[thackerbills]

Why did Republicans, after the war, not scrap the Constitution altogether and write a new set of basic laws? They would have avoided any future controversy and it seems they could have been able to do so. Was there any thought of doing it?

[Brion McClanahan]

Why scrap it when you can simply do an end around the ignore it? And no, not to my knowledge. They did amend it three times, and that was believed enough to alter the nature of government significantly.

[maester_miller]

ET,

I believe that, for whatever reasons (populism probably) Lincoln and the others made a great effort to try and convince the people that they were essentially continuing the legacy of the founders, rather than imposing some radically new ideas.

I’m currently taking a course in Mises Academy from Tom DiLorenzo about Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln and he pretty convincingly argues that Lincoln and the Republicans were simply continuing the same nationalistic policies that Hamilton and Clay brought about before them.

[gutzmank]

Eric L. McKitrick argues in ANDREW JOHNSON AND RECONSTRUCTION that the impeachment of Andrew Johnson was an attempt to subordinate the presidency to the Congress.

[Brion McClanahan]

Kevin: That was no doubt the intent of the move. The whole process of military reconstruction was the tyranny of the Republican Party and most importantly an attempt to permanently, through precedence, emasculate both the exec. and judicial branches. The leaders of that group truly mirrored the Mountain during the FR.

[Author]

Posts