DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**mosypeSom** · 08-19-2008, 10:15 PM

...like the basis for the Confederacy, I consider the Fugitive Slave Act immoral, an affront to a guiding principle of the republic - inalienable rights of all men.

As do I. My main point is that "a guiding principle of the republic" holds "inalienable" the "right," the "duty" "of all men" "to throw off such Government."

I reiterate: the Confederate case may not have been just, but the democratic principle of secession remains so.

What I object to about this hypothesis of "Lincoln's War" is the implication that Lincoln engineered it with ulterior motives at the expense of innocent secessionists. I don't entirely disagree with your objection. Just that a war against secession by its very nature violated American principles. James Buchanan expressed just this sentiment in his 1860 State of the Union:
Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. Suppose such a war should result in the conquest of a State; how are we to govern it afterwards? Shall we hold it as a province and govern it by despotic power? In the nature of things, we could not by physical force control the will of the people and compel them to elect Senators and Representatives to Congress and to perform all the other duties depending upon their own volition and required from the free citizens of a free State as a constituent member of the Confederacy.

But if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise it under existing circumstances? The object would doubtless be to preserve the Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroying it, but would vanish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict a vast amount of blood and treasure would be expended, rendering future reconciliation between the States impossible. In the meantime, who can foretell what would be the sufferings and privations of the people during its existence?

The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.

The fight in the early republic was not the federal government vs, states' rights; it was a battle by both sides to control the federal government. In practice if not in theory, before Lincoln, control of the federal government didn't confer an implication of boundless central authority backed by military coercion. The fundamental nature of the "compact" was altered by Lincoln's war to preserve the Union.

One note on marshall law in Maryland: Look at a map. Virginia secedes. If Maryland follows, what happens to Washington DC? Note the rich irony in that DC is located where it is due to southern opposition to one of Hamilton's federal debt centralization and taxation schemes.

From Wikipedia:
The selection of the area around the Potomac River for the new national capital was agreed upon between James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton had a proposal for the new federal government to take over debts accrued by the states during the Revolutionary War. However, by 1790, Southern states had largely repaid their overseas debts. Hamilton's proposal would effectively mean that Southern states would be forced to assume a share of Northern debt. Jefferson and Madison agreed to this proposal but in return lobbied for a federal capital located in the South.[7]

Alexander Hamilton was every bit the authoritarian forefather of Lincoln.

08-19-2008, 10:15 PM	#47
mosypeSom Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 432 Senior Member	...like the basis for the Confederacy, I consider the Fugitive Slave Act immoral, an affront to a guiding principle of the republic - inalienable rights of all men. As do I. My main point is that "a guiding principle of the republic" holds "inalienable" the "right," the "duty" "of all men" "to throw off such Government." I reiterate: the Confederate case may not have been just, but the democratic principle of secession remains so. What I object to about this hypothesis of "Lincoln's War" is the implication that Lincoln engineered it with ulterior motives at the expense of innocent secessionists. I don't entirely disagree with your objection. Just that a war against secession by its very nature violated American principles. James Buchanan expressed just this sentiment in his 1860 State of the Union: Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. Suppose such a war should result in the conquest of a State; how are we to govern it afterwards? Shall we hold it as a province and govern it by despotic power? In the nature of things, we could not by physical force control the will of the people and compel them to elect Senators and Representatives to Congress and to perform all the other duties depending upon their own volition and required from the free citizens of a free State as a constituent member of the Confederacy. But if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise it under existing circumstances? The object would doubtless be to preserve the Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroying it, but would vanish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict a vast amount of blood and treasure would be expended, rendering future reconciliation between the States impossible. In the meantime, who can foretell what would be the sufferings and privations of the people during its existence? The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force. The fight in the early republic was not the federal government vs, states' rights; it was a battle by both sides to control the federal government. In practice if not in theory, before Lincoln, control of the federal government didn't confer an implication of boundless central authority backed by military coercion. The fundamental nature of the "compact" was altered by Lincoln's war to preserve the Union. One note on marshall law in Maryland: Look at a map. Virginia secedes. If Maryland follows, what happens to Washington DC? Note the rich irony in that DC is located where it is due to southern opposition to one of Hamilton's federal debt centralization and taxation schemes. From Wikipedia: The selection of the area around the Potomac River for the new national capital was agreed upon between James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton had a proposal for the new federal government to take over debts accrued by the states during the Revolutionary War. However, by 1790, Southern states had largely repaid their overseas debts. Hamilton's proposal would effectively mean that Southern states would be forced to assume a share of Northern debt. Jefferson and Madison agreed to this proposal but in return lobbied for a federal capital located in the South.[7] Alexander Hamilton was every bit the authoritarian forefather of Lincoln.
	Quote