Posted on 12/07/2010 11:31:03 AM PST by presidio9
On a recent pilgrimage to Gettysburg I ventured into the Evergreen cemetery, the scene of chaotic and bloody fighting throughout the engagement. Like Abraham Lincoln on a cold November day in 1863, I pondered the meaning of it all. With the post-Tea Party wave of libertarianism sweeping the nation, Lincoln’s reputation has received a serious pillorying. He has even been labeled a tyrant, who used the issue of slavery as a mendacious faux excuse to pummel the South into submitting to the will of the growing federal power in Washington D.C. In fact, some insist, the labeling of slavery as the casus belli of the Civil War is simply a great lie perpetrated by our educational system.
First of all, was Lincoln in fact a tyrant? For me the root of such a characterization centers on the man’s motivations. A man of international vision that belied his homespun image, Lincoln saw the growing power of an industrialized Europe and realized that a divided America would be a vulnerable one. “The central idea of secession,” he argued, “is anarchy.” Hence, maintaining the Union was his prime motivation, not the amassing of self-serving power.
It is true that Lincoln unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus. From a Constitutional standpoint, the power of the federal government to suspend habeas corpus “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety” is clearly spelled out in Article 1, Section IX. And an insurrection of eleven states would certainly qualify as such. Whether or not Lincoln had the authority (Article I pertains to Congress) most significant to me is that the Constitution does allow for the suspension of habeas corpus in times of severe crisis. So, doesn’t the question distill down to a more wonkish matter of legal procedure, rather than the sublime notion of denying the rights of man?
Constitutional minutia aside, the question remains whether or not Lincoln’s actions made him a tyrant. Consider the country in 1861-1862, the years in which the writ was suspended, re-instituted and then suspended again until war’s end. The war was not going well for the North, and Southern sympathies were strong in the border states and the lower Midwestern counties. The federal city was surrounded by an openly hostile Virginia on one side and a strongly secessionist Maryland on the other. “Copperhead” politicians actively sought office and could only sow further seeds of discord if elected. Considering these factors, one wonders what other course of action Lincoln could have taken to stabilize the situation in order to successfully prosecute the war. “Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts,” he asked, “while I may not touch a hair on the head of the wily agitator who induces him to desert?”
It seems that one’s appreciation for Lincoln’s place in history is largely an off-shoot of one’s position on the rebellion itself.
If the South was within its rights to secede, then Lincoln was a cruel oppressor. If not, then he had no choice but to put down a major insurrection.
What most glib pro-Southern observers of the war’s issues forget is that there were three million Americans enslaved in that same South, who would have been dragged into a newly formed Confederate States of America. “How is it,” asked Samuel Johnson as early as 1775, “that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?” Can any true libertarian argue that using the power of the federal government to end a state’s perpetuation of human bondage is an act of tyranny, regardless of the reason? And whether or not either side was willing to admit it, slavery was indeed the core issue of the war.
For those who believe otherwise then I ask you: In 1861, if the entire country was either all free or all slave states, would war have still come? If secession was about securing the South’s dearest rights, I must ask a follow-up: the right to do what exactly? We know the answer of course.
Was the North without sin? Certainly not, as anyone who understands the economic symbiosis of the two regions can attest. But in the end it was a Northern president using Northern troops who freed the slaves, and erased from the American experience what Lincoln himself referred to as “the base alloy of hypocrisy.”
A common blasé position among the Lew Rockwell’s of the world (a man who never felt the lash himself of course) is that slavery would have eventually died out as modernization overtook the antebellum Southern way of life. Yes it can be argued that it was economically inefficient – but it’s Marx not Mises who argues that systems of production necessarily dictate political forms. Consider that the de facto servitude of Blacks in the post-reconstruction South lasted well into the 1960s, and South Africa’s apartheid into the 1980s…both of which were ended by external pressures rather than internal catharsis .
Given the cost in dead and treasure, would it have been best to let the South go and hope for the best in slavery’s natural demise? As Patrick Henry, a southerner, once asked: “Is life so sweet or peace so dear as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” Certainly Lincoln’s steadfast prosecution of the war revealed his feelings on this fundamental question.
So when I look at Lincoln I see a man who, for myriad reasons ranging from realpolitik to moral imperative, released three million people from the shackles of slavery. I see a man who may have over-reached his legal authority by making the suspension of habeas corpus an executive rather than legislative initiative, but did not act outside the spirit of the Constitution regarding its position on whether such a right was untouchable.
I can only conclude that to think Lincoln a tyrant is to support the Confederacy’s right to secede in the first place…and take its enslaved Americans with them. Given what a weakened state a split country would have placed us in as we moved into the industrial age, given the force for good that a united and powerful America has been in the world since Appomattox, and considering even his most brazen suspensions of Constitutional rights were temporary, and resulted in no one swinging from the gallows for their opposition to the war, I must support the actions of this great President who was ultimately motivated by love of country, not lust for power. As Shakespeare might have said: “Despotism should be made of sterner stuff.”
And yet instead of “putting it behind them”, the North continued for decades to punish the South for daring to disagree with them.
I believe that there may have been some who were for putting the war behind them, but the vast majority of the Yankees were for gloating over their victory and exploiting the economic spoils that they found in the South.
I have had mixed thoughts on this point myself but I have to say, when I read that 2nd Inaugural on the wall up there in DC it does bring trears to my eyes...
“Abortion is not slavery. It is infanticide, the slaughter of innocents for self satisfaction. Abortion is the greatest crime of all. It destroys the future by destroying the present. There is no greater evil than abortion. Even slavery protected the life of the enslaved.”
Then certainly it should not be up to the states to decide which babies get to be saved or killed. Life and liberty are unalienable rights that shouldn’t be taken away by a majority vote by any part of government!
People attack Lincoln because he makes a nice scapegoat for the real originators of big government, who met in Philly in 1787.
Ironic isn’t it that now the southern states that seceded are the most patriotic while the northern states have the most left wingers
Maybe I’m missing something here, but who said anything about abortion being a States Rights issue? It’s clearly an issue of infanticide and therefore protected under “...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
The idea that the same people who made the Perpetual union would have then changed it to "Well, any time someone breaks a nail or has a bad hair day they can unilaterally pull out," well, is to laugh.
They were the originators of a functional, fiscally sustainable government.
So what you’re saying is that the States had the right to refuse to become a part of the Union, but once a part of that Union, they gave up their individual rights as soverign States? How very fascist of you.
“Maybe I’m missing something here, but who said anything about abortion being a States Rights issue?”
Quite a few populist conservatives.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I would argue that the Declaration is held more "perpetual" than the Articles, considering the Creator it cites for its authority.
Actually they weren’t. That’s why they had to go back and fix it with the US Constitution. Think of it as US Articles of Confederation 2.0.
Ah, gotcha. Wasn’t sure if I had missed something in this thread or not. For the record, I agree with you that abortion is not a States Rights issue, as it is infanticide and should be outlawed nation wide.
I’m not a populist, I’m a strict Constitutional Originalist.
That’s actually an excellent point.
By what authority does the Federal government decree that States, and thereby the citizens of those States, do not have the Right to alter or abolish any form of government that they believe has become destructive?
lol!
One has to fall back to Roman times to make a comparison to a single man being charged with with such a responsibility; pulling it off in reasonably acceptable manner without being killed.
None were perfect people.
The winners wrote the books we read. Abe still took one for the team, after the fact.
Total nonsense. The South started the conflict when it fired on Sumter. War was what Davis wanted. War is what he got.
That wasn't my point. "The Killer Angles" was a work of fiction. A really terrific work of fiction, but fiction nevertheless. The conversation you quoted never existed, so using it as an explanation of why the war was fought doesn't make a lot of sense.
The Declaration says the Right of the People, not the Right of the State.
If the people of the State (yes, all the people, including slave) were not free to alter or abolish what the State was doing, then the Confederacy was rebelling against said Natural Law.
I believe it was the rebels themselves.
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.