Today is the bicentennial anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth. In Lincoln I believe we see, more clearly than at any time since the founding of this nation, the hand of God providentially appointing the right person to lead these United States of America; there has been no greater leader in this country’s history, and there may never be. Power Line has a good series of reflections posted on Lincoln as war leader, as “America’s indispensable teacher of the moral ground of political freedom,” as perhaps the greatest lawyer in American history, as anti-slavery debater, as constitutional commander-in-chief, and as friend to Frederick Douglass; it’s well worth your time to read them and follow the links (particularly Diana Schaub’s article on the Lincoln-Douglas debates). Also well worth reading is Warner Todd Huston’s piece on “The Lincoln We Need.” I’m not going to try to explicate Lincoln, because I know it’s beyond me to do the man justice; he is to American history as Hamlet is to English literature, the towering figure that we’ll still be trying to fully understand when God rings down the curtain on this world. I will simply say this: as Americans, we should get down on our knees and thank God for sending this nation Abraham Lincoln for that critical time in our history—and pray that he’ll raise up an equivalent leader soon.
just a quick thought or question and i realize that my last name may give away the area of the USA that i live in, but was Lincoln right in not allowing the South to suceed? i am not going to debate slavery b/c that is/was an abomination, but on a Constitutional level was Lincoln correct? i believe that there are several States both North and South that are about to declare their own sovereignty using the 10th ammendment…i believe is was also Jeffereson who said that any state that should so choose to leave, then God be with them.can someone be a great President if they swore to updold the Constitution and then broke that oath? just a thought..but i believe some Constitutional scholars would agree that South Carolina had the constitutional right to succeed..just a thought..once again, not to argue slavery needed to end, but Constitutionality..
I posted about the Tenth Amendment bills here, and I think that’s a different thing. I do believe Lincoln was in the right, and Jefferson (who was not a drafter of the Constitution) was in the wrong; secession was an unconstitutional violation of the proper balance of powers between the federal and state governments. Now, of course, that balance has gotten badly out of whack in the opposite direction; a reassertion of the proper rights of states under the Constitution is necessary to set that right. I’m hopeful that that’s what will result from the Tenth Amendment bills that various states are considering or will consider–I’m not by any means certain, but I am hopeful.
I should add, check out Warner Todd Huston’s reflections on “The Lincoln We Need” over at RedState (a link which I meant to include in this post, and will add along with the last two from Power Line); I believe Huston does a good job articulating the case for Lincoln as an interpreter of the Constitution.
Thanks for your comment.
“The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims either by force or right.”–Alexis de Tocqueville
i mean could a group of men who seceded from England not give that option to the newly formed Repubic of these United States of America? surely the founders would not agree with the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of everyday Americans..isn’t there something about all of this in the Declaration of Independence..”That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” i think that one could argue that just leaving the Union could be the best course for the South given the other option of abolishing it….i am finished..very interesting thoughts..i still think that the 10th amendment applies due to the fact that the Federal Government has all but removed state sovereignty
de Tocqueville was many things, but a constitutional scholar was not one of them; his interpretation was incorrect.
Also, America did not “secede” from England, because America was never part of England. They were colonies; they were under the laws of England without having any input into those laws (hence “no taxation without representation”). Had they had full and proper representation in Parliament, it would have been a very different situation.
Could the Founding Fathers have given the right to secede? Certainly–but they didn’t. If they’d wanted that loose a national government, they would have stayed with the Articles of Confederation.
As for your use of the Declaration vs. the Constitution, let me highlight a couple words: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” The form of government was not destructive of those ends in the case of the South in 1860, nor is it now. In our case, it does need to be altered, because it needs to be repaired, because the balance has shifted in unhelpful ways. In the case of the South in 1860, the form didn’t even need to be altered any; they simply refused to accept any result of the democratic process that didn’t give them the result they desired (i.e., the perpetuation of slavery). That would be more akin to a hard-core liberal arguing in 2005 that “blue” states should be allowed to secede because the Constitution had permitted an electoral victory for George W. Bush the previous year.
Remember, the South didn’t rise in secession because their rights had been trampled on; they rose in secession simply because a man was elected president who opposed the extension of slavery into the territories.