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).
Ask Lambden Milligan what judicial review there was.
Heck, the US courts couldn't/didn't rein in Lincoln or his military (until after Lincoln was dead). I'd be careful about being smug, if I were you.
But judicial review was available and defendants did take advantage of it. Avenues not available to southern political prisoners. You knew that and you call me smug?
Can Civilians be Tried by Military Courts?
As Neely pointed out representatives of the confederate government like Thomas Hindman ruled by fiat and ignored local courts at will. And the habeas corpus commissioners ordered people jailed without trial, military or otherwise. Since trials, military or otherwise, didn't occur then the question of whether civilians could be tried by the military courts was somewhat moot.
But McNeely put a rather different characterization in the title of his book, didn't he?
But these Marxist historians are all, all honorable men.
No fair -- he brought the goods. You can't just sweep it under the rug like that. Refute, or stipulate to what he's saying. Slothful induction will get you nowhere on this board.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised she's not citing some goofy "international law" UN statute as retroactive justification for Lincoln's unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.
Meanwhile you have a realm of immeasurably more credible jurists, not to mention the virtually unanimous view of the founding fathers themselves, who say that the suspension power belongs to Congress and Congress alone.
That list includes two chief justices, 3 associate justices, one president and founding father, delegates to the continental congresses and constitutional convention, and participants in the ratification convention. In justices alone, 5 still beats 1 and always will.
Because the new protectionist tariff that would have killed the southern economy did not take effect until 1861.
I think that was what tpaine was saying to you a while back, after one of your long winded but irrelavant posts. 270.
Nonsense. First, if the south was so against tariffs, they could have easily blocked them in Congress if they had stayed. But the south was not even uniformely opposed to higher tariffs.
And I'll ask once again. Did England and/or France impose tariffs on American cotton? Did American tariffs, high or low, have any impact on the market price of cotton?
Like the review that was available to John Merryman in the North in 1861?
The US Congress did not authorize Lincoln to do so until 1863. Why would the US Congress need to do that if Lincoln had the right to suspend habeas corpus in the first place.
The Confederate Congress authorized the suspension of habeas corpus on several occasions. When habeas corpus is suspended by the government entity authorized to do it, you could appeal to the courts until you were blue in the face. The courts would rule that habeas corpus was legally suspended, so why bother?
Thomas Hindman was removed by Jefferson Davis for his restrictions on civil liberties.
It's no surprise that someone who openly praises the slave power and denigrates the greatest American would have diversity stuck in their craw.
Walt
The "Southern" economy needed to die.
Walt
None of them had to deal with a giant nest of traitors.
Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'connor allow for that when they praise Lincoln.
Walt
That is false. Every southern state was present for the vote in the House, and it passed on a strictly sectional breakdown. I believe only one southern congressman voted yes.
As for the senate, it is a similar falsehood that they could have blocked it beyond March 1861 even if every southerner had remained and voted no. I have the vote data itself printed out at home and will happily provide you with its details if you desire, but the situation they faced was essentially this:
In January 1861 Kansas was admitted as the 34th state, giving the senate 68 members total. That meant that, at a bare minimum and presuming all senators were present, it would take 34 yes votes for the Morrill tariff to pass plus a tiebreaker by Republican vice president Hannibal Hamlin (This could have potentially been delayed for some time by parliamentary tactics but not indefinately and, as I will note shortly, most of those tactics had already been exhausted).
The incoming senate that took office on March 1861 had, IIRC, 31 Republican members - up from around 27 or 28 in the previous session thanks to a change in some seats and the 2 new Kansas senators. That means 31 yes votes were virtually guaranteed and they would have to gain 3 others, or take advantage of a mid-term vacancy, to pass the bill. Now lets assume the south never left and everything continued business as normal after March. Of the northern democrats, one came from the strongly pro-tariff state of New Jersey and may be generally predicted to have voted for it. A second from Delaware was absent the day that the real vote happened but his earlier speeches indicated how he would determine his vote. He offered to vote for the bill on the condition that a single amendment that benefitted his state would be added, so his vote could have been obtained. That puts us at 33.
Of the remaining northern democrats it is a bit harder to determine how they would have voted. Three we can fairly safely say would have voted no: Stephen Douglas of IL, Jesse Bright of IN, and one other who indicated his opposition (I believe he was from minnesota). The west coast democrat senators, a constitutional unionist from Missouri, and a couple others are harder to determine. But a couple scenarios are indeed possible.
1. One of the California senate seats was vacant briefly in mid 1861 after they took office in March. This would have meant that 67 members were present instead of 68, so simply getting 1 more vote would have given a clear majority and passed it without even a tiebreaker.
2. Stephen Douglas died in June 1861 and was replaced with a Republican, which would have given them 34 votes.
3. One of the undetermined northern democrats and others - could either have been for it already, or could have been swayed either by cutting a deal with him etc. Lincoln indicated that he was intent upon doing this a few months earlier in his speech at Pittsburgh, where he pledged to make the tariff - if unpassed by March - his top legislative priority.
But the south was not even uniformely opposed to higher tariffs.
That too is false. For all practical purposes, the southern governments were dominated by free traders. Protectionists were a small minority. This is evidenced in the House vote, where only one single southerner voted yes. In the senate only one southerner could be counted on to have supported it as well - John Crittenden of Kentucky, a Henry Clay protege - and his term ended in 1861 when John Breckinridge took office.
But in case you engage in your typical ad hominems against Taney's person, a second justice from the north also had an eyewitness view to the civil war. Benjamin Curtis, the famed dissenter on Dred Scott, wrote a legal textbook on the presidency in 1862 in which he too found Lincoln's actions unconstitutional even in the scenario where they happened.
Leave it to the resident Democrat to wish recession upon the people in states where he doesn't like the government in power.
You must mean like the giant nest of liberals today.
Treason, Ann Coulter, 2003
What do liberals want? Freud would have gone crazy with these people. Figuring out what women want is easy compared to liberals. [p. 15]
Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down. [p. 16]
It's some psychological block liberals have. Their minds are fine, but the woman wells up in them. [p. 29]
As is usually the case when liberals are the historians, the truth was just the opposite. [p. 64]
Protecting traitors was part of the bonhomie of the ruling class. It was as if the WASPs had developed some XXY chromosome that led to overt treason. They ruled magnificently for many years, but their blood had gotten thin. [p. 83]
The principle result of being called a Communist by McCarthy was you got to teach at Harvard. [p. 92]
Don't tell me you worship before that false alter as well. As Peter Wood writes, the concept of "diversity" is like the state of Wyoming. It definately appears on the map and in fact consumes a large portion of it. But it's empty on the inside, possessing little to no weight or substance.
So much for these objections to what the President of the United States has done. But the closing argument, after all, and that upon which the gentleman places most stress is, that an effort was made at the last session of Congress to give to the President this very power, and that the Congress of the United States refused to pass that bill.
That is true; and why? Because the vacant seats around us were then filled by traitors, many of whom are now in arms against the Republic.
Senator Lane of Indiana, July 16, 1861, page 143
[nc] This appears to refute any claim that Lincoln had to act without approval of Congress while it was out of session. Obviously, it was made by a Lincoln supporter. If the previous Congress refused to pass such an act "because the vacant seats around us were then filled by traitors," it is interesting to note that this Congress, absent all those alleged traitors, also refused to pass such an act.
March 28, 1861 the Senate adjourned.
Lincoln did not fail to obtain Congressional approval to act as he did because Congress was not in session. Being unable to obtain Congressional approval for what he wanted to do, Lincoln waited until Congress adjourned and then he acted.
April 1, 1861 by General Scott
April 2, 1861 approved by Abraham Lincoln
To: Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U.S. Army
You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed to New York where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged; -- and putting on board such supplies as you can ship without delay proceed at once to your destination. The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known. Signed: Winfield Scott
Signed approved: Abraham Lincoln
April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp
This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.
Signed: Winfield Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ On July 4, 1861, Lincoln gave a report to Congress.
"An order was at once directed to be sent for the landing of the troops from the Steamship Brooklyn, into Fort Pickens. this order could not go by land, but must take the longer, and slower route by sea."
This was a lie. Special messenger Lieut. J.L. Worden, U.S.N. went by rail, via Richmond, Augusta, and Atlanta, to Pensacola.
"To now reinforce Fort Pickens, before a crisis would be reached at Fort Sumter was impossible -- rendered so by the near exhaustion of provisions in the latter-named fort."
This was a lie. The troops were landed at Pickens before any shots at Sumter. This is proved by the official ship's log of the USS Supply. It is further proved by the statement of Captain Vodges that he had reinforced Pickens before the action at Sumter.
"As had been intended, in this contingency, it was also resolved to notify the Governor of South Carolina, that he might expect an attempt would be made to provision the fort; and that, if the attempt should not be resisted, there would be no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition, without further notice..."
Lincoln lied. He had already issued multiple written orders to reinforce both Forts Sumter and Pickens.
"Then, and thereby, the assailants of the government, began the conflict of arms, without a gun in sight, or in expectancy, to return their fire..."
Lincoln lied. He had ordered troops to reinforce Pickens and Sumter.
Remember Lieut. J.L. Worden, the messenger? A funny thing happened on the way to Pensacola.
[G] "This order was sent by a special messenger, Lieut, J. L. Worden, U. S. N. Worden went by rail, via Richmond, Augusta, Atlanta (Georgia); when near Atlanta he became alarmed from some cause, and he opened the dispatches, committed them to memory; then 'destroyed them'; (the act of a spy.) He arrived at Pensacola at 'midnight, April 10th.'
"On the 11th of April Worden saw General Bragg, and assured General Bragg that he 'only had a verbal message of a pacific nature for Captain Adams.'"
"The Lieutenant was allowed to go out to Captain Adams, under this 'pacific' assurance, and the existing 'armistice.'
"'Rough weather' prevented Worden from reaching Captain Adams on the 11th. (it also prevented open war on April 11th, 1861, by delaying Worden.)
"On April 12th Worden delivered, 'verbally, from memory,' the order to reinforce Fort Pickens.
"Worden returned to Pensacola about 5:30 P. M., April 12th. He avoided seeing General Bragg and boarded a train for Montgomery, en route back to Washington.
[J] "Worden's actions aroused suspicion, and he was followed and arrested next morning at Montgomery. By some means he escaped a spy's fate and was held 'as a prisoner of war.'
"About a year later Worden commanded the iron clad 'Monitor' in her fight with the C. S. S. Virginia (Merrimac.)
[K] "To avoid a spy's fate Worden made a 'statement.' April 16th, 1861 to L. P. Walker, Confederate States Secretary of War.
[H] "On April 14th General Bragg reported his experience with Worden.
[G] "It was not until four years later, September, 1865, (when the war was over, and the spy safe) that Worden reported these facts to the U. S. Navy Department. This report proves his 'statement' to Secretary Walker to have been a tissue of lies.
[L] "Captain Adams reported having landed Vogdes, and reinforced Fort Pickens, on April 12th; but, the fact is, that Vogdes, impatient of delay, actually landed a part of his armed forced and reinforced Fort Pickens after '9 P. M.' on the night of April 11th, 1861.' Here is my authority:
[M] "April 11th at 9 P. M. the Brooklyn got under way and stood in toward the harbor; and during the night landed troops and marines on board, to reinforce Fort Pickens.'
"That is from the official 'Log' of a U.S. Ship of War, as reported to, and filed in, the U. S. Navy Department. It confirms Vogdes' statement at Fort Adams.
The Truth of the War Conspiracy of 1861, by H.W. Johnstone, 1921, 12-14
Citations by Johnstone:
[G] (April 7-14, 1861), Records Rebellion, Ser I, Vol 4, 111. Worden's report (1865) Spy.
[H] (April 13-14, 1861), Records Rebellion, Ser I, Vol 4, 135-6, Bragg as to Worden
[J] (April 16, 1861), Records Rebellion, Ser I, Vol 4, 118. Worden prisoner of war.
[K] (April 16, 1861), Records Rebellion, Ser I, Vol 4, 136-7. Worden to Secretary Walker, Statement.
[L] (April 12, 1861), Records Rebellion, Ser I, Vol 4, 115. Adams reports landing Vogdes.
[M] (April 11, 1861), Records Rebellion, Ser I, Vol 4, 210. Log of U. S. S. Supply, April 11th.
"Twenty years later, at Fort Adams, R.I., I met General Vogdes, who remember the incident and discussed it. In his remarks he stated that he had reinforced Fort Pickens before Fort Sumter and was attacked; but, that his act was overshadowed by the clamor and furore about Fort Sumter."
H.W. Johnstone, page 3.
Lincoln ignored Taney because he could. Had the whole Court supported Taney's position in Merrymanit would have changed things. But Taney had no chance of getting the majority to go along with his interpretation.
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a book on this very subject. What it really comes down to is whether we accept his interpretation or yours.
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.