Posted on 02/21/2003 11:32:11 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
"Upon yourself, and others like you, professed friends of freedom, who, instead of promulgating what you believed to be the truth, have, for selfish purposes, denied it, and thus conceded to the slaveholders the benefit of an argument to which they had no claim, - upon your heads, more even, if possible, than upon the slaveholders themselves, (who have acted only in accordance with their associations, interests, and avowed principles as slaveholders.) rests the blood of this horrible, unnecessary, and therefore guilty, war." - Lysander Spooner, 1864, excerpted from a letter to Senator Charles Sumner
Your concessions, as to the pro-slavery character of the constitution, have been such as, if true, would prove the constitution unworthy of having one drop of blood shed in its support. They have been such as to withhold from the North all the benefit of the argument, that a war for the constitution was? a war for liberty. You have thus, to the extent of your ability, placed the North wholly in the wrong, and the South wholly in the right. And the effect of these false positions in which the North and the South have respectively been placed, not only with your consent, but, in part, by your exertions, has been to fill the land with blood.
The South could, consistently with honor, and probably would, long before this time, and without a conflict, have surrendered their slavery to the demand of the constitution, (if that had been pressed upon them,) and to the moral sentiment of the world; while they could not with honor, or at least certainly would not, surrender anything to a confessedly unconstitutional demand, especially when coining from mere demagogues, who were so openly unprincipled as to profess the greatest moral abhorrence of slavery, and at time same time, for the sake of office, swear to support it., by swearing to support a constitution which they declared to be its bulwark.
You, and others like you have done more, according to your abilities, to prevent the peaceful abolition of slavery, than any other men in the nation; for while honest men were explaining the true character of the constitution, as an instrument giving freedom to all, you were continually denying it, and doing your utmost (and far more than any avowed pro slavery man could do) to defeat their efforts. And it now appears that all this was done by you in violation of your own conviction of truth.
In your pretended zeal for liberty, you have been urging on the nation to the most frightful destruction of human life; but your love of liberty has never yet induced you to declare publicly, but has permitted you constantly to deny, a truth that was sufficient for, and vital to, the speedy and peaceful accomplishment of freedom. You have, with deliberate purpose, and through a series of years, betrayed the very citadel of liberty, which you were under oath to defend. And there has been, in time country, no other treason at all comparable with this." - Lysander Spooner to Senator Charles Sumner, 1864
(Excerpt) Read more at lysanderspooner.org ...
"Abraham Lincoln did not cause the death of so many people from a mere love of slaughter, but only to bring about a state of consent that could not otherwise be secured for the government he had undertaken to administer. When a government has once reduced its people to a state of consent?that is, of submission to its will?it can put them to a much better use than to kill them; for it can then plunder them, enslave them, and use them as tools for plundering and enslaving others. And these are the uses to which most governments, our own among the rest, do put their people, whenever they have once reduced them to a state of consent to its will. Andrew Jackson said that those who did not consent to the government he attempted to administer upon them, for that reason, were traitors, and ought to be hanged. Like so many other so-called "heroes," he thought the sword and the gallows excellent instrumentalities for securing the people's consent to be governed. The idea that, although government should rest on the consent of the governed, yet so much force may nevertheless be employed as may be necessary to produce that consent, embodies everything that was ever exhibited in the shape of usurpation and tyranny in any country on earth. It has cost this country a million of lives, and the loss of everything that resembles political liberty. It can have no place except as a part of a system of absolute military despotism. And it means nothing else either in this country, or in any other. There is no half-way house between a government depending wholly on voluntary support, and one depending wholly on military compulsion. And mankind have only to choose between these two classes?the class that governs, and the class that is governed or enslaved. In this case, the government rests wholly on the consent of the governors, and not at all on the consent of the governed. And whether the governors are more or less numerous than the governed, and whether they call themselves monarchists, aristocrats, or republicans, the principle is the same. The simple, and only material fact, in all cases, is, that one body of men are robbing and enslaving another. And it is only upon military compulsion that men will submit to be robbed and enslaved, it necessarily follows that any government, to which the governed, the weaker party, do not consent, must be (in regard to that weaker party), a merely military despotism. Such is the state of things now in this country, and in every other in which government does not depend wholly upon voluntary support. There never was and there never will be, a more gross, self-evident, and inexcusable violation of the principle that government should rest on the consent of the governed, than was the late war, as carried on by the North. There never was, and there never will be, a more palpable case of purely military despotism than is the government we now have." - Lysander Spooner, "No Consent," December 1873
Here is what Spooner had to say on that subject...
"And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villainous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and the South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest--enormous as the latter was--are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further--and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid--by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war." - Lysander Spooner, "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" 1870
I look forward to seeing the Wlat brigade's responses to statements such as these by such a prominent abolitionist. Most likely, they'll try to brand him as an extremist, and on those grounds attempt to ignore him. Spooner was indeed a radical who subscribed to a very extreme libertarian (small L) view of government in general. His positions were often far fetched, impractical, and undesirable but he also practiced a high committment to his liberty-minded principles and especially his morally sound opposition to slavery, be it politically popular or not. This permitted him to provide a "no-nonsense" perspective on those around him - in effect, to cut through the politicized fluff and sophistry that dominated the speeches and actions of Lincoln and the supporters of his war.
So expect the Lincoln worshipers to attempt to marginalize Spooner. Fortunately for us, doing this will only expose the fraud of their position even further. It will force them to, in effect, dismiss an uncompromising abolitionist's writings against slavery as unworthy of historical or philosophical consideration. At the same time they will continue embracing Lincoln for an anti-slavery philosophical basis, even though Lincoln was inconsistent on the issue of slavery and pandered his message, both for and against it, to suit him best before different audiences and in different political circumstances. In other words, on issues of anti-slavery they will be asserting the position shaky foundation of Lincoln over that provided by the sturdy foundation of Spooner.
Spooner confuses animating principles used to rally support, such as the Declaration of Independence, with founding principles instituted in the Constituion that actually established the eventual republic.
Lincoln felt that as President he did not hold the authority to abolish slavery. But he gained the nomination and the election by exhibiting a the Coopers Union Speech a flawlessly laid out study of the inherent ability of the Federal Government to limit slavery in the territiories of the Republic and thereby create the slow stranglehold of eventual Free State votes that the Southern states rightly saw as their eventual loss of sufficient power to maintain the peculiar instituion and the related bizzare federal property rights needed for its support. In the courts, activist-judges, mimicing the damage of Roe v. Wade a century later would deciede Dred Scott in support of those alledged rights over human beings. In the State Legislatures, the succession movement moved to split the Union. Linclon came to office and from his first speech upon taking the oath outlined how he was prepared to defend the Union, as a whole, as part of his oath to defend the Constituion. From Webster, decades earlier, the clear majority of the country held the Union to be more than a Confederacy or Confederation of states; they understood it as layered (see Forest McDonald) rather than composite.
For the abolitionists, no Constitution, no history, no fact no Union, and no Republic could stand in the way of the Sin they felt the nation was living. Ideologues of a single saving issue...revolutionaries with no mercy. They in their zeal were as much responsible for the hardened resolve for war in the South as any southern sucessionist, IMHO.
If this is the event associated with Garrison's claim that the Constitution was a "pact with the devil," then it seems to ring a bell. That being said though, Garrison and Spooner were two different people.
Spooner confuses animating principles used to rally support, such as the Declaration of Independence, with founding principles instituted in the Constituion that actually established the eventual republic.
That has been said, and insofar as the position you appear to be advocating goes, it is one that I agree with. It should also be noted though that a large portion of recent pro-Lincoln scholarship among conservatives has been devoted to the claim that Lincoln's great political achievement was the fulfillment and enacting in the legal constitutional sense what you term as "animating principles" in the DoI.
Lincoln felt that as President he did not hold the authority to abolish slavery. But he gained the nomination and the election by exhibiting a the Coopers Union Speech a flawlessly laid out study of the inherent ability of the Federal Government to limit slavery in the territiories of the Republic and thereby create the slow stranglehold of eventual Free State votes that the Southern states rightly saw as their eventual loss of sufficient power to maintain the peculiar instituion and the related bizzare federal property rights needed for its support.
Rhetorically and in itself, that speech is of great value. It is not a consistent whole of Lincoln though. His Peoria address, which discusses the same subject of the territories at length, offers a far less appealing reason for such a policy - Lincoln proposed preserving the territories so that they could be inhabited by free white men. That statement and others throughout his career provide reason to seriously question many motives behind of Lincoln's actions and beliefs, a significant number of which appear to be economic rather than moral, as is often assumed. Of course, if one is to hold that Lincoln's bedrock principle, of which he placed under no other principle, was that of opposing slavery in the territories, it invites an obvious question: What better way existed to achieve that principle than to allow the south to voluntarily and permanently remove itself from the territories by way of secession? That Lincoln acted to halt secession indicates that he placed some other principle or set of principles above that which he publicly indicated to be his bedrock principle.
In the State Legislatures, the succession movement moved to split the Union. Linclon came to office and from his first speech upon taking the oath outlined how he was prepared to defend the Union, as a whole, as part of his oath to defend the Constituion.
To accomplish those purported ends, he pledged to use military force to coerce obedience. In doing so he fell into the trap of a great Constitutional paradox, which resulted in his violation of that same document. To paraphrase Alexis de Tocqueville, the use of such force to coerce obedience from the seceded states was to use a force that did not derive from, and conflicted with, the principle of self government that was admitted as the basis for America's founding. "Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government," wrote Tocqueville on this subject, "but in reality," if coerced obedience were to be used, "that government will have ceased to exist" becuse it would be exerting a force that was not derived from itself and its founding.
From Webster, decades earlier, the clear majority of the country held the Union to be more than a Confederacy or Confederation of states; they understood it as layered (see Forest McDonald) rather than composite.
The question though is to the degree they took it. A federal system could encompass centralization, decentralization, or anything in between. A centralized federal system could, in effect, reduce the states below the federal government to nothing more than administrative agents and procede to dictate their actions...but in order for this to be legitimately carried out, such conditions must first be admitted and yielded at that government's creation. If, on the other hand, a federal system is decentralized it may, as a consequence of its admitted founding principles, find itself unable to legitimately coerce obedience. It may procede to due so, of course, but doing so will occur from the illegitimate use of a coercive power that does not properly belong to the authority exercising it. I would argue that an example of the latter occured in the civil war.
For the abolitionists, no Constitution, no history, no fact no Union, and no Republic could stand in the way of the Sin they felt the nation was living.
For many, this was indeed so and it caused undesirable consequences within their philosophical systems. For Spooner, this is what he had to say of the U.S. Constitution prior to the war. For the time being I will withhold my own opinion of it, so make of it what you will: "Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government [under the U.S. Constitution] was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established."
They in their zeal were as much responsible for the hardened resolve for war in the South as any southern sucessionist, IMHO.
I understand what you are arguing here, but I think you miss a key distinction. A more accurate statement would be that the abolitionists' zeal, and its accompanying acts of domestic terrorism among certain abolitionists, hastened and gave cause to the act of secession by the southerners. That act must be distinguished from the war though, as war was not a necessary consequence of secession (meaning secession did not mean that war had to happen). Rather, war was a single path among untold many paths, and happened to be the one chosen, for whatever reason it may be, by actors at the time. Spooner places the responsibility of that choice with the actions of the northerners. I hold a similar view, arguing that war happened due to the choices made by Lincoln in his handling of secession and response to the seceding states. In other words, he could have just as easily let them go, or attempted negotiation with their peace commissioners, or permitted the European powers to mediate as was offered, or to exercise greater patience in hopes of peace, resorting to war only as an absolute necessity. The southerners, in their farewell speeches and the sort, all expressed desires for a peaceful separation and offered proposals on how to achieve one. The level headed among their ranks and even some of the so-called "fire eaters" also indicated that their armies were to be prepared for defensive purposes only in ensuring their territorial integrity, especially under the anticipation of a northern invasion. Lincoln, by contrast, used his military to instigate greater hostilities (as he did at Fort Sumter and with the blockade order) and to physically invade the south to coerce its obedience to his terms.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Lincoln, as he is used today by many on both the left and the right, is a political myth rather than an historical person. This is a tactic that is as old as history. Plato described it in the following terms:
"Such is the tale; is there any possibility of making our citizens believe in it?
Not in the present generation, he replied; there is no way of accomplishing this; but their sons may be made to believe in the tale, and their sons' sons, and posterity after them.
I see the difficulty, I replied; yet the fostering of such a belief will make them care more for the city and for one another."
In some ways I believe that this concept is part of the events being played out over that video at the Lincoln shrine - the one that reads quotes of Lincoln while pictures of abortionists, homosexuals, and radical feminists holding protest signs flash across the screen. This video is indicative of a clash between two versions of the Lincoln myth. Lincolnites on the right, claiming him as their own, desire a more traditional rendering of the 16th president - one that is useful in promoting values like patriotism, loyalty, morality, equality of opportunity, justice, and all those other qualities they attempt to associate with their mythical version of Lincoln. On the other side you have a different crowd from the political left trying to make his myth into one of acceptance of deviant lifestyles and practices of license, equality of condition, and a whole slate of liberal political causes. Their mythical Lincoln accordingly espouses abortion, gay rights, and communism.
This battle over rights to the mythical Lincoln has been going on since the day he was assassinated. Karl Marx claimed him as a hero of class revolutions while the Republican party of the time claimed him as a hero of American patriotism. They've been competing for myth rights ever since, but in reality both views are nothing more than a myth.
Some four or five weeks ago, as I was in conversation with Dr. S. G. Howe and James M. Stone, they both mentioned that, on their first reading my argument on “the Unconstitutionality of Slavery,” they had been convinced of its truth; and Dr. Howe added, ‘Sumner always said it was true, but somehow or other he could not think it was practical.”
So is he true? Would the south "consistently with honor, and probably would, long before this time (1864), and without a conflict" given up their slaves because Lysander Spooner said that slavery violated the Constitution?
From the Spooner letter:
"If that argument is true, slavery, from its first introduction into this country, to this time, has never bad any legal or constitutional existence; but has been a mere abuse, tolerated by the strongest party, without any color of legality, except what was derived from false interpretations of the constitution, and from practices, statutes, and adjudications, that were in plain conflict with the fundamental constitutional law. And these views have been virtually confessed to be true by John C. Calhoun, James M. Mason, Jefferson Davis, and many other Southern men...
Looks like President Lincoln wasn't the only one. According the Spooner, Jefferson Davis knew that slavery was unconstitutional long before the rebellion. Yet Davis used unconscionable, unconstitutional tactics to promote the institution. Imagine that. And I thought that his contempt for the Constitution only applied to the confederate one.
Come on, billbears. Support what the abolitionist said. If slavery was unconstitutional and the south launched a war to defend an unconstitutional institution then where does that leave you? According to Spooner Jefferson Davis knew it was unconstitutional but spent his entire adult life owning slaves in violation of the Constitution and supported unconstitutional actions. he was wrong too?
At one he is advocating entire states and territories be left to the white race. At another he is stating that there should be equality. At another he argues that slavery should be left as is, and limited to the South. And even later, he supports unlimited slavery.
He was a small time, midwestern lawyer, with limited success as a politician who did clearly realize who would elect him (the combination of the mercantilists and the abolitionists), and what he would have to say in different public venues to ensure that.
Once elected, he also knew that he was elected to office with much less than the majority of popular vote, and that his party's power was tenuous at best.
Yes, war did not follow secession by law or tradition. It came in the form of replacement of constitutional protections by military coercion.
Lincoln could have invoked his great humanitarian eloquence in 1861 as he did in 1865 had he truly been that kind of man.
Behavior is a function of its consequences, and Lincoln, if nothing else, was alert to his situation and a man of action even at the expense of humanitarianism.
He had stated early on that he would hold Ft. Sumter, thus ensuring the US Treasury. Practically every Cabinet member knew that this would bring war. Even though they were against this as well as his military, he kept his options open after his inauguration. He allowed Seward to delay the actions of the Confederate commissioners while seeking a solution. To him, perfidy was not objectionable, but a desirable expedient.
When he took office, there was enough money in the treasury to run the government for six weeks, and possibly enough in active shipping for six months.
With the government having borrowed extensively due to the 1857 crash, credit was almost nonexistant. Lincoln had to have money.......and the only place to find it was from import tariffs.
As soon as the Confederacy announced its single digit tariff rates, the meaning of that relative to the new Morrill 45% tariffs became absolutely clear. This meant that the impending result of free Southern trade with Europe would be the ruin of his political support. Immediately the merchants and politicans were breaking the door down in the President's office to force him into action that could justify blockade.
Non of Lincoln's speeches covered this situation. So, he wrapped himself in the mantle of "saving the Union" and sent invading troops South.
Saving the Union meant saving the economic system of the Northeast.
His election was funded by the very people who benefitted most from the Northern economy. So, saving the Union was saving the Republican party. So, 375,000 Union sons died.
Got a live one here, guys.
15 posted on 02/22/2003 8:31 AM EST by Non-Sequitur
I can hear them now on 'private reply'.
Ok, X, now go ahead and post the pseudo-eloquent, intelligent logic-less post that sounds great, but don't forget the put downs. Now Walt and I will take on GOP, but we are going to need some help Ditto, so hurry up. Geez, this is going to be tough...where is JUST SHUT UP AND FAKE IT when you need him. Any one know who LINCOLNLOVER's new name is? WE NEED HELP.
Point to me one place in the Constitution before 1865 where slavery was unconstitutional. And if it was, why did they need an amendment to said document to end it?
Would the south have peacefully given up their slaves long before the war because of that interpretation? Was it all for naught?
I believe yes. Even you would admit (I hope) the fact that slavery was dying out in the border and upper Southern states. Over time, the other states could have been convinced peacefully of that fact and would have given up their slaves, probably for payment. It had happened in every other nation that it was tried, why not here? Surely over time the arguments for payment would have been defeated and slavery peacefully ended.
However a certain man from Illinois wouldn't have gotten his bank, his worthless money, his internal improvement scams, or his Empire.
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.