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).
[nc: initial report - no alleged attack or threat of attack.]
[Major Anderson] I will add as my opinion that many things convinced me that the authorities of the State designed to proceed to a hostile act. Under this impression I could not hesitate that it was my solemn duty to move my command from a fort which we could not probably have held longer than forty-eight or sixty hours, to this one, where my power of resistance is increased to a very great degree.
[nc: Events proved beyond argument that Sumter was not defensible.]
[nc: Second report - no alleged attack. No alleged tangible evidence of any threat of attack.]
[Major Anderson] I told him that the removal was made on my own responsibility, and that I did it because we were in a position that we could not defend, and also under the firm belief that it was the best means of preventing bloodshed.
[nc: Oh, he just decided to up and move on his own responsibility. This major said he had the authority to violate an agreement made between the President of the United States (his Commander-in-Chief) and the Governor of South Carolina.]
|Page 3|
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 1, vol 1, Part 1, page 3
[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.
Numbers 12.] FORT SUMTER, S. C., December 27, 1860.
(Received A. G. O., December 31.)
COLONEL: I had the honor to reply this afternoon to the telegram of the honorable Secretary of War in reference to the abandonment of Fort Moultrie. In addition to the reasons given in my telegram and in my letter of last night, I will add as my opinion that many things convinced me that the authorities of the State designed to proceed to a hostile act. Under this impression I could not hesitate that it was my solemn duty to move my command from a fort which we could not probably have held longer than forty-eight or sixty hours, to this one, where my power of resistance is increased to a very great degree. The governor of this State sent down one of his aides to-day and demanded, "courteously, but peremptorily," that I should return my command to Fort Moultrie. I replied that I could not and would not do so. He stated that when the governor came into office he found that there was an understanding between his predecessor and the President that no re-enforcements were to be sent to any of these forts, and particularly to this one, and that I had violated this agreement by having re-enforced this fort. I remarked that I had not re-enforced this command, but that I had merely transferred my garrison from one fort to another, and that, as the commander of this harbor, I had a right to move my men into any fort I deemed proper. I told him that the removal was made on my own responsibility, and that I did it because we were in a position that we could not defend, and also under the firm belief that it was the best means of preventing bloodshed. This afternoon an armed steamer, one of two which have been watching these two forts, between which they have been passing to and fro or anchored for the last ten nights, took possession by escalate of Castle Pinckney. Lieutenant Meade made no resistance. He is with us to-night. They also
|Page 4|
took possession to-night of Fort Moultrie, from which I withdrew the remainder of my men this afternoon, leaving the fort in charge of the overseer of the men employed by the Engineer Department. We have left about one month's and a half of provisions in that fort; also some wood and coal and a small quantity of ammunition. We are engaged here to-day in mounting guns and in closing up some of the openings for the embrasures-temporarily closed by light boards, but which would offer but slight resistance no persons seeking entrance. If the workmen return to their work, which I doubt, we shall be enabled in three or four days to have a sufficient number of our guns mounted, and be ready for anything that may occur.
I am, colonel, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON,
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
So now it was a quasi armistice and not a real one?
Their leaders, from what I can learn, I believe are sincere in their intention to observe the armistice.
By the time this was dated, February 7, the southern forces had seized forts in the Charleston area (in violation of the agreement with President Buchanan) and had fired on the Star of the West. It would appear that the armistice or quasi armistice or whatever it was had been violated by the south.
Armistice
Main Entry: ar·mi·stice
Pronunciation: 'är-m&-st&s
Function: noun
Etymology: French or New Latin; French, from New Latin armistitium, from Latin arma + -stitium (as in solstitium solstice)
Date: circa 1707
: temporary suspension of hostilities by agreement between the opponents : TRUCE
Where was the hostility, where was the agreement?
In his last annual message to congress, on Dec 3, 1860, President Buchanan blaimed the tension on three things: the eexclusion of slavery from the territories; the "efforts of different states to defeat the Fugitive Slave Law"; and (chiefly) the "incessant and violent agititation of the slavery question throughout the North for the last quarter century". And, "The validity of [the Fugitive Slave Law] has been established over and over again by the Supreme Court with perfect unanimity". And, "Let us trust that the state legislatures will repeal their unconsitutional and obnoxious enactments". Apparently, President Buchanan believed there was more than one northern state government in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Law.
In the same address Buchanan also stated, "The antecedents of the President-elect have been sufficient to justify the fears of the South that he will attempt to invade their constitutional rights". And, "The stern duty of administering the vast and complicated concerns of this government affords in itself a guarantee that [the President] will not attempt any violation of a clear constitutional right.
To relieve the tensions, Buchanan recommended an "explanatory" amendment to the constitution, which included, "An express recognition of the right of property in slaves in the states where it now exists or may hereafter exist," and, "a declaration that all state laws imparing or defeating this right (e.g., the Fugitive Slave Law) are violations of the Constitution and consequently null and void.
Therefore, your statement that the northern states did enforce the fugitive slave law has questionable accuracy.
My people were some of those brave souls, who stood up to federal and sometimes state authority for the cause of charity, justice and human liberty.
God bless them, but they would have been more honorable if they had labored toward acts that would not have led to deaths of more than 600,000 American and the burdening of future generations with a laborious, wasteful, tyrannical government.
Here is the official record that was posted to you once before. 828
Official Records Series 1 vol. 1 part 1 (Charleston Campaign)
You have not offered one scintilla of proof that the memo is IN any official record.
Yes, I have. to you directly, several times. You cite it yourself as part of the Buchanan letter to the SC delegation.
You have yet to cite any official record.
(yawn)
Now that your Lincoln/Scott/Anderson theory has gone down in flames, its obvious your intent here is only to disrupt the discussion.
after most of the northern slaveowners sold their slaves in the late 1850s (slavery was quickly dying an un-lamented death by then due to improvements in agriculture), the radical republicans THEN decided that slavery should be abolished. nice, huh?
this sequence of events clearly illustrates that the so-called anti-slavery movement was just about $$$$$$$$.nothing more, nothing less.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
one wonders how many millions of innocent dead the damnyankees would willing sacrifice, should the south once again leave the union.
free dixie,sw
the underground railroad conductors were FEW & BRAVE;they never numbered over about 10,000 people, according to Professor Walter Williams.
the vast majority of whites in the USA cared not one damn about the plight of the slaves.they should have;they did NOT.
almost nobody was willing to fight a skirmish over slavery;NOBODY was willing to fight a long & costly war over the dying "peculiar institution", despite the current self-serving comments of the revisionists out of the most extreme leftist wing of northeastern academia.
TWBTS, for the southerners was about gaining LIBERTY. for the great mass of northern elitists it was about assuring the permanent subserviant status of the southland.
free dixie,sw
One may only speculate at what Secretary Floyd was about when he sent verbal orders to Major Anderson. It was clear to the Buchanan administration that the garrison Anderson commanded was in danger from the citizens of south Carolina and that Anderson's men would fight if attacked at Ft. Moultrie. I suspect that Floyd's order was intended to give Major Anderson some additional flexibility to make decisions in the field using his own best judgement.
What should be apparent is that Sec. Floyd did not expect Asst. Adjutant General D.C. Buell to place a written copy of his verbal order into the official record, or that President Buchanan would read it.
That Floyd resigned shortly thereafter, or that Buchanan denied providing the authority for giving that order should come as no surprise. After all these are politicians we are talking about here, and corrupt Democrat ones at that.
What should be noted is the forthright and honorable way both Major Anderson and A.A.G. Buell acted throughout this drama. Anderson's decision not to return fire after the merchant vessel Star of the West was attacked, was heroic (imo), and D.C. Buell's decision to place into the record a written copy of Sec. Floyd's verbal orders to Anderson was a stroke of bureaucratic genius, that ultimately forced Buchanan to articulate his administration's position to hold the forts in South Carolina. An interesting footnote of history without doubt.
the forts would have become EXPENSIVE humiliations for the damnyankees;essentially they would have been POW camps, which fed themselves,rather than threats to dixie liberty.
free dixie,sw
[Non-seq] So now it was a quasi armistice and not a real one?
No, Lincoln simply lied.
O.R. Series 1, Vol 1, Part 1, page 357-8
PENSACOLA HARBOR, FLA., February 7, 1861.
Their leaders, from what I can learn, I believe are sincere in their intention to observe the armistice,
Should the armistice be broken
I. VOGDES,
Captain, First Artillery.
P. S.-I must not be understood as recommending any violation of the existing armistice, but the collection of an amount of troops on the station as may be necessary for the defense should anything occur to rupture the present armistice.
April 6, 1861
It would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war; and would be resisted to the utmost. "Both sides are faithfully observing the agreement (armistice) entered into by the United States Government and Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase, which binds us to to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it."
Capt. H.A. Adams, USN
[Non-seq] By the time this was dated, February 7, the southern forces had seized forts in the Charleston area (in violation of the agreement with President Buchanan) and had fired on the Star of the West. It would appear that the armistice or quasi armistice or whatever it was had been violated by the south.
In Charleston, that armistice was broken when a civilian ship, carrying reinforcing troops, was dispatched to Fort Sumter. It was further violated by Major Anderson when he abondoned Fort Moultrie and moved to Fort Sumter.
And the USS Powhatan sailed and painted over its hull name and hoisted English colors.
You have still not offered one scintilla of evidence that this memo was placed in any official record upon his return to Washington."
What you have posted did NOT authorize Anderson to move to Sumter unless he was actually under attack, or had tangible evidence he was going to be attacked. There was never any proffer of any tangible evidence.
You said it. I am just giving recognition to the brilliance of your thinking.
The Confederate government did not yet exist.
Floyd was from Virginia which had not yet seceded.
John B. Floyd Resignation as Secretary of War in 1860
War Department Dec. 29 1860
Sir On the evening of the 27th instant I read the following paper to you in the presence of the Cabinet:
Council Chamber
Executive Mansion.
Sir It is evident now from the action of the commander at Fort Moultrie, that the solemn pledges of this government have been violated by Maj. Anderson. In my judgment but one remedy is now left us by which to vindictae our honor and prevent civil war. It is in vain now to hope for confidence on the part of the people of South Carolina in any farther pledges as to the action of the military. One remedy only is left, - and that is to withdraw the garison from the harbour of Charleston altogether. I hope the President will allow me to make that order at once. This order
[page 2]
2
in my judgment can alone prevent bloodshed and civil war.
John B. Floyd
Secretary of War
To the President December 27, 1860
I then considered the honor of the administration pledged to maintain the troops in the position they occupied; for such \had/ been the assurances given to the gentlemen of South Carolina also had a right to speak for her. South Carolina, on the other hand gave reciprocal pledges that no force should be brought by them against the troops or against the property of the United States. The sole object of both parties to these reciprocal pledges was to prevent collision and the effusuion of blood; in the hope that some means might be found for a peaceful accomodation of the existing troubles; the two Houses of Congress having both raised committees looking to that object.
[page 3]
3 Thus affairs stood until the action of Major Anderson, (taken unfortunately while commissioners were on their way to this capital on a peaceful mission looking to the avoidance of bloodshed) has complicated matters in the existing manner. Our refusal or even delay to place affairs back as they stood under our agreement invites collision and must inevitably inaugurate civil war in our land. I cannot consent to be the agent of such a calamity.
I deeply regret to feel myself under the necessity of tendering to you my resignation as Secretary of War; because I can no longer hold it under my convictions of patriotism, nor with honor, subjected as I am to the violation of solemn pledges and plighted faith.
With the highest personal regard
I am most truly yours
John B. Floyd
To his Excellency, The President of the United States
Transcribed by Marlitta H. Perkins from a letter by John B. Floyd, contained in the Papers of Robert Morton Hughes , Collection Number: MG 7, Special Collections of the Perry Library at Old Dominion University , Norfolk, VA.
The Captain Vogdes who went on to say, "(Should the armistice be broken,) my company, all the marines, and as many sailors as may raise the garrison to four hundred men should be immediately landed. All of the advantages of the present armistice are entirely on the side of the seceders. I would therefore urge upon the Department the necessity of immediately re-enforcing the garrison." - O.R. Series 1, Vol 1, Part 1, page 358. Obviously Captain Vogdes didn't trust the rebellion leaders in Flordia.
The rebellion leaders had demanded on more than one occasion that Slemmer surrender the fort. The only thing that stopped them was Slemmer's vow to defend the forts against attack to the best of his ability. It seems that it was the fear of high casualties more than any 'armistice' that prevented it.
In any case, whatever agreement there was was with Buchanan and the leaders of the rebellion. Nothing bound President Lincoln to abide by it.
In Charleston, that armistice was broken when a civilian ship, carrying reinforcing troops, was dispatched to Fort Sumter. It was further violated by Major Anderson when he abondoned Fort Moultrie and moved to Fort Sumter.
The agreement that President Buchanan made with members of the South Carolina congressional delegation on December 9 stated that the government would make no attempt to reinforce the garrison in Charleston so long as the state government made no attempt to seize federal property. Nothing prevented the current garrison from moving among the federal facilities located there. That promise was promptly broken when state militia seized Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinkney. Following that what obligation did President Buchanan to abide by an agreement that was already violated?
And demonstrating the lunacy of your belief that all the trade would have gone to the south. Your claim makes no sense at all but, hey, what's new with that?
Or the South to stay in the Union when the North was violating the fugitive slave part of the Constitution, eh?
As Daniel Webster said:
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing from year to year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it; and if the North were deliberately, habitually and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations?... How absurd is it to suppose that when different parties enter into a compact for certain purposes, either can disregard any one provision and expect nevertheless the other to observe the rest?... A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other.
"Major Anderson had been told that in case he was attacked he was to "defend himself to the last extremity," and it seemed to James Buchanan that this was going beyond common sense. At the president's insistance, a letter over Floyd's signature was sent to Anderson. The major was not to sacrifice his own life or the lives of his men in a hopeless fight; if he was obviously overpowered, he could bow to necessity and make the best terms possible -- this would be the course of a brave and honorable officer, "and you will be fully justified in such action." Additionally, the part of Buell's memorandum which told Anersn he could occupy any fort he chose if he had reason to believe that he was going to be attacked was mildly qualified by the addition of of the word "defensive" in the description of the steps that were permitted him.
Whether anyone realized it or not, the administration had at last taken a positive step. Until now, Major Anderson had been told nothing except that he could defend himself if attacked. Now he was given full authority to move from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter -- not merely if he was attacked, but whenever he had tangible evidence "of a design to proceed to a hostile act." Inasmuch as tangible evidence hung of such a design hung over Charleston as thick as a winter fog, Anderson had in substance been told he could go over to Sumter whenever he thought best."
-- "The Coming Fury" pp. 148-49 by Bruce Catton
Walt
Greater pedantry hath no man.
Walt
So then you agree that President Buchanan was in the right to try and send supplies to Sumter? Does that extend to President Lincoln's actions as well?
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.