H.L. Mencken on Abraham Lincoln

"Five Men at Random," Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76. | H.L. Mencken

[Huck]

I've heard of H L Mencken, but not of you two. Run those credentials again, for those of us who missed them.

What special credentials qualify HLM to interpret the meaning of the Battle of Gettysburg or the relationship of liberty and self-determination to secession or nullification? I don't know that he has any more qualifications in that area than you do. He was a newspaperman.

[Kevin Curry]

One of the great physicists of the "Golden Era", perhaps De Broglie, said something to the effect that no theory gains acceptance because its opponents are suddenly converted to it, but rather because the opponents gradually die off and a new generation arises that has grown up with it.

Mencken's Lincoln-hating isn't a theory--it's a diatribe. Mencken was a bitter, irrelevant, crusty old fart and atheist who could write well. In this he was remarkably similar to Ayn Rand, except that Rand couldn't write well.

[Huck]

As for Mencken, I think he misunderstands the questions behind the Gettysburg Address. Lincoln wasn't talking about the right of self-determination, but about the survival of free, constitutional and democratic republics. The demands that groups made for self-determination would tear apart self-governing societies, and secession would be a warrant for perpetual war and all the anarchy and tyranny that war brings. You can agree or disagree with Lincoln, but simply giving a green light to every movement that demands secession on its own terms at its own will, doesn't prevent the dilemmas Lincoln calls our attention to. Such a policy would be more likely to create and exacerbate them.

The idea that state sovereignty equals the sovereignty of the people of the states equals freedom is another that can be called into question. The idea of minority rights defended by "state's right's" advocates can also be applied against "state's rights." If I am not free because of the abuses of majorities at the federal level, do abuses of majorities at the state level leave me any freer? Similarly, the idea that "the Confederates went into battle free" is also open to debate. It depends on how one defines "Confederates" and "free." Mencken's sentence opens up too many cans of worms to be accepted at face value as true.

Great job. Great summary of Mencken's error in oversimplifying the issues and misrepresenting the words of Mr. Lincoln. Anyone who earnestly consults the record--particularly a certain well known fellow named Washington and another one folks might have heard of named Madison--will find that secession does not equal self-determination, least of all in our system. Washington and Madison said so explicitly more than once. I daresay they are qualified to speak on the subject.

If some reader doesn't believe me (and why should you?) please go do a thorough investigation. I am sure WhiskeyPapa has a few quotations handy to point you on your way. Again, great job x. You nailed it.

[Huck]

In this he was remarkably similar to Ayn Rand, except that Rand couldn't write well.

LOL. That's a good line. But Kevin, Mencken could really write well and Ayn Rand really couldn't. Much as I enjoy Mencken's style and wit, I can't argue with the basics of your description.

[Huck]

In this he was remarkably similar to Ayn Rand, except that Rand couldn't write well.

LOL. That's a good line. But Kevin, Mencken could really write well and Ayn Rand really couldn't. Much as I enjoy Mencken's style and wit, I can't argue with the basics of your description.

[texson66]

1844: The Massachusetts Legislature threatened secession when Congress started debating whether to admit Texas into the Union.

Imagine a US WITHOUT Taxachooseits and Pres Kennedy AND Senators Robert and Tubby (er, Teddy)!!!!

[dixiepatriot]

>>The whole Constitution forbids secession.

Nonsense. It is clear from the available historical facts that the Constitution would have never been ratified if it had been understood that, in doing so, the States would surrender their sovereignty, as well as their right of secession should the experiment fail. We need look no further for proof of the reserved right of secession than in the ratification of at least three of the original thirteen States. Following are excerpts from the ratifications of the States of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island respectively:

"We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the general assembly, and now met in convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, Do, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...."

"We, the delegates of the people of New York... do declare and make known that the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions in certain specified powers or as inserted merely for greater caution."

"We, the delegates of the people of Rhode Island and Plantations, duly elected... do declare and make known... that the powers of government may be resumed by the people whenever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the department of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same; that Congress shall guarantee to each State its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to the United States."

From the formation of the original Confederacy under the Articles of Confederation of 1777, and continuing on after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789, it was a well-understood and universally accepted political doctrine that the Union was a compact, or a "league of friendship" between thirteen independent and sovereign States, from which the parties thereof could constitutionally and peacefully withdraw at will. In the words of Massachusetts Senator Henry Cabot Lodge:

"When the Constitution was adopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of States in popular conventions, it is safe to say there was no man in this country, from Washington and Hamilton on the one side to George Clinton and George Mason on the other, who regarded our system of Government, when first adopted, as anything but an experiment entered upon by the States, and from which each and every State had the right to peaceably withdraw, a right which was very likely to be exercised." [Source: Henry Cabot Lodge, Daniel Webster (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1899), page 176.]

Furthermore, the Constitution is a document which defines and limits the powers of the federal government. All powers not specifically delegated are reserved to the states and the people therein. The fact that the Constitution doesn't mention secession goes to show that this is a matter left at the discretion of the sovereign states.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Nonsense. It is clear from the available historical facts that the Constitution would have never been ratified if it had been understood that, in doing so, the States would surrender their sovereignty, as well as their right of secession should the experiment fail.

I dunno.

People were thinking things were going down hill pretty fast under the Articles.

"What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there exists not a power to check them, what security has a man of life, liberty, or property? To you, I am sure I need not add aught on this subject, the consequences of a lax or inefficient government, are too obvious to be dwelt on. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the federal head, will soon bring ruin to the whole; whereas a liberal, and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched, to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequence, to which we had a fair claim, and the brightest prospect of attaining..."

George Washington to James Madison November 5, 1786,

"I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me to be the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."

George Washington to John Jay, 15 August 1786

Old GW wasn't mincing his words. Makes you wonder how his image got shanghaied onto the greal seal of the CSA, doesn't it?

What you are saying is that Washington wanted a national union, but failed to obtain one.

The record doesn't support that, does it?

I mean after all, the rebellion did collapse, didn't it?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

VA -- being derived from the people of the United States

NY --the powers of government may be reassumed by the people

RI -- that the powers of government may be resumed by the people

These quotations make my point, not yours.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

"When the Constitution was adopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of States in popular conventions, it is safe to say there was no man in this country, from Washington and Hamilton on the one side to George Clinton and George Mason on the other, who regarded our system of Government, when first adopted, as anything but an experiment entered upon by the States, and from which each and every State had the right to peaceably withdraw, a right which was very likely to be exercised." [Source: Henry Cabot Lodge, Daniel Webster (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1899), page 176.]

I don't think the record supports this very well.

"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."

-- George Wasington, Farewell Address

It doesn't look like Washington's words square with Cabot's interpretation.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Furthermore, the Constitution is a document which defines and limits the powers of the federal government. All powers not specifically delegated are reserved to the states and the people therein.

Well, my goodness.

That is not what Jefferson Davis thought.

Nosirree!

He thought the federal government could coerce the states. He wasn't real big on states rights.

"Conscription dramatized a fundamental paradox in the Confederate war effort: the need for Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. Pure Jeffersonians could not accept this. The most outspoken of them, Joseph Brown of Georgia, denounced the draft as a "dangerous usurpation by Congress of the reserved rights of the states...at war with all the principles for which Georgia entered into the revolution." In reply Jefferson Davis donned the mantle of Hamilton. The Confederate Constitution, he pointed out to Brown, gave Congress the power "to raise and support armies" and to "provide for the common defense." It also contained another clause (likewise copied from the U.S. Constitution) empowering Congress to make all laws "necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Brown had denied the constitutionality of conscription because the Constitution did not specifically authorize it. This was good Jeffersonian doctrine, sanctified by generations of southern strict constructionists.

But in Hamiltonian language, Davis insisted that the "necessary and proper" clause legitimized conscription. No one could doubt the necessity "when our very existance is threatened by armies vastly superior in numbers." Therefore "the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object...if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional."

--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson P.433

If the Constitution limits and defines the powers of the federal government, one of those powers -- according to Jefferson Davis now -- was providing for the common defense, which allowed the government to coerce the states.

How about that?

Walt

[4CJ]

How did the original colonies enter?

[WhiskeyPapa]

How did the original colonies enter?

Enter what? The Union?

As free and independent states, just as it says in the D of I. But, as Chief Jiustice Jay said in 1793, they nevertheless saw themselves as one people, and managed their affairs sccordingly.

I don't see anything that Jay said that conflicts with what President Lincoln said:

"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

Do you see anything that conmflicts with what Jay said and what President Lincoln said?

Walt

[4CJ]

How did the original colonies enter?

As in who ratified for Georgia, and who entered the union with her ratification? Could Georgia's ratification admit Rhode Island?

Just curious.

[WhiskeyPapa]

As in who ratified for Georgia, and who entered the union with her ratification?

Ratification of what? The Articles? By ratifying the Constitution, the people of Georgia plighted themselves to support the Union and nationalizled their citizenship in that union -- which was, as George Washington stated, the goal of every true American.

Now, Mr. Tippy toes, on what basis did Governor Brown of Georgia threaten to secede from the so-called CSA?

On what basis did he raise troops that could only be used in Georgia and on what basis did he exempt 9,000 men from CSA service?

Can you say, "died of a theory"?

Walt

[4CJ]

Ratification of what? The Articles? By ratifying the Constitution, the people of Georgia plighted themselves to support the Union and nationalizled their citizenship in that union

The Constitution obviously. Who entered with her ratification? Who could deny her ratification? Who could force her ratification?

[TheDon]

I guess you missed this thread...

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo cus/news/703307/posts

[WhiskeyPapa]

The Constitution obviously. Who entered with her ratification? Who could deny her ratification? Who could force her ratification?

No, no, no. Answer my questions in #75.

Walt

[chkoreff]

Well, actually only about 66% of the people in the south had the right to govern themselves but Mencken, being a professional curmudgeon, never allowed facts to slow him down when he was on a good rant.

You're right, it was only about 66%. Now it's down to 0%.

I suppose slavery could have ended here the way it ended in England and Brazil -- nonviolently. Instead we chose to slaughter a million people and discard the original vision of the republic. Oh well, at least slavery's gone, huh?

[chkoreff]

Well, actually only about 66% of the people in the south had the right to govern themselves but Mencken, being a professional curmudgeon, never allowed facts to slow him down when he was on a good rant.

You're right, it was only about 66%. Now it's down to 0%.

I suppose slavery could have ended here the way it ended in England and Brazil -- nonviolently. Instead we chose to slaughter a million people and discard the original vision of the republic. Oh well, at least slavery's gone, huh?