Getting Right with Lincoln:Why Lincoln’s conservative critics are wrong

2/21/01 | Charles R. Kesler

[rwfromkansas]

We had a debate over the Civil War in my AP American History class(well, actually the events leading up to it....nullification crisis, KS-Neb Act, etc), but it got all the way up to secession. I got to defend the southern view on secession...boy was that fun! I cranked out the Federalist Papers and Declaration of Independence and used some other arguments as well. It was quite fun! I should have thought of the issue of going from the Articles of Confed to the Constitution though. That would have just made the north go dead in the water....lol.

[Pietro]

Thanks for a good article, although I'm certain the seceshes will have a hissy fit again, and again, and again....

[Who is John Galt?]

It is often worthwhile to refer to the Alien and Sedition Acts as well. The acts (which allowed the arrest and imprisonment of anyone who criticised the President) were passed by a Federalist Congress, were approved by a Federalist President, were imposed upon the country by a Federalist Supreme Court - and were completely unconstitutional. A few individual States opposed the acts: those States provided the only 'check and balance' to the unconstitutional federal legislation. Mr. Madison's Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1800) was prepared in defense of State opposition to unconstitutional federal acts, and not-so-coincidentally refutes most of the arguments presented here by union partisans. It's an absolutely brilliant analysis, that really should be part of the history curriculum in every school...

[rdb3]

The north was not some pure and noble entity. Get it????

No, the North wasn't. No society of men ever was, is, or will be perfect. The problem here is, I never said that it was. Did I? If I didn't, from where did this comment come?

[rdb3]

No, thank you. I know better. Your refusal to denounce the practice speaks volumes. Until you do that, fuh-ged-aboud-it.

[rdb3]

And we will now pull out the "you must be a racist" card since the debate on Constitutional matters has not gone the way we desired. Once again, Freepers can judge the arguments for themselves.

Any honest Freeper will be repulsed by it, a point which seems to be lost on you.

Search and look. You will find that I hardly ever use the term "racist." I state unequivocally that those like Je$$e Jack$on is a real racist, and the rest of his ilk. Also, one can support slavery and not be a racist. Still means slavery is wrong, though.

Yes, Freepers can judge for themselves. But your own words judge you. And I will be up in your face reminding you of it every time I see it.

Don't be "scurrred," paht-nah. Join the rest of us in the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY.

[rdb3]

RDB3 - ARKINSAW:

[Arkinsaw]

Still means slavery is wrong, though.

On that we have no differences at all.

In general, when I get into a debate on this subject it inevitably turns to the argument that I must like slavery due to my view of the Constitution and to its application during 1861-65. I'll take you at your word that this is not a "race card" thrown into your argument and that it is instead a "slavery card". Regardless of which it is, it is not a card that applies to my views which are pretty much Constitutional views.

[shuckmaster]

Click Here!

[Jeff Smith]

The north refused to let the south continue slavery and have a gradual abolition. The north demanded its way or the highway. Unfortunately, the south ended up having to leave since it could not get a fair deal. I am sorry, but I think the south was right.

I thought Lincoln promised the South that he would not touch their institution, but they seceded anyway. The South was ready to secede in 1850, when California was admitted into the Union as a free state. Aside from people like Charles Sumner, who was 100 years ahead of his time, most Northerners just wanted to confine slavery to the Southeast. Most were concerned for the Union.

Anyway, gradual emancipation would not be tolerated by the South. Research the origins of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, a landmark agreement that transformed the Era Of Good Feelings into an era of sectional distrust and tension.

[rwfromkansas]

Lincoln did promise that....but of course, he lied. But, anyway....even if he was being truthful at the time, the northern feeling made his promise one that was impossible to keep.

[Who is John Galt?]

My views are well known here:

To: #3Fan

...The truth of the matter, my friend, is this: I am a constitutionalist, and I have never supported slavery under any circumstances...

516 Posted on 10/17/2001 15:17:26 PDT by Who is John Galt?

Let me make things easier for you – just answer one, simple question:

Shall government be bound by law, or by morality?

;>)

[Arkinsaw]

Shall government be bound by law, or by morality?

Not directed at me but to throw in my answer....it is best that it be bound with both law and morality.

In 1861-65 there was perhaps an over-reliance on law at the expense of morality by one side and and over-reliance on morality at the expense of law on the other. If the goal had been to reach a moral outcome through legal means by both sides perhaps 600,000 wouldn't have died.

[Arkinsaw]

Thanks rdb3. My sentiments also.

[Texaggie79]

Personal opinions don't matter a hill of beans. It's reality that matters. Does the Confederacy still exist? No. They were wrong. Wrong because They shouldn't have seceded, and ESPECIALLY wrong because they lost.

Let me ask you this. Mexico claimed land north of the Rio Grande as theirs. Were they wrong? No, but they weren't right. The US joined with Texas and made them wrong.

[stainlessbanner]

Thanks for the ping.

The author unintentionally makes his article pro-confederate with this one statement: There was a revolutionary right to rebel against a tyrannical government, of course.

[Arkinsaw]

It's reality that matters. Does the Confederacy still exist? No. They were wrong. Wrong because They shouldn't have seceded, and ESPECIALLY wrong because they lost.

Might makes right isn't really a widely accepted notion. If this were so, Tibet would be morally wrong and China morally right. Christians lost Jerusalem to Islam and one wonders if Islam was therefore morally right. Many Africans were overpowered and hauled to North America by force and might. I am probably not alone in thinking that their captors were not right because of their superior might. Of all the arguments against secession or the South in the Civil War this is the weakest and most perplexing regardless of who was 'right' or 'wrong' (providing that there was a monopoly of either on either side). Americans generally do not succumb to the fallacy that 'might makes right' these days except on this particular subject for some reason.

Let me ask you this. Mexico claimed land north of the Rio Grande as theirs. Were they wrong? No, but they weren't right. The US joined with Texas and made them wrong.

Ulysses S. Grant stated in his memoirs that the Mexican War was one of the most unjust wars ever perpetrated by a stronger power on a weaker one. The US definitely won the war and the fact of US borders is reality. I will have to follow along with General Grant however in not claiming a monopoly on 'rightness' due simply to the outcome of the event.

[Who is John Galt?]

Thanks for sharing your views. Personally, I believe that people are at their best when they act morally. I would also suggest that our government must always act lawfully. The difference is this: when we act as individuals, we are responsible primarily to ourselves, and to God. When we act as government officials, we are responsible primarily to others: we have taken an oath to uphold the law, and the expectations of the people we represent are (at least in part) founded upon the expectation that we will act according to the law. If public servants can not honor their oaths of office, or follow the law in the course of their official duties, they should resign.

There are obvious dangers if we deviate from this course. If government officials may substitute their own sense of morality for the law of the land, any legal barriers against tyranny become absolutely moot. (The Clinton Administration was an excellent example of a government bound by 'morality' rather than by law.) And if the people fail to act morally (particularly by failing to establish moral laws), they may very well encourage such tyranny.

Although the question is simple, it seems to confuse many people...

[stainlessbanner]

I thought Lincoln promised the South that he would not touch their institution, but they seceded anyway.

This means there were reasons other than slavery for the South to part ways.

Northerners just wanted to confine slavery to the Southeast. Most were concerned for the Union.

Their concern for the Union was cloaked in financial greed and political interests.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Besides, the Civil War was not fought over tariff policy, though many conservatives would like to think so, because it lets them avoid thinking about the actual political and moral issues at stake.

Tariffs were indeed an issue. One need only examine the editorials in Northern newspapers following the establishment by the Confederates of a 10% tariff – which was almost 80% lower than the newly instituted Federal tariff. It is also worth noting that one of the very few differences between the Confederate and United States constitutions related to (guess what?) tariffs.

Tariffs were not an issue in 1860.

Tariffs uin 1860 were lower than they had been in 50 years.

From the Georgia secession document:

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all."

There was what was essentailly a free trade atmosphere in this country.

So you've made a simple misstatement of fact.

Walt