Lincoln’s 'Second American Revolution'

LewRockwell ^ | November 23, 2002 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

[aomagrat]

Bump!

[TomServo]

Bookmarked and Dixie Bump!

[Non-Sequitur]

Not at all. Colt 45 has his Civil War era flag and I have mine.

[pepsionice]

I hate to say it...but almost every week, my beliefs in Lincoln continue to drain. The guy is simply another Bill Clinton. Most everything written on the guy from 1865 to 1950s is pro-Lincoln. In the last five years...there have been a wealth of information coming out...showing Lincoln to be lousy politician and not the godly figure we all believed in.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Thanks for the ping good article.

[x]

So before becoming President Lincoln said he didn't believe in racial equality. Neither did Washington, or Jefferson, or Madison, or Jackson, or Polk, or Theodore Roosevelt, or Wilson, or Truman. Neither did most Americans until a generation or two ago. Neither did Jeff Davis or Bob Lee or Stonewall Jackson or Nate Forrest or Alec Stephens. Surely what matters is what Lincoln did and what he was able to achieve by the end of his life.

Di Lo's works are pure tripe and hackwork. So the Confederates allegedly believed in "self-determination"? And where was "self-determination for the slave? Where was self-determination for those who opposed secession? The Confederates believed in their conception of majority rule, as did Lincoln. Lincoln's conception had more legitimacy. It coincided with Washington's and Madison's views. Lincoln's view of liberty and majority rule was more in accord with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

Had the Southern leaders really acted in a pacific, non-belligerent, libertarian or democratic fashion, some of DiLo's criticisms would have merit, but the rebels were determined to realize their desires through force, and I don't fault Lincoln for taking steps to maintain the lawful order.

[Non-Sequitur]

I hate to say it...but almost every week, my beliefs in Lincoln continue to drain.

Why? Because of DiLorenzo's crap? Do you accept everything that people say at face value or don't you investigate on your own?

[x]

After the Civil War there was a lot of anti-Lincoln writing by those who had been Confederates. A lot of what DiLorenzo says has been recycled and regurgitated down through the years by Edgar Masters, Edmund Wilson, Gore Vidal and other anti-Lincolnites.

But if Lincoln was exceptionally popular for a century after his death, a major reason for it was a belief in American union, and the idea that we could achieve liberty and political, civil and legal equality within our national union. If we are losing that faith it's bad news for America. But the fact that so many Americans shared that belief for so long is reassuring.

Lincoln was a politician and was very good at it. But that fact doesn't make him another Clinton. George Bush is a politician. Ronald Reagan was a highly skilled politician, and something more -- so was Lincoln.

Di Lorenzo's quotation from Lysander Spooner is a clue to where he's coming from. It's no surprise that Spooner, the author of "A LETTER to Grover Cleveland on his False Inaugural Address, the Usurpations and Crimes of Lawmakers and Judges, and the Consequent Poverty, Ignorance, and Servitude of the People" hated Lincoln. Lysander Spooner was an anarchist, who denied the legitmacy of the Constitution for anyone but those who signed it. No country which followed Spooner's views could long survive. Maybe that's the point, for like Spooner, Lew Rockwell and DiLorenzo have anarchist sympathies.

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. AND THE CONSTITUTION, SO FAR AS IT WAS THEIR CONTRACT, DIED WITH THEM. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they COULD bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.

Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

[GOPcapitalist]

but the rebels were determined to realize their desires through force, and I don't fault Lincoln for taking steps to maintain the lawful order.

Last I checked, that "force" was only intended to remove a hostile nation's troops from within the confederate's own border. Lincoln's steps to "maintain the lawful order" on the other hand appeared in the form of a full forced military invasion of the south.

[Non-Sequitur]

Last I checked, that "force" was only intended to remove a hostile nation's troops from within the confederate's own border.

The hostile 'nation' in the picture was the confederacy. The Union soldiers were in a fort that was the property of the United States and no hostile actions on any kind had been made before the confederacy decided to shell the fort.

[agrandis]

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the Confederacy is the epitome of evil, and that jeff Davis took orders directly from Satan in rituals in which he sacrificed children. Let's just say that, and move on to the topic of DiLorenzo's article.

"Above the Constitution, even above the Declaration, as an expression of American principles, is the magnanimous figure of Lincoln," wrote Jaffa’s colleague Charles Kessler in National Review (July 6, 1979).

Did Charles Kessler write that in NR, July 6, '79, or not? If so, do you agree with that sentence? I can't imagne how that sentence could be taken out of context. I find it an amazing and disturbing sentence.

[Non-Sequitur]

You forgot to admit that Jeff Davis boiled babies for breakfast.

Personally, I don't think that any one figure in our history personafies American principles more than any other, and the fact that DiLorenzo seems to think that one person can is yet another strike against him in my book. Lincoln was no saint, but he wasn't the sinner that DiLorenzo makes him out to be.

[agrandis]

I'm glad you don't agree with Charles Kessler on that.

I think DiLorenzo and others are trying to point out that Lincoln is not the "Honest Abe" we were all taught to believe he was. Nor was the Northern cause all love and compassion and greatness.

As to one figure in history personifying American principles more than another, doesn't James Madison represent what America is supposed to be all about better than Bill Clinton or Charles Manson? I think some figures definitely advocate American principles, while others advocate anti-Constitutional principles (like almost every politician alive today), or crime and lawlessness (like the Clinton mafia), or insanity (like Manson). Do I misunderstand what you were saying?

[Non-Sequitur]

Does James Madison personify it better than John Adams or George Washington. Does the Constitution personify it better than, say, the Declaration of Independence and if not then shouldn't Thomas Jefferson be up there as well? You get into the cult of personality and you miss the message in concentrating on the man.

[agrandis]

But I wasn't comparing Madison to Washington or Jefferson. I think there is a more glaring difference between some figures in history than others. All human lives DO represent things. I think the difference between Lee and Sherman is gargantuan, for instance, without getting into a cult of personalities. I do rank people in history, in my mind, according to standards that I value. It seems I cannot avoid doing that, and I don't even see it as desirable to do that.

Truth is the important thing in life...along with mercy, but now I'm getting too philosophical. Truth about everything. I think the truth about that whole era in our history is not well illuminated or understood. I think Jeff Davis gets a bad rap in the mainline textbooks. I think Lincoln gets a free pass (though that seems to be changing), and his sins are covered up and excused. That does not mean I think Lincoln is the worst figure in history, or that Jeff Davis is right up there with the Apostle Paul.

PS: As to whether the DofI or the Constition better represents American principles, I don't see a need to choose between those, because they are consistent with each other. The important thing about the Constitution is that it is supposed to be the Law of the Land; the law concerning how laws are to be made; the covenant made between the states in order to belong to each other as a nation. This means it's an extremely important document, even if flawed, and should be taken seriously and defneded.

[GOPcapitalist]

The hostile 'nation' in the picture was the confederacy. The Union soldiers were in a fort that was the property of the United States

The yankees had no legitimate right to be there. Their presence itself initiated the hostilities.

and no hostile actions on any kind had been made before the confederacy decided to shell the fort.

Not true. The yankees fired on a confederate ship entering Charleston harbor the day before Beauregard ordered the shelling commenced.

[stainlessbanner]

Great post, agrandis. I was going for something along those lines, too....

I find it interesting those who refute this article find their defense in comparing Lincoln to other men, rather than hit the facts straight on. Just b/c others may have done those actions, held those thoughts does not make it morally right.

This is a tough read to swallow for those who deal in absolutes.

[agrandis]

Yes, it's much like the "defenses" of Clinton.

Non-Seq seems to be getting more reasonable, though - or is he just feeling reasonable tonight, I wonder? I feel like I've actually had a reasoned discussion with him.

[x]

Surely there's nothing surprising about that. If you want to work peacefully and legally for political change -- even for dissolution of the Union -- no one will stop you. When you fire on federal troops, you will have to expect that the government will respond with full force. The alternative -- you shooting and expecting the authorities won't respond with the resources they have, doesn't happen in the real world. There is a right of rebellion and a right to self-defense, but neither justified the assault on Sumter. If this seems unfair or excessively harsh, imagine if county or city police had fired on the state militia, the response would be the same. What's striking is how some people who rightly object to excessive federal power and abuses justify the same sort of conduct when states or competing nations engage in it.