Posted on 09/06/2003 9:14:08 AM PDT by quidnunc
Abraham Lincoln is thought of by many as not only the greatest American statesman but as a great conservative. He was neither. Understanding this is a necessary condition for any genuinely American conservatism. When Lincoln took office, the American polity was regarded as a compact between sovereign states which had created a central government as their agent, hedging it in by a doctrine of enumerated powers. Since the compact between the states was voluntary, secession was considered an option by public leaders in every section of the Union during the antebellum period. Given this tradition — deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence — a great statesman in 1860 would have negotiated a settlement with the disaffected states, even if it meant the withdrawal of some from the Union. But Lincoln refused even to accept Confederate commissioners, much less negotiate with them. Most of the Union could have been kept together. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas voted to remain in the Union even after the Confederacy was formed; they reversed themselves only when Lincoln decided on a war of coercion. A great statesman does not seduce his people into a needless war; he keeps them out of it.
When the Soviet Union dissolved by peaceful secession, it was only 70 years old — the same age as the United States when it dissolved in 1860. Did Gorbachev fail as a statesman because he negotiated a peaceful dissolution of the U.S.S.R.? Likewise, if all states west of the Mississippi were to secede tomorrow, would we praise, as a great statesman, a president who refused to negotiate and launched total war against the civilian population merely to preserve the Union? The number of Southerners who died as a result of Lincoln’s invasion was greater than the total of all Americans killed by Hitler and Tojo. By the end of the war, nearly one half of the white male population of military age was either dead or mutilated. No country in World War II suffered casualties of that magnitude.
Not only would Lincoln not receive Confederate commissioners, he refused, for three crucial months, to call Congress. Alone, he illegally raised money, illegally raised troops, and started the war. To crush Northern opposition, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of the war and rounded up some 20,000 political prisoners. (Mussolini arrested some 12,000 but convicted only 1,624.) When the chief justice of the Supreme Court declared the suspension blatantly unconstitutional and ordered the prisoners released, Lincoln ordered his arrest. This American Caesar shut down over 300 newspapers, arrested editors, and smashed presses. He broke up state legislatures; arrested Democratic candidates who urged an armistice; and used the military to elect Republicans (including himself, in 1864, by a margin of around 38,000 popular votes). He illegally created a “state” in West Virginia and imported a large army of foreign mercenaries. B.H. Liddell Hart traces the origin of modern total war to Lincoln’s decision to direct war against the civilian population. Sherman acknowledged that, by the rules of war taught at West Point, he was guilty of war crimes punishable by death. But who was to enforce those rules?
These actions are justified by nationalist historians as the energetic and extraordinary efforts of a great helmsman rising to the painful duty of preserving an indivisible Union. But Lincoln had inherited no such Union from the Framers. Rather, like Bismarck, he created one with a policy of blood and iron. What we call the “Civil War” was in fact America’s French Revolution, and Lincoln was the first Jacobin president. He claimed legitimacy for his actions with a “conservative” rhetoric, rooted in an historically false theory of the Constitution which held that the states had never been sovereign. The Union created the states, he said, not the states the Union. In time, this corrupt and corrupting doctrine would suck nearly every reserved power of the states into the central government. Lincoln seared into the American mind an ideological style of politics which, through a sort of alchemy, transmuted a federative “union” of states into a French revolutionary “nation” launched on an unending global mission of achieving equality. Lincoln’s corrupt constitutionalism and his ideological style of politics have, over time, led to the hollowing out of traditional American society and the obscene concentration of power in the central government that the Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent.
A genuinely American conservatism, then, must adopt the project of preserving and restoring the decentralized federative polity of the Framers rooted in state and local sovereignty. The central government has no constitutional authority to do most of what it does today. The first question posed by an authentic American conservative politics is not whether a policy is good or bad, but what agency (the states or the central government — if either) has the authority to enact it. This is the principle of subsidiarity: that as much as possible should be done by the smallest political unit.
The Democratic and Republican parties are Lincolnian parties. Neither honestly questions the limits of federal authority to do this or that. In 1861, the central government broke free from what Jefferson called “the chains of the Constitution,” and we have, consequently, inherited a fractured historical memory. There are now two Americanisms: pre-Lincolnian and post-Lincolnian. The latter is Jacobinism by other means. Only the former can lay claim to being the primordial American conservatism.
David W. Livingston is a professor of philosophy at Emory University and the author of Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium (University of Chicago Press).
Unfortunately those states have all of about a dozen electoral votes combined. Well, maybe a dozen plus a few more, but the fact is that the southern electoral votes are the key to a Republican in the whitehouse. Without them it is physically impossible to win and has been for about a decade at least. The south began splitting towards the GOP in the 1950's with Eisenhower, BTW. It has become progressively more republican ever since and has given a majority of its votes to the republican in every election since Reagan. Yankeeland, by contrast, voted in near unanimaty for Bill Clinton not once but twice.
By Lincoln's own definition of February 15, 1861, he waged a military invasion of the southern states. That constitutes a war by any reasonable definition. That you would attempt to make the argument that the civil WAR was not really a war is itself amusing, though nevertheless absurd.
Not at all. But if my state government, acting with popular consent and through the proper channels of political action, declared its independence, congress would indeed have to declare war before taking action. No less a source than Lincoln himself called marching an army into a state a war of invasion (but that was all before he decided to do it, so it doesn't get spoken of very often).
So. Here's the text again,
'The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for "perpetual union" so expressed in the preamble, [contained in the Preamble of the Articles, not the Constitution] and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled [contained in Article XIII of the Articles, not the Constitution]. It is idle to talk of secession [from the Articles, which prohibited it, not from the Constitution, which reserve the power to the states].'
When the Soviet Union dissolved by peaceful secession, it was only 70 years old — the same age as the United States when it dissolved in 1860. Did Gorbachev fail as a statesman because he negotiated a peaceful dissolution of the U.S.S.R.?
The secession of the Baltic States was not peaceful, nor was it negotiated. Even the term "secession" implies that the Baltics were once "legally" part of the Sovet Union.
The Lithuanians, for example, based their entire independence-movement on the notion that they were not legally-bound by the Soviet constitution, with their parliament voting to declare independence the night before the Soviets were to re-write their own constitution, making "secession" subject to an up-down vote in the Duma.
The result? Soviet troops shooting civilians in the street. One historical account has the Soviet commander refusing his orders to assault the Lithuanian parliament building because it was surrounded by 100,000+ demonstrators. The rest is, well, history.
The reason for this brief lesson? Because this writer either deliberately, or negligently, obscures the above in order to make a false comparison between the Baltic States and our southern States before the Civil War. What steams me is that an intellectually-honest comparison is possible, without resorting to Orwellian propaganda. War is peace. Ignorance is strength. The Soviet Union peacefully dissolved, and gum-drops fell from the sky.
Which returns me to my earlier question: why are some conservatives outright apologists for the Soviet regime and its leaders? This is a serious question, and I'd appreciate an answer from anyone who otherwise agrees with this mope.
A perpetual union that the states were not chained to. Rhode Island & Providence Plantations, or any state, could and did, foil any plan they disagreed with. Under the more perfect Constitution the majority of states could override a state "filibuster".
The word 'perfect' derives from the French term for improved (perfectionnement), as in "brevets d'importation et de perfectionnement" [patents for importation and improvement]. Which derived from the Latin parfit/perfectus, meaning "to finish". Basically, 'perfect' in todays vernacular would mean 'new and improved' or 'complete'.
'PERFECT. Something complete'.Not something perpetual.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rev. 6th ed. (1856)
Then when questions come down to "outsourcing", the Libertarian answer is "STFU, Learn to Be competititve." The Libertarian never talks about raising tariffs until the US worker can be more competitive, rather, the talk is always one of "Screw you, I want to buy things at rock bottom prices", and the only way that this can be done is by getting these products from anyone other than an American.
When Libertarians return back to Earth and recognize that as long as massive taxes and onerous regulation stay in place, the US worker will never be competitive. If you believe that taxes and regulation need to be removed FIRST, then say so, otherwise when all you folks say is "tough luck", then it will be natural to assume that you adore high taxes and regulation on your neighbor, and lawlessness for yourself.
Just putting a leash on EEOC lawsuits (where a SECRET MATHEMATICAL FORMULA will determine if you're a racist or not, without any chance for you to argue against the label) would do a lot to restore American competitiveness--and fixing a few more egregiously bad things (tort reform) will start sending jobs back here.
About all that can be said about tariffs is that they give politicians more money to misallocate, and allow them to avoid grappling with the difficult issues created by 70+ years of viewing American business as some sort of domestic enemy to alternately shoot in the kneecap or leech blood from...
As you no doubt know, that is the part of the Constitution that addresses legislative powers, not powers of the president. As Chief Justice John Marhall said: "If at any time, the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide; until the legislative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws."
Lincoln simply ignored the ex parte Merryman ruling against him concerning habeas corpus. His troops also arrested a Maryland judge who tried to obey ex parte Merryman. So much for the rule of law.
Yes he was wrong when he said the above because the people of the STATES of the south were not too few in number to control their STATES' administration. We are (or were, sadly) a federation of independent, sovereign states. Before Lincoln people said "the United States are..." after Lincoln people say "The United States is...". The difference is more than grammatical. It suggests that we are one nation, a single entity with no significant difference between Colorado and Connecticut or between New Hampshire or New Mexico. Well there are differences and those differences are valuable and worthy of protection. The federal state is oppressive. We now pay fifty times the tax that drove Bostonians to dump tea into Boston harbor and we fight for a 10% cut and count ourselves lucky to get it. It is hypocritical to honor the Founders and honor Lincoln. His opposition to slavery, while it may have been meager and politically motivated, is to his credit. I can think of little else that is. For his posterity and historical place he has Booth to thank.
Obviously not. The rebellion did collapse after all. The control of those states fell into the de facto control of the United States government.
Walt
The Supreme Court said otherwise well before the war.
Even ol' Buck said so:
"In his final message to Congress, on December 3, 1860, James Buchanan surprised some of his southern allies with a firm denial of the right of secession. The Union was not "a mere voluntary association of states, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties," said Buchanan. "We the People" had adopted the Constitution to form "a more perfect Union" than the one existing under the Articles of Confederation, which had stated that "the Union shall be perpetual." The framers of the National Government "never intended to implant in its bosom the seeds of its own destruction, nor were they guilty of the absurdity of providing for its own dissolution."
State Sovereignty was NOT superior to national sovereignty, Buchanan insisted. The Constitution bestowed the highest attributes of sovereignty exclusively on the federal government: national defense; foreign policy; regulation of foreign and interstate commerece; coinage of money. "This Constitution," stated the document, and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
-- Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson, p. 246
Walt
LOL!
LOL, so you think Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and all the other northern States were in Rebellion? Ol' Abe suspended Habeas Corpus in all those places and had thousands and thousands and thousands of his political opponents and critics in the press arrested without charge and thrown into prison cells, some for years. The Supreme Court ruled his tyrannical actions to be unconstitutional. Can you say "Police State"?
That's a sound bite. It's what Shelby Foote (perhaps among others) said in Ken Burns' "Civil War".
But people -didn't- say that.
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government and in that character, they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and in many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory.
The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of of the United States are absolutely void. These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empiure--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate."
--Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the majority opinion, Cohens v. Virginia 1821
Had "people" in fact said "the United States are", before the war, you would not have seen the rallying to the colors of thousands of loyal Union men in 1861. To them, it was always "the United States IS." That is why they were fighting -- to maintain the "is". Sometimes you neo-confederates don't stop and think.
Walt
Can you name someone in one of those states that was imprisoned for "years"?
Even the famous Merryman was released after 49 days. And he -was- indicted for treason, he did raise troops for the insurgency, and he was later a serving officer in the insurgent army. You would deny the government the most reasonable measures for its own defense.
In fact, the government declared a general amnesty early in 1862, and almost all the people arrested earlier were released.
President Lincoln's proclamation of December 8, 1863 allowed all who would (excepting high insurgent officials and miitary officers) the opportunity to take an oath to the goverment and be released/not charged.
Your distortion is easily exposed.
President Lincoln addressed concerns about martial law/habeas corpus in June, 1863:
"After the battle of New Orleans, and while the fact that the treaty of peace had been concluded, was well known in the city, but before official knowledge had arrived, Gen. Jackson still maintained martial or military law. Now, that it could be said the war was over, the clamor against martial law, which had existed from the first, grew more furious. Among other things, a Mr. Louiallier published a denunciatory newspaper article. Gen. Jackson arrested him. A lawyer by the name of Morel procured the United States Judge Hall to issue a writ of hebeas corpus to release Loualier. Gen. Jackson arreted both the lawyer and the judge. A Mr. Holander ventured to say of some part of the matter that "it was a dirty trick." Gen. Jackson arrested him. When the officer undertook to serve the writ Gen. Jackson took it from him, and sent him away with a copy. Holding the judge in custody for a few days, the general sent him beyond the limits of his encampment, and set him at liberty with an order to remain till the ratification of peace should regularly be announced, or until the British should have left the coast. A day or two elapsed, the ratification of a treaty of peace was regularly announced and the judge and the others were fully liberated. A few days more and the judge called Gen. Jackson into court and fined him $1,000. The general paid the fine, and there the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when Congress refunded principal and interest. The late Senator Douglas then in the House of Representatives, took a leading part in the debates, in which the constitutional question was much discussed. I am not prepared to say whom the journals would show to have voted for the measure.
It may be remarked: First, that we had the same Constitution then as now; secondly, that we then had a case of invasion, and now a case of rebellion; and thirdly, that the permanent right of of the people to Public Discussion, the liberty of speech and the Press, the trial by jury, the law of evidence, and the Habeus Corpus, suffered no detriment whatever by that conduct of Gen. Jackson, or its subsequent approval by the American Congress."
President Lincoln had the right to suspend habeas corpus.
Only a bunch of carping losers ever say anythnig else.
Walt
Except for 1992 and 1996 that is.
The south began splitting towards the GOP in the 1950's with Eisenhower, BTW.
Say what? In 1952 Stevenson carried Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia...and nothing else. In 1956 Stephenson carried Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina...and nothing else. Democrats pretty much swept the south in 1960 and 1964 and 1976. It's more like 1980 before the south began trending Republican, decades after the Great Plains states. So welcome to the show, y'all. Better late than never.
Sure can. It's pronounced "Confederate States of America".
The so-called CSA had internal passports, just like the Soviet Union.
From a review of Mark Neely's 'Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism':
"Neely challenged this consensus by examining the available arrest records, court opinions, and other documents related to Confederate wartime arrests of civilians; in other words, he applied basically the same methodology that worked so well in . Focusing particularly on cases involving suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, declarations of martial law, draft evasion, and other expressions of dissent, he found that the Confederate record was not much different from that of the Union. Confederate authorities, Neely argues, used much the same pragmatic, flexible approach characteristic of the Lincoln administration. "Though Confederate measures taken for internal security, when noticed at all, have been assumed to be necessary, and, if anything, too mild, there is evidence of political repression," Neely wrote (p. 132). People in the Confederacy were arrested for their political beliefs, jailed without benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, and subjected to the sometimes not-very-tender mercies of martial law and military rule."
Walt
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.