The Real Lincoln

townhall.com ^ | 3/27/02 | Walter Williams

[kattracks]

Do states have a right of secession? That question was settled through the costly War of 1861. In his recently published book, "The Real Lincoln," Thomas DiLorenzo marshals abundant unambiguous evidence that virtually every political leader of the time and earlier believed that states had a right of secession.

Let's look at a few quotations. Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it." Fifteen years later, after the New England Federalists attempted to secede, Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union ... I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'"

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said, "The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." In Federalist Paper 39, James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong." In a word, states were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states.

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Maryland Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty." The northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace.

Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go." DiLorenzo cites other editorials expressing identical sentiments.

Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry not logic; beauty, not sense." Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives "to the cause of self-determination -- government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth." Mencken says: "It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves."

In Federalist Paper 45, Madison guaranteed: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The South seceded because of Washington's encroachment on that vision. Today, it's worse. Turn Madison's vision on its head, and you have today's America.

DiLorenzo does a yeoman's job in documenting Lincoln's ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Framers had a deathly fear of federal government abuse. They saw state sovereignty as a protection. That's why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.

COPYRIGHT 2002 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Contact Walter Williams | Read his biography

©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

[rdf]

Do you have a date for the Maine resolution? Was it passed during the period in question?

It's from the "Causes of the Civil War" site [I'll give you a link if you like] and it is not dated there. But the content makes it clear that it is after the SC secession ... my guess is about January, 1861.

You've posted a lot of examples of Republican repudiation of the position Williams describes -- but to achieve elenchus, you'll have to demonstrate real unanimity within the GOP, not the proclaimed unanimity of the GOP platform, which was written before the secession conventions sat.

I don't agree. It seems to me that the words and actions of its victorious nominee and the national platform are sufficient.

I agree with you that the national Republicans, being under the titular leadership of Abraham Lincoln from the moment be was nominated, opposed secession and promulgated the formula seen in the Ohio resolution, which we can call simply Unionism. If the Republican Party generally, and not just its victorious faction, felt the same way as shown by competing resolutions that weren't adopted, and by contemporary records and letters, then you will have refuted Williams as regards the Republican Party.

See above. But one does not need unanimity, just the preponderant sentiment in the party. What faction would not have agreed? Do you have one in mind?

As to the Northern Democrats, to advance the argument a bit, the behavior of Douglas and the rest, especially after Sumter, suggests, though it does not demonstrate, a majority sentiment that secession was not legal. Such was also the stated opinion of Democrat President James Buchanan. I believe the Unionism of the Northern democrats shocked Jeff Davis and company, but they showed it in deeds once the war began.

Cheers,

Richard F.

[rdf]

Sorry, I thought you had said it was a "revolt."

Would Lodge really have split an infinitive like that?

Cheers,

Richard F.

[BnBlFlag]

Keep on givin' em Hell! I appreciate your insight. From a fellow Texan and Southerner.

[rdf]

, "It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton to Clinton and Mason, who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every State had a right to peaceably withdraw." A textbook used at West Point before the Civil War, A View of the Constitution, written by Judge William Rawle, states, "The secession of a State depends on the will of the people of such a State."

Neither of these is from the founding, but both are interesting. Can you help a bit more with sourcing? Did you get them from the internet, and if so, where? Or do you have the Lodge book? Edition and page #?

Thanks in advance.

Richard F.

[rdf]

However, nobody benefits if the object of the exercise is just to throw mud. It may be true, but it also needs to be germane to hold our attention.

Well said!

Richard F.

[Aric2000]

This WHOLE debate is MORONIC!! The constitution is a conatract between the states in order to create an entity powerful enough to compete on the world stage. The fed's job was to deal with international treaties and such, defense of the country, and provide for the general welfare.

IT WAS A CONTRACT!! If one party breaks a contract, the other party has EVERY RIGHT to pull out of the contract. This is a basic legal right, The federal government went beyond its powers and so the South reacted in the only way it felt it could, it removed itself from the contract. THAT IS EVERYONES right. If a majority of a states constituents (citizens) want to secede and vote to secede from the UNION, the Federal government has NO right to force them to stay.

The federal government has gone way beyond it's contractual limits, therefore ANY and ALL states that wish to secede from the UNION have every right to do so.

[davidjquackenbush]

Here is the relevant paragraph from the book:

Even when commenting on the Dred Scott decision on June 26, 1857, Lincoln apparently couldn't resist once again (The previous paragraph refers to a speech from nine years before, in support of Zachary Taylor. DQ) criticizing Andrew Jackson's refusal thirty years earlier to recharter the Bank of the United States, insinuating that Jackson had acted unconstitutionally; he tarred Stephen Douglas with the same criticism. He made the same arguments a month later in response to Douglas. In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debtes, Lincoln made it a point to champion the nationalization of money and to demonize Jackson and the Democrats for their opposition to it. Of all the Whigs, Lincoln -- next to Clay himself -- was the fiercest advocate of a nationalized money supply.

[rdf]

Looks like the columns are cut and paste from the book ... including the chronological errors. I wonder if the Jefferson-Tocqueville howler is in the book. That would be too perfect.

[lentulusgracchus]

I don't agree. It seems to me that the words and actions of its victorious nominee and the national platform are sufficient.

Only that? My fiat will do?

But one does not need unanimity, just the preponderant sentiment in the party.

Well, okay.

What faction would not have agreed? Do you have one in mind?

I think the Westerners would not have been as keen to retrieve the Southern states, until Fort Sumter changed things (as Lincoln intended it should), as the Eastern business interests, whose attentiveness has already been shown by the New York Times editorial referred to several times above and posted elsewhere.

The Western free-soilers were not abolitionists, and they weren't tariff enthusiasts. They were concerned about being able to secure quality lands in the Territories without being shut out by slaveholding, latifundist planters, and they were concerned about keeping slavery out of the Old Northwest -- the Northwest Ordinance's embargo of slavery being threatened by Dred Scott, just as free soil in Nebraska had been threatened by "popular sovereignty", the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Lecompton. With the South out, those drivers were gone.

[x]

When one is in a contract or agreement and doesn't like what the terms require it's natural to see if one can get out of the contract, or to ask a lawyer if one can get out of the agreement or to get advice from friends to just break the contract. But none of this counts as expert opinion. To wonder if one has grounds to leave an agreement or to want to break such an agreement isn't the same thing as having the right to dissolve the contract.

I suspect the same applies to the secession controversy. It's hard to separate out statments of fact from wishes or fears, categorical statements from hypothetical or conditional ones. It's also hard to say whether legalistic arguments are truly convincing. Rawle is here, also here but it's hard to say what the grounds for his hypothetical speculations are or what status they would have had in a court of law. Rawle also doesn't appear to be a "strict constructionist." He cites little to back up his fanciful speculations. One would expect references to the founders, court cases, precedents or other documents to be brought forward in support of Rawle's hypothesis, but he doesn't provide any.

[x]

First of all, you would have to demonstrate how the federal government went beyond its powers in 1860 ...

[x]

Yes, the Chechens also remember Yeltsin's stand ... The man who faced down the Soviet Union also faced down breakaway regimes, an indication that politics and history can be pretty complicated.

[Non-Sequitur]

In his book, The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln, historian Michael Burlingame describes Lincoln’s homosexuality and his sado-masochistic marital relationship—he was frequently beaten by his wife.

I've read Burlingame's book at it makes none of those allegations. Perhaps you would like to post the quotes from the book which you are referring to?

[WhiskeyPapa]

In his book, The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln, historian Michael Burlingame describes Lincoln’s homosexuality and his sado-masochistic marital relationship—he was frequently beaten by his wife.

I've read Burlingame's book at it makes none of those allegations. Perhaps you would like to post the quotes from the book which you are referring to?

I believe that Mary once chased Lincoln from their Springfield home with a broom. And once, he chased her out. :)

Walt

[one2many]

DiLorenzo's position:

Quackenbush takes Lincoln's comments on central banking out of context to accuse me of inaccuracies. As I show in my book, "The Real Lincoln," Lincoln was devoted for 30 years to the Whig agenda of the federal government's monopolization of the money supply – so much so that he even had to bring it up in his comment on the Dred Scott decision, as Quackenbush admits. He was a passionate supporter of centralized government through money monopolization for his entire political career.

I find this statement to be substantively correct. You are aware, no doubt, that:

1) Lincoln claimed Clay as his "mentor"** (before the word "mentor" became popular terminology of course -- Wlat don't expect to find this in a raw linked word search you lil' ole PINK marine you)

2) Lincoln was quite gainfully employed for the emerging and powerful and SUBSIDIZED railroad industry.

Of this next section of DiLorenzo's, I will have to read the actual text. Can you direct me to the Ape's comments that are the subject of our dialogue? (I assume they can be found in the July 17 speech but please confirm that before I dig for it):

Quackenbush is unequivocally wrong when he says that he cannot find "a single word in any of the [Lincoln-Douglas] debates, that refers in any way, to an economic agenda." To be charitable, I will assume that, despite his claims of being a world champion Lincoln expert, Quackenbush never got around to reading the July 17, 1858, speech of Lincoln's in response to Douglas in Springfield, Ill., in which Lincoln says: "You remember we once had a national bank … the Supreme Court decided that the bank was constitutional. The whole Democratic party revolted against that decision. General [Andrew] Jackson himself asserted that he, as president, would not be bound to hold a national bank to be constitutional, even though the court had decided it to be so. He fell in precisely with the view of Mr. [Thomas] Jefferson, and acted upon it under official oath, in vetoing a charter for a national bank."

You make this assertion yourself:

To see how tendentious this response is, one must read the speeches in question. Quackenbush's summary is correct ... Lincoln references the Bank to make a point about the Dred Scott Decision, and for no other purpose at all in his argument.

So I don't get your point. As I see it we are talking about one's vision or interpretation of the compact called the "Constitution". Insomuch as that is the case I see the Ape's "linking" of money policy to slavery expansion as much the same issue... that being whether one corrupt section of the nation that had become more populous would foist economic serfdom onto the other section.

Thanks in advance for a transparent, tight, and intelligible reply as would befit one of your background.

**"From the moment Lincoln first entered political life," writes Lincoln biographer Robert W. Johannsen, "he had demonstrated an unswerving fidelity to the party of Henry Clay and to Clay's American System, the program of internal improvements [i.e., corporate welfare for railroad and steamship businesses], protective tariffs, and centralized banking."

Clay was a corrupt statist who spent his political career promoting mercantilism, protectionism, inflationary finance through central banking, and military adventurism in the quest for empire. Upon entering Congress in 1811 he helped persuade the government to attempt to conquer Canada, which it tried to do three times. He waged a thirty-year battle with James Madison, John C. Calhoun, Andrew Jackson, and other defenders of the Constitution over federally funded corporate welfare. from: http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=92&sortorder=authorlast

[WhiskeyPapa]

as WhiskeyPapa has already noted

Are you seriously referencing whiskey papa & claiming to be a scholar at the same time?!? I'm about convinced that you're as big a joke as he so obviously is.

The joke's on you.

As RDF notes, I say correctly that the Virginia resolution references the people of the United States, not the people of Virginia.

It reserves nothing in the way of secession, only revolution, if that.

And such knee-jerk responses by you can only make you look a fool.

You've been pretty disciplined in staying out of my way.

I suggest you continue.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Are you seriously referencing whiskey papa & claiming to be a scholar at the same time?!? I'm about convinced that you're as big a joke as he so obviously is.

I am getting a laugh at these individuals. They make up the "debate" rules as they go, post old newsgroup info, and then look down their noses at us or insult us when we are factual, and then declare themselves victorious...it's a hoot. If this all the serious competition that we have, the battle is already ours....DEO VINDICE.

Old newsgroup info shows that the Virginia resolution refers to the people of the United States, not the people of Virginia.

It reserves nothing in the way of secession from the Union.

I'd be glad to see you provide soemething factual, by the way.

If you've posted something such, I've missed it. Could you post it again?

By the way-- God did vindicate. He vindicated the Union.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

Burlingame makes it clear that the Lincoln marriage could best be described as 'stormy'. But he makes none of the claims that MissouriConfederate claims. He criticizes us for posting from Civil War chatrooms but apparently has no qualms about doing cut-and-pastes from Council of Conservative Citizens websites. Ah the hypocracy of it all.

Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, married for ambition the first time around and for money the second. And maybe there is more to his bringing a young boy to live in his house than meets the eye?

[shuckmaster]

You've been pretty disciplined in staying out of my way

I generally ignore idiots. Your constant barrage of obviously self-manufactured mythology is no more credible than Von Daniken's theories of pyramids being built by visitors from an invisible planet. Even the people who take to the lincoln side of the arguments here know that your whole position is to take cut & paste snippets quoted from dead people out of context & rearrange them into a bizzarre theory that is easily refuted by a trip to any library.
Go on with your relentless nonsense but know that your idle suggestion that I stay 'out of your way' means nothing to me.