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).
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Robert M T Hunter was one of Virginia's senators in 1861 and also probably its most prominent figure nationally. He became confederate Secretary of State after he left the senate. A former Speaker of the House, he was generally regarded as the south's go-to man in Congress on economic matters before the war. He regularly led the south's efforts on any tariff legislation, is credited with securing the votes to pass the 1857 tariff reduction, and became the south's floor leader in opposition to the Morrill Act in 1860 and 61. Hunter held great influence in Virginia politics as well. Hunter initially opposed secession and sought to facilitate compromise by acting as a middle man between Lincoln and the CSA commissioners who came to negotiate the conflict with Lincoln before the war, but when he realized negotiations were not possible with Lincoln he informed the VA legislature that secession had become their only course.
But most importantly of all to this discussion, Hunter was a free trader. He was also a free trader of greater prominence and influence in Virginia than ANY of the men mentioned in that article. Yet its authors did not see it fit to say one word about Hunter. That suggests to me that they are neglecting a key part of the equation for the reason that it contradicts their thesis of relatively strong protectionism in Virginia.
Yeah talk about "alternate history". LOL.
A Virginia congressman stood up and informed them of his confidence in Virginia's ability to compete with tobacco from anywhere in the world, refused the tariff offer, and informed the northerners that his state had no interest in benefitting her producers at the expense of the nation or populace at large. Sure enough, the authors of that paper make virtually no mention of it in a paper that cannot be called anything other than a blatant overrepresentation of protectionist sympathies in the state.
"History is fiction, popularly agreed on by tyrants & conquerers."
lincoln was just as moral a man & as fine a POTUS as wee willie klintoon was. they are identical twins, seprated by 140 years.
free dixie,sw
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.
Questionable. If the BOR was done away with, our "republic" would still stand.
~Your~ version of a 'republic' might, but not our constitutional one, as written.
The BOR is the foundation for our freedom, not our republic.
Specious nitpicking.
---------------------------------
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.
You and I will differ on that point. I think a more careful consideration of federal removal of the RKBA might convince you otherwise. Nobody is holding you hostage in CA, are they? My guess is that there is something about CA that is to your benefit, and the cost of moving out of state currently overrides your desire for a less restrictive RKBA. This sort of cost/benefit analysis is at the crux of every decision we make. If you don't like it, work to amend the CA constitution or move.
Until then, you're just complaining because government is working as designed (and no, I don't like it any better than you).
How cynically anti-liberty can you get? --- CA's gun prohibition is "government is working as designed"? What a clownish attitude. - Your disclaimer to not "like it" is merely more BS. -- You just spent a paragraph telling me to like it or leave it, your favorite specious ploy.
----------------------------------
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.
Because the people of CA did not include RKBA in their BOR at the state level. By living there, you grant implicit agreement with their governing documents, which have allowed them the leeway to restrict weapons.
More bull. -- I moved here as a citizen of the USA, with a 2nd amendment RKBA's, which has since been violated by unconstitutional state acts, which I fought since they were proposed.
I gave no "implicit agreement" to a violation of an inalienable right. -- You are a fool to believe that this is even possible.
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..
You are proving my point, Gianni. You are a constitutional scofflaw.
No, you had martial law, elimination of habeas corpus, no judicial sustem to control the Davis regime, polticial prisoners, internal passes required for any travel, lynchings, etc., etc.
It was required by the confederate constitution from the moment that document was ratified. That didn't cause it to be established. Why should we believe that the Davis regime would change and allow one in the future?
Not as much fun as watching you sothron types, and nolu-chan (whatever the hell he is) puff up and get all huffy when the crimes and racist policies of the Davis regime are pointed out.
free dixie,sw
But he didn't win his free trade argument. The Secession Commissioners promised Virginia (and the other Upper South as well) protective tariffs in order to gain support for secession, and the Confederate Congress followed through.
I'll go back to my original point. The South was not even close to being united on the topic of tariffs and as a cause for secession, tariffs were a nothing. Secession was all about protecting slavery and nothing else.
and no army-APPROVED mass rapes, armed robberies, torturing,looting of churches/private businesses/farms/homes, etc.,etc.,etc.
i feel for you or anyone else who has to try and defend "the filth that flowed down from the north". NOT an easy job.
face it,N-S, you are trying (valiantly) to defend the INdefensible.
the south was/IS right. and dixie will be free one day.
free dixie,sw
Then why did the Confederate Congress levy a 25% tariff on imported cigars? There must have been some folks in Virginia who wanted the tariff set that high.
after all it took the 13 colonies over a DECADE to establish the USSC.
face it, N-S you're WRONG & attempting to defend the damnyankees dishonesty/hatefulness/war crimes by saying that the fledgling southern government was NO BETTER than that criminal regime in the north.
sorry, intelligent folks here are on to your game. worse luck for you/the damnyankees here.
free dixie,sw
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.
I beg to differ. There are 'left' and 'right' libertarian philosophies that differ greatly. Your problem is your confusion with the use of the terms 'left' and 'right' wrt the major parties.
Beg all you want. Your problem is your deiberate 'confusion'. You are attempting to 'tar baby' libertarians as being socialistic, which is an irrational ploy.
-------------------------------------
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."
That is anarchy by definition.
Bizarre comment. - Goes against the very principles of individual liberty.
Clearly rational people made decisions in which majorities could regulate the behaviour of others. This is why child molesterers are in prison.
Yep, ~criminal~ activities are constitutionally punished. Public activities can be 'regulated' by reasonable community standards.
Other that that we are at liberty. -- Until a Gianni type legislates away our freedoms.
Why do you feel the need to deny its validity?
How does the above truism threaten your liberty, Gianni?
Because it's not true?
It doesn't, it's just not the way it works. Whether or not it should work that way is the matter of some debate.
We had that debate over two hundred years ago, and ratified our agreements. -- You scofflaws insist that our agreement can be violated by individual states.
Why you presist in this insane denial of your own inalienable rights is beyond all rationality.
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.