Posted on 05/23/2003 1:15:02 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
Ever since the New York Times published a long article explaining that most of the architects of the Bush foreign policy are "Straussians," more and more journalists have been asking the question, "What the heck is a Straussian?" A number of common principles have emerged after these writers have examined the writings of Leo Strauss, the godfather of neoconservativism.
Straussian Principle #1 is the perversion of the idea of natural rights, as understood by John Locke and the American founding fathers. The natural law tradition holds that man possesses natural rights to life, liberty, and property and that the state is always and everywhere the greatest threat to these God-given rights. To the founders, this meant that government should be "bound by the chains" of the Constitution, to paraphrase Jefferson. If men were angels, there would be no need for government, Madison wrote in defense of the Constitution. But men are not angels, Madison continued, which is why government power must always be limited.
Strauss (and his followers) rejected this view of natural rights in favor of Plato’s philosopher-king model of government: Eliminating restrictions on state power is fine as long as that power can be wielded by an elite few who can pursue their own vision of "the public good." As David Gordon has written, "Straus, while favoring what he considers to be the classical and Christian concepts of natural law, is bitterly opposed to the 17th and 18th Century conceptions of Locke and the rationalists, particularly to their . . . championing of the rights of the individual: liberty, property, etc." Far from advocating limited government, Strauss was a proponent of unlimited state power in pursuit of "nationalism" (as are his American neocon followers).
Straussian neocons tend to repeat the words "prudence and moderation" ad nauseum, to the point of absurdity. In all their critiques of my writings on Lincoln some of the most apoplectic criticisms have been over my "failure" to acknowledge Lincoln’s alleged prudence and moderation (as though waging an unnecessary war that killed 620,000 Americans was either). (Eric Root of the John Lock Foundation even went so far as to condemn me for failing to pontificate upon these Magic Straussian Words while admitting that he had not even read my book!)
These buzz words are merely deceptive euphemisms for "unlimited and unconstitutional executive branch power." Strauss himself was fond of praising British imperialism and Caesarism for their supposed "prudence and moderation," just as his contemporary followers are now using these same words to praise the Bush administration’s foreign policy (of which they are the main architects!).
This is obviously why the Straussians have labored so furiously to make Abraham Lincoln even more of a cult figure. He essentially declared himself dictator, suspended habeas corpus, mass arrested thousands of political dissenters, shut down hundreds of newspapers, ordered the murder of New York City draft protesters by federal troops, deported an outspoken Democratic Party opponent, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, censored all telegraph communication, nationalized the railroads, confiscated private property, rigged Northern elections, and waged war on civilians as well as combatants. The reason he gave for these shocking acts of tyranny was to destroy the secession movement and abolish the voluntary union of the founding fathers. Or, as he deceivingly put it, "to save the Union."
Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to replace the American republic with an empire that would rival Great Britain’s. To accomplish this they invaded the Southern states, killing one out of every four white males of military age, and pillaged, plundered, and burned their way through the South, destroying its economy.
There could be no better role model for aggressive, dictatorial, militaristic nationalism, which in fact is Straussian Principle #2. Strauss believed that human aggression could only be restrained by a powerful, nationalistic state (See Jim Lobe, "Leo Strauss’ Philosophy of Deception," Alternet.org, May 19, 2003). He believed that such an omnipotent state can only be maintained if there is an external threat, "even if one has to be manufactured." This is why Straussians believe in perpetual war, and is another reason why they have formed a cult around "the church of Lincoln," whom they hold up as "the greatest statesman in history." Lincoln manufactured many "threats," including the truly bizarre notion that representative government would perish from the earth if the Southern states were permitted to secede peacefully. In reality, peaceful secession would have been a victory for self-government, keeping in mind that neither Lincoln nor Congress ever said that they were launching an invasion for any reason having to do with liberating the slaves.
Straussian Principle #3 is aggressive lying. In "Leo Strauss’ Philosophy of Deception" Jim Lobe noted that Strauss believed in the necessity of "perpetual deception" of the ruled by their rulers if nationalistic objectives are to be achieved. Straussians routinely claim to possess unique understanding of the "hidden meaning" of history and historical documents, which is often directly at odds with the plain historical truth. This is all a part of their perpetual campaign to confuse the public and keep it ignorant of their political designs.
A good example of this phenomenon is the "special meaning" of the Declaration of Independence that Straussians claim to have discovered. The Declaration declared to the world that the colonists were seceding from the British Empire, but Straussians incredibly insist that it is an anti-secessionist document because Lincoln quoted the "all men are created equal" phrase in the Gettysburg Address. They repeat Lincoln’s tall tale that the Declaration made the Union "perpetual" even though the states describe themselves in the document as "free and independent."
The Declaration announces that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever governments become destructive of the peoples’ natural rights it is the duty of the people to abolish the government and replace it with a new one. That is exactly what Jefferson Davis announced he intended to do in his First Inaugural Address, yet the Straussians claim that it was Lincoln, not Davis, who was upholding this principle.
Even though the free and independent states ratified the Constitution to create the federal government as their agent, Lincoln held that there was never any such thing as state sovereignty because "the Union is older than the states." This of course is impossible, since the union of two things cannot be older than either thing that it is a union of.
Straussians tell us that Lincoln had to destroy the Constitution in order to save it, that he was a great humanitarian who nevertheless waged war on civilians, he favored equality even though he loudly denounced racial equality throughout his lifetime, and a thousand other deceptions.
Straussian Principle #4: Fake religiosity. Several of the journalists who have recently written about Strauss have noted that he was a proponent of a greater role for religion in affairs of state, a position that has endeared some Christians to the neocon movement. But Strauss’ position was that the political rulers and the intellectual elite (philosopher kings?) need not be bound by religion themselves; religion was primarily a propaganda tool to be used to get the masses to acquiesce in state intervention on behalf of aggressive nationalism. As Ron Bailey of Reason magazine has pointed out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."
Once again, Lincoln is the perfect Straussian role model. Lincoln never joined a church and was opposed by almost all the ministers of Springfield, Illinois, when he ran for president. He was infamous for his dirty jokes and even his criticisms of Scripture. There is no explicit evidence that he ever became a Christian, and some of his contemporaries even believed that he was probably an atheist. As James Ostrowski has written ("DiLorenzo vs. His Critics on the Lincoln Myth," LRC Archives), the "church of Lincoln" is "the church of a man who had no Church."
Lincoln was nevertheless brilliant in his use of religious language and images to mesmerize Northern audiences, especially the hyper-puritanical New England Yankees and their upper Midwest brethren. After launching a war that he apparently thought would last only a few months, Lincoln distanced himself more and more from responsibility for his own decisions by invoking religion. By the time of his Second Inaugural, when over a half million young American men had been killed in the war, he was to the point of absolving himself entirely from any responsibility for all the war’s death and destruction. He declared that "the war came," as though he had nothing to do with it, and said that it was all out of his hands and a matter of God’s will. He theorized that God was punishing America for the sin of slavery. This argument was nonsensical on its face, however, since it ignored the fact that some 95 percent of all the slaves that were brought to the western hemisphere ended up outside the U.S., where no such "punishment" was being executed by the Lord. Why would God punish Americans for the sin of slavery but no one else?
In his Second Inaugural Lincoln quoted at length Mathew 18:7 and Luke 17:1 in order to make the argument that both North and South were being punished for the sin of slavery. This in itself is, well, Straussian, since Lincoln claimed to know the "inner meaning" of God’s Word.
As Charles Adams writes in When in the Course of Human Events (p. 205), "Lincoln’s Jehovah complex gave the war a psychopathic Calvinistic fatalism, with God directing the whole affair and punishing both North and South for tolerating slavery." The slaughter of hundreds of thousands of young men, the killing of civilians, the massive theft of private property, and the burning of entire towns by federal soldiers would continue until God decided otherwise. "Not even the maddest of religious fanatics," Adams writes, "ever uttered words to equal Lincoln’s second inaugural address."
Lincoln’s cynical political manipulation of religion was the perfect Straussian subterfuge. It was the perfect propaganda tool for sugarcoating a bloody and imperialistic war of conquest. Little wonder that contemporary Straussian neocons think of Lincoln as "the greatest statesman in world history": He was an extreme nationalist; an enemy of constitutionally limited government and genuine natural rights; a skilled political conniver, manipulator and deceiver; and a phony religionist. Perfect.
True. DiLorenzo shows no signs of having read Strauss. He offers no quotations from Strauss, and doesn't even mention the name of any of his books. He relies entirely on third hand journalistic accounts of Strauss and on articles relating to Lincoln by those he presumes to be Straussians. The fact that most students of Strauss had little to do with Abraham Lincoln and hold no strong opinions about him doesn't seem to be on DiLorenzo's radar screen. If he truly understood Strauss -- or even had some familiarity with his work -- DiLorenzo wouldn't speak so glibly about what "Straussians" believe.
DiLorenzo seems to be entirely unaware of the disagreements between the West Coast and East Coast Straussians. Jaffa and the West Coast school are very appreciative of Locke, the Declaration of Independence, and Lincoln. The East Coast school is highly critical of Locke and not particularly attached to Lincoln. More pessimistic and "European," the Eastern Straussians are more interested in the questions that Plato, Machiavelli and Nietzsche dealt with: the philosopher, truth, relativism, scepticism, nihilism. Consequently the statements DiLorenzo makes about Straussians are likely to be untrue of at least half of those who could be considered to belong to that group. He cuts and pastes the characteristics of the two schools together to produce his cartoon "Straussian", and isn't even aware that he's doing so.
I agree with you that this article neglects the Straussian anxiety about nihilism, relativism and positivism. DiLorenzo makes no mention of the European cultural, intellectual and political atmosphere that cast a shadow over Strauss's work. To take Strauss for a Machiavellian and ignore his reaction to the Machiavellian atmosphere of his day is to play the hanging judge, not the informed critic.
During Strauss's lifetime governments routinely overstrided constitutional limits in what were extraordinary situations. Strauss had to come to terms with this in his European days. To conclude that he advocated the violation of constitutions and arbitrary or absolutist governments would be a mistake. He certainly was grateful to arrive in a country where such usurpations were not the rule.
DiLorenzo belongs to the Rothbard-Rockwell circle, which comes close to being a cult. Rockwellites consider themselves to be bold iconoclasts, but they have a hard time with criticism of their views. Those who disagree with them must be wrong, dishonest and depraved and are to be attacked mercilessly.
I call your attention to Karen DeCoster and other Rockwellite hacks. They have been to Rockwell's Mises Institute and come away with ideological fervor and a conviction that all truth resides in Mises and his elucidators Rothbard and Rockwell, but very little knowledge of the subjects they write about. DiLorenzo fits into this pattern. He may know something about economics, but his ventures into history, and now philosophy have been -- to put it mercifully -- deeply flawed.
I think that merits a "well, duh!" Was there any case in which slavary was not supported by law, enforced by the government?
Is there any doubt slavery would have ended in the South, the same time or earlier as other parts of the Americas?
Can you hear my applause, Seven Days? For a variety of reasons, such as new agricultural technology, soil erosion/depletion and the like, the profitability of slavery had been steadily trending downward for many years by 1860 -- especially in the northern areas of the South. The leading professional literature of the time confirms this, eg. DeBow's Reviews, Southern Cultivator. Nobody knew this better than Frederick Law Olmsted.
The question for Straussians is: How far do they want to go with the statesman? Is he a figure who preserves the state, public order, and society in time of crisis, or is he someone who aspires to remake society and impose his vision on society? What does the knight do when the dragons have been slain?
Any constititution implies a vision of or for society. And any system of government will periodically be in need of reform. But if you like and admire the Founders or Framers, does that lead you to want to become one yourself, a re-founder of society and the state on a new basis? Or do you restrict yourself to more moderate actions? Can one celebrate statesmanship without wanting to become a philosopher king and legislator for mankind oneself? The temptation is too strong for some souls.
So it looks to me like Straussians, from a conservative point of view, are on the edge between the two visions: some holding to the old ways and desiring only to renew them, and others aspiring to create a new order. Of course there are other Straussians who are purer philosophers and political theorists, who aren't motivated to mix in current politics at all.
For DiLorenzo, though, I suspect anyone who doesn't side with his devil theory of Lincoln is fair game for attack. But this "everything would have turned out alright but for Lincoln" theory looks more like a religion than a serious view of history. We might have escaped some dangers, but would have suffered other and perhaps worse perils, as a look around the world will confirm.
Like the draft effort of 1862, the experiment with compensated emancipation in Delaware was a last bid by the Lincoln administration to do things the old way before making a radical change.
By the time the Civil War began, fewer than 1,800 slaves lived in Delaware, and 75 percent of them were in Sussex County, mostly in the Nanticoke River basin in the far southwest of the state. In the fall of 1861, Lincoln proposed to George P. Fisher, Delaware congressman, a plan to compensate Delaware's remaining slaveholders from federal funds if they would free their slaves. Lincoln hoped that, if this could be shown to work in Delaware, it could be done as well in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, and eventually become a model for the states then in the Confederacy. In his proposal to Fisher, he called it the "cheapest and most humane way of ending this war and saving lives."[3]
Lincoln spoke in pragmatic terms in a July 12, 1862, "Appeal" to representatives of the border states. He told them that if they repudiated slavery it would remove one of the South's principal causes in continuing the war: that the slave border states were being kept in the Union against their will. And he laid out the practical, economic argument: "How much better for you and for your people to take the step which at once shortens the war and secures substantial compensation for that which is sure to be wholly lost in any other event! ... How much better to do it while we can, lest the war ere long render us pecuniarily unable to do it!"[4]
He also emphasized the conservative nature of his proposal for gradual emancipation, and he held out the promise of colonization. "I do not speak of emancipation at once, but of a decision at once to emancipate gradually. Room in South America for colonization can be obtained cheaply and in abundance, and when numbers shall be large enough to be company and encouragement for one another, the freed people will not be so reluctant to go." The administration, at this time, had agents scouting the Mosquito Coast of Nicaragua as a possible destination for freed slaves.
Lincoln also mentioned Gen. Hunter's proclamation of emancipation in his theater of the war, and the embarrassment it caused Lincoln to have to repudiate it. This, he said, had caused "disaffection ... to many whose support the country cannot afford to lose." And he mentioned the mounting pressure on him toward abolition. "By conceding what I now ask," he told the border state representatives, "you can relieve me, and, much more, can relieve the country, in this important point."
Fisher arranged a meeting between Lincoln and Republican Benjamin Burton of Indian River Hundred in Sussex County, who, with 28 slaves, was the leading slaveowner in Delaware. Burton listened to the President's plan, and assured him the state's farmers would go along with it if the price was fair. Fisher then went to Dover, and, with the help of Republican Nathaniel P. Smithers, drew up a bill and presented it to the General Assembly. It would free all slaves over 35 at once, and all others by 1872. The compensation rate was to be set by a local board of assessors, and payments were to average about $500 per slave, which was very generous. It was more than a prime field hand was worth, and was five times the value of a typical slave in the state. Payment was to come from a pool of $900,000 to be provided by Congress, then safely in GOP hands.
But Lincoln was unpopular in Delaware -- he had finished third there in the 1860 election, with 24 percent of the vote, behind Breckenridge and Bell -- and even if the money offered was good, the state's politicians seemed disinclined to help the government. Delaware also had a suspicion of federal interference in its internal affairs.
In 1862, the General Assembly replied to Lincoln's compensated emancipation offer with a resolution stating that, "when the people of Delaware desire to abolish slavery within her borders, they will do so in their own way, having due regard to strict equity." And they furthermore notified the administration that they regarded "any interference from without" as "improper," and a thing to be "harshly repelled."[5]
The states' rights rhetoric probably in part masked a fear of social equality for blacks. Delaware's Sen. Joseph A. Bayard, an opponent of the administration, admitted, "slavery does not exist as a valuable source of prosperity" in Delaware.[6] But the "Delawarean" newspaper on Sept. 6, 1862, called Lincoln's plan "the first step; if it shall succeed, others will follow tending to elevate the Negro to an equality with the white man or rather to degrade the white man by obliterating the distinction between races." It sounds deeply racist to modern ears, but such rhetoric was boilerplate for Northern newspapers, even many of those generally friendly to the administration, throughout the war.
Others played on the old fear that free blacks would prey on whites. Samuel Townsend, a Democrat writing in opposition to the plan, portrayed the white population of Delaware as riding on the back of a tiger from which it dared not dismount, for, "in a short time," free blacks in the state "might equal the white population and cause a massacre." Even Fisher, while pushing the President's plan, supported colonization not just of the freed slaves in Delaware, but of the state's entire black population.
The plan was never put to a vote. Fisher and Smithers canvassed the General Assembly and found that the bill would probably pass the Senate, but lose in the House by one vote. They withdrew the plan rather than see it defeated. The elections that fall produced a decisive Democratic victory in Delaware, which doomed the chance for emancipation there. As it turned out, Kentucky and Delaware, among the border states, continued to tolerate slavery, even after Lee's surrender. Delaware's General Assembly refused to ratify the 13th Amendment, calling it an illegal extension of federal powers over the states. Only in December 1865, when the 13th Amendment went into effect on a national scale, did slavery cease in Delaware. By then there were only a few hundred left. Many male slaves had run off in 1863 and 1864 and gone to the cities to enlist in black regiments.
Yet DeBow's was a major supporter of slavery and secession. Seeing that slavery had problems didn't necessarily imply that one wanted to get rid of it. The expansionist moves of slaveowners were the alternative. Movement west towards the Mississippi and beyond had saved slavery once and many expected further expansion to save it once again.
Even if it came to be recognized eventually that slavery's day was passed, it would have been difficult to replace it, as postbellum history indicated: the efforts to create some form of "neo-slavery" or peonage, a means of subjugating and controlling labor, indicate.
Except when it was over and the North had righteously destroyed the slave-dictatorship called the Confederacy. I quote the Second Inaugural Address:
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invoked His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged....
IOW, go soak yer head.
At what point does a major issue become so major that it becomes "the" issue? I would imagine that much of the disagreement over if slavery was "an" issue or "the" issue is simply a disagreement over when this transition occurs.In addition, the Corwin Amendment is proof that slavery was the issue.Not really. It evidences its presence as a major issue, but not "the" issue.
The other day, I posted an article that was essentially a letter to the editor from a northern conservative Whig citizen to Southern Democrats. Reading that piece (and other pieces from the era) has convinced me that while there were other issues involved in the Civil War, they were overwhelmingly overshadowed by the slavery issue, and not just in the immediate run-up to the war.
I agree with your point about "saving" slavery through further expansion west, but even this was acknowledged as a stopgap. Technology alone had become Southern slavery's greatest foe and this would be so in the western territories as well.
The Second Inaugural was given on March 4, 1865 - a month before the end of the 4 year war. In practically everything prior to it, Lincoln made it perfectly clear he was NOT fighting the war to end slavery:
"As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views." - Lincoln to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862
In fact, knowledge that the war was not being fought to end slavery was so strong that it prompted a famous abolitionist to write the following in 1870:
"And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general --- not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man --- although that was not the motive of the war --- as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle --- but only of degree --- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree. If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace." - Lysander Spooner, "No Treason," 1870
Less than 2% making it to 60? Do you know what average lifespan was in 1860, particularly in the South? Do you know what infant mortality rate was in that year? Give me a break.
"Those benefits that were provided were NOT provided to make the slaves happy, it was to keep them alive long enough to get more labor out of them."
Who said anything about "making the slaves happy"? The object was to maximize their productivity.
My general take of it is that, as of March 1861, Lincoln's main goal was to get his way (i.e. the mercantilist agenda) by whatever means it took. If he could do it without a war, that was fine and that is one of the reasons he pushed the Corwin amendment. If it was going to take a war, fine as well and that is why he had been planning a military attempt to retake and defend the Charleston forts since back in December. I also think he was under the impression that the confederacy could not withstand any of this and would collapse in a couple of weeks if he did opt for war and certainly the people around him, such as Seward, were informing him as much. So in this regard, he severely underestimated the south (even though he had all the warning in the world not to after hearing the southern senators and congressmen speak on the issue). Because of this miscalculation, he plunged head first into a war of untold magnitude and the minute he began to realize his mistaken analysis of the southern resolve, he decided to carry through with it at all cost.
Lee was mildly opposed to slavery, but saw it ending in when God's ordained it and not before. As late as 1865 he was stating that the relationship between slave and master was the preferred scheme of things. As for mores, I am not aware of a single confederate leader, civil or military, who believed that slavery was doomed in 1861. I am not aware of a single confederate leader, civil or military, advocating for it's end in 1861. Southern mores were firmly behind slavery and as far as they were concerned the rest of the world could stick their disapproval where the sun didn't shine.
The issue was the economic and political dominance of one region over another region by means of constitutional abuse. Slavery was made an "issue" only to further this end. Only a handful of northerners were abolitionists and they were viewed in the main as the lunatic fringe. Take one look at William Lloyd Garrison and you will see why. It has already been pointed out on this thread that some northern states passed laws against blacks even living within their borders and that slavery still existed in the north (Delaware). One letter to an editor (or even a hundred) doesn't alter these facts.
I'll ask you the same question I've asked others. Why would you believe that the southerners would be more willing to accept orders from Washington on what they could or could not do with their chattel in 1870 or 1880 than in 1860?
Something to support this claim would be nice. Do you have anything?
I don't believe this is a valid criticism of him as the point is that the first, by its very nature, tends to become or become supportive of the second. As for the third, it is not much more than a statement of compliment or veneration paid toward a particular person. By definition it contains little inherent meaning of its own and is therefore not conceptually comparable to the first two. In other words, Thomas Reed's adage applies: a statesman is a successful politician who is dead.
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.