Abraham Lincoln

» Brian Tubbs - Abraham Lincoln

Was Abraham Lincoln a hero or villain in American history? Was he a defender of the Union (as envisioned by the Founders) or was he an ignorant warmonger? Was he the "Great Emancipator" or a racist who exploited the slavery issue for political purposes? These questions surround the legacy of Abraham Lincoln and provoke emotionally charged debates to this very day.

What do you all think?

Let's begin our debate on Lincoln's legacy.

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Eric - Brian

Here is the URL of an article which states more completely the points that I have been making on Lincoln. Try to shut out all of the "history" lessons, written by the "camp followers of the victorious" and just read the facts. Also, try to not be offended by the blunt approach of the author. Which of those facts can you dispute? And if you can't dispute the facts, how do you dispute his conclusions?

http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/abelenin....

-- posted by Eric

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian Tubbs - Strong Article

Eric-

I read the article. Mr. Smith makes an emotionally compelling argument against Lincoln, but his conclusions are based more on assertions, exaggerations and provocative metaphors, than facts.

Here are a few examples of this...

1. He implies that the Founding Fathers were libertarians, yet provides no substantiation for this. As one who has extensively studied the American Founders, I would strongly disagree with categorizing them as libertarian. Would Mr. Smith honestly call Alexander Hamilton a "libertarian"?!! Or George Washington? Even Thomas Jefferson, who took what could be described as "libertarian" positions during Washington's and Adams's administrations, drifted more to the middle during his own presidency. Recall the Embargo Act and the Louisiana Purchase as but two examples of federal initiatives that true libertarians would decry as blatantly unconstitutional. And what about Noah Webster and Benjamin Rush who together were probably the two most influential Founders in launching America's public schools. Sorry. On this point, Mr. Smith is definitely wrong. The Founders were not libertarian.

2. Minor point: I don't know of many true conservatives (and I'm not talking about libertarians or even semi-libertarians here) who have a "prissy disdain" for the 2nd Amendment.

3. His metaphoric association of the North with a physically abusive husband who steals from his wife is an outrageous exaggeration, in my view. Yet, even if you believe it has merit, you can hardly consider it "proof" of anything. You can't prove an assertion with an emotional illustration or anecdote. Bottom line: the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate overseas and interstate commerce. It further allows it to set tarriffs. The fact that the tarriffs were not in the South's best interests - something I don't necessarily dispute - does NOT mean that they were illegal or unconstitutional. On the contrary, as detrimental to the South's economic interests as they may have been (and it is a matter of dispute as to HOW detrimental they were), the federal government was still abiding by the terms of the Constitution.

4. His domestic violence scenario has the husband standing in the doorway, beating his wife to a bloody pulp. This is simply not a fair illustration. Had the South not raised an army and navy, seized federal property, and fired the first shots of the war, but rather had they simply sued for independence under terms of the Constitution (or their interpretation of it) and THEN Lincoln sent occupation forces in to jail people, etc., etc....THEN I could see a parallel. But it didn't happen that way. And you know it. And so does Mr. Smith.

5. He argues that the South seceded over the tarriff issue. Regardless of how much modern southerners (like myself, mind you) WANT to believe that, it is simply not true. All you have to do is read SOUTHERN newspaper editorials and SOUTHERN political speeches of that day (in the state houses and at the state secession conventions) and you'll see that secession was driven first by slavery and THEN by tarriffs. More to the point, the Lower South seceded primarily over slavery in that they demanded a federal guarantee of new slave states and territories. Knowing that Lincoln represented the direct opposite of that position - an end to the expansion of slavery, they bolted after his election. Granted, the Upper South states seceded primarily over how they perceived Lincoln was handling the situation. Had Lincoln not attempted to resupply Fort Sumter, for instance, it is possible that Virginia would have stayed in the Union. Regardless, any delusions that slavery played a minor or secondary role in the South's decision to secede (esp. the Lower South) can be put to rest by reading what SOUTHERN political leaders and editorialists had to say in 1860-61. I would point you especially to the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Hamilton Stephens.

6. Mr. Smith lays the blame of the war completely on the shoulders of Mr. Lincoln, and gives no room for the fact that Lincoln genuinely believed that the Constitution (and its authors) intended for the Union to be perpetual. We can debate this until we're blue in the face, but we should at least ACKNOWLEDGE that Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution was a reasonable one - even if it's not one you or Mr. Smith agree with. Read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address (let the man speak for himself - we owe him that much) and then read George Washington's Farewell Address. I'll give you one better. Read what James Madison had to say, late in life, in response to some of the rhetoric coming from the South, including from John C. Calhoun. Read what Madison ("The Father of the Constitution") had to say about secession. If you read what Washington, Hamilton, Madison, etc. have to say about the Union, you'll at least see that Andrew Jackson's Proclamation on Nullification (in which he also addressed secession) and Lincoln's First Inaugural are not totally off base. They are reasonable interpretations of what the Framers of our Republic intended.

GIVEN THAT, it is completely understandable that Lincoln believed that the secession was illegal and unconstitutional, and that allowing the southern states to succeed in withdrawing from the Union would be breaking his presidential oath to uphold the Constitution. (Now, DON'T go off half-cocked about how Lincoln allegedly trampled on the Constitution himself. Stick with the chronology of this. We're talking about 1861 as Lincoln was taking office. We're NOT talking YET about his actions AFTER the war began). Bottom line: Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution was reasonable, and based on that interpretation, he basically had no choice but to try to stop the South was seceding. Anything less, within the paradigm of his reasonable interpretation, would have been a dereliction of duty.

7. Mr. Smith takes a shot at Lincoln's sincerity on the issue of slavery. This is either due to shameful ignorance or deliberate distortion of the historical record. Abraham Lincoln was a lifelong opponent of slavery. He hated slavery. Further, he believed that the Founders had hated slavery (and he was right, by the way). He felt that THEY (the Founders) wanted slavery to be put on the "course of ultimate extinction" (in other words, gradually phased out). (Again, he was correct). Yet he believed that the country was heading in the opposite direction. He felt that slavery was growing stronger, and that its continued expansion must be stopped in order for the Founders' vision of ultimate abolition to be realized. AT THE SAME TIME, he eschewed the "radicalism" of Horace Greeley, William Lloyd Garrison, and other abolitionists, and acknowledged that the North bore as much responsibility for slavery (ultimately) that the South did. Thus, he committed himself to what Clinton would call a "triangulation." He didn't believe the federal government had the authority to ban slavery where it existed, but did believe it had the authority to arrest its expansion. This way, he hoped that it would return to its downward trajectory and eventually die out. THAT was his philosophy and must be remembered as the CONTEXT of his statements and decisions on the issue.

8. Mr. Smith implies (as so many of Lincoln's critics do) that the Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda tool because it only covered parts of the country where he had no authority. Again, this is ignorance or worse. Anyone who makes this charge has either not bothered to read what Lincoln wrote and said about the Proclamation or has deliberately chosen to ignore what he said. Lincoln long believed that he did not have the authority under the Constitution to ban slavery where it existed. HOWEVER, he did believe (as the war progressed) that, as Commander-in-Chief, he could free the slaves in hostile territory as a wartime measure. That is why the Proclamation covered only those areas not under Union control. It was a military measure. Anyone who reads into this an indifference on Lincoln's part toward slavery is ignoring his support of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution which banned slavery once and for all in the ENTIRE country!

This is all I have time for tonight. I'm sure what I've said is enough to spark intense debate anyway.

Eric, I find you to be an intelligent person, but I think respectfully it is you who have yielded to "camp followers" (in your case, southern partisans, who in 2000, still are fighting the War Between the States). It's one thing to disagree with Lincoln. It's another to declare him an "American Lenin" or a sadistic brute. Lincoln may have been flawed (and was flawed in the sense that we all are), but he was no tyrant or warmonger. He was a sincere, patriotic man caught up in events that hopefully our country will never have to face again.

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» mikeohara - Well Done

Brian:

Your treatment of Lincoln, and the beginnings of the Civil War generally, was outstanding. Very well done sir.

Although it no doubt overly simplifies matters, I suggest that the real cause of the Civil War was not slavery or tariffs but in fundamentally different, and irreconcilable, views of the nature of government. The federalist/anti-federalist debate was with the Founders and with us every day since then.

Because I am a federalist, I choose to believe that that was the only rational choice if America was to achieve the greatness the benefits of which we all enjoy. Had the anti-federalist view prevailed, I cannot, for example, see the US entering into (much less winning) either World War. Imagine the Governor of MN telegraphing Wilson and pointing out that, in MN, there were a great many Americans of Austro-Hungarian extraction and he was just going to have to take a pass on this little adventure. (And his successor calling FDR in 1941 and saying Minnisotans would fight in the Pacific but not in Europe.)

Imagine winning the West w/o railroads. And could a transcontinental railroad be built without the federal government awarding alternating plots of land to the railroad in return for them bearing the expense of laying the track?

Could we have put a man on the moon w/o a strong federal government? Would the life expectancy of Americans be what it is w/o the FDA or the billions spent by the federal government on various types of scientific or medical research? I think not.

Confederation was properly dismissed to the ash heap of history in Philadelphia. No better evidence of this exists than in the resolution of the first two "rebellions" the US experienced after the Revolution. I am embarrassed to say I cannot recall the name of the first, though it occurred prior to adoption of the Constitution. It seems to me it was in MA and ended poorly for the US. In contrast, the Whisky Rebellion was dealt with in reasonably good fashion by President Washington.

-- posted by mikeohara

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian Tubbs - Shays Rebellion

Mike-

It was Shays Rebellion - the uprising that occurred prior to the Constitution.

In addition to your great litany of scenarios and events that would've turned out differently had we opted for the "anti-federalist" perspective, we should be reminded of what happened at Newburgh at the end of the Revolutionary War. That crisis was one more event which underlined the need for a federalist society. Washington had to resort to a little stage-acting with his glasses to head off what would have been a major, major crisis in our nation's early history. (Just imagine if the Continental Army had demanded a stronger, centralized government in 1783! To get you to appreciate Washington even more, imagine if he had agreed with suggestions that he march at their head to become king or dictator). Yet the Newburgh crisis would NOT have happened at all had the U.S., at that point, been under the 1787 Constitution (and had Treasury Secretary Hamilton worked his magic then as he did later).

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Frank_Monaldo - thanks

Dear Brian,

Thanks for the well considered response to Eric. I guess I have vested interest in Lincoln's reputation since I have attached his image to this page.

-- posted by Frank_Monaldo

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» mikeohara - Thank you, thank you.

Brian:

Shay's! Thank you.

I had an epiphany while helping my son Steven study his 5th grade Social Studies this spring. He was studying Shay's Rebellion and then on the next page the Whisky Rebellion. It occurred to me that Shay's and Newburgh probably scared the bejezus out of the Founders and convinced them that this entire Confederation thing was a stupid idea.

As to Newburgh, it may have been the first time that Congress dissed veterans but certainly wasn't the last. Also, it may have been the first time that some jarheads thought authoritarianism a better approach that a Republican form of government.

BTW, for those who want to revisit (or visit for the first time) The Newburgh Conspiracy, check out http://earlyamerica.com/review/fall97/ws...
although I have no doubt that Brian's forum also has an excellent essay on the affair.

-- posted by mikeohara

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian Tubbs - Thanks, Mike, but...

...I haven't written anything on Newburgh yet, believe it or not. The page you've recommended, however, is indeed excellent. Early America is one of my favorite web sites. It's a great resource.

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» mikeohara - Well then, get to it!

Brian:

...I haven't written anything on Newburgh yet...

Truthfully, I was only vaguely aware of the incident. I knew that we had come dangerously close to a coup of sorts before the Constitution was written. I probably read about it in the context of a discussion of Washington's refusal to be named King.

But, as I was getting reacquainted with the matter, the first thought that occurred to me was "well, here is why the Founders weren't too swell on a standing army, preferring instead a citizen militia". But, if you think about it, everyone involved was in the militia. They just happened to be standing at the behest of Congress. But they wouldn't be considered a "standing army" today. There is no magic in the idea of a citizen soldier as these guys demonstrated.

In any event, with your talent for analysis, I respectfully suggest you get off your butt and get something written about this fascinating event in American History.

-- posted by mikeohara

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Eric - Brian

1. He implies that the Founding Fathers were libertarians, yet provides no substantiation for this. As one who has extensively studied the American Founders, I would strongly disagree with categorizing them as libertarian. …..

I agree that the founders were not pure libertarians, especially Hamilton, as I would have them to be. I have no intention of trying to make them over in my image. They were clearly however, way way way more libertarian than current government’s usage of the constitution which they wrote and ratified. I would disagree with you in your assertions that even Hamilton would not be “rolling in his grave” over the usurpation of the current group in Washington DC.

2. Minor point: I don't know of many true conservatives (and I'm not talking about libertarians or even semi-libertarians here) who have a "prissy disdain" for the 2nd Amendment.

I do. Guns are power. When “conservatives” write laws which mitigate a citizen’s ability to empower himself for his own protection, they are showing disdain for the second amendment. Prissy, because the laws are written for us and not them.

3. His metaphoric association of the North with a physically abusive husband who steals from his wife is an outrageous exaggeration, in my view.

Your view, not mine.

Bottom line: the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate overseas and interstate commerce. It further allows it to set tariffs. The fact that the tariffs were not in the South's best interests - something I don't necessarily dispute - does NOT mean that they were illegal or unconstitutional. …..

Which is why the South ended up stepping outside of the constitution. I haven’t, and I don’t think Smith did, said that the South had a constitutional clause to site in secession. BTW, just as the constitution did not give a clause to mandate how secession was to be accomplished, so it had no clause telling the president how or whether to keep the union together. Lincoln was very much on his own in determining his actions.

4. His domestic violence scenario has the husband standing in the doorway, beating his wife to a bloody pulp. This is simply not a fair illustration. Had the South not raised an army and navy, seized federal property, and fired the first shots of the war, but rather had they simply sued for independence under terms of the Constitution (or their interpretation of it) and THEN Lincoln sent occupation forces in to jail people, etc., etc....THEN I could see a parallel. But it didn't happen that way. And you know it. And so does Mr. Smith.

Sorry, I don’t buy your deity in this situation. The North invaded the South; the South did not invade the North. You can’t make yourself God and change that fact. What nation or country do you know of that doesn’t raise an army and navy to defend its borders?

5. He argues that the South seceded over the tariff issue. Regardless of how much modern southerners (like myself, mind you) WANT to believe that, it is simply not true. All you have to do is read SOUTHERN newspaper editorials and SOUTHERN political speeches of that day (in the state houses and at the state secession conventions) and you'll see that secession was driven first by slavery and THEN by tariffs. …….

Slavery was the principal states rights issue of the time. The secession of the South was over principles such as this, not a tantrum of a bunch of hicks. As I have said before, slavery was on its way out. It is an economically defective concept. The South would have soon been free of slavery and in a more natural manner so that the former slaves could have been better assimilated into the general population.

6. Mr. Smith lays the blame of the war completely on the shoulders of Mr. Lincoln, and gives no room for the fact that Lincoln genuinely believed that the Constitution (and its authors) intended for the Union to be perpetual. We can debate this until we're blue in the face, but we should at least ACKNOWLEDGE that Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution was a reasonable one - …..

Mr. Lincoln approaches the throne of God, on judgement day:

God---As the president and commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States of America during the war between the states, you stand charged of murder on a grand scale, robbery, rape, arson and slavery, how do you plead?

Mr. Lincoln---God, haven’t you read the constitution? I had to preserve the union.

7. Mr. Smith takes a shot at Lincoln's sincerity on the issue of slavery. This is either due to shameful ignorance or deliberate distortion of the historical record. Abraham Lincoln was a lifelong opponent of slavery. He hated slavery. Further, he believed that the Founders had hated slavery (and he was right, by the way). He felt that THEY (the Founders) wanted slavery to be put on the "course of ultimate extinction" …..

Lincoln’s “feelings” aside, it wasn’t his issue to decide. If he does anyway, he is going to end up being insincere.

8. Mr. Smith implies (as so many of Lincoln's critics do) that the Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda tool because it only covered parts of the country where he had no authority. Again, this is ignorance or worse. Anyone who makes this charge has either not bothered to read what Lincoln wrote and said about the Proclamation or has deliberately chosen to ignore what he said. Lincoln long believed that he did not have the authority under the Constitution to ban slavery where it existed. HOWEVER, he did believe (as the war progressed) that, as Commander-in-Chief, he could free the slaves in hostile territory as a wartime measure. That is why the Proclamation covered only those areas not under Union control. It was a military measure. Anyone who reads into this an indifference on Lincoln's part toward slavery is ignoring his support of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution which banned slavery once and for all in the ENTIRE country!

I don’t disagree with this. See above.

Eric, I find you to be an intelligent person, but I think respectfully it is you who have yielded to "camp followers" (in your case, southern partisans, who in 2000, still are fighting the War Between the States).

Here you would be entirely wrong. I grew up in the North, getting my education from the government run school system. My parents never gave me any reason to thing anything other than what I learned in school. However, there has always been a “wrong feeling” for me about the war between the states. It didn’t come from “southern partisans” since I didn’t hear from them. The article, which we are dissecting, is one of only two or three that I have read, which took the South’s side in this war.

It's one thing to disagree with Lincoln. It's another to declare him an "American Lenin" or a sadistic brute. Lincoln may have been flawed (and was flawed in the sense that we all are), but he was no tyrant or warmonger. He was a sincere, patriotic man caught up in events that hopefully our country will never have to face again.

Stalin and his ilk were patriots and were “just caught up in events that his country hopefully will never have to face again”?

A man is responsible for what he does, irrespective of what he thinks or how he feels about anything.

-- posted by Eric

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian Tubbs - The Founders' Republic

Eric-

I don't remember making any comment about Hamilton not rolling in his grave. I would agree with you that the federal government of today oversteps its constitutional limitations - and does so to the extent that even Hamilton (were he alive today) would have a good case of heartburn. You get no argument from me there. I am a conservative, after all. HOWEVER, I reiterate my point that the Founders did not have a libertarian view of government - esp. not at the state and local level. Theirs was a republican view of government. (Small "r").

I want to spend most of my time, though, on your acknowledgement that the North (prior to 1860) did not violate the Constitution. This is a very important concession, because it removes the only justification that the states gave during the ratification process for any eventual consideration of withdrawal. You stated that, because of the economic harm of federal tariffs and economic policies, the South chose to step outside of the Constitution - to remove itself. I don't mean to be overly simplistic here, but they had no right to do that! Period.

But, of course, don't take my word for it. Look to the Founders. George Washington, in his Farewell Address, makes it plainly clear that the Constitution is "sacredly obligatory" on all until it is changed by an "authentic" act of the people. This is the EXACT view that Abraham Lincoln took. I want you to see that.

You may not agree with the methods Lincoln utilized to bring the South into submission, but you would be hard pressed to argue that Lincoln's ideology was any different from George Washington's when it came to a state's obligation to honor and submit to the Constitution.

Let's assume that George Washington had been President in 1861. First off, I grant that with his stature, it's unlikely the South would've even considered seceding, but you never know. Let's say that they did secede - even with George Washington as President. Do you honestly believe he would have let them go!? You only need to look at how he handled the Whiskey Rebellion to get a clue on that one.

Read Washington's Farewell Address. He makes it very clear that the states gave their consent to the Constitution when it was ratified. Once that consent was given, that's it!! It's the law of the land - it's the Supreme Law of the land. And all the people are bound by it. That's Washington's view of the Constitution and of the Union.

I realize that you and other southern partisans would seek to diminish Washington's wisdom and stature, but the backbone of libertarianism is the Rule of Law. And Washington, more than any other Founder, understood the origins and intent of the Supreme Law of our land. He presided over the entire Constitutional Convention from beginning to end. He heard all the debates, listened to all the arguments, knew all the players who put the document together. Washington is far more credible as to the Constitution's original meaning (including its perpetual status) than John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, or any of us.

Of course, Washington's view was not unique. James Madison held similar views, as can be seen by his response to some of what Calhoun was saying.

A favorite fallback position of Lincoln bashers (when shown the inescapable evidence of the Founders' intent regarding Unionism) is to say "Hey, the Founders themselves rebelled against their established government! And they did so over money! See?"

Chalk this distorted view of our heritage up to our modern day public school system and our current, cynical fixation on money. The American Revolution was not about excessive taxation. It was about the Magna Carta and English common law. Parliamentary taxation on the Colonies was but one violation of the colonists' constitutional rights. There were many others, including arbitrary search warrants, invasion of privacy, quartering of British troops in private homes, the closing down of colonial assemblies, and more. Ultimately, the colonists took up arms to preserve their rights as English subjects - not to break away from the British Empire. They resorted to independence only as a last resort.

There is no parallel between the Spirit of 1776 and the secession of the southern states in 1861. None.

The authors of the Constitution would've expected Lincoln to stop the southern states from seceding. That's what he did, and he is a hero because of it.

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Eric - Brian

On Hamilton---I apologize if I quoted someone else instead of you. Hamilton is, IMO, the one guilty of arranging certain clauses in the constitution to be more easily abused by the federal government, bringing us to what we have now which is a national government. He is no hero of mine.

On Washington---I have mixed views on him. He was a great leader who led, as a leader should, by personal character. He apparently succumbed to the need to not have his work undone and therefore was part of its undoing. The Whiskey Rebellion could have had many other outcomes than the one, which occurred. Most all other possible outcomes would have been more peaceful and more preserving of the civil liberties that at least some of the patriots fought and died for. I don't worship Washington. If he is a hero (and I don't doubt he is), he is one with the usual flaws. I think one of the problems with modern education is that a historical figure ends up either being black or white. Washington was the man of the moment in the revolution, but he was no prophet giving pronouncements from an infallible deity.

On the Southern states lacking a right to step outside of the constitution to secede---First, I don't worship the constitution. Second, rights are not conferred by paper documents. It is a piece of paper written by fallible humans. I would disagree with Washington in his assertion of anything sacred in the constitution. While I do believe that the rule of law is VERY important to the peaceful coexistence of humans, it is important to parse the difference between the rule of law and rulership under the color of law. Also, there is such a thing as bad law. If I said, as you asserted, that the Northern states did nothing unconstitutional in regards to the South prior to the secession, I misspoke. I frankly don't have enough knowledge on the subject to say one way or the other. That was never part of my argument. I believe that rule under the color of law started in the Washington administration and has continued to this day. I believe this is the "I would agree with you that the federal government of today oversteps its constitutional limitations" to which you referred.

You may not agree with the methods Lincoln utilized to bring the South into submission, but you would be hard pressed to argue that Lincoln's ideology was any different from George Washington's when it came to a state's obligation to honor and submit to the Constitution.

How many of the states would have ratified the constitution if they could have read this statement first? I believe that "the states" thought themselves to be signing a contract between sovereign entities rather than a document which made them submissive to a higher authority. It is my opinion that "the states" thought the federal government was going to serve them rather than the other way around.

I realize that you and other southern partisans…

I have made a point of telling you that I am not a southern partisan. Please pay attention. I'm not a joiner. I am only I.

There is no parallel between the Spirit of 1776 and the secession of the southern states in 1861. None.

Sez you. Freedom is freedom. They wanted freedom and they wanted freedom and I want freedom and likely you want freedom too. The spirit of freedom is the spirit of freedom.

The authors of the Constitution would've expected Lincoln to stop the southern states from seceding. That's what he did, and he is a hero because of it.

I doubt it, but that is a moot point now. What the founders would have wanted is irrelevant to what Lincoln did. Lincoln has to stand on his own feet and answer for his own actions, just like any of us. You can't fall back on: “but the constitution says.....” Murder is murder. Tyranny is tyranny. If you quote the Ten Commandments as the highest law of the land, I can't argue, unless I would argue that God doesn't exist or than He didn't write them, but any human document deserves continual scrutiny.

Here is another argument that tends to trump a lot of others: The states in 1861 were not current signatories to the constitution. Yes, I know there is no clause in the constitution for re-ratification, but to make this one document, of human production, to be "sacredly obligatory" for all time is a pretty piece of hubris.

-- posted by Eric

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian Tubbs - Order and Common Sense

Eric-

First off, my apologies on associating you with "southern partisans." I actually did pay attention to the explanation of your northern roots. I was merely "on a roll" (as they say) and didn't properly double-check myself after I wrote what I did.

Now, to your central point...

It is irresponsible and unjust for people today to casually discard the Founders as relics of the past. I see this so very often today that it truly grieves me as an American citizen. Not only do our Founders deserve heroic recognition and admiration for what they accomplished, they are the most credible sources of information when it comes to the origins of this great country we live in. As such, we owe it to them and to ourselves to listen to what they have to say (or at least had to say).

On a more practical level, should we not consult the historical record when it comes to understanding the laws of our land? Radical loose constructionists would say "no," but this is not the responsible view of jurisprudence, and it's frankly completely contrary to the view embraced by the Founders themselves when they originated our legal system. (While there was a divide between the Hamiltonian school of thought and the Jeffersonian view of jurisprudence, both views are far to the right of where the American Bar Association is today).

Common sense supports what I'm saying here. When someone is charged with murder, that person is tried under a particular set or range of statutues on the books. When the case goes to court, deliberations take place on the definition of the statutes in question as the court decides whether the actions of the defendant fall within that definition.

A court cannot and should not just jettison the statutes in question, and decide to try the case on a higher, moral level. No, the court must try the case within the confines of the law.

If you look only at feelings, opinions, interests, etc., then it becomes very (I would say "exclusively") subjective in determining right from wrong, appropriate from inappropriate, and so forth. There are no boundaries. No limits.

This may be an attractive utopia for libertarians, but it is not the kind of society our Founders fashioned. Our forefathers were intensely committed to the Rule of Law. As such, they set up our system as a government of laws. The people govern within the framework (and ONLY within the framework) of the Law.

To fully understand the Founders' feelings on this, one needs only to contrast the American Revolution with the French Revolution. In the former, our forefathers were fighting for their "freedom" under British common law - under the established order of the British Constitution. In the latter, the people rose up and jettisoned the established order. Washington and Hamilton understood this, and that's why they steered clear of American support for the French revolutionaries. Wise, since the French Revolution followed its natural anarchical course and degenerated into a violent bloodbath.

The Rule of Law is the key. Complete freedom outside the Rule of Law leads to anarchy. Thomas Jefferson understood this, which is why he challenged the courts to be "chained to the Constitution." Chained. Think about that. Not my word. Jefferson's.

Respectfully, you sell Alexander Hamilton short. We owe our stable, free market economic system to Hamilton. Were it not for his brilliant stewardship of America's early economy, this country would likely not have survived under the Constitution of 1787. Even his harshest critics eventually came to understand this (even if they refused to admit it outright). If you doubt me, look at how much of Hamilton's infrastructure Jefferson dismantled when he became President and the Federalists were swept out of power. (Eventually, Andrew Jackson did do away with the National Bank - but, by then, America's economy was solid enough that it didn't need it).

My bottom line point here is that, even though the Founders held different views on many issues, their range of diverse opinion still forms a coherent (if somewhat broad) philosophy that underlines the original context and meaning of our Constitution. And it is that overall philosophy that should guide our understanding of the Constitution and our interpretation of the laws passed within its framework.

You say you do not "worship" the Constitution. That's fine, but you must respect it. And you must respect it as the Supreme Law of the land. Why? Because that's what it is. Period.

Likewise, the southern states of 1861 should've respected it. Unfortunately, they did not - and the nation was plunged into the bloodiest and most tragic war of its history.

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Eric - Brian

I agree with most of the first two-thirds of your post, until you start praising the "accomplishments" of the strong central government. People accomplish and create success, government does not. I strongly disagree with your assertion that Hamilton be given credit for "managing the economy to success".

The last third of your post is just a psalm to the wonders of strong central planning. It doesn't float my boat.

You say you do not "worship" the Constitution. That's fine, but you must respect it. And you must respect it as the Supreme Law of the land. Why? Because that's what it is. Period.

"Ve haf vaze uf making you respect it". The constitution was supposed to be something that the federal government is to respect. Read it again and tell me how much of it is written to me or about me and how much is written to/about the federal government and to limit such government. And NO, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT US. The government rules us and is not very concerned about us, except as resources. You will come to see this, from one side or the other. The government is getting too blatant for its offenses to be mistaken.

Likewise, the southern states of 1861 should've respected it.

Ditto.

Unfortunately, they did not - and the nation was plunged into the bloodiest and most tragic war of its history.

You believe that the South attacked the North, without leaving its borders. OK, --__--_-
I,,,, ,, am ,,, .,.,.,.-- ___
,, , ,,,,,,,,,,,..---- ,,, , ,,,,,,
-----_____--- -------- -_______
.... ,, *****!!___- OK, I got that swallowed.

Go ahead, keep blaming the South for being attacked because they wanted to live apart. I don't see the sin in it. You do, and you get to live in a nation that values greatness over liberty. I hope you can live will that thought when the next massacre comes along. Apparently you don't have a problem with those in the past.

-- posted by Eric

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Eric - Brian

Just a little addendum to my previous post. This article is about state legislators, but I think that one like it could be written about national legislators upper levels of all three branches of the national government, if someone had the balls to do it.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_poo...

-- posted by Eric

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Gottlieb - Amusing

I just still think it's amusing that some people cast the South in rosy terms, because they were fighting for "liberty" -- never mind all those slaves.

It's ridiculous, you know? Hypocritical.

-- posted by Gottlieb

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Eric - Gottlieb

I just still think it's amusing that some people cast the South in rosy terms, because they were fighting for "liberty" -- never mind all those slaves.

OK, I'll bite once. Please go back to my posts and copy/paste my quotes which have "cast the South in rosy terms".

-- posted by Eric

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian Tubbs - Everyone is Bound by the Constitution

Eric-

The Constitution does indeed limit the federal government. And I concede that the feds haven't respected those limitations as they should in recent years. However, the states are also bound by the Constitution. Read Article I, Section 10 for crying out loud.

Your sarcasm aside, I never categorized the secession of the southern states as an "invasion." But I would refer to their actions as an insurrection. And the federal government is given the authority to suppress insurrections -- an authority that, once again, Washington wielded during the Whiskey Rebellion.

If you question this authority I refer you to the following constitutional passage:

Article I: Section 8

"The Congress shall have the power...

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the land, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."

This follows the Constitution's provision for congressional authority over the Army and Navy. One might argue that only the militia can be used to suppress insurrections, but the Constitution does give Congress the power to "make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces," and thus it could be logically construed that in a situation as massive as a full-scale civil war, the Congress could direct the resources of the Army and Navy to the challenge at hand as well. This argument gets more support when you read the final item in Section 8.

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing
Powers, and all other Powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer
thereof."

Thus, not only in the case of civil disturbance or insurrection - but in peacetime generally, the Congress has the power to pass laws that will better enable it to execute its enumerated powers. This was the justification that Hamilton used for the National Bank. Washington accepted this reasoning, and signed it into law. Jefferson disputed it, but since Washington and Hamilton were present at the drafting of the Constitution and Jefferson wasn't, it's pretty clear which side was more credible.

Those who support the South's actions in the Civil War are quick to respond (when shown the powers of Congress) that it was Lincoln primarily who acted in an extraconstitutional capacity as President. I will grant that this is so, when it comes to his decision to suspend habeus corpus. But, in all other cases, Lincoln's actions were either justified directly via the Constitution or were retroactively approved by Congress.

Here is what the Constitution says of the President in relation to his duty to enforce the law - including and most especially the Constitution itself:

Article II: Section 8

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--`I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the
United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' " (emphasis added)

Note the importance of the presidential oath. The electorate may hold the President politically accountable for certain campaign promises, but the Supreme Law of our Land holds him (or, in the future, her) accountable for the preservation, protection, and defense of the Constitution. If the Constitution is diminished, discarded, and/or the Union over which it presides be broken up, he has failed his duty. Period. It should be absolutely clear to anybody (and, I believe, it would be were it not for the passionate bias that the Civil War inspires in people) that for a President to allow a state to jettison the Constitution and secede from the Union it established would be a dereliction of duty to the highest extreme.

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the
Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Note that technically President Lincoln had authority over the militias of the southern states. The important thing to note is that Lincoln was in complete command of the armed forces of the United States, including the state militias. As such, he could direct them against the secessionist states down South, especially if Congress supported his efforts and policies - which they largely did.

And finally part of Section 3 states...

"[H]e shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..."

This is a very broad and significant clause in his authority. He is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the country.

WITH ALL THIS IN MIND, I find it quite logical and reasonable that when President Lincoln saw the southern states declare themselves separated from the Union and from the U.S. Constitution - something that he and many, many others believed they did NOT have the right to do, he was justified to stop them. Furthermore, he saw that they were violating every single provision of Article I, Section 10 - raising an army, coining money, entering into a confederation, etc., etc. How could he see this as anything but a violation of the Constitution and of the laws of the land? And when you consider the economic and political impacts of that separation, as well as the seizure of federal property in the southern states, it is also understandable that he saw their Confederacy as a clear and present danger to the security of the United States.

The southern states were bound by the Constitution - regardless of the fact that the generation of southern leaders that pushed for secession did not participate in the Constitution's initial ratification. You threw that up as a point earlier, but it is (respectfully) an irrelevant point. Each generation is not empowered to reinvent the country and its government. We have our Constitution, and it's as binding now (or at least should be) as it was in 1789 (when George Washington took the oath of office as our first President under it).

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Eric - Brian

I don't need a lecture on the plain reading of the constitution. Your points are all well taken, unless I missed something in reading such a long post in a hurry. I never said the federal government didn't have the constitutional authority to suppress insurrection. I only said they shouldn't have done so in that manner. People in power tend to get a blind spot about anything that infringes on their power. As I said before, there were many other more peaceful and morally upright means for managing that situation. The constitution nowhere says that all insurrection must be put down, by force, at all cost. It only gives the authority to do it. It doesn't command that it be done. I still say Lincoln must answer for many thousands of deaths and much destruction. It was his and the congress's decision. Even if the congress had decided for war, it would not have been fought without the commander in chief so it was his war.

-- posted by Eric

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Eric - C S Lewis

And then I ran across this article.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sobran/sobran...

-- posted by Eric

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian Tubbs - Lewis Article

Eric-

Good article on C.S. Lewis. I will comment on that in a separate thread.

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian Tubbs - Lewis Article

Eric-

Good article on C.S. Lewis. I will comment on that in a separate thread.

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Brian Tubbs - Eric

What good is a law if you don't enforce it? What good is a Constitution if the states believe they can just chuck it anytime they wish to?

-Brian Tubbs
Contributing Editor
American Revolution & Founding Era

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Eric - Brian

Thank you for the short post and the to the point questions.

What good is a law if you don't enforce it? What good is a Constitution if the states believe they can just chuck it anytime they wish to?

Indeed, at this time, with bookshelves of law being written every year, one must first parse whether we are talking about a good law or a bad law. Good laws don't need to be added very often. After you get past the first year or two of a go