He's all the rage, don't you know.
"But there were limits to what Lincoln would do to secure a second term. He did not even consider canceling or postponing the election. Even had that been constitutionally possible, "the election was a necessity." "We can not have free government without elections," he explained; "and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us." He did not postpone the September draft call, even though Republican politicians from all across the North entreated him to do so.
Because Indiana failed to permit its soldiers to vote in the field, he was entirely willing to furlough Sherman's regiments so that they could go home and vote in the October state elections —but he made a point of telling Sherman, "They need not remain for the Presidential election, but may return to you at once." Though it was clear that the election was going to be a very close one, Lincoln did not try to increase the Republican electoral vote by rushing the admission of new states like Colorado and Nebraska, both of which would surely have voted for his reelection. On October 31, in accordance with an act of Congress, he did proclaim Nevada a state, but he showed little interest in the legislation admitting the new state. Despite the suspicion of both Democrats and Radicals, he made no effort to force the readmission of Louisiana, Tennessee, and other Southern states, partially reconstructed but still under military control, so that they could cast their electoral votes for him. He reminded a delegation from Tennessee that it was the Congress, not the Chief Executive, that had the power to decide whether a state's electoral votes were to be counted and announced firmly, “Except it be to give protection against violence, I decline to interfere in any way with the presidential election.”
"Lincoln" pp 539-40 by David Donald
Lincoln had a lot of faith in the people.
Walt
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said the same thing.
"The revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and at the same time, providing for their more domestic concerns by state conventions, and other temporary arrangements.
From the crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it; and it was then not an uncommon opinion, that the unappropriated lands, which belonged to that crown, passed, not to the people of the colony or states within whose limits they were situated, but to the whole people; on whatever principles this opinion rested, it did not give way to the other, and thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the revolution, combined with local convenience and considerations; the people nevertheless continued to consider themselves, in a national point of view, as one people; and they continued without interruption to manage their national concerns accordingly; afterwards, in the hurry of the war, and in the warmth of mutual confidence, they made a confederation of the States, the basis of a general Government. Experience disappointed the expectations they had formed from it; and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, "We the people of the United States," 'do ordain and establish this Constitution." Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country.; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a state to govern themeselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is liekwise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national Government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc."
-- Chief Justice John Jay, 1793
If President Lincoln said the Union preceded the states, he had good company.
Walt
Get a life.
I guess this serves as proof that one bad smell doesn't cancel another bad smell.
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?