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.
It is of course indisputable that you and your neighbors have the "right" to declare yourselves independent of the existing government and to attempt to form your own government. That has ALWAYS been the case. And it remains true that an existing government might not resist your claim. That too has always been the case.
But don't count on that last part. I think that you should fully expect to meet with some serious resistance. So, like those who signed the Declaration, you and your neighbors should be prepared to risk your life, your fortune and your sacred honor.
What made the Declaration itself so interesting and relatively unique is that its authors expressly stated that they felt an obligation to justify the step that they were taking and, in that regard, they made reference to what they viewed as important, timeless values that would be furthered by their action.
But they knew that they were in for a real struggle.
I don't share that delusion. And if the next time someone attempts to expel the operation of a government within its territory, he/she should call it merely a "reorganization" or a "realignment" (and not a rebellion or revolution), I've promised myself not to be deluded by that nomenclature either.
A declaration of secession is not an attempt to expel the operation of a government from its territory. It's a statement that a group wishes to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..."
A very good example of peaceful (or relatively so) MAJOR changes in governments is the dissolution of the states of the Eastern Block, and then the breakup of the Soviet Union. (Who in the world ever thought that THOSE changes would be relatively peaceful?)
And Quebec has come close to voting to secede from Canada several times. That could be done peacefully. (Good folks in Canada!) It would be very, very messy. But it could still be done peacefully.
As I wrote before (and discussions of secession on Free Republic NEVER seem to address) there are questions like: 1) what about the people in the state or subset thereof who don't WANT to secede, 2) what about the DEBT that the state incurred while part of the United States? (On a libertarian website, a Libertarian in Hawaii noted that the incorporation of Hawaii into the United States was completely illegitimate. I agreed with him, of course. But *I* wanted to know what he was going to do about Hawaii's "fair share" of our $6 TRILLION debt? He didn't seem to want to answer. Without that answer, I wouldn't let his state go!)
But that's not the point of the article nor any of the subsequent replies, is it? The original point was to reply to WhiskyPapa's comment asking for "proof" that Lincoln thought blacks inferior. Alex de Tocqueville wrote that "the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the States that have abolished slaves than in the States where slavery still exists. White carpenters, white bricklayers and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the North but do it in almost every Southern State". Free blacks in the North were viewed as competition in the job market, and were called an "inferior caste to whom liberty was a curse, and their lot worse than the slaves" (William Lloyd Garrison, vol. I, pp 253-54).
Reading this thread has been very informative, however--the old saw that "The devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose" comes to mind. No man is wholly good or evil--Lincoln or any other. It is interesting to see the vitriol that the mention of his name stirs up 137 years after his death. The South believed that they had the right to secede. The North did not. Lincoln wanted to keep the Union whole, but in doing so changed that Union beyond recognition. "Consent of the governed" was warped into "consent of the defeated". The question is--was the "Union" a geographical or a philosophical union? I believe that the Union that was in place after the war was simply geographic, and that (obviously) there are still philosophical differences in "CSA apologists" and "DamnYankees" (one word, just like my grandmother used to say it). I appreciate the cogent, non-judgmental posts, particularly the ones that don't rehash the same arguments ad nauseum. Heck, I even enjoy some of the DamnYankee posts (on other topics, anyway....)
See, it is the man and not the people who support him. Jefferson Davis could have barbecued babies in the backyard and you would be talking about how he was saving the real vittles for the young 'uns.
Well, there's that nomenclature problem again. In the early 1860's, when the Southern states attempted to expel the operation of the United States Government within the southern part of the United States, they called it "secession." And just like the fellas who signed the Declaration of Independence, they were met with resistance by the existing government.
There have of course been times when nations and even empires have become fragmented and divided by more or less peaceful means, but that has been the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunately, for the most part, there has been a close and enduring connection between force, violence, wealth and political power.
Your Hawaiian friend's argument that his state's incorporation into the Union is illegitimate sounds a lot like the old argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was never actually ratified. The internet could have been designed for such topics.
The court renders a decision in response to an appeal; the appealing parties request the decision. The court may reach its decision based on prior law and the Constitution by rigourous logic in which case no other valid decision would be possible. In that case, that necessary decision would have been reached by any court at any time provided only they made no logical error. More often their decision is not logically implicit in the Constitution and existing law but rather is contingent and creates new law which cannot be considered to pre-exist the decision, as in the case of Texas v. White or Roe v. Wade. To apply that law to convict a defendent, other than those directly involved in the case that gave rise to the decision, whose case predated the decision, raises exactly the same objection as does the use of an ex post facto law. I repeat, to apply a contingent decision retroactively is certainly unjust; Constitutional law must certainly prohibit it.
We have been through most of this argument before.
The Court ruled in 1862 that the actions of "the so-called Confederate states" (to use their phrase) were rebellion and that the government was within its purview to put down that rebellion.
And that is what happened.
In a sense, what happened between March 4, 1861 and this ruling of the SCOTUS involved Abraham Lincoln out-thinking and out- fighting everything the "so-called Confederate states" tried.
He beat them down until they didn't want any more.
Then he held out the hand of Christian charity and forgiveness.
Walt
Tell me. If he would have voted in the positive against Texas and for White, what would the vote have been then? Let's take a quick look at the Justices of the day and who appointed them
Samuel Nelson served on NY Supreme Court nominated by Tyler,dissented
Robert Cooper Grier district court in Pennsylvania nominated by Polk, dissented
Nathan Clifford, former US Attorney General and US Representative nominated by Buchanan, dissented
Noah Haynes Swayman, former US attorney of Ohio nominated by lincoln, majority opinion but provisionally it seems by his decision
Samuel Freeman Miller, attorney in Kentucky, nominated by lincoln, majority opinion
David Davis, circuit judge in Illinois, nominated by lincoln, majority opinion
Stephen Johnson Field, Chief Justice California Supreme Court, nominated by lincoln, majority opinion
And then to round it all out lest we not forget.
Samuel Portland Chase, former Secretary of the Treasury, the man who urged on and helped forward lincoln's little tariff war, nominated by none other than lincoln himself, I imagine for services rendered, not only majority decision but wrote the majority opinion
No, he didn't do it on his own but looks like the other four nominated by the tyrant helped a bit. Nice touch, don't you think?
And so like you, WhiskyPapa, to make this personal. Luckily, I find an insult from you to be a badge of honor. And I don't really think that quoting the 16th president is "lame" or "besmirching his name". I think it is "REALITY", something you should probably get in touch with sometime.
How true. But some here seem to prefer 'unwritten law,' and ex post facto activist court 'decisions'...
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.