Posted on 05/01/2002 4:39:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
The notion that Lincoln’s Union preceded the states is a tall tale. Author Tom DiLorenzo, in his celebrated new book, The Real Lincoln, calls it Lincoln’s spectacular lie, as so named by Emory University philosopher, Donald Livingston.
The War Between the States was fought, in Lincoln’s mind, to preserve the sanctity of centralization powered by a strong and unchecked federal government. Only through such an established order could Lincoln do his Whig friends the honor of advancing The American System, a mercantilist arrangement that spawned corporate welfare, a monetary monopoly for the Feds, and a protectionist tariff approach that stymied free traders everywhere.
This power role for the Feds, as envisioned by Lincoln, had no room for the philosophy of the earlier Jeffersonians, who in 1798, were declaring that states’ rights were supreme. Both Madison and Jefferson, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, legitimized the concept of state sovereignty via the policy of nullification, an inherent right for states to declare federal acts invalid if unconstitutional. And before that, let it be duly noted that the right to secede is, as DiLorenzo says, “not expressly prohibited by the Constitution.”
Lincoln, however, believed that secession was basically an act of treason. To him, the glory of the Union was based upon a holier-than-thou view of the core elites who would run the Washington Machine, doling out the federal largesse to its friends and political supporters, those mostly being Northern manufacturers and merchants. Therefore, the Southern secessionist movement and its claim of self-rule violated the Lincolnian principle of nationalization and coercive law in his move toward complete centralization. So what was Lincoln to do?
Lincoln had to stamp out Southern Independence, and would start with a demonization of secession as “an ingenious sophism.” DiLorenzo focuses on the two political arguments Lincoln used against secession, one being that secession inevitably meant anarchy, which therefore violated the principle of majority rule. As DiLorenzo points out, the founders of our system of government “clearly understood that political decisions under majority rule are always more to the liking of the voters in a smaller political unit.” The other Lincoln argument against peaceful secession is that allowing the Southern states to secede would lead to more secession, which in turn leads to anarchy. Clearly, that is a crass argument that would not stand the test of time.
“The advocates of secession”, says DiLorenzo, “always understood that it stood as a powerful check on the expansive proclivities of government and that even the threat of secession or nullification could modify the federal government’s inclination to overstep its constitutional bounds.”
DiLorenzo takes the reader on a summarized journey of secessionist history, from the earliest parting by colonialists from the wrath of King George, to the New England secessionists, who pre-dated the Southern movement by over a half-century. Oddly enough, it was the New England Federalists that had first threatened to dissolve the Union because of an intense hatred of Southern aristocracy. Beginning with the election of Jefferson to the Presidency, an intense battle over individual morality, immigration, trade restrictions, and regional principles sparked a division between the Puritan Northeast and a more freewheeling and influential South. In order to eliminate all political ties, the Northeasterners tried in vain to break the bonds of Union, and the movement lasted until the failed Secessionist Convention in 1814, as the War of 1812 came to a close.
As the author points out, during the entire New England ordeal, there is virtually no literature to be found that supports the view that the inherent right to secession was non-existent. It was, in fact, really never questioned.
Eventually, Lincoln needed a trump card and turned to using the institution of slavery as the emotional taffy-pull to rouse the citizenry for a long and bloody war. Though, indeed, the earliest words of Lincoln defy this purpose as he consistently reveled in the triumph of the all-powerful centralized state that would one day achieve “national greatness.” Even DiLorenzo doesn’t attempt to define what this means, but only describes those words as having some sort of “alleged mystical value.” The Lincoln war machine was thus set in motion, with the ends of an Empire run by chosen elites justifying the means of tyranny.
The states, in a Lincolnian democracy, would be forever underneath the footprint of Union hegemony.
Funny then that it was by states the Constituion was ratified, not a general vote of the whole people, each state had to give it's permission to have those "perogatives" transferred to the National government. Most of them had already been transferred by the Ariticles of Confederation, but the national government under the Articles was too weak to properly carry out it's duties. The main weakness was it's inability to generate it's own revenues, and to take certain actions without express permission from the states. The national government wasn't really sovereign, even in it's areas of responsibility, and that was what the Constitution was written to correct. Of course it was still strictly limited to action in only those areas ceded to it by the states, but nobody pays any attention these days to that part of the document written by those dead white mean.
On the contrary -- these statements are completely without meaning if one denies the existence of a Union (as opposed to a single, homogeneous "national" government). And that union, as proclaimed by the Articles of Confederation (under which most of your citations were written) was defined as "perpetual."
Further, the actions of the Constitutional Convention were designed to improve that union -- certainly there's nothing in the phrase "to form a more perfect Union" to justify a position that the Union not perpetual.
Don't skip over this part:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
And always be sure to read to the very end so that you won't miss this part:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
LOL!! With the main force behind the war as Chief Justice. Face it, Non, that's not only fishy smelling, that's down right crooked
That is a total misrepresentation and you know it.
A defendent is found guilty of breaking laws that were explicit when his crime was committed existing.
"We don't need lawyers for our courts, we need clarivoyants!
You are absolutely turning this upside down. It is in your world where the clairvoyants would be needed. Before taking an action I have to know: will a court at some future date render a contingent decision that will make my action illegal?
Personally, I consider the Constitution to be even better. Too bad the federal government no longer follows it. :-(
However, I don't see how your quotes deal with the issue at hand. (Other than that blacks, in any state or portion thereof, where they were in a majority, would be considered by the Declaration of Independence to have a right to secede from the U.S.)
That sounds reasonable to me. Seriously. (But I guess that's another debate...)
The Constitution was ratified in special conventions, not by the state legislatures.
The people are the sovereigns of the country, not the states.This is stated explicitly in four seminal court cases:
Chisholm v Georgia, 1793
Martin v. Hunters' Lessee, 1816
Mccullough v. Maryland, 1819
Coihen v. Virginia, 1821
Walt
I understood you to be quoting the part that you quoted as some sort of vague support for the notion that you and your neighbors may secede from our Union at will and without risk.
The first passage from the Declaration that I quoted was to suggest that there existed in the minds of the authors of that document certain important values the preservation of which might warrant the drastic step of declaring one's independence of an existing government. You might find some of those values relevant to the institution of slavery.
I quoted the passage from the bottom of the Declaration as sort of a reminder that the authors of that document did not delude themselves into thinking that one could simply declare themselves independent of an existing government without great struggle or risk. Revolutions and rebellions are only for the most serious of players.
Not "vague support." That's clear support. And, of course, the First Amendment also protects our right to declare ourselves as seceded from the Union. But then the questions that I listed (and others) come into play.
The first passage from the Declaration that I quoted was to suggest that there existed in the minds of the authors of that document certain important values the preservation of which might warrant the drastic step of declaring one's independence of an existing government. You might find some of those values relevant to the institution of slavery.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. "...might find some of those values relevant to the institution of slavery." What does that mean? I quoted the passage from the bottom of the Declaration as sort of a reminder that the authors of that document did not delude themselves into thinking that one could simply declare themselves independent of an existing government without great struggle or risk. Revolutions and rebellions are only for the most serious of players.
Yes, there is great potential risk. But that most certainly does NOT mean they don't have a right, given to them by their Creator, to do precisely that. It does not mean that the government from which they're seceding HAS to oppose them.
A declaration of secession is neither an act of revolution, nor rebellion. The Civil War clearly showed that (as states had seceded for several months prior to the commencement of hostilities).
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.