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).
Rawle also believed that unilateral secession was constitutional to begin with. Turns out he was wrong on that, too.
And a southerm senator said he would wipe up all the blood shed with one hankerchief.
President Lincoln said in a letter from 1864 that events had controlled him, not the other way around.
The day after the first battle of Bull Run, President Lincoln wrote down an outline of how to procecute the war, and the war did follow that outline.
Walt
Why would that have happened? The only commerce that would have flowed south would have been that part of the import market destined for the southern consumers. Those imports destined for Northern consumers would have continued to flow into New York and Boston and Philadelphia. The only question is how much of those imports were destined for southerners. Alexander Stephens estimated it at only 25% and even that was probably high.
How is it then that Major Anderson, commander of the fort, threatened to shell Charleston and burn it to the ground and to not permit any vessel to pass within reach of the fort's guns (it commanded the harbor) and not allow Confederate vessels to communicate between the onshore forts and the city? (Source: The Mississippian, a Jackson Mississippi newspaper, January 16, 1861)
Anderson quickly backed off his threats, perhaps realizing such acts would precipitate war.
[nc] Why was it there?
Ft. Sumter was under contruction and not occupied by federal troops until Dec 26th 1860. Late that day, Major Anderson moved the garrison from Ft. Moultrie on the shoreline to Ft. Sumter, careful to avoid the SC patrol boats in the harbor. The civilian workman at Sumter were returned to Charleston, and the siege of Ft. Sumter was begun.
Major Anderson's decision to move to Ft. Sumter was motivated by the simple fact that it was more defensible from attack by SC state militia than Ft. Moultrie was.
[nc] You make it sound as if it served no particular purpose, was just a government boondoggle, and its evacuation would have been a benefit by saving taxpayer dollars.
The only government boondoggle was the 100 civilians working at the fort. Federal gravy being ladled out to the poor white southerners.
The Texas referendum by the voters took place on Feb 23, 1861. The first I see of the Confederate Congress giving any official role other than observers to the TTexas delegation was on Feb 27, 1861, when they were given power to discuss and vote on matters specifically relating to the permanent Constitution which did not pass until sometime later.
The Texas delegates were instructed by the Texas Secession Convention on March 5, 1861, to apply for admission as a state to the Confederacy.
If Anderson had wanted to shell Charleston, he certainly was given a good reason to do so on January 8, 1861, when the shore battery at Ft. Morris opened fire on the US flagged merchant ship Star of the West as it attempted to resupply Ft. Sumter. Instead he ordered his troops not to return fire and then negotiated a truce of sorts with representatives of SC Governor Pickens three days later on January 11th.
(Source: The Mississippian, a Jackson Mississippi newspaper, January 16, 1861)
Given the actual events that took place, your source is woefully misrepresenting the facts.
Anderson quickly backed off his threats, perhaps realizing such acts would precipitate war.
If only the secessionist fire-eaters (and their print media) used the same logic.
How is it then that Major Anderson, commander of the fort, threatened to shell Charleston and burn it to the ground and to not permit any vessel to pass within reach of the fort's guns (it commanded the harbor) and not allow Confederate vessels to communicate between the onshore forts and the city? (Source: The Mississippian, a Jackson Mississippi newspaper, January 16, 1861)
Because he never said such a thing.
Walt
It was Lincoln's favorite tune, and on the night the Lee surrendered he ordered it played at the White House.
In fact, at the start of the war, the Government owned millions of acres of southern land. The southern controlled Congress (by the Senate, not the House), was in the habit of selling southern land to the government, and then giving it back for free.
Another note of interest. The word filibuster originally was used as a name for a pirate. Not at all inappropriate in it's usage in the Senate, even today.
I can find plenty of references on the web to Anderson's statements about firing on vessels in the harbor.
I stand corrected on the threat to shell and burn Charleston. I see from more careful reading of the old newspaper that that was what Senator Trumbull, Republican of Connecticut, attributed to Anderson on January 10, 1861, not what Anderson said himself. Thanks.
[nc] Why was it there?
[mac] Ft. Sumter was under contruction and not occupied by federal troops until Dec 26th 1860. Late that day, Major Anderson moved the garrison from Ft. Moultrie on the shoreline to Ft. Sumter, careful to avoid the SC patrol boats in the harbor. The civilian workman at Sumter were returned to Charleston, and the siege of Ft. Sumter was begun.
[mac] Major Anderson's decision to move to Ft. Sumter was motivated by the simple fact that it was more defensible from attack by SC state militia than Ft. Moultrie was.
Well, that explains it. Fort Sumter was there to serve as a hiding place for Major Anderson. The fort was built and the guns installed to protect the fort and its inhabitants from the barbarian hordes of Charleston.
Walt
The sloop-of-war Brooklyn appeared off the Charleston bar on the 11th, but did not attempt to enter the harbor. The Mississippian cited reports that the Brooklyn drove off a schooner winch attempting to enter the harbor. A blockade perhaps?
[non-seq] Why would that have happened? The only commerce that would have flowed south would have been that part of the import market destined for the southern consumers. Those imports destined for Northern consumers would have continued to flow into New York and Boston and Philadelphia. The only question is how much of those imports were destined for southerners.
Well, can you imagine that? Now I just do not understand why New York City threatened to withdraw from the union and become a free port, or why newspapers of the time were in an uproar about the tariff. Heck, now I can't even figure out why people go to WalMart. If it is not for the cheaper prices, can it be for the ambience?
The Philadelphia Free Press, January 15, 1861
In the enforcement of the revenue laws, the forts are of primary importance. Their guns cover just so much ground as is necessary to enable the United States to enforce their laws.... Those forst the United States must maintain. It is not a question of coercing South Carolina, but of enforcing the revenue laws.... The practical point, either way is -- whether the revenue laws of the United States shall or shall not be enforced at those three ports, Charleston, Beaufort, and Georgetown, or whether they shall or shall not be made free ports, open to the commerce of the world, with no other restriction upon it than South Carolina shall see proper to impose.... Forts are to be held to enforce the revenue laws, not to conquer a state.
The Chicago Daily Times, December 10, 1860 (before any secession)
In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactores would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.
The Philadelphia Press, December 21, 1860
The government cannot well avoid collecting the federal revenues at all southern ports, even after the passage of secession ordinances; and if this duty is discharged, any State which assumes a rebellious attitude will still be obliged to contribute revenue to support the Federal Government or have her foreign commerce entirely destroyed.
The Philadelphia Press, January 15, 1861
It is the enforcement of the revenue laws, NOT the coercion of the State, that is the question of the hour. If those laws cannot be enforced, the Union is clearly gone; if then can, it is safe"
The New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861
That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloatg; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.
* * *
What, then is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?
The New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 21, 1861 (before Louisiana seceded)
They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They [the North] are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it.
Yet again, post hoc ergo propter hoc is insufficient as proof in an argument.
Now, answer my question
Ask it coherently. The phrase "what is the Chinese have been doing" is not a coherent question.
|Page 132|
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 1, Part 1, Page 132
HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
New York, January 5, 1861.
Major ROBERT ANDERSON,
First Artillery, Commanding Fort Sumter:
SIR: In accordance with the instructions of the General-in-Chief, I yesterday chartered the steamship Star of the West to re-enforce your small garrison with two hundred well-instructed recruits from Fort Columbus, under First Lieutenant C. R. Woods, Ninth Infantry, assisted by Lieuts. W. A. Webb, Fifth Infantry; C. W. Thomass, First Infantry, and Asst. Surg. P. G. S Broeck, Medical Department, all of whom you will retain until further orders. Besides arms for the men, one hundred spare arms and all the cartridges in the arsenal on Governor's Island will be sent; likewise, three months' subsistence for the detachment and six months' desiccated and fresh vegetables, with three or four days' fresh beef for your entire force. Further re-enforcements will be sent if necessary.
Should a fire, likely to prove injurious, be opened upon any vessel bringing re-enforcements or supplies, or upon tow-boats within the reach of your guns, they may be employed to silence such fire; and you may act in like manner in case a fire is opened upon Fort Sumter itself.
The General-in-Chief desires me to communicate the fact that your conduct meets which the emphatic approbation of the highest in authority.
You are warned to be upon your guard against all telegrams, as false ones may be attempted to be passed upon you. Measures will soon be taken to enable you to correspond with the Government by sea and Wilmington, N. C.
You will send to Fort Columbus by the return of the steamer all your sick, otherwise inefficient, officers and enlisted men. Fill up the two companies with the recruits now sent, and muster the residue as a detachment.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
L. THOMAS,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
President Buchanan's Secretary of War to Major Anderson on being surprised by Anderson's report of movement from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter: It is not believed, because there is no order for any such movement. Believe it. Lincoln sent a confidential message to General Scott. Scott appears to have reached out and touched Major Anderson.
|Page 73|
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 1, Part 1, page 73
SPECIAL ORDERS, HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,
Numbers 137.
New York, November 15, 1860.
Major Robert Anderson, First Artillery, will forthwith proceed to Fort Moultrie, and immediately relieve Bvt. Colonel John L. Garnder, lieutenant-colonel of First Artillery, in command thereof; who, on being relieved, will repair without delay to San Antonio, Texas, and report to the commanding officer of the Department of Texas for duty, with that portion of this regiment serving therein.
By command of Lieutenant-General Scott:
L. THOMAS,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
[nc: italics IN original; boldface added]
Hon. E.B. Washburne
My dear Sir:
Last night I received your letter giving an account of your interview with Gen. Scott, and for which I thank you. Please present my respects to the general, and tell him, confidentially, I shall be obliged to him to be as well prepared as he can to either hold or retake, the forts, as the case may require, at and after the inauguration. Yours as ever
A. Lincoln
Cite: The Living Lincoln, 1995, edited by Paul M. angle and Earl Schenck Miers, page 368.
|Page 2|
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 1, part 1, page 2
Numbers 1. Reports of Major Robert Anderson, U. S. Army, of the evacuation of Fort Moultrie, S. C.
[Numbers 11.] (sic - 1?) FORT SUMTER, S. C.,
December 26, 1860-8 p.m. (Received A. G. O., December 29.)
COLONEL: I have the honor to report that I have just completed, by the blessing of God, the removal to this fort of all of my garrison, except the surgeon, four non-commissioned officers, and seven men. We have one year's supply of hospital stores and about four months' supply of provisions for my command. I left orders to have all the guns at Fort Moultrie spiked, and the carriages of the 32-pounders, which are old, destroyed. I have sent orders to Captain Foster, who remains at Fort Moultrie, to destroy all the ammunition which he cannot send over. The step which I have taken was, in my opinion, necessary to prevent the effusion of blood.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
Colonel S. COOPER, Adjutant-General.
|Page 3|
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 1, part 1, page 3
[Telegram.]
WAR DEPARTMENT,
Adjutant-General's Office, December 27, 1860.
Major ANDERSON, Fort Moultrie:
Intelligence has reached here this morning that you have abandoned Fort Moultrie, spiked your guns, burned the carriages, and gone to Fort Sumter. It is not believed, because there is no order for any such movement. Explain the meaning of this report.
J. B. FLOYD,
Secretary of War.
[Telegram.]
CHARLESTON, December 27, 1860.
Honorable J. B. FLYD, Secretary of War:
The telegram is correct. I abandoned Fort Moultrie because I was certain that if attacked my men must have been sacrificed, and the command of the harbor lost. I spiked the guns and destroyed the carriages to keep the guns from being used against us.
If attacked, the garrison would never have surrendered without a fight.
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery.
Maj. Anderson at Fort Sumter to Col. Cooper
|Page 112|
Numbers 13.] FORT SUMTER, S. C., December 28, 1860.
(Received A. G. O., January 1, 1861.)
Colonel S. COOPER, Adjutant-General:
COLONEL: I have the honor to send herewith a copy of a memorandum received to-day from the governor of South Carolina, in reply to a message from me, which shows that for the present we are treated as enemies.
|Page 113|
In a few days I hope, God willing, that I shall be so strong here that they will hardly be foolish enough to attack me. I must confess that we have yet something to do before, with my small force, I shall feel quite independent, as this work is not impregnable, as I have heard it spoken of.
Trusting that something may occur which will lead to a peaceful solution of the questions between the General Government and South Carolina.
I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
P. S. - I do not feel authorized to reply to the memorandum of the governor, but shall regret very deeply his persistence in the course he has taken. He knows not how entirely the city of Charleston is in my power. I can cut his communication off from the sea, and thereby prevent the reception of supplies, and close the harbor, even at night, by destroying the light-houses. These things, of course, I would never do, unless compelled to do so in self-defense.
[Inclosure. - Copy of memorandum from Governor Pickens.]
Obviously it was not the tariffs themselves, but the question of whether or not the south could take vast funds from the Union for years without contributing anything like that which it took and then just walk in a manner that endangered the safety and peace of the whole continent. Obviously, if the south couldn't pay it's own way in the world, it would have needed a foreign power to support it. This was unacceptable.
When you grasp the facts about how overbearing and intrusive the federal monster has become you will gladly trade that oppression for a few travel inconveniences. Remember, the hassle we endure at airports today is a federal idea.
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.