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).
It wasn't the state supreme court which interfered with conscription. They had, in fact, upheld the constitutionality of conscription. It was Governor Murrah who objected to allowing Texas troops be used outside of the state. After 1863 the supply of Texas troops dried up considerably. Civil War History
So what you are saying is that the state legislatures weren't required to obey supreme court decisions?
The state supreme courts could not say "send our people home."
In your world, the state supreme court had the authority to decide what acts of the confederate congress were constitutional and what were not. So if a state supreme court ruled that the Davis regime could not draft the men of their state then wouldn't that mean that those men already drafted would have to be discharged? And what power did the states have to compel that? And if the men of Texas were not subject to conscription then why should the men of Louisiana or Georgia?
No. They'd be required to obey state supreme court decisions. I am simply saying that it would be virtually impossible for a case to arise in which the decision of whether or not to deploy the militia or how to use that militia was put into the court's hands.
In your world, the state supreme court had the authority to decide what acts of the confederate congress were constitutional and what were not.
Not in my world, non-seq. That is actually what happened in the CSA.
So if a state supreme court ruled that the Davis regime could not draft the men of their state then wouldn't that mean that those men already drafted would have to be discharged?
Not if the case arose before their incorporation into the federal armies. That is at least what happened with the texas case, which sought to draft the state militia into the federal regulars.
And what power did the states have to compel that?
The power to order their militia not to go where Davis told them.
And if the men of Texas were not subject to conscription then why should the men of Louisiana or Georgia?
Because Louisiana and Georgia are different states with different political processes and policies.
When Buchanan, (who was an advocate of slavery and a resident of Pennsylvania) took office, there was a 17 million dollar surplus in the treasury. By the time he left office, there was a deficit of between 80 million and 100 million. Now, explain to me how the government was creating a protectionist policy when it was so far in debt on it's existing funding? You have the classical southern viewpoint, which is that it would be better to have no schools than to have the money spent on them, that it would be better to have no newspapers than to have people read them and get the notion that they should have schools, and that always, someone else should pay the tab for the lazy and ignorant when they don't want to pay it for themselves.
Next, you must explain to me how a 1/4 cent increase in the tax on a pound of sugar flattened out the North's economy while at the same time, a war costing several billions can not be credited for being any sort of a drain on the Northern ecomony. Go ahead, I am still laughing your 'economic' brilliance.....
When Buchanan, (who was an advocate of slavery and a resident of Pennsylvania) took office, there was a 17 million dollar surplus in the treasury. By the time he left office, there was a deficit of between 80 million and 100 million. Now, explain to me how the government was creating a protectionist policy when it was so far in debt on it's existing funding? You have the classical southern viewpoint, which is that it would be better to have no schools than to have the money spent on them, that it would be better to have no newspapers than to have people read them and get the notion that they should have schools, and that always, someone else should pay the tab for the lazy and ignorant when they don't want to pay it for themselves.
Next, you must explain to me how a 1/4 cent increase in the tax on a pound of sugar flattened out the North's economy while at the same time, a war costing several billions can not be credited for being any sort of a drain on the Northern ecomony. Go ahead, I am still laughing your 'economic' brilliance.....
And just how do you use this piece of idle humor to explain the 80 million dollar deficit at the time of the Morrill tariff?
Of course, the truth of the matter was that most of the 80 million was stolen by the south in one form or another. When you don't produce, you must depend on the kindness of strangers, and if not then you must steal like a thief in the night. How is this stealing better than a balanced budget and the concept of paying one's own way in the world. Do elaborate.
Walt
Simple: They raised taxes. Those taxes served to protect home industry with a trade barrier but they also brought in revenue. In fact, the port entry data from New York City in 1861-65 indicates that the Morrill tariff did EXACTLY that: the number of imports into the port basicalled halved overnight yet since the rates were so high revenues from the port increased.
You have the classical southern viewpoint, which is that it would be better to have no schools than to have the money spent on them, that it would be better to have no newspapers than to have people read them and get the notion that they should have schools, and that always, someone else should pay the tab for the lazy and ignorant when they don't want to pay it for themselves.
I'm not quite sure if I can pinpoint what you are smoking, but it cannot be anything normal as it seems to have induced a hallicinatory state in which you have percieved me to discuss something you call the "southern viewpoint" of education spending. In reality I have mentioned nothing of the sort.
Next, you must explain to me how a 1/4 cent increase in the tax on a pound of sugar flattened out the North's economy
A 1/4 cent tax increase was not much of an issue in the 1860 bill. Rates were hiked from 17% to 36% then to 45% and then to 47%. Their economic effects are clearly visible in what happened after their adoption - trade going into the port of New York City was practically halved overnight. You've been notified of that fact many times yet for some reason you persist in embarrassing yourself further. But go ahead - show just what an uneducated fool you truly are. Myself and many others on this forum will find it quite amusing.
I take it you learned that lesson by trial and error, as it appears that the unintended side effects have yet to leave you.
An economic recession hit the country and, combined with excessive government spending, put the country into deficit. It was called the Panic of 1857. Look it up.
...and you said it was a revenue measure to "pay for the war." Yeah. Sure.
Ah yes, it's an American tradition to raise spending for luxuray items during a war, isn't it? You are dodging the question as though you knew you had no intelligent anwer. I wonder why? LOL....
Something you know. Protectionist built this country in the 19th century. Free trade is a valid concept only for a country ahead of the pack, which is why we preach it now, but still resort to protecionist tariffs so that country doesn't end up flat on it's face economically like the old South did when it bought that bag of poop from Gladstone.
I'm not quite sure if I can pinpoint what you are smoking, but it cannot be anything normal as it seems to have induced a hallicinatory state in which you have percieved me to discuss something you call the "southern viewpoint" of education spending. In reality I have mentioned nothing of the sort. You haven't cited it, just made a demonstration of it. A big part of having that condition is not being aware of it.
Next, you must explain to me how a 1/4 cent increase in the tax on a pound of sugar flattened out the North's economy
A 1/4 cent tax increase was not much of an issue in the 1860 bill. Rates were hiked from 17% to 36% then to 45% and then to 47%.
Hardly. As a matter of fact, a 1/4 cent tax on a pound of sugar was a 25% increase in the sugar tariff. BUt just for you information, the sugar tariff was decreased a 1/4 cent because it had been previously added as a protectionist tariff for Louisiana sugar, and Louisiana was had already left the Congress.
Their economic effects are clearly visible in what happened after their adoption - trade going into the port of New York City was practically halved overnight. You've been notified of that fact many times yet for some reason you persist in embarrassing yourself further. But go ahead - show just what an uneducated fool you truly are. Myself and many others on this forum will find it quite amusing.
Again, you over look that there was a war on. Please explain how it was that you are surprised to find the import of expensive European goods on the decrease in a time when citizens of the North were donated millions of their savings to the war effort, directly and through the purchase of war bonds?
That's funny. I never knew that steel was a luxury item. The fact is that the Morrill Act raised tariffs on all sorts of goods, both luxury and non-luxury. It raised taxes for protective reasons. That is why ultra-protectionist Henry C. Carey was one of its chief backers and an advisor to the bill's proponents in Congress. You are dodging the question
Dodging? No. I've sufficiently responded to all but the most inane and coherency challenged of your claims on this subject of tariffs. You, on the other hand, have willfully avoided practically 90% of what I have posted and ignored practically every fact that would otherwise indicate the falsity of your claims.
Something you know. Protectionist built this country in the 19th century.
So you're a protectionist, eh? It sure is curious how people on your side of this topic always let that slip out eventually. But then again, protectionism and ignorance go hand in hand so it should not be surprising at all. Oh, and no. Protectionism did not build this country. Entrepreneurship did. Protectionism had, at best, a realigning and distorting effect that artificially stimulated a select few industries and, at worst, served as an anchor on the neck of the American economy for decades after its use had run out and its intellectual merits had been exposed as frauds. Free trade is a valid concept only for a country ahead of the pack, which is why we preach it now
I see you are back to embarrassing yourself again. As any competent trade economist will tell you, true free trade actually tends to provide more benefit to the "smalls" than it does to the large country on top.
I'm not quite sure if I can pinpoint what you are smoking, but it cannot be anything normal as it seems to have induced a hallicinatory state in which you have percieved me to discuss something you call the "southern viewpoint" of education spending. In reality I have mentioned nothing of the sort. You haven't cited it, just made a demonstration of it. A big part of having that condition is not being aware of it. Hardly. As a matter of fact, a 1/4 cent tax on a pound of sugar was a 25% increase in the sugar tariff.
Yawn. You are apparently as mathematically inept as you are economically inept. A 25% tariff is not the same as a 25% numerical increase in the tariff paid, be it on sugar, steel, or something else. If I impose a tariff of 20% on widgets and imported widgets are $1 each, I raise the imported widget price to $1.20.
Now if I hike the existing rate on widgets by 25% of its own though that means a 5% hike to 25% total (5% is one quarter of 20%), thus giving me a price of $1.25. Conversely, if I raise the tariff rate by 25% I effectively change it from 20% to 45%, for a price of $1.45 per imported widget. On most goods overall, and in its Average Tariff Rate, the Morrill Act did the latter - effectively adding 20% plus onto the existing tariff rates and raising them from the 17% range to the 36% plus range.
BUt just for you information, the sugar tariff was decreased a 1/4 cent because it had been previously added as a protectionist tariff for Louisiana sugar, and Louisiana was had already left the Congress.
I bet you thought you were real clever for knowing that piece of information! Too bad for your cause that the real issue of the Morrill tariff was not in sugar importation but rather in other goods - especially those that competed with northern manufactures.
Again, you over look that there was a war on.
Once again, there was no war in March of 1860 when Justin Morrill posted his bill before the US House of Representatives. Nor was there a war on in March of 1861 after the first tariff hikes went into law - also the first month that shipping took a hit in NYC.
Please explain how it was that you are surprised to find the import of expensive European goods on the decrease in a time when citizens of the North were donated millions of their savings to the war effort, directly and through the purchase of war bonds?
Most of the European goods they taxed were CHEAPER as imports than their domestically produced counterparts. In fact that is why they taxed them! As for your little theory about the war bonds, it too does not fit the timeline. War bond financing became commonplace in the north after and due to the passing of the Legal Tender Act in February 1862 - a month AFTER the New York port records for the previous year came out and indicated that their trade had HALVED virtually over night.
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.