The Lincoln Exception

The inconvenient truth for anyone looking to make the "experience matters" argument is that the least-experienced president was not, as I said yesterday Jimmy Carter, but instead the well-regarded Abraham Lincoln. Of course, though nobody can ever decide what "exception that proves the rule" means, the 1860 election is the exception that proves the rule. We saw a robust multi-party election, in which the two candidates running toward the center (Bell and Douglas) got crushed in the electoral college by candidates playing to the extremes. It's always interesting to note that, had the Civil War not ended in a Union victory and with the semi-deification of Lincoln, it's almost certain that more people would have noticed that the electoral system that put Lincoln in the White House was absurd.

His platform was decisively rejected by sixty percent of the voters all of whom, despite their differences, opposed the Republican anti-slavery line. What's more, the political ascendancy of a party pushing an unpopular extremist agenda led directly to horrifically bloody civil strife. Now, as it happens, slavery was an appalling moral evil so nobody's very upset in retrospect that the median (white male) voter didn't get the Douglas Administration it clearly wanted. Nevertheless, it's still not a desirable feature of the voting system in general.

Comments

I hate to raise any doubts about one of our deities, but its possible we would have been better off with a president Douglas. Maybe if the Civil War had been put off for a few years then, it could have been avoided entirely. The problem, of course, is who knows how long slavery would have lasted in that eventuality.

Posted by Jim W | March 19, 2007 4:34 PM

Silly question, but weren't all the voters in 1860 white males?

Posted by American Citizen | March 19, 2007 4:37 PM

How did Lincoln have an extremist agenda? He didn't run as an abolitionist; in fact, the political dance of the time required him to distance himself from the abolitionists early and often. He ran on a platform of banning slavery only in the new territories, while letting it remain in the South. That's a moderate platform from where I sit.

Posted by Steve | March 19, 2007 4:42 PM

Except for the inconvenient fact that Douglas died in mid-1861, his Presidency might have been a useful stopgap on the road to slavery abolition. Another 8-12 years of industrial and population growth in the North and it is difficult to contemplate the South retaining any hope of seceding. 1850 was probably the last time they could actually have seceded and won a Civil War.

But we'll never know. As we'll never know if a saner policy to help the freedmen establish economic independence would have mitigated the post-Reconstruction backlash of Jim Crow.

Posted by Robert the Red | March 19, 2007 4:45 PM

I would like to know how secession by the South was an "imminent threat" to anybody, justifying the use of force. Seems to me that, under the Yglesias rules as to when force is justified (I'm not going to look for that post), the Civil War was completely unjustified.

Anyway, as to "Now, as it happens, slavery was an appalling moral evil so nobody's very upset in retrospect...", so was Saddam Hussein an appalling moral evil, and yet for some inexplicable reason, some people are upset.

Posted by Al | March 19, 2007 4:52 PM

Lincoln was a left-wing dictator. No real traditionalist, or real conservative for that matter, would ever support him.

Why have neocons made support of Lincoln a litmus test? Because like Lincoln, they are power hungry, they want to establish a dictatorship in the USA.

Here's a great article on ME Bradford on the topic

http://www.mmisi.org/ma/24_04/bradford.pdf

.

Posted by Ron | March 19, 2007 4:56 PM

Huh? Isn't the destruction of the union by definition an imminent threat to said union? The armies at Fort Sumter fired on the US Army, starting a war. Treason in defense of slavery = a reason for war.

Comparing a civil war to protect the very existence of the nation to a foreign war of basically no similarity whatsoever really shows that you're just going for performance art at this point.

Posted by DivGuy | March 19, 2007 4:57 PM

I said this before in the experience thread, but it's pretty absurd to attempt to use the example of Lincoln to suggest that experience doesn't matter in 2007 given that the man ran for president in 1860. Over the intervening century and a half, the United States has become the preeminent global superpower, and its president is the single most powerful person in the world, expected to be capable of leading American foreign policy from the Mideast to Europe to Africa to Asia to pretty much all over the planet. There's simply no way to compare the job as it stands today with the job that Lincoln was running for.

Posted by Christmas | March 19, 2007 5:00 PM

Nevertheless, it's still not a desirable feature of the voting system in general.

Why are you talking about the voting system in this post?

The point everyone seems to be trying to make is that inexperience is a bad thing in a President. This is largely discredited by the fact that the least experienced President in history was also one of the most successful in the most trying era our country has gone through. Carter and Wilson had little experience and sucked. Nixon and Johnson had tons of experience and sucked. FDR and Ike had lots of experience and were fine. Ergo, "experience" is a very poor indicator of how good a President one will become.

Not clear to me what median voter theory has to do with it.

Posted by right | March 19, 2007 5:03 PM

There's simply no way to compare the job as it stands today with the job that Lincoln was running for.

This is certainly true, but I'd say the same thing about, say, Kennedy as well. The Presidency has changed a lot in recent years, so we're operating off very few data points no matter what.

Posted by right | March 19, 2007 5:04 PM

Wern't all the voters pretty much "white males" during lincolns day?

Posted by (white male)? | March 19, 2007 5:10 PM

Of course, I was just fooling around, Div Guy (over all, I thought this post was quite good, even given that the evil of slavery could be reasonably compared with the evil of Saddam), but as it happens, secession wouldn't have "destroyed" the union, it just would have made it a bit smaller. Also, I believe the CSA fired on Fort Sumpter only after the USA refused to get its troops off of CSA territory.

Posted by Al | March 19, 2007 5:11 PM

I would like to know how secession by the South was an "imminent threat" to anybody,

Anybody except the millions of slaves.

Posted by Chad Okere | March 19, 2007 5:12 PM

It seems nearly impossible to disambiguate "was a good president" from "my political opinions" so arguments of what makes a good president are difficult. And also we have an absurdly small data set.

One thing often forgotten about experience is "experience matters if you succeeded at what you did". Bush not only had small experience, but he was astonishingly bad as a Governor of Texas too. HRC by comparison, who's policies I may disagree with, has been considered a really effective Senator from NY. Of course, this is why I wish she would stay a Senator from NY.

Lastly, I would like to applaud MY for going after both the Constitution and Lincoln in a single post. Extra Bonus Irony Points because Lincoln is often chiefly criticized as... having ignored the Constitution.

Posted by Tony V | March 19, 2007 5:12 PM

There's simply no way to compare the job as it stands today with the job that Lincoln was running for.

This sounds right to me. Nobody complained when a poet ran for president of Czechoslovakia. That was roughly equivalent to us in the 1860s.

Posted by JP | March 19, 2007 5:16 PM

Nixon and Johnson had tons of experience and sucked.

Johnson had very little foreign policy experience on taking office, and he "sucked" in the area of foreign policy. Nixon had more foreign policy experience than Johnson, but his foreign policy "sucked" because it was more or less designed to suck: he wanted to pull out of Vietnam in a way that still made him look tough, no matter how many hundreds of thousands of lives it cost. This was not a function of experience, it's a function of sociopathy.

By and large, it's a good thing for presidential candidates to be qualified to do the job of president. That entails, I think, some experience with foreign policy, given that America's foreign policy rests mostly in the hands of the executive branch. This should not be a controversial point.

Posted by Christmas | March 19, 2007 5:16 PM

Nobody complained when a poet ran for president of Czechoslovakia. That was roughly equivalent to us in the 1860s.

Vaclav Havel did a lot more than write poems.

Posted by Christmas | March 19, 2007 5:19 PM

You realize I'm agreeing with you, Christmas.

Posted by JP | March 19, 2007 5:25 PM

I think you both portray Lincoln as more extremist than he was and the South as more open to moderation. Lincoln had NO plan to end slavery while he was in office and took a much more centrist position of preventing the spread of slavery in new territories. The south did NOT secede in response to any specific policy he enacted - they seceded before he even took office in response to his very election! Therefore I find it difficult to label Lincoln an extremist result of a flawed electoral system. A modern day example of a misunderstood "extremist" would be Howard Dean who, although I did not support him, was unfairly branded as an example of the extreme left even though his positions were quite centrist and his passionate demeanor was the only real basis for these attacks.

Posted by Dan Panorama | March 19, 2007 6:03 PM

Matt, while being very smart and very glib, you know nothing about history. Just stay away from historical analogies. You really make an ass of yourself every time you do it.

Posted by Philly | March 19, 2007 6:04 PM

Um, okay. Wanna back that up? Like, with evidence, or maybe a link to some of the other "every times"?

Posted by really? | March 19, 2007 6:12 PM

The description of the election dynamic was good. Then you went right into mind-reading.

Exactly how is it known that every voter - that 'all of whom' - who did not vote for Abe opposed his position on slavery? Could even one have thought there was no good choice?

The fact is that the slave states held the winning hand and threw it away. The Constitution clearly allowed slavery and there was no way to amend that for decades. The infamous Taney decision meant the courts would not help a slave under any conditions; and some would say it meant no non-white had any rights whatever. Courts might change, but not soon.

And as others have pointed out Lincoln never asserted he was going to abolish slavery.

The South blundered. It withdrew from Congress and thus couldn't block laws. Even more foolishly, the Confederacy appropriated Unions land and assets in the South. This was a well recognized act of war. Finally they fired on Fort Sumter and Union troops. Doh!

Notice Kentucky? They had slavery but stayed with the Union. Extremist Abe never bothered them whatever his thoughts.

Posted by K | March 19, 2007 6:13 PM

Philly, no one benefits when you sashay in, assert that Matt may be smart but he sucks, and leave it at that.

For all I know, there may be much to fault in Mr. Y's post, and you may be knowledgeable enough to explain why; but as it stands, his post is vastly more valuable than your comment, since he made his case, and you've said nothing at all. Why don't you share a little more?

Posted by Buckeye Hamburger | March 19, 2007 6:22 PM

Well, yes..they needed to elect a president with experience in civil war. Additionally, Lincoln was blessed to have Jefferson Davis as his opponent, who was very qualified, but very unfit.

Posted by Mudge | March 19, 2007 6:25 PM

The fact is that the slave states held the winning hand and threw it away. The Constitution clearly allowed slavery and there was no way to amend that for decades.

This gets back to everyone's least-favorite debate: to what extent the Civil War was about slavery. Clearly if the South, as a rational actor, was purely trying to prolong the existence of slavery it would never have seceded (or not until long after). Slavery was clearly the big issue, but there was a lot more going on.

Posted by right | March 19, 2007 6:26 PM

Uh, excuse me for asking, but if the Democrats actually had a majority in that election, how come the Boys in Blue had such a crushing majority over the Confederates? In almost every battle the Confederates were outnumbered, often by two or three to one.

And for that matter, why didn't the Dems win that election? The southerners had the system gerrymandered so they got representation at a 3/5 rate for their slaves, who weren't allowed to vote at all. The Dems were the choice of the urban masses of the north, and their party had been in existence for decades. How did the Republican party, only 8 years old at the time, win?

As for depicting abolitionism as the extremist position, and slavery as the moderate force, evidently someone has forgotten the beating of Sumner in the House of Representatives, and Lincoln's Cooper Union address.

As Secretary of War between 1856-1860, Jefferson Davis stockpiled Federal arms in the armories of the South, getting ready for war. A democratic victory in 1860 would have just meant more of the same.

Posted by serial catowner | March 19, 2007 6:32 PM

Lincoln had very little experience and the North got their ass kicked and almost lost the Civil War. In desperation, Lincoln was forced to walk all over the Constitution and institute the draft. Certainly the end of slavery was a positive development and he may have been the greatest orator ever to sit in the WH, but I'm not convinced that he was a great leader.

Also Lincoln didn't save the Union. He killed it in order to make us a nation. If you were to use force to prevent your wife from leaving you, it can hardly be said that your marriage is a union.

Posted by Just Karl | March 19, 2007 6:34 PM

How many nonwhite nonmale voters were involved?

Posted by aleks | March 19, 2007 6:38 PM

Also Lincoln didn't save the Union. He killed it in order to make us a nation.

What was Lincoln's offense against the union, aside from being elected?

Posted by Steve | March 19, 2007 6:39 PM

"I would like to know how secession by the South was an "imminent threat" to anybody, justifying the use of force. Seems to me that, under the Yglesias rules as to when force is justified (I'm not going to look for that post), the Civil War was completely unjustified.
Anyway, as to "Now, as it happens, slavery was an appalling moral evil so nobody's very upset in retrospect...", so was Saddam Hussein an appalling moral evil, and yet for some inexplicable reason, some people are upset.
Posted by: Al on March 19, 2007 04:52 PM"

Are you for real? The Confederacy attacked the United States (Fort Sumter), Iraq did not attack the US (9/11? Are you for real?)

Posted by aleks | March 19, 2007 6:41 PM

The notion that Lincoln had no foreign policy is seriously in error. In fact, Lincoln was extremely adroit in his handling of foreign policy as evidenced by the fact that he was able to keep Britain and France from intervening in the American Civil War, despite the enormous temptation of both of them (who at the time had the two most powerful militarys in the world)to weaken a potential rival by supporting a split.

Posted by SLC | March 19, 2007 6:42 PM

if the Democrats actually had a majority in that election, how come the Boys in Blue had such a crushing majority over the Confederates? In almost every battle the Confederates were outnumbered, often by two or three to one.

And for that matter, why didn't the Dems win that election? The southerners had the system gerrymandered so they got representation at a 3/5 rate for their slaves, who weren't allowed to vote at all. The Dems were the choice of the urban masses of the north, and their party had been in existence for decades.

Deep breath:

1) The North had a larger population (and much more industrial capacity) than the South, and Northern Democrats and Republicans fought alongside each other once the Civil War began.

2) The Democratic party split into Northern and Southern factions, each with its own nominee. In addition, a third (fourth?) party candidate from the "Constitutional Union" party emerged to take several moderate slave states. The Southern Dems won the rest of the slave states except Missouri, Douglas (Northern Dem) won just NJ and Missouri (despite taking 30% of the popular vote), and Lincoln took every other non-slave state. See tally here.

3) Republicans were able to win so quickly because in large part they were inheritors of the Whig party, which had held the Presidency as recently as 1853. Also because they were the first pro-abolitionist party, capturing the wave of a movement that gained a lot of traction in the 1840s and 1850s.

Posted by right | March 19, 2007 6:48 PM

"Exactly how is it known that every voter - that 'all of whom' - who did not vote for Abe opposed his position on slavery?"

Of course, it can never be known in any election whenever what millions (or even dozens, for that matter) of voters were thinking. But that doesn't negate the possibility of trying analyzing voter intention. In fact, there's no way around at least some analysis of voter intentions on occasion.

The election of 1860 was primarily about the slavery question. There certainly were voters who voted based on other criterion, but that was probably a small number. If slavery hadn't been the main criterion, 1860 would have likely seen more strength behind Douglas. Douglas was a much better known politician, and had a much more weighty previous career than Lincoln. At least in the North, assuming the slavery issue was absent, there would no substantive reason to pick Lincoln over Douglas - their policies outside of slavery were different, but not different enough to propel so many to vote for a comparative unknown.

You could argue that the Northern Whigs transformed into Republicans, and thus voted on the basis of "oppose anything from the Democratic party". But, as recently as 1856, such Northern states as Illinois, Pennsylvania and New Jersey (and California in the West) had voted for Buchanan. California voted for Buchanan over native son Fremont.

Posted by burritoboy | March 19, 2007 6:51 PM

I'm not quite so sure that Lincoln had no relevant experience. Aside an ability to judge men and shrewd experience of local political campaigning and organizing, he had first quality experience in two areas of which we may not see the relevance. First, public speaking/oratory, as exemplified in the Cooper Union Speech. Second, he was a railroad attorney when that was the dominant technology driving the future development of the country. (For what it's worth the Pennsylvania Railroad of 1860 was the last entity ever to have more employees than the Federal government.) Denigrating this experience is a little like people saying that Bill Gates had no experience relevant to running the economy and setting domestic policy should he choose (as I profoundly hope he will not) to run for president.

Just Karl may want to reflect that both Lincoln and Grant, no mean judges, offered the opinion that it wasn't the draft it was the voluntary enlistment of blacks in the Union army that enabled them to win in the end. (Robert E Lee and Patrick Cleburne apparently wished they had got there first.)

Finally, I am reasonably certain that free blacks could vote in some Northern states, native Americans could vote in some places, and Cheng and Eng could vote in South Carolina.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | March 19, 2007 6:53 PM

What was Lincoln's offense against the union, aside from being elected?

The nature of the Union was very different before the civil war than it was afterwards. Lincoln oversaw a vast expansion of federal and executive power in just about every arena (as FDR would do again seventy years later). In addition he suspended habeas corpus, instituted the draft, issued the emancipation proclamation, and forceably re-annexed states that really only wanted to peacefully secede -- none of which were permitted by the constitution or had any precedent in US history.

Posted by right | March 19, 2007 6:54 PM

Why, yes, if it hadn't turned out that the vast majority of Americans wanted to save the Union, and if it hadn't turned out that the abolition of slavery was a good thing, then people might have wondered if the seriously flawed electoral process was such a good thing.

But, seeing as how these things did happen, probably a lot of people felt the electoral process wasn't as seriously flawed as some wiseacre a few years out from his Harvard philosophy degree might think.

And what kind of change would Matt like to make? Would he suggest, for example, that Lincoln, as the clear front-runner in the popular vote, serve as the head of a coalition government? But that, in fact, was the actual outcome of the election- Lincoln, as President, would govern in conjuction with a Congress and Judiciary solidily tilted to the south.

The simple fact is that if the women and blacks had been allowed to vote, there would have been no majority for a "centrist" slave-owners regime. Under the circumstances, I think the system of the time functioned a lot better than it might have, not a lot worse.

Posted by serial catowner | March 19, 2007 7:04 PM

The exception that proves the rule means that, if for example, a sign says no smoking on Tuesdays the "exception" of Tuesday "proves the rule" that smoking is allowed the rest of the week. Thus Lincoln's lack of experience does not "prove" that experience otherwise is good. He is what is known simply as an exception.

Here is a more thorough explanation:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html

Posted by Castorp | March 19, 2007 7:10 PM

Well, here's a newsflash- the south also drafted soldiers, and Unionists in the south who didn't successfully escape or hide were killed. The south was not some magic land where none of those impositions on civil liberties would have occurred. In fact, during the long years before the war, the south was a terrible place where anybody who opposed the pro-slavery line was driven out or lynched.

Nor were the southerners a bunch of peaceful burghers seeking only freedom from tariffs. They stockpiled as many weapons as they could in preparation for the war they subsequently started. Among their most cherished dreams was the invasion and subjugation of Cuba. Another of their dreams was the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise, and the imposition of slavery on every state in the Union.

Naturally, the farmers of the north were not interested in the extension of a system that had already rotted the south into a cesspool of underproduction.

Posted by serial catowner | March 19, 2007 7:16 PM

Castorp wins for most informative comment! I honestly never knew that; makes perfect sense though.

Posted by right | March 19, 2007 7:20 PM

I think MY's characterization of Lincoln as an extremist in the 1860 is correct given that he was at one end of the spectrum, but Lincoln was a lot closer to Bell or Douglas than Breckinridge and his ilk (who wouldn't even allow Lincoln on the ballot in their states) were. The real extremists weren't Lincoln, it was the politicians who eventually seceded because they didn't like the election outcome, and thus precipitated the crisis. The Bell and Douglas 'median voter' sided with Lincoln, not the rebs. The rebs were the one's that were 'way out there'.

Posted by j mct | March 19, 2007 7:24 PM

"Clearly if the South, as a rational actor, was purely trying to prolong the existence of slavery it would never have seceded (or not until long after). Slavery was clearly the big issue, but there was a lot more going on."

No, the South was by no means assured that slavery would last much longer if it stayed in the Union. The North and West were growing so much more rapidly than the South that Southern governmental dominance was clearly going to end in the very near future. For example, the strongly anti-slavery city of St. Louis had grown from 20,000 in 1840 to 160,000 in 1860. By 1900, St. Louis had 575,000 residents. By 1900, only a handful of the top 50 largest American cities were in the South. New Orleans' population only managed to go from 168,000 in 1860 to 287,000 in 1900 - and New Orleans was the among most economically vibrant of the South's cities after the Civil War.

It also seemed unlikely that the West was going to go pro-slave - California had gone free-state as well as Kansas and Oregon. The rest of the West wasn't trending pro-slave either. Indeed, some cities of the West (St. Louis, Chicago, Minneapolis, San Francisco - anywhere that had a large German or Swedish population) were more abolitionist than most of the Eastern cities.

Relying on Supreme Court decisions and the immediate moderation of Lincoln himself (and Lincoln was a moderate Republican) is a pretty thin reed to rely on. By the elections of 1860, it's pretty clear that both East and West are willing to vote for some form of anti-slavery platform. Sure, that sentiment might not continue, but that's a very big risk to take. Or, the East and West might grow even more abolitionist over time rather than less.

Posted by burritoboy | March 19, 2007 7:28 PM

Al:

True, the CSA did demand that the Union abandon Sumter before they actually attacked.

We have an oddity in the US. Nearly all federal lands and materials do not belong to the State (note caps) they are in. The federal government owns them.

Lincoln was a lawyer. And a good one. You will search long and hard to find him advocating illegal acts (more on that later). We can't read his memoirs or thoughts but at election he was in a very weak position.

But the CSA managed to help him - their arrogance about slavery managed to offend many abroad who might otherwise have thought secession was fine (the Constitution is quiet about secession and Congress could certainly have allowed it by legislation).

He got some big breaks. Virginia - probably the strongest southern state - hesitated about secession and w/o Virginia the CSA could not just march into D.C. before inauguration day.

Abe, through luck or skill, found about the only way to save the Union - considering the CSA actions in the long interval from election day to inaugeration day.

The critics of Lincoln fume about the draft, martial law at times, Habeas Corpus, Greenbacks, etc. If the Constitution covered every possible event in detail then they might be right.

But it does not cover every possible event. And Lincoln worked the loopholes when needed. As I said, he was a lawyer. And a good one.

Posted by K | March 19, 2007 7:42 PM

Just Karl may want to reflect that both Lincoln and Grant, no mean judges, offered the opinion that it wasn't the draft it was the voluntary enlistment of blacks in the Union army that enabled them to win in the end.

My point was simply that Lincoln made a decision that was illegal and incredibly disruptive in NYC especially. The fact that he later claimed it was unnecessary for victory is yet another reason to question his leadership.

Glory is a great movie, though.

I've read somewhere that Lincoln supported the right of Texas to secede from Mexico while he was in the Illinois Legislature, but I can't find it anywhere online. Anyone know anything about that?

Posted by Just Karl | March 19, 2007 7:43 PM

"Well, here's a newsflash- the south also drafted soldiers, and Unionists in the south who didn't successfully escape or hide were killed."

The Confederacy was, literally, the worst in the developed world if you were a political dissident. Czarist Russia, at least, tossed dissidents in Siberian jail after some form of trial. In the Confederacy, though it theoretically allowed freedom of speech, dissidents were regularly tortured and murdered (unofficially, of course). The Confederacy also officially supported terrorists like Quantrill, who genocided the entire male civilian population of Lawrence, Kansas (murdering something like 200 civilians). The Confederacy also had an extensive internal passport system, and it was not a good idea to go around without your papers.

Posted by burritoboy | March 19, 2007 7:47 PM

Re Gene O'Grady

1. Lincolns' best attributes were a fine mind and a keen judge of men. Let's remember that tremendous pressure was put on him to cashier General Grant (if he had done so, the North might have lost the war). What was Lincolns' reaction? The following two quotes tell the story.

"I can't spare this man; he fights."

"General Grant likes his liquor? Find out what his brand is so I can send a case of it to my other generals!"

2. I would like a reference to Lincoln and Grant opining that enlistment of black troops saved the Union. The most important contribution made to Union victory was provided by Jefferson Davis who delighted in appointing incompetent generals like Bragg and Hood to high command. A somewhat smaller contribution bas made by Robert E. Lee, who in many respects was one of the most incapable commanding generals in history.

Re serial catowner

It should be remembered that the South instituted a draft before the North did.

Posted by SLC | March 19, 2007 7:48 PM

"Anyway, as to 'Now, as it happens, slavery was an appalling moral evil so nobody's very upset in retrospect...', so was Saddam Hussein an appalling moral evil, and yet for some inexplicable reason, some people are upset."

Two big differences: (1) the South started the war, Saddam didn't, and (2) Lincoln won his war, GWB didn't

Posted by rea | March 19, 2007 7:50 PM

You don't know the history, at all.

All four of the Presidential candidates were, in fact, running for the center. What you had was differing concepts of what the center should be, but the actual radicals in American politics -- the abolishnists and the secessionists -- were excluded from the Presidential contest, forced to back centrists.

Lincoln got the Republican nomination precisely because he was the least radical Republican candidate for nomination. His most serious rival for the nomination -- Seward -- was the second most conservative Republican candidate for the nomination.

Breckinridge, the candidate of the Southern Democrats, was also the incumbent Vice-President (and the candidate of Buchanan's Democratic machine, and so, actually outpolled Douglas in Buchanan's native Pennsylvania). Although he was certainly recognized as the most "pro-slavery" candidate, he was also an establishment figure.

On what would be, post-election, the primary issue of the day -- Union or secession -- three of the four Presidential candidates were clearly pro-Union, and none was a radical, least of all Lincoln, who, as an old Whig probably had more in common, in terms of political tribalism and heritage, with the old Whigs, that made up the Constitutional Unionists, than he did with Douglas, with whom he actually agreed on most urgent issues of policy.

The Presidential election of 1860 actually reflected an emerging majority strongly opposed to the activist minority of pro-slavery, pro-secession Southerners. If Breckinridge is the stalking horse of secession -- and, as an establishment figure he was an imperfect representative of the secessionist position, then, even in the South that seceded, the pro-secession position could not garner a numerical majority; only in the Deep South states did Breckinridge win a majority of votes.

The election results were an unambiguous rejection of secession -- less than 20% voted for the "southern" candidate.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | March 19, 2007 7:56 PM

BurritoBoy et al.

Right: there is nothing wrong with analysing the vote. I was just noting that phrasing is important. And I have written some howlers.

More serious matter. Yes, there was more going on with the South than the slavery struggle. But try looking at it the other way, if the South hadn't insisted on slavery it would have attracted immigrants. It would have attracted more capital and manufacturing. In other words it would not have been the South we discuss.

And if it were not the South we discuss - the South that insisted that their rights and only their rights mattered - then maybe Southerners would have felt less threatened by prosperity elsewhere.

For what would the North have been imposing upon a non-slave South that required secession?

Posted by K | March 19, 2007 8:22 PM

Re: Maybe if the Civil War had been put off for a few years then, it could have been avoided entirely.

The South was hell-bent on secession and (if necessary) war by 1860, and would have seized any pretext for that course. Had rationality prevailed in the South they would have waited out events and worked to defeat Lincoln in 1864. It was, after all, the South own fault that he won in 1860: had Southern Democrats not bolted the party and nominated Breckenridge, the large Democratic vote would not have been split, and Lincoln would have been as little remembered as John C Fremont, the GOP candidate of 1856.

Re: I would like to know how secession by the South was an "imminent threat" to anybody,

In and of iteslf secession was not an imminent threat. But firing on a Federal fortification (two, actually, because Fort Pickens in Florida was also shelled on Apr 12 1861) was an act of war and justified a warlike response.

Re: Maybe if the Civil War had been put off for a few years then, it could have been avoided entirely.

Slavery was our moral porblem and required some action on our part. Saddam Hussein was Iraq's moral problem and your analogy simply fails on that fact.

Re: Lincoln was a left-wing dictator. No real traditionalist, or real conservative for that matter, would ever support him.

A leftwing dictator? Pray tell, what did he do (other than emancipation, hardly a leftist act) that had Karl Marx cheering from the sidelines? Indeed, even in 1860 the GOP was already the party of big business and not the working man. If Lincoln was a leftist, Reagan must have been a Maoist.

Re: Lincoln was a left-wing dictator. No real traditionalist, or real conservative for that matter, would ever support him.

Fort Sumter was NOT CSA terrotory. Even if you hold that the CSA was a legal nation (though not recognized as such ever any other nation) Fort Sumter was legally the property of the US federal government-- in point of fact the US had even built the very island it stood on, dumping granite blocks from New England in Charleston harbor to create it.

Re: Clearly if the South, as a rational actor...

The South was very much NOT a rational actor, that much should be staringly obvious (and should have been even at the time).

Re: Uh, excuse me for asking, but if the Democrats actually had a majority in that election, how come the Boys in Blue had such a crushing majority over the Confederates?

Most northern Democrats were pro-Union (some were even anti-slavery) and more than willing to fight for it.

Re: And for that matter, why didn't the Dems win that election?

There were two Democrats running: a Northern Dem (Douglas) and a Southern Dem (Breckenridge). Plus a fourth party candidate, John Bell.

Re: The nature of the Union was very different before the civil war than it was afterwards.

So what? It was also very different in 1860 from what it had been in 1789. It was much bigger, for one thing, and MUCH more democratic. Also, much more industrial. But Lincoln's extaordinary war power were repudiated and forgotten after 1865: the post Civil War presidents, with the partial exception of Cleveland (a Democrat) were mostly weak non-entities until TR came along and reinvigorated the presidency.

Posted by JonF | March 19, 2007 8:23 PM

If only those uppity Negroes had just accepted their place.

This is the very worst entry I have ever read on this blog. Yglesias is strikingly ignorant. Some points:

1)Others have noted that Lincoln had no "extremist agenda", Yglesias' stupid comment notwithstanding.
2)Others have noted that some 80% of the public voted for Union in 1860, that being all who didn't vote for Breckinridge.
3)Others have noted that saying 60% of the people rejected Lincoln is an idiot statement worthy of Libertarian crackpots when one remembers that no one but white males were allowed to vote.
4)There is no basis in U.S. law to suggest secession and rebellion is permitted. The Articles of Confederation mention a PERPETUAL Union. The Constitution says that Union will be made "more perfect". Are we to believe that "more perfect" means "get out when you feel like it?"
5)Also stupid was the comment about Fort Sumter in the discussion thread. Fort Sumter, like all federal property, was owned by the people as a whole, and South Carolina had no right to unilaterally confiscate it.
6)The notion that there was any threat to slavery in 1860 is laughable. There were fifteen slave states. That's thirty Senators, count 'em, thirty, from the slave states. That would have been enough to filibuster any slavery bill in the Senate, going by the 60/40 rule, until the admission of Colorado in 1876. Of course, a constitutional amendment would have been required to end slavery, so the thirty slave Senators would have been enough to stop that until--hey, until the admission of Utah as state #45 in 1896! And let's not forget that Texas had the right to divide into four more states, which would have meant eight more slave senators, which, if they had done so, would have meant that the South would have been able to hold onto slavery FOREVER.
7)Regarding the very, very stupid comments about habeas corpus: the Constitution specifically allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion. Which, again, tends to knock a big gaping hole in the old "they had the right to secede" business.

I hope Matt thinks long and hard before blogging anything about history again.

Posted by KevinA | March 19, 2007 8:43 PM

While I agree with almost all of JonF's post upthread, he does make one error. It is a common belief that Lincoln would have lost in 1860 if the Democratic Party had not split, but it is false. In 1860 almost all the electoral votes were in the Northern states and Lincoln had absolute majorities in all of those northern states. The only states that he won with sub-40% totals, and thus would presumably have lost in the face of a unified Democratic Party, were California and Oregon, which would not have been enough to change the outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1860#Results_by_state

Note also that Lincoln got 1.1% of the vote in Virginia and was not allowed on the ballot in the other ten states of the Confederacy.

Posted by KevinA | March 19, 2007 8:47 PM

Damn, who pissed in your wheaties Kevin?

All things considered, I wish the South took off a long time ago. What did they contribute to this society worth having? Your draconian feelings about the permanence of the contract between the states aside, what was worth keeping them? They have been nothing but a pain in the ass ever since.

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 19, 2007 8:50 PM

You can make that case, from a cultural perspective. But the talk of Yglesias and some of the neo-Confederates in this thread is ridiculous.

Here's another point to ponder. The Constitution in Article IV specifically mentions that the Congress can admit new states and discusses limits on that power. Are we to believe that they would have been totally silent on states LEAVING the union if such was an idea held by the founders?

Posted by KevinA | March 19, 2007 9:01 PM

Re Ed Marshall

The trouble with Mr. Marshalls' view is that, if the South had been allowed to secede, it is quite likely that New England would also have eventually seceded and there would now be at least 3 or more countries between Canada and Mexico. Given the role played by the US in the 20th century in defeating Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union, such a result might have been catastrophic for the fate of the world.

Posted by SLC | March 19, 2007 9:06 PM

Lincoln got the Republican nomination precisely because he was the least radical Republican candidate for nomination. His most serious rival for the nomination -- Seward -- was the second most conservative Republican candidate for the nomination.

This is exactly right, and the point I was trying to make way back at 4:42 p.m. Abolitionism was extreme in the context of the day; most people rejected it not because they liked slavery, but because they understood it was a position that would destroy the Union. Much as Democrats are consistently attacked as extreme liberals and socialists today, regardless of how moderate they might actually be, mainstream Republicans of Lincoln's era were routinely attacked as abolitionists or, even worse, believers in black-white equality (horrors!).

The only thing I'd add to Bruce's excellent comment, and it's sort of a footnote in the context of this discussion, is that Lincoln was the nominee mostly for geographic reasons. Seward was the far more established politician, but many Republicans saw him as unelectable because he was from the Northeast. So Lincoln was recruited into the primary campaign in hopes of capturing the West's electoral votes, and the rest is (heh) history.

Posted by Steve | March 19, 2007 9:18 PM

"Regarding the very, very stupid comments about habeas corpus: the Constitution specifically allows for the suspension of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion."

Except: (1) the power to suspend habeus corpus appears to have been granted to Congress, not the president--but Lincoln acted without Congressional authorization, and (2)the power does not extend to places or times when the civil order has not broken down due to invasion or rebellion--but Lincoln tried to suspend habeus corpus with reswpect to political prisoners from the north. He was wrong, as the Supreme Court eventually concluded.

Posted by rea | March 19, 2007 9:23 PM

"The notion that there was any threat to slavery in 1860 is laughable. There were fifteen slave states. That's thirty Senators, count 'em, thirty, from the slave states. That would have been enough to filibuster any slavery bill in the Senate, going by the 60/40 rule, until the admission of Colorado in 1876. Of course, a constitutional amendment would have been required to end slavery, so the thirty slave Senators would have been enough to stop that until--hey, until the admission of Utah as state #45 in 1896! And let's not forget that Texas had the right to divide into four more states, which would have meant eight more slave senators, which, if they had done so, would have meant that the South would have been able to hold onto slavery FOREVER."

Having a filibuster power in the Senate is hardly enough to build an entire society on. A filibuster power which is going to inevitably gradually decline is even worse. And the nobody knew in 1860 how fast new states were going to be added or how many new states were going to be added. I.E, we'll raise your 4 New Texases with two Washingtons, two New Mexicos, three Dakotas, etc. Protecting slavery for another 16 or even 36 years isn't going to cut it - if you can already see the clear end of slavery, you might as well abolish it right away. So it was perpetual slavery that the Southern secessionists wanted, not another two or three more decades.

Also, slavery isn't going to work well without at least some federal government support backing it. (That's what Dred Scott is all about). Ok, no Civil War, it's 1878 and you're a slaveowner:

a. You can't take your slave into any free territory or otherwise he's free.
b. Your plantation better not be near any borders with a free state, or your slaves are going to make a run for it (yes, in reality, they don't suceed, but you're going to worry about it day and night).
c. The abolitionists are probably extensively smuggling weapons to disgruntled slaves and the feds aren't doing much about it. Sure, an full-blown successful slave rebellion is unlikely, but that doesn't mean you don't fear what your slaves might do to you deep in the night, especially now that there's rumors of abolitionist guns floating around.
d. There's constant agitation in the North about banning slave-made products and such. Not that it's very successful, but it's always an annoyance.
e. You have a disagreement with a Northern business associate and you land in state courts from Maine to California? Expect to loose.
f. You really need a system to coordinate slave monitoring and movement intra-state as the modern economy arrives (and, say, the rental price of slaves in Texas is twice that of your native Virginia or somesuch). If the feds don't provide solid mechanisms to do that, it's much harder for the governors/state legislatures to coordinate.

None of that is a slavery killer, but you're going to feel more and more that every Northerner's trying to strangle you.

Posted by burritoboy | March 19, 2007 9:30 PM

Are we to believe that they would have been totally silent on states LEAVING the union if such was an idea held by the founders?

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

But of course, Jefferson was a Southerner. Certainly he couldn't have contributed anything to this society. It's not like the Declaration of Independence has anything to do with secession, either.

Posted by Just Karl | March 19, 2007 9:32 PM

"intra-state " = "interstate"

Posted by burritoboy | March 19, 2007 9:35 PM

"what did he do (other than emancipation, hardly a leftist act) that had Karl Marx cheering from the sidelines?"

Well:

"While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

"The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world."

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

Posted by rea | March 19, 2007 9:37 PM

"All things considered, I wish the South took off a long time ago. What did they contribute to this society worth having? Your draconian feelings about the permanence of the contract between the states aside, what was worth keeping them? They have been nothing but a pain in the ass ever since."

Um, what happens when the CSA and the USA both want the same territory? Oklahoma initially joins the CSA as a Indian territory, oil's discovered decades later and the USA finds an old treaty that says Oklahoma's the USA's property? (or vice versa).

Or the CSA pisses off the Mexicans, who invade. If the USA doesn't back the CSA, won't that alone worsen relations greatly between the two? Yet, backing the CSA in the North is going to be wildly unpopular.

What's to prevent everybody else in the remaining USA from bolting? You let the CSA leave, why can't the inhabitants of Maine and Vermont form their long-desired "Kingdom of Maple Trees"?

And what happens when one of the states that is wavering between the CSA and the USA decides maybe it will get a better offer from the other side? The folks living in what's now West Virginia are organized to leave the CSA.......is the CSA just going to let them leave? And what happens if the CSA suppresses the growing West Virginian movement? Is the USA just going to sit back and watch the CSA murder the inhabitants of Charleston?

Posted by burritoboy | March 19, 2007 9:47 PM

What's to prevent everybody else in the remaining USA from bolting?

That thought hasn't occured to you anytime in the last seven years?

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 19, 2007 9:52 PM

I think a lot of commenters here fail to appreciate just how radical Lincoln's agenda was. It is true that Lincoln did not advocate abolition, but he was for prohibition the extension of slavery in any new territories. This was clearly recognized at the time as a position to allow the non-slave holding states ultimately to gain the upper hand against the slave holding states. It was a slow death for Slave Power and the everybody knew it.

And Lincoln threw down the gauntlet in his Coopers Union speech, basically writing off the entire South:

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitutions. Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis, than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.

Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality - its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension - its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?

Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man - such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care - such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance - such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

Lincoln's position represented an existenial threat to the slaveholding states and was therefore radical.

Posted by blah | March 19, 2007 10:29 PM

"Lincoln's position represented an existenial threat to the slaveholding states"

Goodness, blah, it seems to me that you just quoted Mr. Lincoln explaining at considerable length and with remakrable eloquence that his position did NOT represent an existential threat to the slaveholding states. Oh well--they didn't believe him, either.

Posted by rea | March 19, 2007 10:50 PM

I just started a real preachy, definition nazi paragraph about radical politics and how that speech taken at face value would be exactly anti-radical but I thought better of it, you beat me to it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 19, 2007 10:57 PM

"why can't the inhabitants of Maine and Vermont form their long-desired "Kingdom of Maple Trees"?"

New Hampshire might have had a problem with that.

Posted by Mario | March 19, 2007 11:12 PM

"the power to suspend habeus corpus appears to have been granted to Congress, not the president--but Lincoln acted without Congressional authorization"

Lincoln got authorization.

"the power does not extend to places or times when the civil order has not broken down due to invasion or rebellion"

There is no such restriction. You are making that up.

"Having a filibuster power in the Senate is hardly enough to build an entire society on."

Everything in the post above after that quote is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that my statement was correct; there was no threat to slavery in 1860. The South could easily have waited four years, or eight, or twelve, or until such time as a Democrat regained the Presidency. There was no chance, zero, nil, nada, zippo, for Abraham Lincoln to interfere with the institution of slavery in the South had the Union remained intact.

Posted by KevinA | March 19, 2007 11:23 PM

Interesting discussion. Just like to pick up on what passage I'd like to challenge.

The trouble with Mr. Marshalls' view is that, if the South had been allowed to secede, it is quite likely that New England would also have eventually seceded and there would now be at least 3 or more countries between Canada and Mexico. Given the role played by the US in the 20th century in defeating Nazi Germany and the former Soviet Union, such a result might have been catastrophic for the fate of the world.

There's two ways I could approach this. The one would be to take your conterfactual game at face value and assume that nothing else in the world changes if the result of the Civil War/secession. Well, I'd say that its highly unlikely all of 20th century European history plays out in the way it does because the outcome of WWI would have been different - ie Germany probably would have won.

But even beyond this, the counterfactual ultimately falls down because we don't know what other series of events are dramatically altered because US history (such as it would have been) takes such a radically different path. Whats not to say that Canada becomes a world power than? How does that change global economic and trade patterns (which underly a great deal of other political events)? There's just too many variables to make such a categorical statement about future events. A different result to the Civil War doesn't just change US domeastic history, but its very outcome changes world history in such unknowable ways that it is highly unlikely that the 20th century would have unfolded in ways that it did.

Posted by Ben P | March 19, 2007 11:26 PM

TRIANGULATOR SUPREMO Lincoln on abolition & anti-secessionism. Note also the concern for reputation of the U.S.A., a bone to foreign policy fans.

Peoria October 16, 1854
MR. LINCOLN'S SPEECH.

some excerpts:
...The audience signified their assent to the arrangement, and adjourned to 7 o'clock P.M., at which time they re-assembled, and Mr. LINCOLN spoke substantially as follows:

The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the propriety of its restoration, constitute the subject of what I am about to say.

As I desire to present my own connected view of this subject, my remarks will not be, specifically, an answer to Judge Douglas; yet, as I proceed, the main points he has presented will arise....

I wish further to say, that I do not propose to question the patriotism, or to assail the motives of any man, or class of men; but rather to strictly confine myself to the naked merits of the question.

I also wish to be no less than National in all the positions I may take; and whenever I take ground which others have thought, or may think, narrow, sectional and dangerous to the Union, I hope to give a reason, which will appear sufficient, at least to some, why I think differently.

And, as this subject is no other, than part and parcel of the larger general question of domestic-slavery, I wish to MAKE and to KEEP the distinction between the EXISTING institution, and the EXTENSION of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me.

In order to [get?] a clear understanding of what the Missouri Compromise is, a short history of the preceding kindred subjects will perhaps be proper. When we established our independence, we did not own, or claim, the country to which this compromise applies. Indeed, strictly speaking, the confederacy then owned no country at all; the States respectively owned the country within their limits; and some of them owned territory beyond their strict State limits....

Thus, with the author of the declaration of Independence, the policy of prohibiting slavery in new territory originated....

But now new light breaks upon us. Now congress declares this ought never to have been; and the like of it, must never be again. The sacred right of self government is grossly violated by it! We even find some men, who drew their first breath, and every other breath of their lives, under this very restriction, now live in dread of absolute suffocation, if they should be restricted in the ``sacred right'' of taking slaves to Nebraska. That perfect liberty they sigh for---the liberty of making slaves of other people---Jefferson never thought of; their own father never thought of; they never thought of themselves, a year ago. How fortunate for them, they did not sooner become sensible of their great misery! Oh, how difficult it is to treat with respect, such assaults upon all we have ever really held sacred....

I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska---and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world, where men can be found inclined to take it.

This declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I can not but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world---enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites---causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty---criticising the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation....

Posted by artappraiser | March 19, 2007 11:51 PM

What's to prevent everybody else in the remaining USA from bolting?

Deseret, Brigham Young giant Utah basin fiefdom, coulda really been something.

Posted by Jackmormon | March 20, 2007 12:12 AM

4)There is no basis in U.S. law to suggest secession and rebellion is permitted. The Articles of Confederation mention a PERPETUAL Union. The Constitution says that Union will be made "more perfect". Are we to believe that "more perfect" means "get out when you feel like it?"

There was also no basis in US law to suggest secession is forbidden (rebellion is another matter). The Articles of Confederation are, you know, not part of the law. There's no inconsistency in interpreting a "more perfect" union as a voluntary one.

Posted by right | March 20, 2007 12:45 AM

Regarding my comment: read Bruce Wilder's comment above. He has an astute and accurate reading on the election of 1860. Sorry to be so bitchy about it, but Matt's blundered into this territory in his discussion of James Polk a couple months ago and with a digression on counterfactual scenarios had the American Revolution not succeeded nearly a year ago when his blog was part of TPM Cafe. He's not ignorant, he just has a really superficial understanding of the issues, and like a lot of Washington pundits, he mines the past for easy analogies, with little regard for the actual complexity of the past. My criticism of Matt is actually borne out of respect for his intellect. I think that someone so smart, who tries to avoid the normal pitfalls of lousy Beltway punditry, should steer clear of this one, unless he's willing to engage in some deep reading in political history.

His point that Lincoln was inexperienced is true, but his reading of 1860 as a victory for extremism is faulty. Lincoln was a pro-Union candidate, the dark horse chosen for his moderate stance (as opposed to Chase and Seaward) and whatever his feelings on abolition (which historians have yet to fully agree upon) he was clearly willing to set them aside in favor of preserving the Union. Douglas was hardly the majority choice; many northerners who had become incensed by the bleeding of Kansas found his support of the Lecompton (pro-slavery) Kansas constitution to be repugnant, and to many southerners, his stated support of popular sovereignty (even though he ignored true public will in Kansas) was an unforgivable position. The point is that the electorate in 1860 was extraordinarily polarized, and Lincoln was a well-chosen candidate who had an overwhelming advantage in the electoral math and would have won even if Bell had not run or if the Democrats had not split. Lincoln was not "playing to the extremes," and only someone who sleepwalked through a US History survey would think that.

Posted by Philly | March 20, 2007 3:43 AM

"There is no such restriction. You are making that up."

Why don't you read the Supreme Court decision in Ex Parte Milligan rather than accuse a lawyer of fabricating case law?