From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:49:35 GMT

In article <1egoqaINNkvn@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>You know, I'd often speculated that net "conservatives" were so far out,
>far far out man, that they supported slavery, but until Crary's posting,
>I'd never had evidence....

That's rather an odd conclusion, since I've clearly stated several
times that I find that institution morally repugnant. I don't think
the end of eliminating slavery justified the means Lincon employed. 
Are you saying that "the end does not justify the means" is equivilent
to "I morally oppose the end"?

>...It is far from clear
>that most people did not support Lincoln once in office. Probably many
>Douglas supporters (most?) and Bell supporters fell in behind him.

Bell's supporters almost certainly did not: Of the three states 
he carried, two seceeded and one (Kentucky) nearly did.

If "most people" supported Lincon, the Civil War would not have lasted
four years.

>It is
>impossible for me to imagine that Lincoln could have pursued such a
>bloody conflict without some type of mandate!

Exactly who was he fighting against, then? He may have had a mandate
_in_the_northern_states_. But in the counrty as a whole, he
certainly did not.

>It became clear that it
>was not possible to maintain the Union without resoultion of the slavery
>issue. It becomes clear in your posting that you fault Lincoln for not
>having recognized the CSA...

I would say that governments "deriv[e] their just Powers from the
Consent of the Governed..." and that if a people are dissatisfied
with their government, they have a right to "alter of abolish it."
(to quote a archaic, radical manifesto...) Therefore, if the 
southern states no longer consented to the Union and wished
to alter their form of government, the Lincon and the federal
Army had no "just Power" to stop them.

>>Lincon on several occasions exceeded his constitutional authority. That
>>goes far beyond "making a mistake." I think it is also a mistake for
>>him not to do _everything_ he could to prevent civil war (regardless
>>of his views on slavery.) 

>Well, that's your opinion. Are you an absolute pacifist?

No, I simply disapprove of unconstitutional repression by the government.

>In particular, I don't think Lincoln would be very fondly remembered if
>he gave away the Southern states.

So thinking of his place in history justifies his actions? Andrew 
Johnson isn't remembered too fondly, but he his opposition to the
Radical Republicans was, although extremely unpopular, it did a
great deal to benefit the nation and preserve the Constitution.

>>My argument doesn't depend on the later at all: The problem is
>>not what policies the President should pursue, but how strongly
>>he should do so when he lacks the support of the majority. 

>I think it quite possible that -- even including the Southern states --
>Lincoln had a support of the majority in his desire to keep the Union
>together. On what data do you suggest otherwise?

Holding the Union together by compromising on slavery, or by a
long civil war and numerous violations of the Constitution? I suspect
a majority (including the CSA) would have prefered to maintain
the Union. But I doubt a majority supported Lincon's means.

>>...justify the damage Lincon (and the Radical Republicans after
>>the war) did to the Constitution nor did they justify a four-year
>>war against states which (essentially) wanted to be left alone.
>>(If you disagree on these points, could you please explain to me
>>why we haven't invaded China yet?)

>OK, smart-ass. When did China sign the Constitution and become part of
>the USA. Is China seceding from the US?
 
At least according to the Declaration of Independence, the CSA had
every right to secede. Nor was this action in violation of any 
clear provision in the COnstitution. However, the point is: We have no 
right to interfere in the puerely internal affairs of China. No matter
how strong our moral objections, the end does not justify these
means. The elimination or restriction of slavery was an 
unconstitutional subject for federal action, and therefore
something they had no right to do (just as we have no right to
impose our will on China.) Why, then, do you think Lincon was
justified in ignoring the Constitution to hold the Union together?

>As to your serious point, I do indeed think that holding the country
>together justified Lincoln's behavior.

Does that mean you have no interest at all in the Constitution, beyond
momentarty convenience?  

>As to the damage of the Radical
>Republicans after the war, I'm confused. The "damage" you refer to must
>be those nasty amendments 13-15, which finally ended your beloved
>slavery.

Where do you get this idea that I like slavery?
I was refering to the five years of military occupation, numerous laws
passed to punish the former CSA and the denial of all forms of local
government, trial by jury and the civil rights of residents of those
states.

>You will also have to explain, much more slowly, why seceding
>from the country and abrogating the Constitution (which they had signed)
>constituted being left alone.

There is no provision in the Constitution against leaving the Union, and
by doing so, the CSA did not "abrogate the Constitution." Excepting
Republican political theorists, the Constitution was considered a
voluntary association and that the government had no authority without
the consent of the governed. The southern states felt that the
federal government was excedding its legedimate powers and violating
the Constitution, and that their only recouses was complete submission to 
an external power, or independence. (By the way, even if you feel that
the Constitution forbids secession, the it's violation by the federal
government renders it null and viod, if the involved parties so 
wish: The violation of a treaty frees the involved parties from any
responisbility.)

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1072 alt.politics.clinton:17209 alt.politics.perot:5516