Jefferson vs Lincoln

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

"Over the course of American history, there has been no greater conflict of visions than that between Thomas Jeffersonâ??s voluntary republic, founded on the natural right of peaceful secession, and Abraham Lincolnâ??s permanent empire, founded on the violent denial of that same right.

That these two men somehow shared a common commitment to liberty is a lie so monstrous and so absurd that its pervasiveness in popular culture utterly defies logic.

Contrast that clear articulation of natural law with Abraham Lincolnâ??s first inaugural address, where he flatly rejected the notion that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Instead, Lincoln claimed that, despite the clear wording of the Tenth Amendment,

no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; [and] resolves and ordinances [such as the Declaration of Independence] to that effect are legally voidâ?¦

King George III agreed.

Furthermore, Lincoln claimed the right of a king to collect his federal tribute, by violence if necessary. Without even bothering to pretend such authority existed in the Constitution, Lincoln offered (and eventually carried out) a thinly veiled threat that

beyond what may be necessary for [collecting taxes], there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

In the words of Tony Soprano, pay up and nobody gets hurt."

Discuss?

3

I appreciate your reason for providing only a limited excerpt but the next few paragraphs are quite key also:

But perhaps, as some have said, Jefferson intended his Declaration merely as a political tool to justify American independence from Britain. He surely would never have acknowledged or defended an individual state�?�¢??s right to secede from the very union he helped to found. Except that he did, in his own first inaugural.

If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

In light of these facts, no serious student of history or politics could believe that Jefferson and Lincoln possessed similar visions for America. Or that Jefferson would have condoned the violent subjugation of a single sovereign state (let alone 11 of them), or thought Lincoln�?�¢??s disregard for the Constitution in any way legal or justified.

Rather, he would have known at once that what Lincoln spawned through his belligerence was a government capable of violating its own fundamental law at will; of using illegal force to prevent the governed from withdrawing voluntary consent (regardless of their motivation), and thereby destroying consent altogether.

In Lincoln’s day the Federal government derived the large majority of its revenue from the Southern states, though it spent only a small minority of its expenditures in those states.

Secession really was quite intolerable to Mr Lincoln and I suppose various powerful Northern figures unknown to me.

While it makes for a noble and happy revisionism to tell the kiddies that the war was to free the slaves, the sad truth is that Lincoln cared nothing for this. He had stated plainly that he would as soon the entire Union be all-slave or all-free, and which it was mattered not to him.

Nor was it the second reason taught to the kiddies of “Well the South started it first at Fort Sumter.” There was not one casualty (other than a cow or some other animal) and a sovereign nation most certainly has the right to demand that troops of another nation leave, and if they do not, to force them out. Forcing them out without human casualty certainly did not justify invading and decimating the South.

Neither of those was the cause. They made fine proganda in the day though, and they make the children feel good today.

4

I know I’ve been “out-of-sync” with the Forum for some time; but what is the author’s treatise?

The argument about whether Lincoln “cared” about slavery is one that people have disagreed on for as long as I can remember. The best that will come of it is to “take you side” and move on.

However, I would pose these questions to the author (and to the Forum):

  1. Is the issue that Lincoln was a despite, power-hungry “king” who fought the “War of Northern Aggression” merely out of fear of losing revenue?

  2. What “right” to self-determination did someone have to subjugate millions to slavery? Did those under subjugation have any right to self-determination?

  3. Are we not stronger as a whole than as fifty (or more) individual, self-governing entities?

  4. Related to number 2; Why stop at 50? Why not hundreds, if not thousands, of small tribes and villages; united by…what?

  5. Related to number 4; What is this “Great Country” if not its people united as a “Great Union”? Didn’t Lincoln see THAT potential?

I could go on and on.

But at least these few questions are a start.

Mufasa

5

I suggest everyone here read a book called “The Last Great Hope On Earth” and another one called “The Civil War and Reconstruction” by William Gienapp (can’t remember who wrote the first one) before you start to slam Lincoln.

  1. The South the was not the major source of revenue for the US prior to the Civil War and as the North became increasingly industrialized, the South only stood to be an even smaller source of revenue for the US as a whole.

  2. While one can argue that secession from the Union was constitutional, this disregards the fact that secession was actually very unpopular amongst all but the small minority of plantation owners in the South. In fact, the war in general became unpopular in the South and was seen as a rich man’s war being fought by the poor in order to maintain the status quo in the South. Conscription only served to exacerbate this. If anything, secession was nothing more than a way for the extreme upper class in the South to maintain their wealth and preserve the heinous institution of slavery.

  3. An examination of Lincoln’s personal letters as well as his 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas and subsequent speeches (including his inaugural address and the Emancipation Proclamation) make it clear that while Lincoln was a racist, he was also diamterically opposed to slavery as an institution and felt it to be immoral.

  4. Lincoln felt that he was elected to preserve the Union and that the Union “was perpetual”. Therefore, in his mind any attempt to harm the sanctity of the Union was unconstitutional and illegal. The southern states had seceded as a result of his election and Lincoln viewed maintaining the integrity of the Union as his primary responsibility.

  5. The criticism of Lincoln’s actions prior to and during the Civil War (including his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and the Emancipation Proclamation) fails to acknowledge a couple of things:

    a. Lincoln faced decisions on an almost daily basis that no President before or since has faced.
    b. In a time of war, the Constitution explicitly grants the President expanded powers in the face of treason and or attack from either foreign or national enemies. Lincoln used these powers to save the integrity of the Union and not in some warped attempt to keep money in the country’s coffers or get “his tribute”
    c. The war was most certainly fought to end slavery. There were many reasons beyond this that the war was fought, but the overriding factor was ending slavery. The Republican Party’s platform was to end slavery, plain and simple. It is the platform Lincoln ran on, it was the main goal of his administration and while other issues (states’ rights primarily) were factors, they all stemmed from the contentious issue of slavery.
    d. Slavery was a vile institution and the fact that the South was willing to secede and go to war to defend it is one of the blackest marks, if not the blackest mark on the history of this country. I almost never feel that the ends justify the means (not even in the case of John Brown), but in Lincoln’s case, whatever he means he chose to end slavery in this country once and for all are certainly justifiable in the face the ends he sought.

6

Also, any comparison of the South’s secession to the American Revolution is invalid. The thirteen colonies were just that, colonies. The Southern states were not colonies of the North. They were part of the US and therefore did not have any sovereign status when they seceded.

9

Thanks, DB and Push.

I probably have studied Jefferson, Lincoln (and Truman) more than any three people in our History. The author literally had my head spinning with the holes in his arguments.

With that being said; I’m sure that there are many who agree with him.

Mufasa

11

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
2) What “right” to self-determination did someone have to subjugate millions to slavery? Did those under subjugation have any right to self-determination?[/quote]

I said it would have been noble if ending slavery had been Lincoln’s reason.

He made plain that it was not, that if the differences between the North and South on this were to resolve to the entire country having slavery, that would be fine with him, just so long as the difference was eliminated.

There are very many quotes proving Lincoln was a thorough bigot, though of course his defenders will say “Well, relative to his day his statements were not out of the ordinary.” Sorry, still a thorough-going bigot, whatever day and year the statements were made.

And don’t forget, in the Emancipation Proclamation he “freed” only those slaves which were in states over which he had no power – what slaves there were in territories where he did have power, he kept enslaved. (Yes, they were later freed, but Lincoln himself could have freed them earlier but wasn’t bothered enough by their slavery to do so. And why would a man who would have as soon had the entire country have slavery care really about the Union slaves?)

13

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Also, any comparison of the South’s secession to the American Revolution is invalid. The thirteen colonies were just that, colonies. The Southern states were not colonies of the North. They were part of the US and therefore did not have any sovereign status when they seceded. [/quote]

Neither did the colonies have sovereign status at the beginning of the American Revolution. If they had, the Declaration of Independence was unnecessary.

They were semi-autonomous in some respects but far from sovereign. They were 100% British territory.[/quote]

So what? I was inaccurate about a couple of things; it doesn’t alter my main point. Whatever Lincoln did, he did it to end slavery and preserve our little experiment in democracy, not to keep slaveowner money flowing into Washington. Where did the OP get his history lessons from anyways? Howard Zinn and George Wallace? Gimme a break.

14

You mean he wanted to preserve, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” ?

Or is that he was utterly determined to abolish the belief that people of a state could dissolve such bands?

He completely succeeded in abolishing that. No state would dare secede today for any reason. They would rightly expect to be burned to the ground, or at the least met with massive military occupation and imprisonment of everyone involved.

And somehow, I don’t think that all the tender care the leftists have for terrorists would be applied to secessionists. Gitmo would be far too good for such.

16

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You mean he wanted to preserve, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” ?

Or is that he was utterly determined to abolish the belief that people of a state could dissolve such bands?

He completely succeeded in abolishing that. No state would dare secede today for any reason. They would rightly expect to be burned to the ground, or at the least met with massive military occupation and imprisonment of everyone involved.

And somehow, I don’t think that all the tender care the leftists have for terrorists would be applied to secessionists. Gitmo would be far too good for such.[/quote]

Do you mean to tell me that the preservation of slavery made it necessary “for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another”? Are you really trying to defend the stance of the proslavery crowd? Come on, you can’t be serious. I hate to break it to you, but there are certain things that transcend even our own Constitution, the ending of the institutionalized slavery of an entire race of people being one.

As far as your comment about the tender care of leftists, well, I think they object to Gitmo for much the same reason you seem to be defending the Southerners during the Civil War; namely an adherence and reverence for our Constitution.

17

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Also, any comparison of the South’s secession to the American Revolution is invalid. The thirteen colonies were just that, colonies. The Southern states were not colonies of the North. They were part of the US and therefore did not have any sovereign status when they seceded. [/quote]

Neither did the colonies have sovereign status at the beginning of the American Revolution. If they had, the Declaration of Independence was unnecessary.

They were semi-autonomous in some respects but far from sovereign. They were 100% British territory.[/quote]

So what? I was inaccurate about a couple of things; it doesn’t alter my main point. [/quote]

But it surely alters our perception of your credibility. If you want us to ascertain and possibly accept your “main point” then you must clothe it in credibility.[quote]

Whatever Lincoln did, he did it to end slavery and preserve our little experiment in democracy, not to keep slaveowner money flowing into Washington… [/quote]

OK, that’s your premise and maybe you’re even right but you need to build your premise on corroborating evidence not just sweeping conclusions based on self-admitted inaccuracies.

[/quote]

If I say that 2 plus 2 equals four, however I came to that conclusion does not distract from the fact that 2 plus 2 does in fact equal four. As for your demands for evidence, read the book by Gienapp I mentioned above. It contains virtually all known correspondences between Lincoln and his peers relevant to the Civil War. It should present my point much better than I can.

19

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

If I say that 2 plus 2 equals four, however I came to that conclusion does not distract from the fact that 2 plus 2 does in fact equal four. As for your demands for evidence, read the book by Gienapp I mentioned above. It contains virtually all known correspondences between Lincoln and his peers relevant to the Civil War. It should present my point much better than I can.[/quote]

Now you’re missing one of the points that’s always mentioned in this debate. Many find it a major travesty that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. You errantly claimed the Constitution gave him the power to do so. I explained to you how it didn’t.

It is entirely pertinent to the conversation because it is a debit on Lincoln’s account that he thought he could do whatever the hell he wanted as long as it was for a noble cause. There are plenty of politicians, otherwise known as slimy motherfuckers, walking around today who think the noble cause of their choosing empowers them to wipe their asses with the Constitution before they calmly stride into a committee or Oval Office meeting and do whatever the hell they want.[/quote]

I’m gonna hit the weights. We’ll continue this debate later, but for now I must engage in what brought me to this website in the first place.

20

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
You mean he wanted to preserve, “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…” ?

Or is that he was utterly determined to abolish the belief that people of a state could dissolve such bands?

He completely succeeded in abolishing that. No state would dare secede today for any reason. They would rightly expect to be burned to the ground, or at the least met with massive military occupation and imprisonment of everyone involved.

And somehow, I don’t think that all the tender care the leftists have for terrorists would be applied to secessionists. Gitmo would be far too good for such.[/quote]

Do you mean to tell me that the preservation of slavery made it necessary “for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another”? Are you really trying to defend the stance of the proslavery crowd? Come on, you can’t be serious. I hate to break it to you, but there are certain things that transcend even our own Constitution, the ending of the institutionalized slavery of an entire race of people being one.

As far as your comment about the tender care of leftists, well, I think they object to Gitmo for much the same reason you seem to be defending the Southerners during the Civil War; namely an adherence and reverence for our Constitution.[/quote]

Your problem is that you have premises which you acquired by whatever means, you weigh everything according to those premises, and conclude you are right because according to your premises, you are right.