Posted on 12/10/2002 6:57:25 AM PST by billbears
Not long ago I wrote an article on nullification for a well-known libertarian publication. Nullification is the idea, pioneered by Thomas Jefferson and John C. Calhoun, that an American state has the right to "nullify" federal legislation that it believes violates the Constitution. As Virginian political thinker Abel Upshur put it, since no common umpire exists between the federal government and the states to render judgments on breaches of the Constitution, each state – as a constituent part and co-creator of the Union – has to make such determinations for itself. (The idea that the Supreme Court, itself a branch of the federal government, could function as this common umpire is rather like saying that we shouldn’t feel apprehensive that a mafia family has taken over our town since, after all, if we have a dispute with them their cousins will be happy to adjudicate.)
Along came "libertarian" Timothy Sandefur, who (I’m told) argues in a recent issue of Liberty magazine against the right of a state to secede and who, as a follower of Daniel Webster, denies to the states any authentic existence or any real sovereignty. Unable to get his reply published in the magazine in which my article appeared, he posted it to his website. His attack on my article showed him to be only very superficially acquainted with the issues at stake (he claimed, for instance, that nullification was intended to be carried out by state legislatures; why all this time did we think it was to be done in sovereign conventions?).
But his article was nevertheless useful in that it illustrated a standard blind spot in mainstream classical liberalism: having absorbed virtually all of the basic assumptions of modern political theory, the classical liberal cannot conceive of secession, devolution, competing or overlapping jurisdictions, or indeed any of the fabric that ultimately made Western liberty possible. They imagine a strong, large-scale state defending everyone’s natural rights. And they’re actually surprised when it never works!
A surprising number of my students, when nullification is explained to them, find it an intriguing idea. At the same time, I have plenty of students for whom Daniel Webster’s conception of an unbreakable union is so familiar, since they’ve all learned what American history they know from an absurd Lincolnian point of view, that they cannot imagine any other way of organizing society. They honestly believe that voting guarantees that only good legislation will be enacted, and that to defy "majority rule" is to commit some kind of blasphemy. They cannot break out of the model of the single, irresistible sovereign voice; they believe it is this that makes a society wealthy and strong.
Yet it was in the context of a very different model of society, in the Middle Ages, that Western liberty took root. The modern idea of sovereignty simply did not exist. As Bertrand de Jouvenel observes of our day and theirs,
A landlord no longer feels surprised at being compelled to keep a tenant; an employer is no less used to having to raise the wages of his employees in virtue of the decrees of Power. Nowadays it is understood that our subjective rights are precarious and at the good pleasure of authority. But this was an idea which was still new and surprising to the men of the seventeenth century. What they witnessed were the first decisive steps of a revolutionary conception of Power; they saw before their eyes the successful assertion of the right of sovereignty as one which breaks other rights and will soon be regarded as the one foundation of all rights.
In such a society, where a multitude of legal jurisdictions abounded and no single sovereign voice could be found, the king did not make the law but was himself bound by it. Law was something to be discovered, not made (as with the absolute monarchs and parliaments of the modern age). In his classic study of Cardinal Wolsey, Alfred Pollard described the decentralization of power that characterized the Middle Ages, as well as the lack of reliance on legislation:
There were the liberties of the church, based on law superior to that of the King; there was the law of nature, graven in the hearts of men and not to be erased by royal writs; and there was the prescription of immemorial local and feudal custom stereotyping a variety of jurisdictions and impeding the operation of a single will. There was no sovereignty capable of eradicating bondage by royal edict or act of parliament, regulating borough franchises, reducing to uniformity the various uses of the church, or enacting a principle of succession to the throne. The laws which ruled men’s lives were the customs of their trade, locality, or estate and not the positive law of a legislator; and the whole sum of English parliamentary legislation for the whole Middle Ages is less in bulk than that of the single reign of Henry VIII.
The great sociologist Robert Nisbet described medieval society as "one of the most loosely organized societies in history." Political leaders who desired centralization found themselves up against the historic liberties of towns, guilds, universities, the Church, and similar corporate bodies, all of whom guarded their (often hard-won) liberties with great vigilance, and all of whom would have been baffled at the modern idea that a single sovereign voice, whether of a king or of "the people," could on its own authority have redefined or overturned those rights, whether or not "majority rule" sanctioned it.
Our "democracy" today feels itself bound by no such obligations, and routinely overturns settled ways of life in one community after another. The myths of democracy – that it is necessary for economic prosperity, that it guarantees that government will not become abusive, that it ensures that the "will of the people" is expressed in law – seem more absurd and ridiculous than ever. Today we have a two-party system that is so utterly corrupt, so totally dominated by crooks and ignoramuses, and so deliberately rigged against any outside challenger – and with a media positively wedded to the current arrangement – that it is beyond laughable to speak in any way of "the will of the people," if such a thing can be said to exist in any case. I’m sure the same students who reject nullification as treason against the holy will of the majority would defend the upcoming Iraq war as a reflection of the will of the people, despite the fact that "the people" had virtually no antiwar candidates to vote for.
Earlier this year, 90 percent of the US Congress voted for a resolution supporting the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in a show of support much greater than his own government gives him. Was that a reflection of the will of the American people?
The vast majority of Americans know absolutely nothing about the US Constitution and what it authorizes, so the idea that their votes alone will prevent unconstitutional legislation is simply laughable, and completely contradicted by the evidence of everyday life and indeed of the entire twentieth century. Moreover, most Americans know absolutely nothing about, say, money and banking, so how can the Federal Reserve be described with a straight face as what "the people" demand? Do the people demand a million illegal immigrants a year?
Should there be a state in our day with enough courage and intelligence to resist the unconstitutional federal interference in their affairs that goes on as a matter of course – just consider the popular referenda in Colorado and California alone that federal courts imperiously overturned in the 1990s – then far from lamenting this descent into "anarchy," we should positively rejoice that at last the American people have come to understand their own tradition once again.
I don’t want to romanticize the people too much: plenty of government expansion has taken place with their approval or connivance. The great John Randolph of Roanoke referred to unfettered democratic governance as rule by "King Numbers," but so many students have been raised on the religion of democracy that they cannot even conceive of how a state or community might be oppressed by the untrammeled "democracy" of the remainder. I sometimes ask: if majority rule is such a precious principle, and if I hold my property only at the sufferance of a majority of my fellows, then why not let India and China vote on how much American wealth they’d like to confiscate? That would be "majority rule" in action, so why exactly would it be wrong?
Hans Hoppe is right: no "limited government" can stay that way for long, and if anything the democratic system only accelerates the move away from government’s original limitations. Once the right to tax is conceded to an institution said to possess a monopoly on the use of force, no feeble constitution can stand in the way of its expansion.
The genuine reactionary in our day should not be pining to take over the reins of the modern state, but should rather aim to dismantle this destructive institution that was absolutely foreign and unknown to medieval Europe. As Hoppe, Ralph Raico, and others have pointed out, it was precisely the decentralized nature of European political life that allowed capitalism to develop and the good things of civilization to flourish. According to David Landes, "Because of this crucial role as midwife and instrument of power in a context of multiple, competing polities (the contrast is with the all-encompassing empires of the Orient or the Ancient World), private enterprise in the West possessed a social and political vitality without precedent or counterpart" (emphasis in original). Likewise, Jean Baechler wrote that "the expansion of capitalism owes its origins and raison d’être to political anarchy."
As radical as it doubtless sounds, the time has come to think very seriously about alternatives to the modern state. That the central state here in America is on the side of every degenerate aspect of culture and society goes without saying, and this is true regardless of which party is in power. (Bob Dole’s Viagra commercials just about sum up the Republican Party on cultural questions.) It has squandered everyone’s retirement money, slowed job creation, created the business cycle, debased the currency, all but nationalized education, dictated social policy to every community in America, confiscated money from ordinary Americans to pay farmers not to grow anything, made war on freedom of association – I could go on for quite a while. And what it’s supposed to do – protect us from criminals and from foreign attack – it does appallingly badly. (Remember the visas our immigration service issued to the September 11 hijackers months after the fatal attacks?) Our legal system is a complete shambles, which is why private dispute resolution companies are flourishing.
As Donald Livingston has argued, the modern unitary state has a lot to answer for, having been responsible for terror and destruction without precedent in history:
Its wars and totalitarian revolutions have been without precedent in their barbarism and ferocity. But in addition to this, it has persistently subverted and continues to subvert those independent social authorities and moral communities on which eighteenth-century monarchs had not dared to lay their hands. Its subversion of these authorities, along with its success in providing material welfare, has produced an ever increasing number of rootless individuals whose characters are hedonistic, self-absorbed, and without spirit. We daily accept expropriations, both material and spiritual, from the central government which our ancestors in 1776 and 1861 would have considered non-negotiable.
Unworkable and utopian, some will say of the pure private-property order. But the more you think about it, the clearer it becomes that what is truly unworkable and utopian is the idea of "limited government," whose epitaph stands right before our very eyes.
That word did not even exist in Lincoln's day.
But use the record and show that his attitudes on race were more extreme than other people of the day.
What you'll find is that Lincoln's views on race were -much- advanced over his contemporaries. You would put modern judgments on an historical person. That is just silly. You can't show what you suggest in the record in any case.
BUT: You have summoned the Lincoln quote dump:
"I confess that I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes and unwarranted toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no such interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union."
8/24/54
"If A can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B. -- why not B. snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A.?
-- You say A. is a white, and B. is black. It is --color--, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be the slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.
You do not mean color exactly? -- You mean the whites are --intellectually-- the superiors of the blacks, and therefore, have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.
But, say you, it is a question of --interest--; and, if you can make it your --interest--, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you."
1854
"I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
August, 1858
"I do not expect the Union to be dissolved--I do not expect the house to fall--But I do expect it will cease to be divided. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is the course of ultimate extinctioon; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new--North as well as South. Have we no tendency towards the latter condition?"
1858
"The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied, and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they only apply to "superior races."
These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect. -- the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard -- the miners and sappers -- of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us. This is a world of compensations; and he that would -be- no slave, must consent to --have-- no slave. Those that deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God cannot long retain it."
3/1/59
"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not. ....peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."
8/23/63
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel...
In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the Nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the North as well as you of the South, shall pay for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of God."
4/4/64
"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
4/11/65
sources: "Abraham Lincoln, Mystic Chords of Memory" published by the Book of the Month Club, 1984 and:
"Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1859-65, Library of the Americas, Don E. Fehrenbacher, ed. 1989
Consider these letters:
Private
General Hunter
Executive Mansion
Washington D.C. April 1, 1863
My dear Sir:
I am glad to see the accounts of your colored force at Jacksonville, Florida. I see the enemy are driving at them fiercely, as is to be expected. It is mportant to the enemy that such a force shall not take shape, and grow, and thrive, in the south; and in precisely the same proportion, it is important to us that it shall. Hence the utmost caution and viglilance is necessary on our part. The enemy will make extra efforts to destroy them; and we should do the same to perserve and increase them.
Yours truly
A. Lincoln
_________________________________________________________
Hon. Andrew Johnson
Executive Mansion,
My dear Sir:
Washington, March 26. 1863.
I am told you have at least thought of raising a negro military force. In my opinion the country now needs no specific thing so much as some man of your ability, and position, to go to this work. When I speak of your position, I mean that of an eminent citizen of a slave-state, and himself a slave- holder. The colored population is the great available and yet unavailed of, force for restoring the Union. The bare sight of fifty thousand armed, and drilled black soldiers on the banks of the Mississippi, would end the rebellion at once. And who doubts that we can present that sight, if we but take hold in earnest? If you have been thinking of it please do not dismiss the thought.
Yours truly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon Soc of War
Executive Mansion
Washington
July 21, 1863
My Dear Sir:
I desire that a renewed and vigorous effort be made to raise colored forces along the shores of the Missippi [sic]. Please consult the General-in-chief; and if it is perceived that any acceleration of the matter can be effected, let it be done. I think the evidence is nearly conclusive that Gen. Thomas is one of the best, if not the very best, instruments for this service.
Yours truly
--------------------------------------
Lincoln also proposed --privately-- to the new governor of Louisiana that the new state constitution include voting rights for blacks. A year later, in April, 1865 he came out --publicly-- for the suffrage for black soldiers, because his great --political-- skill told him that the time was right.
It was a direct result of this speech, and this position, that Booth shot him.
President Lincoln, besides ordering the army (note that this is only a few months after the EP) to use black soldiers more vigorously, made many public speeches to prepare the people for the idea of black suffrage.
"
"When you give the Negro these rights," he [Lincoln] said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood...By the close of the war, Lincoln was reccomending commissioning black officers in the regiments, and one actually rose to become a major before it was over. At the end of 1863, more than a hundred thousand had enlisted in the United States Colored Troops, and in his message to Congress the president reported, "So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any." When some suggested in August 1864 that the Union ought to offer to help return runaway slaves to their masters as a condition for the South's laying down its arms, Lincoln refused even to consider the question.
"Why should they give their lives for us, with full notice of our purpose to betray them?" he retorted. "Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, or any incoming administration can save the Union." To others he said it even more emphatically. "This is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated. Keep it and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it."
--"Lincoln's Men" pp 163-64 by William C. Davis
Lincoln's sense of fairness made him seek to extend the blessings of citizenship to everyone who served under the flag.
His great political skill made him realize that blacks --were--not-- leaving -- he played that card and no one was biting, black or white. That being the case, he knew he had to prepare for the future, and that future involved full rights for blacks.
Walt
Lincoln was a racist. The use of the word describes his attitudes. It matters not whether the word existed or not.
And I don't grade on the curve so I couldn't care less if others were better worse or the same as him in their attitudes.
I don't put modern judgements on historical people. I put personal judgements on behavior and attitudes.
We have the benefit of hindsight now and I don't deny it. Nor do I run from it. We live and learn. Slavery was wrong then, it is wrong now. Judging people by race is merely a sign of ignorance. People were relatively ignorant in his time.
I stated that he was a racist and he was. He is neither a hero or villian because of it.
He was a bad President in my view for other reasons.
Wow! Gerbils too? And I thought you confined your sin to the opposite sex!
We're not dueling.
The record doesn't support you.
It supports the idea that Lincoln's ideas were much advanced compared to most people of the day.
"Recognizing me, even before I reached him, he exclaimed, so that all around could hear him, "Here comes my friend Douglass." Taking me by the hand, he said, "I am glad to see you. I saw you in the crowd to-day, listening to my inaugural address; how did you like it?" I said, "Mr. Lincoln, I must not detain you with my poor opinion, when there are thousands waiting to shake hands with you." "No, no," he said, "you must stop a little, Douglass; there is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours. I want to know what you think of it?" I replied, "Mr. Lincoln, that was a sacred effort." "I am glad you liked it!" he said; and I passed on, feeling that any man, however distinguished, might well regard himself honored by such expressions, from such a man."
More Douglass:
"Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical and determined."
Walt
I already told you I don't grade on the curve. You seem stuck on it. Oh well.
He's not crazy, he's just incorrect. YOU are crazy.
Kinky. Unusual sexual device, but not surprising in your case.
I think I will award you the first:
"FREE DIXIE CUPS NOW" award.
Congratulations.
Walt
I discounted what you said too, but I decided to comment on it. That is why we are allowed to post here, to comment.
I award you the "CUT AND PASTE SOME STUFF" award. Your prize is one week with your buddy Justshutup and his harem. :-)
Very good Walt. And Merryman was the particular case on habeas corpus. So what's your complaint?
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.