Heil Lincoln

"This is your last chance. After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill; the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill; you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."
--Morpheus (The Matrix)

dictator - a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession

I doubt that there is a history book in the school system that labels Abraham Lincoln as a dictator. Yet, it is difficult to look at the evidence and not conclude that Lincoln's actions place him among the world's most infamous dictators.

Historians, law professors, and other intellectuals have sometimes concluded that Lincoln's actions were indeed consistent with dictatorship but, astonishingly, applaud Lincoln's dictatorial behavior as justified (e.g., Fletcher, 2001; Rhodes, 1900; Rossiter, 1948).

A government that operates within the confines of the Constitution cannot foster dictatorship. Lincoln, of course, strayed far from Consitutional boundaries. Courtesty of DiLorenzo (2002), let's list a few of Lincoln's Constitutional excursions:

• launching an invasion of the South without consulting Congress
• declaring martial law
• blockading Southern ports
• suspending the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration
• imprisoning without trial thousands of Northern citizens
• arresting and imprisoning newspaper publishers who were critical of Lincoln's actions
• censoring telegraph communication
• nationalizing the railroads
• ordering Federal troops to interfere with elections in Northern states by intimidating Democratic voters
• deporting a member of Congress who critized Lincoln's income tax proposal as unconstitutional
• confiscating private property without due process
• confiscating firearms

Central to most of these actions was Lincoln's refusal to permit people to throw off a government that those people believed was despotic. By not recognizing that right of secession, Lincoln presided over the death of at least half a million citizens of the United States. He altered the balance of power between the federal government and the states, with the central government assuming an authoritarian role.

Yet, there are those that praise Lincoln as a 'benevolent dictator' (e.g., Randall, 1926).

The mainstream treatment of Lincoln's character over the years certainly has a Matrix-like feel. Seems more people need to take the red pill...

References

DiLorenzo, T.J. 2002. The real Lincoln. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Fletcher, G.P. 2001. Our secret constitution: How Lincoln remade America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Randall, J.G. 1926. Constitutional problems under Lincoln. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Rhodes, J.F. 1900. History of the United States from the compromise of 1850 to the final restoration of home rule at the South in 1877. New York: Macmillan.

Rossiter, C. 1948. Constitutional dictatorship. New York: Harcourt Brace.

The Real Lincoln

"You see more than do most men."
--Abraham Lincoln (The Blue and the Gray)

Finally finished Tom DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln. Eye opening book on which I will reflect more fully in posts ahead. For now, a few summary thoughts:

Main purpose of the Civil War. Any serious student of history soon realizes that 'freeing the slaves' was not the primary, or likely even tertiary, motivator of the Civil War. Lincoln's oft stated objective behind the war was to 'preserve the Union'--meaning that he wanted to prevent Southern states from seceeding. But why was this Lincoln's motivator? When one begins to understand Lincoln's hunger for political power and his allegiance to Clay's American System, then the dot connecting gets easier...

Main consequence of the Civil War. Clearly, the key outcome of the Civil War is that it squelched the notion of federalism--i.e., the founding idea that states are sovereign and that the federal government served the states. Perversely, since the end of the Civil War, revisionists have tried to argue that it was the federal government that created the states.

The reason that the end of federalism was so important was that the loss of states' rights removed the 'last best bulwark' (Wilson, 1998) of constitutional liberty as envisioned by the founders. The last bulwark consisted of a state's right to leave the union should it feel that the federal government was overstepping its constitutional limits. Without that right, the people hand their sovereignty over to judges who tell us what orders we must obey. This is, of course, the precise course of US government since 1865.

Tainted history. I've mentioned before that the more I dig into US history, the greater my surprise over what I don't know about our path from there to here. Now, I'll be the first to admit that history was never my favorite subject in school, but it seems clear that my ignorance is not merely the result of not paying attention in class. US history has clearly been slanted.

There is perhaps no greater example of this than Lincoln and the Civil War. Lincoln the humanitarian and emancipator when the data suggest Lincoln as tyrant and centralizer. The Civil War as a just war to free the slaves when the data suggest the Civil War as unjust to terroize people seeking to govern themselves.

History as taught here in the US has an agenda. Which implies self-study as the path to the Truth.

References

DiLorenzo, T.J. 2002. The real Lincoln. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Wilson, C. 1999. Secession: The last, best bulwark of our constitutional liberties. In D. Gordon (ed.), Secession, state and liberty: 89-98. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Lincoln Cents

So when you hear it thunder
Don't run under a tree
They'll be pennies from heaven
For you and me
--Bing Crosby

What's the longest running coin design in US history? That would be the Lincoln cent. The obverse design has changed little since Lincoln pennies were first struck in 1909. Designed by sculptor Victor David Brenner, it features a side profile of Abe cribbed from an early Matthew Brady photo. The design was controversial because it was the first US coin to feature an actual person rather than symbolic figures such as Lady Liberty. 

We seem to have gotten over it, as today's coinage has completely shunned Ms Liberty in favor of 'rock stars' of US history.

1910 1c PCGS PR66RB CAC ex Young-Dakota

The reverse of the Lincoln cent has endured two primary designs. The art deco 'wheat cent' reverse was struck from 1909 through 1958. To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Lincoln cent in 1959, the reverse was redesigned in favor of a Lincoln Memorial motif. The 'modern' reverse was altered once again at the Lincoln cent's century mark in 2009, first with an image of the Lincoln log cabin birthplace and then a replica of the union shield.

Alloy content has evolved from almost completely copper to almost completely zinc. In keeping with the sadly familiar pattern of monetary debasement, rising copper prices have made it too expensive to include the metal in one cent coin denominations.

Many collectors got their starts by plugging Lincoln cents into Whitman albums. Harder to find the old 'wheaties' to fill those early slots, but they're still in the mix if you look hard enough.

If you notice one, then you might want to put it away. At the rate that the value of money is being destroyed, pennies may not be in circulation much longer.

Lincoln Lenses

Col Robert Gould Shaw: It stinks, I suppose.
Private Trip: Yeah, it stinks bad. And we all covered up in it too. Ain't nobody clean. Be nice to get clean, though.
--Glory

Isn't it amusing that the Left likes to paint those who founded the country as racists while giving Lincoln a free pass, despite overwhelming evidence of Lincoln's racist tendencies?

The difference, of course, is that the Framers endeavored to suppress government in favor of liberty, while Lincoln endeavored to suppress liberty in favor of government.

Lincoln's Big Government practices caught the eye of Statists around the world, including Karl Marx. It shouldn't be surprising that Lincoln captivates today's Left as well.

Lincoln's racism, however, upsets the Left's narrative. So, similar to being unable to view income taxes as a form of slavery, the Left must see Lincoln through a lens that filters out his racist behavior.

Lincoln and Tariffs

It was a shakedown cruise
And now we're sending out the news
There ain't no victory at sea
Unless it's mutiny
--Jay Ferguson

These pages have occasionally considered the myths surrounding Abraham Lincoln, often with the help of Professor Tom DiLorenzo. In this article, DiLorenzo discusses how Lincoln's position on tariffs helped vault him to the presidency.

By the 1850s, the world was largely moving away from mercantilist policy. Protective tariffs were being eliminated across Europe in favor of free trade. By 1857, the 15% average American tariff was the country's lowest import tax rate of the nineteenth century. The subsequent Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether.

Leaders in Northern states, however, were reluctant to surrender wealth gained from decades of cronyism afforded by the American System. They wanted to continue tariff protections as well as government funded 'internal improvement' projects. They also lusted for a central bank controlled by politicians similar to the Bank of England.

Lincoln was the ideal presidential candidate for the going institutionalization of the American System. He was a devout protectionist who, through his railroad industry connections, could wire himself into influential industrialists and media moguls in the North to get out the protectionist vote.

Two days before Lincoln's inauguration, his predecessor James Buchanan signed the Morrill Tariff bill into law which legally raised tariffs on some imports by 100%+ and hastened Southern secession proceedings.  The South, you see, had already borne the brunt of protective tariffs for many years. Being primarily agricultural producers, Southern states had to purchase manufactured goods either from the North (where protectionist tariffs permitted higher prices on domestic goods) or from producers abroad (whose goods were being taxed at exorbitant tariff rates). Consequently, Southern standard of living was being compromised whenever American tariffs were imposed on imported goods.

Lincoln would subsequently sign ten more tariff-increasing bills over the course of his presidency.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated that it was his 'duty' to collect the newly implemented tariffs. He promised that, in one of the more thinly veiled threats uttered in presidential history, there would be no 'invasions' or 'bloodshed' as long as states dutifully collected the requisite tariff fees on imported goods. He subsequently imposed naval blockades on several Southern ports, including Charleston, to ensure tariff collection.

We know how that worked out.

Antecedents of the Civil War Part III

"I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank...in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff."
--Abraham Lincoln 1832

Previously we observed the influence of the American System, particularly its protectionist plank, in weakening the South's allegience toward the union of states. The American System was a product of Henry Clay and the Whig party in the 1810s.

From the time he entered politics, Abraham Lincoln was a disciple of Henry Clay and the Whig agenda. In his near 30 yr political career leading up to the 1860 presidential election, Lincoln was frequently on the record as supporting all three planks of the American System: a national bank, government sponsored 'internal improvements,' and protectionist tariffs. Lincoln subsequently nailed those planks into his own presidential campaign platform in 1860.

By this time, many Southerners believed that the federal government had been acting unconstitutionally for years, particularly w.r.t. fiscal and trade policies. In the South's view, these policies were imposing disportionate harm on the South.

With Lincoln gaining support among influential Northern voting blocs, the South saw an individual who threatened to consolidate federal power into the creation of a centralized state or empire. The effect of this consolidation was feared to be massive economic plunder at the South's expense.

Many Southern states thus commenced secessesion proceedings during the 1860 presidential campaign year. The Morrill Tariff bill of 1860, which proposed raising tariffs 100% or more on some items, added fuel to the secession fire.

By spring 1861, newspapers in the North and South had been noting that economic issues were the primary driver behind the secession movement. In March 1861, for example, the Boston Transcript wrote:

"It does not require extraordinary sagacity to perceive that trade is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the return of the seceding States to the Union...The mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence."

The Confederate Constitution largely mirrored the US Constitution with the exception that is removed language that did not support free trade. Thus, the Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether in support of a free market environment.

Newspapers began connecting the dots, warning that if free trade were permitted to exist in the Southern states, then merchants in New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah would take most trade from Northern ports. Consequently, wrote the Boston Transcript, "the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than at New York."

Herein lies the primary driver of the Civil War. The federal government had been intervening in markets for years, with the cost of these interventions being disproportionately borne by the South. Lincoln threatened to take this intervention to new heights. Southern states thus opted to secede, and build an economic system around free markets. Influential Northerners soon realized that free markets in the South would hammer the protected markets of the North.

Fear of economic loss motivated those influential Northerners, people with the means to do so, to see to it that a man was elected president who would use lethal force if necessary to keep the South from realizing economic freedom--an economic freedom that, if left unchecked, would destroy the North's profit center.

The Civil War, like most if not all wars that the US has subsequently engaged in, was a war enacted by the federal government to protect the interests of those who preferred to acquire wealth by political rather than economic means.

Smashing Lincoln Myths

Sgt Major John Rawlins: Not sure I'd be wanting this, colonel.
Colonel Robert Gould Shaw: I know exactly how you feel.
--Glory

Tom DiLorenzo challenges various Lincoln myths, something that we have occasionally done on these pages as well (often with DiLorenzo's help). The myths are put forth in an interview of a 'Lincoln scholar' by a socialist web site.

It should not be surprising that Lincoln's behavior attracts socialists like a magnet. Lincoln embodied the Statist authoritarian figure seen as central to enacting a socialist agenda.

Toward the end of his missive, DiLorenzo connects the dots as to how the 20th century may have been different had Lincoln not 'kept the union together.' American may have remained a constitutional republic rather than becoming a centralized nation state. Capitalism may have prevailed instead of the blend of corporatism and neo-mercantilism that rules the day. Rather than seeking to build a militaristic empire that facilitated world war, the US would have served as a counterexample of peace and freedom to the world.

Many of our problems can be traced back to Lincoln's aggression.

Institutionalized Lies

"Define irony."
--Garland Greene (Con Air)

Paul Craig Roberts demonstrates the extent to which lies can be institutionalized in history books, movements, and causes by considering the myth of Abraham Lincoln as a civil rights hero.

Drawing from the work of Thomas DiLorenzo, much of which has been discussed on these pages, Roberts presents the case of Lincoln as a racist dictator who issued the Emancipation Proclamation out of desperation to save an empire that was in danger of losing a war. Roberts posits that Lincoln, had he not been assassinated, would likely have championed plans to deport blacks.

Yet, today Lincoln is hailed as a civil rights champion. That Martin Luther King chose the Lincoln Memorial as the site for delivering his "I Have a Dream" speech signifies how far off the rails the Lincoln story has gone.

Shelving history books that perpetuate such departures from the truth in the 'non-fiction' section of libraries cements the irony.

Lincoln's Italian Prospect

"You're like the thief who isn't the least bit sorry he stole, but is terribly, terribly sorry he's going to jail."
--Rhett Butler (Gone With The Wind)

Tom DiLorenzo discusses Lincoln's attempt to outsource command of the Northern army to an Italian mercenary named Giuseppe Garibaldi. After a string of defeats and firing McClellan, Lincoln offered the command to Garibaldi who had built a reputation for paramilitary forays and terrorism during both an Italian civil war and campaigns in South America.

Garibaldi declined Lincoln's offer. Perhaps he didn't savor the prospects of engaging Lee's army rather than the unarmed civilians that he was used to.

Unable to hire an international mercenary, Lincoln subsequently settled on domestic generals willing to enact the president's version of domestic terrorism.

Lincoln's Drones

Dance into the fire
To fatal sounds of broken dreams
--Duran Duran

Tom DiLorenzo suggests that the recent debate over whether government has the authority to assassinate American citizens on US soil was settled years ago by Lincoln.

Because Lincoln never recognized the secession of Southern states, Southern civilians constituted non-combatant citizens of the US. Using the drones of his day, the generals in command of the Union Army, Lincoln presided over the killing of hundreds of thousands of non-combatant US citizens in the South, not to mention the destruction of hundreds of billions (in today's dollars) of property of non-combatants.

These actions violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.

After Lincoln's death, many of those same drones went on to murder tens of thousands of Indians during the country's thrust west.

When push comes to shove (or kill), presidents, thru their armed agents, will want to throw off rule of law in favor of rule by gun.

Land of Lincoln

"It's well known that the more a man speaks, the less he's understood."
--Abraham Lincoln (The Blue and the Gray)

Very interesting questions raised about the Lincoln presidency. I've peripherally encountered arguments in the past that the primary cause of the Civil War was the South's pushback against Lincoln's nationalist economic program. Southern firms were getting eviscerated by government tariffs placed on trade with others. Succession was merely Southern states' trump card.

The Lincoln administration was also a major suppressor of Constitutional liberty during wartime.
Once again, not a perspective widely disseminated in the grade school or high school yrs.

Secession and the US

To secure these rights [of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.
--Declaration of Independence

In the United States, secession as a valid strategy for coping with oppressive government goes at least as far back as Jefferson's words above. In the early 1800s, even outside observers such as Alexis de Tocqueville recognized the legitimacy of secession in the American system:

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right (1945: 381)."

Through the distortions of popular history, many think that the only movements toward secession in the United States were those by the Southern states prior to the Civil War. However, there were numerous threats of secession prior to 1860.

The Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 1790s drove resolutions drafted by Jefferson and Madison for Kentucky and Virginia that hinted at secession. In the early 1800s, several New England states believed that the economic policies enacted under the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison were disproportionately harmful to New England state interests (which mirrored arguments of Southern states under later administrations); the wisdom of secession was debated in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and elsewhere over the span of at least 20 years.

As disagreements between Northern and Southern states got louder in the late 1850s, individual secession movements were spawned in several 'middle states' including New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. Various themes drove these movements. Some states wanted to join the Southern Confederacy, some wanted to form a 'Central Confederacy,' and some simply preferred that the South should go in peace rather than destroying the Union by trying to hold it together by military force.

There was even some chatter in a few Northern states with abolitionist tendencies that Northern border states should secede in order to negate the federal Fugitive Slave Act, thereby making it easier for runaway slaves to escape.

By the time that Southern states undertook secession proceedings in 1860-1861, the right of states to secede was widely recognized and respected--even in the North. Historical studies of editorials from Northern newspapers (e.g., Perkins, 1964) clearly indicate that secession as a Constitutional right was broadly understood.

Lincoln sought to alter history by arguing that the federal Union preceded the states. He denounced the right of secession as 'an ingenious sophism.' Even in his Gettysburg address, at which time hundreds of thousands had already died from a conflict that he put in motion, Lincoln argued that representative government would 'perish from the earth' if the South won the war, and that the war was being fought in defense of government by consent.

The opposite was in fact true. If Southern states had been permitted to peacefully secede, two representative government would have existed--on in the North and one in the South. Moreover, it was clear that the Federal government under Lincoln sought to deny Southerners the right to government by consent, for Southern states, by their movement to secede, certainly did not consent to remaining in the Union.

The Civil War can be seen as Lincoln's war against the right of secession.

References

de Tocqueville, A. 1945. Democracy in America. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House.

Perkins, H.C. 1964. Northern editorials on secession. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.

Original Thirteenth Amendment

Relax said the night man
We are programmed to receive
You can check out anytime you like
But you can never leave
--The Eagles

Many people know that the Thirteenth Amendment, passed in late 1865, formally outlawed slavery in the United States. Far fewer people realize that a previous Thirteenth Amendment had been approved by Congress four years earlier and was making the rounds to the states for ratification. This amendment would have perpetuated slavery among the slavery and was endorsed by Abraham Lincoln. The amendment had been ratified by three states before the process was interrupted by the Civil War.

It is sometimes claimed that the amendment was originally proposed by previous President James Buchanan, although there is also evidence that the proposal came from President Lincoln himself and conveyed by soon-to-be Secretary of State William Seward. The amendment was drafted by a committee ultimately headed by Ohio representative Thomas Corwin (hence, the Corwin Amendment). Its purpose was to keep Southern states from seceding out of fears that the federal government would interfere with slavery in places where it already existed. It stated:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

The Corwin Amendment received the requisite 2/3 Congressional approval necessary for a constitutional amendment, having been approved by the House on February 28, 1861 and by the Senate on March 2, 1861. The amendment was subsequently signed by Lincoln. It was then onto the states for 3/4 ratification. Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois had ratified it before the process was overtaken by the Civil War.

The original Thirteenth Amendment is another inconvenient truth for those who like to perpetuate Lincoln as the Great Emancipator and the friend of slaves. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

It also demonstrates once more that the political focus of the time, at least at the federal government level, involved secession and how to prevent it. Why? For one thing, secession promised to be unprofitable to many.

Like the ill-fated compromise that preceded it, the Corwin Amendment demonstrates the desperate measures that some people will support to keep an untenable union together by force. The Corwin Amendment proposed to maintain forcible bonds on some people for the benefit of others.

Subsequently, of course, the Civil War was fought to forcibly bond some people to a union that they preferred to leave.

Institutional Masquerade

Col Robert Gould Shaw: What are you doing?
Col James M. Montgomery: Liberating this town in the name of the republic.
--Glory

These pages have included a thread discussing the work of Tom DiLorenzo and his studies of Lincoln and the Civil War. In the context of current Monumental Hysteria, DiLorenzo once again presents compelling evidence of Lincoln's racist tendencies and his motivation for war centered around achieving the American System doctrine by keeping Southern States in the union--particularly as sources of tax revenue and as customer of Northern goods with few realistic options.

That this body of evidence, which has been built by many researchers, is so strongly ignored by the mainstream provides a sense of just how persistent the institutional masquerade has become concerning Lincoln, the Civil War, and, in current context, the South.

What particularly captured my attention this time around was the discussion near the bottom of DeLorenzo's piece about the war crimes committed by Lincoln and his generals. Particularly because this group opened Pandora's box for genocide and crimes against humanity in the next 150 years' worth of war, perhaps their statues and associated insignias, battle flags, war songs, et al. should be designated for destruction by those who believe they occupy the moral high ground as well.

Slanting Lincoln's War

Take another look
Tell me, baby
Who's zooming who?
--Aretha Franklin

Driven by Trump remarks suggesting that better leadership might have prevented the Civil War, the mainstream media unleashed a flurry of pieces once again defending Lincoln's War as just. As 'proof,' journalists cited a bevy of leftist 'historians' who have concluded the inevitability of the Civil War expressly to abolish slavery.

Of course, the practice of quoting from like-minded pools of 'experts' is what motivated Groseclose to develop his slant quotient measure of media bias.

There is simply too much contradictory evidence for the "Lincoln had no choice but to fight the Civil War...and it was just...and it was all about slavery" thesis to fly.

Fly among well reasoned individuals, that is.

Memorializing Racists

You're lighting a scene
That's faded to black
I threw it away
'Cause I don't want it back
--Alan Parsons Project

Tom DiLorenzo points out one of the many hypocrisies of Progressives. On one hand, they obsess over a Confederate flag flying above a state house, claiming that it is a symbol of racism that must come down. On the other hand, they ignore the monument in Washington DC dedicated to a president whose public utterances include a collection of perhaps the most blatantly racist comments on presidential record.

Why shouldn't the Lincoln Memorial come down alongside the Confederate flag?

If the response is that Lincoln symbolized other things besides racism, then the argument is similar to many of those with affinity for the Confederate flag.

If the response is that the majority does not see Lincoln primarily as a racist while most view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism, then the question is why should majority opinion overrule the First Amendment?

If the response is that government has no business endorsing opinions, then why is it doing either--i.e., flying flags construed by some as racist or memorializing individuals construed by some as racist?

Always On

"The Army is a broadsword, not a scalpel. Trust me, senator, you do not want the Army in an American city."
--General William Devereaux (The Siege)

During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln dealt with those in Union states voicing opposition to the war by arresting dissenters under auspices of martial law. Thousands were jailed without writs of habeas corpus and tried before military commissions rather than civil courts.

One such dissenter, an Indiana lawyer name Lambdin Milligan, petitioned the federal circuit court in Indianapolis. His case, which became known as Ex parte Milligan, was passed to the Supreme Court. The primary question was whether Lincoln's military tribunals against dissenters were legal.

The Court unanimously rebuffed Lincoln's efforts to cut constitutional corners. The Court wrote:

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and in all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious circumstances, was ever invented by the wit of a man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism."

Via its ruling in Milligan, the Court tells us that the Constitution is always on. No exceptions.

Causes of Crisis

"Gentlemen, we have a crisis situation."
--Jester (Top Gun)

Interesting discussion of how we've evolved into a Constitutional Crisis situation. Especially liked the review of the negative influence of the Progressive movement.

I thought that the author missed the mark on a couple of points, however. He correctly notes that the Three Fifths clause which legitimized slavery was not a principle of the Constitution, but a compromise. But the author implies that it was a necessary compromise to close the deal that ultimately led to the union of states. Furthermore he argues, using some cites from Frederick Douglass, that the Constitution was ultimately and anti-slavery document. Because it was grounded in the 'all men created equal' principle set forth in the Declaration, tension was created by the compromise that ultimately led to slavery being thrown off.

Very neat, but what if enough anti-slavery framers had the cojones to stand their ground at the convention? Might the union have included fewer states in the beginning? Yes. But the principle would have stood from the outset. And millions of lives would have subsequently been saved. Indeed, it can be argued that willingness to 'compromise' ranks highly in the factors that have led to the Constitutional Crisis that we face.

Before lambasting Progressives for wanting to consolidate power in the executive branch, the author claims that there are times when the president rightfully should wield such power. In the event of war and crises, he suggests, the president must be able to circumvent constitutional balances of power to, essentially, 'preserve the union.' He is undoubtedly covering for Lincoln, whom he is sympathetic to and quotes liberally in the article despite Lincoln's abuse of power during his administration.

Lincoln and other presidents have used 'emergency powers' to do precisely what the author seems to argue against--i.e., the durable confiscation of liberty by an authoritarian state. Although he quotes work by both Jefferson and Locke that appear sympathetic to concentrating authority with the executive branch in times of crisis, there is no provision for doing such in the Constitution itself.

Indeed, the inconsistencies demonstrate by the author suggest that there is plenty of blame to go around for our present crises. The actions of many so-called 'conservatives' have done as much to denigrate the Constitution as those of Progressives.

Pursuing Historical Truth

It's coming any day now said the captain
It's coming any day now said the priest
The people in high places may defend you
But son you better hope they keep the peace
--Bruce Hornsby and the Range

If you are interested in the truth, then popular narratives of certain historical events don't ring true to you. The JFK assassination is one of those. Despite all the king's horses that have been marshaled to tell the 'official' story, there are simply too many problems with the stream of evidence to suggest that the party line is much more than classic naked emperor pretense.

Another such event is the Civil War and its prosecution by Lincoln--a subject that these pages have considered. Once again, the evidence does not follow party line discourse. Fortunately, the divergence between the story line and fact is attracting more historians interested in setting the record straight.

It should not be surprising that those who question party lines face personal attack from those committed to the pretense. Those who challenge the Civil War/Lincoln myth, for example, are often labeled racists, pro-slavery, Southern sympathizers, etc.

It's the old juvenile defense mechanism learned on the playground: When lacking a valid counter argument grounded in truth, just call them names.

If you're committed to the truth, then you simply don't take such attacks personally. Perhaps the truth threatens them.

But why they attack doesn't matter. You stay focused on your pursuit.

Because you know that gaining a better understanding of the true course of historic events helps set you free.

Keeping Enemies Close

One day it's fine and next it's black
So if you want me off your back
Well, come on and let me know
Should I stay or should I go?
--The Clash

Soon after Abraham Lincoln stepped into the Oval Office he immediately fired over half of the employees working under the executive branch. After a highly contested election, Lincoln wanted to reduce the chance that those partisan to someone or something else were in a position to hurt his administration.

Many wonder why Donald Trump has not done similar. Yes, he recently fired several federal attorneys appointed by his predecessor, but thousands of Obama appointees and others who are ideologically opposed to Trump remain as his employees. For an individual who achieved celebrity status by uttering the words "You're fired!" on weeknight television, one would think Trump would have been dealing out pink slips in size by now.

It is possible, of course, that Trump just hasn't gotten around to it yet. Perhaps, based on his previous experience as a manager, he thinks it prudent to better familiarize himself with the current situation before making decisions about who should stay and who should go.

His managerial experience might also be telling him that diversity in terms of political ideology will help his administration make better decisions. Trump might achieve better long term results with a varied crew.

There is also the political argument that he wants to project an image of bi-partisanship when it comes to personnel. By keeping people on his staff that others know he doesn't like, he demonstrates restraint and tolerance that might win him cooperation from various factions over time.

A further possibility is that Trump is heeding age old advice of keeping friends close but enemies closer. Keeping enemies in his administration enables Trump to accumulate knowledge about his opposition. He might better understand strengths, weaknesses, and tendencies of his foes when they are working for him.

By keeping his enemies close, Trump could use them as bait. If, for example, Trump suspects that progressives will stop at nothing to get him out of office, then perhaps he keeps partisan operatives around in hopes that progressive leadership recruits them as agents for illicit activities. Agents, say, in intelligence agencies could illegally leak classified information designed to hurt the Trump administration. If Trump is prepared, then he might catch the agents in the act, and use them to trace back to the principals of the crime.

Perhaps the unfolding story about Spygate exemplifies this approach.