Reconsidering Abraham Lincoln

[Pointedstick]

Pontificating and philosiphising is only rewarding for so long... Eventually you have to crack a beer and just be glad we don't have prohibition anymore (still hard to believe we ever had federal banning of alcohol... and makes me wonder whether the South supported it...).

Only Connecticut and Rhode Island voted against ratifying the 18th amendment! Pretty amazing how caught up in such a silly moralistic fever the whole country seems to have been.

But I agree, by and large we live in an incredibly free country. I think it's still important to point out the flaws, though.  Otherwise I feel like complacency will be a force for apathy in the face of oppression, when it needs to be fought!

[moda0306]

After a bit of research, it appears as if both parties were both pretty overwhelmingly in favor of prohibition, and, as you say, most states.  As a frigging amendment to the US constitution no less!!  That is no easy task!

[RuralEngineer]

hpowders,

I don't really know what you're trying to imply.  Perhaps a bit more clarity would help.


RuralEngineer,

I have a couple problems with that perspective.  First, the attitude that Lincoln was a tyrant against peaceful Secessionists ignores that individual rights come far before states rights.  States of the South were the true tyrants, IMO.  Just because a government is smaller in size doesn't mean it's less coercive or tyrranical.  The Confederate government even drafted southerners into the war, even further effectively exercizing "big government" tyranny over individual rights.  

Second, other than slavery or secession, what other rights was Lincoln's government usurping?  It seems to me the only thing the South really cared about was slavery, and that, along with Secession, were the main things Lincoln disagreed with as state's rights.  Further, I have trouble seeing Secession as an "efficient" check on tyrannical government, mostly because it was the states, not the federal government, exercising what I deem to be the most brutal tyranny, and apparently saw little-if-no end to their practice.  This continued through the Jim Crow days in the South, where it was the state and local governments, some literally sponsoring terrorism, that were limiting the freedoms of their citizens, in an obvious case of tyranny of the majority.

I tend to think that Teddy Roosevelt (as the main republican) and a bunch of other 20th century democrats (Woodrow Wilson & FDR) tend to be the main expanders of federal powers into new areas.  However, the states of the South didn't seem to mind then (they were solidly in favor of those latter presidents), so even then, would Secession been a good tool to limit federal powers?  I guess I don't think so.

So I guess I don't even see "state's rights" as an efficient mechanism to limit tyranny, in many ways.  In fact, it perpetuated quite possibly the worst form of tyranny imaginable... that of classifying a human being as property, with no rights whatsoever.  Sovereignty is individual at it its most pure level.  Governments of any size can violate them.  It would appear to me that the general rule that the federal government is markably worse than state and local governments at usurping individual rights is a lot more flawed than the founding fathers may have realized.

Lots of points to address in this post.  I'll try to list them in order.

1. You assert that individual rights come before State's rights.  However, at the time of the Civil War, slaves had no rights.  They were property.  Abraham Lincoln didn't even free the slaves in the Union and in fact, there were slave states that fought for the North.  This invalidates your entire point since it doesn't matter how immoral the South was, the point of contention wasn't illegal at all.  The North invaded the South to forcefully keep them in the Union.  You can look at this through the lens of modern morality, but that doesn't give moral weight to actions taken 150 years ago.

2. You mention that the more brutal tyranny was Southern slavery, and I agree.  However, what your argument really appears to be is that the ends justify the means.  Your argument is easily applied to justify indefinite detention in the NDAA, the targeted killing of American citizens without trial (Awlaki), or any number of other morally tenuous actions taken by the Federal Government today.  These types of actions always seem to be viewed and inspected in a vacuum, forever forgetting that scope creep is inevitable.  The Civil War didn't just lead to the abolition of slavery, it permanently made the States ultimately subservient to the Federal Government with NO recourse by removing secession as the final measure of protest.

3. Your argument that secession is not efficient strikes me as particularly weak.  Is slavery the only issue of contention between the Federal and State governments?  The Civil War didn't end secession as a means of protesting or protecting slavery, it removed secession as a check against Federal power for any reason.  An unjust foreign war, unfair taxation, abuse of public land, or even an intolerable exercising of eminent domain are all examples of issues that have now been relegated to pure majority rule at the whim of the Federal Government.  Thanks to our wonderful Supreme Court, the Federal Government now has the ability to attempt to influence your behavior through punitive taxation.  The only way fight that now is a constitutional amendment.  I don't see ANY amendment being ratified by the required number of states.  Without secession the line is drawn at simply hoping that your congressional representatives are persuasive enough to sway a majority opinion in Congress, and that the President does not block your efforts.  Today we also have to contend with Presidential fiat, to which there is increasingly no recourse.  Secession is an extremely effective check against the Federal government because it completely removes Federal authority, forcing compromise.  The fact that secession is harmful for both parties is further evidence of how effective it is.  It may not put all of the power in the hands of the individual, but it ensures that power is more concentrated with the people than a vast overarching central government does.  "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." ~ Thomas Jefferson

4. State's rights were never meant to be a mechanism to combat ALL tyranny.  It's simply a meant to protect against the tyranny of an ever growing Federal government.  The only true defense against tyranny from all sources is the Bill of Rights and the laws we build into our constitutions to ensure we are not trampled.  Just because States rights has not always functioned morally and effectively doesn't mean that it should be abolished.

5. Finally, using the fact that the defense of State's rights and the geographic bastions of small government proponents has not always been consistent as a reason to abandon States rights is incredibly foolish.  Human beings are inconsistent.  The very fact that some of the inalienable rights outlined by the Constitution are no longer valued by large portions of our population is a testament to that fact.  That doesn't mean that those ideas are less valuable because people have held them inconsistently.

[moda0306]

States have repeatedly done almost nothing to prevent the worst types of tyranny of the federal government (draft, foreign wars, japanese internment, manifest destiny, etc) while applying tyranny all their own to their respective societies.

My assertion about human rights was a philosophical one, not a functional one.  I don't think states rights should ever be placed above individual rights.  The South repeatedly tried to use states rights as a shield to their own brutal tyranny.  Further, I don't think it's settled law that states had a right to simply secede, and therefore their open attack on Union soldiers at Ft Sumpter should be viewed as at least arguably heavy provocation of war.

I don't necessarily approve of the war, but I've never fully bought into a state's right to secede, nor do I believe that this would have resulted in less tyranny over the last century and a half.

So really the only two times in US history we've seen a large backlash by states against the federal government are over slavery and civil rights... Never over the draft, internment, unnecessary war, and even SS/Medicare/medicaid/income-tax/federal-reserve.  If we're really rooting for sovereign states to be able to fight for their freedom, should we not be arguing for the rights of sovereign humans to fight for theirs?  Would you have liked to have seen a bloody revolution of slaves against white slaveowners and Southern governments?

[RuralEngineer]

Secession is settled as of the Civil War.  The Federal government will kill or otherwise subdue anyone who attempts to secede.  Peaceful secession has been deemed impossible.  Now any disagreement between the States and the Federal government that cannot be resolved diplomatically jumps straight to acknowledgement of Federal supremacy or violent revolution.

Yes, a bloody revolution by the slaves would have had more legitimacy.  Captives always have the right to fight their captors.  The slaves had both the moral right to rebel, and the legal right, since they were not citizens, but captives.  You don't seem to be seeing the difference between legal and moral justification.  The Civil War can only be debated on the basis of secession, not slavery because slavery was not illegal, however immoral it may have been.  In addition, while the Southern reason for secession may have been slavery, it was not the reason for the North's invasion.

As for Fort Sumter, the Union troops were given months to evacuate property that, as a result of Southern secession, was no longer Federal land.  Their refusal to leave was a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the South's secession.  Once they refused to leave, the only remaining choices were war or for the South to rejoin the Union.

[MachineGhost]

After a bit of research, it appears as if both parties were both pretty overwhelmingly in favor of prohibition, and, as you say, most states.  As a frigging amendment to the US constitution no less!!  That is no easy task!

Never understimate the power of the truth marching on, especially if it's women.

[MediumTex]

After a bit of research, it appears as if both parties were both pretty overwhelmingly in favor of prohibition, and, as you say, most states.  As a frigging amendment to the US constitution no less!!  That is no easy task!

Never understimate the power of the truth marching on, especially if it's women.

I'm sure that those women would have been very disappointed if you had shown them a few minutes of ads from a modern NFL game.

"It's awful.  They've brought back alcohol in the future and the women are barely wearing any clothes."

From this:



To this:

[AgAuMoney]

Further, I have trouble seeing Secession as an "efficient" check on tyrannical government, mostly because it was the states, not the federal government, exercising what I deem to be the most brutal tyranny, and apparently saw little-if-no end to their practice.  This continued through the Jim Crow days in the South, where it was the state and local governments, some literally sponsoring terrorism, that were limiting the freedoms of their citizens, in an obvious case of tyranny of the majority.

There is a quite well substantiated body of research that shows slavery was on the decline and would have naturally disappeared largely within 5-10 years and essentially entirely by the 20th century, allowed its abolition without violence.  Instead the civil war actually resulted in an immediate increase in racism, especially legal racism but also extra-legal acts of violence against blacks, which in large part reversed the previously accelerating trends and adding almost 100 years of suppression far less obvious than slavery.

[moda0306]

AgAu,

From what I can tell, based on the Declarations of Reasons for Secession, the only states right they were concerned about with much vehimence was slavery. 

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Does it really sound like slavery was "on its way out?"  Further, does it really sound like the South cared about much else besides slavery?  The word "tariff" wasn't mentioned even once! Slavery was the "greatest material interest of the world," and "should exist in all future time."  These are the same Jeffersonian philosophers who supported Woodrow Wilson and FDR, expanding the federal government far, far more broadly than simply changing the legal status of slaves to citizens with rights.  The Republican Party was actually started, for the most part, based on its members wanting to stop the spread of slavery.

I'd love to see your sources claiming slavery was on its way out.  More and more I'm starting to think that it's nothing but revisionist history, and I would sure hope they address the reasons for secession as actually laid out by the confederate states... otherwise it's just ignoring major contributions to the debate in favor for what are most-likely half truths backing their points.

[AgAuMoney]

I'd love to see your sources claiming slavery was on its way out.

The most damning is that the emancipation proclamation was issued Jan 1863, long after the war had begun (Mar 1861).  Also Lincoln focused his efforts and talk first on eliminating slavery in the rebel states which denied his authority but initially did nothing about slavery in other 8 slave states still loyal to the north.  It seems fairly obvious to me that in looking at the Republican party and Lincoln position during that election campaign that they were pushing a strong central government with more control.  Southern states had already been feeling pressured, there had been a lot of discussion in Congress, and they hoped the election would validate the independence and autonomy of states.  It didn't, so following the example of the original American revolution they decided to leave their former affiliation.  Nearly two years later slavery became THE supposed issue.

Broader macro trends also lead to the same conclusion.  The number of slave owners was declining, the number of freed slaves was increasing.  Technology (e.g. factories, railroads, farm equipment) was much cheaper and less aggravation than slaves.  India was already beginning to displace U.S. cotton production.  Finally in other countries around the world (e.g. Europe and Canada being most like the U.S. at the time) those trends culminated with the end of slavery, without war.

[moda0306]

No offense, but that's apologist revisionism.  Read the link I attached.  They tried to secede because of pressures against the spread and existence of slavery, and little else.  The emancipation proclamation is almost irrelevant.  And how does it have anything to do with whether slavery was on its way out or not?  It was the passing of the 13th amendment, which was almost impossible to pass with only the northern states participating in the vote.  Slavery wasn't on its way out, as it was far and away GE largest reason the south was willing to go to war to secede.  He'll, they had dreams of spreading it westward and into new territories.

None of these so called fed-haters said bunk when men were drafted into WWI, the income tax was passed, the federal reserve was created, umpteen programs under FDR were passed... No, they actually voted for the likes of FDR and Woodrow Wilson in drives.  As Pointed Stick said... The states right they cared about was the institution of slavery, and the right to secede to preserve and expand it.

[AgAuMoney]

No offense, but that's apologist revisionism.  Read the link I attached.  They tried to secede because of pressures against the spread and existence of slavery, and little else.  The emancipation proclamation is almost irrelevant.

I read your link.  4 states.  4 states spouting political bullshit that made no sense then and none now.  Of course they said that and listed those issues.  It was a hot button.  Did YOU read them?  Secession would not have changed ANY of their complaints, it would only have changed their local law and their local law was NOT an issue.  So obviously those issues were NOT the reason for secession but only listed to stir up the people.

How can you claim the proclamation is "almost irrelevant"?  It goes entirely to lincoln's claimed motive, and proves that the elimination of slavery was not a concern at the start of the war.

  And how does it have anything to do with whether slavery was on its way out or not?

I addressed that in the rest of my post.

Slavery was dying everywhere and slaveholders knew that, which is why they dreamed of it expanding and it was such a hot button for them.

[moda0306]

AgAu,

So these reasons should just be ignored because they sound stupid and we should believe that men who voted for Woodrow Wilson 50 years later were really Jeffersonian philosophers who thought they'd just print up a bunch of bs on slavery being the main issue just for shits and giggles?  Sorry but you're going to have to try harder than that

If these folks had good, wholesome reasons to secede, why would they parade themselves out as oppressors?  I really have no idea what your logic is on that.

They were actually spreading slavery westward. Texas said that they wanted to have it forever.  And are we to believe that they would have ever been given anything close to full citizenship?

We all know lincoln didn't specifically fight the war over slavery, but he sure went through a lot of political capital to end it via the 13th amendment. 

Could you please attach some useful journalistic material on why you think slavery was winding down in the South?  I really have trouble buying this argument when it would at least appear that the south wanted everyone to think otherwise.

[AgAuMoney]

So these reasons should just be ignored because they sound stupid and we should believe

No to both.  I'm not telling you what to believe.  I'm telling you what I believe and why.

I think the supposed reasons should be ignored because they are political bafflegab just like used today, or have you forgotten the last few months already?

Compare those supposed reasons for secession and how secession would affect those reasons, with the declaration of independence and how their secession would affect those reasons.  Do you see how different the direct reason and cure is compared to what those 4 states proposed?

Who were they parading themselves to as oppressors?  They were appealing to their constituency, just like Obama and Romney.  All politicians do this by saying what they think people want to hear.  It's a global practice, if not universal.

"useful journalistic material"   It's a complex topic and I already told you I haven't sources at hand that neatly tie it up with a bow for you.  And really, in light of your comments denigrating even the idea as revisionism, I doubt you accept anything in the way of "useful journalistic material" even if I were to put the effort into finding such.

There were a huge number of factors that played into the reduction and end of slavery in the 19th and early 20th century, and a quick google shows that the current high school A.P. exam covering U.S. history talks about a lot them.  You know slavery ended elsewhere without a war.  Why do you think the south was so special that they would be able to keep it going?  Why do you have such high esteem for a war which was obviously begun initially for some cause other than slavery, and for a man who adopted a popular cause two years into that war and used that cause to whitewash his actions?

[moda0306]

Slavery ended in plenty of places without a war.  We are in agreement there.

I thought the questions was whether slavery was on the way out in the deep South, without Northern influence.  This is really the most relevant piece, and since slavery was actually expanding Westward, I highly doubt it was on its way out.

So you claim that the government was simply trying to appeal to a constituency?  And when were these democratically (by whites, anyway) elected Southern governments going to abandon slavery in the face of their constituency?

Slavery was on its way out in many Western areas, but as Craig has pointed out, de facto slavery went on for over century and is still going on some places today.  Why should we believe the South were enlightened enough when they either seceded over the issue of slavery (my conclusion) or felt the need to publish reason after reason being slavery to the North on behalf of their constituents (your theory).

I guess there may have been some Jeffersonian philosophers in there somewhere, but I think governments tend to reflect their constituents... I think they simply thought black people were dirt and realized the Southern economies were in quite a pickle without slavery, and expecially with 40% of their population potentially being voting ex-slaves.

I certainly would be open to viewpoints with well-balanced research showing that there was more to it, and not just Jeffersonian lip-service.

[Hobbery]

I love that quote.  You guys might enjoy some articles by Tom DiLorenzo on this topic.

To be clear, and for the benefit of any who may be reading, you love that quote for the picture that it paints of Lincoln, rather than out of any agreement with the sentiment expressed, right?

Sorry, I should have worded that better.  But Abe worded his part flawlessly.  I love that quote because Lincoln couldn't have more perfectly crafted a more racist statement.  It's so matter of fact.  It's obvious that he was clearing up any uncertainty about his position on the matter in case people weren't sure...

In case anyone here missed it: 

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."    --Honest Abe

That's pretty solid wording.  He's not leaving much wiggle room there...  That's why I love this quote.  It reminds me to be careful how I frame history's "great men of integrity" in my mind. 

Harry Browne once said (slightly paraphrasing):  "People are never as bad as the media portrays them ...and people are never as good as the media makes them out to be".

[MediumTex]

I love that quote.  You guys might enjoy some articles by Tom DiLorenzo on this topic.

To be clear, and for the benefit of any who may be reading, you love that quote for the picture that it paints of Lincoln, rather than out of any agreement with the sentiment expressed, right?

Sorry, I should have worded that better.  But Abe worded his part flawlessly.  I love that quote because Lincoln couldn't have more perfectly crafted a more racist statement.  It's so matter of fact.  It's obvious that he was clearing up any uncertainty about his position on the matter in case people weren't sure...

In case anyone here missed it: 

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."    --Honest Abe

Something tells me that this quote didn't make it into Spielberg's new movie Lincoln.

Lincoln was just a person of his times.  I have to think that there were very few white people back then who weren't a bit racist, and I think that a lot of this racism may not have even been conscious or hateful.  For a lot of people, a more accurate term than racism might just be "ethnic elitism."

[Hobbery]

Something tells me that this quote didn't make it into Spielberg's new movie Lincoln.

LOL... You don't think that quote is inscribed under Barack Obama's Lincoln bust in the oval office?

[MachineGhost]

The new Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln is entirely based on a fiction, to use a mild term. As longtime Ebony magazine executive editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. explained in his book, Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream: "There is a pleasant fiction that Lincoln . . . became a flaming advocate of the [Thirteenth] amendment and used the power of his office to buy votes to ensure its passage. There is no evidence, as David H. Donald has noted, to support that fiction". (Emphasis added).

In fact, as Bennett shows, it was the genuine abolitionists in Congress who forced Lincoln to support the Thirteenth Amendment that ended slavery, something he refused to do for fifty-four of his fifty-six years. The truth, in other words, is precisely the opposite of the story told in Spielberg’s Lincoln movie, which is based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist/court historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin. (My LRC review of her book was entitled "A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").

http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo242.html

[notsheigetz]

I was watching a series about the events leading up to WWII on Amazon Prime, narrated by Eric Sevaried, when I learned for the first time the importance of the Spanish Civil War in events leading up to WWII. It stated that this was the first time in modern warfare that civilians were targeted for bombing.  I guess this depends on the definitions of "modern warfare" and "bombing". If you expand those definitions broad enough I would think that Lincoln might be eligible for any prizes to be awarded for being the first to wage war against civilian populations. You could ask Grant and Sherman and the people of Atlanta about that.

[brick-house]

moda0306 wrote:

None of these so called fed-haters said bunk when men were drafted into WWI, the income tax was passed, the federal reserve was created, umpteen programs under FDR were passed... No, they actually voted for the likes of FDR and Woodrow Wilson in drives.  As Pointed Stick said... The states right they cared about was the institution of slavery, and the right to secede to preserve and expand it.

These fed-haters must have been strict adherents of the Paleo diet to vote against Lincoln and for Wilson and FDR...  How long did people live back then?

[moda0306]

Brick house,

I am making some assumptions about continuity of political feelings amongst generations.  For instance, one would think that the sons and grandsons of men who fought bravely against the tyranny of the federal government wouldn't be so quick to jump behind men like Wilson an FDR... That is, unless, the one right they truly cared about was the right to own slaves.

Also, regarding the supposed ease of ending slavery without a war... Utter. Bull. Crap.

The main reason for secession (that occurred even before Lincoln took office) was the issue of preserving and expanding slavery. Britain being able to buy 15,000 slaves from a few slaveowners, and the willingness of the agricultural south to let 4 million slaves go free and be anywhere near equal in society are two entirely different scenarios. I don't see how anyone can compare the two.  We're talking completely different scale and implications. 

So I guess I am not 100% sure how to interpret Lincoln, but I don't trust for a second those who seem hell-bent on rewriting history into making the South a bunch of innocent-if-late-to-end-slavery Jeffersonian philosophers, and not the fascist state governments (and some individuals) they were.

[brick-house]

moda0306 wrote: 
.

I am making some assumptions about continuity of political feelings amongst generations.  For instance, one would think that the sons and grandsons of men who fought bravely against the tyranny of the federal government wouldn't be so quick to jump behind men like Wilson an FDR... That is, unless, the one right they truly cared about was the right to own slaves.

IMHO that is a poor assumption.  Things were markedly different in 1914 than 1860.    In 1860, rivers were the nation's highways, no electricity, minor industrialization.  By 1914 - the South had been defeated, occupied, and reconstructed by the Federal Government.  The Southern men who fought bravely died in huge numbers and were unable to create continuity in the form of sons/grandsons. 

[moda0306]

Brick,

I'm just going to have to disagree with you here.  Reconstruction ended in 1877 and de facto slavery continued for several decades.  The south carried many of the same attitudes about black inferiority and blacks were disenfranchised out of a say in government. 

[brick-house]

moda0306 wrote:

I'm just going to have to disagree with you here.  Reconstruction ended in 1877 and de facto slavery continued for several decades.  The south carried many of the same attitudes about black inferiority and blacks were disenfranchised out of a say in government. 

If the end result of the Federal Government's War and Reconstruction was de facto slavery, then why isn't Lincoln considered a huge failure.  His resume includes a long protracted war with insane death tolls (especially relative to the population) and destruction which required an expensive reconstruction for de facto slavery?