From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:32:16 GMT

In article <1eknbvINNcd1@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>Crary and I apear to disagree on Abraham Lincoln and the civil war in
>three areas, which I will label moral, macro, and micro.

>On the first, Crary writes
>>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"?

>...Crary's argument, which is not that
>some bad came from the Civil War (I would accept that, even starting
>with the death of all those people!), but that it was SO bad, that it
>was disproportionate to the (alleged) good of abolition...
>...The depth of Crary's moral repugnance to slavery
>should be measured precisely by the types of means he is willing to
>support to end it, the more repugnant,the greater the means.

What means do I think were unjustified in ending slavery? The repeated
violations of the Constitution and the basic rights it protects, by
Lincon, and the imposition by force on a functional community, of 
foreign moral views. I don't think any society/nation/state/community
has a right to dictate the morals of another such society/nation/etc...

>...As it stands, he must show why X,an approved war,
>is morally better than the Unionist side of the civil war. I would hate
>to have to argue that, say, restoring the Emir of Kuwait was morally superior
>to the North's claims in the US Civil War.

It wouldn't be hard: The occupation of Kuwait was exactly the sort of
imposition I mentioned above. Iraq had, in my opinion, absolutely no
right to impose its will on Kuwait by force. Therefore, I see reversing
the invasion as justified.

>Moving on to the "macro" level, Crary didn't even begin to responf to my
>observation that the slavery debate simply could not be frozen in
>permanent compromise.

Lincon could either have delayed the matter, or accepted secession. From
my point of view, either would have been superior to civil war and the
illegal imposition of northern morals on the south. I think Lincon
could have delayed the matter further, but it isn't worth debating:
Given the polarization of opinion on the issue, delay would have
eventually failed.

>At the micro level, your argument with respect to Bell shows you still
>have problems with the mathematics of a 4-way race. If Bell eked out
>Breckenridge (let us imagine a race 36-34-20-10), then if 100% of
>Breckenridge, 30% of Douglas, and 0% of Lincoln supported secession,

We don't have to speculate on the subject: The popular vote was
40% Lincon, 29% Douglas, 18% Berckinridge, 13% Bell.

I suspect all of Breckinridge's and most of Douglas' supporters
were opposed to Lincon's methods of maintaining the Union (e.g.
civil war and ignoring the Constitution.) Most of Bell's supporters
(if the secession of two of the three states he won is any guide...)
also supported secession. What "most" means is anyone's guess.
In any case, no more than a slim majority (if a majority at all)
opposed secession.

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

>! Could you elaborate? Sometimes the side with a smaller number of
>adherents wins a war (otherwise why not count up and capitulate)!?
>(e.g. Sino-Japanese War.)

I'd call it a weighted average: If a majority opposed secession, but were
unwilling to fight a war over it, then a minority of secessionists 
could have held out for four years. I suppose I should have said,
"If most people supported _war_ to prevent secession" it would not
have lasted four years. The War became one of attrition, and the
industry of the north a decisive issue. Manpower was fairly equally
matched. Since recruitment was (at least in the CSA) volunatry, that
makes me thing a roughly equal number of people were willing to fight
(e.g. morally able to say the cause was worth fighting over.)

>>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.

>The  Declaration of Independence has, of course, no force of law.

Since my arguments have a moral basis, the right to a government
by consent and to "alter or abolish" governments that lack 
consent of the governed, is very relevant.

>I'm a loss to see why the failure of the Constitution to mention secession
>meant that it was obvious (except to Republicans) that it was
>permissible.

Are you of the opinion that everything is illegal, unless a law exists
to sanction it? Applying the same standards to the Constitution; if the
Constitution doesn't forbid it, it is constitutional.

>...it seems plausible on the surface to read
>it (esp as regards prohibition of internal tariff, etc) as a perpetual
>document.
 
I don't see this at all: It's terms are binding, but don't see any
implication of duration in them.

>Is it your position, then, that all devolutionary movements
>(Basque, etc) are automatically justified?

If they actually represent the views of the people in some area, and
those people do not consent to their current government, yes. If you
look at the rhetoric surrounding the American Revolution, and the
debates in the early 1800's over recognition of newly-independent
South American states, you will see this was also the view of the
radicals that created the United States.

>To quote from the Encyclopedia Brit. 11th ed. "[T]he theory which
>carried the War Democrats through the final struggle [was] that the
>sovereign state of New York could make war upon the sovereign state of
>Sotuh Carolina fo the unfriendly act of secession..."

Certainly: But that puts the war in the terms I have heard modern, 
southerners use: "The War of Northern Agression."

>>>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.

>Your equation of China (never a signatory t the Constitution) with the
>CSA (rebels) is absurd.

This presumes that secession is uncontitutional and that the southern 
objections (that federal policy was in voilation of the Constitution)
were invalid (if the federal government acted unconstitutionally, then
the States were released from the terms of that document.) I agree
with neither of these assumptions. Except for these assumptions, there
is no difference between the imposition of northern morality on the
south and the imposition of modern, American values on China.

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

>I'm amused that your reverence for the Constituution doesn't apply to
>the seceding CSA.

Exactly what clause, specifically, of the Constitution does secession
violate?

>Their desire to protect slavery is noble and
>good--Lincoln's bad. (You are white..... right?)

That's twice you have asked that. You seem to be throwing around 
baseless slander with (apparently) no confidince it is accurate.

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder

Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1074 alt.politics.clinton:17210 alt.politics.perot:5517