Replies

I think it is a real disappointment that we cannot discuss Abraham Lincoln on this site without being deluged with pseudo-facts or blind assumptions regarding his presidency. It is as if some people are actively seeking NOT to respond or acknowledge facts that may throw their own easy to swallow assumptions into wack.

"Please, don't let this forum become a fighting ground for NeoConfederates. Don't let conservatism be tained with bigotry. Don't stain the Declaration of Independence with the aspersions of the slavehound. Don't besmirch the memory of Lincoln with the invective of the traitors. This is my plea to all of you.".

This is absolutely hilarious. You tell people here not to "stain the Declaration of Independence with the aspersions of the slavehound.", who in the world do you think wrote the Declaration of Independence??? It was Thomas Jefferson. oh wait, he was both a slave owner and the leader of the Jeffersonian Republicans. It was the Jeffersonian Republicans who fought for ideals like Nullification and States Rights. But apparently Thomas Jefferson, John Taylor of Caroline, John C. Calhoun,
J.W. Randolph, Abel Parker Upshur, James Monroe and the many many others and their ideals should be ignored as if they didn't exist. Instead all those who fail to bow before the Lincoln shrine should be painted as a "slavehounds", "traitors", "Neo-confederates" or "Lords of the Lash"? How exactly is that reasonable or logical? You are seemingly ignorant of history and the ideological basis for sucession and its support by MANY of our founding fathers and instead use ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with your position. Bravo!!

"The future inhabitants of {both} the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better." - Thomas Jefferson

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so..." - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy In America

I thought I would post some of the actual Constitution as it relates to this debate.

Article 1

Section 7 - The Congress shall have Power...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections.

Section 9 - The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Section 10 - No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;...

Article 2
Section 1 ...Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

It would seem to me that Lincoln or any other president for that matter has the right power to suspend habeus Corpus in times or Rebellion.
It also seems that the "Confederecy" was specifically prohibited.

While Lincoln's presidency saw an expansion of the federal government it was not until FDR that the modern "big government" welfare state was created.

While the original colonies might be seen as having had soverignty prior to the constitution and could possibly succeed, the succession of states that were not in existence when the constitution was created is another question entirely. They never existed as independent "States". They were paid for by the United states government in the Louisiana and subsquent transactions and belonged entirely to the people of the United States as a whole. They also were organized as territories and admitted as states under the Constitution.

If you want to work for decentralization and devolution of power to local authorities, fine, it could be a worthy cause. But the "state's rights" tradition has historically been associated with slavery and later with segregation. Therefore, people are naturally reticent about identifying that tradition with liberty. That doesn't necessarily mean that Calhoun, Taylor, Randolph and the rest need to be constantly labled "slavehounds" or "lords of the lash," but it does mean that no one can seriously identify their tradition simply with the defense of liberty. There's a dark side that needs to be taken into account. We can certainly respect some of their views, but most of us can't make their tradition our own.

If "state's rights" is silent or indifferent or supportive where slavery is concerned, it's a sign that there is something wrong or lacking with that school of thought. That moral deficiency in Jeffersonian republicanism or Jacksonian democracy means that we can't look on Lincoln or the abolitionists in the negative light that nineteenth century Southerners did. Republicans and abolitionists did bring something of value to the debate, which would be impoverished if its highest principle was the absolute sovereignty and divine right of state governments. Moreover, the practical difficulties and constitutional doubtfulness of nullification and secession were apparent to many people at the time, and those who pursued such ideas to the point of revolution and war are hardly reliable guides for citizenship or statesmanship.

Some people seem to have bought into the "Jeffersonians good, everything else bad" way of thinking, but it's too simplistic a picture. Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans asked Jeffersonians important questions that pointed up deficiencies or gaps in "state's rights" thinking. They understood things about the nature union and constitution that Jeffersonians didn't. The reverse is true as well, Jeffersonians brought up things that Hamiltonians would rather ignore. So I don't think there are any simple answers. All the more so, since Jeffersonians like Madison and Monroe ended up closer to Washington or Adams than to radicals like Taylor or Randolph. In the end, though, it does look to me like secessionists had the wrong goals and pursued them by rash and reckless means.

Does that mean that we pit Lincoln against the founders and choose him over them? No, first of all, as is pointed out here every week, Lincoln doesn't correspond to modern ideas on racial equality, either. There's room to criticize him on that ground and others. He is not immune from criticism or reproach. We are going to be hearing for a long time that because Lincoln wasn't committed to racial equality, his principled stands against the expansion of slavery and unilateral secession count for nothing. But it's not clear why Calhoun's or Taylor's support for slavery should be irrelevant to our assessment of their own views about secession and nullification.

It is clear that Lincoln wasn't so far different in his views of union and liberty from Washington or Adams or Hamilton or Madison, though. It's Jefferson whose views differed, and Calhoun whose views differed even more from the Founders. You may want to talk about Lincoln as a deviation or deformation of an older tradition, but the tradition of Calhoun is itself a corruption and a turning away from what the Founders intended. Lincoln brought some change, but it was more evolutionary, and more in accord with the views of our first Presidents than many claim. It's not true that the modern welfare state was born with Lincoln.

Differences about racial equality don't mean that we have to permanently ban Jefferson, or Washington, or Lincoln. We are adult enough to recognize their virtues and sterling qualities, which on balance were greater than our own. But it does mean that one can't naively raise the banner of Taylor or Calhoun, nullification, secession and state's rights without people asking serious questions, making reproaches, or ignoring one's stand. Chivalry and honesty mean that we can and should honor the courage of Confederate soldiers and understand that in their own minds their fight was justified, but the same honesty makes it hard to see the cause of radical Southern political leaders as our cause or as the cause of liberty.