RSS
Why I (Continue to) Love Lincoln
Posted by Bill on Jul 8th, 2008
2008
Jul 8
Never mind that he ended the most despicable institution in the United States, that he held the nation together, or that he prevented further wars with Britain and France. Nah, ignore that he added two states to the Union, created the Department of Agriculture, established a national currency and signed the Homestead Act. Forget that Lincoln commissioned the intercontinental railroad and prevented the crippling treatment many Senator’s desired for the treasonous south.
For all that he did, my love for Lincoln continues to grow this day because of neo-confederate rants like this one from Clyde N. Wilson. The more they debase themselves the more I love Lincoln.
Lincoln played with his feet?! How objectionable! After ‘em, Billy-Bob!
July 8th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Some of the credit you give him is misplaced. I am sure the states would have joined without his help…
As for the Dept of Agriculture, I do not consider that something to brag about! More government is not something a republican should be proud of! In fact, didn’t Reagan campaign on ending that nasty department?
Lincoln represents bigger government and the end of states rights.
I am not Lincoln hater, but I am not a Lincoln adorer either. He was a fallible human being. He made some bad mistakes that changed our nation in ways that I regret.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
I would tend to agree with midwest momma about the questionable listing of the Department of Agriculture as an achievement worth touting in Lincoln’s favor.
However, I agree with Bill that Wilson’s petulant attack on Lincoln reveals an unsavory quality possessed of the Fifth Column Right. Seriously, the man’s unfortunate physiognomy is a sufficient indication of his unfitness for the office? Perhaps if he had an appearance more like Henry Fonda’s, the neo-confederates would have found him more to their liking.
“That Lincoln was a wealthy corporate lawyer with the biggest mansion in Springfield and a private railroad car placed at his disposal by capitalists?” Speaking of Marx…this smacks of communistic classism redolent of the likes of those on the Far Left.
July 8th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Also. Why is Chronicles (and the Rockford Institute) headquartered in the Land of Lincoln if they despise him so much?
July 9th, 2008 at 10:43 am
…that he held the nation together,
Sure, he held the nation together like an abusive husband holds his marriage together by handcuffing his wife to the bed and murdering half of their children.
Wasn’t King George merely trying to hold his nation together in 1776?
July 9th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
You go, Dean May!
What this country needs is a good secession.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
IF YOU SAY MEAN THINGS ABOUT LINCOLN YOUR A TRAITOR REDNECK!!!1
July 9th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
CQC- thank you so much for reaffirming my position.
Willmoore- Did ya forget your footnote?
July 9th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
CQC- As opposed to a bad secession…a little like the last attempt?
July 10th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Well, Willmoore, Lincoln ripped the Constitution to shreds and put in its place a centralized government which, after conquering and occupying the Confederacy, went on to other imperial adventures.
Some will say the South deserved its treatment because of slavery – which is like saying hundreds of thousands of Iraqis deserved to be murdered and millions more deserved to be made refugees because of Saddam Hussein.
Bill- A bad secession is one that fails to win independence from an evil, godless, and imperial government.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:12 am
“he ended the most despicable institution in the United States”
King George promised freedom to any black that rebelled during the Revolution.
Neither cared for slaves, both were opportunists.
P.S. Lincoln did not end slavery. Union slave owners got to keep exploiting.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Hmm, Lincoln made a new federal department. Great.
Lincoln made a national paper currency that the government can debase on a whim. Great.
Lincoln made a intercontinental railroad because no one else could do this at private expense, so the national government had to partner with railroad lobbyists to get this done. Great.
His biggest failure obviously was in not being a bigger socialist. If only he could have seen the New Deal, he might have rejoiced.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
_______
1 This does not necessarily represent the views of Willmoore
July 10th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Haha, excellent!
July 13th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Lincoln has to be a great man. Why else would he have a Temple dedicated to him in Washington, where we can make pilgrimages to worship his marble likeness?
July 13th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Right, just like all those confederate soldier monuments all over the south! You have your heros, I have mine. The big difference: Yours fought for bondage and misery, mine for freedom and equality.
July 13th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Lincoln fought for freedom and equality?! Don’t be stupid, Bill. At the beginning of the war Lincoln said he was fighting to keep Washington, DC the master of all the states – if keeping slaves in chains would enable him to succeed, he would do it.
Also, remember that Lincoln wanted to send blacks back to Africa. He considered it impossible for them to be the equal of white men.
July 14th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Yes Lincoln fought for freedom and equality. Remember he fought also for diversity and social harmony. Truly a great man.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
You know, Quebec has been waging its own secession movement. Maybe the time has come for you secessionists to move north. You want out of America anyway, now you have a location!
July 14th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Bill, you might as well say you’ve run out of arguments and admit defeat.
I don’t want out of America. I just want people with guns wearing funny uniforms to stop stealing my money and children and turning them over to some ruling elite hell bent on world domination. I would like to be able to own a piece of property, build a house on it without permission, and not have to make rent payments to the state. You know, like a free man, not a serf. But then serfs only had to pay 20%. I’m not sure what that makes us.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Unbelievably, I mostly agree with Mr. May. I too find the idea of paying rent to the government to retain my property odious at best. I daresay that Bill would react no differently. As such, I fail to see how Bill should abandon his argument that Lincoln was a boon the United States based on Mr. May’s argument. But, nice try Dean.
July 14th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I, too, agree with Dean! I actually want the same things. Yet I have never advocated for secession. Have you Dean?
July 15th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Well your patron Saint Lincoln is the guy who has made sure you’ll never get them. Secession is the mechanism of last resort to righteously stand against the tyranny that would take all those things from you. It is precisely the mechanism the 13 colonies employed for a substantially lower threshold of tyranny. But Lincoln sent the crystal clear message: Try it again and we’ll turn the troops on you, burn down your house, barn and destroy your towns. Bow the knee to DC or we’ll kill you. Great champion of freedom, he was.
More than 500,000 people died as a result of Lincoln’s war. That’s about 10 million normalized for today’s population. But that’s how our deification process works here in America: the more they kill, the more godlike they become.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:44 am
No doubt Lincoln was a boon to THE United States. The problem is he destroyed THESE United States in the process.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Sure sounds like you want out….
July 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Dean,
I love how you throw around phrases like “Lincoln’s war.” Please keep in mind that it was the legislatures of several of the southern states who seceded from the Union and ultimately a band of rebels in South Carolina that fired the first shots of the “Lincoln’s” war. And, they did so for the purpose of preserving their “peculiar institution.” Hardly a strong claim on the moral high ground.
July 15th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
What I want out of is the empire that America has evolved into, in a large part thanks to the precedents established by the Mexican war and Lincoln’s War. (the irony is that the Mexican War was heartily embrace by generals from the North and South. It was a war of naked aggression and land grabbing for Manifest Destiny, the very reason that the North could not allow the South to secede. The War Between the States was most probably God’s judgment on the North and South for the sin of the Mexican War)
Yes, it is Lincoln’s War. Remember the term rebel is in the eyes of the beholder. To the southerners they were merely freedom fighters.
True the southern states did secede, a remedy against perceived tyranny that Madison and Jefferson firmly adhered to (indeed it is the foundation for the Declaration of Independence). You apparently feel there was no legitimate right of secession, which of course causes you consider trouble to justify the Declaration of Independence (unless you wish to be openly inconsistent in your morality).
It is pretty disingenuous for you to ascribe guilt to the South for firing the first shots. It has been pretty conclusively established that Lincoln’s actions to re-provision the fort were deliberate in the hopes of maneuvering the South to fire the first shots. And why was the fort there being garrisoned on what was now then foreign soil (i.e., the Confederate States of America)? That fort was there precisely to insure the collection of import tariffs, one of the chief reasons for secession in the first place.
So, your position apparently is that the CSA had no legitimate right to fire on foreign troops that were there for hostile purposes. And for that blunder then St Lincoln gets a free pass to righteously burn the South into submission (i.e., bow the knee to DC). Hardly a strong claim on the moral high ground, to borrow a phrase. Doesn’t seem righteous to me.
It seems to me the burden of proof is on you to justify the death of 500,000 people. That would seem a heavy burden indeed using Christian morality. Of course if your morality is derived from the almighty state, you shouldn’t have any problem: all who oppose the state must die.
And that is essentially Bill’s position. Since I oppose what the state has become he thinks I should leave. I either need to bow the knee to DC or get out.
I think I’ll stay and bow my knee to JC.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Nearly everything you have just typed is incorrect! From the re-supplying federal troops to Christian justification.
Most importantly, your statements about me! I ceratinly do oppose the state in many instances, but not through violence and slavery. Nor do I think you should leave so much as you could and by doing so fulfill you fantasy of secession from some supposed evil. So, Dean, you might as well say you’ve run out of arguments and admit defeat, to borrow a phrase.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Bill, your arguments seem to consist of “everything you typed is incorrect” and “maybe the time has come for you… to move north.”
You are absolutely right! I’ve run out of arguments. Hard to argue with arguments like that.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Alright Dean, let’s address your mistakes.
First, your accusation concerning the first shots of the civil war.
“So, your position apparently is that the CSA had no legitimate right to fire on foreign troops that were there for hostile purposes….”
Unfortunately for your argument, there were no “foreign troops” in SC, only stationed United States soldiers. Are you really arguing that Fort Sumter was not a federal fort? Besides that, the South Carolina traitors first fired on civilians! On January 10, 1861 SC troops fired on the unarmed civilian ship Star of the West. So much for firing on “foreign troops.”
Next: “…the burden of proof is on you to justify the death of 500,000 people.”
Umm, how? The South fired the first shots, attempted to leave the Union with Union land, marched north into federally committed states. All of this while holding human beings under the yoke of slavery. Seems to me that the south was the aggressor.
Let me just anticipate your objection here. You may argue (as most either secretly ashamed or ignorant neo-confederates do) that the secession was not about slavery. Well, we all really know that is a lie. Here is a statement from South Carolina’s Declaration of the Immediate Causes of Secession:
“A geographical line has been drawn across the Union and all states north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of president of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.”
Wow! Pretty conclusive. I believe it is right in line with Christian morality to fight for the end of slavery.
July 20th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Unfortunately for your argument, there were no “foreign troops” in SC, only stationed United States soldiers.
Your position apparently is that federal property is the personal property of the ruling elite in DC. My position is that public property belongs to the public, and that when the South seceded the southern public retained ownership. BTW, the South had already sent a delegation to DC to offer to pay for “federal” property, an unnecessary move, IMHO. They were rebuffed by Lincoln, of course.
Since the south had just as much right to secede from the north as the 13 colonies did from England, then it was indeed foreign soil that the troops from DC were on.
Seems to me that the south was the aggressor.
Seems to me you have an upside down understanding of aggression. When troops from another geographical area invade your back yard without your invitation, the invading troops are the aggressors. Especially when they are there solely to make sure you pay your taxes the feudal lords in DC. You’re good with 500,000 people dying to make sure that happens. I’m not.
… marched north into federally committed states….
A big blunder on the part of the south. Here they definitely lost the moral high ground. Please do not misunderstand me. I do not wish to argue that the south was lily white, so to speak, in this conflict. I am willing to call that excursion wicked. I am also willing to call the African slave trade wicked (it was very prevalent in the north as well as the south, btw).
But isn’t it interesting that you cannot allow yourself to acknowledge that the deaths of 500,000 people were also wicked? There is no moral reason that Lincoln could not allow the south to secede. The principle of self government is, after all, the cornerstone of the Colonies’ secession from England.
No doubt the issue was slavery for many people, Lincoln just didn’t happen to be one of them. The reason most northerners hated slavery was they just hated blacks; they thought it an abomination that any Negro would take a white man’s job (something akin to our current white man attitude towards the Mexican). Lincoln himself publically stated he always thought the Negro to be an inferior race and he wanted to resettle them in Africa.
Lincoln made it very clear his motives for war: preserve the Union at all costs. If he could do it by freeing some slaves and not others he would do that; if he could do it by keeping slavery he would do that; if he could do it be freeing all the slaves he would do that. This is his public statement of his intentions. Sure he preserved the Union, like an abusive husband preserves his marriage by beating his wife senseless and handcuffing her to the bed.
Lincoln did not free a single slave in his tenure as president. His so called Emancipation Proclamation was precisely worded to only apply to states under southern control. It didn’t apply to any northern states and it didn’t apply to any southern states under northern control. It was only half way through the war that he issued it, after people were tired of killing each other. He needed a moral cause to spur the troops on to fresh slaughter so he seized slavery as the cause to do it. If people think they can kill for a God sanctioned righteous cause they are somehow all the more eager to pull the trigger.
The rest of the Western world ended slavery without killing 500,000 of their own people. I see no morality in such a slaughter to end slavery (let us do evil that good may result!). The end does not justify the means, not in a Christian worldview.
But for a true believer in the state there is no problem: all who oppose the state must die. We can easily sacrifice 500,000 to consolidate and expand the power of the central state. And that is precisely what happened: Free the Negro slaves so we can all be enslaved to DC.
Good luck on getting your piece of property with no rent payments to your feudal master. You might need to change your worldview first.
July 21st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I will start with the following assertion: the North was fighting to preserve the Union, while the South was fighting to preserve slavery. In that sense, the North’s resupplying of a fort, which was on Union territory, can hardly be seen as “aggression” unless one first accepts that the South was entitled to secede and the North was bound by their unilateral declaration of separation. Indeed, as I shall argue below, the North’s part in the conflict was essentially conservative, while the South pursued a radical, revolutionary end.
This is in direct contrast to the colonies under the British Crown. A close reading of the Declaration of Independence will show that the colonists declared their contract with the Crown to be null and void when Parliament stepped in and began to tax them. Prior to then, the colonies had been objects of the Crown – not Parliament. Parliament’s usurpation of the Crown’s prerogatives and the Crown’s acquiescence in the usurpation precipitated the colonists’ wrenching decision to declare themselves no longer bound by their charters. In essence, the “revolution” was nothing more than an attempt to preserve their rights under their original charters with the Crown.
By contrast, the South’s rebellion came in anticipation of the denial of a right – the right to chattel slavery. What is so interesting is that, even by Mr. May’s admission, Lincoln steadfastly claimed that he had no intention to free the slaves and, in fact, never did. Nonetheless, even in the face of placating words from Lincoln, the South revolted – essentially because they lost the election. The wrong guy won. How in the world one can perceive the North as the aggressor in light of these circumstances is beyond me.
The South was in breach of contract, if you will, because they lost an election which was conducted in accordance with the contract they’d entered into. In anticipation of the denial of their right to own slaves, they repudiated their obligation under the contract and seceded. The North, properly, insisted that they honor their agreement and held their withdrawal to be of no effect. In resupplying Fort Sumter, which belonged to the Union, which included South Carolina, South Carolina opted to escalate a legal dispute (whether South Carolina was entitled to withdraw from the compact she’d made with the other states without cause) into an armed rebellion.
I, too, am sickened by the idea that 500,000 persons were destroyed as a result. But, unlike you, I find the fault where it more properly lies. The first chapter of the wickedness of the Civil War was authored by the men who wore grey. Please do not pretend that the South is blameless as though anyone who supports the Union position is some sort of demonspawn who cares not at all about human beings. To compound their sin, the South did it to preserve chattel slavery. It is hard to imagine a more odious rebellion.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:45 am
Thank you, Karl, for your very articulate and reasoned response. These things take time to write and I appreciate your willingness to continue the exchange.
I appreciate your admission that the North was fighting to preserve the Union. Actually, I fear, many in the North were simply fighting to “spank” the South, feeling they should be punished for their sin. What you failed to do is build the case that keeping an empire intact is a cause worthy of killing people, especially 500,000 people. Breach of contract (even if you were correct in your analysis) is not justification for execution. When I read the Mosaic Law there are only a dozen or so cases where it is morally justified to terminate someone else’s life. Most of those involve self-defense when one’s own life is under immediate mortal peril.
I believe you have too narrowly defined the South’s motivation for secession. True, chattel slavery was a key issue for many, especially in the Deep South. But for many others it was not. This country has long been managed by a ruling elite class with roots in the New England states. The South was tired of being disproportionately represented compared to the amount of taxes they paid. Yes, they lost the election. They then realized that elections were useless as a tool to arrest the inexorable growth of Leviathan’s tyranny. You should know all this, and if you do it seems disingenuous for you to leave this factor out when discussing the South’s motivation. But then it is easier to demonize them if you simply say the South was solely motivated to preserve chattel slavery.
Of course from my perspective it demonizes the North even more to ascribe their true motivation, which you have already admitted. Their motivation was to preserve power, territory and taxing base. It is hard to think of less altruistic motives; it seems even more odious to me than preserving chattel slavery. At least with chattel slavery only a few people were being enslaved. Empire seeks to enslave everyone, which is precisely what happened and continues to happen: bow the knee to DC or die.
Of course you no doubt want to dispute that we are enslaved as a people. Yet in this very exchange you and Bill have admitted that you find paying rent payments on property to be odious. This is a self conscious admission that you are indeed a slave. The ability to own property free and clear is one of the most basic of human freedom’s there is, and is a cornerstone freedom for all the others. For example there is no free speech unless you have property that you can stand on to speak. I certainly don’t have free speech standing on someone else’s property. Many other basic freedoms in this country are also gone due to Leviathan’s relentless quest for total domination. (Friends of mine were recently traveling in Texas, stopped by a police checkpoint, and asked for their passports)
The right of secession, properly understood by our founders, is the righteous remedy of last resort to arrest that growth. This right was widely held by political theorists of the antebellum period. Many newspapers ran editorials expounding on this right. If you wish to hold the position that it was not a legitimate remedy for the south be my guest. But you’ll find yourself arguing against a position that Madison and Jefferson supported.
I, too, am sickened by the idea that 500,000 persons were destroyed as a result. But, unlike you, I find the fault where it more properly lies.
Imagine if the North let the South go, pulled all of its troops home and returned the public property to the southern public. You call the South aggressors. Do you believe the south would have attacked and invaded the north? I certainly don’t and I’m quite sure 500,000 people would not have needlessly died. What would have been the downside of letting the south go other than DC losing 2/3 of its taxing revenue?
You may be sickened by the idea of 500,000 people dying, but you stop short of calling it wicked. For you it seems an acceptable loss that 500,000 people should die so that DC can maintain its revenue and power base. You have, after all, already admitted that was DC’s motivation for joining the war. It seems morally wrong to me to be willing to kill people so you can continue to rule and tax them. I find no righteous basis for such slaughter in my bible.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:55 am
Dean Says:
“At least with chattel slavery only a few people were being enslaved. ”
Wow. enough said.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Dean I appreciate your point and your response to Karl. However, you did not touch on Karl’s point about the legitimacy of the American Revolution versus the secession of the South. In my opinion a major issue in this argument is the means undertaken by the South to advocate for their “rights.” I believe that Karl is correct in asserting that the American Revolution arose from essentially a breach of contract between king and subjects. In fact many patriots still felt strong loyalty to the king after the Revolution. It was the illegal usurpation of power from the king by Parliament that touched off the Revolution.
The South on the other hand had consented to governance in a Union with the Northern states. Once that consent was given their only recourse would be through the channels of the government they agreed to live under. That is to say, no breach of contract occurred. Win elections, get judges appointed, whatever is necessary. Instead the radical route was chosen when the consensual government they entered into no longer favored their beliefs. This is very similar to liberals who cannot when on issues at the polling place and instead force their ideology through judicial decisions.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this issue.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Oh, and according to the U.S. Census, the Unted States has a population of about 12 million in 1860. According to the same census, just under 4 million slaves were in the U.S. at the time.
Yeah, only a “few” people….
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:24 pm
The same U.S. census data show the percentage of slave-holders as a ratio to non-slaveholders was around 8% of the total free population. Records of the time show that many more millions of Africans were shipped to Brazil and other South and Central American (and widely Catholic) countries than ever came to the States. And yet they never had to go to war to end the institution there.
Also, the record is clear that Buchanan chartered a civilian ship to resupply the fort. It is arguable (especially in light of the fact that Citadel cadets fired warning shots over the bow of the resupply ship) that this was deliberately done to provoke outrage if she were attacked. The ship’s captain ignored the warning shots and continued on until she was barraged and forced to retreat.
The South Carolina troops made a costly blunder (after the government initially offered to pay for the “federal” property) of attacking Fort Sumter, this is true. It was tactically wise but strategically foolish.
You have all left aside the facts that Northerners had slave states (although a smaller segment: Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware) and that Northerners kept indentured servants and also practiced de facto slavery of black Africans as servants who were paid pittances which did not meet basic needs or simply kept them in their masters’ houses de facto if not de jure.
You also ignore the fact that many Native Americans were kept as slaves but almost all of the Indian nations aligned with the Confederacy due to their horrific treatment and double-dealing done to them by Federal government entities.
You also ignore the fact that many hundreds of thousands of Irish and Scots-Irish were held in indentured servitude and slavery in the North and the South, but particularly the North who used them to build the canals and other extremely dangerous work which required far cheaper and far more expendable labor than the costly African slaves, the vast majority of whom were treated better as far as provision and religious education and so forth are consdered. The 1700s, the 1820s and the influx from those fleeing the potato famine in the period directly before the War Between the States are historical facts and often ignored when slavery and indentured servitude is treated of. Neither side had a moral high ground vis-a-vis slavery, but the Southern seceders were more honest in recognizing that their constitutionally protected institution was threatened by the Radical Republicans, so the claim that they were the ones who “breached a contract” is absurd on its face. The North made it clear that they were going to unilaterally revoke relevant sections of the contract via recission.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Thank you and welcome, Vercingetorix.
You are correct, many other countries managed to rid themselves of slavery without open war. It is a tragedy that war came to the U.S. over such an obvious moral issue.
As to the resupply, you may be right. But this says nothing other than that Buchanan was a smart tactician.
Concerning norther state slaves, you are also right. Slavery was a United States problem, not simply a southern state problem. Yes, yes, indians, Irish, Scottish and others were either slaves or “indentured servants.” I am no ignoring this fact. It is, after all, a fact. Slavery imposed on any race is unjustifiable. It makes no difference to me who is enslaving, it is equally repugnant.
Finally, with regard to the “breach of contract” argument, I believe you have misunderstood Karl’s position. Karl is not arguing that the states did not have a constitutional right to hold slaves so much as he is arguing that the southern states had no right to secede. Their grievences should have been handled according to the rule of law, not the rule of war.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
We are not the only ones arguing this out! American Spectator has joined the fray! Here is a link to their reader mail section. The first few letters are righ on in this argument!
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13576
July 25th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I’ve got one for you guys . . .
When is an America-hating Paleo-Con a Neo-Con
When he’s a Neo-Confederate!
Mind you, I was born and raised in the sunny South, but to argue that the Civil War was over anything other than the ultimate issue of slavery (either as a remote or proximate cause) is lunacy.
To make my point:
1860-Slavery
1870-No Slaver
wac
July 25th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
er, no slavery.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:33 am
1870- 500,000 people dead, new unspoken law put into effect: bow the knee to DC or die, everyone is now a slave.
If there was plenty of slavery in the north before the war, then to argue that the north invaded the south over slavery seems lunacy to me. The north invaded the south precisely to insure the continued rule of DC. That point has already been acceded by your side.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I’m curious of whether there are any ground rules in Mr. May’s understanding of secession? I mean can states secede for any reason? Who determines if it is a legitimate reason? Or is secession alright no matter what?
I would argue, in addition to the slavery arguments put forward by the anti-secession crowd, that the preservation of the Union of was of paramount importance for both the North and the South. The United States was not even 100 years old at this point and any separation would have subjected both sides to the whims of the world powers of the time.
One of the reasons Washington is thought of as a great man and President is that he held the Union together (as well as stepped down from power) at the beginning when there was internal bickering from all regions of the infant nation. Am I too assume then that since he refused to allow the Union to be broken apart by faction that he too was incorrect? Does anyone remember the Whiskey Rebellion? Washington was the first and last standing President to lead troops into battle to put down a rebellion.
I would go on to argue that the United States is a special nation that was formed by great men. Nothing like it had been seen. It was a completely new form of government that required strong men to lead it. In order for the nation to carry on these men needed to maintain the Union, by force if necessary, in order to preserve the United States for the future.
As far as I am concerned Washington and Lincoln are on my top three Presidents of All-Time list. Along with Ronaldus Maximus, of course.
July 26th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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.
This is the Declaration of Independence- not that I consider it to be the ultimate source of moral authority. I only quote it as proof that my position is not unique or weird, it is instead foundational to our existence as a nation, one of our core values if you will. The people have a right to abolish or alter their government in a way that most likely pleases them.
My core values rest on the Big Ten. Among them are You shall not murder and You shall not steal. You are essentially arguing that if a ruler wins a popular vote (in this case a politician bought and paid for by the railroads) he has a right to kill people if he wants their stuff (for the railroads) even if they no longer wish to pay tribute and be under his rule. That (im)moral principle violates the Big Ten and the Declaration. Lincoln sent troops to collect taxes. That’s what he said he’d do in his inaugural address and that is what happened. Pay Caesar or die, which is what you are arguing is moral. I don’t buy it.
Saying the divided country would be susceptible to European powers is fluff, totally irrelevant. It also presupposes there is no God in heaven to protect the righteous. In other words, God can’t protect us so we are left to our own devices; we have to do it with our collective might and having more nukes than the rest of the world combined (prima facia evidence of our utter contempt for the God of Heaven).
Allow me to say it again: the form of chattel slavery practiced by the US at that time was very wicked. It was also wicked for Lincoln to deliberately provoke the South by re-provisioning Ft Sumter. I’ll even go so far as to say it was wrong for the South to fire the first shots. We should all learn a lesson from Gandhi: passive non violent resistance is the most righteous way to resist tyranny. If the South had followed such a course it would have shown Lincoln for the tyrant he was.
July 29th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Getting back to the war being about slavery . . .
Crisis and Compromise of 1830=Slavery
Crisis and Compromise of 1850=Slavery
Dissolution of the Whigs and division of the Democrats, the rise of the Republicans=Slavery
Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act=Slavery
Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Kansas Admission Crisis=Slavery
Secession Crisis and Civil War=Tariffs? Railroads?
It’s history written by the fringe fundamentalist malcontent anarchists, and it’s a lie. And I say this as a person who is so Southern he will leave the room if “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” is played.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Gosh, I’m sure we’re all real impressed by your refusal to hear the Union anthem, but your reduction doesn’t follow.
I don’t think anyone reduced the Union casus belli to Tariff + Railoroads. Dean pointed out that Lincoln was bought (like most any other politician) and that he (like most any other politician) set out to achieve some of their goals while employing rhetorical devices for effect. What’s incorrect or revisionist about that? Was Tacitus a revisionist? Gibbon? Where does your trail end?
I don’t doubt that Mr. May is an anarchist along Bill Kaufman lines. That’s wrong, you’re saying?
July 29th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Vercingetorix,
First, you can drop the sarcasm. You mustn’t take me so seriously.
Second, no one has stated what the dark interests behind the Lincoln presidency wanted to do with the South. Indeed, before Lincoln made the call for 75,000 vols per state, hundreds of thousands of northerners demonstrated for war. Was that a manifestation of the will of the military industrial complex, or the manifestation of regional hatred that had simmered for years over the heat provided by the issue of slavery?
Third, Tacitus, no. Gibbon, most certainly.
Forth, yes- anarchism is the antithesis of civilization. It’s not only rong, its damnably wrong.
wac
July 29th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I’ll drop it when you do.
Before the war, there were incidents which under other circumstances you would decry as terrorism, i.e., John Brown. What demonstrations do you refer to? Did they call for an end to slavery? Did they march on Dover?
So, why not Tacitus, but Gibbon?
I can presume you’ve read Kauffman, then?
July 30th, 2008 at 6:29 am
Forth, yes- anarchism is the antithesis of civilization. It’s not only rong, its damnably wrong.
A damnably false dichotomy: either we have forced rule at the end of a gun barrel or we have anarchy. Talk about strawmen.
Subservient obedience to a tyrannical state who is willing to kill you is all you’ve ever known. That certainly does not mean it is the best thing going nor does it mean anarchy is the only alternative.
December 4th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
[...] of the Civil War and some of the issues surrounding that conflict have arisen on this website on a couple different occasions, but I don’t believe we’ve ever hashed out whether the states [...]