Posted on 12/07/2010 11:31:03 AM PST by presidio9
On a recent pilgrimage to Gettysburg I ventured into the Evergreen cemetery, the scene of chaotic and bloody fighting throughout the engagement. Like Abraham Lincoln on a cold November day in 1863, I pondered the meaning of it all. With the post-Tea Party wave of libertarianism sweeping the nation, Lincoln’s reputation has received a serious pillorying. He has even been labeled a tyrant, who used the issue of slavery as a mendacious faux excuse to pummel the South into submitting to the will of the growing federal power in Washington D.C. In fact, some insist, the labeling of slavery as the casus belli of the Civil War is simply a great lie perpetrated by our educational system.
First of all, was Lincoln in fact a tyrant? For me the root of such a characterization centers on the man’s motivations. A man of international vision that belied his homespun image, Lincoln saw the growing power of an industrialized Europe and realized that a divided America would be a vulnerable one. “The central idea of secession,” he argued, “is anarchy.” Hence, maintaining the Union was his prime motivation, not the amassing of self-serving power.
It is true that Lincoln unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus. From a Constitutional standpoint, the power of the federal government to suspend habeas corpus “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety” is clearly spelled out in Article 1, Section IX. And an insurrection of eleven states would certainly qualify as such. Whether or not Lincoln had the authority (Article I pertains to Congress) most significant to me is that the Constitution does allow for the suspension of habeas corpus in times of severe crisis. So, doesn’t the question distill down to a more wonkish matter of legal procedure, rather than the sublime notion of denying the rights of man?
Constitutional minutia aside, the question remains whether or not Lincoln’s actions made him a tyrant. Consider the country in 1861-1862, the years in which the writ was suspended, re-instituted and then suspended again until war’s end. The war was not going well for the North, and Southern sympathies were strong in the border states and the lower Midwestern counties. The federal city was surrounded by an openly hostile Virginia on one side and a strongly secessionist Maryland on the other. “Copperhead” politicians actively sought office and could only sow further seeds of discord if elected. Considering these factors, one wonders what other course of action Lincoln could have taken to stabilize the situation in order to successfully prosecute the war. “Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts,” he asked, “while I may not touch a hair on the head of the wily agitator who induces him to desert?”
It seems that one’s appreciation for Lincoln’s place in history is largely an off-shoot of one’s position on the rebellion itself.
If the South was within its rights to secede, then Lincoln was a cruel oppressor. If not, then he had no choice but to put down a major insurrection.
What most glib pro-Southern observers of the war’s issues forget is that there were three million Americans enslaved in that same South, who would have been dragged into a newly formed Confederate States of America. “How is it,” asked Samuel Johnson as early as 1775, “that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?” Can any true libertarian argue that using the power of the federal government to end a state’s perpetuation of human bondage is an act of tyranny, regardless of the reason? And whether or not either side was willing to admit it, slavery was indeed the core issue of the war.
For those who believe otherwise then I ask you: In 1861, if the entire country was either all free or all slave states, would war have still come? If secession was about securing the South’s dearest rights, I must ask a follow-up: the right to do what exactly? We know the answer of course.
Was the North without sin? Certainly not, as anyone who understands the economic symbiosis of the two regions can attest. But in the end it was a Northern president using Northern troops who freed the slaves, and erased from the American experience what Lincoln himself referred to as “the base alloy of hypocrisy.”
A common blasé position among the Lew Rockwell’s of the world (a man who never felt the lash himself of course) is that slavery would have eventually died out as modernization overtook the antebellum Southern way of life. Yes it can be argued that it was economically inefficient – but it’s Marx not Mises who argues that systems of production necessarily dictate political forms. Consider that the de facto servitude of Blacks in the post-reconstruction South lasted well into the 1960s, and South Africa’s apartheid into the 1980s…both of which were ended by external pressures rather than internal catharsis .
Given the cost in dead and treasure, would it have been best to let the South go and hope for the best in slavery’s natural demise? As Patrick Henry, a southerner, once asked: “Is life so sweet or peace so dear as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” Certainly Lincoln’s steadfast prosecution of the war revealed his feelings on this fundamental question.
So when I look at Lincoln I see a man who, for myriad reasons ranging from realpolitik to moral imperative, released three million people from the shackles of slavery. I see a man who may have over-reached his legal authority by making the suspension of habeas corpus an executive rather than legislative initiative, but did not act outside the spirit of the Constitution regarding its position on whether such a right was untouchable.
I can only conclude that to think Lincoln a tyrant is to support the Confederacy’s right to secede in the first place…and take its enslaved Americans with them. Given what a weakened state a split country would have placed us in as we moved into the industrial age, given the force for good that a united and powerful America has been in the world since Appomattox, and considering even his most brazen suspensions of Constitutional rights were temporary, and resulted in no one swinging from the gallows for their opposition to the war, I must support the actions of this great President who was ultimately motivated by love of country, not lust for power. As Shakespeare might have said: “Despotism should be made of sterner stuff.”
If that’s the case, then why aren’t the AoC still considered legally binding in other areas besides this idea of perpetual union?
What other legal principle can you cite that originates in the AoC that is not in the Constitution?
Neither of which were recognized Confederate Army units, unlike Gen. Sherman, who was fully recognized by Lincoln and the Federal army.
The original point still stands. The CSA only killed one Yankee civilian, and then on accident while the USA killed thousands of CSA civilians. Now either the South was a soverign country and this was just a part of war, or the South was still part of the Union and Sherman was guilty of killing thousands of innocent Americans. Even Bin Laden didn’t manage the death toll that Sherman did. So which is it? Was what Sherman did a part of war between two soverign States or was Sherman a war criminal?
How about we start with the construction of Congress? In the AOC Congress was designed as unicameral; in the US Constitution it became bicameral with both a House of Representatives and a senate.
The Congress, as described in the AOC, does not exist in the Constitution.
Sherman acted under orders to suppress an insurrection under conditions best described as open warfare.
The concept of perpetual union must be seen exactly that way. It was discussed in the AOC -- but not in the Constitution. Therefore, it's not true today. If the Founders wanted to transfer the good concept of perpetual union from the AOC into the Constitution, they would have done so. They did not. Therefore there are no grounds to say that our union is perpetual.
Why did the CSA invade KY?
It was a war you dummie, Col. Morgan and his 2nd Kentucky Cavalry were sent to disrupt supply lines for the Army of Ohio, which was amassing for a drive into Tennessee. It was only after this success that the CSA’s Heartland Offensive was launched. Col. Morgan did think that Kentucky would secede if a CSA army were to take up position in Loiusville, but this was not the primary motivation of the CSA’s invasion of Kentucky. The primary reason was military, not political, in nature.
It also reserves certain powers to the federal government and prohibits other powers to the states.
If it does not mention secession of states, than it should be legal for the states to do so.
It does not say that a state cannot be turned out of the Union against its will, either. Would you suggest that is permissible? Could Florida wake up one day and find itself kicked out of the U.S.?
I think they should be able to vote to leave the union if they so wish.
And what about the remaining states? Have they no say in the matter? Regardless of what the effect of those state leaving may have on them?
The Constitution should not be a suicide pact.
It should not be a club for those states wanting to leave to beat the those states wanting to stay with either. The Constitution should protect the interests of both sides of the issue and not just one.
I am pretty sure the central comittee of the USSR had a big problem with thier member states leaving. They just did not get as bloodthirsty as our government in pushing the point.
Not being familiar with the Soviet Constitution how can you be so sure that their leaving and their method of accomplishing it wasn't allowed?
It just seems to me that when faced with the similar circumstances of member states leaving thier union, they handled it correctly.
Then why couldn't the Southern states do the same 150 years ago?
Yes, best described as open warfare, AGAINST AN ESTABLISHED UNIFORMED ARMY! Sherman didn’t just attack uniformed soldiers, he attacked civilians as well. If this had occured after the Geneva Conventions were signed, Sherman would have been tried for warcrimes because of that.
Just for the record, the above caps are not shouting but are used to draw attention to a central point.
That issue was settled in Texas v. White.
WHEN I DISAGREE WITH YOU ARE YOU GOING TO CALL ME DUMMIE?
Just for the record, the above caps are not shouting but are used to draw attention to a central point.
Lincoln won the war, and we now live in a centralized nation state and states have almost no rights. I have no choice but to recognize that reality.
But I say we got here through improper means and that the Constitution contains no text prohibiting a state from leaving, and that therefore secession is a right properly reserved to each state.
The Founding Fathers clearly abandoned the idea of a perpetual union. The Reconstructionists brought the idea back, in an effort to justify their war of northern aggression.
While I would agree that the USC reserves certain powers to the Federal government and prohibits others to the individual States, I would point out that the same logic that determines that a State can leave the Union on it’s own accord because it is a soverign entity and that power is reserved to it by the USC also would hold that a State cannot be forced out by the other States or the Federal Government for the exact same reason.
That power (the power to eject another State from the Union) is not granted to the Federal government due to it’s exclusion from the powers enumerated in the USC, yet the States cannot collectively impose their will on another soverign State due to the doctrine of State soverignty, which holds that as a result of the American Revolution, the English Crown’s American sovereignty was transferred to individual states. The states could act much as independent nations except respecting powers vested exclusively in the federal government.
Have I called you a dummie yet? If not, then don’t jump to conclusions. If I think you are acting like one, I’ll let you know but so far you haven’t.
Why would that logic hold? If a state is allowed to join the Union only with the agreement of the other states and once in is forbidden to split or combine or change its borders by a fraction of an inch without the agreement of the other states then why does it make sense that it can walk out without discussion?
...and that power is reserved to it by the USC also would hold that a State cannot be forced out by the other States or the Federal Government for the exact same reason.
Aren't the other states sovereign entities too? Should they not have the right to divorce themselves from a tiresome fellow state? There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the states from booting one or more of their fellow states out of the Union with them so it must be permitted, right?
That power (the power to eject another State from the Union) is not granted to the Federal government due to it’s exclusion from the powers enumerated in the USC, yet the States cannot collectively impose their will on another soverign State due to the doctrine of State soverignty, which holds that as a result of the American Revolution, the English Crown’s American sovereignty was transferred to individual states.
And yet the states that left imposed their will on those that remained by walking away from financial and international obligations and appropriating every bit of federal property they could get their hands on, leaving the remaining states to suffer the consequences. Why is that permitted?
And how exactly was Lincoln responsible for that? Be specific.
Lincoln was president at the time of the Civil War. Look it up. It’s in all the history books.
And Jefferson Davis led the Southern rebellion; I remember reading that too. So why wasn't it all Jeff's fault?
You want to give Jefferson Davis credit for all that?
Okay. I also know people who think Gorbachev won the Cold War -- but MA is a funny state.
Bunker Hill was one of the bloodiest battles of the war. Hardly a skirmish.
I've never understood exactly why so many Lost Causers hang onto this false deduction. If I recall correctly the preamble to The US Constitution begins, "We the People of the United States..."
I do believe that predates Lincoln.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.