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 south slave owners didn't buy their slaves from northern slave traders on wall street... okay, an unfair and uncouth remark, but true nonetheless.
What?? Both joined the Reform Party?
But secession seems more often to have been invoked not against federal expansion or usurpation, but rather in defense of the interests of particular states. The right of revolution would serve as a check on the "expansive proclivities" of the federal government. But in practice, people have accepted these as a matter of course, and thought about secession, rebellion and revolution in order to ensure the particular interests of their own group. That's probably because questions that can be resolved political usually are resolved in that way. It's bitter sectional conflicts over the basis of society that can't be resolved in that way which produce Civil Wars.
Reading these secessionist arguments, I am reminded of the segregationist politicians of the 1950s and 1960s. One could listen to their arguments, their warnings for the future, and their charges of hypocrisy against their opponents. Indeed, one might come away with the feeling that they weren't as bad as they are painted. But in the end one has to admit that on the whole they weren't a good influence on the nation and that it's better that they are gone. Plausible as some of their ideas may sound, one certainly wouldn't join them in abuse of their opponents, even though there may be valid criticisms to be made of those figures on some grounds.
So it is with the secessionists. I concede that they had their own conception of freedom and fought for it. But their conception was far from our own, and their cause was not our own and not worth our fighting for. While we're told that secession or a Confederate victory would have prevented some of our contemporary problems from developing, we're not told abut the many problems that such events would create. Looking back to the Articles of Confederation, one can see some of the perils that such a loser federal system would create. Not to mention the racial problems that would exist.
I am curious as to why you are posting this. I can understand the enthusiasm for debate, and it is strange that those who favor secessionism or the Confederacy let so many of these articles go unposted, but why not just let such bad ideas meet their fate in silence?
Most popular answer: "Yanks state Johnny Reb's mama's a "dirty ho".
Agreed. That other part being the congressional "black" caucus.I mean, this is in your face seperatism at the fed level.
They did not choose the battle. They merely did not run from it...such is your misconception of them.
Pretty much sums it up. No clue here to what Dornan may have been alluding.
Some people, like Aurelius and Quackenbush and Richard Ferrier, at least make a showing of having a conversation. But for a lot of people, the intractability of the ideologues, who really come in to act as anchors for their "team" and perform pickaxe surgery on the other side, can be really wearing and irritating, and this irritation can bleed over onto other participants who aren't necessarily imitating the tactics of the ideologues: concede nothing, don't answer the question, or answer with big spams of barely relevant quotes -- my favorite so far is Walt's reply to a challenge on the purported perpetuity of the Union, with a quote in extenso of an opinion by John Marshall in which he refers in passing to the Supremacy Clause -- and then go for the smackdown, the putdown line delivered with an insult....and call him "Corky".
But secession seems more often to have been invoked not against federal expansion or usurpation, but rather in defense of the interests of particular states.
It seems odd that you seem to think -- please correct me -- that the States would seek to assert their rights in any other way. They wouldn't assert them on behalf of other States; that would be interference.
And how do you get this odd opposition, of opposing federal expansion to defending States' interests? Wouldn't the latter in many cases necessarily entail the former? Since political power is unitary, viz., zero-sum, it would seem to be necessarily so.
The right of revolution would serve as a check on the "expansive proclivities" of the federal government. But in practice, people have accepted these as a matter of course, and thought about secession, rebellion and revolution in order to ensure the particular interests of their own group.
Which people have accepted "as a matter of course" the expansion of the federal government, who asserted States' rights at the same time? Some Southern New Deal Democrats like Lyndon Johnson, I suppose, would fit that bill, and maybe Richard Russell of Georgia.
And what about "ensure the particular interests of their own group"? Are you circumlocuting racism or segregationism? And are you folding in a value judgement that you haven't stated explicitly? Are you using segregationism in particular to impeach States' rights in general?
Reading these secessionist arguments, I am reminded of the segregationist politicians of the 1950s and 1960s...in the end one has to admit that on the whole they weren't a good influence on the nation and that it's better that they are gone.
Yes, it sure sounds like that is where you are going. So Constitutionally constrained democracy only works for you if you win, is that it? If someone comes to you and demonizes someone else, and if he persuades you that that object of demonization is a Bad Person, are you then dissatisfied with any right that may be left to the demonized one? Any freedom? Any due process that impedes his swift trip to prison? That is argumentum ad hominem elevated to the level of policy, and legal positivism elevated to the level of overthow of the Bill of Rights a priori, lest it get in the way.
So it is with the secessionists. I concede that they had their own conception of freedom.......and their cause was not our own and not worth our fighting for. ... why not just let such bad ideas meet their fate in silence?
Well, the value judgement is certainly there. On your own estimate of what's in your best interests, you certainly condemn my rights as losers and freighted with bad consequences (for you). You would bind me to be drafted into your army and fight for your freedom and your ideas, but "their cause was not our own and not worth our fighting for". Thank you for clarifying that point, which is what some of the apologists for DiLorenzo have been saying: that the federal Union is now, in your conception, a one-way street (your way), and that some people are just flat worth more than other people. That certainly betokens a classification of citizenship consistent with an imperial constitution, which is what DiLorenzo and others have been arguing we have.
That is pretty much what X said. But do you see the problem with your statement? Every time someone comes along and makes a moral beef with someone else, you'll be ready to suspend the Constitution and take your shirt off.
At what point will you begin to suspect that the guys making the moral issues are really just trying to beat the Constitution and have their way regardless? This has happened twice now -- during the Civil War and again during the Civil Rights Movement. Raise a moral claim and Poof! My rights are supposed to disappear, because now I'm a Bad Person. That way lies the rule of the strongest arm.
Look Non, as they say, they'd already let the cat out and you can't put its crap back in. You declare secession constitutional in 1869, can you imagine what would have happened by 1870? With the 14th Amendment fiasco, I'm of a mind Oregon and New Jersey would have joined up with the Southern states, or heck started their own union. As for Milligan, lincoln was already dead, who cared what folks thought about him? Let's throw him to the wolves because what he did was really wrong when you look at it. And it was only part of his whole plan. But secession, ah, secession, we can't say that's legal because then EVERYTHING lincoln did, and some of us could easily be considered co-conspirators (Chase in particular), we better let that dog alone because we don't want to be arrested on charges and destroy a union which cost 600,000 men their lives
a) deny the humanity and general tendency of man to act towards own self gain
b) deny the fact that at this time every other official tied to any government organization was so deep into kickbacks and getting the most for themselves wasn't happening
c) that these men were above reproach and that they would in no way be influenced from their surrounding culture and the war they had just been through
These men were no angels, just as Davis, Jackson, and Lee were not. In the end however, the Confederacy had precendence from previous actions of the north and the Constitution on its side. These men just made it up, much as their appointer had done
Since that war, this country has risen to become the greatest nation in the world, and one of the greatest in the history og humanity, if not THE greatest.
Perhaps you could name what other country you would prefer to live in, seeing as to how this one has gone to the toilet.
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.