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).
Simply wrong. The Framers didn't think that.
"The nullifiers it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality are effectually transferred by it, and the dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority.
Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hands of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all."
-- James Madison, 1833
Walt
Wrong. What is not delegated has been reserved to the states. The Constitution nowhere denies a state form leaving, or requiring that it remain bound forever. I would like to see the clause forcing states to remain when other states & the federal government have reneged their Constitutional duties to which they agreed.
The Confederacy was not engaged in rebellion or revolution, they did not attempt to overthrow the US government, they simply rescinded their ratifications per Artilce IV, resumed their delegated powers, and formed a new union.
Even if there was a right of secession, I doubt the founders would have had their process include a traitor-Secretary of War shipping the accumulated arms of the republic to the rebels (oops, secessionists!) followed by theft from federal armories, followed by drafting the militia (regulated by congress) into the rebel army, followed by firing at unarmed federal ships.
Au contraire. The Secretary of War had a constitutional duty to protect the entire US, not just selected states. Lincoln drafted a militia, and sent ARMED ships to SC & Florida.
Like a marriage, the terms would have been subject to negotiation and perhaps mediation until the south resorted to violence (theft of government property, and firing at federal forts). Once that illegal process began, it stopped being secession, and became a rebellion.
Wrong. Marriage is santified by a higer power (God), and recognized by the states. The agreement BETWEEN the states created a goverment (servant) to them, and the master does not ask the servant for permission. In refernce to your claim of required mediation, again it is not required (please post the clause stating otherwise). Regardless of this fact, the states & the Confederacy DID attempt negotiations with Buchanan & Lincoln. The Confederacy DID attempt to negotiate settlemant of the dispute, to pay the Union for any properties it had repossessed - Lincoln refused. Former US Supreme Court Justice Campbell served as mediator for the Confederacy & the Confederate Peace Commisioners, and all of them were lied to repeatedly by Lincoln & Seward. Despite Lincoln and Seward's continued assurances that Sumter would be abandoned, Lincoln lied and used Maj. Anderson as a sacrifice to start a war.
The laws made under the Constitution are also the supreme law of the land. That includes the Militia Act, which leaves determining rebellion or insurrection to the sole discretion of the president. President Lincoln cites the Act in his 4/15/61 proclamation and the Supreme Court refers to it in the Prize Cases ruling.
There simply is no legal way out of the Union by unilateral action.
Walt
Can't do that. Besides the Militia Act, it violates the guarantee that each state will have a republican government. If a state could leave, that would no longer apply.
A state may not disgard the law at will or pleausre,
Walt
Nope. Your projection not mine. I carry a .45 for a lawful purpose, to defend myself & my family. You can carry anything you want and I'll not stop nor shot you, but you enter my home uninvited be prepared to face the consquences. I have no intention of waiting for you to shoot me or my family. I don't have to ask what your intentions are, call 911 or anything else.
Only a neo confed would claim that it was a threat, and that the unarmed ship Western Star was also a threat. But if the Western Star was a threat, why was it allowed to pick up the soldiers from Ft. Sumpter?
On 5 Jan 1861, the Star of the West captained by McGowan left New York with 200 troops and six months' provisions:
My command consisted of two hundred men ... My officers were First Lieut. W. A. Webb, Fifth Infantry; Second Lieut. C. W. Thomas, First Infantry, and Assist. Surg. P. G. S. Ten Broeck, Medical Department. ... On Tuesday afternoon, 8th instant, arms and ammunition were issued to all the men. ... During the night we saw what we supposed to be the light of a steamer cruising off the harbor, but she did not discover us, as our lights were all out. ... Finding it impossible to take my command to Fort Sumter, I was obliged most reluctantly to turn about ... During the whole trip downward the troops were kept out of sight whenever a vessel came near enough to us to distinguish them, and the morning we entered the harbor of Charleston they were sent down before daylight, and kept there until after we got out of the harbor again. ... Capt. John McGowan, commanding the steamer Star of the West, deserves the highest praise for the energy, perseverance, and ability displayed in trying to carry out his orders to put the troops in Fort Sumter.The ship was NOT unarmed, it was carryng over 200 soldiers; the ship was a threat - it was ORDERED to reinforce troops at Sumpter; the ship did NOT pick up soldiers from Ft. Sumpter, it couldn't even reach them.
Lt. Charles R. Woods, The war of the rebellion: a compilation of the official records of the Union and Confederate armies, Series 1, Volume 1, pp. 9-10
The laws made PURSUANT to the Constitution are the supreme law of the land - you always leave out the "pursuant" part.
Please cite the clause in the Constitution that prevents a state from seceding (there is none).
Please cite the clause in the Constitution that states that the union is permanent (perpetualness was abandoned).
Please cite the clause in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to invade a state (debated & refused twice in the debates).
Please cite the clause in the Constitution that consolidates the entire nation into one mass of people (proposed & not even seconded in the debates).
Written in 1829. Amazing. I thought the neocons said no one believed that. Rawle was from Philadelphia, not a southern state.
"The people alone as we have already seen, bold the power to alter their constitution. The Constitution of the United States is to a certain extent, incorporated into the constitutions or the several states by the act of the people. The state legislatures have only to perform certain organical operations in respect to it. To withdraw from the Union comes not within the general scope of their delegated authority. There must be an express provision to that effect inserted in the state constitutions. This is not at present the case with any of them, and it would perhaps be impolitic to confide it to them. A matter so momentous, ought not to be entrusted to those who would have it in their power to exercise it lightly and precipitately upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jealousy, perhaps against the interests and the wishes of a majority of their constituents."
Can you confirm that the lack of power that Rawle spoke of was ever conferred to the state legislatures? If not then wouldn't that mean the state legislatures acted unconstitutionally in seceding, at least as Rawle saw it?
A republican government does not mean one loyal to the US, it means "representative" government, a government of the people. Hamilton once asked (18 Jun 1787), in reference to a single executive (aka monarch) being elected, 'Is this a republican system? It is strictly so, as long as they remain elective.' In Federalist No. 43, Madison wrote, 'The only restriction imposed on them [the states] is, that they shall not exchange republican for antirepublican Constitutions.' Madison summed it up in Federalist No. 39,
'we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.'
If a state could leave, that would no longer apply.
Hey, you're finally understanding.
True. The PEOPLE of each state - not the legislatures - selected their delegates to their respective state conventions. It requires an act by the PEOPLE, not the legislature to rescind ratification, and resume the powers they had delegated.
If not then wouldn't that mean the state legislatures acted unconstitutionally in seceding, at least as Rawle saw it?
Georgia nominated delegates to a secession convention. So did Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.
But it can only be guaranteed by the --feds-- if the state stays in the Union.
Go set up your blue smoke and mirrors somewhere else.
Walt
The laws made PURSUANT to the Constitution are the supreme law of the land - you always leave out the "pursuant" part.
The SCOTUS refers directly to the Militia Act in the Prize Cases ruling.
It was clearly a law made pursuant to the Constitution.
Walt
No, the perpetual Union was made more perfect.
All this neo-reb craps falls before the fact that the great mass of Americans in the 1860's supported and saved the government from the traitors.
You are pushing an interpretation not put supported at the time. As proof of this we see that the rebel armies mostly disintegrated and went home.
Walt
Nullification is not under discussion. Your quote is irrelevant.
RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP is the oldest continuously operating law practice in the United States. It was founded by William Rawle in Philadelphia on September 15, 1783.
In 1792, Washington offered Rawle the position of federal judge for the new Pennsylvania district. When Rawle declined that post, Washington offered the position of U.S. Attorney General, which Rawle also declined.
Of course your statement is nonsense.
"The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority."
That's what the Framers thought.
Walt
Not surprisingly, both sides thought God supported their view of slavery. For example, the following resolutions were adopted by the Alabama Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church (one of the forerunners of today's Methodists) on December 19, 1860:
Resolved: That we believe African slavery, as it exists in the Southern States of this republic, to be wise, humane and rightious institution, approved of God and calculated to promote to the highest possible degree the welfare of the slave.Resolved: That, as in the providence of God, several millions of the African race have been committed to us as a people, we should be recreant to that trust if we did not defend our right to their service against any and all enemies now and forever.
Need of manpower to oppose a numerically superior northern army. But by then the war was already long underway and had been since Lincoln started waging it in the Spring of 1861.
Lincoln has sworn an oath to preserve and protect the constitution.
And that makes him even more at fault. Lincoln violated the constitution left and right in his pursuit of the war.
That oath would have prevented him negotiating away any state.
How so?
Gladly, current Democrat. It is a 30% tariff on most steel products and a 15% tariff on the remainder.
and what party does the president belong to that put it on steel?
He is a republican who, in imposing that rate, shunned his own party's official republican platform:
"International trade has become the world’s most powerful economic force. International trade is not the creation of the world’s rulers, but of the world’s peoples, who strive for a better future and break down any barriers governments may erect to it. The result is today’s global economy of open markets in democratic nations. That system is poised to sweep away both the counterproductive vestiges of protectionism and the backwater remnants of Marxism. We launched this revolution during the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Now we will bring it to completion: U.S. leadership of a global economy without limits to growth." - Article I of the Republican Party national platform, adopted in 2000 (emphasis added)
In doing so he also reneged on his own public professions of free trade and effectively threw a bone to the protectionists on the left including those who come from your apparent organization of choice, the AFL-CIO.
..."as Rawle saw it" being the operative words. This issue was actually debated at length in 1861 with some states concluding a convention was the way to exit the union. Others, such as Tennessee, explicitly rejected that concept and concluded that an act of the legislature was necessary.
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.