The Litmus Test for American Conservatism (The paloeconservative view of Abe Lincoln.)

Abraham Lincoln is thought of by many as not only the greatest American statesman but as a great conservative. He was neither. Understanding this is a necessary condition for any genuinely American conservatism. When Lincoln took office, the American polity was regarded as a compact between sovereign states which had created a central government as their agent, hedging it in by a doctrine of enumerated powers. Since the compact between the states was voluntary, secession was considered an option by public leaders in every section of the Union during the antebellum period. Given this tradition — deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence — a great statesman in 1860 would have negotiated a settlement with the disaffected states, even if it meant the withdrawal of some from the Union. But Lincoln refused even to accept Confederate commissioners, much less negotiate with them. Most of the Union could have been kept together. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas voted to remain in the Union even after the Confederacy was formed; they reversed themselves only when Lincoln decided on a war of coercion. A great statesman does not seduce his people into a needless war; he keeps them out of it.

When the Soviet Union dissolved by peaceful secession, it was only 70 years old — the same age as the United States when it dissolved in 1860. Did Gorbachev fail as a statesman because he negotiated a peaceful dissolution of the U.S.S.R.? Likewise, if all states west of the Mississippi were to secede tomorrow, would we praise, as a great statesman, a president who refused to negotiate and launched total war against the civilian population merely to preserve the Union? The number of Southerners who died as a result of Lincoln’s invasion was greater than the total of all Americans killed by Hitler and Tojo. By the end of the war, nearly one half of the white male population of military age was either dead or mutilated. No country in World War II suffered casualties of that magnitude.

Not only would Lincoln not receive Confederate commissioners, he refused, for three crucial months, to call Congress. Alone, he illegally raised money, illegally raised troops, and started the war. To crush Northern opposition, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of the war and rounded up some 20,000 political prisoners. (Mussolini arrested some 12,000 but convicted only 1,624.) When the chief justice of the Supreme Court declared the suspension blatantly unconstitutional and ordered the prisoners released, Lincoln ordered his arrest. This American Caesar shut down over 300 newspapers, arrested editors, and smashed presses. He broke up state legislatures; arrested Democratic candidates who urged an armistice; and used the military to elect Republicans (including himself, in 1864, by a margin of around 38,000 popular votes). He illegally created a “state” in West Virginia and imported a large army of foreign mercenaries. B.H. Liddell Hart traces the origin of modern total war to Lincoln’s decision to direct war against the civilian population. Sherman acknowledged that, by the rules of war taught at West Point, he was guilty of war crimes punishable by death. But who was to enforce those rules?

These actions are justified by nationalist historians as the energetic and extraordinary efforts of a great helmsman rising to the painful duty of preserving an indivisible Union. But Lincoln had inherited no such Union from the Framers. Rather, like Bismarck, he created one with a policy of blood and iron. What we call the “Civil War” was in fact America’s French Revolution, and Lincoln was the first Jacobin president. He claimed legitimacy for his actions with a “conservative” rhetoric, rooted in an historically false theory of the Constitution which held that the states had never been sovereign. The Union created the states, he said, not the states the Union. In time, this corrupt and corrupting doctrine would suck nearly every reserved power of the states into the central government. Lincoln seared into the American mind an ideological style of politics which, through a sort of alchemy, transmuted a federative “union” of states into a French revolutionary “nation” launched on an unending global mission of achieving equality. Lincoln’s corrupt constitutionalism and his ideological style of politics have, over time, led to the hollowing out of traditional American society and the obscene concentration of power in the central government that the Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent.

A genuinely American conservatism, then, must adopt the project of preserving and restoring the decentralized federative polity of the Framers rooted in state and local sovereignty. The central government has no constitutional authority to do most of what it does today. The first question posed by an authentic American conservative politics is not whether a policy is good or bad, but what agency (the states or the central government — if either) has the authority to enact it. This is the principle of subsidiarity: that as much as possible should be done by the smallest political unit.

The Democratic and Republican parties are Lincolnian parties. Neither honestly questions the limits of federal authority to do this or that. In 1861, the central government broke free from what Jefferson called “the chains of the Constitution,” and we have, consequently, inherited a fractured historical memory. There are now two Americanisms: pre-Lincolnian and post-Lincolnian. The latter is Jacobinism by other means. Only the former can lay claim to being the primordial American conservatism.

David W. Livingston is a professor of philosophy at Emory University and the author of Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium (University of Chicago Press).

Then tell the class why they saw fit to throw such high tariffs on them?

Look up the debates on the bill. It could be anything. Maybe they were simply retained from the 1857 tariff. Maybe they were hoping to gain warehousing revenues from goods with a final destination elsewhere. Maybe they were hoping that some idiot would come along and try to import things that he could get for half the price at home without the tariff.

Cotton, tobacco etc. were all prominent EXPORTS of the south to the rest of the world. They were comparatively advantaged in each had virtually no reason to import any of them to begin with.

In 1860, they "imported" a total of $237M worth of goods into the Confederate states. Of course the word "import" must be modified here to say that $200M of that was inter-state trade from the North with only $37M being from the rest of the world. I'll have to look up the other end of the deal -- i.e. how much cotton, sugar and tobacco Northern states bought from the south, but with twice the population it's easy to assume that the North bought at least twice that $200M amount from the south. The South had to have a positive balance of trade with the North.

Those imports to the future confederate states included: $42M of woven cotton goods ($27M from Northern states & $15M from other countries)
$3M worth of Sugar (none from the north)
and $2M worth of Cigars --- all from foreign sources. (Cubans made damn fine cigars even back then.)

So of their total foreign imports in the year 1860 of $37M which were subject to US tariffs, 54% consisted of Cotton goods, sugar and cigars.

LOL. So you would have us think they were willing to go to war about tariffs they were paying on things they grew at home.

The damn war wasn't about tariffs GOP ---- It was all about slavery!

Maybe they were simply retained from the 1857 tariff. Maybe they were hoping to gain warehousing revenues from goods with a final destination elsewhere. Maybe they were hoping that some idiot would come along and try to import things that he could get for half the price at home without the tariff.

Then how come they had zero tariffs on things they didn't grow or manufacture at home, like coffee? If it was simply a revenue tariff, that's where you sock-it to them. They taxed canned fish at 15%, but not coffee?

They were protectionist --- they wanted to protect their citizens from competition. Even though they had much less than the North in the way of manufacturing, in 1860, they had the fourth largest manufacturing base in the world --- behind England, France, and the Northern states. They wanted to protect not just their sugar, cotton and tobacco farmers from competition, but also their fledgling iron, textile and metal working industries.

Then how come they had zero tariffs on things they didn't grow or manufacture at home, like coffee?

Maybe they liked cheap coffee. Having no tariffs on some things is a position that is perfectly consistent with having low tariffs on a few other things.

If it was simply a revenue tariff, that's where you sock-it to them.

Do you believe then that everything that can be physically sold should be taxed just because the government can tax it? That is essentially the direction you are heading with this one. Seriously - complaining about tariffs being too high in one post while complaining about other goods not having any tariffs at all in another? What gives.

They were protectionist --- they wanted to protect their citizens from competition.

Competition from WHERE? In order for a tariff to be protectionist, there has to be a good from somewhere abroad that is trying to come in and compete with the domestics. As of 1860 southern cotton was not only the main supplier in the south. It was also the main supplier in the world because the south had the greatest comparative advantage in that market. Going back to widgets once again - if the import widget costs $5 and the domestic one costs $4 it doesn't matter if you put a 1% or a 100% tariff on the import widget. Nobody will buy it unless he is an idiot.

Even though they had much less than the North in the way of manufacturing, in 1860, they had the fourth largest manufacturing base in the world --- behind England, France, and the Northern states. They wanted to protect not just their sugar, cotton and tobacco farmers from competition, but also their fledgling iron, textile and metal working industries.

...yet they adopted a tariff that was by all measures lower than the lowest free-trade tariff of the United States (the 1857 one) and had an average rate of 13.5% making it one of the lowest in the world. In other words, the people desiring protectionism didn't get their way.

Please post a source for your stats and/or how you derived your figures. As for woven cotton imports, where do you think Britain or wherever else got the cotton to make them? That's right. The south. And what was the import tariff on that - 15% or something? Well, the 1857 tariff had a rate of 17% and was considered to be the most openly free-trade of any tariff the US had imposed in half a century. So I would venture to speculate that the 15% rate they used was considered friendly to free trade at the time.

Let us remember that Lincoln called up 75,000 troops for an invasion long before Ft. Sumter, and it was a reaction to this planned invasion that caused Lee to also stand for Virginia.

The firing on Fort Sumter happened on April 12-13, 1861. Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops was issued April 15, 1875 (75,000). That is not to say that Lincoln didn't have things going on behind the scenes. The Times Picayune (New Orleans) reports the following in the April 11, 1861, edition:

Military Preparations at the North
The New York Herald, of the 6th inst., gives accounts of what is going on in this way, in anticipation of a coercive policy on the part of the Washington administration. It says that on the 5th inst., Gov. Curtin, of Pennsylvania, besides being closeted with Lincoln for an hour, had an interview with Secretary Cameron and Gen. Scott, and at 11 o'clock that same night had a private interview with one of Gen. Scott's confidential officers. There is no doubt, it adds, that Pennsylvania will be put upon a war footing immediately.
Massachusetts is said to have six thousand six hundred and seventy men, all equiped and ready to march at twelve hours notice. Among them, says the Herald, are two flying artillery batteries, almost as expert in drill as the best regulars, and several dragoon and cavalry corps, not surpassed in efficiency by any in the volunteer militia in the United States. The infantry troops are well drilled.
New York State, according to the same authority, is pledged to furnish ten thousand men at forty-eight hours notice, and other States in proportion.

I imagine all those pre-Sumter discussions led to the 75,000 figure.

Like the review that was available to John Merryman in the North in 1861?

Like the judicial review available to Lambden Milligan. What judicial review was available to a southern Lambden Milligan?

When habeas corpus is suspended by the government entity authorized to do it, you could appeal to the courts until you were blue in the face. The courts would rule that habeas corpus was legally suspended, so why bother?

No doubt that was the case under the Davis regime. But, as you know, the Supreme Court did rule that habeas corpus could not be legally suspended in areas of the country where the courts were operating freely. Under the Davis regime, on the other hand, habeas corpus was suspended in all parts of the country, regardless of the presence of the judiciary that you claim was operating freely and openly, hundreds of miles from the fighting.

Hindman declared martial law in the spring of 1862 and remained in Arkansas until the sprint of 1863. Davis couldn't have been too upset.

"Hindman's edicts however raised the ire of the local citizenry and they, and Hindman's political enemies, demanded that Richmond replace him. By August of 1862 the authorities in Richmond decided to replace him with the well-meaning but incompetent Theophilus 'Granny' Holmes." [From Wikipedia]

Hindman was reduced to simply commanding the 1st Corps in the field. Your saying that he remained in Arkansas until 1863 was true, but his martial law was rescinded by Holmes. You left that out.

Contrast what Davis did in relieving Hindman of overall control, with what Lincoln did with respect to Beast Butler. Lincoln even offered Beast the vice presidency in 1864. Fortunately for all of us, Yank and Reb alike, Beast turned it down.

Like the judicial review available to Lambden Milligan. What judicial review was available to a southern Lambden Milligan?

Funny you should mention Milligan. In ex parte Milligan, the Court found that Lincoln's order authorizing trial by a military tribunal of Lambdin P. Milligan was unconstitutional. The Court said that civilians must be tried in civilian courts as long as the civilian courts were open and operating.

What took the Feds so long? Why didn't they rule during the war against Lincoln's use of the military against Northern civilians? The Milligan ruling could have cited as precedent the 1864 ruling of Judge Moise of the CSA District Court of Louisiana I cited before.

Under the Davis regime, on the other hand, habeas corpus was suspended in all parts of the country, regardless of the presence of the judiciary that you claim was operating freely and openly, hundreds of miles from the fighting.

It was legal for the Confederate Congress to do that. Besides, there was fighting throughout much of the South. The North, on the other hand, had vast areas that were not being invaded.

[GOP] The Confederate Army was 800,000 GOP Capitalists and Stand Waties with guns, killing U. S. troops.

"Mary [Lincoln]'s long history of emotional imbalance and physical abuse of her husband dated back to the early years of their marriage. She had struck him on the head with firewood, chased him from their home with a knife, thrown potatoes and tomatoes at him, flung hot coffee in his face, and grabbed and pulled out some of his whiskers. In the White House she entertained devious, unscrupulous men such as Henry Wikoff, a former secret agent for the British who was jailed for kidnapping and seducing an American woman in Europe. Lincoln's secretary John Hay called him a 'branded social pariah.' Yet Mary took him on long carriage rides and even leaked through him to the New York Herald an advance copy of Lincoln's State of the Union message, which resulted in a congressional investigation. She also had overspent in one year a four-year appropriation to redecorate the White House and tried to cover the overexpenditure by padding the household bills and certifying fake bills, such as one for 517 loads of manure for the While House lawn."

And there are 517 loads of crap for you.

Quote from Lincoln and Booth, by H. Donald Winkler, 2003, pp. 88-9.

There was no one to treat with.
Yes there was. Southerners attempted repeatedly to secure a meeting with Lincoln between January and Fort Sumter. He refused EVERY SINGLE ONE of them.

Of course he did; they were traitors.

President Lincoln continued the policy of the Buchanan administration. Attorney General Stanton to President Buchanan:

"These gentlemen claim to be ambassadors," he said. "It is preposterous! They cannot be ambassadors; they are lawbreakers, traitors. They should be arrested. You cannot negotiate with them; and yet it seems by this paper that you have been led into that very thing. With all respect to you, Mr. President, I must say that the Attorney General, under his oath of office, dares not to be cognizant of the pending proceedings. Your reply to these so-called ambassadors must not be transmitted as the reply of the president. It is wholly unlawful, and improper; its language is unguarded and to send it as an official document will bring the presidency to the point of usurpation."

-- The Coming Fury, p. 165 by Bruce Catton

Walt

his ruling in Merryman had no support in a fair reading of law and precedent.

False. As Justice Curtis so succinctly noted the next year, EVERY SINGLE PRECEDENT that existed on the matter as well as the law's plain reading was against Lincoln's position. That is a matter of simple indisputable fact.

The obvious next step for the forces of secession and disunion was to get the issues in Merryman before the whole Court. They didn't do that.

Walt

What took the Feds so long? Why didn't they rule during the war against Lincoln's use of the military against Northern civilians?

The court only rules on cases which appear before it. Prior to Milligan no cases had been appealed to the Supreme Court.

It was legal for the Confederate Congress to do that. Besides, there was fighting throughout much of the South. The North, on the other hand, had vast areas that were not being invaded.

It was legal for the U.S. Congress to do so as well. The Constitution places no such limitations on the suspension. The difference is that the Supreme Court determined that public safety required a functioning judiciary to preserve it and so long as one existed and was operating freely then the suspension wasn't necessary. The confederate suspension occured long before Union forces appeared in most of the confederacy, yet the suspension was in place in those places and there was no confederate institution that could challenge that. Southern civil rights effectively died from Key West to Nashville, El Paso to Norfolk.

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.