What Were Abraham Lincoln's Revolutionary Ideas on Government Rights?

[edpell]

Here is an interesting quote from Abraham Lincoln as quoted in "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo on page 85.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right--a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole population of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." -- Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848

 

[MotoH]

Is this supporting the riots and government overthrow of the Kyg. government?

But yes, good quote, I believe the militias use it a lot.

 

[edpell]

Is this supporting the riots and government overthrow of the Kyg. government?

I do not think Lincoln had much [any?] awareness of the government of Kyg. I think he may have been influenced by the Declaration of Independence, 1776, that reads in part:

"To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

 

[Office_Shredder]

This is only true when you're the one who wants a new country of course

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I do not think Lincoln had much [any?] awareness of the government of Kyg.

I think it was pretty clear that motoh was referring to your motives.

We have a quotes thread. What is the point of starting a thread in politics?

 

[edpell]

It seems more political. Lincoln seems either very flexible or inconsistent. 12 years later he starts a war that kills hundreds of thousands of Americans arguing the other side of what he said just 12 years before.

 

[Vanadium 50]

That Lincoln. To think he would interfere with man's inalienable right to own other men. We'll see how history judges him!

 

[russ_watters]

It seems more political. Lincoln seems either very flexible or inconsistent. 12 years later he starts a war that kills hundreds of thousands of Americans arguing the other side of what he said just 12 years before.

I don't see Lincoln suggesting a revolt must necessarily succeed (that the government should have let the south secede)...and it is certainly misleading to say he started the war. Regardless of who fired the first shot or what the tactical situation was, the war happened because the South seceded.

So I too fail to see your point. Are you just tryinig to bash Lincoln here for not letting the south secede or blaming the civil war on him or what?

You need to make a point here and make an argument supporting your point. Just posting a quote to see what responses you get and responding to them is not a coherent enough purpose to be worthy of continuing. Please make your point now.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Lincoln seems either very flexible or inconsistent. 12 years later he starts a war that kills hundreds of thousands of Americans arguing the other side of what he said just 12 years before.

Just 12 years?? What politician waits that long to contradict themselves? Your quote is out of context. Can you provide us with the context?

 

[MotoH]

Next are you going to call the Confederate soldiers terrorists?

 

[zomgwtf]

Next are you going to call the Confederate soldiers terrorists?

They weren't terrorist! However, Jefferson Davis, was the devil!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One could easily argue that Lincoln's statement was completely consistent with the idea that enslaved persons have a right to be freed from oppression. That is, unless you think he only meant white people.

 

[mheslep]

One could easily argue that Lincoln's statement was completely consistent with the idea that enslaved persons have a right to be freed from oppression. That is, unless you think he only meant white people.

Agreed. If it were not for slavery, and the fact that South Carolina attacked a Federal fort, I can not imagine Lincoln pressing a war against the South.

 

[edpell]

I think the point that Thomas DiLorenzo is making in his book "The Real Lincoln" is conveyed in chapter 4 (the one directly before the OP quote) entitled "Lincoln's Real Agenda". He starts that chapter with a Lincoln quote of which I will give part "I am in favor of a national bank... in favor of the internal improvement system and a high protective tariff." -- Abraham Lincoln, 1832 spoken during a campaign speech.

DiLorenzo characterizes the "internal improvement system" as corporate welfare. He says of the nation bank:
"Nationalized banking was always part and parcel of the mercantilist agenda as well, for mercantilists have always advocated having the government simply print paper money in order to finance their special-interest subsidies. That way, the costs of the subsidies can be more easily hidden from the public".

The high protective tariffs are the standard "American beauty rose" argument of folks in favor of monopoly and opposed to free trade.

 

[zomgwtf]

So this book is just one big quote mine of Abraham Lincoln? I don't see what point you are trying to make here in this thread, especially in light of this new quote... Maybe I'm just slow.

 

[MotoH]

Lincoln wanted a unified America first, and end slavery third/fourth/fifth.

 

[zomgwtf]

Lincoln wanted a unified America first, and end slavery third/fourth/fifth.

Is that his point?

 

[edpell]

So this book is just one big quote mine of Abraham Lincoln? I don't see what point you are trying to make here in this thread, especially in light of this new quote... Maybe I'm just slow.

Most of the chapters in the book begin with a Lincoln quote. I think because they make the point of the chapter that follows.

 

[MotoH]

Is that his point?

Honestly I have no idea. I think he is just posting lincoln quotes to post them.

Abraham Lincoln was the inventor of the Lincoln logs after chopping down a cherry tree and not being able to tell a lie in Illinois.

 

[edpell]

Lincoln wanted a unified America first, and end slavery third/fourth/fifth.

Lincoln wanted slavery of all to the federal government and then various items like corporate welfare and monopolys protected. Freedom for slaves held by private owners was a tactic that came after the war started.

 

[Evo]

Moved to History subforum.

 

[mheslep]

Lincoln wanted a unified America first, and end slavery third/fourth/fifth.

While I agree Lincoln didn't use the cause of slavery to begin the war, and had preservation of the union foremost in his mind:

"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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

(Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)

I still doubt as I said above that he would have pressed a war without slavery and a southern first attack

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. you have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

1st inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

 

[edpell]

John Marshall chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1851 that "if the Northern states refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provides no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side." (page 90 "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo)

 

[edpell]

DiLorenzo's book gives 17 quotes from major city newspapers of the time (1860-1861) strongly (expect for the guarded remarks of the NYT) supporting the right of states to secede. I will quote two. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle of 11/13/1860 said "Any violation of the constitution by the general government, deliberately persisted in would relieve the state or states injured by such violation from all legal and moral obligations to remain in the union or yield obedience to the federal government... let them go."

The New York Times said on 3/21/1861 "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."

 

[russ_watters]

One last time before the thread is locked, edpell: what is your point?

 

[Vanadium 50]

John Marshall chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said in 1851 ...

Quite an accomplishment, as he died in 1835.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The author seems to be a nut.

DiLorenzo has spoken out in favor of the secession of the Confederate States of America, defending its right to secede in a view similar to that of abolitionist Lysander Spooner...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzo

Here we see that DiLorenzo is a Glenn Beck fan

Dear Glenn,

First of all, congratulations on deciding to become a community organizer for the cause of liberty and prosperity, as reported all over the media recently. You will be a stark contrast to the Marxist in the White House who boasts of his “community organizing” efforts for the exact opposite cause, ACORN-style socialism as defined by its “People’s Platform.” (His nationalization of banks, General Motors, and possibly health care, and his administration’s bombastic, anti-capitalist rhetoric, reminds me a lot of Lenin’s first months in power...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo181.html

Obama nationalized the banks? Fast and loose with the facts, eh? He appears to be an economist who fancies himself a Constitutional scholar.

 

[brainstorm]

The OP's point seems to be that Lincoln explicitly promoted the right of succession but yet failed to grant it to confederates. It is indeed annoying that he refuses to state it openly. Probably afraid to be branded neo-confederate or something like that.

The books I read on Lincoln claimed that he first wanted to leave slavery to die out on its own but was infuriated by the Kansas-Nebraska act allowing popular sovereignty to expand slavery into new territories on a state-by-state basis.

I generally see confederation for the person of state-protected slavery as terribly hypocritical. First you claim that government should not interfere in state government, i.e. pro-decentralization. Then you use the freedom to govern workers in the most freedom-usurping way possible.

Of course, this takes a fairly assumptive view of slavery for granted. Another way to look at it is that each state and even each plantation had a right to self-determination of its own labor practices. Before the concept of republic was used to promote individual freedom and self-determination, the right of national self-determination was framed as a collective right of the Netherlands against whatever empire it was part of before claiming independence (Hapsburgs?)

I have the idea that Lincoln and the early republicans wanted to end slavery and promote yeoman farming. Cotton was recognized as an unsustainable cash crop that left the soil barren. It is someone one-sided that the industries and buyers that utilized and capitalized on cotton and other fruits of slave-labor were/are not attributed accountability for promoting its popularity.

I don't think that the bloodiness of the civil war was Lincoln's or anyone else's fault individually. Claiming that it is suggests that any single person could have abdicated their position and stopped the violence. I think the truth is that once any conflict escalates to such a high level of violence, nothing can really stop it except for de-escalation of the conflict.

Obviously it would have been possible to debate slavery politically and experiment with different regulatory approaches to it. Human rights and bargaining rights could have been developed for slaves and "paths to citizenship." I'm not saying that slavery was in any way right or good, just that it could have been dealt with and deconstructed differently. However, something about the political conflict was primed for polarization and violent reactionism. Once it is escalated, it is very hard for anyone to step in and suggest peaceful negotiations without either side seeing it as a means to manipulate the other side and achieve victory - or fight against it thinking that it is just an attempt to get them to put down their weapons and submit to domination.

 

[zomgwtf]

The way I see it is that of course the states have the right to secede.
They did do just that, didn't they? (secede that is)

After they do that though why should the constituition protect them from agression?

I feel it's the same here in Canada with Quebec wanting to separate. Sure, vote to separate go right ahead... let it pass form your own government, that's all swell, yay Democracy.
Now if you think the rest of Canada is going to sit around while your right beside (actually for Canada it's right in the middle) our country doing things we don't believe should be done(crimes against human rights, harbouring terrorist maybe... who knows PLENTY of reasons come to mind) and... possibly we want the land back (not really but maybe... national security??) then BAM we will fight Quebec. They sure as hell better be prepared to fight back.

Not saying in a more modern time this would occur for Canada/Quebec just a comparative situation. I don't think their right to secede was hampered at all, they did separate and they did form their own government with a new President and everything.

 

[brainstorm]

The way I see it is that of course the states have the right to secede.
They did do just that, didn't they? (secede that is)

After they do that though why should the constituition protect them from agression?

I feel it's the same here in Canada with Quebec wanting to separate. Sure, vote to separate go right ahead... let it pass form your own government, that's all swell, yay Democracy.
Now if you think the rest of Canada is going to sit around while your right beside (actually for Canada it's right in the middle) our country doing things we don't believe should be done(crimes against human rights, harbouring terrorist maybe... who knows PLENTY of reasons come to mind) and... possibly we want the land back (not really but maybe... national security??) then BAM we will fight Quebec. They sure as hell better be prepared to fight back.

Not saying in a more modern time this would occur for Canada/Quebec just a comparative situation. I don't think their right to secede was hampered at all, they did separate and they did form their own government with a new President and everything.

Very interesting post. I think it speaks to the very heart of the political problem of autonomy. Specifically, why do people think that what they do as an autonomous entity doesn't affect anyone else just because they define themselves as separate from others?

Granted, some things affect others more than others. It does require a certain amount of reason to determine which things do affect others and therefore need regulation, and which don't, and why. Theoretically that is what politics in a free republic should be about.

What causes democracy and freedom to fail, among other things, is when certain interests claim impingement of freedom as a means of protecting their right to dominate or exploit others. If you don't want to treat people fairly who work for you, don't hire people to work for you.

The problem is that capitalism, as wonderful as it is, contains the inherent ability to benefit from exploitation procured by someone separate from you. This in turn creates the interest for some to use abusive and exploitative business practices to generate products and services that can be sold to legitimate buyers who will often pay extra not to be informed of the corruption behind the product they're getting.

This is why freedom supports domination and exploitation, even while it is ultimately the cure for it.