Jefferson vs Lincoln

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
162

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Setting aside Lincoln’s purported intentions in this regard and despite my own previous words to the thieving parachutist about this being 150 year old history, I do think a valid case can be made that as a result of Lincoln’s actions the federal government began to grow beyond what original intent would allow. So to a certain extent this discussion is relevant today.[/quote]

Well, this is right, but not necessarily by and through “broad constructionist” means. The power of the federal government was expanded after the Civil War, but largely due to constitutional amendment, not expanding “interpretations” of the original Constitution.

The largest part of the Reconstruction Amendments was to provide the federal government power to enforce civil rights. Expansion? Yes. But not welfare state expansion, and done via democratic vote and the amendment process.

Lincoln was a Hamilton-Clay man, but interestingly, Lincoln was, by a number of measures, an originalist. Most notably, Lincoln’s ferocious criticism of Dred Scot was based on originalism.

So, outside of Lincoln’s support for “internal improvements”, but there isn’t much evidence he was a “broad constructionist”. Also, for all of TJ’s “strict construction” talk, in practice, he doesn’t quite live up to the ideals.

Well, I’d take issue with a few of these - after all, Madison supported a national bank, and TJ’s uneveness on the issue is well-documented. And, the Federalists were hardly “statists” - not saying you are suggesting they were, but Hamilton and Washington would be aghast at the role of the federal government today. Hamilton, for example, wanted a powerful commercial republic - anything that got in the way of that, such as high taxes and punitive regulation, would be abhorrent.

But to your larger point, I completely agree.

163

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Setting aside Lincoln’s purported intentions in this regard and despite my own previous words to the thieving parachutist about this being 150 year old history, I do think a valid case can be made that as a result of Lincoln’s actions the federal government began to grow beyond what original intent would allow. So to a certain extent this discussion is relevant today.

I do know that as an 1860 Republican (the Republican Party being the progeny of the Federalists, the moderate Whigs) Lincoln would’ve been considered to be a broad constructionist of the Constitution, as opposed to the Jeffersonian Republicans, the anti-federalists (who eventually became the Democratic Party) who believed in a very strict construction and very limited federal government.

Broad constructionism is a cancer today. What we see today would cause the anti-federalists of yesterday, i.e., Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, et al, to wag their fingers with a resounding, “I TOLD YOU SO” and cause the Federalists, i.e., Washington, Hamilton, Adams, to moan in agony, “We never meant it to go so far. We’re so sorry.”[/quote]

Whoops. Disregard my previous post; I misread the last few lines of your post about federalists/anti-federalists. My bad.

164

I agree with the general point concerning constructionism, but to blame Lincoln for the abuse of Constitutional powers at the hands of subsequent Presidents, as I said literally days ago, should not rest on Lincoln’s shoulders but on the shoulders of those who would justify such abuses by citing the example of Lincoln.

165

[quote]pushharder wrote:
You really should have known.[/quote]

As put by the noted Q&A author in Dirt Bike magazine, back in the late 70s or early 80s.

166

Pushharder:

I’m still waiting. How do you feel about the treatment of Southerners by their fellow Southerners regarding the whole shortage of food thing?

167

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Don’t read the book at all. Read “The Civil War and Reconstruction: A Documentary Collection” edited by William E. Gienapp. It contains strictly primary evidence in the form of newspaper articles, letters, diaries, speeches and so forth from Southern and Northern politicians, soldiers, wives, generals and other officers, Lincoln, Davis, etc, etc. Since it is entirely driven by primary sources, the book is entirely without bias and makes for a perfect stepping stone toward viewing the Civil War as objectively as possible.[/quote]

Agreed. The best documents are the contemporary source documents. Read Lincoln’s letters and speeches. Read the newspaper clippings. Read the secession ordinances. Read the party platforms. Read Alexander Stephens (perhaps the best expositor of the secessionist cause).

And do the exact same thing with the Nullification Crisis. I don’t think you can adequately understand the Civil War unless you adequately understand the Nullification Crisis. Oddly, our legion of “lib-uhh-turr-eeans” couldn’t tell you the first thing about this dress rehearsal of the Civil War. Why? Because (1) they ain’t so good with the book learnin’ awhen it isn’t spoon few to them by demagoging carnival barkers and (2) it provides too many inconvenient facts that eviscreate their idiotic revisionist narrative of “what really happened!”.

Instead of DiLorenzo’s nonsensical ahistorical revisionism that would make Karl Marx blush, just learn the damn history, then form an opinion.

168

My point about Gienapp’s book versus DiLorenzo’s book is that in Gienapp’s book, the primary evidence is presented without any qualification or evaluation to further a particular point; the evidence speaks for itself and allows the reader to come to his own conclusions, rather than decide whether or not an author like DiLorenzo has arrived at his conclusions correctly. Decide for yourself without the presence of a biased opinion rather than letting someone present you with only his side of the argument.

169

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There are a thousand good references for the idea that the Union was indestructible and not a rag-tag collection of states with the ratification of the Constitution, but don’t take the word of the pro-Union types, reflect on the lamentations of those opposed to Constitution precisely because it created a Union of the People, not a league of states:

Anti-Federalist “Cincinnatus”: “[s]uch is the anxiety manifested by the framers of the
proposed constitution, for the utter extinction of the state sovereignties, that
they were not content with taking from them every attribute of sovereignty,
but would not leave them even the name. Therefore, in the very
commencement they prescribe this remarkable declaration - We the People of
the United States.”

Anti-Federalist “Federal Farmer”: “when the people [of
each state] shall adopt the proposed . . . it will be adopted not by the people of
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, &c., but by the people of the United States…”

Anti-Federalist “Brutus”: “if it is ratified, [it] will not be a compact entered
into by the States, in their corporate capacities, but an agreement of the people
of the United States as one great body politic. . . . It is to be observed, it is not
a union of states or bodies corporate; had this been the case the existence of
the state governments might have been secured. But it is a union of the
people of the United States considered as one body, who are to ratify this
constitution, if it is adopted.”

[/quote]

This is less important than what those that actually ratified the constitution thought and what they were assured of. The federalist and anti-federalist were meant to sway public opinion. I have no idea what was discussed and agreed to by those that ratified, but this would be more interesting.

170

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Don’t read the book at all. Read “The Civil War and Reconstruction: A Documentary Collection” edited by William E. Gienapp. It contains strictly primary evidence in the form of newspaper articles, letters, diaries, speeches and so forth from Southern and Northern politicians, soldiers, wives, generals and other officers, Lincoln, Davis, etc, etc. Since it is entirely driven by primary sources, the book is entirely without bias and makes for a perfect stepping stone toward viewing the Civil War as objectively as possible.[/quote]

Agreed. The best documents are the contemporary source documents. Read Lincoln’s letters and speeches. Read the newspaper clippings. Read the secession ordinances. Read the party platforms. Read Alexander Stephens (perhaps the best expositor of the secessionist cause).

And do the exact same thing with the Nullification Crisis. I don’t think you can adequately understand the Civil War unless you adequately understand the Nullification Crisis. Oddly, our legion of “lib-uhh-turr-eeans” couldn’t tell you the first thing about this dress rehearsal of the Civil War. Why? Because (1) they ain’t so good with the book learnin’ awhen it isn’t spoon few to them by demagoging carnival barkers and (2) it provides too many inconvenient facts that eviscreate their idiotic revisionist narrative of “what really happened!”.

Instead of DiLorenzo’s nonsensical ahistorical revisionism that would make Karl Marx blush, just learn the damn history, then form an opinion.[/quote]

Why not read a number of sources, as Push mentioned previously? DiLorenzo uses primary sources as well. Why not read his book and come to one’s own conclusions?

And you sound foolish labeling everything as “revisionist” that you disagree with. All history is “revisionist”. People have theories, they research the particular topic, and uncover new facts that we didn’t know previously.

  • The last sentence is a general statement, not referring to a particular author or book.
171

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

This is a related, but somewhat deflected line of questioning. At what point does the departure from constitutional principles become great enough to override the insurrections and rebellions clause? In other words, are we forever bound to submission to any and all political power structures whatever so long as they’re elected by a majority?[/quote]

Great point and question - and I’d say no. We always retain our natural right of revolution. Once we have had our rights denied, we can invoke the right of revolution to throw off an immoral government.

That is the essence of the DOI. That is the essence of our revolt against England.[/quote]

I would answer Tribulus’ question differently. Rhetorically, who decides that there is “departure from constitutional principles” and thereby invites rebellion? Is everything objectionable somehow also unconstitutional? Of course not; so who decides?
A few guys on the internet? Some nose-pickers in Lew Rockwell’s employ? A cabal of slave holders in Richmond or Savannah?

The Constitution itself provides the remedy: it is the Court. I need not remind any reader of Marbury v Madison which establishes judicial review and confirms the primacy of the Constitution.

If you have a gripe, take it to the courts before you take it to the streets.

And before some dolt calls me a “statist” I will quote–yet again–from A. Hamilton, who wrote this in Federalist 78 (with the editorial approval of Madison!):

“If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”

So, Trib, the Constitution is supreme law, the Court is the venue for disputes regarding the legality of law; and as far as I can tell, no one here has pointed to a single document touching on the Adoption that acknowledges a right to secession, or forbids Congress from suppressing an insurrection.

172

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Read Alexander Stephens (perhaps the best expositor of the secessionist cause).

[/quote]

Do you mean A Constitutional View of the Late War…?

173

[quote]Dustin wrote:

Why not read a number of sources, as Push mentioned previously? DiLorenzo uses primary sources as well. Why not read his book and come to one’s own conclusions?[/quote]

I recommended multiple sources, including secessionist principals themselves.

As for DiLorenzo, “using primary sources” has to mean using them in good faith. DiLorenzo has already been discredited on this.

I don’t - I label “revisionist” all things that ignore the historical record and invent, from whole cloth, without credible support, a “revised” version of “what really happened” to massage their ideological pleasure buttons.

People, for example, like you.

That isn’t the kind of “revisionism” we are discussing. Reforming the historical record because you have new facts is one thing. Making shit up and selectively and conveniently ignoring facts that hurt your explanations to fit an ideological narrative is another.

You and your fellow looneytarians are guilty of the latter, not the former.

174

Here’s a good argument for the discrediting of DiLorenzo that echoes the same sentiments my Civil War professor had that I referred to earlier.

Ken Masugi of the Claremont Institute in National Review contends that “DiLorenzo frequently distorts the meaning of the primary sources he cites, Lincoln most of all.” Masugi provides the following example:

Consider this inflammatory assertion: “Eliminating every last black person from American soil, Lincoln proclaimed, would be ‘a glorious consummation.’”

Compare the nuances and qualifications in what Lincoln actually said: “If as the friends of colonization hope, the present and coming generations of our countrymen shall by any means, succeed in freeing our land from the dangerous presence of slavery; and, at the same time, in restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, with bright prospects for the future; and this too, so gradually, that neither races nor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be a glorious consummation.” One need not be a Lincoln admirer to recognize that DiLorenzo is making an unfair characterization. DiLorenzo actually gets so overwrought that at one point he attributes to Lincoln racist views Lincoln was attacking.
Masugi further asserts that DiLorenzo failed to recognize “a disunited America might have become prey for the designs of European imperial powers, which would have put an end to the experiment in self-government.”[2]

According to DiLorenzo, Masugi is selective in his presentation about Lincoln and “relies entirely on a few of Lincolnâ??s prettier speeches, ignoring his less attractive ones as well as his actual behavior.”

There are similar arguments made about many of DiLorenzo’s other assertions throughout several of his books.

177

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
To those who would support secession:

The Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution. Nowhere in any part of the Constitution, relevant to this discussion, are states referred to as sovereign entities that separate one from the other and nowhere is it stated that the United States is a group, a confederation, a league, or anything else along these lines. It seems that those who defend secession justify doing so based on the language of the Articles of Confederation. It is true that had the Articles become law, one would be hard-pressed to argue that secession was not entirely legal.

But the Articles of Confederation became moot when the Constitution was written. Based on the viewpoints of none other than James Madison, we can infer that the Constitution (and it’s specific removal of references to leagues or confederations of states) was, among other things, designed to eliminate the possibility of legal secession. In the words of Patrick Henry (ironically spoken while protesting the passing of the Constitution) “…WE the people, instead of the STATES, of America…”

The right to revolt and the right to secede are two entirely different beasts and the Founding Fathers knew this. Some, such as Patrick Henry, supported the idea of supreme state sovereignty (and by extension the right to secede). Henry and his supporters were opposed to the Constitution due to its exclusion of the ability to secede in its language. Madison and his pals believed that to allow for the ability to secede would undermine the very nature of the United States of America. As we know, the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, thus removing the possibility of legal secession. To solidify this point in 1869, in the Supreme Court case Texas v. White, the illegality of secession was cemented forever in statute when the Court ruled that the Constitution did NOT grant any state the legal right to secede.

This ruling and the fact that the Constitution, and NOT the Articles of Confederation, still exists unequivocally negates the argument that secession was at ANY point in our country’s history a legal act. So let’s move this discussion past the dead end debate about the legaility of the Southern states’ actions, since clearly they were not.

If there is anyone here who doubts the legality of secession, take it up with the signatories of the Constitution and the Supreme Court and please stop making the fallacious argument that secession was legal and provided for in the Constitution. It was not. [/quote]

The constitution doesn’t grant rights to states. It was, however, meant to limit federal power. If it didn’t specifically grant the federal gov’t the power to decide who can leave, that right is reserved for the states or the people. But I guess if the supreme court says so…

178

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
There are a thousand good references for the idea that the Union was indestructible and not a rag-tag collection of states with the ratification of the Constitution, but don’t take the word of the pro-Union types, reflect on the lamentations of those opposed to Constitution precisely because it created a Union of the People, not a league of states:

Anti-Federalist “Cincinnatus”: “[s]uch is the anxiety manifested by the framers of the
proposed constitution, for the utter extinction of the state sovereignties, that
they were not content with taking from them every attribute of sovereignty,
but would not leave them even the name. Therefore, in the very
commencement they prescribe this remarkable declaration - We the People of
the United States.”

Anti-Federalist “Federal Farmer”: “when the people [of
each state] shall adopt the proposed . . . it will be adopted not by the people of
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, &c., but by the people of the United States…”

Anti-Federalist “Brutus”: “if it is ratified, [it] will not be a compact entered
into by the States, in their corporate capacities, but an agreement of the people
of the United States as one great body politic. . . . It is to be observed, it is not
a union of states or bodies corporate; had this been the case the existence of
the state governments might have been secured. But it is a union of the
people of the United States considered as one body, who are to ratify this
constitution, if it is adopted.”

[/quote]

This is less important than what those that actually ratified the constitution thought and what they were assured of. The federalist and anti-federalist were meant to sway public opinion. I have no idea what was discussed and agreed to by those that ratified, but this would be more interesting.
[/quote]

Ah, well…two of the authors of tb’s quotes were Yates and Clinton, New York’s other delegates to the Constitutional Convention. So these ARE the thoughts on the subject by the those who debated the Constitution, the dissenters. (You will note that Hamilton is a signer, and Yates and Clinton are not.) Madison did not write to refute them; he and Hamilton recognized the Union of the people as well as shared sovereignty of the States.

Edit:: the quotes are by Yates and Clinton, but it was Yates and Lansing, Clinton’s deputies, who served with Hamilton at the Convention. Only Hamilton signed for NY.

179

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Don’t read the book at all. Read “The Civil War and Reconstruction: A Documentary Collection” edited by William E. Gienapp. It contains strictly primary evidence in the form of newspaper articles, letters, diaries, speeches and so forth from Southern and Northern politicians, soldiers, wives, generals and other officers, Lincoln, Davis, etc, etc. Since it is entirely driven by primary sources, the book is entirely without bias and makes for a perfect stepping stone toward viewing the Civil War as objectively as possible.[/quote]

Agreed. The best documents are the contemporary source documents. Read Lincoln’s letters and speeches. Read the newspaper clippings. Read the secession ordinances. Read the party platforms. Read Alexander Stephens (perhaps the best expositor of the secessionist cause).

And do the exact same thing with the Nullification Crisis. I don’t think you can adequately understand the Civil War unless you adequately understand the Nullification Crisis. Oddly, our legion of “lib-uhh-turr-eeans” couldn’t tell you the first thing about this dress rehearsal of the Civil War. Why? Because (1) they ain’t so good with the book learnin’ awhen it isn’t spoon few to them by demagoging carnival barkers and (2) it provides too many inconvenient facts that eviscreate their idiotic revisionist narrative of “what really happened!”.

Instead of DiLorenzo’s nonsensical ahistorical revisionism that would make Karl Marx blush, just learn the damn history, then form an opinion.[/quote]

Why not read a number of sources, as Push mentioned previously? DiLorenzo uses primary sources as well. Why not read his book and come to one’s own conclusions?

And you sound foolish labeling everything as “revisionist” that you disagree with. All history is “revisionist”. People have theories, they research the particular topic, and uncover new facts that we didn’t know previously.

  • The last sentence is a general statement, not referring to a particular author or book.[/quote]

I wholeheartedly agree with you that people should read as many things from as many different sources as possible, but DiLorenzo isn’t one of them. There are plenty of credible people with degrees in history (not economics like DiLorenzo) whose area of expertise is specifically the Civil War, who make legitimate arguments for either side of virtually every issue pertaining to the War, and who do not have a negative widespread reputation throughout the academic community.