The Best and Worst of the Presidency

[Augustine2004]

I just read a rather interesting essay by Rothbard. If I understand him correctly, the ‘slavocracy’ attempted to expand their system to the Western States. The North rightly objected to what was after all an evil aim. Ironically, that aim was itself a violation of states’ rights. For example, the Fugitive Slave Law violated Northern state rights. These had consequences that are too numerous and complicated to list here. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard175.html

However, one will be mentioned here: secession. Maybe Curtmudgeon was right after all. And yet the North should have let the South depart in peace. 600,000 lives lost, and loss of liberty and justice for all, including the establishment of the doctrine of barbarity against the civilians.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Curtmudgeon,

First you listed reasons why the North would want to free slaves, in addition to ending the slavery evil. Second, you agree that the EP had political aspects, such as keeping Europe from coming to the South’s aid.

Hence, I’m baffled why you challenged me to explain the EP itself, especially that clause. Again, I assert it did not free any slaves when it was proclaimed. In a legal sense perhaps. Practically, no. The North first had to conquer the South. Moreover, if it means anything, the blacks in the South remained third class citizens until recently. (I’m a second-class citizen even though I’m nearly 100% a WASP male.)

What I challenged you on was (a) the statement that the EP didn't free a single slave, and (2) the claim that "the justification" (your word, my emphasis) -- implying "the only justification" -- was the European impact. My challenge was that (1) the EP most certainly did free the slaves, in the areas in which it was stated to apply and that the Union had a military and/or political presence to enforce it; and (b) the European aspect was only an aspect of when it was issued, not the idea to issue it at all. Perhaps I could have been clearer on bringing those details out.

Again, your statement "Again, I assert it did not free any slaves when it was proclaimed. In a legal sense perhaps. Practically, no. The North first had to conquer the South." is overly simplistic. The Union Army didn't have to conquer the whole South; it merely had to enforce the EP in the areas in which it was in command, expanding the area of the effective use of the EP as it expanded the area under its military control. Bit by bit, as more and more of the South was brought within the power of the Union Army, slaves were freed from their masters, and put to work as hired free persons paid a wage at such tasks as driving supply wagons, digging trenches and building fortifications. These freed slaves, freed while the War was still in progress, were guaranteed their freedom -- even if future events should have caused the North to negotiate a peace treaty that would have left the CSA in existence, those particular slaves, including in most cases their families, would never have been returned to their erstwhile masters; they would have been brought back to free soil USA along with the Army.

Those slaves -- and there were literally hundreds of thousands of them -- were freed by the EP during the course of the War, as their particular locale was liberated by the Union Army, and were guaranteed their freedom by right of the EP. The implementation of the EP was not reserved until the War was completely over -- it was immediately implemented, in an admittedly piece-meal fashion, battlefield by battlefield, region by region, state by state, with guaranteed freedom both in the instant and in the future for the slaves who were able (and many were able) to take advantage of it. And even in regions where the Army had not yet penetrated, word of the EP meant that those slaves who were able to become runaways headed for the front lines, to put themselves under the protection of the Army and claim the benefits of the EP.

There had been runaway slaves trying to get into Union-controlled regions even before the EP, of course. But because before the EP there was no consistent government policy concerning "contrabands", as they were generally called, they were not guaranteed anything at all -- not even immediate freedom. In some areas, Union generals in local command would not accept runaway slaves within the army lines, and basically sent them back to be captured by their masters or die. Some generals, indeed, implemented a version of emancipation before the EP, and were actually officially reprimanded by Commander of the Armies Halleck. But once the EP had been issued, then it immediately became official Army policy, and all Union generals were instructed to make use of it to free such slaves as their forces came across, and if they were willing to hire them and put them to non-fighting roles (i.e., the generals were never given authority to conscript the slaves or force them to work, although of course there were some few that overstepped their authority just as there always are -- but when found out, they were repremanded and such forced slaves were given their right to refuse work and still remain free). Late in the war, freedmen would also be given the opportunity to fight, but not at first.

So your claim that the EP freed no slaves is palpably wrong. Slaves were freed, and were guaranteed their freedom, long before the War was ended, although of course not all slaves were that lucky. It's true that many slaves in the Deep South never saw a chance to take advantage of the EP, but it's also true that many others did both see and take that opportunity.

As for the European question, it had some small impact on the timing of the EP, but not the idea of writing or issuing it. As I mentioned, the idea of the EP had been prevalent in some quarters of the US government even from the very beginning (when the South characterised the Republican government as being Abolitionist, they were wrong in general but not completely wrong in detail -- Sec'y of State Seward, for example, was a strong Abolitionist). And even though Lincoln himself was slow to agree that it was necessary or even useful, he did come around to giving it serious consideration a year or so before he actually issued it. Lincoln's main reason for hesitation, after he had decided that an EP was the right thing to do, was because he didn't want it to look like an act of desperation, hence the delay until after the Battle of Antietam. "Look like" -- to whom? Well, of course, the European powers are included in that; if the US was seen to be desperate to win the war, then the UK and/or France might see that as a good enough reason to go ahead and acknowledge the CSA. But mainly, Lincoln was concerned about the appearance in the North itself. He didn't want resistance to continuing the war to increase, he especially didn't want to give Northern Democrats (Copperheads) any more ammunition in their election campaigns in states like Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. So while he was admittedly aware of the international attention being paid to the ACW, his main concern was not with them but with the Union home front.

I agree that New York and other states of the North may have had slaves themselves. Another reason why Lincoln didn’t want to try to end the slavery evil.

New York had passed an abolition law at least a generation before the ACW; New Jersey was, I think, the last Northern state to pass such a law before the War, and even that was 10 or 20 years before. The Border States -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri -- were the only slave states in the Union at the time of the War.

However, in the Dred Scott case of 1856, the US Supreme Court had ruled that a slave-holder, having rights in his slave property in his home state, could retain such property even if he took the slaves to a free state. So although the Northern states were technically free, they could not free slaves within their borders which belonged to Southern slave-holders who were temporarily in residence there. Not that this stopped some of them; many of the free state governments simply refused to enforce such laws on slaves who escaped from their masters while resident or even just visiting the North, and the slave states had to repeatedly appeal in Congress for Federal forces to enforce the law. NOTE: That's another aspect of how the South, prior to the Secession crisis itself in late '60 and '61, was more interested in Federal authority over the States, than they were concerned with "States' rights". The only "States' right" that they insisted on was slavery, and then they wanted the Federal government to enforce it on and in non-slave-holding states against those states' right to declare any resident within their borders free.

That's one of the main reasons I get so hot about this whole "States' Rights" claim for the Confederacy: It's completely contrary to the historical facts of their own actions. It's not just that it's not right, it's 100% wrong and 180^o degrees out of line. The Southern states insisted on Federal power over the Northern states whenever the question concerned slavery. The Northern states were not to be allowed any "right" to decide who was or was not free within their own borders.

Even the question about the territories was a very skewed version of "States' rights": territories were, by definition, "not States", so people in those territories, and the Federal government itself, didn't have a right to block the introduction of slavery, according to Southern doctrine. Any territory under Federal control had to be open to settlement by slave-holders as slave-holders, complete with slave property, so that when the time came for them to "graduate" and become states, the slave-holders could (theoretically) outvote the non-slave-holders and make the new state a new slave state. That's what started the whole Bleeding Kansas debacle.

The slave owners were powerful and wealthy, so naturally had a tremendous influence on the governments of the South. I doubt the abolitionists had that much influence on the Federal government. I still doubt Lincoln really wanted to end the slavery evil, as you yourself seem to agree. Look, when a government is maneuvering for war (see below), you have to expect war.

I don’t think you understand the Fort Sumter situation. Once South Carolina seceded, the fort became useless for military purposes - except for the North to conquer the South.

Useless or not, it was still Federal property. Just because the SC argument was that the Federals couldn't make any other use of it, didn't automagically make it right for them to take it. Even they themselves effectively accepted this argument, since they agreed not to try to force it unless it was re-supplied.

And, in fact, it did serve a useful purpose: to enforce the collection of import duties, and protect those legally tasked with carrying it out. Import duties were a Federal law, and as such accrued to the Federal government, SC's decision to unilaterally ignore the law notwithstanding. You may not like, f'rinstance, the laws about highway speeds, but that doesn't give you the right to argue back when the policeman or state trooper pulls you over.

The Carolinian were no dummies, they knew the purpose of the supplies. Sure, the South had some hot-heads, unfortunately, but Lincoln could have withdrawn the soldiers.

Sure, and if I come up to you on a dark street and stick a gun in your ribs and demand your wallet, you could agree to give it to me. Sometimes that may be the smart action to choose, but it never gives the thief the right to be a thief. When he's finally brought to court on charges, he can't say, "Well, he agreed to give it to me, so no harm, no foul."

Either he didn’t understand the situation in which case he was a fool or he did understand the situation and deliberately provoked the Carolinians.

So you believe that sticking up for the legal right against bullies and thieves constitutes provocation? Interesting, but wrong.

You insisted that you are not neglecting the economic aspect, but I could not help but wonder. I think I told you that Lincoln said forcefully in his First Inaugural Address that he was going to enforce the laws including high tariffs against Southern wishes.

Have you ever tried reading what the US Constitution says about duties of the Executive Branch? You might find it interesting -- I do think that I recall the words "the Laws be faithfully Executed" are in there, somewhere.

Here is the full text of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address. Will you please point out the word 'tariff', please? :drum: Waiting ....

Oh, and 'enforce' -- I'll grant that that word does show up. Let's look at all the places it does:

A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

....There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one....

Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional....

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....

Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you....

© source where applicable

No, I don't see anything about enforcing tariffs -- only enforcing the duly-passed laws by the US Congress. And that, as I said before, was only stating his duty as prescribed by the US Constitution. You can't tell a man that his duty is to enforce the laws, and then castigate him when he does it.

The (and there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the individual States the right to ignore Federal laws) Curtmudgeon

[Augustine2004]

Curtmudgeon you make what appears to be a good case. I'm going to ask Lew Rockwell to look at it.

However, I do see Lincoln's saying that the South had no right to secede. I guess, though, you think so too, that no secession right exist.

[JonLanceBarker]

So this is the way to combat Aug...hit him over the head with an enormous, logically sound post.

I like it.

[Augustine2004]

So this is the way to combat Aug...hit him over the head with an enormous, logically sound post.

All you need are premises that appear good and an argument based on them that appears sound to me. The argument does not have to be enormous.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Curtmudgeon you make what appears to be a good case. I'm going to ask Lew Rockwell to look at it.

The more, the merrier.

However, I do see Lincoln's saying that the South had no right to secede. I guess, though, you think so too, that no secession right exist.

I do accept Lincoln's argument that, the whole collection of States having entered into a Union together, the only way to dissolve such Union was by the concensus of the whole collection of States. In other words, if the SC (f'rinstance) Representatives or Senators in the US Congress had presented a bill to allow SC to withdraw from the Union, and Congress somehow voted to pass such a bill into law, then SC's secession would have been legitimate because it was recognised by the legal process in Congress. However, SC's unilateral decision to "take their marbles and go home" was not legal, since they neither sought nor were granted the approval of the majority of Congress.

No, it's not very likely that it would ever have happened that way -- I cannot imagine the majority of Congress ever agreeing that any state, or group of states acting in concert, could peaceably withdraw from the Union. But it's the only way that was legal under the Constitution.

It can be argued that the Founding Fathers were deficient in not recognising the need to address the question in the first place, either to put a specific ban on it or else provide a specific means to allow it or recognise it. But in the 1780s, the Founding Fathers were looking for a way to strengthen the Federal Government (yes, it wasn't just an idea of the 1860s), since the former Articles of Confederation had proved to be so unworkable and useless. Under the Articles, unilateral secession was a right of each of the sovereign States.

Articles of Confederation

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

© source where applicable

(Also, the AoC referred to the USA as a "confederacy" and a "league of friendship", not a nation in its own right. Under the AoC, the USA was nothing more than an international organisation of separate sovereign nations, such as NATO or the OAS. That completely changed with the signing of the Constitution.)

Lincoln, and many others before, contemporary, and since, have argued that if the Founding Fathers wanted the option of secession they would have certainly carried it over from the Articles to the Constitution. They didn't, so it must be argued that the Constitution was never intended to allow secession.

Is it a water-tight argument? No, I'll admit that it is not. Since the Constitution never says, in so many words, either "no secession" or "yes, secession", there can be no water-tight argument on either side. But having the example of the AoC right there in front of them, and some few of them personally involved in drafting both documents, the argument carries a lot of weight.

The (the States had given up their sovereignity when they ratified the Constitution) Curtmudgeon

[Augustine2004]

Curtmudgeon, I was tempted to challenge your assertion that the Articles of Confederacy was unworkable and useless, but they were before President Washington.

Let me point out, however, that the Constitution's legal basis is challegeable from a natural law standpoint. John Locke (no, not that Lost guy) would have disapproved.

Have you read Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty? Or at least know of it?

[The Curtmudgeon]

Curtmudgeon, I was tempted to challenge your assertion that the Articles of Confederacy was unworkable and useless, but they were before President Washington.

You can challenge the assertion, but the fact remains that the Founding Fathers themselves, rather than trying to amend the AoC, scrapped them entirely and started over with the Constitution, which lays down a completely different concept of how the USA is formed from the individual states. To me, that shows that they believed the AoC to be unworkable and useless.

Let me point out, however, that the Constitution's legal basis is challegeable from a natural law standpoint. John Locke (no, not that Lost guy) would have disapproved.

While freely admitting Locke's prominence in his day and time, I don't necessarily hold him to be the be-all-and-end-all on the subject. Not that I disregard or disagree with everything he wrote -- I certainly don't -- but I would have to address his points one by one, not merely say, "Oh, well, if you're going to bring Locke into the conversation, I throw in the towel."

No, I really don't want to discuss Locke point by point. And I do agree that there is a "natural law" (although I might quibble over details) that can, under the proper circumstances, be used as a valid challenge to men's laws. After all, that's one of the bases for the Declaration of Independence: The Founding Fathers, and a majority of American citizens at the time, felt that the laws of Britain were being written and implemented in a way that violated their natural rights.

But are you prepared to show me that anyone at the time in question did mount a challenge to the Constitution on that basis?

Have you read Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty? Or at least know of it?

No, not before you mentioned it (I mean, really know it -- the title sounds like something I've heard about, but nothing more than the mere mention); my reading in the Revolutionary time period is not as deep as in, f'rinstance, the ACW period. I've just checked on it over at Amazon. Based on the description and reviews there, it certainly sounds like an interesting read. But (also based solely on what I see at Amazon) it appears that he stops short of discussing the period of the AoC and the conversion over to the Constitution.

One reviewer mentions that "He proves that the opposition to strong central government started not in the Civil War, or in Jefferson's masterful Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, but during the American Revolution. He proves that opposition to centralized government is as American as hot dogs and apple pie." Fair enough; I wouldn't claim that there wasn't opposition to strong central government at the time. But, from the obvious facts, they were not so opposed to it (or at least, enough of them weren't sufficiently opposed) to keep the AoC. Anyone reading the AoC and then reading the Constitution (plus Bill of Rights) can immediately see how the latter makes a stronger Federal government than the former did. The whole purpose of writing and ratifying the Constitution was to make a stronger Federal government. To carry out Rothbard's thesis, if indeed his purpose is to show that "opposition to centralized government is as American as hot dogs and apple pie," he would have to address that fact. And (again, based solely on what I see at Amazon), he appears to avoid doing so: "Rothbard brings us to the end of the war and deliniates the 'liberating' effects of the Revolution." He stops when the AoC came into place, and appears not to address its ramifications and ultimate rejection.

I'll grant that the description and reviews make it sound like a worthwhile read. Right now, it's just not a priority for me (I've just completely scuppered my reading time at home by other commitments, and I've got twenty or so books still on the to-be-read shelf). If you have read it, and can show that my assumptions about it, above, are misled, please do.

The (otherwise, I'm going to consider that I've made my case, and the prosecution (or am I the defense this time? I forget ) rests) Curtmudgeon

[Augustine2004]

You can challenge the assertion, but the fact remains that the Founding Fathers themselves, rather than trying to amend the AoC, scrapped them entirely and started over with the Constitution, which lays down a completely different concept of how the USA is formed from the individual states. ....

To me, that shows that they believed the AoC to be unworkable and useless.[snip]
But are you prepared to show me that anyone at the time in question did mount a challenge to the Constitution on that basis?

The Anti-Federalists would be angry with you!

[Augustine2004]

If this article is correct

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo140.html

Lincoln has got to be one of our worst presidents.

[The Curtmudgeon]

If this article is correct

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo140.html

Lincoln has got to be one of our worst presidents.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo140.html

Thomas J. DiLorenzo ... professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland

© source where applicable

The (what? you couldn't find an article written by, oh I don' t know ... a professor of history, maybe?) Curtmudgeon

[Augustine2004]

The (what? you couldn't find an article written by, oh I don' t know ... a professor of history, maybe?) Curtmudgeon

What! You can prove him wrong!? Go ahead, please! Oh, and have you read The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli yet? Might be good preparation.

[Augustine2004]

Just saw this: Nothing new under the sun. Presidents above the law.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/020362.html

[Augustine2004]

Curtmudgeon: could you check out this essay and see if you disagree with any part of it? Lincoln, Wilson, T. Roosevelt on Gettysburg. Note especially how much the unionists exalt Lincoln, as though union is worth Amazons of blood.

[sj48182]

Grover Cleveland was the best. He was for sound money, was opposed to imperialism, and actually regarded himself as bound by the Constitution, which is rare among presidents.

All the warmonger/imperial presidents were the worst: Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, both Roosevelts, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, and both Bushes.