Posted on 05/07/2002 11:31:24 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
The Unreal Lincoln: Loyola College Professor Flunks Out
By ERIK ROOT
A war of unkind words has afflicted the WorldNetDaily website over a forthcoming book by Loyola College economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo entitled The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. The controversy began when a friend of DiLorenzo’s, Ilana Mercer, wrote a glowing review of the yet to be released book claiming that, if anything, Lincoln left a legacy of corruption. Richard Ferrier and David Quackenbush of the Declaration Foundation responded to the review (since the book was not released) with all smoke, no gun. DiLorenzo then jumped into the fray with more ad hominem which prompted Quackenbush to write apparent inaccuracies. The debate seemed to have ended with DiLorenzo’s let the ad hominem begin. According to WorldNetDaily, both DiLorenzo and Quackenbush will get one more chance to respond to each other after the book officially releases.
Most of the unkind words happen to come from DiLorenzo who tries to turn the tables claiming that all the ad hominem attacks emanate from his critics. This does not preclude him from bellowing Ferrier and Quackenbush are "irrational," hysterical, ill-mannered, "ideologically blind zealots," etc., at the same time he faults them for personal smears. But that is the preferred tactic when a professor’s peers find his "scholarly research" wanting. Charming indeed.
In the WorldNetDaily correspondence it is evident that DiLorenzo has not considered in a dispassionate manner the meaning of the words that Ferrier and Quackenbush utilize: statesmanship, reason, prudence, natural right, compact. Ferrier and Quackenbush use these words deliberately and purposely; they must be understood before one can comprehend the Founding as well its fulfillment in Lincoln. DiLorenzo glosses over these words as if they had no meaning and at one point irrationally invokes the word reason to discredit his detractors. This is modern rationalism on display. Despite DiLorenzo’s lucubration, I will address those points not covered by Declaration Foundation representatives since they did an ample job of refuting Dilorenzo on that which they chose to address. Since I too have not read the book (though I have requested a review copy from the publisher) I will devote myself to what Dilorenzo wrote in response to his critics. Ultimately, DiLorenzo has not uncovered anything new about Lincoln, but is parroting tired and old arguments which emanated many years ago from Paleo-cons and Libertarians.
As with most scholars who attack Lincoln, they do not base their research on primary sources but on secondary. When they refer to primary material they take it out of context. Let us first consider his use of secondary sources. He invokes Roy Basler (the editor of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln), Pulitzer Prize winning Lincoln biographer David Donald, H.L. Mencken, 1000 northern newspapers, Clinton Rossiter, and finally abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. This list is curious and lends credence to the impression that DiLorenzo has not considered the totality of the evidence, or that he understands the differences between abolitionism and the Founding itself. In other words, DiLorenzo seems to understand Lincoln better than Lincoln understood himself. We ought to be wary of such arrogance.
Against his secondary sources, there are a cloud of witnesses. To name a few: David Potter, Don Fehrenbacher, Lord Charnwood, Charles Kesler, Thomas G. West, and ultimately, the foremost scholar on Lincoln alive today, Harry V. Jaffa. It appears that DiLorenzo has not weighed anything written by Jaffa (or anyone else in the forgoing list) for he answers most every objection DiLorenzo raises, and did so almost 50 years ago.
DiLorenzo claims Lincoln was not sincere about slavery before 1854 and barely mentioned it before that time. He enlists Garrison’s opinion to emphasize that Lincoln was opportunistic and cared not a wit about slavery before 1854. Garrison said that Lincoln had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in him. However, Lord Charnwood (to name but one biographer) describes a different Lincoln when the future president and some friends happened upon a New Orleans slave auction in 1831. Charnwood writes that they viewed that event with disdain and that the people viewed slavery with "horror" in the "home circle." Fehrenbacher is just one scholar who catalogues the fact that the southern opinion of slavery changed from a necessary evil to a positive good. By the 1850s the issue of slavery was a consuming topic not only for Lincoln, but the entire Union. Still, we do not hear from the Loyola professor of any opportunistic slavery proponents. If it was not a consuming topic there would not have been an increase in proslavery literature prior to Lincoln’s entry into national politics. Proslavery William and Mary professor, Thomas Roderick Dew, would not have seen fit to write treatises defending the institution beginning in the 1830s. Similarly, John C. Calhoun declared in the late 1830s-40s that the Founding was defective and that blacks deserved enslavement. This proliferation of pro-slavery opinion is what forced Lincoln to address the subject increasingly as the 1850s approached.
Like the secessionists, abolitionists rejected the Revolution. They believed that there was something inherently racist, so to speak, about the Founding. In principle, both the slave-holding states and the abolitionists thought it defective. In this sense they were on the same side. Garrison faulted Lincoln because he wanted to keep the Union together; Lincoln emphasized that the Union could only last if it adhered to the principles of the Founding. Abolitionists wished to throw out slavery via unconstitutional means and the South wished to secede via the same. Therefore, to invoke Garrison as a witness to Lincoln’s lack of dedication to emancipation is faulty and a stretch at best. It only demonstrates DiLorenzo’s lack of understanding about the era. The abolitionists wanted to effect their ends, republic be damned (and incidentally, this is the major problem with the abolitionist movement for their desire would have done more to entrench slavery). These undercurrents underscore the Lyceum Speech which (contrary to Dilorenzo’s ebullient assertions) gives insight into Lincoln’s political thought, and by extension, slavery, way before 1854. The year was 1838.
Like his 1842 Temperance Address, in the speech before the Young Men’s Lyceum, slavery does not hold the predominant position that it does in his later speeches. According to Jaffa, Lincoln is more concerned with the overarching problem of evil passions of which slavery is but one. In other words, the evils of slavery are no less addressed in these speeches than in his later utterances. The passions, if left to rule, are ultimately destructive:
...if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.
Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.
The question recurs "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; – let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap – let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; – let it be written in Primmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; – let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars."
The rule of law, not mob law, is the counteracting agent to arbitrary rule. The rule of law in the union points to an abstract truth without which it would mean nothing and would be mutable. Lincoln detected Americans were straying from that abstract truth articulated by the Founders when he said in the same speech that that the Founding principles "are [now] decayed, and crumbled away." America needs to be re-baptized, if you will, in the abstract truth of the Founding. This consistency is evident in the 1859 letter to Henry Pierce:
But soberly, it is now no child's play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation. One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied, and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them ‘glittering generalities’; another bluntly calls them ‘self evident lies’; and still others insidiously argue that they apply only to "superior races."
What is the self-evident truth that Calhoun thought was a lie? All men are created equal. Despite DiLorenzo’s "discovery" that slavery had little to do with the Civil War, primary documents contradict him. Alexander Stephens, the vice-president of the Confederacy, confirmed the predominance of the slavery issue in his Cornerstone speech:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other – though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution – African slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago.
So much for slavery not being the central issue of the war. It is clear from the above speech that southern opinion of the equality of human beings changed. Slavery was not a necessary evil, but was now a positive good that God had sanctioned. DiLorenzo fails to even acknowledge this fact and this makes his entire work questionable. He goes further and falsifies Lincoln’s record in so many instances that this response would be more prolix if I addressed every point he misconstrued. In the face of the preponderance of the evidence, it appears DiLorenzo’s political agenda is clouding his judgment. Ultimately, we have to wonder whether this professor considered everything before he wrote the book, or even if he understands complex political thought. In the end, what was in Lincoln’s heart? Only he and God know. What we do have before us are Lincoln’s words and his actions. Each is consistent with the other provided we keep his words in context. This Dilorenzo refuses to do, and that makes his work apocryphal.
Root is Local Government Editor for Carolina Journal, the monthly newspaper of the John Locke Foundation, also available on-line at CarolinaJournal.com.
"But if on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist."
It doesn't seem to me to be too great a stretch to assume that since the purpose of the Constitution was to provide a legal structure for the creation and maintenance of a federal government, its very adoption might imply a constitutional infirmity in any doctrine which renders the maintenance of a federal government impossible. However, it would be unfair to consider you or anyone else bound by Jefferson's judgment that "scission" and a federal government are totally incompatible. But that is what he said. At least in 1798. LOL.
The long and the short of it is that, as I've said before, I don't believe that the constitutional claim that was made by the "secessionists" (the argument that unilateral "secession" is constitutional) can be said to be indisputably correct or incorrect. That is true of most constitutional claims that are made.
And although I disagree with the theory, I am not nearly as critical of the constitutional claim that the "secession" states developed as I am the unilateral manner in which they tried to have the claim resolved. I am now learning that many of the more capable southern politicians were advising against unilateral secession. Why were they unsuccessful? Who was in favor of these unilateral secessions and what kind of political levers did they have? There had to be some pretty powerful people behind all of this.
I insist that it is a fundamental question whether there are any intrinsic limitations to the kind of power that the people can grant to their government -- any government. This is what "unalienable rights" implies.
I ask this question not because it will immediately settle the question of secession, but because I think your argument that a right of secession is reserved because the Constitution does not deny it implies that any power a state government might be granted by its people would be, by that fact, legitimate.
I believe that the meaning of the Amendment must be understood on the basis of the political principles of the Founders, and of all decent Americans. At the absolute rock bottom of those principles is the principle that the people cannot grant to their government the legitimate power to violate unalienable rights. Any government, ever.
Nor is it a legitimate government power, or power of the majority, to withdraw, without adequate cause, from fundamental political arrangements. Governments don't have the implicit right to dissolve. Even majorities do not have the implicit right to dissolve political communities simply because they have come to find such communities burdensome. Do you think they do? Do you think that all political communities are perpetually one 51% vote away from dissolution, at whatever cost to the minority?
I believe, and think the Founders believed, that the sword-bearing political arrangements we call "governments" represented commitments by the people as a whole to arrange their affairs, for the security of unalienable rights, in ways that were reliable and permanent.
I think our real disagreement is not about such matters, but about whether the national government was a government. You don't really believe, do you, that any group of people under a government can, at any time, declare themselves a new polity and simply withdraw from their previous arrangements? Our disagreement is whether the people of a given state, say Virginia, who did, as a political community, take part in a formal compact to form a general government with powers extending even to individuals of their community, can simply declare that they think otherwise now and withdraw. Lincoln says this is the recipe for anarchy, because the principle is that a minority, or even a majority not reasonably consulting its best judgment, can simply alter the political arrangements to which it has made solemn commitment.
I think you take the 10th Amendment, clearly intended not to provide such an anarchical principle, but to emphasize the division of legitimate government powers among the constituted governmental authorities, and apply to it an absolutely unqualified notion of "power" as a way of avoiding all such considerations. At root, however, our disagreement is whether the people of the state did in fact commit their community to participation in a general government, and whether minorities, or passionate majorities, have the implicit right to depart from their political arrangements when they feel like it.
My own domestic duties call, and I am posting this now unreviewed, and without full consideration of your entire message. Please forgive if I am neglecting obvious portions of your post. I'll be back tonight and let's resume.
And I ‘provided quotes' from 1804 (6 years after your citation), 1811 (13 years later), and 1820 (22 years later) that suggest the opposite.
It doesn't seem to me to be too great a stretch to assume...
Yes. That does seem to summarize your position: “assume”...
...that since the purpose of the Constitution was to provide a legal structure for the creation and maintenance of a federal government, its very adoption might imply a constitutional infirmity in any doctrine which renders the maintenance of a federal government impossible.
So, upon your ‘assumptions’ you heap ‘implications.’ How nice...
However, it would be unfair to consider you or anyone else bound by Jefferson's judgment that "scission" and a federal government are totally incompatible. But that is what he said. At least in 1798. LOL.
Particularly given the opinions he voiced 6 years later – and 13 years later – and 22 years later.
“LOL.”
...I don't believe that the constitutional claim that was made by the "secessionists" (the argument that unilateral "secession" is constitutional) can be said to be indisputably correct or incorrect.
You “don’t believe?” My, that is a marvelous foundation for the (supposed) ‘rule of law,’ isn’t it?
I am now learning that many of the more capable southern politicians were advising against unilateral secession.
“More capable southern politicians?” To whom are you referring? The former U.S. Secretary of War? The former U.S. Senator from Georgia? The former President of the United States of America? (Or didn’t you know that a former President of the United States was elected to the Confederate Congress? ;>) Or do you simply categorize all of those with whom you agree as “more capable,” and discount the rest?
“LOL.”
Why were they unsuccessful? Who was in favor of these unilateral secessions and what kind of political levers did they have?
Perhaps you should review the vote totals from those Southern States that confirmed their decisions to secede by means of plebiscite. (Or were you unaware of that aspect as well? ;>)
“LOL.”
There had to be some pretty powerful people behind all of this.
Yes – many were “Southrons,” and many were “constitutionalists.” You would appear to be neither...
“LOL.”
;>)
"Now, for you to attempt to overthrow such a government as this, under which we have lived for more than three quarters of a century -in which we have gained our wealth, our standing as a nation, our domestic safety while the elements of peril are around us, with peace and tranquillity accompanied with unbounded prosperity and rights unassailed-is the height of madness, folly and wickedness, to which I can neither lend my sanction nor my vote."
With all that we now know, it's hard to imagine that anyone could possibly not wish that Stephens had been able to stop that madness.
Are you suggesting that the actions of our government should be determined by the ‘moral’ interpretations of bureaucrats, rather than by the written law? If so, continuing this discussion will be of no further value. I would suggest to you that it is the duty of the people to establish ‘moral’ law, and the duty of civil servants to follow the law to the letter – or resign from office.
I believe that the meaning of the Amendment must be understood on the basis of the political principles of the Founders, and of all decent Americans. At the absolute rock bottom of those principles is the principle that the people cannot grant to their government the legitimate power to violate unalienable rights. Any government, ever.
You “believe?” “All decent Americans?” How nice. How, pray tell, do you define “decent Americans?” People who “believe” secession is unconstitutional?
“Unalienable rights?” Fine – let’s discuss “unalienable rights.” I’ve read the Declaration of Independence, and I have not once noticed a prohibition of secession listed among our “unalienable rights.” As a matter of fact, the Declaration itself would have been impossible – without an implicit recognition of the peoples’ right to ‘formally withdraw’ from a government that no longer enjoys “the consent of the governed.”
Nor is it a legitimate government power, or power of the majority, to withdraw, without adequate cause, from fundamental political arrangements.
My - that’s a rather broad statement. You seem to have completely ignored the potential reservation of such rights, have you not? No doubt because such a circumstance would completely refute your argument...
Governments don't have the implicit right to dissolve.
Really? Which do you consider “sovereign” – the “people,” or the “government?” By the way, your argument is specious, if the right to withdraw is reserved under the specific terms of the organic document – in this case, the Constitution. And the Tenth Amendment suggests that a State may indeed “dissolve” its connection to the common government.
Even majorities do not have the implicit right to dissolve political communities simply because they have come to find such communities burdensome. Do you think they do?
Read Article V – a three-fourths majority of the States can totally eliminate your supposedly “sovereign” federal government, anytime they decide to do so, for any reason whatsoever that seems applicable at the time.
Do you think that all political communities are perpetually one 51% vote away from dissolution, at whatever cost to the minority?
Please step back and take a look at the reality of secession. In the first place, the withdrawal of a single State (or even multiple States) in no way necessitates the “dissolution” of the union – a fact proven beyond any shadow of a doubt by the continued existence of the federal government during the years 1861-1865. Secondly, the recognition of the right of secession would guarantee that the central government will NOT operate on the basis of a “51% vote” – consensus is required on critical issues, or the member States may choose to protect the rights of their citizens by going elsewhere. If you want to see a “51% vote,” look at Clinton’s ‘assault weapons’ bill. Care to voice an opinion on whether or not that federal law violates the Constitution? (A warning up front – I am prepared to argue the issue, in a manner you might well expect.)
Or, better yet, consider your own hypothetical regarding ‘Moloch-worship.’ Your “sovereign” national government is, by definition, a ‘winner-take-all’ proposition: get one vote above a majority in Congress (“51%”) and the high court (another “51%”), combine it with one single vote in the White House, and you can mandate ‘Moloch-worship’ and human sacrifice any day of the week. That’s the reality of your argument. Get used to it.
I believe, and think the Founders believed, that the sword-bearing political arrangements we call "governments" represented commitments by the people as a whole to arrange their affairs, for the security of unalienable rights, in ways that were reliable and permanent.
Once again, “you believe.” Interestingly enough, your argument would seem to be applicable (in some ways) to the union formed under the Articles of Confederation – the word ‘perpetual’ (or something similar) is used no less than five times in that contract. Guess what? Even though sections of the United States Constitution were copied verbatim from the Articles, the word ‘perpetual’ fails to appear even once in the Constitution. Could the Founders have described the union formed under the new Constitution as “perpetual” in nature? Certainly. Did they do so? Certainly not.
You don't really believe, do you, that any group of people under a government can, at any time, declare themselves a new polity and simply withdraw from their previous arrangements?
I believe in the ‘rule of law’ - written law. Anything else amounts to the ‘rule of opinion,’ which is indistinguishable from monarchy, and which offers no security whatsoever to human liberty. Simply put, if you are a police officer, don’t pull me over and ticket me for violating your ‘sense of morality,’ or your ‘sense of decency:’ cite a written law. As Robert Augustus Toombs of Georgia observed upon his resignation from the U.S. Senate:
“Sirs, the Constitution is a compact. It contains all our obligations and the duties of the federal government. I am content and have ever been content to sustain it. While I doubt its perfection, while I do not believe it was a good compact, and while I never saw the day that I would have voted for it as a proposition de novo, yet I am bound to it by oath and by that common prudence which would induce men to abide by established forms rather than to rush into unknown dangers. I have given to it, and intend to give it, unfaltering support and allegiance...All the obligations, all the chains that fetter the limbs of my people, are nominated in the bond, and they wisely excluded any conclusion against them, by declaring that ‘the powers not granted by the Constitution to the United States, or forbidden by it to the States, belonged to the States respectively or the people.’”
Show to me a constitutional prohibition of secession, and I will acknowledge that such action is unconstitutional. If you can not, stop wasting my time, because you’re no better than any would-be tyrant, who’s ‘word is law’...
Our disagreement is whether the people of a given state, say Virginia, who did, as a political community, take part in a formal compact to form a general government with powers extending even to individuals of their community, can simply declare that they think otherwise now and withdraw. Lincoln says this is the recipe for anarchy, because the principle is that a minority, or even a majority not reasonably consulting its best judgment, can simply alter the political arrangements to which it has made solemn commitment.
I refer you once again to the ratification documents of the people of Virginia: they specifically reserved the right to ‘resume’ the “powers granted under the Constitution” to the federal government. And, once again, you ignore the fact that a majority of the States may completely annihilate the federal government, if they choose to do so, for any reason they consider appropriate, under the terms of Article V. And, of course, you (and apparently Mr. Lincoln as well) ignore the simple fact that the right of secession in no way ‘alters’ any “political arrangements” which do not prohibit such action.
I think you take the 10th Amendment, clearly intended not to provide such an anarchical principle, but to emphasize the division of legitimate government powers among the constituted governmental authorities, and apply to it an absolutely unqualified notion of "power" as a way of avoiding all such considerations.
“Absolutely unqualified?” In what way? The colonies ‘formally withdrew’ from the British union (although they apparently lacked legal standing to do so). The ratifying States ‘formally withdrew’ from the union formed under the Articles, when they adopted the new Constitution. American history is founded upon one principle: that “the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed” – which includes the right of secession.
At root, however, our disagreement is whether the people of the state did in fact commit their community to participation in a general government, and whether minorities, or passionate majorities, have the implicit right to depart from their political arrangements when they feel like it.
Once again, having failed to identify any constitutional prohibition of secession, you insist (in the face of the plain words of the Tenth Amendment) that secession would be a ‘departure’ from the States’ “political arrangements.” At root, our disagreement is somewhat more fundamental than you suggest. I “insist” upon ‘written law;’ while you seem quite happy with unwritten ‘interpretations,’ or ‘implications,’ or moral views, or who knows what...
Are you quoting Stephens the 'statesman,' or Stephens the 'vile traitor?' If he was the former, then why would he support the Confederacy? If the latter, then why do you bother to quote him?
And in any case, why should we grant his words greater authority than those of the Constitution, which nowhere prohibits secession?
"LOL."
;>)
I was quoting and agreeing with Alexander Stephens, the southern politician who correctly saw unilateral "secession" to be nothing more than an idiotic attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. I cannot account for your attempt to associate Stephens with the terms "statesman" and/or "vile traitor."
If he was the former, then why would he support the Confederacy? If the latter, then why do you bother to quote him?
Like I said, those descriptive terms are yours or, at the least, not mine. And although I agree with Stephens that it was utter madness for Georgia to attempt to unilaterally "secede" from the Union, I'm not critical of his decision to remain in Georgia and attempt to make the best of a disastrous situation. Home is home.
And in any case, why should we grant his words greater authority than those of the Constitution, which nowhere prohibits secession?
We shouldn't. Unilateral "secession" was not made more unconstitutional because of anything he said. I quoted him because his words reflected sound political judgment.
Back from trout fishing with my son George. [we caught 8]
May I suggest Federalist 22-28, and 59?
I'm not sure, from the language in the reply you received, that our third partner wishes to discuss things. But I could be, and hope I am, wrong.
The question here may be whether and how far natural law and, in general, reason beyond explict wording governs jurisprudence and statesmanship.
Regards,
Richard F.
rdf:The question here may be whether and how far natural law and, in general, reason beyond explict wording governs jurisprudence and statesmanship.
me: rdf is right. The fact is that we disagree on whether "written law" can be fundamental. I think, with the Founders, that law has no meaning without a philosophical -- and in politics this will inevitably mean a moral philosophical -- context. You are pleased to hold that one can simply, absolutely, begin from legal speech operating like a computer program. I think that the notion that such logic can actually govern men, much less govern them justly and with a true ordination to their happiness, is a dream. We are rational animals, and our laws can no more be interpreted in abstraction from our moral nature than a transcript of our daily speech can constitute the whole of our moral lives. I do not claim this makes the resolution of our disagreements simple -- but it makes them genuinely human, not mechanical.
You will, no doubt, interpret this as a confession that I resort to appeal to the subjective, the arbitrary, the sentimental. Go ahead. I think we should part cheerfully from further argument.
me: rdf is right. The fact is that we disagree on whether "written law" can be fundamental. I think, with the Founders, that law has no meaning without a philosophical -- and in politics this will inevitably mean a moral philosophical -- context.
Conceding your point for the sake of argument, can either of you gentlemen explain how “natural law” and “reason beyond explicit wording” of the written Constitution prohibit secession? (In all honesty, I must also suggest that the two may not always stand in agreement.) I can’t find the doctrine in the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...
Nor have I discovered it in Mr. Madison’s writings, including his contributions to the Federalist Papers, his Virginia Resolutions, his Report on the Virginia Resolutions, or even his later writings, wherein he specifically endorses the right of the States to withdraw from union in the face of intolerable abuse. Nor can I find any prohibition of secession in Mr. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions or his later writings. The ratification documents of many States support the idea of secession either explicitly or implicitly; Mr. Tucker supports the concept of secession in his Blackstone’s Commentaries of 1803; and Mr. Rawle does so as well in his View of the Constitution of 1825. I have also quoted John Taylor at length. Many of these documents are based to some degree upon “natural law” and “reason beyond explicit wording” of the written Constitution – and not one offers the blanket condemnation of secession claimed by many who post here.
Now, if you gentlemen wish to argue that only the federal government is empowered to determine the extent of its own powers - as some here have attempted – please feel free to do so. You may even wish to claim that only the federal government may decide when federal abuse of the people of the States has become ‘intolerable’ – as some here have actually suggested. And you may continue to refer to the vast power of ‘the people of the nation as a whole,’ even though “the Constitution does not contemplate that those people will either exercise power or delegate it, [and] the Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation.” In any case, neither “natural law” nor “reason beyond explicit wording” of the written Constitution offers support to such arguments in the face of the fundamental principle that “the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.”
You are pleased to hold that one can simply, absolutely, begin from legal speech operating like a computer program. I think that the notion that such logic can actually govern men, much less govern them justly and with a true ordination to their happiness, is a dream. We are rational animals, and our laws can no more be interpreted in abstraction from our moral nature than a transcript of our daily speech can constitute the whole of our moral lives. I do not claim this makes the resolution of our disagreements simple -- but it makes them genuinely human, not mechanical.
Our alternatives would seem to be ‘government bound by law’ and ‘unbound government,’ because a government allowed to act in supposed accord with “natural law” and “reason beyond explicit wording” is effectively without limit. You may feel quite comfortable placing your trust in a government bureaucrat’s interpretation of “natural law” and “reason” – but the tens of millions of people slaughtered in the last century by their own governments might suggest (were they able) that you would be unwise to do so.
Obviously, many of those millions of dead were killed in complete accordance with their national laws, and you may argue that such a simple fact invalidates my argument. Allow me to offer a preemptive clarification: I have repeatedly differentiated between the obligations of citizens and the duties of civil servants. In our republic, the former are morally and rationally obligated to promote sound written laws. The latter, in contrast, are duty-bound to enforce those written laws to the letter, or resign. The former are ‘masters,’ the latter are nothing but ‘servants.’ Allowing the ‘servants’ free reign to ‘interpret’ their instructions, as some here advocate, elevates the ‘servants’ to an illegitimate throne, and reduces the former ‘masters’ to de facto slavery.
In conclusion, I would suggest that we are all quite familiar with the actions of government based upon “natural law” and “reason beyond explicit wording:” consider Roe v. Wade and ‘gun control’ if you would like examples. Most of us are not at all familiar with a government that considers itself bound by the specific written conditions of the document that framed it...
Actually, both you and Mr. Stephens are incorrect: ‘secession’ and ‘revolution’ are certainly not interchangeable terms. The former (‘secession’) describes a ‘formal withdrawal’ from an association; the latter (‘revolution’)would correctly describe an “attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.” Mr. Stephens, being deceased, can no longer obtain a dictionary to correct his misapplication of the English language. But perhaps you should do so...
... I'm not critical of his decision to remain in Georgia and attempt to make the best of a disastrous situation. Home is home.
Care to tell us where you rank “home is home” in terms of your own priorities? Does it come before or after ‘God,’ ‘family,’ and ‘country?’
Unilateral "secession" was not made more unconstitutional because of anything he said. I quoted him because his words reflected sound political judgment.
Given that the Constitution nowhere prohibits secession, it is quite true that Mr. Stephens words do not make “unilateral ‘secession’...unconstitutional.” But I must suggest that “political judgement” that contradicts the written terms of the Constitution hardly qualifies as “sound:” perhaps ‘pragmatic’ would be a more applicable term...
;>)
Andrew Jackson suggested that the southern effort to constitutionalize the claimed right of unilateral “secession” was motivated by a desire to disguise its revolutionary character:
"Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution or incur the penalties consequent on a failure." – Andrew Jackson (1832)
Do you think that Jackson was mistaken in that regard?
That in no way indicates that he was right. I can name any number of people who ‘meant exactly what they said,’ and who were nevertheless quite wrong.
Andrew Jackson suggested that the southern effort to constitutionalize the claimed right of unilateral “secession” was motivated by a desire to disguise its revolutionary character...Do you think that Jackson was mistaken in that regard?
Without a doubt, Mr. Jackson was “mistaken.” The Constitution nowhere prohibits secession, and the Tenth Amendment clearly documents the reservation of that right to the States and their people. And by equating ‘secession’ (the formal withdrawal from an association) with ‘revolution’ (the forcible overthrow of a government) Mr. Jackson is clearly “confounding the meaning of terms,” something which “can only be done through gross error or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right:” in this case, the right of peaceful withdrawal from a political association.
Mr. Jackson, whether he ‘erred grossly’ or attempted to ‘deceive,’ is just as dead as Mr. Stephens, and (wherever he may be) has no use for a dictionary. The same can not be said of you: please locate one, and use it.
;>)
This is all new matter to me. I had been operating under the assumption that the Georgia politicians who were pro-secession had at the least developed public support for the idea. Maybe "Who is John Galt?" will have something to say in reply to these claims.
That's precisely why Georgia later became a hot-bed for secession from the Confederacy, and matter Jeff Davis of course argued was totally illegal.
I know nothing about an effort by some Georgians to secede from the Confederacy either, but I think I can guess what they relied upon as a legitimizing precedent.
Lincoln didn't deny secession, he denied the right of a wealthy minority to illegally seize states and declare open war on the Union.
I'm certainly not aware of any quotes by Lincoln in which he suggested that unilateral "secession" was a constitutional act. Obviously, I'd be interested in seeing any quotes like that.
All arguments about secession are pointless and irrelevant, as it never legally took place, and all that Lincoln did was the least he could legally due under his Consitutional obligation to maintain a Republican form of government in the states.
I've always viewed Lincoln's efforts to resist "secession" as the performance of his constitutional duty to preserve the Union. But, as I indicated above, I was not aware of the claims or arguments concerning any of the states' alleged failures to maintain a republican form of government. From what I've seen, it looked to me like the pro-secession southern politicians at least made an effort to create the appearance that they were complying with democratic precedents (e.g., "popular conventions," plebiscites, etc.).
As I've indicated in prior posts, I was very impressed by the very sensible arguments made by Alexander Stephens before both the Georgia legislature and the "secession" convention. My main criticism of the pro-secession southern politicians concerns their atrocious lack of political judgment and skills. It just seems that they were truly, truly incompetent as political leaders. In fact, my opinion of them at this point is so low that it could only be mildly diminished by discovering that they were also stuffing ballot boxes. If it is true, then maybe that was just their way of attempting to demonstrate that they were capable of doing something right.
Indeed I do - 'documentation, please.'
I've always viewed Lincoln's efforts to resist "secession" as the performance of his constitutional duty to preserve the Union.
By all means, please quote the article, section and clause of the United States Constitution that prohibits secession and tasks the president with the "duty to preserve the Union." Is it next to the clause authorizing the president to commit perjury to conceal the fact that he was getting 'bl@wj@bs' from an intern in the Oval Office washroom? 'The world wonders...'
My main criticism of the pro-secession southern politicians concerns their atrocious lack of political judgment and skills.
Apparently the specific written terms of the United States Constitution take second place, in your mind, to "political judgment and skills." How nice.
;>)
I was suggesting that you might want to comment on the claims of Mortin Sult. He made some claims, including claims of election fraud in Georgia, that I know nothing about. See post 174.
By all means, please quote the article, section and clause of the United States Constitution that prohibits secession
As you know, I believe that what you refer to as unilateral "secession" is prohibited by each clause of the Constitution which expressly delegates power to the government of the United States, the last of which is Section 2 of the 26th Amendment.
and tasks the president with the "duty to preserve the Union."
See Article II.
Is it next to the clause authorizing the president to commit perjury to conceal the fact that he was getting 'bl@wj@bs' from an intern in the Oval Office washroom?
I know, I know. You found that in a penumbra surrounding the Tenth Amendment, right? Well, I'm not buying that one either.
Apparently the specific written terms of the United States Constitution take second place, in your mind, to "political judgment and skills." How nice.
I don't know if by that comment you've expanded your claim to suggest that the Tenth Amendment required the southern states to secede or you're suggesting that you've found an inconsistency between the provisions in the Constitution and the exercise of good judgment and common sense by politicians. In either case, you have discovered another little issue on which we disagree.
P.S. I'm still looking for the names of the most competent southern politicians who favored secession before the action was taken. Do you have any nominations?
ned: “I was suggesting that you might want to comment on the claims of Mortin Sult. He made some claims, including claims of election fraud in Georgia, that I know nothing about. See post 174.”
I have ‘commented on the claims of Mortin Sult:’
“Documentation, please.”
WIJG: “By all means, please quote the article, section and clause of the United States Constitution that prohibits secession...”
ned: “As you know, I believe that what you refer to as unilateral ‘secession’ is prohibited by each clause of the Constitution which expressly delegates power to the government of the United States, the last of which is Section 2 of the 26th Amendment.”
I know what you “believe” – and I have proved your beliefs groundless by referring you (repeatedly) to the history of the ratification of the Constitution. Simply put, your ‘theory’ is contradicted by history itself. “By all means, please quote the SPECIFIC article, section and clause of the United States Constitution (and NOT your own ‘beliefs’ ;>) that prohibits secession...”
WIJG: “...and tasks the president with the ‘duty to preserve the Union.’”
ned: “See Article II.”
To which “section and clause” of "Article II" are you referring? Hmm? Or do you think the president’s oath of office "tasks the president with the ‘duty to preserve the Union?’” If so, you may wish to actually read the oath sometime...
I know, I know. You found that in a penumbra surrounding the Tenth Amendment, right? Well, I'm not buying that one either.
“Penumbra?” Not at all – I believe a written Constitution is required to preserve liberty. You obviously do not...
I don't know if by that comment you've expanded your claim to suggest that the Tenth Amendment required the southern states to secede or you're suggesting that you've found an inconsistency between the provisions in the Constitution and the exercise of good judgment and common sense by politicians. In either case, you have discovered another little issue on which we disagree.
As noted previously, I believe our government officials should be bound by “the specific written terms of the United States Constitution.” You apparently believe they should give priority to their "political judgment and skills." As you suggest, “it is another little issue on which we disagree.”
P.S. I'm still looking for the names of the most competent southern politicians who favored secession before the action was taken. Do you have any nominations?
Please be specific: are you referring to the secession of the colonies from the British empire? Or the secession of the ratifying States from the union formed under the Articles of Confederation? Or the secession of the Southern States from the constitutional union?
Whatever the case, your question is largely irrelevant. It is the language of the written Constitution that is of critical importance, not the supposed ‘competence’ of politicians - no matter how much you may prefer the words of politicians to the words of the Constitution...
;>)
That's the one. Who were the most prominent southern politicians who worked for and advocated "secession" of the southern states in the weeks and months before the southern states actually "seceded" from the Union?
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.