Posted on 09/06/2003 9:14:08 AM PDT by quidnunc
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).
Wishful thinking on your part.
Why? Jefferson Davis said that none was needed, as does GOPcapitalist. Why would one have been established?
Well, if you want to go that far back then the war actually began when terrorists from Missouri invaded Kansas.
Nah, it's more fun watching you pimp for the Davis regime and Saint Sir Jeff.
This is the sort of 'ought' that's common in left-libertarianism. Unfortunately, even many left-libts agree that once power is consolidated, it's continued use in the best interest of the people would be a rarity given historical precedent to the contrary.
You will not find anything along these lines in the constitution, certainly not the one that Lincoln took an oath to uphold.
Are you suggesting the freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc. enumerated in the Bill of Rights does not apply at the state level? That the state government can put limits on these freedoms, and only the federal government cannot?
How many state constitutions even have these rights enumerated?
Seems as though you're lumping a large body of diverse political opinion and philosophy under the name of states' rights-ers.
So what? Percisely ~why~ each one insists that a state should be able to ignore the BOR's doesn't matter. They threaten our republics foundation with their actions.
My understanding of the phrase all powerful state in tpaine's original statement was a reference to the federal government. That is almost always the context in which that phrase is used.
It matters little to me which level of government takes away our RKBA's.
The organizational structure of our republic prevents it's use in reference to state government, as those opposed could just vote with their feet (oddly, this was tried once at the federal level - and as a result we all find ourselves here today)!
Why should a Californian have to move to Nevada to own an "assault weapon"? -- Makes no constitutional sense.
I was taken aback when later it was explained that all powerful state was not in reference to federal power.
The notion of an all powerful government at the state level is not reasonable, as certain powers are delegated away from the states by our federal constitution.
Exactly my point.. A state cannot ignore our U.S. Constitutions basic principles.
-- IE, -- that our BOR's do not apply to a state.
Incredible. - In effect they are constitutional scofflaws, and are proud of it... -tpaine 135
States' rights advocates are not alone in their opinion that the BOR applies limits only to federal power. There are many who believe this, and they are not totally unjustified - that is to say, I have not seen a convincing argument that the opposite is true. The BOR is, after all, amending a document ordained and established for the United States of America.
Yep, sure is. - Which makes my point. All states are bound thereby. [Art VI]
Much additional contrary evidence exists. To continue your example, 46 states (I believe that # is correct still) have explicit protection of the RKBA in their own state constititions. It is evident that such a clause could have been included in the original 13, had they been established and ratified prior to the appendage of the BOR to the constitution, but how to explain the others when there is an explicit constitutional clause forbidding them to act?
Why do state constitutions need explaining? Sure, they are at times redundant when it comes to enumerating our individual rights. --- Better repetitions than the 'legal' mess made because the 48'ers forgot to put a 2nd amendment type clause in CA's..
This is from the Declaration of Independence. It is one of the founding principles of this country.
Again, the purpose of Government is to preserve the free exercise of our Rights. I entered the caveat "should" because in America today, rights are being denied and infringed constantly or being fabricated out of whole clothe. In short, I do not disagree with your points on the consolidation of power at all.
Moreoever, the Constitution does not grant us our rights, it merely enumerates the ones we already possess by virtue of our humanity.
The issue is very simple: you either believe that Rights are inherent and that a just government must preserve them, or that Rights are not inherent but merely "bequeathed" to us by the government. If you believe the former, then those Rights must be extended to ALL. If you believe the latter, then Rights can be withheld from any group, at any time, for any reason based on a determination of the Government (hence, supporting the States Rights argument concerning the South's position on the institution of slavery).
Well said.
It has always baffled me why some here at FR seem so eager to deny their own rights. - Counterintuitive.
As Gianni demonstrates in his specious objections, below:
This is the sort of 'ought' that's common in left-libertarianism.
No such thing as a 'left-libertarian'; socialism & libertarianism do not co-exist in rational men. The principles are opposites in theory.
Unfortunately, even many left-libts agree that once power is consolidated, it's continued use in the best interest of the people would be a rarity given historical precedent to the contrary.
You are belaboring the obvious in your attempt to connect the left with libertarians. There is no connection.
You will not find anything along these lines in the constitution, certainly not the one that Lincoln took an oath to uphold.
Remove the 'oughts' from tex's line above, and you get a perfectly valid observation on the basic purpose of our constitution:
"The Government exists to preserve the free exercise of our Rights; ergo, individual Rights supercede the wishes of the State."
Why do you feel the need to deny its validity?
How does the above truism threaten your liberty, Gianni?
The Founding Fathers were able to draw a distinction in terms of sex and skin color because they did not fully recognize the equality in humanity of women and people of color. The issue of slavery was the cause of much contention during the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, and slavery remained an acceptable institution as a concession for the support of the Southern States; however, just because the Founding Fathers failed to fully recognize their humanity as equal doesn't mean these groups were devoid of Rights. They had their Rights, the State suppressed the exercise of them.
As a testament to the Founding Fathers' genius, however, recognition of the equality in humanity of women and people of color was eventually won, and the full, free exercise of God-given Rights became the norm for all.
If we believe that Rights are granted to us by the State, then they are subject to the whim and will of politicians (as is the case with the "living document" Constitution, where Rights are constantly being redefined by radical judges). If we believe that Rights are an essential component of our humanity, we CANNOT condone the willful suppression of Rights, particularly in a form so egregious as slavery, by one facet of the population on another facet of the population.
The fact that slavery was "legal" does not make it right or just, or even, in hindsight, Constitutional.
Many people believe that the same principle applies to the unborn. They are being denied their God-given right to live (which, by the way, is not specifically stated in the Constitution, but is a founding principle in the DoI) in the "legal" industry of abortion, to the tune of 1.3 million a year. Why? Because the humanity of the unborn has been called into question.
As an aside, I wish America would stop apologizing for slavery. It happened, as many other horrible things happened in the past and still happen all over the world today. America paid a very heavy price eliminating it, and the folks that want to continue shoving it in our faces need to take their fight elsewhere (like the Sudan!).
Peace.
I know this is an emotional issue for some, because outsiders love to cite slavery as a pathetic "justification" for violent behavior against the U.S. today, or to tear America down, or use it in a lame attempt to demand more money for past grievances.
I think people rightfully go into a defensive mode over this issue; I do it myself when I hear demands for reparations. In our zeal to defend America, or to put her past into proper context, we may find ourselves arguing positions that we normally would not take.
After carefully considering the Rights issue in a featured series on them, I find myself looking at almost all issues as a "Rights" issue or power grab issues by the government, in violation of the Constitution. Did Lincoln power grab? Oh, yes, certainly. Did the States exercise unjust powers over the slaves? Yes, certainly. Did slavery, as an institution, need to end? Yes, certainly. Did abuses and the consolidation of power come about as a result of the Civil War? Yes, certainly.
In parts, we are all correct on our points, but when looking at the key frame of reference as the nature of Rights, the Civil War was justified and slavery needed to be abolished. This part is undeniable.
If more politicians had a hearty respect for the inherent nature of Rights, instead of viewing them as "gifts" bestowed by the Government to the people, like a King making bequests, we'd have fewer abuses by the Government and more freedoms as a nation.
IIRC the Texas supreme court ruled very similarly to that on the conscription issue. They did not rule it unconstitutional all together, but did say that conscription could not take troops out of their state and frontier guards. But such is the nature of state sovereignty, and in case you have forgotten the CSA viewed their union as a CONFEDERATION of sovereign and independent states that gave power to the federal government by their own designation, not the other way around.
Potentially, though unlikely. But that would be up for their legislatures to decide.
So if the states supreme courts said "Send our people home"
The state supreme courts could not say "send our people home." It could only say either you do or do not have the right to conscript them into the regular army. The legislature could then decide whether they would be employed as a state militia and in what capacity. and the Davis regime said "No" then what power did they have to make the Davis regime abide by their decisions?
Try not providing the troops Davis requested.
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.