On Mar 4, 8:53 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear MJ: Jefferson Davis is one of my inlaws. His wife's maiden name was Armistead. — John A. Armistead — > > "Jefferson Davis was an enlightened slave holder who said that once the > Confederacy gained its independence, it would mean the end of slavery. The > Confederate Cabinet agreed to abolish slavery within five years after the > cessation of hostilities in exchange for recognition by Britain and France. > Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery, but simply and solely > because they were being invaded. And the North certainly did not invade to > abolish slavery."Lincoln's Inversion of the American UnionFriday, March 01, > 2013 > byDonald W. Livingston > Part 5 of "The Secession Tradition in America," a paper presented at the 1995 > Mises Institute conference, "Secession, State, and Economy."Click herefor > Part 4, "Peaceful Disunion in Europe." > The moral grandeur of Lincoln is rooted in the myth that he made a war on the > South to abolish slavery. This is, at most, a Platonic noble lie designed to > legitimate the Unionist regime. Lincoln thought that slavery was immoral, but > so did Robert E. Lee. And Lee, at his own expense, freed the slaves he had > inherited, through marriage, from the family of George Washington. Only > around fifteen percent of southerners even owned slaves, and the great > majority of these had holdings of one to six. Jefferson Davis was an > enlightened slave holder who said that once the Confederacy gained its > independence, it would mean the end of slavery. The Confederate Cabinet > agreed to abolish slavery within five years after the cessation of > hostilities in exchange for recognition by Britain and France. Southerners > were not fighting to preserve slavery, but simply and solely because they > were being invaded. And the North certainly did not invade to abolish slavery. > Nor should this be surprising considering the Negrophobia that prevailed > everywhere in the North. It was assumed by the vast majority of Americans, > North and South, that America was a white European polity, and that the > Indian and African populations were notand were never to befull participants > in that polity. For example, blacks were excluded from the western > territories. Oregon became a state in 1859, and its constitution, which was > passed by a vote of eight to one, declared thatNo free negro, or mulatto, not > residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, > shall ever come, reside, or be within this state, or hold any real estate, or > make any contract, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assembly > shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such > free negroes and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from the state, > and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the state, or > employ or harbourthem therein.[1]The constitution of Indiana contained the > same prohibition. Lincoln’s state of Illinois prohibited the entrance of > Africans unless they could post a bond of $1,000. Free Africans in northern > states were severely regulated. The following regulation is from the Illinois > revised statutes of 1833:If any person or persons shall permit or suffer any > ... servant or servants of colour, to the number of three or more, to > assemble in his, her, or their out-house, yard, or shed, for the purpose of > dancing or revelling, either by night or by day, the person or persons so > offending shall forfeit and pay a fine of twenty dollars.And it was the duty > of all “coroners, sheriffs, judges, and justices of the peace” who learned of > such assemblages to commit the “servants to the jail of the county, and on > view of proof thereof, order each and every such ... servant to be whipped, > not exceeding thirty-nine stripes on his or her back.”[2] > Emancipation laws in the antebellum North were designed to rid the North of > its African population. They typically declared that the children of slaves > born after a certain date would, upon reaching a certain age, be emancipated. > This meant that adult slaves were not freed and that families could be sold > South before children reached the age of emancipation. Emancipation led to a > reduction of the African population in the North, not to an increase, as it > did in the South. Lincoln’s own solution to the race problem was mass > colonization of Africans, and he proposed securing land in Africa and > elsewhere for the purpose. Even abolitionists were careful to point out that > it was not the slave they loved but the slaveholder they hated, and that > emancipation did not at all mean social and political equality with whites. > Slavery was more secure in 1860 than it had ever been. The Supreme Court, in > the Dred Scott decision, had declared that Africans were not citizens; and > Congress approved a constitutional amendment that would take the regulation > of slavery forever out of the hands of the central government. Lincoln said > that he had no authority and no inclination to interfere with slavery in the > states where it was legal. He could tolerate slavery as a means of > controlling what nearly everyone saw to be an exotic and alien population. > What he could not tolerate was a dissolution of the Union, loss of revenue > from the South, and a low-tariff zone on his southern border. This was the > consistent thread running through Lincoln’s policy from 1860–1865. He would > not recognize the conventions of the people of the southern states, and he > would not negotiate with their commissioners. He would go to war immediately > to coerce the states of the deep South back into the Union. And it was this > act that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas could not > tolerate. They had been opposed to the radicalism of the deep South, and > their legislatures had voted firmly to stay within the Union. But they would > not answer Lincoln’s call for troops to coerce a state into the Union; this > they considered not only unconstitutional, but immoral. And in this they were > correct. But so strong is the Lincoln myth and so interwoven with American > self-identity that Americans have never been able to confront the stark > immorality and barbarism of Lincoln’s decision to invade the South and to > pursue total war against its civilian population. > To this we may add that the modern prejudice against secession has also > served to occlude the immorality of the invasion. Here was a union of > sovereign states only seventy years old. These states had originally asserted > their sovereignty in acts of secession from the British empire, and the Union > itself had been formed by an act of secession from the Articles of > Confederation. Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island reserved the right to > secede in their ordinances ratifying the Constitution, and secession was a > part of public discourse in all sections throughout the antebellum period. > This union, through conquest, purchase, and annexation, had, in fifty years, > swollen to some ten times its original size. The Republic of Texas, having > seceded from Mexico, had been in the Union only fifteen years. Secession is > destabilizing in that it suddenly produces new majorities and new minorities. > But annexation is destabilizing in exactly the same way. Rapid expansion led > to rapidly shifting majorities and minorities and to conflicts of great and > important interests. > By 1860, a choice lay open between either re-negotiating the compact between > the states in order to form more perfect unions, as John Quincy Adams > counseled should happen, or a powerful section would have to conquer the > whole and reconstruct it into its own image, subordinating all else to its > own interests. Everything in the older American tradition of the > self-government of peoples points to the former path. Lincoln chose the > latter path, and in doing so was in step with the nineteenth- and > twentieth-century trend of industrial society to consolidationism. > Southerners, at great sacrifice, sought to defend that older American notion > of self-government, a notion which was pushed to the margins of American > consciousness after the Army of Northern Virginia surrendered at Appomattox. > But it has not been extinguished, and has greater purchase in the world today > than ever before as the consolidated leviathans of the nineteenth and > twentieth centuries are being called into question. The Russian invasion of > Chechenya is widely regarded as barbarous, but the Russians have a better > title to rule Chechenya than Lincoln had to coerce eleven contiguous American > states into the Union.This broader experience enables us to take a fresh look > at the morality of Lincoln’s decision. It has been said that, although the > Union was originally conceived as a compact between sovereign states > entailing a right to secession, it evolved into the notion of an indivisible, > organic Union from which secession was impossible. This notion, however, was > late in arriving, and was not universally received by 1860. Southerners > obviously did not believe it, nor did many northerners. There was tremendous > opposition to Lincoln’s invasion of the South. To maintain power, he was > forced to suspend the writ ofhabeas corpusthroughout the North for the > duration of the war, netting tens of thousands of political prisoners. Some > 300 opposition newspapers were closed down. Democratic candidates, critical > of the war, were arrested by the military, and the military was used to > secure Republican victories at the polls, including Lincoln’s election in > 1864.[3] > But the barbarism of suppressing eleven contiguous American states in 1861 > can best be brought out by a thought experiment. Today, unlike 1861, everyone > has taken the pledge of allegiance affirming an organic union. (It is > significant that the origin of the pledge is to be found in the loyalty oaths > Confederates were required to take to regain citizenship.) Suppose that > California, over a dispute with the central government about immigration, > affirmative action, abortion, or some other issue, should, in a legally held > convention of the people of the state, claim sovereignty under the Tenth > Amendment and withdraw those powers it had delegated to the central > government and withdraw from the Union. California is an economic giant. Its > population is larger than that of twenty-two American states. Suppose, then, > that other states, originally pro-Union, should see it in their interest to > enter into a confederacy with California, and that eventually eleven > contiguous states should form a western confederacy and send commissioners to > Washington to negotiate payment for federal property and to establish a > treaty. Would the eastern states be justified in launching an aggressive war > to “save the Union”? Perhaps it would be thought that a show of force would > cause people to rethink. But if it became clear that the people, at great > sacrifice, were determined to gain their independence, could a policy of war > aimed now at the civilian population be morally justified merely to preserve > the Union? > Or, to vary the thought experiment, northern abolitionists had argued since > the 1830s that the northern states should secede from the Union. Secession > movements had arisen off and on in New England since 1803. Suppose now that a > few New England states seceded over slavery, the tariff issue, and national > expenditures for internal improvements. Other states, reluctantly, might find > it in their interest to join this union so that by the time Lincoln entered > Washington in 1861 he would find himself confronted with the secession of > northern states and President of a southern-dominated United States, a Union > that would include the eleven states of the Confederacy and most certainly > Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and perhaps others. Would we expect > Lincoln to ignore the commissioners of this Northern Confederacy and launch a > war to “save the Union?” Would we be celebrating, under his leadership, > Stonewall Jackson’s scorched-earth march to the sea, the burning of Boston, > and the surrender of Grant to Lee at Scranton, Pennsylvania? > None of this, of course, would have happened. First, it is unlikely that > southerners, who had long argued that the Constitution is a compact between > sovereign states entailing a right to secede, would have perceived northern > secession astreason.Second, the Republican party was a purely sectional party > openly hostile to southern interests. And Lincoln, as its leader, was the > first and only sectional president in American history. He had received only > thirty-nine percent of the popular vote, and had no support outside the > North. His goal from first to last was to advance the political agenda of the > Republican party, which could be called the New York-Chicago industrial axis. > The sectional goal of the Republican party was openly asserted by its most > eloquent leaders. Wendell Phillips declared:It is just what we have attempted > to bring about. It is the first sectional party ever organized in this > country. It does not know its own face, and calls itself national; but it is > not nationalit is sectional. The Republican Party is a Party of the North > pledged against the South. [4]Charles Adams has shown that the Republican > agenda could not tolerate a low-tariff zone to the south, and that the North > had become accustomed to the South’s funding the bulk of the federal revenue > through its export trade.[5] And it was just this horror of what an > economically independent South would mean to northern industrial interests > that Charles Bancroft, writing in 1874, presented as the justification for > invading the South:While so gigantic a war was an immense evil; to allow the > right of peaceable secession would have been ruin to the enterprise and > thrift of the industrious laborer, and keen eyed business man of the North. > It would have been the greatest calamity of the age. War was less to be > feared. [6]A million-and-a-half people were killed, wounded, or missing in > the war. The defense of protective tariffs has seldom been so ferocious, or > so crude. > Lincoln’s conservative statesmanlike posture about preserving an indivisible > union cannot be taken seriously. Not only did he not inherit such a union, > the only union he was interested in preserving was a union which was > dominated by northern industrial ambition. And it was exactly this that > Lincoln, and the Republican party, after his death, accomplished. > But Lincoln also had a philosophical argument for making war on the southern > states that brings out the prejudice against secession that is internal to > the idea of a modern state. In a message to Congress on 4 July 1861, Lincoln > justified his choice of war over a negotiated settlement that allowed the > southern states to form their own union:This issue embraces more than the > fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man, the > question, whether a constitutional republic, or a democracya government of > the people, by the same peoplecan, or cannot, maintain its territorial > integrity, against its own domestic foes.... It forces us to ask: “Is there, > in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness? Must a government, of > necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to > maintain its own existence?”[7]Here we have the familiar argument that a > modern state cannot allow territorial dismemberment by secession. This was, > of course, the same argument that was used by George III to coerce the > American colonies. But Lincoln had in mind not just any sort of modern state > (which could include monarchy) but a modern republican state. Being founded > in liberty, such states are more liable to dissolution. Thus, the war that is > beginning is a dramatic struggle to see whether a modern republican state is > really possible. The same theme would be sounded in the Gettysburg Address. > If secession is allowed, anarchy follows. As Lincoln put it elsewhere, if a > state can secede, then the county of a state can secede, and a part of that > county can secede, etc. And, if the American experiment in self-government > fails, the world must revert back to monarchy. > There are a number of confusions here. First, the government of the United > States in 1861 was not the government of a modern state. Rather, it was a > central government of a federative union of states. It was endowed with only > enumerated powers and these were delegated to it by sovereign states. The > central government was the agent of those states, and the states were the > principals in the federative compact. The states themselves were modern > states; they had asserted this status in the Declaration of Independence, and > had been recognized by the world as such. As modern states, they contained > the usual legal prohibition against secession. A county cannot legally secede > from an American state, but there is no such prohibition against a state > exercising its federative power and withdrawing from the Union. > To describe, as Lincoln did, Virginia and the other southern states as > “domestic foes” threatening self-government and to be suppressed by war is > not only a spectacular absurdity, it also reveals a hubristic impiety and > moral blindness. The first self-governing assembly in the western hemisphere > was founded in Virginia. More great statesmen and jurists had come from > Virginia than any other state. The leadership of Virginia was crucial in > winning the war with Britain, during the period of the Articles of > Confederation, and in forming the Union. In her ordinance of ratification, > Virginia as a sovereign state, asserted the right to secede, and affirmed > this right for every other state. The man often called the “father of the > Constitution,” James Madison, always described the Constitution as being a > compact between sovereign states. In 1830, Madison could say that it was > still not certain that the Union would work. By 1861, it was clear that the > Union, as a voluntary association of independent political societies, had > failed. > What would the great Virginians, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James > Madison, Patrick Henry, George Mason, John Randolph, John Taylor, and > “Lighthorse” Harry Lee have done? They all supported the Union, believed the > Constitution was a compact between the states, and were Virginians first. So > when the states of the deep South discussed secession, Virginia called a > convention of the people to decide the question, and the convention voted > firmly to stay in the Union. It was only after Lincoln had decided on war and > called for troops that the convention reconvened and voted to secede. Madison > had said in the Federalist that the central government could not coerce a > state. To be sure that the will of the people was expressed, the judgment of > the convention was put to the people of Virginia, who supported secession by > a margin of five to one. Tennessee was also pro-Union, but, in a referendum > of the voters, decided to secede by a margin of two to one after Lincoln’s > decision to wage war. The pro-Union states of North Carolina and Arkansas > seceded for the same reason. > To treat, as Lincoln did, the peoples of entire states who had engaged in > deliberate and legal acts of self-government as common criminals and as > “domestic foes” aroused deep emotions of resentment and injustice that could > be felt only by an American who had received with his mother’s milk the > principle, framed in the Declaration of Independence, of the self-government > of independent moral and political societies. As the case of Robert E. Lee > makes clear, this feeling of resentment had nothing to do with slavery, an > institution he thought was on its way to oblivion. It was this deeply felt > American resentment that enabled the entire South, 85 percent of whom did not > own slaves, to mobilize and to make spectacular sacrifices to keep out an > invading army, the government of which was intent on destroying, and did > destroy, the corporate liberty of their political societies. It was this > sense of state honor that Hamilton had in mind when he said in the Federalist > that the central government could never make war against an American state, > and which he again asserted again before the New York State convention: “To > coerce a state would be one of the maddest projects ever devised. No state > would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another.” > One cannot imagine the great Virginians of his time disagreeing. > Herman Melville, who had a good eye for the hypocrisy of northern industrial > unionism, wrote:Who looks at Lee must think of WashingtonIn pain must think > and hide the thoughtSo deep with grievous meaning is it fraught.[8]To this > conservative and backward-looking image, we should add the forward-looking > and “progressive” image: he who looks at Lincoln has seen the > consolidationists Bismarck and Lenin. > So Lincoln’s inversion of the original American conception of self-government > must itself be inverted. As H.L. Mencken cynically observed of the Gettysburg > Address, it was not the Union forces that were fighting for government of the > people, by the people, and for the people (a phrase Lincoln borrowed from > Webster), but the people of the southern states. And the war was not a > dramatic contest to see whether a modern republican state was possible. > Virginia and the rest of the southern states were stable, self-governing > modern republics whose citizens were loyal and well skilled in the art of > self-government. If not conquered, there is every reason to think they would > have lasted indefinitely. > All of them were, in fact, conquered, and self-government was destroyed. > Virginia was divided and her western counties made into the new state of West > Virginia. What Lincoln had presented as the absurdity of allowing a state to > secede, namely that counties of that state could also secede, was legitimate > after all, provided that it served northern industrial interests. After Lee > had surrendered, and unionist governments had been formed in each southern > state, and the Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery had been ratified by > the southern states, they suddenly found themselves, by an arbitrary and > unconstitutional act of Congress, expelled from the union and declared > “conquered provinces.”The argument of Lincoln and the Republican party that > secession was unthinkable because the Union was indivisible now appeared as > the self-serving hypocrisy it was. States could not secede from the Union, > but they could be expelled, or more precisely, obliterated. It was during > this period of “Reconstruction” that the Fourteenth Amendment was floated. > This amendment, since the 1950s, has been manipulated by the Supreme Court to > affect a vast transfer of power from the states to the central government, > making it virtually impossible for the states to maintain those independent > substantial moral communities protected by the powers reserved in the Tenth > Amendment. It is fitting that this amendment, which had a corrupt and illegal > origin in Congress, was never ratified by the states, and is, thus, not a > part of the Constitution! It was simply declared by Congress to have been > enacted, something Congress had no authority to do.[9] This shows just how > far some Americans had wandered from the original conception of > self-government. > The conflict of 1861–1865 was not, as Lincoln said it was, a struggle to see > if a modern republican state could survive, but a struggle to see if a vast > union of federative republics could survive without the consolidation and > consequent destruction of independent moral life that a dominant faction will > inevitably seek to impose on the rest. The American experience suggests that > it is unlikely, but it must be admitted that our experience with such > vast-scale federations is limited, so the question is still open. Since there > are obvious advantages to federative unions, the only remedy is to > acknowledge a legal right of secession for republics joining the federation. > The American failure to achieve a genuine federalism of self-governing moral > communities must stand as a challenge to the European Union. It was in > recognition of this challenge that Nobel laureate James Buchanan has urged > that a right of secession be written into the constitution of the European > Union. With the benefit of over a century of experience, the Constitution of > the Confederate States of America as an instrument of federalism appears well > ahead of its time. > The brief constitutional history I have sketched that views secession as part > of the checks and balance system of American federalism is completely unknown > to most Americans. The reason is that we have come to believe the nationalist > theory of the origin of the Constitution that Lincoln used to legitimate > coercing the southern states back into the Union. Plato taught that the > guardians of the republic may have to tell a noble lie about its origins. > Whether the nationalist theory is a noble lie or an ignoble lie I shall not > say. My point is that it is false. It has been said that the War of 1861–1877 > decided once and for all the question of whether an American state could > secede. But this is only another way of saying that might makes right, a > principle that cannot sit well with the American doctrine of government by > consent. The great Scottish philosopher David Hume taught a deeper truth; > namely, that political authority is founded not on power but on opinion. A > change in opinion at a strategic point can transform, in time, an entire > political order.To give an example, America began as a highly decentralized > regime of independent moral and political communities jealous of their > liberty. These political societies created a central government as their > agent and endowed it with enumerated powers. This government was only a speck > on the political landscape and its presence was scarcely felt in everyday > life. From 1865 to 1965 it underwent a transformation, emerging as the most > consolidated and centralized military and financial power in history. Moral > and political societies with a life of their own independent of regulation > and control by the central government (especially the Supreme Court) are > today virtually impossible. By contrast, Canada began as a highly centralized > regime under monarchy and has developed into a decentralized regime in which > secession as a means of protecting independent moral and political life is > part of public debate. There is a tradition in Canada that this change was > due in part to JudahBenjamin, the former Secretary of State of the > Confederate States of America who, after the war, fled to England and became > a distinguished barrister. In a number of cases before the Imperial > Parliament, he argued successfully for measures that gave the Provinces more > autonomy, thereby setting Canadian federalism on the path to > decentralization. [10] Asserting the right to secede, Quebec has already > secured rights making it virtually an independent country, thereby making > secession perhaps unnecessary. > Let me close with this question. If Hume is right that the authority of > government is founded on opinion, and if acceptance of the absurd nationalist > theory of the origin of the Constitution advanced by Story, Webster, and > Lincoln could serve to legitimate the spectacular change from a decentralized > federalism to a consolidated imperial nationalism, what would happen if > Americans were taught and came to believe the truth about their own > constitutional history? > Donald Livingston is a professor of philosophy at Emory University with an > "expertise in the writings of David Hume." Livingston received his doctorate > at Washington University in 1965. He has been a National Endowment for the > Humanities fellow and is on the editorial board of Hume Studies and > Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Livingston is a constitutional > scholar and an expositor of the compact nature of the Union, with its > concomitant doctrines of corporate resistance, nullification, and secession. > The doctrine coincides with federalism, states' rights, the principle of > subsidiarity. His political philosophy embodies the decentralizing themes > echoed by Europeans such as Althusius, David Hume, and Lord Acton and > Americans such as Thomas Jefferson, Spencer Roane, Abel Parker Upshur, Robert > Hayne and John Calhoun, which holds the community and family as the elemental > units of political society. As Livingston affirms, the compact nature of the > Union is opposed to the innovative nationalist theory of Joseph Story, Daniel > Webster, and Abraham Lincoln which contends for an indivisible sovereignty, > an inviolable aggregate people, and that the American Union created the > States following the American War for Independence. This theory as > articulated by Lincoln has been characterized by Livingston as "Lincoln's > Spectacular Lie." See Donald W. Livingston'sarticle archives.Notes[1]Quoted > in Tol. P. Shaffner,The War in America(London: Hamilton, Adams, 1862), pp. > 337–38.[2]Ibid., pp. 339–40.[3]Johnson,Division and Reunion,pp. 123–28. See > also Ann Norton’s excellent bookAlternative Americas(Chicago: University of > Chicago Press, 1986). For studies of Lincoln as a gnostic figure, see M.E. > Bradford, “Dividing the House: The Gnosticism of Lincoln’s Rhetoric,”Modern > Age23 (1979): 10–24; ibid., “The Lincoln Legacy: A Long View,”Modern Age24 > (1980): 355–63; ibid.,A Better Guide than Reason: Studies in the American > Revolution(LaSalle, III.: Sherwood Sugden, 1979), pp. 29–57 and pp. 185–203; > and ibid.,The Reactionary Imperative(Peru, III.: Sherwood Sugden, 1990), pp. > 219–27.[4]Quoted in Bledsoe,Is Davis a Traitor?p. 250.[5]Charles Adams,For > Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization(New York: > Madison Books, 1993), pp. 323–37.[6]Charles Bancroft,The Footprints of Time: > A Complete Analysis of Our American System of Government(Burlington, Iowa: > R.T. Root, 1877), p. 646.[7]Abraham Lincoln,Speeches and Writings,Don E. > Fehrenbacher, ed., 2 vols. (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, > 1989), p. 250.[8]Herman Melville, “Lee in the Capitol,” > inBattle-Pieces(Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1972), p. > 232.[9]Forrest McDonald, “Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally > Adopted?”The Georgia Journal of Southern Legal History1, no. 1 (Spring-Summer > 1991): 1–20.[10]Claudius O. Johnson, “Did Judah P. Benjamin Plant the States > Rights Doctrine in the Interpretation of the British North America Act?”The > Canadian Bar Review15, no. 3 (September 1967): > 454–77.https://mises.org/daily/6374/Lincolns-Inversion-of-the-American-Union
-- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
