The Party of Lincoln AND Calhoun? The Right and the Civil War

The Imaginative Conservative ^ | November 3, 2015 | Tony Petersen

[don-o]

The Civil War is, as Shelby Foote noted, at the crossroads of our being. Looked at one way, it marked the end of a long struggle against slavery and the beginning of a long one for civil rights and racial equality. Looked at another, it marked the end of limited government and the beginning of the encroaching, ever-present Leviathan that exists today. These memories can be both in sync and in conflict. After all, it was the deployment of strong government in the form of a dominant army and the passage of federal amendments that played a large role in the freeing of American slaves. And yet, as the government's mechanisms for intruding into the lives of the American people increased from the 1860s on, racial discrimination and segregation remained entrenched - moral suasion had at least as much to do with a broad acceptance of racial equality as big government did.

[rockrr]

Baloney. The south dominated national politics through most of the country’s first 70 years.

[Sam Clements]

Lincoln did believe that all men were created equal. Those who did not believe in this equality, but signed the Declaration nevertheless had a blind spot. As for sanctioning the break up of the union, remember that the Declaration did not establish the Union. That was done by way of the Constitution a number of years later. Do you find a place in that Constitution which allows for a break up, as you call it? Lincoln was obviously not a pro break- away President.

[MamaTexan]

Great post! You're right - newspapers of the time are a great way to get the feel for public opinion in the context of history instead of someones 'interpretation' of it.

I notice they behave as if succession was a given, as well, but why wouldn't they? After all, it IS the way the Founders left the Articles of Confederation.

From the first legal treatise written after Constitutional Ratification:

And since the seceding states, by establishing a new constitution and form of federal government among themselves, without the consent of the rest, have shown that they consider the right to do so whenever the occasion may, in their opinion require it, as unquestionable, we may infer that that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the articles of confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.
George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States, 1803.

[DoodleDawg]

Lincoln said if he could "preserve the Union" without freeing a single slave, he would do so.

He also said that if he could "preserve the Union" by freeing all the slaves, he would do so.

[DoodleDawg]

Not only that, he had a Democrat Congressman from Ohio arrested (and deported to the Confederacy, which sent him back) for opposing his policy.

Vallandigham was a former congressman. And the Confederacy immediately deported him to Canada rather than return him to the U.S.

[Tau Food]

several branches of conservatism, including some (though certainly not all, or even most) agrarians, traditionalists, libertarians, and other vestiges of the Old Right, deem Lincoln a tyrant and his war as an abomination of constitutional governance, and venerate the South as the paragon of American liberty.

Why would anyone who wants to advance the cause of "liberty" advance the cause of a culture predicated upon slavery?

[rockrr]

It’s the “liberty” to do any damned fool thing that they felt like doing regardless of consequence. Sounds just like today’s liberal democrats, doesn’t it?

[subterfuge]

So the evil south not only was “racist” slave owners, they dominated politics too! Oh my! Well “the North” certainly put them in their place. Whew! Crisis averted!

[Tau Food]

Yes, it does. And, from a strategic or tactical standpoint, it just doesn’t make much sense. That’s why I am convinced that the real purpose of these advocates is not to advance liberty. So, what is the motivation? Why would somebody want to associate himself with slavery in order to promote liberty?

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln did believe that all men were created equal.

No he didn't. He seriously believed that blacks were inferior to whites, he didn't want them to be slaves, but he also didn't want them in the country. He wanted to send them all back to Africa. Seriously. He was way out of step with what people nowadays think about him.

You do not want me to quote Lincoln's commentary on this subject. It is not very pretty.

As for sanctioning the break up of the union, remember that the Declaration did not establish the Union.

The Declaration broke up the United Kingdom, otherwise known as "The Union of the Crowns."

The thirteen colonies, citing a right given to them by "the laws of Nature, and of Nature's God..." seceded from the English Union and formed a confederacy. They were 13 slave holding states led by a slave owning General from Virginia named George Washington. The Union government offered freedom to any slave that would take up arms against these rebels, but eventually the rebels were victorious.

That was done by way of the Constitution a number of years later.

The Declaration established a government composed of slave owning states which were independent of the previous government. The "Union" was not established by the Constitution, it was established by the "Articles of Confederation". (1781)

Yes, the 13 slave holding colonies started out as a Rebellious Confederacy. :)

Do you find a place in that Constitution which allows for a break up, as you call it?

It is in the mother of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Declaration of Independence. It asserts a right given by God, and therefore no act of man, such as the Constitution, can infringe this right.

It is under the authority of the Declaration that the Constitution was written. The Constitution is therefore inferior to the document which granted it legitimacy in the first place.

?Lincoln was obviously not a pro break- away President.

Obviously not. Therefore he was a Rebel against the founding principle of this nation; that states have a right to abolish and form a new government when an existing government no longer suits their interests.

[x]

"When the intellectual authors of the modern right created its doctrines in the 1950s," wrote Sam Tanenhaus in The New Republic, "they drew on nineteenth-century political thought, borrowing explicitly from the great apologists for slavery, above all, the intellectually fierce South Carolinian John C. Calhoun ... The party of Lincoln ... has become the party of Calhoun."

Sam Tanenhaus isn't really an authority on much of anything. He's not a stupid man, but he wants to make himself smaller than he could be by becoming a narrow political publicist, saying what advances his cause, rather than provoking serious thought.

Russell Kirk "admired" Calhoun intellectually as a theorist. So does Lani Guinier. But I'm not sure either would consider him an "exemplar" for the views they profess. There are plenty of people around the world who have developed ingenious political models that we can study, but that doesn't mean we would adopt the model or that we value the thinker highly outside the purely intellectual realm.

The take-away from the article is that libertarianism is theoretical and may not have much to do with the real-world political choices people have to make. Rather like John C. Calhoun, libertarians can spin out all kinds of caveats and distinctions that are of limited relevance to what's going on in the outside world.

[DiogenesLamp]

He also said that if he could "preserve the Union" by freeing all the slaves, he would do so.

Which is irrelevant to the point that Lincoln was not fighting a war to end slavery, but was instead fighting a war to end independence from Washington D.C.

[DoodleDawg]

Which is irrelevant to the point that Lincoln was not fighting a war to end slavery, but was instead fighting a war to end independence from Washington D.C.

Lincoln was fighting a war because a war was forced upon him. But you've been told that before.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why would anyone who wants to advance the cause of "liberty" advance the cause of a culture predicated upon slavery?

No one here is attempting to advance the cause of slavery, we are merely pointing out that in the pantheon of moral justification, the acknowledged right to leave a larger Union was the founding principle upon which our own nation was based. And that right does not require that the reasons for leaving be just or fair.

That the Southern States reasons for exercising their rights did not meet the moral preferences of the Northern states is immaterial to the fact that they still had a right to leave.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln was fighting a war because a war was forced upon him. But you've been told that before.

Lincoln was fighting a war because that is what he fervently wanted to do. Any time after taking office he could have ordered the evacuation of the property in dispute. It no longer served any purpose for the Union anymore anyways.

He didn't want to defuse the crises, he wanted to build it up thinking his superior resources would make quick work of the defiance of his authority.

[Tau Food]

No one here is attempting to advance the cause of slavery,

I think we should want to accept that.

However, it misses my point. The author of this piece suggests that there are "several branches of conservatism" that "venerate the South as the paragon of American liberty."

Do you venerate the antebellum South as the paragon of American liberty? Liberty?

[x]

Apparently, since our last session, Degenerate Lite has gained direct access to all the contents of Abraham Lincoln's consciousness.

Does the Vulcan mind meld work across a century and a half?

[Sam Clements]

Two questions:

1. Does the Constitution allow for its own break up or additionally does the Constitution state that all questions should be deferred to the Articles of Incorporation?

2. Should the United States now become a union of 50 slave holding states since it is claimed that the Declaration Of Independence, the superior document of our founding, apparently included universal slave holding as one of its purposes?

My answer to both of these questions is no.

[Boogieman]

“With one exception, all federal facilities have been peacefully evacuated with federal employees, their health intact, returning north by rail or ship.”

In retrospect, it’s easy to guess that “one exception” was Fort Sumter.

This really puts the nail in the coffin of the argument that the commander of Ft Sumter wasn’t trying to instigate hostilities by holding on to the fort and trying to resupply it. If every single other facility in the southern states had been peacefully evacuated, then there can be no question that the federal government, at least under Buchanan, had decided it would rather preserve the peace than try to stake some claim to government buildings in the South.

[Boogieman]

“If they did, they would have freed their own slaves.”

Well Washington at least made a half-hearted effort to do so, but only in his will so he could retain the benefits from them during his lifetime. I think his surviving widow nixed the deal after he was gone anyway.