Lincoln helped destroy states rights and gave us the monstrous federal govt. that we have now.
One of the debates that runs thematically through American history is that of states' rights vs. federal authority. Jefferson favored states' rights and even wrote of under what circumstances he felt it would be right and proper for a state to secede (see the
Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, 1798). Others, among them Lincoln, disagreed with Jefferson, saying that the union between the individual states and the federal government, once entered, was inviable.
It would seem that neither states' rights nor central power is an overarching principle. One side of that coin or the other is used, often hypocritically, by those who seek to advance an unrelated agenda. The moral issues of slavery really had nothing to do with states' rights, but it was clear that a states' rights interpretation of the Constitution would allow any state to maintain slavery as an institution if it desired. The slave-owning interests (we would call it a
lobby nowadays) could alternately advocate from either the states' rights or federalist side as it suited their purpose. For example, members of Congress from slave states insisted that the federal government had an obligation to not only protect slavery where it existed, but to promote in and expand it to places where it did not.
Lincoln used the inviability of the union as his reason to suppress the rebellion of Southern states. In time, he decreed slavery to be abolished in areas in rebellion as a means to put down the rebellion.
Lincoln implemented the federal income tax.
True, but misleading. A federal income tax was an emergency measure which Lincoln requested, and Congress passed. He did not intend it to be a permanent part of the political landscape.
The idea had been advanced before Lincoln's time. After the civil war, western progressives advocated a federal income tax as part of their political program, much of which was incorporated into the platform of the Democratic Party in the 1890s. The federal income tax did not become a permanent feature of American life until 1916, with the passage of the 16th Amendment.
Lincoln suspended civil rights and threw people in jail without charges.
Again true but misleading. Lincoln justified his actions by an emergency, which indeed existed, and did not believe that under normal conditions that Habeas Corpus should be suspended. This sets Lincoln apart from the present administration, which seeks to make the assault on civil liberties contained in the USA PATRIOT Act permanent.
The Supreme Court later ruled Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus unconstitutional
(Ex Parte Mulligan).
Lincoln was indifferent about slavery but used the issue as a political tool to gain support of fundamentalist Christians, just like the abortion issue today.
Lincoln was appalled by slavery, although reluctant to advocate its outright abolition. He didn't think the federal government had any authority to simply abolish it. As mentioned above, he only used a national emergency to free some slaves.
If Lincoln had any overarching principle, it was a belief in the rule of law.
When Booth shot him in the head he yelled out "death to tyrants" and with that I agree.
Overall, I find your tone curious. On the one hand, you characterize Lincoln as a tyrant for encroaching on states' rights, yet on the other you take him to task for being "indifferent" to slavery. You seem to want it both ways. Slavery could only have been abolished by asserting the power of the federal government over the states, and even then, short of a constitutional amendment (one was in fact ratified in 1865), under special circumstances. Those circumstances arose during Lincoln's tenure in office and he used them to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
