From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:57:13 GMT

In article <1e6stvINN2tq@agate.berkeley.edu> lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
>#Not quite. One of the presidents of the 19th century was elected with
>#less than 40 pct of the popular vote in a four-way race. Most people
>#feel he did a good job anyway--even I agree, and the president in
>#question was a Republican.
>#His name was Abraham Lincoln.

>>Why do you consider that a good thing? Lincon, without the support of
>>a mojority of the people, acted like a strong President and pressed
>>for the elimination of slavery. In doing so, he provoked a civil war.
>>I'd think the lesson learned from this, is that it is _extremely_
>>dangerous for a President to _act_ like he has a popular mandate
>>when in fact he does not.

>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.

>2. If we look at the dates of secession,
>the Civil War began already on the election of Lincoln even BEFORE he
>assumed office and, a fortiori, before the worked to eliminate slavery.

The actual fighting (e.g. the point at which there was no hope of
peacefull settlement) began on April 12, 1861. 

>3. Certainly Lincon's acts were dangerous. That does not make them
>mistaken. Indeed, virtually all acts of the time were dangerous in some
>sense.

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.) 

>4. Lincoln appears to have had a strong popular mandate among those
>states which did not secede. He even succeeded in keeping the border
>slave states loyal to the Union.

He succeeded in this by repression, not by gaining public support. 
Maryland, for example, did not secede because Lincon unconstitutionally
closed down the State legislature and arrested legislators who 
advocated seceding. Furhter, Lincon couldn't rationally call a "strong
mandate among those states that did not secede" a popular mandate:
He strongly and unequivically refused to accept the division of the
nation, so it would make no sense to claim a mandate based on 
exactly that sort of division.

>5. Your argument seems to depend on the notion that Abraham Lincoln was
>not a very good president and that someone else (e.g. Douglas,
>Breckenridge, or Bell) could have done better. 

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. 
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?)

>...I would like to see your hypothetical assessment
>of what these other presidential candidates would have done. (What sort
>of a mandate could Breckenridge have obtained? How can a House Divided
>bitterly provide a mandate to anyone???)

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.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution