Skip to comments.A Voluntary Federation ( Lincoln was Wrong )
Posted on 01/18/2013 5:53:09 PM PST by Para-Ord.45
This Humean notion of Americanism that acknowledges the right of a self-governing people to secede is framed in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is primarily a document justifying secession, but it has been thoroughly corrupted by Lincolns reading of it and the ritualistic repetition and expansion of that reading. The Lincoln tradition reads the Declaration as affirming a metaphysical doctrine of individual rights (all men are created equal) and takes this to be the fundamental symbol of the American regime, trumping all other symbols, including the symbol of moral excellence internal to those inherited moral communities protected by the reserved powers of the states under the Tenth Amendment. Indeed, this tradition holds that the Declaration of Independence is superior to the Constitution itself, for being mere positive law, the Constitution can always be trumped by the higher metaphysical law of equality.
The Constitution of the United States was founded as a federative compact between the states, marking out the authority of a central government, having enumerated powers delegated to it by sovereign states which reserved for themselves the vast domain of unenumerated powers. By an act of philosophical alchemy, the Lincoln tradition has transmuted this essentially federative document into a consolidated nationalist regime...
Lincolns vision of a consolidated nationalism in pursuit of an antinomic doctrine of equality had its roots in the French Revolution, which sought to unify the decentralized traditional order of France into a consolidated nationalism in pursuit of the rights of man. But Lincolns vision was also forward looking. By the 1830s, the forces of nationalism and industrialism were sweeping Europe, and had begun to have an impact on an industrial North all too eager to compete on the world stage with the empires of Europe. For this project, centralization and consolidation were necessary. Lincolns vision of consolidating the states into a nationalist regime was of a piece with that of Garibaldi in Italy, Bismarck in Germany, Lenin in Russia, and the general consolidating, industrializing, and imperializing forces on the move in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Oh no .
Don’t you know Lincoln saved the Union?
And it only took the deaths of 600,000 Americans to make it happen.Which was a much larger number than died breaking away from England.It is a good thing Licoln was such an effective leader and President.
I’d bet there were (are) a lot who would have agreed with J.W.Booths words,if not his actions.
Now what other Presidents have been noted for ignoring the will of Congress and rulings of the courts ?
The Treaty of Paris 1783 for some reason recognized the colonies as independent nations.
All off which means the footing of the political entities making up the USA really isn't as clear as you might have imagined.
Other than being responsible for destroying states rights, the Constitution, turning Federalism on its head and being the driving force behind the needless deaths of 600,000 boys, I have no problem with the man.
The trick is war began as he took the office ~ so Lincoln didn’t start it. As time has demonstrated, we didn’t get rid of near enough Democrats. That party should hve been eradicated.
And just what date were you planning on eliminating slavery ?
Count me a Booth fan. Too little too late though.
Slavery was already out of fashion, it was only a matter of time before it ended as all hubris ends. War was unnecessary.
I stopped reading here.
And after 600,000 dead and 150 years the blacks are still slaves to the Democrats.Every election 95% of blacks vote for the people who helped destroy the black family and condemn hem to a endless cycle of poverty and government “assistance”.
No, Lincoln blamed the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin for starting the war.
Slavery was on verge of expansion just before the Civil War. Had the South won, slavery would had been expanded to new territories in the West, and possibly to the islands such as Cuba.
Well, in the event Lincoln won, and every thing is peachy keen.
There’s a lot of history in between ~ ignore it at your own risk.
Not really. The steady march of anti slavery movement was firmly established throughout the world, even the states in the South were debating abolition. Technology, moral suasion, policy would have eventually killed it off. “Nice” people would’ve eventually given it up, then it would’ve become illegal and the rest would be a local police action.
Really? I stopped after this crap: “This Humean notion of Americanism that acknowledges the right of a self-governing people to secede is framed in the Declaration of Independence.”
Id bet there were (are) a lot who would have agreed with J.W.Booths words,if not his actions.
That's a comment unworthy of FreeRepublic and more suitable for DU.
Cuba already had slavery, and indeed didn't give it up till 1886.
Certain southerners had delusions that after independence they would be able to expand militarily into the Caribbean, Mexico, and Central/South America, creating a great slave empire.
But it was never more than delusion. Such expansion, given the transport tech of the time, could only be by sea. And the Royal Navy, not to mention the US Navy, would never have allowed it.
Walter Williams the economist once stated the Founders detested slavery:
” Patrick Henry acknowledged reality, saying, “As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.” With the union created, Congress at least had the power to abolish slave trade in 1808. James Wilson believed the anti-slave-trade clause laid “the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country.”
Other Founders condemned slavery. George Washington said, “There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.” John Adams: “Every measure of prudence ... ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. ... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in ... abhorrence.” James Madison: “We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” James Otis said, “The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black.” Benjamin Franklin: “Slavery is ... an atrocious debasement of human nature.” Franklin, after visiting a black school, also said, “I ... have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race than I had ever before entertained.” Alexander Hamilton’s judgment was the same: “Their natural faculties are probably as good as ours.” John Jay wrote: “It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.” “
Williams also stated slavery would have died an economic death being that no slave owner would have the ability to modernize ie, cotton gins, harvesters,weaving mills etc, and keep slaves, pay for their housing, food,medicine,education,etc.
Williams alos condemned Lincoln :
“History books have misled today’s Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.
Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln’s first inaugural address, he said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so.”
During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery.” A recent article by Baltimore’s Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled “The Great Centralizer,” in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.
Lincoln’s intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to “impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government” that “place at defiance the intentions of the republic’s founders.” Douglas was right, and Lincoln’s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.
A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the “Tariffs of Abominations.” A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain’s Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.
Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.
That’s when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.”
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.