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

[edpell]

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

In other words freedom is not static it is dynamic and takes constant vigilance (to make vague reference to Barry Goldwater).

 

[edpell]

Quite an accomplishment, as he died in 1835.

Thank you. I was trying to quote a paragraph from page 90 of DiLorenzo's book that deals with both Marshall and Webster and I made a mistake. To clear up the error I will quote the whole paragraph

"John Marshall, the cheif justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, is perhaps the second most renowned 'consolidationist' of the founding father generation, and he agreed with Hamilton that a state cannot be 'called at the bar of the Federal court.' Even Daniel Webster, who took up the consolidationist mantle after the deaths of Hamilton and Marshall, 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 provide 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.'"

 

[brainstorm]

"John Marshall, the cheif justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, is perhaps the second most renowned 'consolidationist' of the founding father generation, and he agreed with Hamilton that a state cannot be 'called at the bar of the Federal court.' Even Daniel Webster, who took up the consolidationist mantle after the deaths of Hamilton and Marshall, 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 provide 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.'"

What is your point in presenting this citation? That the confederate leaders had the right to claim succession for everyone living in the geographical boundaries of their claimed territories? On what basis was the federal government supposed to recognize succession?

Further why wouldn't the federal authorities be justified in intervening in activities of "foreign" governments that abridge the inalienable and universal rights it recognizes for all people, being created equal? This gets into whether republicanism should in fact limit itself according to territorial claims against it by self-proclaimed sovereigns, or whether it should aim to replace sovereignty anywhere and everywhere with individual rights and freedoms.

Here is where you get into the conflict between respecting national sovereignty and the pursuit of freedom and democracy that were so controversial during the war on terror. For some people, national or other forms of sovereignty are not up for discussion (the right to evade discussion is part of sovereignty) - but to others sovereignty is unacceptable when it interferes with the freedoms and rights of individuals subjected to sovereign authority.

Since sovereign boundaries are asserted as absolute, the only means of challenging the right of sovereignty is war; or rather I should say that all challenges to sovereignty claimed as absolute are construed as an act of war. Sovereignists/authoritarians like to categorize every question or challenge to their authority as an act of aggression/war. In reality it's just democratic checking and balancing of power. Who is above the responsibility to act reasonably and with respect for the rights and freedoms of others?

 

[edpell]

Who is above the responsibility to act reasonably and with respect for the rights and freedoms of others?

Do you favor the U.S. Army going into Saudi Arabia to enforce the rights of women in Saudi Arabia? And the U.S. Army going into China to enforce the religious freedom?

 

[brainstorm]

Do you favor the U.S. Army going into Saudi Arabia to enforce the rights of women in Saudi Arabia? And the U.S. Army going into China to enforce the religious freedom?

When "the US Army" "invaded" "Iraq," I questioned the whole framework of looking at it like that. First of all, I view army personnel as individuals, even though I understand that they have policies, protocols, orders, etc. to work with. It upset me that people used the word, "invasion" and claimed that the "invaders" would be at fault for the resulting war and destruction. I saw no reason why anyone should react violently to the presence of people on the basis of nationality. What is the difference between "invading soldiers" and "immigration?" If the soldiers don't exercise pro-active violence, there is none. It was the responsibility of everyone not to react violently, even though some people claimed it was the right to react violently of the people whose "sovereignty" was violated. Finally, since I supported the framework of a global war on terror, I did not appreciate the insertion of national sovereignty issues to frame the conflict as one between nations.

Framing it that way diverted from the relevant issue which was anti-terror intervention in global terrorism. To the extent that national sovereignty discourse resulted in escalation of reactionary violence, I would say it contributed to the terror rather than mitigating it. Generally I view national-statism as promoting fear and oppression, but launching an all-out war against it would also constitute terrorism, so you're stuck with the in-between politics of mediating the effects and trying to reduce violence.

But to answer your question more directly, I think that any individual has the responsibility to act on their best ethical judgement available to them under the circumstances of the moment. If they assess a situation and the cost of failing to intervene outweighs that of intervening, respect for sovereignty could cost lives. Can sovereignty ever be worth sacrificing individual lives?

 

[zomgwtf]

Well I'm pretty sure that Iraq was at first PROTECTING itself from America. The American forces weren't there to be friendly and mingle with the population. They were there specifically to topple the government and they brought that about by mass force. Of course this is going to face resistance (although it wasn't too significant). So comparing invasion to immigration is just a rediculous notion, these soldiers from a foreign nation were coming to topple the government and inforce it's will upon the invaded nation, that's war. (Read: NOT IMMIGRATION or INDIVIDUALS ON VACATION or whatever nonsensical terms you have)

Anyways, to target the question about Saudi Arabia and China. This isn't JUST about human rights. You have to weigh your options of course.

First both nations are FAR away from America and pose no risk to America. Not true about the Confederate States of America, they were RIGHT nextdoor and USED to be part of your own nation. They not only pose a risk by proximity but also politically.

Second, I am under the impression that the Confederate States attacked America. (correct if I am wrong we don't learn American history here in Canada )

Lastly, what goes on in their culture is their business. Just because you secede from a nation doesn't mean you are no longer part of their culture or society.
It's like if my child misbehaves I can punish them however I can't punish your child. If my child moves out and misbehaves I can STILL punish them however, I can't punish your child. --There are of course situations where punishing someone elses child may be ok I guess, as long as it's not violently.

So in short I would say that if any other nation presented a threat to the societal values of America or any other nation directly or that another nation was commiting gross human rights violations then yes, another nation can step in and lay down the law. Why doesn't this happen? In a lot of cases, it's just not worth it while the violations are occurring and it's not until we look back that we think 'gee, we should have done something there.'

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Second, I am under the impression that the Confederate States attacked America. (correct if I am wrong we don't learn American history here in Canada )

Ft Sumpter was a US military facility in the harbour of Charleston, South Carolina. Most such facilities in the seceded states had been seized by Confederate forces without violence before Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. Rather than surrender the fort (as his predecessor Buchanan had done with other forts) Lincoln set an expedition to re-supply the garrison there, expecting this would provoke a response form the Confederate forces. The violent response to Lincoln's action (shelling the fort) was the pretext Lincoln used for waging war.

Lincoln main purpose was to preserve the Union. However, there was (and is) no specific provision in the US Constitution prohibiting (or allowing) secession. Lincoln simply took the position that the very existence of the Constitution implied the precedence of Federal sovereignty over the states. But the legal basis for waging war was the violent seizure of Federal property. Had the Confederates not fired on the fort, but offered to negotiate instead, (perhaps offering payment), Lincoln would not have had this legal pretext for waging war.

 

[brainstorm]

Well I'm pretty sure that Iraq was at first PROTECTING itself from America.

Macro-imagery like this frames human actions in service of collective interactions. When any individual views themselves as protecting a larger social body from another, the result is objectifying violence against other individuals based on group-identity and little more.

The American forces weren't there to be friendly and mingle with the population. They were there specifically to topple the government and they brought that about by mass force.

Who has the right to speak for the intentions of individual soldiers? You? You use the words, "topple the government by mass force." Who's to say they weren't there to restore/produce democracy and freedom and reduce tyranny and terror? You're cynical interpretation is more prone to spread fear and cause more violent reactions than interpretations where stated intentions are taken in good faith. It was/is the reactions that cause the violence and atrocities of war, not the initial actions themselves, except where those actions are pro-actively violent and attrocious.

Of course this is going to face resistance (although it wasn't too significant). So comparing invasion to immigration is just a rediculous notion, these soldiers from a foreign nation were coming to topple the government and inforce it's will upon the invaded nation, that's war. (Read: NOT IMMIGRATION or INDIVIDUALS ON VACATION or whatever nonsensical terms you have)

Only if you place the right of sovereignty above the responsibility to resist violent reaction. All I'm saying that if you simply take the view that people coming to visit you wearing soldier costumes are there to help you, there's a lot less chance of violence occurring than if you react with terror and spread the tendency to react with war-driven violence.

The whether and hows of resistance are never "of course." Violence is never a given. It is always a choice for which individuals bear responsibility for their decisions to (re)act.

Anyways, to target the question about Saudi Arabia and China. This isn't JUST about human rights. You have to weigh your options of course.

It is about whatever you make it about. And your actions are what they are regardless of how you justify them. The ethical consequences will be what they and you have to act in the best good faith intentions available to you or you are complicit with the consequences of inaction.

First both nations are FAR away from America and pose no risk to America. Not true about the Confederate States of America, they were RIGHT nextdoor and USED to be part of your own nation. They not only pose a risk by proximity but also politically.

Proximity is relative to the ability to interact. Technologies define the means of interaction, its possibilities and impossibilities. You can't pretend that something isn't in reach of technological ability you have at your disposal based on some abstract notion of proximity.

Second, I am under the impression that the Confederate States attacked America. (correct if I am wrong we don't learn American history here in Canada )

Some people attacked some other people in a fort, I believe. The identity politics of it depend on how it is reconstructed. I'm sure there were people who did not favor war and still got affected by it.

Lastly, what goes on in their culture is their business.

Who gets to say what culture belongs to whom?

Just because you secede from a nation doesn't mean you are no longer part of their culture or society.

Again, who gets to decide who is a part of whose culture and society and why?

It's like if my child misbehaves I can punish them however I can't punish your child. If my child moves out and misbehaves I can STILL punish them however, I can't punish your child. --There are of course situations where punishing someone elses child may be ok I guess, as long as it's not violently.

That's because I recognize your child as not mine. If I believed that your child's safety was my responsibility because you had given up your parental rights by breaking the law, for example, I might consider it my responsibility to protect your child from you. You don't seem to be able to see that identities are constructed and socially contested through acts of power. This occurs at every level. There's never a clear truth about who belongs to whom, as much as you would like this to be a simple consensus based on universal common sense.

So in short I would say that if any other nation presented a threat to the societal values of America or any other nation directly or that another nation was commiting gross human rights violations then yes, another nation can step in and lay down the law. Why doesn't this happen? In a lot of cases, it's just not worth it while the violations are occurring and it's not until we look back that we think 'gee, we should have done something there.'

Yes, and people wash their hands of responsibility for the consequences of their inaction, even while they profit from the results. I think about that whenever I drink coffee grown in Rwanda.

 

[alxm]

Lincoln main purpose was to preserve the Union. However, there was (and is) no specific provision in the US Constitution prohibiting (or allowing) secession. Lincoln simply took the position that the very existence of the Constitution implied the precedence of Federal sovereignty over the states.

That's not true. The Articles of Confederation (which preceded the Constitution) declared that the Union is perpetual. The fact that this union had been established is implicit in the Constitution ("in order to form a more perfect union").

It's of course a matter of opinion whether or not one agrees with that rationale, but it was in fact the legal basis that Lincoln himself cited. He didn't just assume this.

 

[edpell]

The Articles of Confederation (which preceded the Constitution) declared that the Union is perpetual.

The Articles of Confederation were adopted 1781 and were abandoned/dissolved 1787. They were not exactly perpetual.

 

[edpell]

Ft Sumpter was a US military facility in the harbour of Charleston, South Carolina. Most such facilities in the seceded states had been seized by Confederate forces without violence before Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. Rather than surrender the fort (as his predecessor Buchanan had done with other forts) Lincoln set an expedition to re-supply the garrison there, expecting this would provoke a response form the Confederate forces. The violent response to Lincoln's action (shelling the fort) was the pretext Lincoln used for waging war.

You mean a foreign invader was occupying part of a Sovereign State and the locals objected to the threat represented by this hostile action and they, after asking nicely many times, had to take action to defend themselves from this army of aggression? Sounds like U.S. Federal Government has not changed to this day.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

That's not true. The Articles of Confederation (which preceded the Constitution) declared that the Union is perpetual. The fact that this union had been established is implicit in the Constitution ("in order to form a more perfect union").

It's of course a matter of opinion whether or not one agrees with that rationale, but it was in fact the legal basis that Lincoln himself cited. He didn't just assume this.

The fact remains that the US Constitution makes no explicit reference to secession and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the right of states to secede.

I doubt if Lincoln wanted to take the issue to Supreme Court since it was dominated by Southerners. Lincoln got what he needed to wage war when the Confederates fired on Ft. Sumpter. That was armed rebellion, not "legal" secession under any legal interpretation.

The concept of armed rebellion also allowed Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. The Fifth Amendment protected the "property" rights of slave owners in the slave states that remained with the Union. But Lincoln had the power, as commander in chief, to seize property in areas in open rebellion as an act of war. That property included slaves, who were declared "contraband" and subsequently freed under the provisions of the Proclamation.

Eventually all slaves were freed by the 13th Amendment, which Lincoln supported and even signed, even though he wasn't required to do so.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

You mean a foreign invader was occupying part of a Sovereign State and the locals objected to the threat represented by this hostile action and they, after asking nicely many times, had to take action to defend themselves from this army of aggression? Sounds like U.S. Federal Government has not changed to this day.

I don't know of what or where you're talking about. There were no Federal troops in South Carolina on April 12, 1861 except the garrison at Ft. Sumpter. This fort was the property of the Federal Government and had been garrisoned for years. When PTG Beauregard ordered his cannons to fire on the fort, he was starting a war. Call it the War for Southern Independence if you want, but it was still a war. The South lost. That's the way it goes. To the North, it was an armed rebellion.

If the USA had lost it's War of Independence with Britain, it would have remained a string of British colonies, probably without the self governing privileges they had before their "rebellion". That's the way it goes.

 

[edpell]

I don't know of what or where you're talking about. There were no Federal troops in South Carolina on April 12, 1861 except the garrison at Ft. Sumpter.

I am talking about the hostile federal forces in Ft. Sumpter. The ones that were armed and menacing a free and Sovereign State and a free and Sovereign people. I guess the people of South Carolina thought that if they went through the legal process of eminent domain and "legally" took back the land the warlike and aggressive D.C. would not comply.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I am talking about the hostile federal forces in Ft. Sumpter. The ones that were armed and menacing a free and Sovereign State and a free and Sovereign people. I guess the people of South Carolina thought that if they went through the legal process of eminent domain and "legally" took back the land the warlike and aggressive D.C. would not comply.

I think your rhetoric would have been an embarrassment to Jefferson Davis himself. The garrison at Fort Sumpter was isolated and surrounded. The troops were probably scared stiff. They never fired a shot until the bombardment began. After 34 hours, they surrendered. By firing on Fort Sumpter, the Confederacy provided a pretext for Lincoln to wage war.

How in the world does a besieged isolated fort far from any friendly forces and surrounded by superior hostile forces, "menace" anyone?

 

[brainstorm]

The concept of armed rebellion also allowed Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. The Fifth Amendment protected the "property" rights of slave owners in the slave states that remained with the Union. But Lincoln had the power, as commander in chief, to seize property in areas in open rebellion as an act of war. That property included slaves, who were declared "contraband" and subsequently freed under the provisions of the Proclamation.

Interesting. Maybe the whole act of succession was put on to facilitate population reduction in a time of great migration and population growth and to generate an opportunity to use executive power under war conditions to implement emancipation as a proclamation instead of getting 2/3 majorities in congress . . . conspiracy theorizing is fun but always suspect.

If the USA had lost it's War of Independence with Britain, it would have remained a string of British colonies, probably without the self governing privileges they had before their "rebellion". That's the way it goes.

This elicits the question of who is right and just in such situations, unless you assume that the side that wins is always right because God was on their side in them achieving victory; or that power creates truth instead of truth being the product of reason.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Interesting. Maybe the whole act of succession was put on to facilitate population reduction in a time of great migration and population growth and to generate an opportunity to use executive power under war conditions to implement emancipation as a proclamation instead of getting 2/3 majorities in congress . . . conspiracy theorizing is fun but always suspect.

I'm not following you. It was the southern states that seceded and the North which used executive war powers to free some of the slaves. The amendment process was bound to take time, and the border states were a political problem for Lincoln. He couldn't afford to lose them because of their strategic position. By December, 1864, with war nearly won, the 13th amendment passed Congress and went to the states where 3/4 of the states needed to approve it..

This elicits the question of who is right and just in such situations, unless you assume that the side that wins is always right because God was on their side in them achieving victory; or that power creates truth instead of truth being the product of reason.

Well, it's a deep subject. I don't think power makes right, but if people feel strongly about what's right, they may have to fight, and if they fight, they aren't guaranteed to win just because they're right.

Personally, I consider slavery an abomination and would like to hear from anyone who disagrees. Having said that, Lincoln wasn't guaranteed to win. In mid 1864, it looked as if he would be defeated for re-election. The Democratic candidate was George McClellan, Lincoln's former commander of the Army of the Potomac who had the highest disrespect for Lincoln. McClellan's platform was to negotiate a peace treaty between the CSA and USA. That is, he would have recognized the CSA as an independent nation.

 

[brainstorm]

I'm not following you. It was the southern states that seceded and the North which used executive war powers to free some of the slaves. The amendment process was bound to take time, and the border states were a political problem for Lincoln. He couldn't afford to lose them because of their strategic position. By December, 1864, with war nearly won, the 13th amendment passed Congress and went to the states where 3/4 of the states needed to approve it..

It was just a wild conspiracy plot theory. I was saying that maybe both Lincoln's presidency AND the succession were orchestrated to stage a civil war in order to legitimate mass killing of population during a time of high migration from Europe AND free slaves in order to orchestrate either migration to industrial cities OR "colonization," which was the term used for sending former-slaves to Africa. It was a bizarre and violent historical period.

Personally, I consider slavery an abomination and would like to hear from anyone who disagrees.

Slavery is certainly an abomination (of freedom) as is any form of labor coercion. I have sometimes discussed the vulnerability of wage-labor to be appropriated by coercive labor interests, but I am usually met by the standard holy-defense of wage-labor as free verses slavery as not free. Personally, I don't know if the greater problem was labor-exploitation or racism, since both play off the other. There is certainly an argument to be made that true labor-freedom could be a detriment to economic efficiency. I think life would not end if labor was totally emancipated from coercion, but the problem would be that people would demand human rights to basic welfare, which would demand that SOMEONE perform the labor necessary to sustain them. So how do you guarantee basic welfare without some form of required labor?

Having said that, Lincoln wasn't guaranteed to win. In mid 1864, it looked as if he would be defeated for re-election. The Democratic candidate was George McClellan, Lincoln's former commander of the Army of the Potomac who had the highest disrespect for Lincoln. McClellan's platform was to negotiate a peace treaty between the CSA and USA. That is, he would have recognized the CSA as an independent nation.

I read that Lincoln had become very unpopular with many people in the north who were tired of losing their children to war. Supposedly Lincoln had trouble getting generals to actually show up for battles because they didn't like the killing. Let me say that I hesitate to believe that Lincoln as an individual was either a demon or an angel. I think he was part of a political discourse that got out of hand due to the actions of many individuals. I never trust history that gives credit or blame to one individual and implicitly relegates all others to supporting roles.

 

[russ_watters]

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?

While I get your point, I see it the opposite way: the civil war was fought and won to prove that a state could not unilaterally secede. Their request/stated intent to secede was rejected, emphatically. At best, you could say there was disagreement on the issue and the disagreement was settled the only way such disagreements could be: with war.

It is analagous to the American Revolution. The colonies declared independence. Did they have the right to? Whether the colonies or the south legally had the right to do what they wanted to do is irrelevant: the parties involved disagreed and wars were fought to settle the issue.

Ultimately, though, I consider all of this just mental masturbation and irrelevant to the real issue: the Consitution was ratified with flaws/internatl inconsistencies. The North knew it. We know it today. Whether the South knew it and wanted to ignore it or was just too blind by racism to see it is irrelevant. The tumors in the Constitution needed to be excised. Whether the North or South acted in ways that were unconstitutional is really irrelevant - a war was needed to fix those problems.

 

[russ_watters]

I am talking about the hostile federal forces in Ft. Sumpter. The ones that were armed and menacing a free and Sovereign State and a free and Sovereign people. I guess the people of South Carolina thought that if they went through the legal process of eminent domain and "legally" took back the land the warlike and aggressive D.C. would not comply.

At the risk of people seeing the previous post of mine as "getting the last word" - I really didn't read ahead - this is just crackpot nonsense and the thread will not be allowed to progress down that path. Locked.