From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:10:02 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

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....

In article <1992Nov16.035713.12531@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>>1. Lincoln did NOT press for the elimination of slavery during his
>>campaign or even the beginning of his terms of office. He pressed for
>>the *containment* of slavery.

>All right, but this doesn't alter my basic point: The was pressing
>for a policy to which many people violently opposed and which most
>did not support. E.g. he acted as if he had a popular mandate when
>in fact he did not.

There was no longer any "middle ground" to speak of on this issue. The
Southern states' belief that slavery should be extended was not
acceptable in the North; neither, in general, were such points as
vigorous enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. 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. It is
impossible for me to imagine that Lincoln could have pursued such a
bloody conflict without some type of mandate! 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 (or, at least, for initiating military action
against them, although, of course, the Confederates fired the first
shots). The last Confederate partisan (you are white, Frank, aren't
you?)

>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? Do you think it
was amistake for Roosevelt not to do _everything_ to prvent American
entry into World War II? I don't think tht it is a well-taken opinion.
In particular, I don't think Lincoln would be very fondly remembered if
he gave away the Southern states.

>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? You seem to assume,
falsely, that Douglas and Bell supporters were amenable to the
dissolution of the Union. This is just not true. [Not to mention the
opinion of the slaves! Remember them!]

>However, Lincon could only be called a good President if you assume
>holding the Union together and ending slavery justifed any means
>necessary to achieve that goal. I do not think these goals, however
>important, 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? Would a war against China be a
civil war?

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

>Why would the President automatically need a mandate? He would
>certainly need one if he wished to energetically pursue some policy.
>But if the people are divided over what action the government should
>take, I think the best thing a President could do is _nothing_ (e.g.
>delay action until the situation resolves itself or public opinion
>shifts.) That is, essentially, how the slavery issue had been 
>handled before the Civil War: By compromise and delay. I certainly
>think Lincon exemplifies the dangers of energetically pursuing a 
>policy which the majority of the public opposes.

Time for compromise and delay had just plain run out. What on earth do
you think Buchanan was doing? Ever since Dred Scott, it was clear that
some new solution was necessary. As the new territories (e.g. Nebraska,
Kansas) organzied, it was not possible to continue to compromise and
delay on their admission as slave or free states. Your plea for inaction
is more a consequence of your own ambivalence towards emancipation than
anything any histotrian has ever suggested.

I think your suggestion is impractical, even stupid. It was completely
repudiated, at the time, by people on both sides of the issue. Bell,
for example, finished 4th in popular vote. Indeed, by late 1860 even a
compromise required action, such as extensive constitutional amendments
(which were rejectd by the Senate and whose passage in the North strike
me as unlikely.)

Your premise that permanent maintenance of the status quo was possible
is simply bizarre.

Incidentally, why don't you turn that skeptical eye on George
Washington and his ragtag band. Surely you realize that you are
really still a subject of the Queen! What terrible damage jas been dome
to the Laws of Parliament.  :-(

andy