Lincoln's Defense Of Constitution Is Moral For Today's Republicans

IBD Editorials ^ | February 11, 2009 | Thomas Krannawitter

[Kaslin]

This is the 200th birthday of the first Republican to win a national election, Abraham Lincoln. It is good for Republicans today to remember Lincoln, not to be antiquarians, but to learn from his principled defense of the Constitution.

By becoming students of Lincoln, Republicans can win elections and would deserve to win by helping America recover its constitutional source of strength and vitality.

The greatest political crisis America faces today is neither the recession nor Islamic terrorism; it's not health care, education, immigration or abortion. It is that the United States Constitution has become largely irrelevant to our politics and policies.

All three branches of government routinely ignore or twist the meaning of the Constitution, while many of our problems today are symptoms of policies that have no constitutional foundation.

If we are to recover the authority of the Constitution and the many ways it restrains and channels government power, someone or some party must offer a principled defense of the cause of constitutional government.

They must understand not only the Constitution, but also the principles that informed its original purposes and aspirations, principles found in the Declaration of Independence among other places.

No one understood that better than Lincoln.

[yazoo]

“Where in the Constitution does it say that a state cannot leave the Union?”

Just curious about this argument. Since the Constitution protects inalienable rights from government power, even if the majority in the state vote to suppress those rights, were not the states which seceded depriving their citizens of the protection of the Constitution?

[Lonely Are The Brave]

What am I talking about?

You are a light weight...

The Great Milton Friedman said this...

His aversion to govenment...

“There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch.”

[Defiant]

Thanks, Mr. Lonely, I never heard that saying before...please tell me more, Professor.

I figured out the problem, and it has to do with comprehension, and if you prefer, you can go on believing you are the one who comprehends. It will get you through the evening.

[yazoo]

“Davis, Lee and Stonewall Jackson had very good relationships with blacks”

Are you referring to the slaves Lee freed by 1862 because the Custis will required it? The overarching fact is that without slavery there never would have been a civil war. It was the issue of slavery and its expansion into the new states that was the single most dividing issue for at least 30 years before the civil war. You only have to read any newspaper of the period from the south or the north to know how it divided the country. To somehow treat slavery as a side issue that would have gone away by itself and it having little to do with the war is at best disingenuous and at worst ignorant.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

You admire Friedman's aversion to government yet also admire the Confederacy. Here's a little sample of Confederate small government from the Home Guards of Maury County Georgia on 6/1/1864:

1st. Resolved. That we invite all ministers of the Gospel who preach among us, to give a lecture on the war, at their earliest convenience, or give their hearers unmistakable evidence that they support the Southern Confederacy.

...Resolved That no more negro preaching be allowed until the war is over. Negroes can hear white men preach if they want to.

Signed Vigilance Committee

====================

Wonder who would be more at home with this expression of limited government, Milton Friedman or Joseph Stalin?

[Defiant]

Had the US split in 2, with the west sparsely settled and a militaristic south whose individual states were already willing to leave prior confederations if they didn't get their way, the continental US would have been a much different place in the late 1800s. The borders would have been dangerous, contested and often changing. Both the north and the south would have been required to maintain standing armies, at great cost in treasure and to individual citizens. They would have battled over the western territories, at a minimum over the north/south line, but possibly over all of it. It would have been a large territory to control, when you have a rival nipping at your heels. Some parts, like the pacific northwest, or California, or the far north (Montana, WYO, the Dakotas), might have used the instability to go their own way.

The peace and stability that allowed industry to flourish and invention to spread would simply not have existed. The wealth that made the US the world's envy by WWI, would not have been generated. Technology might have advanced, but it would not likely have been as fast, or spread as quickly. We certainly would not have been the nation that mobilized and made the difference in WWI or which defeated the Nazis and Japan in 4 years in WWII.

Not to mention the slavery issue. Had that cute little southern institution continued after a secession, it would not have slowly died out, as southern apologists claim. Hell, the south was still in the same mindframe in 1965 that it was in 1865 regarding black people. The only difference was that the Feds didn't let them enslave blacks, but they did all they could to keep them in a kind of serfdom, a non-voting, segregated, second-class citizenship that fully 90 percent of the South supported until forced to change. You want to tell me that they wouldn't have had slavery in 1965? I say you are full of it!

That slavery issue would have added to the tensions between north and south after the civil war, and would have made it even more likely that additional wars would have been fought, to eradicate slavery and to consolidate control of the continent. The cost to humanity would have been huge.

But hey, Lincoln was a bastard, and you in your nice jeans or whatever know so much more than the rest of us here, so I defer to you.

[coon2000]

The Constitution enumerates its’ powers, anything that is not specifically stated is reserved for the individual states and the people. If the people of those states chose to leave the union, then they had that right. Why? Because it does not state anywhere in the Constitution that a state could not secede. The Constitution was supposed to protect us against this very thing, an all powerful central government but it was circumvented, thus the citizens were deprived of the protection of the Constitution.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

The much-used line that the South only wished to be left alone does not match the actions of the cotton states. While they may have wanted time to consolidate their new regime, in the long run they wanted confrontation, not harmony. The secessionists obviously did not want to cooperate with the rest of the country because the greatest framework for inter regional cooperation and harmony was already present in the US Constitution.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

The Constitution was supposed to protect us against this very thing, an all powerful central government but it was circumvented, thus the citizens were deprived of the protection of the Constitution.

And the Constitution is also clearly designed to protect citizens from all-powerful local government. Sovereignty is not absolute for either national or local government. Article 1, Section 10 limits the allowed actions of states without provision for secession. Article IV, Section 4 gives the United States power over the form of government for a state with no provision for secession.

[Defiant]

I agree with you. They wanted to be ensured that they could preserve their economic system and slavery in perpetuity, and with expansion to the territories, they feared that they could be outvoted on slavery in coming decades. Had the south been allowed to go its own way, as some might have done to avoid a costly and bloody war, there would have been war someday.

A free, wealthy society threatens the world view of an impoverished, rural slave state ruled by its plantation class, and it would have to both consolidate its control internally, and would feel the need to neutralize the danger from its greatest external enemy, the United States. It is not like Canada and the US; it is like the Iron Curtain after WW2, which was on a razor's edge for 45 years, or perhaps more analogous, North and South Vietnam. The communist north could not stomach a free and prosperous south because its very existence proved the commies wrong. It had to be extinguished. The south would have had to do the same, because the very existence of the US served as a rebuke to the south, and because the nature of the two biggest kids on the block is to figure out which one is toughest.

[coon2000]

Get on your soap box and preach all you want bud, but where did I say anything at all about slavery? I am talking about defending the Constitution. You assume that I am on the side of the southern states, I am on the side of the Founders and the Constitution that they created. Do you believe that they fought a super power to gain their independence from a powerful central government only to hand it right back to a newly formed powerful central government? That cute little institution was not a southern thing by the way. It has been around since the beginning of time, all over the world and still continues in some places today.

So if two countries share a border they are going to be constantly fighting? By your logic there should never be peace anywhere at any time on the planet. So you think Virginia would have gathered a large army and gone out west to attack Montana?

You say I know so much more than the rest of us here... So you are representing everyone here? It seems as though you fancy yourself as some modern Nostradamus, If not for Lincoln we would not have technology, we would have no wealth, we would not have contributed as greatly as we did in WWII, we would be fighting constantly, just like these pesky perpetual wars we seem to have with Canada and Mexico.

I did not call Lincoln a bastard. I said he disregarded the Constitution. The states lost their rights, their power and now we have a trillion dollar armed robbery by that very same all powerful central government that the Founders warned us about. You go ahead and enjoy being governed by Nancy Pelosi, I would prefer to be governed by my state as the founders had intended it.

Why do you care what I am wearing anyway? Is it any business of yours? Is there a central committee that I need to go through to get my clothes approved?

[coon2000]

That is right, it does not say that they can and it does not say that they cannot. So, what does that mean? It is reserved to the states or the people to decide. Remember, the states created the Constitution, it is not the other way around. Madison himself said that the Constitution was ratified by the people “not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong.”

[gorilla_warrior]

I agree in principle with a Constitutional foundation, but I am afraid the GOP is incapable of acting consistently in congruence with the Constitution. The party is run by the same elitist political class that runs the Democrat party, and the elite political class is not interested in Constitutional limits on government power. There are only superficial differences between the two parties, which is an inevitable result of a two-party system. We have reached the point where in reality there is only one party, with token opposition that Obama is moving very quickly and very efficiently to marginalize completely, with able assistance of top GOPers like McCain, Specter, Snowe, Collins, and others. I’m afraid that if a restoration of the Constitution is to be accomplished, the United States will not be where it occurs. As far as Lincoln is concerned, I grew up as a Yankee who always believed in the Union cause, but over the years I have come to realize that the abolition was not the primary generator behind the Civil War, it was States’ Rights, and Lincoln was wrong an that issue. The federal government began its march to tyranny under Lincoln, and it may take another Civil War to rectify the original incorrect result. At least this time there won’t be the distraction of slavery to muddy the issue of the people’s rights vs, the federal government. I don’t think the GOP is capable, nor indeed does it have any interest, in a restoration of the Constitution.

[Defiant]

Sorry about the jeans comment, I confused you with a different poster. I disagree with you about the founders and Lincoln and the disasters that would have befallen the continent had the south been allowed to leave, but you have been civil in your discourse, and I don't mind arguing these issues with you.

I have not given an opinion about whether the southern states had the legal right to secede. There are arguments on both sides of that, and all I can say is it is a close issue. I have said simply that it was a good thing for this nation, and ultimately, for humanity, that Lincoln chose to come down on the side of preserving the Union. I also noted that the comparisons of the civil war situation to the present are misplaced, since the South had not suffered a refusal by the North to follow the Constitution. The South was unhappy because the Constitution would allow the North to upset the balance between slave and free, and threaten to force the South to change.

Our present situation is one where the Democrats are unabashedly admitting that the Constitution is meaningless, as when Supreme Court Justices say that it is to be interpreted by European opinion or evolving standards, not by its actual words.

[AdLibertas]

Iowamark:
I don't know where you get this KKK business from, but it's a hell of an insinuation to throw at someone you don't know. Plus, you're assuming things about me. Nowhere in my post did I profess sympathy towards slavery or racism. My post was about Lincoln's constitutional abuses, which has nothing to do with reading KKK material. It would benefit you to be more objective and less hyperbolic in matters of opposing viewpoints.

Non-Sequitur:
The tariffs were not uniform because they disproportionately affected the south, even if the rates were the same everywhere. Just like a tax on talk radio would disproportionately affect Republicans, even if the per-hour rates were the same on all content. As far as what happened to Vallandigham after he was deported, this is unimportant. The crux of the matter is that he was deported for his political views. (And yes, I have read DiLorenzo and I plan on reading McPherson and other conflicting viewpoints in the future. But for right now, I'm focusing on economics.)

Colonel Kangaroo:
I'm sorry but I can't accept that moral equivalence argument, i.e., destroying the Constitution is bad but slavery is worse. It doesn't matter whose system is more ethical, profitable or righteous. What matters is how the president behaved with respect to the law. Furthermore, Lincoln was perfectly fine with letting slavery exist, so the choice between constitutionality and slavery is a false one. But even if Lincoln had gone to war to quash slavery, the virtues of freedom over bondage did not give Lincoln a blank check to do whatever he pleased. There has to be a limit on the power of any ruler---even if the limit is high---no matter how enlightened, wise, forthright, etc. or we fall into despotism.

[iowamark]

Get real. If the sheet fits, be proud of it. You cannot post neo-Confederate racist agit-prop and then protest against people assuming that you are racist.

[mlo]

Whatever your overall opinion of Lincoln, I don’t think he’s the best choice to hold out as an example of defending the constitution.

[AdLibertas]

And another low-blow. Classy. Failing to stoop down and kiss Lincoln's butt---himself a white supremacist---makes me a Klan-member and racist? Can you really be this ignorant?

[coon2000]

That is fair.

I agree with you on the present situation. The Republic no longer exists. We are being ruled by a new royal class that does not care about our freedoms. We are certainly no longer a nation of laws.

[iowamark]

I don't know if you a racist or merely under their influence. I do know that Americans' general lack of historical knowledge gives such extremists their opportunity.

There is a good defense of Lincoln against recent slanders by a Christian Hillsdale College history professor, Thomas Krannawitter:
Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President

CSPAN's BookTV and Lincoln 200 websites have much information and video on Lincoln.

An excellent recent BookTV program:
In Depth: Abraham Lincoln with authors: Edna Greene Medford and Frank Williams