Posted by SM on 7/19/2001, 6:24 pm

McCarthy, Lincoln, power abuse, measures taken in national emergencies and the big picture (Part 2) Posted by Bill Engle on 5/17/2001, 5:19 pm , in reply to "McCarthy, Lincoln, power abuse, measures taken in national emergencies and the big picture (Part 1)" The article goes on: "Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that Lincoln's act [suspending habeas corpus] was in violation of the Constitution.... Lincoln ignored Taney's ruling... and even wrote an order to arrest Taney himself—one of the most high-handed acts of any American president." Perhaps, but... there's another side to that coin: all the governors of the southern states all getting together and deciding to break away from the Union just because they were insulted at the fact that an abolitionist had been elected president was also one of the most high-handed acts any group of governors has ever committed in the history of the nation. It was an unrealistic way to respond to not getting their way. I call it throwing a temper tantrum. "When Maryland's state legislature rejected Lincoln's request for troops, supplies, and money... Lincoln ordered the arrest of 31 legislators, the mayor of Baltimore and a Maryland congressman. He installed a puppet government in the state for the duration of the war. So much for 'government of the people, by the people, for the people.' " It's true that he did order the arrest of the legislators, the mayor and the congressman. But the reason is not just because they rejected his request. There was some Confederate infiltration going on in Maryland's state government and it was a case of there being some spies present attempting to commit high treason... in a time when the country was at war and its very existence was in danger. Besides that, Lincoln's action was a temporary measure, and he had a good explanation of why. He pointed out that it "might be necessary to violate part of the Constitution in order to save the whole." Now later on in the article, the author makes the comment: "By that reasoning, a man who is sworn to uphold the Constitution could justify violating 99 per cent of it." Wait a minute. All of a sudden our author is getting carried away with wild exaggerations in order to falsly imply something that was far from the case. What could we use as an example, in daily life today, of a violation of a law that, compared with a much worse alternative, would be considered minor? How about the situation Don Barnett used to describe, about a person driving a car who comes to a stop sign at the bottom of a hill, and there's a semi-truck full of scrap-metal coming down behind him at a tremendous speed and the truck driver is passed out behind the wheel? The driver of the car takes it upon himself to decide, since it can be seen that no cars are coming, that to save his life, he's going to have to break the traffic law and run through the stop sign. It's the lesser of the two evils—and it is the right thing to do, given the circumstances. Now there could be someone who personally dislikes the man in the car, and he could say, "See how evil he is? He breaks the law! If he just takes it upon himself to decide he can break the law whenever he needs to, by that reasoning he could decide to work together with some nuclear terrorists, make some bombs and kill half the world. See how evil he is? But wait a minute. He didn't, did he? He didn't make nuclear bombs and kill half the world, did he? Sounds to me like the critic is just looking for something to smear him with by saying if he does the one thing, he'll do the other too. Did Lincoln violate 99 percent of the Constitution? Did he even intend to? No, no, no. He did what had to be done to hold the country together, even temporarily suspending a tiny bit of it, because, considering the circumstances and the only alternative that would have resulted, it was unavoidable. Even so, the people backed him up on it. It was most certainly the lesser of the two evils that he was faced with choosing between. The people elected Lincoln for a second term, and the South had had a horribly whacked-out idea to begin with about pulling away just because they were insulted at the fact that an abolitionist had been elected president. What had to be done had to be done, and Lincoln was right in doing it. Holding the country together and bringing freedom to all its inhabitants of all colors was justifiable. There's no getting around that. And that's the big picture. As in the analogy above, it sounds to me like your author is just looking for something to smear him with by saying "if he did that, then he COULD have done all this, blah blah blah ...." But he didn't. Nor did he have any intention to. I think any equivalent thing done by Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, would have been ignored by your author. This writer is not going after principles, he's just going after winning his argument. "By that reasoning, Lincoln COULD have done all this, blah blah blah ...." Well, he didn't. That's just trying to create a slander out of something that doesn't even exist. Now as for Maryland, Maryland was one state where it is estimated that a number greater than 50 percent of the population wanted to go with the South, but, due to some necessary compromises that were made with Lincoln and the Union government, Maryland's government (yes, possibly against the will of their people) agreed to go with the North. Yet in spite of going against the will of the majority of Maryland, the will of the majority of the people of the nation was being upheld, and it was an issue that had to do with the nation's very existence itself. He goes on ... "Northerners who objected to the war ... were smeared as 'Copperheads' and 'traitors.' " Yes, many things have been said in the U.S. about people who have opposed wars, even wars we can remember in our lifetimes. But wait a minute, which side is he on now? Is he on the side of the Constitution? Then has he forgotten about the First Amendment? He's saying the people in the North who had these opinions about the war-opponents in the North didn't have the right to express their opinions? What about all the people in the South (some of my ancestors included) who ran their farms without the use of slave labor and didn't support the cause the South was fighting for? There was even one entire county in one of the southern states whose people declared themselves opposed to the cause of slavery—and the war—and the Confederate government surrounded them and persecuted them for it. And there was no shortage of name-calling by the southerners about the people of that county and everyone else in the South who didn't support their side in the war. Why don't we hear him complaining about them? His article is starting to look a little one-sided now. People flapping their gums are just people flapping their gums. In the United States, the idea has always been that people can do that if they want to. " 'Lincoln,' said Taney, 'was ... acting as a dictator ....' " "Lincoln ... conducted a 'reign of terror ....' " "So why do liberals still use McCarthy, not Lincoln, as a symbol of political repression? Shouldn't they warn us against 'Lincolnism' "? These are opinions your author and his sources have a right to have, but they are just that: opinions. Many of the facts have been distorted in this article. Again, the South was wrong to begin with in seceeding from the Union just because they were insulted at the fact that an abolitionist had been elected president—and that was the only reason the secessions began. Again, what had to be done had to be done, and Lincoln was right in doing it. Holding the country together and bringing freedom to all its inhabitants of all colors was a justifiable thing to do. That's the big picture, and there's no getting around it. -------------------- Now I'm not going to go to great lengths to keep a big long argument going on a subject like this on the Chapel Board. I've stated my view, that's what I'm going to stand by, and I'm probably not going to see much point in continuing to squabble now in the 21st Century over a cause that was lost by the South in the 19th. (But go ahead and keep on with it if you insist ....)