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.
The southern states were not allowed to secede because Lincoln said so. It was Lincoln's war...Lincoln could have said goodbye and good riddance to the secessionists. Of course Lincoln could have offered freedom to any slave that crossed over. Of course Lincoln could have sent covert agents south to help the slaves escape north and/or atleast aid and abett them to revolt as they did in the caribbean...especially if indeed the end of slavery was his aim. Rather, Lincoln chose war with the seceding states.
The seceding states wanted no part of his overbearing centralized govt which would trample citizen and state supremacy in violation of the Constitution to which they south had sworn to defend.
As a result, today, we have the federal supremacy clause . Here a fed agent can kill anyone anytime they so desire with immunity...ie Ruby Ridge and Waco. Then we have any state law (voted upon and ratified by the citizens of a state) which might conflict with a federal law is null and void. ie medicinal marijuana in California
Just the facts Dave. Sure we live with our condition today of a federal bureaucracy run amock stamping out freedoms and trampling on the Constitution at every turn. All the while becoming entangled in every foreign matter on the planet costing taxpayers billions upon billions.
No need to deny the reality of our condition, nor to deny what lead us to our current state of affairs ...it was from the onset Lincoln's War which in effect ursurped the Constitution for then and forevermore.
Why? More likely he did so to protect his centralized command over all the states figuring that an industrialized north could handily defeat what he considered for the most part to be a backward and illiterate agricultural south...and he nearly guessed wrong. But he didn't, and today we are all slaves to the fed.gov
Yeah, just imagine if a state legalized child molestation... by your reasoning, it would be unconstitutional for the federal gov't to nullify it if it conflicted with a "federal" law. But, of course, this is only about Libertarians' right to smoke their pot of course.
Yes this was an issue for SC at the time. But if you would like to move beyond that, you can go here for a read on more arguments for secession.
Well let's have a vote. You choose the state which you believe most likely to adopt child molestation as a right, and let's allow the citizens to vote. Then we'll see if your theory holds water.
While we are clarifying, the south slave owners bought their slaves from northern slave traders on wall street where they were auctioned/traded. Hence Wall Street.
Not after that "little" war. It would appear that secession was self-defeating. Even Robert E. Lee thought it was stupid.
See:
No, like I wrote before, 7 southern states seceded for 3 months before any hostilities broke out. The mere declaration of secession didn't start the Civil War. The firing on Fort Sumter did.
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.
Such discussions bore me. Even with my pathetic lack of a real life, such discussions are essentially meaningless. As I told the Hawaiian guy, the important issue is NOT that Hawaii has a legitimate right to secede. I'll concede that it does, and I imagine that a majority of people in the United States could be convinced of that.
But even though they DO have a right to secede, they DON'T have a right to simply walk away, ignoring their "fair share" of the U.S. debt that was incurred with their blessings. And they also need to address what to do about people in Hawaii that still want to be citizens of the United States. (All thoses Navy personnel and their families stationed in Hawaii aren't going to want Hawaiian independence. Somehow their desires need to be addressed.)
It's the principle... doesn't matter if it's likely to happen or not. Are there not times when the federal gov't has the obligation to usurp states' rights... like Gov. Wallace blocking integration?
As a matter of fact, no it doesn't. I seem to remember there were other states, that seceded. I know there were four articles of secession, and yes I'll readily admit slavery was mentioned. However, it doesn't explain the other states secession proceedings. Fact is, that the upper and border states of the Confederacy didn't secede until lincoln began his little foray into make believe Constitutional law, or as some like to call it around here, 'the Whiskey Rebellion Act replaces the Constitution'
Yeah, and I'll bet Bill Clinton considers himself an honest man. :-/
What was "not after that 'little' war?"
Oh, hell, if that's the case, let's just throw it right out!! Why do we even bother with the thing? Even Walt will try to use some Constitutional argument but you just don't even care!! As long as the cause is just, that justifies the end?
I just can't argue with that. I'm sorry. I don't have a response because there isn't one. LOL!! One2many, that's was lincoln's new reason for the war. Just because.
Works for me!! < /sarcasm>
Yeah, and I'll bet Bill Clinton considers himself an honest man. :-/
*grin*
Yeah, and I'll bet Bill Clinton considers himself an honest man. :-/
*grin*
To clarify... you got me! LOL! Even I got a chuckle out of that one... even if I winced a bit. It does sort of have the "meaning of is... is" juxtaposition doesn't it? I'm at once ashamed and proud. Should I run for office?
Yea, sure should like right now. Start with no BET, no seperate college sponsored black only grad parties,, no black caucus just for blacks in congress, and no black only achievment awards on TV. etc etc.
Whatever Wallace was then, his antagonists of that period have today trumped him a million times over.
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.