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 southern (confederate) leaders had had even an ounce of decency they would have negotiated their way out of the union instead of cut~n~running the way that they did.
They showed that they didn’t give a hoot about anyone - even their own citizens that they put into peril.
How could the union ever have peace with such dispicable neighbors?
If they had a legal right to seceded, why didn't they go though a legal means instead of just a few leaders in the State saying as such and attacking federal property like forts? Why didn't they take the secession before Congress as outlined in the Articles of Confederation and upheld in Article VI of the Constitution?
Frankly, I’m not certain about the VA Constitution. I would assume that it gives the governor the power to put down insurrections, but I’m not positive on that point.
You keep saying that there’s no legal right to secede unilaterally. Why? It’s not a power given to the Federal Government by the USC, so why isn’t there a right to secede unilaterally?
I would suggest that Congress, by recognizing a group of individuals who were not elected, were usurping Virginia’s rights of self representation and self rule that all soverign States possess. In effect, it was illegal and unconstitutional because the State of Virginia was no longer a part of the Union and therefore not under the representation of Congress.
Frankly, I don’t find the slavery issue inconvenient so much as distracting. I have the feeling that many in this discussion would be siding with the South if the issue of chattel slavery were removed, yet because of this issue the true issue for me, State’s rights, is ignored or down played.
Bluntly put, I take the position that chattel slavery is evil but not the worst evil out there and blacks in America have whined about it for long enough. Every race, nation and people on this earth have held and been held as chattel slaves at one point in time or another and I’m sick of hearing about how bad America in general and Southerners in particular are so evil for ever being involved, especially considering the fact that even under chattel slavery here in America, where they were considered little more than property, their condition could have been much, much worse if they had been sold to a Muslim.
Want to impress me about your dedication to seeing the evils of slavery eradicated? Begin pointing out how Islam not only allows slavery, even today, but encourages it and WE finance it by our continued reliance on foreign oil. Begin pushing for the eradication of Islam from the face of this earth due to it’s truly evil nature and then I’ll be impressed. Until then, save your breath and don’t waste my time.
All that being said, don’t take this post as personal N-S, you’ve been cordial and well thought out in all of my dealings with you, even though I disagree with your assumptions and conclusions. More of less I’m just getting fed up with the whole Southerner=Racist meme that seems to prevade these threads just under the surface.
I will be back in Western Va (not West VA) next week.
Beautiful country, even in winter.
paladin1_dcs: "Those who rebelled against their State’s decision had no legal right to do so."
So obviously, you will not project our Founding Fathers' Declaration of Independence language, about Creator provided rights to overthrow unjust governments, onto Southern Union sympathizers, right?
paladin1_dcs: "But don’t try to say this was a War over just Slavery.
There was more at stake than what we’ve been taught lately."
No there wasn't. It was only slavery -- nothing else was politically important enough to cause the Deep South to first secede, then start a war against the Union.
But don't believe me on this -- read what the Confederacy's founders wrote in their Causes of Secession documents.
Using James Madison's criteria for a legal dissolution of the Union there was:
And so the Deep South began seceding "at pleasure" in late 1860, immediately following the election of the anti-slavery Republican President and Congress.
But only seven states joined the Confederacy.
That's because slavery was only important enough to those seven states to cause secession.
The Upper South and Border States all refused to join, until Davis ordered the attack on Fort Sumter.
Even then, only the Upper South switched sides.
Slavery was just not important enough in the Border States (Missouri, Kentucky, West VA, Maryland & Delaware) to drive them into the Confederacy.
I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere: consider the proverbial camel whose back was broken by a straw.
I'm saying 95% of the weight on that camel's back was slavery, and the "straw" was the election of anti-slavery Republicans and Abraham Lincoln.
All of the other issues combined could not possibly have driven the Deep South to secede -- could not have broken the camel's back.
Idiotic comment.
Their reasons, as explained in their Causes of Secession documents, were nearly all slavery related.
And none were in any way different in December 1860 from what they had been for many years before.
And yet those same conditions did not cause secession all those years -- until the election of more Republicans in November 1860 made the Deep South fear for slavery's future.
As for Declaration-of-Independence type complaints: if you read those Secession documents carefully, it all boils down to just one truly serious item:
the Federal Government had failed to vigorously enough enforce Fugitive Slave laws in Northern states.
So, for the secessionists, it was all about slavery.
It was really only about slavery.
These neo-Yankees are have proven their fascist leanings over the years. Go back thru the archives, they have been at this Southern bashing for a long time. When somebody stands up to their BS they play the race card, right on que. Somebody needs to explain what Free Republic is to them, for the 1,000,000th / time. I wish they would go to the DU where they would fit right in.
Well I was thinking of you...
So you say, others say different. For example, you might check out Ditto's post #224.
But here's the key point:
Until Davis ordered the attack on Fort Sumter, all of the Upper South and Border States (even North Carolina!) had decided to stay with the Union and not join the Slave-State Confederacy.
So Davis' attack on Fort Sumter was, literally, a War of Southern Aggression against the Union.
And it succeeded brilliantly -- in one stroke nearly doubling the Confederacy's size and population.
The South then sent Southern forces into all of the Union Border States (except Delaware), and territories -- territories on which the South had no conceivable claim.
So, for all of 1861 and beyond, it was almost entirely a War of Southern Aggression against the Union, a war in which Kentucky was just one front.
Ah, yes. The old "Have your cake and secede from it, too" argument. If Virginia rescinded it's ratification of the Constitution and was no longer subject to US law, it can hardly complain about something being unconstitutional and illegal.
I always find it interesting that the Lost Causer position about self-determination only seems to apply to the states as a whole, as if they are the fundamental particle of sovereignty, neither forming larger entities of sovereignty nor allowing smaller ones.
The power to admit a state and to approve changes in its status once it has been allowed to join is a power reserved to the United States by Article I and Article IV. Implied in that is the power to approve a state's leaving altogether. And I should hasten to add that this is not my viewpoint alone or a new view. James Madison said as much in letters written in the 1820's.
I would suggest that Congress, by recognizing a group of individuals who were not elected, were usurping Virginia’s rights of self representation and self rule that all soverign States possess. In effect, it was illegal and unconstitutional because the State of Virginia was no longer a part of the Union and therefore not under the representation of Congress.
In the first place, saying that Virginia was no longer a part of the Union implies their acts of secession were legal. They were not. As for the legality or illegality of the recognized Virginia legislature, you can argue about that. But the fact is that the people of the commonwealth were entitled to representation in Congress and in their own state legislature. Those people not interested in participating in the Southern insurrection chose their own representatives and set up a legislature loyal to the United States. The U.S. Congress recognized them as the legitimate government, and it was this body that voted to partition. All done according to the Constitution of the United States, and the legality of which was later admitted by Virginia once the rebellion had ended.
I would suggest that Congress, by recognizing a group of individuals who were not elected, were usurping Virginia’s rights of self representation and self rule that all soverign States possess. In effect, it was illegal and unconstitutional because the State of Virginia was no longer a part of the Union and therefore not under the representation of Congress.
Claiming an act is illegal and unconstitutional because it was contrary to another illegal and unconstitutional act is an interesting argument.
Frankly, I don’t find the slavery issue inconvenient so much as distracting. I have the feeling that many in this discussion would be siding with the South if the issue of chattel slavery were removed, yet because of this issue the true issue for me, State’s rights, is ignored or down played.
A state's right to do what? What state's right was being suppressed? The Southern states launched their illegal secession because they saw the election of Lincoln as a threat to the expansion of slavery. The Southern leaders of the period all agree on that. Read Robert Toombs farewell to the Senate or Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech or Jefferson Davis's first address to the rebel congress or the speeches and writings of the various secession commissioners and you will see the importance slavery played in their decision.
They were both states where slavery was still legal, but the vast majority of both states opposed the idea of secession from the Union.
Those states did not have the intense plantation based economy of the Deep South and slavery was not a significant component of their economies or even society as it was in the Cotton Belt.
I've seen nobody "playing the race card."
What we insist is that slavery, and only slavery, was the reason the Deep South began seceding in late 1860.
And for precisely that reason -- because it was only then all about slavery -- the Upper South and Border states did not at first secede.
It only became about something other than slavery after Davis ordered the firing on Fort Sumter, the results of which gave Virginia and other Upper South states the excuses they needed to claim secession on account of Federal "abuses."
Of course, if you could ask the average central Virginia farm-boy why he fought for the Confederacy, he would certainly tell you: because d*amn Yankee armies invaded our lands.
If you asked most any farm-boy from Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maryland or Missouri whether they cared a whit about slavery, they'd answer: not really.
What about fugitive slave laws? Naw.
What about that proposed new Morrill Tariff? Say wha?
Remember, Upper South and Border states all stayed with the Union, until Davis was successful at making it an issue of "Northern Aggression."
Then many switched sides.
I don't know what surface you are looking under, but there is none of that here. The point we have been trying to make is that slavery was indeed to cause of sectional tension in this country from its very beginning. Many of the Founders saw that and commented on it. Jefferson and others even predicted that slavery would be the rock upon which the Union would split. He was right.
Racism was not the issue. 99% of the people in the country back then, North and South, would be considered racists by even the mildest standards today. But many, perhaps even a majority, thought slavery to be wrong and in direct conflict with the nations founding ideals and principles. People like Washington, Jefferson, Franklyn, Adams and most of the Founding fathers saw it as wrong.
It is true that all societies throughout history engaged in slavery in one form or another, and that virtually all races and nationalities at one time or another were victims of slavery. But that is not the point and it does nothing to excuse American slavery.
We were founded to know better, and quite frankly we did know better. But we chose as a nation to ignore our principles and allow the practice to continue long past the time when it should have ceased. We allowed it to continue because it was financially profitable for a few very powerful people while at the same time denigrating the rest of population.
That is why comparing American slavery with barbarians like the Muslims is no excuse whatsoever. Slavery is a stain on our history and the cause of the most gruesome war in our history. To pretend otherwise or to somehow attempt to minimize it or excuse it does no service to either our history or the memory of our forefathers who struggled mightily with these questions.
History is important. Do your best to get it right and don't blink at the ugly parts.
For your information:
- According to Slavery In America, 500,000 slaves were brought to America. Many more were taken to the Caribbean and South and Central America.
- According to the Anti-Slavery Society, there are 2.7 million slaves in the world today, while others estimate up to 27 million (using a different definition).
Great post.
Great post.
It does not excuse what happened here in the least. Those other places never even pretended to have any respect for human rights.
We did commit to that concept of "endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Yet we failed miserably when it came to slavery. Be honest about it. We failed in that regard. You can't brush that aside by saying others were even worse.
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.