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.
I didn't call you a name. But you are right, there is no point in continuing. It is one thing to disagree on an issue, but you insist on changing the question that I am asking to something else and will not address the issue that I raised. So I have had enough of this. I am afraid that since the last ultimatum from the forum fuhrer on what one must believe to be a Freeper, I have no alternative but to leave. Pretty soon you and Ditto and WhiskeyPapa will only have each other to talk to. Bye bye.
Could the Sovereign State of California exercise its rights under the Tenth Amendment to just purchase Baja California and make it another California county?
(Hint: I don't think it ever specifically promised that it wouldn't, and it's really very nice down there.)
Perhaps you should actually sit down and read the Constitution. In brief:
Article I, Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations...
Article I, Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty...
Article II, Section. 2. The President...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
That’s enough for now. Would you consider the “purchase [of] Baja California,” from the Federal Republic of Mexico, by the “Sovereign State of California” to be “Commerce with foreign Nations?” Yes? No? Given that such action would involve the purchase of territory from a foreign nation, would the purchase agreement constitute a treaty? Hmm? Let’s review the Tenth Amendment:
”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.”
Article I, Section 8 appears to be a ‘delegation of power’ clearly and specifically applicable to your hypothetical situation, as does Article II, Section 2. Article I, Section 10 appears to be applicable as well, as a ‘prohibition of power.’
(Hint: the Tenth Amendment reserves to member States and their people powers which have not been ‘delegated’ or ‘prohibited.’)
Perhaps now you can answer the "quiz" yourself. As always, I'm happy to help...
;>)
And then the Sovereign State Police are gonna take out those trespassing Federal border patrolmen who are blocking the exits from Baja California County.
;>)
Once again we have a 'response,' but most certainly nor an answer:
”Is the court supreme over the constitution, or the constitution supreme over the court?”
If you care to answer, I will be happy to answer your questions in turn (although, if you look back through my posts, you may find the answers to your questions already provided)...
;>)
Well, you're just no fun anymore.
If you get a chance, let me know where I can find out more about any modern-day secession websites. I think it's fascinating.
I enjoyed the exchange and learned a lot. Thanks.
I have no idea if any such web sites exist: my primary interests are pre-1860 constitutional law and the early history of the Republic. Unfortunately, our debates may become more relevant to current events than any of us would like, if certain trends ('gun control,' for example) continue.
And you are welcome.
;>)
[You]This is the theory that treats the Federal Government like some sort of catering ....
No, it isn't. People on your side of the argument keep erecting this straw man, that the South treated the Union casually. They didn't. The Carolinas didn't go out over Nullification, the Tariff of Abominations, and the Force Act. Instead they compromised -- in 1820, in 1830, and in 1850. Three generations of compromises from 1820 down to the election of Lincoln does not a casual dissolution of the Union make.
To review the common arguments that the Unionist side has asserted repeatedly but failed to establish by fallacies distraction, appeals to force, appeals ad populum, appeals to authority, and argument ad hominem, I list a few of them below:
Unionist Straw Man No. 1: The Confederacy's secession was "secession at will", which the Founders condemned. [Appeal to authority]
Unionist Straw Man No. 2: It was all about slavery -- and no decent person would support slavery. [Argument ad hominem and ad populum]
Unionist Straw Man No. 3: The States had no Sovereignty, by themselves or in their People. [Slothful induction, no support]
These arguments having been advanced unsuccessfully by the Unionist side repeatedly, and just as often confuted by the Constitutionalist side, let's agree not to discuss them any more, since at this point we are just wasting air.
You may resign the argument with honor, at your leisure.
BTTT for elenchus.
BTTT
Resign? We're just getting started. As for your 'strawmen', well there is no evidence that the founding fathers supported the concept of unilateral secession; defense of the institution of slavery was by far the single most important reason for the southern actions; and the states voluntarily placed the Constitution in a position of supremecy. You belittle these facts but don't provide any evidence that they are wrong.
I think I would rather have a root canal without novocaine than to get into this again.
On a thread whose subject was Davis, I would discuss Davis. When Lincoln is the subject, I want to focus on Lincoln. "Davis did it too." or "Davis was worse." is just a distraction. And I didn't say you avoided questions, I said you changed the question to one that you prefer to deal with. Just as you here changed my accusation of "changing the question" (post #341) to "avoiding the question".
Yeah, I', still here, but not for long.
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.