Lincoln s Spectacular Lie

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.

I'm only stating what the constitution does provide. It does provide express grants of power to the United States. Just take a gander at Article I: the power to coin money, the power to regulate commerce, the power to establish a postal service, etc., etc., etc.

And where, specifically, does it grant the federal government the power to prevent a State from formally withdrawing (‘seceding’) from the union?

They intended to divest the government of the United States of its powers in the southern states. They really meant that.

Yes, they did. When the ratifying States formally withdrew (‘seceded’) from the union formed under the Articles of Confederation, “they intended to divest the [existing] government of the United States of its powers” within their States.

The constitution does not provide for any right of "secession." (They just made the whole thing up.)

On the contrary, in the words of Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas (some of the folks here just love court opinions ;>):

“(W)here the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people [of the States].”

The Constitution is “silent” with regard to the formal withdrawal of member States. It therefore “raises no bar to” such action. Please read the Tenth Amendment – you can find it online.

The only constitutional way to divest the powers of the government of the United States is to amend the constitution pursuant to Article V.

The formal withdrawal (‘secession’) of the Southern States from the union did not constitute a divestiture of powers – it was an exercise of a power reserved by the Constitution itself to “the States respectively, or” their people.

The southern states did not wish to take that route and they didn't even want to litigate the legitimacy of their position. Instead, they just told the government of the United States to take a hike. They didn't care about the wishes or desires of the people of the United States, or the governments of the other states, or the government of the United States.

Just as the ratifying States told the “government of the United States [formed under the Articles of Confederation] to take a hike.” You may wish to refer to the Federalist Papers: James Madison observed that the States would ratify – or not ratify – the new Constitution in a manner completely independent of “the wishes or desires of the people of the United States, or the governments of the other states, or the government of the United States.” The Southern States withdrew from the constitutional union in precisely the same manner in which they had entered it.

At the time, the southern politicians involved in all of this were desperate. They genuinely believed that the preservation of slavery was vital to the preservation of the southern culture. So they took a gamble. And they lost. And now we know that the preservation of slavery was not vital to the preservation of southern culture.

Motivation is in effect irrelevant to the issue of the constitutionality of secession. Without a constitutional prohibition of secession, the people of the Southern States could have seceded just so they could wear their underwear on the outside – and it would have been legal.

;>)

The point, which you seem to have missed, is that the phrase "a more perfect Union" is a statement of continuity with the union that existed under the Articles of Confederation.

The point, which you seem to have missed, is that the two unions were distinct and separate entities. The first union, formed under the Articles of Confederation, consisted of 13 member States, and the unanimous agreement of all 13 States was required to modify the terms of the Articles. That unanimity of agreement was not achieved until May 29, 1790. The second union , formed under the Constitution, was established upon the mutual agreement of only 9 States – which occurred June 21, 1788. Note the difference in dates: the initial establishment of the second union violated the specific terms of the first. Furthermore, one of the 13 States in the first union was not even represented at the convention which produced the second compact. Several of the States existed as independent countries outside of the second union for extended periods of time before they eventually ratified the Constitution – and that ratification was by no means guaranteed. The fact that all 13 States were at different times members of both unions no more suggests “continuity” than Ronald Reagan’s membership in the D*mocrat Party, followed by his membership in the Republican Party, suggests “continuity” between those two parties.

While (as you've noted) the rules governing the operation of the union were what changed, the Union of states for which those rules were made, was the same.

Utter nonsense. Several of the non-ratifying States (including New York and North Carolina) considered forming their own confederation – and there was nothing the constitutional union could have done to prevent it, apart from declaring war. Rhode Island existed as an independent country for nearly two years before belatedly ratifying the Constitution. During that time, Rhode Island was not bound by any of the terms of the Constitution – while each of the ratifying States were bound by all of them. Are you suggesting that Rhode Island nevertheless was a member of the union at that time?

"The Union" created the states, in the sense that the Constitutional Convention, acting as a congress of representatives from the Union of states, created the constitution.

The convention delegates were not “representatives from the Union of states” – the delegates from each State represented that State alone. One State was not even represented. And because the new Constitution was ratified by the States, each acting (in James Madison’s words) “as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act,” it would be ridiculous to suggest that "'the Union” created the states.”

With therapy and psychotropic drugs you may yet be capable of rejoining those of us who inhabit the real world.... ;-

I hate to put a dent in your “real world,” but perhaps you should read An Analysis of President Lincoln’s Legal Arguments Against Secession before you recommend “therapy and psychotropic drugs” for anyone.

If you choose to respond, please do so with historical fact...

;>)

If the constitution had been written to provide for "secession," it may or may not have provided for a motivational predicate.

Since you seem incapable of locating a copy of the Tenth Amendment on your own, allow me to quote the language for you:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

What part of “not delegated...nor prohibited...are reserved” do you not understand?

;>)

But it wasn't written to provide for "secession," so your point is both speculative and meaningless.

Actually, you have yet to quote any constitutional ‘delegation or prohibition’ of secession, so it is your posts that are “both speculative and meaningless.”

Motive is only an issue with regard to "secession" because it was the desire to protect slavery that motivated the southern politicians to invent the "secession" argument.

LOL! So “southern politicians” invented “the ‘secession’ argument?” You really have no use for historical fact, do you? Allow me to burst your bubble:

“If a faction should attempt to subvert the government of a state for the purpose of destroying its republican form, the paternal power of the Union could thus be called forth [‘on the application of the constituted authorities of each state’] to subdue it.

“Yet it is not to be understood, that its interposition would be justifiable, if the people of a state should determine to retire from the Union, whether they adopted another or retained the same form of government, or if they should, with the express intention of seceding, expunge the representative system from their code, and thereby incapacitate themselves from concurring according to the mode now prescribed, in the choice of certain public officers of the United States.

“The principle of representation, although certainly the wisest and best, is not essential to the being of a republic, but to continue a member of the Union, it must be preserved, and therefore the guarantee must be so construed. It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on [the state] itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed...

”The states, then, may wholly withdraw from the Union, but while they continue, they must retain the character of representative republics...

"The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state... But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. The perspicuity and solemnity of the original obligation require correspondent qualities in its dissolution. The powers of the general government cannot be defeated or impaired by an ambiguous or implied secession on the part of the state, although a secession may perhaps be conditional. The people of the state may have some reasons to complain in respect to acts of the general government, they may in such cases invest some of their own officers with the power of negotiation, and may declare an absolute secession in case of their failure. Still, however, the secession must in such case be distinctly and peremptorily declared to take place on that event, and in such case — as in the case of an unconditional secession, — the previous ligament with the Union, would be legitimately and fairly destroyed. But in either case the people is the only moving power.”

U.S. Attorney William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, 1825

Note the date. It is also worth noting that Mr. Rawle was a friend of Washington and Franklin – and an abolitionist. The North American Review (which was published in Boston, Massachusetts, by the way ;>) described Mr. Rawle’s book as “a safe and intelligent guide” to the United States Constitution. Perhaps that is why the United States government used Mr. Rawle's text to instruct the cadets at West Point.

In other words, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

The only difference between the declarations of secession and our Declaration of Independence concerned the reasons (motivations) for the declarations. The Declaration of Independence were not legal under British law and the declarations of secession were not legal under American constitutional law.

Since you’ve never stumbled across the Tenth Amendment before, I would not expect you to know that said amendment is found in “American constitutional law,” but not “British law.” There are rather significant differences between the two, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.

"Secession" has been totally discredited as a fraud.

Some Americans believe the Second Amendment “has been totally discredited as a fraud.” Neither belief has any basis in the specific written words of the Constitution itself – as your posts make abundantly clear.

Slavery has also been discredited.

Those who find themselves unable to prove secession unconstitutional inevitably play the ‘slavery card.’ Congratulations – you are nothing if not predictable...

There's no more than a handful of people out there who support either of these notions anymore. And most of those aren't in the south. They're in bunkers in Idaho now.

Are you suggesting that the meaning of the Constitution is determined by popular opinion? Hmm? Or merely that you don’t care for the people of Idaho? Feel free to substantiate either claim – but pardon me if I don’t hold breath waiting for you to provide a rational, well-documented response...

;>)

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.