From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 21 Nov 1992 07:09:51 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov20.064935.2608@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1egoqaINNkvn@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"?

and Baldwin echoes 

>And you still don't.  This is really disgusting, and it gives even
>false accusations of racism a bad name.  Nothing Frank Crary has said
>in this thread and nothing you've quoted indicates in the slightest
>that he supports human slavery.  

>Frank's idea isn't complex: to accept that a good (abolition of human
>slavery) came out of the Civil War is not necessarily to deny that
>some bad (weakening of states' rights and protection of Constitutional
>liberties) also did.

Baldwin has, of course, modified 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. This is a
tremendous difference. 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. If Crary
were a pacifist (which he denies), then I could see more consistency in
this moral argument. 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. (I don't know Crary's view on
Kuwait, I admit.)

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. The debate began over Lincoln's mandate to hold
the Union together, and his strong action to fulfill it. Lincoln said,
of course, that if allowing some states to remain slave ould save the
Union, he would accept that. There was no visible compromise on issues
like extension of slavery to the territories (why, Mr Crary, were two
different Democrats running against Lincoln?). It is very unclear to me
that the North would have accepted, without eventual violence and war,
the demands which the South insisted upon to avoid secession, such as
more vigorous pursuit of fugitive slaves and unlimited extension of
slavery in the territories.

>>...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.

Well, Tennessee had both a loyal and secessionist government. You may be
right about Bell supporters; on the other hand on reflection the
majority of Douglas supporters (including Douglas) must
have opposed permitting the South to secede, since Democrats who felt
otherwise would have voted for Breckenridge.

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,
LESS THAN 1/3 of Bell supporters would be needed to give secession a
majority. I just made those numbers up, but they show that your
reasoning needs considerable refinement. Too bad no exit polls.

>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 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. I'm at
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. For one thing, it wasn't obvious to a lot of Northern
Democrats either. For another, it seems plausible on the surface to read
it (esp as regards prohibition of internal tariff, etc) as a perpetual
document. Is it your position, then, that all devolutionary movements
(Basque, etc) are automatically justified?

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..."

>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.

As I mentioned above I don't think there was any position on slavery
(Dred Scott, popular sovereignty, etc) which was supported by a majority
of the population in such a way that war could be avoided. The
"copromise" you mention is recognition of the CSA. This is not a
compromise in the usual sense of the word. It is a complete capitulation
to the secessionists.

>>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?

Your equation of China (never a signatory t the Constitution) with the
CSA (rebels) is absurd. The statement that restriction of slavery was
not a valid federal action was the point of the Dred Scott decision, and
the implication for the territories (and its repudiation of the
Democrats' popular sovereignty position) was probably the last step in
making war inevitable. It is, incidentally, far from clear that your
reading of the Constitution here is correct. Very very far. Indeed,
there had already been numerous such federal actions (Missouri Comp,
Kansas Nebr Act, etc). Your comments are consistently ahistorical.

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

I think that's enough for now.

andy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution