October 14, 2006

• Lincoln and the Civil War

  My friends, I want you to know that I plan to keep up the current political discussion that has been ongoing on this blog. Be that as it may, I do have something I have been holding I would like to share with you and see what you think. This is a lengthy post, but one that I think needs to be visited. I will build on this subject later. The original text comes from this thread on the IMDB boards. Our current political discussion will continue on the first of the week. This text is unedited and therfore may contain spelling and gramatical errors.

  Allow me to be the contrarian. My hope is that reason will prevail over emotion and that those who respond to me can place their patriotic affinity for Lincoln on the backburner and discuss objectively his political career, the nature of the North-South conflict, and politics in general. Please accept my apology in advance if this seems too formal or if my indulgence in history is overbearing. My only hope is to convince some of you to look at the man and his career in a different light, hopefully a more objective one.

  The birth of the United States is rooted in the natural right of secession expressed in the Declaration of Independence. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, at least 3 states (Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York) expressly reserved the right to leave the union in their ratifying documents should conditions warrant such an action, namely if the federal government overstepped the political authority to which it was delegated. This was not radical or revisionist history, but the common understanding of the nature of the Union. Such an understanding was conceded to the antifederalists at the time of ratification by Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and others who continually promised that the federal nature of the union was to remain intact and the “people” must express their ultimate form of political sovereignty in the form of state ratifying conventions and accept the new constitution.

  In the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions Jefferson and Madison, although taking a moderate stance against the growing power of the federal government and not advocating secession (as some of their colleagues did), asserted that the authority to interpret the Constitution lay with all parties of the contract – the federal branches as well as state governments and the people. Essentially, the federal government’s power was derived from the power delegated it by the states themselves. The key point made by Jefferson and Madison at this time was that the federal government, a creation of the states, could never become the final arbiter of its own powers. The states had to serve as the final check on centralized authority to preserve the federal system.

  This state’s rights doctrine (which would later be mistaken as a pro-slavery stance) would later be invoked at the Hartford convention when Northerners themselves threatened secession. There was no condescension from the Republicans and people of the South, for it was commonly understood that, while it may be a stupid move, it was with in their authority to do so.

  Not suprisingly, at the onset of the Civil War British newspapers seem puzzled a the conflict as America was founded upon the principle of secession they printed.

  Northern states threatened secession multiple times – over the adjustment of state debts, the whiskey tax, the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War. At no point was violence ever threatened by the federal government or was there any serious political debate about the legitimacy of such an action.

  In fact, 3 weeks after Lincoln’s inauguration Congress put forth a bill that would make secession “illegal”. The obvious presumption is that, at best, secession was a grey area and at worst, it was clearly a natural right. For if it were cut-and-dry unconstitutional, then there would be little need for legislation to make it illegal.

  The doctrine that secession was in effect unconstitutional by default was presented by Daniel Webster but received very little attention. It was not until Lincoln came to office that there was any public discussion on the matter, and what little there was was devoid of constitutional and historical exposition. Lincoln’s argument essentially claimed that the South was wrong because they were seceding due to their disapproval of an election (which he could not logically apply to the states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas who voted down secession but then left the Union when federal troops marched into Virginia). From this stance Lincoln simply refused (as historians would later) to discuss the constitutional aspects of secession in any meaningful detail. He simply asserted he was correct and that was that.

  (Ironically, once the federal government realized they would have to argue in court the constitutionality of secession in order to convict Jefferson Davis, they dropped the case immediately. One suspects they knew the argument against secession was specious.)

  The real question to ask is…why? Why was holding the Union together so crucial to Lincoln? Few historians ask this and if they do, the answer is a nationalistic, patriotic diatribe that says very little very loudly. It’s a good question though, and one that deserves the context of 19th century political movements.

  Classical liberalism was on the retreat and giving way to rising nationalism in Europe and the growth of unitary, centralized states. Unification movements were underway in Italy, Germany and other countries in Europe. In fact, British newspapers at the time can be found comparing Lincoln’s actions with the Tsar of Russia, attempted to force an uppity Poland to remain a part of the Russian empire. Nationalistic fervor, which carried to its extreme would lead to World War I, was also alive in the States. The 19th century was an era of increasing federal power, calls for war against Britain and France, actual war with Mexico, increased national involvement in economic activity, and “manifest destiny”, which would result in outright genocide against natives who got in the way. It was a time of growing unitary states and for crushing independence movements or the zeal for self-government.

  Lincoln earned his spurs in such a political climate. He was a Whig party member and staunch advocate of Henry Clay’s American system. He was a lawyer for the railroad, a master political maneuverer, and proponent of an “active” federal government. He rose through the ranks politically because of his support for Northern protectionist policy and internal improvements, not because of any anti-slavery position.

  The truth is that northern black codes during Lincoln’s time were as harsh as Jim Crow laws in the South after the war. Among the laws on the books in Massachusetts was a provision allowing for the public flogging of visiting blacks overstaying the duration of their visit. At one time Ohio expelled all blacks and no free blacks were allowed in the state of Oregon. Lincoln’s home state of Illinois prohibited blacks from intermarrying with whites, severely restricted their property rights, and even prohibited them from congregating in public. As a member of the state legislature Lincoln supported these laws and voted for them. At no point in his political career (until he ran against Douglas) did Lincoln take any view out of the mainstream on slavery, black equality, or any other racial issue. Of course, this makes him no different than anybody else back then (save Abolitionists), but that is precisely the point.

  The Republican party was formed not as an anti-slavery party (as is commonly taught), but in order to continue the Whig party platform of the mercantilist policies of Hamilton and Clay. Because the Whig party split up in part over the slavery question the new Republicans decided to handle it differently this time. On the slavery question their stance was essentially this: oppose slavery in principle, tolerate it in practice, and take a hostile stand towards abolitionists. However, they also were much wiser to take into consideration geography as well. When Lincoln spoke to crowds in the East, he adamantly stood on the platform of protectionism. Lincoln’s campaign poster for the 1860 election is quite clear – protectionism and free soil. In the Midwest (where there were many farmers who were naturally hostile to high tariff levels), the discussion centered on slavery expansion into the territories. Being closer to the territories, this would be a hot button issue for politicians like Lincoln and Douglas. Lincoln naturally opposed slavery expansion into the territories, but not for the idealistc reasons that are often attributed to him. He adopted the free soil position, which was that slaver labor would crowd out free white labor. In states that had harsh laws restricting the rights of blacks, this is what they wanted to hear. Lincoln’s words:

  “The territories…should be kept open for the homes of free white people.”

  “Is it not rather our duty to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?”

  “What I most desire is the separation of the white and black races.”

  “I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

  “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

  “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I … am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

  In fact, when Lincoln became President he went out of his way to reassure the South that the institution of slavery would remain untouched:

  “I have no purpose directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

  “Where slavery is already established by law and custom slavery can remain and it would be criminal to subvert it.”

  In his inagural, Lincoln expressed support for an amendment which would forever prohibit the federal government from interfering with slavery.

  Here we have a man who had spent his entire political career fighting tooth and nail for a protectionist system, who never spoke politically on the slavery question until 1858, saying these things. There is nothing in his actions that would indicate he was in any way, shape, or form a cut above his political rivals altruistically. There is simply no evidence.

  There is evidence, however, of his support for centralized mercantilist policy – national banking, protectionist tariffs, internal improvements. These are all policies which are prerequisites for national power. Lincoln spent the bulk of his political career vehemently fighting for these causes.

  Another quote:

  “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

  Slavery he would compromise on, the breakup of the union he would not – because the union was necessary for his policies. The vast majority of federal revenue came from the South itself – through excessively high tariffs (which by themselves nearly caused secession in 1828). At one point in the 19th century the South was paying nearly 90% of all federal taxes. This money was being spent on internal improvements primarily in the North in the form of canals, railroads, etc…Should the South leave the union they would take these taxes with it, a point not lost on British newspapers at the time. In fact, a free-trade zone in the South would cripple Northern industry – Lincoln’s most important constituency. Out the door would go the funding for the improvements, political favors, and scandalous railroad-building fiascos. The money flow was of extreme importance to the Republican nationalistic plans.

  For this reason Lincoln said in his inaugural address:

  “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.”

  Lincoln promised that force would be used to collect the “duties and imposts”. There would be no compromise on collecting the tariff.

  For that reason it is likely that there was no federal response as numerous properties (at least eight) in the South were taken over by Confederates. It was not until Ft. Sumter came into the spotlight that federal force would be used. Ft. Sumter was the major hub of foreign trade and was where large amounts of tariff duty was collected. If Lincoln lost Ft. Sumter then no more tariff. Of course, the South’s attempt to attack Ft. Sumter was a huge and costly mistake, but there can be little doubt that Lincoln was more interested in Ft. Sumter than other places.

  The point of all this is not that Lincoln was evil…it was that he was a politician, with ambitions that can be found in just about any other politician. To think that Lincoln’s centralist goals, which he cultivated over his entire political career, do not factor into his decisions to hold the union together by force is illogical. As a politician he had a constituency to which he was beholden, and he acted to satisfy that constituency.

  And he acted unconstitutionally – numerous times. Among these acts were the imprisonment of Maryland state legislators so they could not vote in favor of secession. When one member, John Merryman, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln ordered the commanding officer of the prison to refuse. After the Chief Justice sent a federal marshal the officer refused again. When Chief Justice Taney wrote out his opinion that the actions were unconstitutional Lincoln made preparations to have Taney himself arrested. Lincoln’s reply was that he had the final say as to whether those actions were constitutional or not. A far cry from James Madison’s opinion.

  Among his other acts:

  declaration of martial law (later struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)

  calling forth the militia and fighting an undeclared war for 3 months without Congressional approval (this action prompted 4 more states to secede)

  censoring of telegraph lines

  confiscation of private property

  nationalizing of the railroads

  suspension of habeas corpus

  imprisonment of 30,000+ anti-war northerners without trial (among them Francis Scot Key’s grandson – sent to Ft. McHenry no less!)

  shut down numerous northern newspapers (100+) that opposed the war

  deported a member of Congress, Clement Vallandigham, for opposition to Lincoln’s war policies

  You can argue that these policies were “necessary” because of “a time of war” but for heaven’s sake don’t say they were “constitutional.” If they are, point to the provision in the Constitution that grants these authorities.

  What did the South get for attempting to separate from the Union? They got total decimation – war on civilians and civilian property. Because they were evil slaveowners? No… only 10-15% of southerners owned slaves and in every major battle there were non slave-owning confederates fighting against northern slave-owners. They were smashed because they challenged federal authority and threatened the power of centralized government. Europeans watched in horror as northern generals (many of whom would participate in the Indian campaigns) carried out the complete destruction of the South.

  To be sure, the South was far from perfect, but let us be honest about the motives of the federal government and of its leader, Abraham Lincoln. As I said before he was a politician and as the war progressed and the radical wing of the Republican came to power, Lincoln changed his tune so as to be swimming downstream with the political current. His rhetoric became one of an abolitionist, the wing of the party that would butter his bread from then on. His speeches focused on slavery, equality of blacks, and emancipation. What do we make of this? Are we to forget his 30+ years of protectionist politics and accept this as a spiritual awakening? Maybe. But we need more evidence, and the only evidence we have to counter the mountain of evidence that Lincoln was first and foremost a mercantilist is, unfortunately, his own speeches, and an Emancipation Proclamation which freed no slaves and was ridiculed in Europe.

  It is upon these late speeches that most historians draw when attempting to portray Lincoln as a saint. Harry Jaffa’s Father Abraham comes to mind. They tend to ignore his earlier, more revealing, political career.

  Let us be honest here. And let’s be fair – there is some DiLorenzo bashing going on here. If you haven’t read his book, which some in this thread openly admit, then it is illogical to dismiss it. It is also illogical to dismiss his views due to his anarcho-capitalist tendencies. That is called ad homonim. For an honest discussion, find out where in his book there lacks support for his conclusions instead of dismissing him because he speaks contrary to the mantra of the Lincolnian cult.

  Posted by jeff_tom_88 Thu Sep 28 2006 19:48:05

  Alright many good points, but let me make some brief rebuttals

  1. Can you not agree that people can change? I mean before the war lincoln had little if any encounters with slaves or african americans, yet after meetings with Frederick douglass and demonstrations made by black union soldiers that they could fight had to have some effect on him, that they were not as inferior as he might have thought to be, because in 1865 he finally let out that black americans might gain the right to vote.

  2. While it was not illegal, secession was still viewed by many (north and South)as an act of rebellion and many prominent figures were admantly opposed to it including Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. With this in mind I don’t find it at all surprising that Lincoln himself viewed it as such, and also firmly believed it was his right to preserve the Union. As you pointed out earlier it may have been a grave mistake on the confedrate’s part to open fire on Sumter, don’t you think that it was somewhat inevitable that war would still have broken out? I certainly can’t see the two living peacefully as separate nations.

  3. Suspending the right of habeus corpus was legal, its in the constitution itself Section. 9.

  “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

  Of course whether or not the souths attack on Sumter waas an act of rebellion is a matter of opinion, Lincoln firmly believed it was and in accordance suspended habeus corpus, as he said himself “I must suspend one part of the constitution in order to preserve the rest”

  Posted by katey525 Thu Sep 28 2006 20:54:52

  Yes I do believe that people can change and I left that possibility open. But in light of his earlier political career we cannot conclude that a change of heart was the reason for the change in his political stance towards slaves and northern blacks. The political winds had severely shifted towards the end of the war and it would have been political suicide for him to go against it.

  I believe that his primary political goal of cementing mercantilism into the American system of government cannot be discounted. And as pleasant a thought as it may be to assume he changed, the only evidence we have of this comes from his own mouth. Even towards the end of the war, Lincoln offered amnesty to the South suggesting that slaveholding Southerners may keep their slaves. His objective was to preserve the union at any cost.

  Whether or not secession was seen as rebellion is beside the point – we know it was seen that way by many people. The question to ask is whether it was the intention of the founders that the union be based on coercion or not, and there is ample evidence to suggest that the compact was voluntary, some of which I presented in my post. But of course Lincoln is going to say they have no right to secede, because that is all he can say about it. That doesn’t make him correct, though.

  Whether or not war would have broken out between the North and the South if there had been no federal intervention to prevent secession is an interesting question. Yet the answer would not speak to whether or not secession was justified or Lincoln’s motives. The very fact that Lincoln would not allow this to occur is the significant point. Lincoln said in his inaugural that he was going to collect the tariff by force if necessary, and he did.

  On the habeas corpus issue, that section (9) grants no authority to suspend habeas corpus. All powers granted must be enumerated in the Constitution, according to Madison. That section acts as a prohibition, and not a positive grant of power.

  But, you may say, it implies that the power is granted. While I disagree with this mode of constitutional interpretation, let me point out that the section 9 you point out is in Article I, which relates to Congress and the powers of Congress, not the president. This was Taney’s position when he declared the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional by Lincoln. If anybody can suspend habeas corpus, it would have to be Congress, as the limit on that authority is contained in a section dealing with Congressional powers. If the presence of Article I section 9 referes to an executive power, then a positive grant of that power must be found in Article II. It is not.

  Thank you for your reply.

  <a href="Posted by jeff_tom_88 Fri Sep 29 2006 04:40:30

  • 5:47 pm
  • 5 Comments