Valerie Protopapas' sends back response to Dr Guelzo

Re: Lincoln and the "central idea of America"

From: vaproto@optonline.net

To: aguelzo@gettysburg.edu

Dear Sir:

All the information you seek exists but frankly, I am SICK TO DEATH of you and your ilk demanding that those who disagree with you provide "sources" which you then refuse to believe anyway because they don't agree with your viewpoint. In order of your "questions:"

Lincoln's order to return the slaves is available in the public record - go look it up if you really want truth and not just to annoy someone who disagrees with you. I suggest looking at the war in the border states will give you this information and a great deal more, some of it none too complimentary to the federal government OR Lincoln.

Are you saying that an insurrection which leads to the murder of whites - often who have never OWNED slaves (see the Nat Turner revolt) - is an acceptable war strategy? If you are, then I fully understand WHY you love Lincoln.

It's not "wrong" for Marx to adore Lincoln, but how would you feel if you knew that HITLER adored him too? Certainly many of the German military employed his war strategies against civilians in both World Wars. Did Marx "get it right?" As one communist (Marx) understanding another (Lincoln), I would suppose that he did. If you find that Lincoln was well received by a communist AS a communist, then again, I understand WHY you love Lincoln.

Again, these are a matter of public record, but there are several books on this including the Benson-Kennedy books on Lincoln and Marx. Of course, because you don't like the authors and what they said, you will - as your kind always do - reject the books. But the books are well sourced and have more than enough of the PUBLIC RECORD to prove what has been alleged. Sadly, again, people like you will accept ONLY what validates your own point of view so to pretend that I could give you ANY acceptable source is nonsense.

I already pointed out the violation of the 10th Amendment when I said that Lincoln declared war - something limited to the Congress, suspended habeas corpus - something limited to the Congress, used the military to coerce elections - something even CONGRESS is not permitted to do, and so forth. READ the 10th Amendment and then read what rights and privileges ORIGINALLY given to the federal government. If you cannot figure it out after doing that, there is no hope for you.

The firing on Sumter did not constitute treason because South Carolina had constitutionally withdrawn from the Union. You cannot commit treason against a country in which you are no longer a member. If you argue as did Lincoln that these states could not constitutionally secede (an false and mendacious argument) then, as noted, the actual treason was committed by the federal government as it made war against an admitted State, South Carolina (see Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution). You cannot win on this argument. If South Carolina was OUT of the Union,IT could not commit treason. If it was IN the Union then only Lincoln and the government committed treason. One way or the other, Lincoln loses the argument.

I never said that Lincoln "lied" about Sumter. I said that he set it up to force the Confederacy to fire at the Fort in order to give him sufficient propaganda to whip up a pro-war sentiment in the North which prior thereto had been for letting the South go in peace. Lincoln admitted that he obtained his desired result at Sumter in a letter to Gustavus Fox (captain of the relief ship) on May 1st, 1861 in which he stated,

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft. Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

The "result" and the "cause of the country" that Lincoln wished to advance, was, of course, the war that the firing on Fort Sumter brought about. On July 3rd of that same year, Lincoln confided to Orville H. Browning about the plan to supply and reinforce Sumter and its actual intentions at the time.

"The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter - and it fell, and thus did more service than it otherwise could."

Just how much more proof do you need than Lincoln's own words, "THE PLAN SUCCEEDED..." What plan other than an admission that Lincoln sent the relief ship as a means of forcing the firing on the Fort?!  If he had said the plan did NOT succeed, then a point could be made that the actual plan was the relief of the Fort. But as he put it to Browning, it achieved what he intended to achieve - a war with the South.

Parenthetically, Fort Sumter didn't even belong to the federal government! The fort that belonged to the federal government in Charleston Harbor was Fort Moultrie, which Major Anderson abandoned to move to Sumter in direct disobedience of the agreement signed by President Buchanan. Buchanan was STILL PRESIDENT when Anderson did this. Didn't he count? What machinations had already been concocted between General of the Armies Winfield Scott and Lincoln before the man was even inaugurated!  The fact of the matter is that the federal government had failed to follow the provisions of the lease with South Caroline in the matter of Fort Sumter and thus, that fort had already reverted to the State! So, in effect, South Carolina (or the Confederacy) simply fired on its own property to remove "squatters" who had been given every opportunity to remove themselves. I would say that this answers your query on Sumter - or would if you really WANTED an answer and not just to make a point however lacking in validity.

The particulars of the correct use and suspension of habeas corpus are contained in the Constitution. I daresay you can find it yourself. I notice, however, that you ask  nothing about the use of the military to influence elections in the North. I wonder why.

Valerie Protopapas