In a recent article, “Reasoned Debate Please: Not Armchair Psychoanalysis,” I was critical of Lawrence Auster, a conservative blogger. I forwarded a copy of my article to him. (Whether my intent in forwarding a critical article was to tweak him, give him a courtesy heads-up, or getting a cheap opportunity to have my article cross posted elsewhere, I will leave it to the reader to decide.) I believe his reply, which he posted, was reasonably civil until he got to the part about the derogatory comment I made about Lincoln, whom I rightly called a tyrant. I wrote that Mr. Auster’s original article had struck a nerve. Well I believe it is fair to say that my Lincoln comment struck Mr. Auster’s nerve as well.
Mr. Auster wrote in his posted reply, “Thus your use of the cheap insult against Lincoln accomplishes two things: it ends people’s wish to engage in debate with you (it certainly ends mine), and it gives them a reason to discuss the psychology of a person who would write an entire article insisting on ‘reasoned debate’ while offhandedly calling one of America’s greatest and most respected presidents a ‘tyrant.’ Q.E.D.”
In my private reply to him (because the comment function on his blog is down), I stated that we could possibly, find common ground on the “Reasoned Debate” issue, but we would have to part ways on the Lincoln issue because I considered secession a litmus test issue for conservatives, and we were clearly on opposite sides. Well the litmus test reference made him go ballistic. What is it about Lincoln, the War, and secession that makes normally sane and rational conservatives lose all semblance of reasonableness? Perhaps it is the years of spoon-fed Yankee indoctrination that we call history textbooks in this country. In no instance is the axiom that the victors write the history more evident than in the treatment of the War for Southern Independence.
But surely Mr. Auster knows I was not the first to suggest that Lincoln and the War were a conservative litmus test. He seemed reasonably familiar with the “neo-Confederate” movement because he had already determined that he was no longer talking to them. (I dislike the term neo-Confederate, by the way, because I’m not neo anything. Southern Conservative or just simply Confederate will do just fine.)
Recently, and likely most famously, the suggestion that Lincoln, the War, and secession were a conservative litmus test, was stated powerfully, clearly and succinctly by Dr. Donald Livingston of Emory University. His article, appropriately titled “The Litmus Test for American Conservatism” appeared in the January 01 issue of Chronicles magazine, and has become a classic in paleoconservative and Confederate circles.
Without taking anything away from Dr. Livingston, I’m sure others had suggested this as a litmus test before him. So I think Mr. Auster’s shock and indignation at my suggestion was somewhat feigned.
Dr. Livingston’s article begins with these devastatingly incisive words, “Abraham Lincoln is thought of by many as not only the greatest American statesman, but as a great conservative. He was neither. Understanding this is a necessary condition for any genuinely American conservatism.” AMEN!
What I suggested to Mr. Auster and had suggested to others before, always to be greeted by hysterical responses, was that secession was a litmus test for “real” conservatism. I concede that Dr. Livingston’s characterization of it as a litmus test of “American conservatism” is more accurate. As I will demonstrate below, by examining the European model, opposition to secession might be consistent with some types of conservatism, but it is certainly not compatible with any “genuinely American conservatism.”
Tyrants and would-be tyrants everywhere rejoice at the notion that political bonds once formed can never be unilaterally dissolved. While I believe that anti-statist, small- government conservatives should generally support secession movements whether Quebec, Welsh, Flemish, Basque, etc., regarding the States’ right to secede there can be no real debate.
The Union was originally conceived as a voluntary union of sovereign States. That secession was a legitimate recourse was largely accepted as a given and not up for debate. Space and the nature of this column do not allow for thorough historical documentation of this statement, but for those interested, I would suggest Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo’s The Real Lincolnand Dr. Thomas Wood’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History for documentation. I will otherwise simply submit the following observation from Alexis de Tocqueville. (You know, he is one of those awful Frenchman the neocons tell us we are supposed to hate.) The Union “was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right to do so.”
The Confederate States peacefully and lawfully seceded from the Union. Lincoln had absolutely no Constitutional right or authority to prevent them. He conducted a total war against the civilian population of the sovereign and newly independent Confederate States that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousand to “save” a phony conception of the Union that existed only in his mind. This is not the mark of a statesman or a conservative. It is the mark of a blood-thirsty tyrant.
Of course, all those brainwashed with the Yankee propaganda that I referred to above, are surely by now screeching, “What about slavery?” Well slavery was certainly an issue, but it was far from the only issue. But much more importantly than why the Confederate States seceded, is why Lincoln went to war. He made it abundantly, unquestionably clear, that he went to war to “save the Union.” He wrote, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
There it is Lincoln idolaters and cultist, straight from the Horse’s mouth. No amount of Strausian lies and deception can alter the horrible, bloody reality. Hundreds of thousand of both nation’s best and brightest died to save Lincoln’s false conception of the Union. Statesman and conservative, indeed.
Curiously, the pro-Lincoln “conservatives” really more closely resemble many European rightist more than they do historic American conservatism. The European right has always been more nationalistic and prone to State worship. I’m sure Bismarck and Franco would approve of Lincoln’s conception of the Union (nation) pre-existing the States.
For example, the Basque parliament recently passed a resolution calling for more independence. According to the BBC website, the leader of the opposition conservative Popular Party, Mariano Rajoy, called the resolution “a betrayal of the state.” Exactly. Secession is a threat to the State. That is precisely why it should be generally celebrated by small-government conservatives, and that is why it drives the nationalistic and statist right crazy. I’m sure the pro-Lincoln crowd would agree with their Spanish compatriot, that Confederate secession was a “betrayal” of the Union, and therefore could not be tolerated. Do these clowns root for the English when they watch Braveheart?
Bismarck and Franco are not the ideological forbears of American conservatism, however. In fact, ultra-Federalist such as Hamilton, Adams and Webster do not represent the true lineage of American conservatism either. (Although any of them would be preferable to the big-government apologist currently masquerading as conservatives.) The American conservative heritage is better represented by the line of Henry, Jefferson and Calhoun. It celebrates localism and regionalism more than nationalism. It is jealous of State sovereignty and skeptical of centralized, concentrated power. And it insists on checks and balances to constrain that power.
But in the original American conception, those checks and balances were not just horizontal, between the branches of the federal government. They were also vertical, between levels of government. If a State was unhappy with a federal law, it could nullify it, as Kentucky and Virginia did the Alien and Sedition Act. A law that was supported by the afore mentioned Adams, I might add. Back when the federal government assessed taxes on the States according to their population, before the abomination of direct taxes, a State could conceivably withhold its revenue. (The thought of a State refusing to pony up sends shivers of joy down my spine.) And, of course, the most radical but legal option would be secession.
That Lincoln and his War altered the fundamental nature of our Republic, transforming it from a union of sovereign States into a centralized, unchecked, Leviathan state is obvious. How anyone who considers himself a conservative could celebrate this is beyond me. The truth remains, no authentic American conservative can or does.
Yes Mr. Auster, despite your hysterical objection, I stand by my statement that Lincoln and the War are a conservative litmus test, and you flunk. You have expressed a desire to no longer “talk” to me and other Confederates. In fact, you have written on your blog that any questioning of your view of the War is grounds for banning posters. Well I just called you and your fellow state-worshipping Unionist out. The ball is now in your court. Are you going to respond with silence like a little school boy taking his ball and going home, or are you going to step up?
Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”