Lincoln the Tyrant: The Libertarians' Favorite Bogeyman

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.”

Proof please

You can start with this book.

And then read this one.

From 1808 until the Civil War, most historians estimate about 10,000 slaves per year were illegally imported into the US. It wasn't until the Lincoln administration that the laws against slave importation were seriously enforced -- they actually hung a captain of a slave ship as the 1819 law authorized. Before that, they would occasionally capture and seize a slave ship and fine the owners, but that was all that would happen. It was a small price to pay considering the amount they could make every time they got a load of slaves ashore.

If state legislatures have the authority to vote for joining the Union I think it defies logic to argue that they do not have the authority to vote for leaving it.

State legislatures did not have the authority to ratify the Constitution. The people of each state directly elected representatives to state conventions to ratify the Constitution. That is why it says "We The People" not We the States.

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.

Morgans 1st raids were more than 8 months after Polk invaded 'neutral' Kentucky and quite literally turned the state against the Confederate cause and giving pro-Union legislatures a veto-proof majority in the State legislature. Am I still the 'dummie'?

On September 4, 1861, Confederate Major General Leonidas Polk violated the Commonwealth's neutrality by ordering Brigadier General Gideon Johnson Pillow to occupy Columbus.[23] Columbus was of strategic importance both because it was the terminus of the Mobile and Ohio Railroad and because of its position along the Mississippi River.[25] Polk constructed Fort DuRussey in the high bluffs of Columbus, and equipped it with 143 cannons.[26] Polk called the fort "The Gibraltar of the West."[26]

....snip...

Almost immediately following the Confederate withdrawal from Kentucky, General John Hunt Morgan began the first of his raids into the Bluegrass state. In May 1862, Morgan's riders captured two Union trains at Cave City, but his apparent goal was to agitate Union forces; he paroled everyone aboard, returned one of the trains, and sent the occupants back to Louisville.[46] This move accomplished little except emboldening Morgan for a more extensive raid in July.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_in_the_American_Civil_War

Neither of which were recognized Confederate Army units

On August 15, 1862 Quantrill and his men were officially mustered into the Confederate army under the Confederate Partisan Ranger Act. Quantrill was designated as a captain and the other officers were elected by the men.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantrill's_Raiders

Beats me. Its reads like a pretty nonsensical decision.

“Texas had never been outside the Union” is a pretty absurd statement, given that state that Texas was in at the time (occupied and without representation in Congress).

On the other hand, I could just be wrong:

Chase did oppose Davis’s trial, both privately and in his official capacity as Chief Justice, but not because he endorsed Davis’s take on the legality of secession.[15] Privately, he agreed with those in the north who favored leniency for former rebels.[16] Publicly, as one of the presiding judges in Davis’s trial, Chase also favored ending the proceedings. His reason for doing so, however, turned not upon the question of secession, but rather on his interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s third section.[17] This provision, which barred former Confederates like Davis from holding public office (absent approval by two-thirds of Congress), was viewed by Chase as imposing a “punishment” for treason. That being the case, a treason trial of Davis would violate the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition upon Double Jeopardy, since it would seek to punish him again for the same offense.[18] (Similarly, when seeking to have the treason indictment dismissed, Davis’s lawyers didn’t raise the constitutionality of secession as a defense.[19] Rather, they focused on the Fourteenth Amendment,[20] along with general considerations of justice.[21])

http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/secession-salmon-chase-and-the-treason-trial-of-jefferson-davis/

Texas had never been outside the Union” is a pretty absurd statement, given that state that Texas was in at the time (occupied and without representation in Congress).

What's absurd about it?

On the other hand, I could just be wrong...

A good chance, if that's the best you've got. Chief Justice Chase did not and never ruled that secession was legal. As your article pointed out, Davis's release was because Chase was of the opinion that the 14th Amendment meant that any trial and conviction would violate Davis's 5th Amendment protections.

If the South had won, the North would be being run over at the moment by grit-eating illegal aliens.

If the South had won, where would the Okies and Arkies have gone when the Dust Bowl hit?

Would California's illegal alien problem would have started 70 years ago?

Or would the Joads would have loaded up the truck and crossed over into Mexico?

Come to think of it, where would all the African-Americans who moved up to Northern cities in the mid-20th century have gone?

And where would Disney have built their second big amusement park if Florida were part of a foreign, possibly hostile, power?

You’re the one equating every Southerner as a racist Klan member.

I did no such thing. I said the Klan was a terrorist organization. The vast majority of the Klans victims were Southerners, and the Klan and their descendants who regained political power after the Reconstruction are the direct reason much of the South wallowed in poverty for the next 100 years.

If you in any way support with what they did then you support f'n terrorists who are no damn different than what we are fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan now.

And just for the record, I said you and I would have a serious problem. I never implied violence of any kind, you’re the one who jumps to the conclusion that I’m implying violence.

You are full of it. From your post in #132.

I’m giving you one, and only one, warning. You refer to my ancestors as terrorists again and we’re going to have some serious problems.
132 posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2010 5:30:44 PM by paladin1_dcs

Can you back peddle any faster?

And no, I did not hit the abuse button but you would have been cuffed by the mods if I had. I'm a big boy, been here a long time and can handle myself. But in the future, stuff your sainted ancestor myths. No one gives a damn. Who your G-g-g grandpa was does not mean squat here and now. It makes you no better or worse a person. It's all about you, not some long past DNA donor.

No one gives a damn.

I do.

When yo are not calling us Klansman you switch to the Nazi/Japan analogy. I hear you, you fascist. You're comin' in clear.

If there is gonna be a next time, it won't be 300,000, more like 3,000,000.

When yo are not calling us Klansman you switch to the Nazi/Japan analogy. I hear you, you fascist. You're comin' in clear.

And who was it who brought in the Hitler quotes, claiming that Yankees would support them?

If there is gonna be a next time, it won't be 300,000, more like 3,000,000.

And you'll be there on the sidelines, cheering on every death.

And who was it who brought in the Hitler quotes, claiming that Yankees would support them?

That particular passage on Confederacies, written by Adolf in Mein Kampf Ch. X, is exactly the same as the Coven position. I asked a question, I didn't assert anything. I was looking for a little veracity amongst the Coven and found none. I was not disappointed.

mnehring: "Not perpetual, but the Articles of Confederation established a union that could only be broken by approval of Congress with ratification by all the state legislatures.

"Although this is pre-Constitution, it does matter because Article 6 of the Constitution states:

'All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.' "

This bears repeating.
The old Articles of Confederation were explicitly "perpetual," as stated in the preamble, and again in:

"Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them.
And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

I asked a question, I didn't assert anything.

Bullshit. Had I merely asked, "Given Jefferson Davis believed in a master race, what office do you suppose he would have achieved had he been a politician in Germany between 1932 and 1945" then you you have said I was injecting Nazi references or merely asking a question?

Huck: "People attack Lincoln because he makes a nice scapegoat for the real originators of big government, who met in Philly in 1787."

Ha! But why stop there?
Why not go all the way, way-back to the real originator of "big government"?

It was UG the caveman, from the tribe of US, who went around to all the other cavemen in their caves and said them:

UG: YOU PAY ME, UG.

The other cavemen: BUT UG, WHY SHOULD WE PAY YOU?

UG: YOU PAY ME FOR PROTECTION.

The other cavemen: PROTECTION? AGAINST WHAT?

UG: PROTECTION AGAINST UG, AND THE TRIBE OF US.

There's your real original villain, pal.
Blame him. ;-)

Carry_Okie: "I would argue that the Declaration is held more "perpetual" than the Articles, considering the Creator it cites for its authority."

First of all, both the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution are contracts -- intended to be "perpetual," and in Madison's word "forever."
Yes, it was considered by the Founders possible to desolve, but only through "mutual consent" or from "usurpations" and "abuses" having that same effect.

The Founders did not allow for secession "at pleasure."

And yet in 1860 there were no "usurpations" or "abuses" -- the Federal Government had not become "destructive of these ends".
The only difference between 1860 and, say, 1859 was the election of an anti-slavery Congress and President -- neither of which had yet taken office when the Deep South seceded, "at pleasure".

So the Deep South began to secede "at pleasure," then immediately to use force and violence against Federal properties and people.

That made it a "rebellion" and "insurrection," which the Federal Government is expected by the Constitution to defeat.

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.