers:
  • Grants reprieves and pardons for Federal crimes (except impeachment).
  • Appoints Federal judges, with the agreement of the majority of the Senate.
Will you explain national versus state government?
 
The first type of government in America was based primarily on state government. Prior to the signing of the Constitution, America had been made up of thirteen colonies, which had been ruled by England. Following the Revolutionary War, these colonies, although they had formed a league of friendship under the Articles of Confederation, basically governed themselves. They feared a strong central government like the one they lived with under England's rule. However, it was soon discovered that this weak form of state government could not survive and so the Constitution was drafted. The Constitution:
  • defines and limits the power of the national government,
  • defines the relationship between the national government and individual state governments, and
  • guarantees the rights of the citizens of the United States.
This time, it was decided that a government system based on federalism would be established. In other words, power is shared between the national and state (local) governments. The opposite of this system of government is a centralized government, such as in France and Great Britain, where the national government maintains all power.
Sharing power between the national government and state governments allows us to enjoy the benefits of diversity and unity. For example, the national government may set a uniform currency system. Could you imagine having 50 different types of coins, each with a different value? You would need to take along a calculator to go shopping in another state. By setting up a national policy, the system is fair to everyone and the states do not have to bear the heavy burden of regulating their currency.
 
On the other hand, issues such as the death penalty have been left up to the individual states. The decision whether or not to have a death penalty, depends on that state's history, needs, and philosophies.
What are the exclusive powers of the national (aka federal) government and state governments?
National GovernmentState Governments
  • Print money
  • Regulate interstate (between states) and international trade
  • Make treaties and conduct foreign policy
  • Declare war
  • Provide an army and navy
  • Establish post offices
  • Make laws necessary and proper to carry out the these powers
  • Issue licenses
  • Regulate intrastate (within the state) businesses
  • Conduct elections
  • Establish local governments
  • Ratify amendments to the Constitution
  • Take measures for public health and safety
  • May exert powers the Constitution does not delegate to the national government or prohibit the states from using
What powers are denied to the national government and state governments?
National GovernmentState Governments
  • May not violate the Bill of Rights
  • May not impose export taxes among states
  • May not use money from the Treasury without the passage and approval of an appropriations bill
  • May not change state boundaries
  • May not enter into treaties with other countries
  • May not print money
  • May not tax imports or exports
  • May not Impair obligations of contracts
  • May not suspend a person's rights without due process
What are the branches of national government and a brief description of their responsibilities?
 
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention faced a difficult challenge. They wanted to ensure a strong, cohesive central government, yet they also wanted to ensure that no individual or small group in the government would become too powerful. Because of the colonies’ experience under the British monarchy, the delegates wanted to avoid giving any one person or group absolute control in government. Under the Articles of Confederation, the government had lacked centralization, and the delegates did not want to have that problem again. To solve these problems, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention created a government with three separate branches, each with its own distinct powers. This system would establish a strong central government, while insuring a balance of power.
Governmental power and functions in the United States rest in three branches of government: the legislative, judicial, and executive. Article 1 of the Constitution defines the legislative branch and vests power to legislate in the Congress of the United States. The executive powers of the President are defined in Article 2. Article 3 places judicial power in the hands of one Supreme Court and inferior courts as Congress sees necessary to establish.
 
Though in this system of a "separation of powers" each branch operates independently of the others. However, there are built in "checks and balances" to prevent tyrannous concentration of power in any one branch and to protect the rights and liberties of citizens. For example, the President can veto bills approved by Congress and the President nominates individuals to serve in the Federal judiciary; the Supreme Court can declare a law enacted by Congress or an action by the President unconstitutional; and Congress can impeach the President and Federal court justices and judges.
 
Executive Branch
 
When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention created the executive branch of government, they gave the president a limited term of office to lead the government. This was very different from any form of government in Europe and caused much debate. The delegates were afraid of what too much power in the hands of one person might lead to. In the end, with a system of checks and balances included in the Constitution, a single president to manage the executive branch of government was adopted.
 
The executive branch of Government enforces the laws of the land. When George Washington was president, people recognized that one person could not carry out the duties of the President without advice and assistance. The President receives this help from the Vice President, department heads (Cabinet members), heads of independent agencies, and executive agencies. Unlike the powers of the President, their responsibilities are not defined in the Constitution but each has special powers and functions.
 
The Legislative Branch
 
The legislative branch of government has the authority to make laws for the nation. It was established in Article I of the Constitution with the creation of Congress. 
Congress is bicameral, that is, it is made up of two chambers, the Senate and the House of Representatives. This system was created by the Founding Fathers after much debate. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention from larger and more populated states wanted congressional representation to be based upon population. Fearing domination, delegates from smaller states wanted equal representation. The Great Compromise resulted in the creation of two houses, with representation based on population in one and with equal representation in the other.
 
Judicial Branch
 
The judicial branch of government is established in Article III of the Constitution with the creation of the Supreme Court. This court is the highest court in the country and is empowered with the judicial powers of the government. There are lower Federal courts but they were not created by the Constitution. Rather, Congress deemed them necessary and established them using power granted from the Constitution. Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution. A court's authority to decide constitutionality is called judicial review.
 
What are additional differences between state governments and national government?
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states that "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.
 
State governments have their own constitutions, similar to that of the national Constitution; however, the laws made in individual states cannot conflict with the national Constitution. The state constitutions all differ because each state has unique histories, needs, philosophies, and geography.
 
During the first 100 years of United States history, the states did most of the governing that directly affected the people. The national government mainly concentrated on foreign affairs. This is known as "dual federalism," where each level of government controlled its own sphere. However, during this time a rift began to form between the two over the issue of who had sovereignty that would culminate in the Civil War.
 
Who is the final arbiter when there are differences, disagreements, and conflicts between state governments and federal government?
 
The United States Supreme Court is the final arbiter in interpreting the U.S. Constitution and which law or government action violated it.
 
The Constitution established the Supreme Court as the highest court in the United States. The authority of the Court originates from Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
 
One of the Supreme Court’s most important responsibilities is to decide cases that raise questions of constitutional interpretation. The Court decides if a law or government action violates the Constitution. This is known as judicial review and enables the Court to invalidate both federal and state laws when they conflict with the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court stands as the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation, its decisions can be changed only by another Supreme Court decision or by a constitutional amendment.
Judicial review puts the Supreme Court in a pivotal role in the American political system, making it the referee in disputes among various branches of the Federal, as well as state governments, and as the ultimate authority for many of the most important issues in the country.
 
The Supreme Court exercises complete authority over the federal courts, but it has only limited power over state courts. The Court has the final word on cases heard by federal courts, and it writes procedures that these courts must follow. All federal courts must abide by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal laws and the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court’s interpretations of federal law and the Constitution also apply to the state courts, but the Court cannot interpret state law or issues arising under state constitutions, and it does not supervise state court operations.
 
What did President Abraham Lincoln say caused the Civil War?
 
President Lincoln stated concisely that secession caused the Civil War, and he believed and thought that secession was unlawful.
 
On April 15, 1861, responding to the secession of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, Lincoln issued his proclamation on the subject and affirmed that the "laws of the United States have been, for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law. Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations [suppress and force the combination of seven Southern states that seceded back into the Union], and to cause the laws to be duly executed."
 
Lincoln proclaimed the why, the motive, the reason, the cause that the Union was going to war - secession. The "said combinations," in Lincoln's own words, were the secession of the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Lincoln affirmed explicitly that he was determined to raise an army and suppress secession in the Southern states.
 
What caused the Civil War (aka Causes of the Civil War), the President of the United States -- as commander-in-chief and chief executive -- declared that the sole cause of the Civil War was secession. Lincoln, by assuming absolute and ultimate authority, chose war to suppress what he deemed a rebellion in the Southern states. If the South embraced and espoused slavery and if the South stated that the institution, alone, justified war, it was ultimately the President of the United States, possessing absolute responsibility and duty as chief executive for the nation, who, to the contrary, declared war on the South because of secession. As President, Lincoln declared that the South was guilty only of rebellion, and, without the consent of Congress and contrary to pleas from the Supreme Court, Lincoln raised an army and subsequently invaded the Southern states. Moreover, the decision to declare war or to "suppress a rebellion," and to state what caused the Civil War, was proclaimed by President Abraham Lincoln himself; and he stated his position for war plainly. (See also Abraham Lincoln on Causes of the Civil War and Secession.)
 
Prior to April 15, 1861, seven Southern states, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, had seceded from the Union. On April 15, 1861, Lincoln stated in his Call For Troops that the only cause of the Civil War was secession in the Southern states, and that troops were being called upon in order to "suppress the rebellion" and force the states back into the Union. Just 2 days after Lincoln's Call for Troops to raise an army and invade the South, Virginia seceded (April 17), followed by Arkansas, North Carolina and TennesseeKentucky, meanwhile, refused to recruit a single soldier for Lincoln's "wicked cause," and Maryland, a free state, was invaded by U.S. troops and placed under martial law, while Delaware, though of divided loyalty, did not attempt it. In Missouri, on October 31, 1861, a pro-CSA remnant of the General Assembly met and passed an ordinance of secession.
 
Did President Abraham Lincoln ever state that slavery caused the Civil War?
 
No. Lincoln never stated publicly or in any document that abolishing the institution of slavery was why he called upon the troops to suppress the rebellion in the seceded states, or to free the slaves was the cause of the Civil War. Lincoln stated that the Southern states had seceded, and he was determined to suppress it, secession, and force the states back into the Union. According to the president, secession was the only cause of the Civil War.
 
So Abraham Lincoln was responsible for the Civil War?
 
The South was culpable in that its secession directly influenced Lincoln's decision, albeit an unconstitutional decision, for Civil War. According to President Lincoln's own proclamation, he, as chief executive for the United States and commander-in-chief for the nation's military, raised an army, in his Call For Troops, and went to war, to Civil War, in his own words: to suppress the rebellion in the seceded states in the South. So Southern secession caused the Civil War, but Lincoln as chief executive and commander-in-chief assumed sole responsibility by raising an army and invading the Southern states. See also Secession and Why did the Southern States Secede.

Why didn't the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution and address secession?

Because President Lincoln thought otherwise, and he also opined and stated that: "Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have "thought" [emphasis mine] fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed."

With the preceding proclamation by Lincoln, according to Article II of the Constitution, the president not only overstepped his executive authority by interpreting the Constitution, which, according to Article III of the Constitution was reserved ultimately and exclusively for the Supreme Court, but Lincoln also mobilized a massive army and marched it deep into the Southern states and caused the greatest loss of life in the history of the United States.

Lincoln's comment that "the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, [I] have thought..." is most troublesome, since no such power was vested in him by the Constitution, period. Article II of the Constitution does not, furthermore, vest that power in the office of the presidency.

Separation of Powers and checks and balances, nevertheless, according to Lincoln, meant nothing because, as president, he "thought" that he held the ultimate authority and power to interpret the Constitution, and that his "thought" was final, even though, according to Article III of the Constitution, he had no constitutional right or power to act. Lincoln would also suspend the writ of habeas corpus, impose martial law, and imprison thousands without due process, even when, according to the Chief Justice, Lincoln had no authority to do so.

Article III of the Constitution states emphatically that the "Supreme Court stands as the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation."

The Constitution established the Supreme Court as the highest court in the United States, and one of the Supreme Court’s most important responsibilities is to decide cases that raise questions of constitutional interpretation. The Court decides if a law or government action violates the Constitution. This is known as judicial review and enables the Court to invalidate both federal and state laws when they conflict with the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court stands as the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation, its decisions can be changed only by another Supreme Court decision or by a constitutional amendment.
 
If secession was constitutional or unconstitutional then it was the Supreme Court, through judicial review, who should have addressed it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Illinois in the Civil War

Illinois in the Civil War

During the Civil War, the State of Illinois ranked 4th (behind New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio) in total soldiers serving in the Union military.


to the 1860 U.S. census, Illinois, a free state, had a population of 1,711,951. During the conflict, 256,297 Illinois men served in the Union army and as a result the state suffered 34,834 killed and several thousands more wounded. According to The Union Army, "the losses among the Illinois troops, the computation being made on the basis of the whole number of men furnished by the state, one in 20 was killed in battle or died of wounds; one in 11.2 died of disease."

During the American Civil War (1861-1865), Illinois was a major source for troops (particularly for those armies serving in the Western Theater of the Civil War), military supplies, food and clothing for the Union Army. Situated near major rivers and railroads, Illinois was a vital region early in the war for Ulysses S. Grant's efforts to seize control of the Mississippi and Tennessee rivers. Illinoisans in various factories and mills, as well as the port and stockyards, helped provide a steady source of materiel, food, and clothing to the Union war effort. Mound City foundry workers converted river steamboats into armored gunboats for Federal service. With traditional Southern markets cut off by the war, the port of Chicago rose in prominence as Illinois expanded trade with the Great Lakes region.

Beginning with Illinois resident President Lincoln's initial call for troops, the state mustered 150 infantry regiments, which were numbered from the 7th Illinois to the 156th Illinois. Seventeen cavalry regiments were also mustered, as well as two light artillery regiments. Although there was a high response to the voluntary calls to arms, the military draft was a factor in supplying manpower to Illinois regiments late in the war. Illinois troops fought predominantly in the Western Theater, although a few regiments played important roles in the East, particularly in the Army of the Potomac. Several thousand Illinoisans were killed or died of their wounds during the war, and a number of national cemeteries were established in Illinois to bury their remains.

There were no Civil War battles fought in Illinois, but Cairo, at the juncture of the Ohio River with the Mississippi River, became an important Union supply base, protected by Camp Defiance. Other major supply depots were located at Mound City and across the Ohio River at Fort Anderson in Paducah, Kentucky, along with sprawling facilities for the United States Navy gunboats and associated river fleets. One of which would take part in the nearby Battle of Lucas Bend.

Leading major generals with Illinois ties included Ulysses S. Grant, John Buford, John Pope, John M. Schofield, John A. Logan, John A. McClernand, Benjamin Prentiss and Stephen Hurlbut. Brigadier General Elon J. Farnsworth, who began his career in the 8th Illinois Cavalry, died at the Battle of Gettysburg. President Lincoln maintained his home in Springfield, Illinois, where he is buried. More than 100 soldiers from Illinois units would be awarded the Medal of Honor during the conflict.

The Union Army states," The splendid record made by the volunteers from Illinois could not have been accomplished, however, but for their gallant and able leadership. The state gave to the nation and the world not only the illustrious Lincoln, but the great commander-in-chief, Gen. Grant, who led her armed hosts to final victory. Eleven other major-generals of volunteers were credited to Illinois, namely: John Pope, John A. McClernand, Stephen A. Hurlbut, Benjamin M. Prentiss, John M. Palmer, Richard J. Oglesby, John A. Logan, John M. Schofield, Napoleon B. Buford, Wesley Merritt, Benjamin H. Grierson and Giles A. Smith. Twenty of those who started out as commanders of regiments were promoted to brevet major-generalship; 53 — excluding those named above — rose to be brigadier-generals, and 120 attained the rank of brevet brigadier-generals. The state was equally well served by the staff officers and aides-de-camp appointed therefrom, headed by the brave and efficient Gen. John A. Rawlins."

Throughout the Civil War the Republicans were in control, under the firm leadership of Governor Richard Yates. The Democrats, however, had a strong Copperhead element that opposed the war and tried in local areas to disrupt the draft. In Chicago, Wilbur F. Storey made his Democratic newspaper the Chicago Times into Lincoln's most vituperative enemy. See also Illinois and the Civil War (1861-1865).

Thursday, August 15, 2013

The Free-Soil Party: The Forgotten Free-Soilers

Free-Soilers and the American Civil War
 
Their opponents, called Free Soilers, countered with their own election. They drew up a constitution that outlawed slavery -- though it also barred black settlement -- and then applied for admission to the Union as a free state. Kansas now had two governments -- and its people were about to go to war with one another.
 
The Free Soil Party 

     The Free Soil Party was a short-lived political party in the United States at the end of the Second Party System. It ran presidential candidates in 1848 and 1852, and some state candidates. After the Compromise of 1850 undercut its position some members returned to the Democratic Party, others supported John P. Hale for president in 1852, but he had little impact on the election.

     It was a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party and was largely absorbed by the Republican Party in 1854. Its main purpose was opposing the expansion of slavery into the territories, arguing that free men on free soil comprised a morally and economically superior system to slavery. The ‘free soilers’ were against the expansion of slavery but not the idea of slavery; their goal was to gain the land to the west, and keep the land free of slaves. Slavery was seen as a "social bad because it hurt free men," but, unlike the abolitionists, they did not denounce it as sinful.

     Free Soil candidates ran on the platform that declared: "...we inscribe on our banner, 'Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor and Free Man,' and under it we will fight on and fight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions."

     The party also called for a homestead act and a tariff for revenue only (as opposed to a protective high tariff). The Free Soil Party attracted mainly Yankees from the Northeast and upper Midwest, especially Yankee areas of upstate New York, western Massachusetts, and northern Ohio.


     In 1848, the first party convention was held in Buffalo, New York, where the party nominated former Democratic President Martin Van Buren of New York, with Charles Francis Adams of Massachusetts as vice president. The main party leaders were senators Salmon P. Chase of Ohio and John P. Hale of New Hampshire. They won no electoral votes.

     The Free Soil Party was a notable third party. More successful than most, it sent two senators and fourteen representatives to the thirty-first Congress, elected in 1848. Its presidential nominee in 1848, Van Buren, received 291,616 votes against Zachary Taylor of the Whigs and Lewis Cass of the Democrats; Van Buren received no electoral votes. The Party's "spoiler" effect in 1848 may have put Taylor into office in a narrowly-contested election. Its long-term impact was to allow antislavery Democrats an easy transition into the Republican Party, which formed in 1854 and incorporated Free Soil principles. Important Republicans included Senator Charles Sumner, architect of Reconstruction, Vice President Henry Wilson and Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase. Continue to: Free-Soilers: A HistoryMissouri Civil War History and Kansas Civil War History.

Monday, August 12, 2013

Abraham Lincoln : President Lincoln Homepage

Abraham Lincoln : President Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln has had more biographers than any other American president, and, with practically every single volume idolizing and worshipping Lincoln, it is no doubt the number one reason why he is ranked the greatest (or number one) U.S. president in history.
 
Just days after the nation honored the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, 65 historians ranked Abraham Lincoln as our nation's best president, while George Washington -- yes, one of our Founding Fathers, that great hero of the American Revolution, and our first president -- settled for a distant second. Now how is that, I asked? It led me to many questions. 

 
To most Americans, President Abraham Lincoln is known as Father Abraham, Honest Abe, Lincoln the Great Emancipator, and even Saint Abe. Make no doubt about it, through the ages Abraham Lincoln has been idolized, mythologized and even immortalized. We have been taught in our public school system that Lincoln really was larger than life, that he was a Moses or Jesus figure. Even paintings with angels hovering about the president's head adorn the walls of many Americans. Has anyone ever seen a painting with George Washington surrounded by a multitude of angels?

When I lived in England I was schooled on the English view of the American Revolution, or American Rebellion, and those Colonial rebels, and it was a real eye-opener to say the least. But from America’s perspective, it was a revolution for freedom and a rebellion against tyranny, right? Is it possible that both sides were correct? During the American Civil War, the North also referred to the South as rebels and to the war as the War of the Rebellion, but, on the other hand, the South believed it was a second war for independence, a war against tyranny, a war against the tyrant Abraham Lincoln. Could it also be that both sides were correct?
 
A district attorney can lead a grand jury in any direction and to any conclusion, and that is why there is a subsequent trial with both the prosecution and defense present. In a marriage, just like in any given divorce, there are two parties involved. In debate, we witness both the affirmative and negative positions. And so there are two sides to the President Abraham Lincoln story.


In the 1860 election, without a single Southern electoral vote and with only 39.8% of the popular vote, Abraham Lincoln became the 16th President of the United States.

John Cabell Breckinridge was a U.S. Vice President, the most senior ranking public official to commit treason, cousin to Mary Todd Lincoln, presidential candidate (ran against Abraham Lincoln), and prominent Confederate general. Breckinridge (often misspelled as Breckenridge), furthermore, has witnessed only one full-length biography written about him. On the other hand, President Abraham Lincoln has been honored with more than 14,000 biographies.


The point is -- the victor not only writes and teaches its own version of history, but presents it with outlandish bias and with utter disdain for the vanquished. We must remember that there are two sides to the story, and to obtain fairness, balance and objectivity we should lend an ear to each side, and anything less is not history in context, period. The South, consequently, had staunch views and beliefs about Lincoln, and it is only proper that its viewpoints be studied. With more than 14,000 Lincoln biographies, perhaps somewhere in the midst is the real Lincoln. But, if you could read one Lincoln biography each day -- it would take you more than 38 years to read them all...

Was Lincoln really the Great Emancipator? Did the Emancipation Proclamation free a single slave? Was Lincoln a racist and white supremacist? Did he really have plans to ship African Americans to some colony abroad? Was Lincoln responsible for the Civil War and its outcome? Were the slaves freed in the middle of the conflict only because Lincoln feared losing the war? Was the emancipation a political decision because England and France would not assist a nation that supported slavery? Did Lincoln trample, trump and trash the U.S. Constitution? Of course it wasn't coined until decades later, but we all know that famous quote: “The buck stops here.” The resources on this page will allow the reader to access the good, the bad, and the ugly regarding our so-called greatest president. See also Abraham Lincoln History Homepage.