Dictators use Lincoln's actions as justification for their own because most people are brainwashed into thinking Lincoln was a great President. I guess when you measure greatness by body bags filled and broken laws, Lincoln was a great.
* Apr. 19, 1861 -- Lincoln imposed a blockade on Southern ports of South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Did Congress declare war? No. Constitution violated.
* Apr. 20, 1861 -- Lincoln ordered the Sec. of Treasury to spend public money for defense without congressional appropriation, violating the Constitution.
* Apr. 27, 1861 -- Lincoln made the unprecedented move of suspending, through an unconstitutional order, the writ of habeas corpus, or the protection against unlawful imprisonment. Lincoln signed a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because the Judge rendered an opinion that Lincoln acted unconstitutionally by suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
* Lincoln had U.S. Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio arrested for “disloyal sentiments and speeches.” Vallandigham opposed the Morrill Tariff and the central bank.
* An estimated 13,000 Northern citizens were detained for merely expressing opposition to the war. This group contained hundreds of newspaper editors and owners. None of these people ever heard evidence against them and were never brought to trial.
* During the war, adult male civilians in the South were compelled to take a loyalty oath to the federal government or be shot. In the words of Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, Lincoln had established “a military despotism.”
Do you have a source for number 3 (warrant to arrest the Chief Justice)? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just the kind of think I'm interested in reading about.
Which dictators use Lincoln's actions as justification for their own? Despite my historical studies, I must have missed dictators citing their continuation of the Lincoln legacy. Can you provide some sources, please?
The trouble with this article, besides arguing that this sort of behaviour is ever OK, is that it presupposes a war that is not actually happening. The "War on Terror" is an election slogan, not an actual war. At best it is a series of criminal investigations. How very Orwellian to call it a "war."
This is, and has been, the real issue for the last twelve years. Try these on: War on Battle. War on Murder. War on Explosives. War on Guns. They don't really stand up to scrutiny.
War has historically been against a nation-state, or possibly a land mass or ethnicity. And there is clear endgame: surrender by recognized leaders, or unequivocal military domination. But terrorist cells have no leaders, and cannot surrender en masse. And the only way to dominate them militarily is to dominate the entire globe.
The "War on Terror" is not a war. It is declaration of ownership, that says we can deploy military might whenever and wherever we want.
For a good long while, starting in 2002, I tried to convince people to adopt and promise to use the term "criminal mass murder conspiracies" (CMMC) in lieu of "terrorism". Dinner parties, discussions in bars, whenever the language of the topic came up I flogged that point. I don't think I got a single convert even among people who liked the point I was making. "Terrorism" is a memorable and virile meme.
I never really decided to stop flogging that point. But I haven't in years. Maybe I'll start up again. Maybe people are more ready to hear it. Perhaps you would care to take up the term too?
The thing about our pro-North viewpoint of the Civil War was that while Lincoln emancipated slaves, it was used more as a political weapon. Lincoln once said that if he could keep slavery and keep the union, he would have done it. However, during Lincoln's administration, the power of the US increased. In fact, it was called the "united States of America," before the Civil War, if it didn't appear in title case. Lincoln actually committed many constitutional wrongs and increased the size and scope of the federal government.
Who did you learn your American history from, Lew Rockwell? Because on the subject of Lincoln, it certainly isn't from Lincoln's own writings and statements or the writing and statements of his contemporaries (one example of hundreds: http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/speed.h...). Any belief that Lincoln was intent on letting slavery live is a belief that is not based in reality, and ignores the reason southern states seceded to begin with - Lincoln's opposition to expanding slavery into U.S. territories, one of the purposes being that states carved from those territories would be states that opposed slavery, thus eventually outvoting the slave states and abolishing slavery. The issue of slavery defines Lincoln from the beginning. The difference between Lincoln and people like Thaddeus Stevens was one of tactics; Lincoln was pragmatic. Your statement on Lincoln and slavery is roughly the 1860s equivalent of believing that 9/11 was an inside job.
As for the capitalization of the U in United States, what a silly pile of garbage. The U is capitalized in both the constitution itself and in the federalist papers.
To add to this, many Americans seem to view the goal of preserving the Union as self-evidently noble. I disagree. Self-government is an inalienable right of free people. The Union didn't just forcibly end slavery in the South, which would've been noble enough. They conquered the South and ruled it. What gave the Union the right to impose laws on the South that had nothing to do with human rights?
Governance without the consent of the governed is illegitimate.
The thing about this "pro-North viewpoint" is that it isn't pro-North at all. It is pro-union, pro-Constitution, and pro-United States of America. That the North called themselves the Union is a historical convenience when discussing the Civil War's historical treatment as a war over the union of the states who ratified the Constitution. Were the Confederates to have won, there would no longer be a United States of America. There would not have been a 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment. There would not have been a march toward applying the principles of the Constitution to formerly excluded people who only counted as 3/5ths of a person for the sake of increasing the slave states' representation in Congress.
Slavery wasn't just "used more as a political weapon"--it was one of the primary political and human issues dividing the united States (downcase intentional). The acts of secession were seen as in violation of the Constitution and a detriment to building a United States (upcase intentional). To suggest slavery was merely "used more as a political weapon" reads as if there's an implicit statement that it was not a huge political problem. The facts of history overwhelmingly suggest that it was. There is a reason that long before the civil war, Americans considered themselves to be members of either free states or slave states.
Moreover, there is far more historical evidence to suggest that the war, and not slavery, was "used more as a political weapon" to resolve the divisive issues surrounding slavery and the primacy of the US Constitution. Suggesting that slavery was used as a political weapon falls down when one looks at the post-assassination history, particularly the negotiations between the Johnson administration and the reconstructing state governments in the South. American support for the abolition of slavery had been present since the time of the Constitution. The problem in the intervening 70 years was that most people saw slavery as constitutionally protected, requiring a political solution that would abolish it permanently (e.g., an amendment). The war was, ultimately, the political weapon used to find a solution.
Even as far back as the ratification of the Constitution, these tensions existed. Twenty years prior, in the 1770s, there were already known and notable movements to abolish slavery in the colonies. Lincoln introduced an amendment to a resolution abolishing slavery in DC in 1849. The Compromise of 1850 leaves zero room to suggest that slavery was not an inherently and fundamentally divisive issue for which the Congress was trying to find any peaceful, political way possible to resolve it while mitigating growing tensions. The Kansas-Nebrasks Act of 1854 brought Lincoln back out of what looked like political retirement because he felt it was wrong to leave the slavery question a matter of popular vote in new territories. His opinions on slavery are well-documented, before and during his presidency.
> This declared indifference, but I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself...it deprives our republican institutions to taunt us as hypocrites...the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity...it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self interest.
> The doctrine of self-government is right-absolutely and eternally right-but has no just application as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends on whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is not to that extent, a destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government-that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal,' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another...What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without the other's consent.
> Allow all the governed an equal voice in the government, and that and that only is self-government...Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a ‘sacred right of self-government.'...Let us return to the position our fathers gave it...Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence. We shall have so saved [the Union], that the succeeding millions of free happy people, the world over, shall rise up, and call us blessed, to the latest generations.
Perhaps close to your cited statement on Lincoln's wanting to keep slavery and the Union, you are mischaracterizing his intent:
> ...Nebraska is urged as a great Union-saving measure. Well I too go for saving the Union. Much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved, just as I would consent to any great evil, to avoid a greater one.
Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature-opposition to it is in his love of justice...repeal all past history, you still cannot repeal human nature.
For Lincoln, as with others who sought a political solution, the biggest problem was maintaining fidelity to the Constitution and the Union, while solving what was seen as a national problem:
> You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union.
The apologists for the Confederacy who to this day stupidly refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression, those who try to rewrite the intent of the actors before, during, and after the Civil War--those who attempt to hide behind the statement that the Confederacy seceded to exert and protect States' Rights--willfully ignore history to advance an insidious viewpoint.
Nobody involved, not even Lincoln, disputed that the secession and the resulting Civil War was a matter of States' Rights. More importantly, everyone at the time knew exactly which rights the States were seceeding and fighting to protect.
This is a matter of historical record, not some alleged pro-North viewpoint.
---
Now, beyond that, it is a matter of historical record that Lincoln committed constitutionally questionable actions, based on his interpretation of his wartime powers and other factors. That he committed "many constitutional wrongs" is a likely candidate for debate, but can only be discussed if you care to mention what those wrongs were. This article definitely highlights some of them. Arguing that he "increased the size and scope of the federal government" also requires significant explanation of exactly what you mean. Excluding the wartime expansion of budget and federal employees, which dramatically shrunk after his death and the war's end, what specifically are you referring to here?
"Lincoln once said that if he could keep slavery and keep the union, he would have done it."
You seem to be implying that Lincoln preferred slavery, but allowed it to go because he had to. This is not the case. While Lincoln did say he would have preserved both slavery and the union, he meant that he was against both, but that he placed more importance on preserving the union than on ending slavery. Here is the full 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. 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. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
"This is why, if you are a critic of the N.S.A.’s surveillance program, it is imperative that the war on terror reach its culmination."
The problem is there's no end, nor can there be an end. It's too nebulous. We have always had terrorism, and always will. Just like the war on drugs or poverty.
And just because Lincoln did it.... That doesn't make it right.
The "GWoT" isn't a war in the legal sense. It isn't a war under the definition of war as it is word is used in the US federal constitution. And yet, I suspect we will find that these "secret interpretations" of laws are based in some secret declaration of emergency powers that, in effect, edit our rights and selectively suspend the constitution.
Sure there can be an end. It'll end when enough people get fed up with it to demand an end, and the President follows through. As the memory of 9/11 fades in relevance and the wars in the Middle East die down, the public's tolerance for the war will wane. I can only hope it doesn't take as long as the War on Communism.
Because our entire law system is based on precedence. It helps to have context to know whether or not what we are really experiencing is as terrifying as politicians and pundits make it out to be. That's not meant to be a statement of either side of the issue, but this obviously has a place.
Fellow Americans seem amazed when I tell them this, but Abraham Lincoln was the closest the United States of America ever had to a complete dictator. He monitored communications, he shut down state legislatures, he imprisoned Congressmen -- there were so many political prisoners at one point that wags called one of the prisons the "American Bastille"
But, as the author points out, these were temporary measures. The founders knew in time of war that somebody, one person, had to be trusted for a short time to work outside the system as he saw fit. They gave presidents broad mandates. For times of war.
But now politicians have redefined the term "war" to mean just about anything. We have a war on drugs, war on terror, war on poverty, war on damned near anything. In addition, Congress has stopped declaring war, even when tens of thousands of soldiers die.
Finally, we toss terrorism into the mix -- amorphous, quasi-state-sponsored, with no real command structure and nobody ever to surrender. It'll just go on forever. Add that to wartime executive powers, and you've got a freaking problem the size of Kansas. Yet nobody seems to really come out and say it. Media personalities will ask every questions imaginable and not address the huge elephant in the room. Meh.
Lincoln is a strange touchstone. While we encourage or at least tolerate the Czechs and Slovaks to go their separate ways for the mere sake of self-determination, it's heresy to suggest we might be better off with a separate Republic of Texas.
Seems like a weak article intended to try to placate people who are concerned about what the leaks revealed. The scope and scale of mass surveillance systems today is in no way comparable to the government systems one or more centuries ago. Even if Lincoln spied on the telegraphs, back then most people didn't use telegraphs for personal communications.
The OP talks about an order which circumvented the press and even called for the arrest of newsmen. Even if you were right about the use of telegraphs for personal communications, the freedom of press is actually enshrined in the First Amendment and the public was much more reliant on the news wires than they are today. Why is it so hard to accept that the government has frequently used war as a pretext for violating civil liberties, unless you insist on keeping to the narrative that America was a flawless beacon of freedom until the NSA showed up?
What's that saying about those who fail to remember history are doomed to something something?
Maybe you aren't, but hundreds of my good friends are, at the behest of the president that, assuming you are a US Citizen, you had a part in electing (also, assuming you are a part of society).
So the people who actually fund and execute wars think "we" are at war. I would say that should pretty much settle it.
This article is really pointless. It does not matter that Executives, the Congress, or the Courts have engaged in constitutionally dubious actions during wartime that we've seen scaled back.
The problem is that Executives, the Congress, and the Courts have engaged in constitutionally dubious actions during wartime (or ostensible wartimes).
The only solid point is that, regardless of whether one is a critic of the NSA programs, this so-called "war on terror" must reach its culmination so we can right the ship and move forward.
> But part of the reason this calculus was acceptable to me was that the trade-offs were not permanent. As the war ended, the emergency measures were rolled back. Information — telegraph and otherwise — began to flow freely again.
Even if you agree with that, it shows the problems America has today. Because it has stopped declaring wars through Congress, and defining how the war will end, and letting the president start new wars, either directly or indirectly (arming enemies of other countries), there is now a perpetual war.
The "cyber-war" (if they choose to believe they are in cyber-war) is perpetual by definition - which means all those extra-legal powers that are supposed to be temporary, will be virtually permanent, which means the Constitution and other laws will be applied at a much lower standard than before.
The war on terror should not give broad powers to the president or the NSA, CIA, etc. The war on terror is about as pathetic as a war on drugs. You cannot declare war on an idea (according to the constitution) nor did the Senate declare war on terror. The point is, if you are a suspected terrorist the government should be able to get a warrant to tap your phone/internet anyways.
OK, while we are reviewing the beliefs and actions of past Secretaries of War, how about Henry L. Stimson? He once said, "Gentelmen do not read each other's mail."
Now, this was while he was Sec. of State, before he became Sec. of War. His views later changed, after he took the position as Sec. of War. Ask yourself, "Why?" [1]
1. Here's a possible way to think about it: Programmers are familiar with the idea that software is not inherently good or evil; it's how it's used that matters. "A Victorinox can be used to fix your car (good) but it can also be used to disassemble it (evil)." Similarly the data being gathered by mass surveillance programs can be used to further "national security", or it could be used for other (evil) things.
If you accept this way of thinking about surveillance by a government of its own citizens, then it stands to reason that there should be some rules about how the data can be used. Check and balances. Alas, as we see, secrecy governs all aspects of the surveillance process. There is no judicial review of the collectors, except by a secret court... and one that itself lacks details about the process (i.e. how the data is collected). How can the public, even by proxy of its representatives, ever hope to review the application of these programs if they are not even permitted to know about them?
Under this sort of scheme, if a young man with good intentions informs the public, he's already broken the law. No one needs to prove he's harmed national security. It's assumed. Not that she is a good example to compare with, but I guess Rosa Parks broke the law too. She was damned if she did (arrested) and damned if she didn't (to live in a segregated country). The thing is, after she was arrested, she had the support of many people, some of who had considerable influence.
"...When I first read Stanton’s requests to Lincoln asking for broad powers, I accepted his information control as a necessary evil. Lincoln was fighting for a cause of the utmost importance in the face of enormous challenges. The benefits of information monitoring, censorship and extrajudicial tactics, though disturbing, were arguably worth their price."
"Mr President, I served with Abe Lincoln. I knew Abe Lincoln. Abe Lincoln was a friend of mine. Mr President, you're no Abe Lincoln." (Prolonged shouts and applause.)
Spies have always been in the employ of the ruling classes, and the fact that some other POTUS broached the public trust by violating our Bill of Rights, that doesn't mean doing the same thing today should suddenly become acceptable.
Also...
Any kinetic action aimed at an ideology is futile, for as long as there are human beings who differ in their opinions, there will be strife.
A VPN only protects data in transit. While everyone should practice good network security, it's not a complete solution. We need a government that will reliably respect our rights, including the right to privacy. Revolutions don't have a very good track record at producing such. I have more hope for the political process, but haven't entirely figured out what that should look like either.
Those don't sound entirely unviable, but neither do they sound like they'd stop spying at all. Personally, I feel that the best option is to break national borders so that it's a lot more nebulous who is spying on who: decentralization of power by globalization. Not that that's particularly viable.
And the article continues, as if anticipating this isolated quotation:
It would be easy, comments Oakes, “to string such quotations together and show up Lincoln as a run-of-the-mill white supremacist.” But in private, Lincoln was much less racist than most whites of his time. He was “disgusted by the race-baiting of the Douglas Democrats” and he “made the humanity of blacks central to his antislavery argument.” In a speech at Chicago in 1858, Lincoln pleaded: “Let us discard all this quibbling about…this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position,” and instead “once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.”7
Lincoln’s statements expressing opposition to social and political equality, Oakes maintains, were in fact part of his antislavery strategy. Extreme racism was at the core of the proslavery argument: if the slaves were freed they would aspire to equality with whites, therefore slavery was the only bulwark of white supremacy and racial purity. Lincoln “wanted questions about race moved off the table,” writes Oakes, and “the strategy he chose was to agree with the Democrats” in opposition to social equality. Lincoln understood that most Americans—including most Northerners—believed in white supremacy, “and in a democratic society such deeply held prejudices cannot be easily disregarded.” Thus the most effective way to convert whites to an antislavery position, Lincoln believed, was to separate the issue of bondage from that of race.
[+] [-] sausman|12 years ago|reply
* Apr. 19, 1861 -- Lincoln imposed a blockade on Southern ports of South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Did Congress declare war? No. Constitution violated.
* Apr. 20, 1861 -- Lincoln ordered the Sec. of Treasury to spend public money for defense without congressional appropriation, violating the Constitution.
* Apr. 27, 1861 -- Lincoln made the unprecedented move of suspending, through an unconstitutional order, the writ of habeas corpus, or the protection against unlawful imprisonment. Lincoln signed a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because the Judge rendered an opinion that Lincoln acted unconstitutionally by suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
* Lincoln had U.S. Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio arrested for “disloyal sentiments and speeches.” Vallandigham opposed the Morrill Tariff and the central bank.
* An estimated 13,000 Northern citizens were detained for merely expressing opposition to the war. This group contained hundreds of newspaper editors and owners. None of these people ever heard evidence against them and were never brought to trial.
* During the war, adult male civilians in the South were compelled to take a loyalty oath to the federal government or be shot. In the words of Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, Lincoln had established “a military despotism.”
[+] [-] angli|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bilbo0s|12 years ago|reply
Wow...
If that's all you see in Lincoln... you have really bought in to all of that Southern Propaganda.
No reason to argue the point with you ... clearly you are the type for whom the world is "black and white". Your mind is made up.
I just wanted to let you know, you'll probably be unhappy here in the United States, because the majority do not share your view.
[+] [-] lukifer|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobwaycott|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goodcanadian|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukifer|12 years ago|reply
War has historically been against a nation-state, or possibly a land mass or ethnicity. And there is clear endgame: surrender by recognized leaders, or unequivocal military domination. But terrorist cells have no leaders, and cannot surrender en masse. And the only way to dominate them militarily is to dominate the entire globe.
The "War on Terror" is not a war. It is declaration of ownership, that says we can deploy military might whenever and wherever we want.
[+] [-] weland|12 years ago|reply
Me: Ok, ok, so you're at war. Is this a civil war?
This Other Guy: No, no it isn't.
M: Ok, so you are at war with someone.
TOG: Yes!
M: And... who are you at war with?
TOG: Terrorists! We're at war with terrorists!
M: Fair enough... so where's their army?
TOG: Ah, no, see, this is kind of tricky. This is an unusual enemy. His army can be everywhere!
M: Ok, but you aren't fighting them where they might be, you have to fight them where they are. You can't do much war otherwise...
TOG: Well yes, but you can't just wait for them to pop up and blow up your brains. You have to be everywhere!
M: So then, if you're everywhere, you will always have someone to fight with.
TOG: Yes! And he's definitely going to be a terrorists!
[+] [-] nooneelse|12 years ago|reply
I never really decided to stop flogging that point. But I haven't in years. Maybe I'll start up again. Maybe people are more ready to hear it. Perhaps you would care to take up the term too?
[+] [-] kzrdude|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonjei|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skwirl|12 years ago|reply
As for the capitalization of the U in United States, what a silly pile of garbage. The U is capitalized in both the constitution itself and in the federalist papers.
[+] [-] natrius|12 years ago|reply
Governance without the consent of the governed is illegitimate.
[+] [-] bobwaycott|12 years ago|reply
Slavery wasn't just "used more as a political weapon"--it was one of the primary political and human issues dividing the united States (downcase intentional). The acts of secession were seen as in violation of the Constitution and a detriment to building a United States (upcase intentional). To suggest slavery was merely "used more as a political weapon" reads as if there's an implicit statement that it was not a huge political problem. The facts of history overwhelmingly suggest that it was. There is a reason that long before the civil war, Americans considered themselves to be members of either free states or slave states.
Moreover, there is far more historical evidence to suggest that the war, and not slavery, was "used more as a political weapon" to resolve the divisive issues surrounding slavery and the primacy of the US Constitution. Suggesting that slavery was used as a political weapon falls down when one looks at the post-assassination history, particularly the negotiations between the Johnson administration and the reconstructing state governments in the South. American support for the abolition of slavery had been present since the time of the Constitution. The problem in the intervening 70 years was that most people saw slavery as constitutionally protected, requiring a political solution that would abolish it permanently (e.g., an amendment). The war was, ultimately, the political weapon used to find a solution.
Even as far back as the ratification of the Constitution, these tensions existed. Twenty years prior, in the 1770s, there were already known and notable movements to abolish slavery in the colonies. Lincoln introduced an amendment to a resolution abolishing slavery in DC in 1849. The Compromise of 1850 leaves zero room to suggest that slavery was not an inherently and fundamentally divisive issue for which the Congress was trying to find any peaceful, political way possible to resolve it while mitigating growing tensions. The Kansas-Nebrasks Act of 1854 brought Lincoln back out of what looked like political retirement because he felt it was wrong to leave the slavery question a matter of popular vote in new territories. His opinions on slavery are well-documented, before and during his presidency.
> This declared indifference, but I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself...it deprives our republican institutions to taunt us as hypocrites...the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity...it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self interest.
> The doctrine of self-government is right-absolutely and eternally right-but has no just application as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends on whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is not to that extent, a destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government-that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal,' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another...What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without the other's consent.
> Allow all the governed an equal voice in the government, and that and that only is self-government...Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a ‘sacred right of self-government.'...Let us return to the position our fathers gave it...Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence. We shall have so saved [the Union], that the succeeding millions of free happy people, the world over, shall rise up, and call us blessed, to the latest generations.
Perhaps close to your cited statement on Lincoln's wanting to keep slavery and the Union, you are mischaracterizing his intent:
> ...Nebraska is urged as a great Union-saving measure. Well I too go for saving the Union. Much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved, just as I would consent to any great evil, to avoid a greater one. Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature-opposition to it is in his love of justice...repeal all past history, you still cannot repeal human nature.
For Lincoln, as with others who sought a political solution, the biggest problem was maintaining fidelity to the Constitution and the Union, while solving what was seen as a national problem:
> You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union.
The apologists for the Confederacy who to this day stupidly refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression, those who try to rewrite the intent of the actors before, during, and after the Civil War--those who attempt to hide behind the statement that the Confederacy seceded to exert and protect States' Rights--willfully ignore history to advance an insidious viewpoint.
Nobody involved, not even Lincoln, disputed that the secession and the resulting Civil War was a matter of States' Rights. More importantly, everyone at the time knew exactly which rights the States were seceeding and fighting to protect.
This is a matter of historical record, not some alleged pro-North viewpoint.
---
Now, beyond that, it is a matter of historical record that Lincoln committed constitutionally questionable actions, based on his interpretation of his wartime powers and other factors. That he committed "many constitutional wrongs" is a likely candidate for debate, but can only be discussed if you care to mention what those wrongs were. This article definitely highlights some of them. Arguing that he "increased the size and scope of the federal government" also requires significant explanation of exactly what you mean. Excluding the wartime expansion of budget and federal employees, which dramatically shrunk after his death and the war's end, what specifically are you referring to here?
[+] [-] mikeash|12 years ago|reply
You seem to be implying that Lincoln preferred slavery, but allowed it to go because he had to. This is not the case. While Lincoln did say he would have preserved both slavery and the union, he meant that he was against both, but that he placed more importance on preserving the union than on ending slavery. Here is the full 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. 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. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] el_fuser|12 years ago|reply
The problem is there's no end, nor can there be an end. It's too nebulous. We have always had terrorism, and always will. Just like the war on drugs or poverty.
And just because Lincoln did it.... That doesn't make it right.
[+] [-] Zigurd|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zakharov|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dreamdu5t|12 years ago|reply
Enough with the vapid worship of historical figures. Lincoln is dead. We don't need his permission for anything.
[+] [-] d23|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|12 years ago|reply
But, as the author points out, these were temporary measures. The founders knew in time of war that somebody, one person, had to be trusted for a short time to work outside the system as he saw fit. They gave presidents broad mandates. For times of war.
But now politicians have redefined the term "war" to mean just about anything. We have a war on drugs, war on terror, war on poverty, war on damned near anything. In addition, Congress has stopped declaring war, even when tens of thousands of soldiers die.
Finally, we toss terrorism into the mix -- amorphous, quasi-state-sponsored, with no real command structure and nobody ever to surrender. It'll just go on forever. Add that to wartime executive powers, and you've got a freaking problem the size of Kansas. Yet nobody seems to really come out and say it. Media personalities will ask every questions imaginable and not address the huge elephant in the room. Meh.
[+] [-] Zigurd|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] motters|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danso|12 years ago|reply
What's that saying about those who fail to remember history are doomed to something something?
[+] [-] 9h1d9j809s|12 years ago|reply
We are not in a war, no matter what some say.
(The article actually implies this, but I wanted to clarify for those not reading the article completely.)
[+] [-] AndrewKemendo|12 years ago|reply
I guess it depends on your perspective.
Maybe you aren't, but hundreds of my good friends are, at the behest of the president that, assuming you are a US Citizen, you had a part in electing (also, assuming you are a part of society).
So the people who actually fund and execute wars think "we" are at war. I would say that should pretty much settle it.
[+] [-] bobwaycott|12 years ago|reply
The problem is that Executives, the Congress, and the Courts have engaged in constitutionally dubious actions during wartime (or ostensible wartimes).
The only solid point is that, regardless of whether one is a critic of the NSA programs, this so-called "war on terror" must reach its culmination so we can right the ship and move forward.
[+] [-] mtgx|12 years ago|reply
Even if you agree with that, it shows the problems America has today. Because it has stopped declaring wars through Congress, and defining how the war will end, and letting the president start new wars, either directly or indirectly (arming enemies of other countries), there is now a perpetual war.
The "cyber-war" (if they choose to believe they are in cyber-war) is perpetual by definition - which means all those extra-legal powers that are supposed to be temporary, will be virtually permanent, which means the Constitution and other laws will be applied at a much lower standard than before.
[+] [-] lettergram|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ygg2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] osth|12 years ago|reply
Now, this was while he was Sec. of State, before he became Sec. of War. His views later changed, after he took the position as Sec. of War. Ask yourself, "Why?" [1]
It's an interesting piece of history: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Chamber
1. Here's a possible way to think about it: Programmers are familiar with the idea that software is not inherently good or evil; it's how it's used that matters. "A Victorinox can be used to fix your car (good) but it can also be used to disassemble it (evil)." Similarly the data being gathered by mass surveillance programs can be used to further "national security", or it could be used for other (evil) things.
If you accept this way of thinking about surveillance by a government of its own citizens, then it stands to reason that there should be some rules about how the data can be used. Check and balances. Alas, as we see, secrecy governs all aspects of the surveillance process. There is no judicial review of the collectors, except by a secret court... and one that itself lacks details about the process (i.e. how the data is collected). How can the public, even by proxy of its representatives, ever hope to review the application of these programs if they are not even permitted to know about them?
Under this sort of scheme, if a young man with good intentions informs the public, he's already broken the law. No one needs to prove he's harmed national security. It's assumed. Not that she is a good example to compare with, but I guess Rosa Parks broke the law too. She was damned if she did (arrested) and damned if she didn't (to live in a segregated country). The thing is, after she was arrested, she had the support of many people, some of who had considerable influence.
[+] [-] e3pi|12 years ago|reply
"Mr President, I served with Abe Lincoln. I knew Abe Lincoln. Abe Lincoln was a friend of mine. Mr President, you're no Abe Lincoln." (Prolonged shouts and applause.)
[+] [-] D9u|12 years ago|reply
Also... Any kinetic action aimed at an ideology is futile, for as long as there are human beings who differ in their opinions, there will be strife.
[+] [-] LAMike|12 years ago|reply
What is the most viable option for citizens to change this?
Will everyone have to be on encrypted VPN's?
Will there be a riot on Pennsylvania Ave. that sparks a revolution?
Will each community put up their own wifi weather ballons and set up massive intranets in their neighborhoods?
Or will everyone accept the fact that we're the new slaves - except our cages are a little bigger and less transparent than before?
[+] [-] dllthomas|12 years ago|reply
A VPN only protects data in transit. While everyone should practice good network security, it's not a complete solution. We need a government that will reliably respect our rights, including the right to privacy. Revolutions don't have a very good track record at producing such. I have more hope for the political process, but haven't entirely figured out what that should look like either.
[+] [-] saraid216|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joewallin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amerika|12 years ago|reply
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/mar/29/what-di...
[+] [-] hughdbrown|12 years ago|reply
It would be easy, comments Oakes, “to string such quotations together and show up Lincoln as a run-of-the-mill white supremacist.” But in private, Lincoln was much less racist than most whites of his time. He was “disgusted by the race-baiting of the Douglas Democrats” and he “made the humanity of blacks central to his antislavery argument.” In a speech at Chicago in 1858, Lincoln pleaded: “Let us discard all this quibbling about…this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position,” and instead “once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.”7
Lincoln’s statements expressing opposition to social and political equality, Oakes maintains, were in fact part of his antislavery strategy. Extreme racism was at the core of the proslavery argument: if the slaves were freed they would aspire to equality with whites, therefore slavery was the only bulwark of white supremacy and racial purity. Lincoln “wanted questions about race moved off the table,” writes Oakes, and “the strategy he chose was to agree with the Democrats” in opposition to social equality. Lincoln understood that most Americans—including most Northerners—believed in white supremacy, “and in a democratic society such deeply held prejudices cannot be easily disregarded.” Thus the most effective way to convert whites to an antislavery position, Lincoln believed, was to separate the issue of bondage from that of race.