Transformational Leadership or Constitutional Statesmanship?
by David J. BobbLots of politicians make promises they can’t keep. Statesmen, by contrast, promise less and deliver more. Knowing their own limitations and those of the people they serve, they act according to principles, not just promises.
As a presidential candidate Barack Obama promised the American people nothing less than a new nation. “. . . We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” he said just before he was elected president in November 2008.
Since his victory the president has made very clear his reverence for the idea of transformational leadership. He has identified “transformative moments” that must be seized, lauded “leaders who are able to bring about transformative change,” and heralded his administration’s steps towards “a transformation of how government works.”
The president’s efforts to make his idea of “transformational leadership” real are everywhere. Whether in massive bailouts, sweeping health care reform legislation, an attempt to overhaul the student loan system, or a proposed revamping of financial regulations, the president has sought a transformation of huge swaths of American life with little regard to the constitutionality of these efforts.
Mr. Obama has done all of this while at the same time linking his idea of transformation to the sixteenth American president. Asked in July 2009 who his heroes are, President Obama singled out Abraham Lincoln for the highest praise.
The president’s admiration both of Lincoln and the idea of transformational leadership is perplexing, because for Lincoln the idea of “transformational leadership” was not just foreign, but something he had to fight.
Lincoln’s fundamental cause was not changing the American political form, or regime, but preserving it. The American regime was one of rights, Lincoln held, and slavery struck at the heart of the American regime. The Confederacy was a regime not built upon universal rights of equality and liberty but rather a dangerous act of rebellion. Its form of government was illegitimate.
Three years before the Confederacy’s birth, in 1858, Mr. Lincoln was locked in political battle to unseat the “Little Giant,” Illinois Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas. In a July 1858 debate with Douglas, in Chicago, Mr. Lincoln assailed the mighty incumbent for three erroneous positions, including Douglas’s denial of the truth of the Declaration of Independence; his support of the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which made slaves no better than animals; and his advancement of the doctrine of popular sovereignty, which said that each state should have the right to decide whether it would allow slavery or not.
“Now I ask you in all soberness,” Lincoln said, “if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form.”
For Lincoln, Douglas represented a kind of transformational leadership, one in which his ideology would trump the truths of the Declaration and the Constitution. In the over two million words Lincoln spoke or wrote it seems that he used the word “transform” only that one time in the 1858 debate with Douglas.
Transformation talk today is commonplace, especially in an age in which many universities offer courses in “transformational leadership.” Introduced in 1978 by presidential scholar James MacGregor Burns, the idea of “transformational leadership” gained common currency as management consultants and motivational gurus seized upon it as fodder for their books. Contrasting various modes of leadership, Burns and his followers emphasize that the “transformational” leader is followed by others because of his personality and ability to effect change. In short, the “transformational leader” has the “vision thing.”
Lincoln sought the preservation of America, not its transformation. Rather than envisioning a new future, he appealed to the old moral, political, and social truths of liberty and equality. These were true not by dint of his personality, but because they are universal and reasonable. Lincoln was the servant of enduring constitutional principles so that he could end slavery and preserve the Union.
America today needs not “transformational leadership,” but constitutional statesmanship.
Compared to the idea of “transformational leadership,” the idea of constitutional statesmanship now seems out of place, like shouting “Give me liberty or give me death!” in a movie theater. Yet given the choice of further attempts at the unconstitutional transformation of the country, or seeking to be a statesman much better attuned to the Constitution, the president in his second year in office might better heed the example of his hero Lincoln.
For Lincoln, the Constitution was inviolable. He knew that the presidential oath he took to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution defined his responsibility. More than any other promise a president makes it matters most.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
141 Comments
Good article. I have youtubed Thomas Sowell and he as absolutley amazing. He shreads liberals / progressives in every debate. That is what we need now, national debates on television between Progressives and Conservatives. Progressives would never accept the challenge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVsr-_-v2sI
The only way to save our republic is to replace congress!!!
But you and I are called racist because we espouse conservative views!
For him to compare himself to Lincoln only highlights his narcissistic arrogance. He is not the "one". It makes me want to puke.
Of course not
Making model airplanes to look nice is one thing.
Making them to fly….ah that used to be so rewarding.
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.” (Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861)
OK let us lighten up a tad on Obama.
Remember, like Lincoln was, Obama is in way over his head.
The only difference is that Lincoln knew how to swim.
This lad, on the other hand, thinks he knew how to swim and that is why he jumped in.
Wow, Lincoln actually believed the words he said and crafted them carefully so that they had meaning and conveyed a point.
Obama's words are vague, general, pointless and vapid. There is no connection he has to his own words, nor does his audience. His speeches are filled with platitudes, that in the long run are just empty speech. They are delivered in a scolding fashion, much like an angry parent talking to a child who does not understand. Everyone is talked down to, and it doesn't help when he lifts his nose to look down upon us.
Lincoln's speeches are a stark contrast. We are well informed and evoked to de better. We are engaged and are required to engage our minds. Mr. Lincoln crafts a story that challenges, soothes and encourages us all. We are spoken to as fellow humans, all equal. We need to think to understand his words.
A more likely candidate for comparison in speech is Franklin Roosevelt, the emptiness and sophmoric disconnect in his speeches seem to fore-ordain the dumbing-downed, high-handed, empty words contained in most politicos' speeches today!
By Jove, I think I got it!
A Constitutional statesman is a pragmatist who governs with principle – Example – Abraham Lincoln.
A transformational leader is an ideologue who governs with promises – Example – Barrack Obama.
The fallacy of the second form is clear – A statesman uses tried and try resolutions and remains committed to the underlying principles of individual liberties. A transformationalist speaks eloquently and promises to maintain individual freedoms by transforming, rather than maintaining the "status quo."
Can't be done, bro. You can't "transform" the founding fathers solid belief that we were endowed by our maker with certain liberties without usurping them.
Yes, the new racist wants lower taxes and less government welfare. Remind me to send that in to Merriam Webster.
Constitutional statesmanship, at this point in the "progressive evolution" of the USA, will require an organized, legal and non-violent REVOLT on the order of WTP demanding proof of BHO eligibility under the U.S. Constitution, without limitation, specifically including an independent investigation of all those government officials [office of the president, congress, supreme court, federal courts, DNC, RNC, CIA, FBI, etc] that were involved in any way in the eligibility determinations during the election of BHO. Such a REVOLT, in the name of Constitutional Statesmanship, would prove far more effective to return the USA to its intended Constitutional government and nation. For business people, this is known as a shake-up at the top, the process is extremely effective in business; it can easily work to correct the mess that is the modern day government-media-complex. I hold little optimism that any changes to Congress in November will prove effective to correct the tragic "Titanic" path the USA is on. It only takes 1000 legal US citizens to sign this Petition to the Hawaii Department of Health: http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/26/petition/ Please, if you are a legal U.S. Citizen, consider signing this Petition today! Just 1000 legal US Citizens and this chapter in US history is brought to an immediate end. DOCUMENTED LEGAL FACTS. You don’t have to put up with 3 more years of BHO and these tyrants. The danger to the USA is not Barack Obama himself, he is a mere man-child, but the real danger is a citizenry capable of entrusting a man-child like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to allow such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails and is choking the USA. Blaming this prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a “Barack Obama”, who is, after all, merely a fool of a man-child. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president. Those elected have not and do not follow the U.S. Constitution? How is this corrupt loon any different than the whole bunch of them? U.S. is now the Titanic in the world. There is no place to run and no place to hide; you have no laws under the U.S. Constitution once USURPER POTUS is enabled to go forth. The elephant in the living room is NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The U.S. Constitution is “black and white”, no ambiguity whatsoever. Obama, in his own written word, acknowledged his father was NOT ever a U.S. Citizen; thus, like CA Gov Arnold, he IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT. The governing allowed it, the [so-called free-] press allowed it. AND YES, the electorate has allowed this LIE to continue to this day. The solution is found in the U.S. “dimwit” citizenry. Ancient Dictum: S/HE who REMAIN silent; CONSENTS.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/10/red-flags-...
Abe Lincoln was the ultimate tyrant.
One big difference is that the " enlightened media " of the day described Lincoln as a sap, a hick, and a rube. The media today cannot find a fault with Maobama. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Not to mention the fact that it was PRESIDENT NIXON, who first used "the one", as in "HE'S THE ONE", as a campaign slogan.
Too bad that Obama, his handlers, and most Americans don't know this fact.
Lincoln also wrote most of his speeches, unlike Barry.
yes Johnny, u have your public school version and then the real version.
Lincoln was all about big central government, and force if necessary to demolish states rights. He has more in common with Obama than you think.
Angelita, so far he is doing it.
Just remember one thing.
When a Democrat builds a wall.
A Republican adapts. (i.e., Bush is gone but Fannie and Freddie are still around)
Are you seriously talking to yourself?
No he wants to keep throwing people into the pool until it's filled enough so HE can walk on top of the water!!
Well, that certainly will never happen.
He is to busy throwing people under the bus.
David Bobb and Thomas Sowell would make short order of any Progressive.
My only bone with Lincoln is the fact that he really did destroy states rights, and he took steps against the South that were not Constitutionally permitted. In no way am I condoning the actions of the Confederacy. I just wish that we would have found another way to move forward against the South.
Yes, Lincoln bent the hell out of the law but he was ALL about keeping the union together it breaking it apart was NOT an option.
He was all about Federal Government was the end all BUT NOT the enslavement of it's people…..
Obama is ALL about the government ENSLAVING the people. Got it? Good!
Agreed. Dishonest Abe and Dishonest Obe are strangely similar.
Lincoln violated the Constitution when he took it upon himself to go to war against the Confederate Government, and destroyed any future opportunity for states' rights in the long-term. I'm not defending the South. Slaver was an abomination, but there there were other ways to skin that cat.
Chicago Ralph,
I agree with you – both parties have sold out – but President Reagan tore down a wall – why can't we?
Slavery would have ended without a war like it did in countries of the west.
The war was about taxation, not slavery.
HMMMMMMM…..
I don't care for Obama either. If he has his way he will continue to marginalize states (this is already greatly done through the federal tax theft and then play by our rules and you will get x dollars back for your state).
Yes, Lincoln was all about keeping the Union together. However, when the Southern States had enough with the taxation, Lincoln waged war.
I suppose an argument could be made that when the South succeeded, it renounced all claims to constitutional protections and became an enemy of the Union.
Once the Union was preserved, the South regained those rights.
Kinda like terrorists that are captured on enemy soil have no inherent constitutional rights that the US recognizes depite any claims by our progressive masters otherwise….
[...] Email this to a friend | Print | Share on Facebook | Tweet this | // Posted by Justin at 8:19 PM Tagged with: Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama, History, james macgregor burns, leadership, lincoln douglas debates, Obama, politics, popular sovereignty, slavery, statesmanship, stephen douglas [...]
Who has been enslaved by President Obama?
Who……….
Obama is one very sick dude. Can one imagine what the rest of the polticians are like if he is their leader?
And once again people show how deeply integrated the leftist ideology has completely rewritten the history surrounding the War Between the States. Let's get this out of the way, yes, slavery was an issue in the war, but it was not THE issue, it was one of many. Let us set aside the issue of slavery and look at what each side truly stood for:
The south was upset over tariffs that protected northern manufacturing at the expense of southern agriculture, these were Federal level laws that harmed the southern economy and made it difficult to sell their products at a reasonable profit while granting favorable status to northern manufacturing. In short, the Federal government was favoring one segment of the nation at the expense of another.
The dominate voices in the north and in the Republican party of the time wished to forcefully and immediately end slavery with no compensation to the slave-owners. These voices drowned out more moderate ideas of gradual emancipation and compensation plans that some in the south were willing to listen to. To understand why this was such a big deal, it was patent hypocrisy. The demand that the south free all slaves without compensation was not what those in the north had done when they emancipated slaves, they either adopted gradual emancipation, or had some form of compensation, or simply SOLD the slave to people in states that had not emancipated them. So an area of the country where the major economy was not based on slavery had ended the practice, but was demanding that an area that's economy WAS based on it end it with NONE of the outlets they had for themselves to soften the economic problems that would be associated with ending slavery.
Now, as to the Southern states seceding, let's go take a look at the Constitution. Nowhere in the document does it say that the Union, once joined, is perpetual. Nowhere in the document are there notes for withdraw or prohibiting it. Considering that the USA was founded by the colonies withdrawing from another country via a legal document that was ratified by the STATES, it seems to me that the power to withdraw from a political union is inherent in the powers of a State. In short, the 10th Amendment guaranteed the Right of the States to withdraw from the Union. To further confirm this, barely a generation before the War Between the States, the idea of secession was floated over some federal taxation issues, and it was brought up not by the South, but by the Northern states. They did not decide to act on it, but the political idea of secession originated from the North, and was refused to the South in further northern hypocrisy.
As to this idolatry of President Lincoln, it needs to stop so that people can understand that 50% of the modern conflict and Federal Government overreach can be traced back to him and his administration. (The other 50% can be traced back to the High Federalist Chief Justice William Marshal.) It was his decisions and actions that firmly placed the power of the Federal Government as greater than that of the States, rather than equal to. Further, he manufactured outrage and spun the War Between the States to be about liberation of the Slaves and ending slavery, yet did NOTHING to end Slavery in the United States. Lincoln further trampled the Constitution all throughout the War, taking vast powers that were nowhere granted to the Federal government and especially not to the President. He locked up an entire State legislative branch in a Federal fort to prevent them from voting to secede.
Then comes the aftermath of the war and further Northern hypocrisy. Keep in mind the entire philosophical and legal underpinning to invading the south to keep it from seceding was that they could not secede and were therefor in rebellion. First off, some counties of Virginia seceded when the State seceded from the Union and were accepted as part of the United States, this is in patent violation of Constitution unless Virginia actually HAD seceded. These counties were not given back to Virginia, but were formed into a new State: West Virginia. Other things that happened after the War ended was that basically the Federal government treated the Southern States as if they were conquered foreign territory, dividing them up into military districts and forcefully making demands that the States ratify two new Constitutional amendments and passed certain laws before being "readmitted" to the Union. Yes, they called it readmitted, which means that they recognized that the States HAD the right and power to seceded, because otherwise the States that seceded would not have needed to be readmitted to a body they already belonged to.
No, at the end of the day, Obama and Lincoln are very similar. Both are presidents who have grossly overstepped their Constitutional bounds and run roughshod over the will of the States and believe that the Federal government does not answer to anyone and is allowed to do anything, despite what the Constitution says. Let the democrats have Lincoln, he fits in better with them anyway, I'll be sitting over here with the men who truly stood up for States Rights and understood that tyranny is the greatest evil: Henry, Washington, Lee and others.
I don't know, but I think it cost us about $3,000,000.00.
One freed the people who were slaves and the other is busily enslaving all the people.
DON'T EVEN START DOWN THAT ROAD. I pray daily for Obama's return to private life in 2013 with the country still intact.
As the hot air runs out of the HopeyChangey express, those who have invested so much getting BHO into the Whitehouse may decide that he can serve their interests better as a dead martyr.
This must be Secessionist Alzheimer's: You've forgotten everything except your grudges.
As one of my local radio talkers would put it, this is a typical liberal reply: "change the subject and attack." You're not even bothering to try and discuss or debate my points, instead you're resorting to an ad hominem attack on me implying that I'm a southerner holding grudges, which then somehow invalidates my point. Why? Because I'm attacking a sacred cow of American history.
You'll note, I'm not defending slavery, it's indefensible; however, the southern States were well within their right to secede, and the secession was not about slavery, it was about oversteps of Federal power and Federal favoritism. Lincoln did nothing to remedy those issues, and in fact made them worse. He wasn't a great hero, he was simply a man, a man who made bad decisions and forever altered the dynamic between the Federal government and the States, by force of arms no less.
Try again, and how about actually saying something instead of trying to marginalize my points.
As I outline farther down, Lincoln was no Constitutionalist. He overstepped Presidential authority, suspended Rights that were outlined in the Constitution and used the power of the Federal government to trample State autonomy, and I'm not just talking about States that were in open rebellion, he locked up the Maryland legislator in a Federal fort to prevent them from voting on secession.
He might have been a Statesman, but he wasn't a Constitutionalist.
If I may ad a tidbit to Peregry's most excellent post, the republican party of the time used the Declaration as justification for their crusade against the south, a document declaring our open rebellion over the tyranny of the British crown to Old King George himself (the established government at the time).
To then turn around and try to make an argument that such rebellions must be put down even when government no longer respects the life, liberty, and happiness of its citizens, is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Lincoln freed no one. The Emancipation proclamation was worth the paper it was written on, maybe less, since it only free slaves in regions that were not occupied by Federal forces. Anywhere under Federal occupation or that had never voted to secede was unaffected by the proclamation. It was strictly a political move to change the topic of the War and to keep England and France from becoming actively involved.
Re: "Obama, in his own written word, acknowledged his father was NOT ever a U.S. Citizen…"
It's really quite simple. The citizenship of the father, or of the mother, or of both parents, has no impact on Natural Born Citizen status. The only citizens who are excluded are naturalized citizens, such as Arnold S. All other citizens, so long as they were not naturalized, are Natural Born Citizens. The original meaning of Natural Born was simply "born in the country."
Blacks Law Dictionary puts it this way: "“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
And the Wall Street Journal said: 'Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."
President Lincoln exemplifies the greatness of the American People, and the genuine exceptionalism of this great nation. He truly united our country when it was literally being ripped and torn apart. His exceptionalism transcends his death. He had succeded in forging a stronger union, if by no other act than abolishing slavery.
Slavery is still widely practiced in Africa, and especially in the old slave region of Darfur, and areas of sudan, where slavery for hundreds of years, is stil actively practiced by the Muslims. One can only wonder, if Mr. Lincoln is indeed a man that Mr. Obama admires, why Mr. Obama has not spoken out against these flagarent atrocities. Instead we only hear his acquiescent silence, (for example, see AtlasShrugs.com., article dated October 17, 2009). Mr. Obama seems to be transitioning into infamy.
Um, may I ask where that places Washington and the Founding Fathers, given their extremely drastic measures during the Revolution?
And this is BEFORE we start talking about Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Bismarck, Franco, Tito, Khruschev, Brezhnev, Lenin, Trotsky, Ghenghis Khan, Yong-li, Hideyoshi, Tojo, Sukarno, Suharto, Joseph II, Lundendorff, Attaturk, the Young Turks, Castro, Noriega….
Wonderful, the idiot is actually TALKING to himself.
Vunderbar.
Perhaps, but that still leaves a VAST amount of room for difference, which there was.
And Lincoln believed that the States do not have the right to blackmail the Federal government with armed revolt if they do not get their way at the ballot box (which is what the South had DONE for THIRTY YEARS before the Civil War). Hardly unjustified.
No, the South had no issue with TAXATION, they had issue with the fact that they didn't get their way at the ballot box like they had for the past thirty years. So they rose in revolt.
There is no possible way to hide the naked corruption and the fact that the Southern strategy was effectively a form of blackmail towards the entire nation with the threat of war.
How so, knave?
That's comparing apples and oranges
The war was about centralized government, power, and control. If slavery would have ended, then why didn't it end when the war was over? Why did those in the South do everything in their power to punish and prolong the misery of a free people?
All well and good, save for the fact that no matter WHAT you say, those issues were not the cause of the Southern Revolt.
The cause was Lincoln's election, which led the South to secede without even TRYING to reach a compromise or even SEEING how Lincoln would operate. How does that jive with your whole "pwoor opwessed South" theory?
It DOESN'T. Because the South (as you do not notice) had been threatening succession EVERY SINGLE TIME an issue came to the ballot box that they didn't like, most notably over the Presidential elections (namely those of Polk and Pierce). In short, they were blackmailing the rest of the nation with WAR if the rest of the nation had the NERVE to vote for the OTHER GUY in a FREE, DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. Are we supposed to believe that Lincoln's election was an act of Northern aggression against the South?
And as for West Virginia, you are ONCE AGAIN wrong, as shown by the case of Maine's peaceful secession from Massachusetts a few decades before. SImply put, Maine had grown large enough to lobby for its status as an independent state from Massachusetts, and this was ACCEPTED as per the Compromise of 1820, thus creating the LEGAL precedence for an area of a state seceding from another state, even in times of peace. West Virginia fulfilled all the qualifications for statehood, and so it could have defacto asked for secession any time it wished, it just chose to do so when Virginia rebelled against the LEGAL, ELECTED GOVERNMENT of the US. Granted, realpolitik played a role, but that does not change the fact that West Virginia acted within the precedence of Maine.
As for the statement that he did NOTHING to end slavery in the US, asides from the quashing of the illegal revolt of the South (as the Founders themselves defined it when various Loyalist governors stated the "secession" of their territories from the colonies in spite of it being in many cases manifestly against the will of both Patriots and many Loyalists and without indeed, several Loyalists actually PROTESTED such actions as legitimizing the breakaway provinces and damaging Royalist unity), you are forgetting the Emancipation Proclamation (which set the legal precedence for the freeing of Slaves on areas the Union had occupied in the South; yes, it was a massively cynical move, but the fact he risked it at all speaks volumes about it), and the fact that many of those amendments to help finish the emancipation of Slavery largely began to be drafted while Lincoln was in office.
In short, you sir, need to read your history.
good poast.
Obviously, you have never STUDIED the Revolution (see the use of torture, censorship, limited unofficial conscription, and fighting outside the accepted laws of war for the time).
Again, the South had no problem with Federal Favoritism when it favored THEM, and indeed they went to drastic measures to keep it so (see the threats of violent secession in the elections of 1856, 1852, and the list goes on).
I am entirely willing to accept that Lincoln was not perfect, and that in many ways his precedence of enlarged Central power has had a negative effect. However, I feel safe in stating that in many ways that was not the case, particularly given his acceptance of war measures (which were defacto employed by the Founders during their grueling guerilla war against Britain) have indeed helped protect the US throughout the 20th century to the present day (sorry, but can you imagine how leaky our security would be if half of what Lincoln did in that regard was deemed unconstitutional?). And I feel even more secure in stating that the South was hardly fully justified in revolt, and by 1860 neither sought or accepted compromise: it was their way or the highway, and as such they have themselves to ultimately blame.
Until the southern states said you are taxing too much, let us severe our ties.
Firstly, many of the "oversteps" in fact had precedence by the founders, and were confirmed (after the Constitution was drafted) in the War of 1812 (see the martial law imposed upon pretty much all of New England, and the forceful barring of several state assemblies from voting on issues like declaring neutrality).
If he was no Constitutionalist, than it is safe to say that Jefferson, Adams, etc. weren't either.
Welcome to real life. It ain't nice.
I would welcome any state today to tell Obama thanks but no thanks.
Nothing wrong with a handshake and lets go our seperate ways. Then, if the federal government improves, maybe a handshake would bring both parties back in union.
It's not blackmail, it's a check and balance that almost doesn't exist today.
Talk to high school students about mandatory volunteerism all the progressive states are doing it Michigan is at 10 hours a year. Obama wants to increase it to 50 hours a year. Forced work NO Pay tell me what I am missing?
Yes the south had an issue with taxation.
I don't need to marginalize your points. You do that yourself by being wound so tightly around the axle.
Despite all the posturing by Southern apologists to the contrary, slavery was behind the main impetus secession. South Carolina didn't even wait for Lincoln's inauguration. The decades of wrangling over the admission of slave and free states should be a clue that the issue was at white-hot pitch by 1860.
Jefferson Davis's government's exempting plantation owners with more than 20 slaves from the military conscription they imposed on other non slave-owning Southerners doesnn't help your case either.
Government through force, similar to today.
The war of northern aggression can not be compared to the revolutionary war unless you are viewing the northern aggression from the perspective of a southerner. You are clearly not.
The modern day "wars" had and have nothing to do with protection. Why doesn't congress declare war? I know and I bet you do as well.
"The war of northern aggression can not be compared to the revolutionary war unless you are viewing the northern aggression from the perspective of a southerner. You are clearly not."
Oh REALLY? Care to back that up, knave? Because so far, all you have done is call people names without backing anything up. The simple fact is that the FOUNDERS THEMSELVES used many of the "unconstitutional" methods that Lincoln has been so demonized for using, and that said methods have served us well in the 20th (indeed, a large part of the reason for our intelligence failures has been the attempts to "sanitize" intelligence and make it politically correct).
If you cannot argue, than get off the site.
"The modern day "wars" had and have nothing to do with protection."
Oh really? I am sure the thousands of American killed as a result of German and Communist intelligence throughout the 20th century would agree with you. If any of them were still alive, that is.
"Why doesn't congress declare war? I know and I bet you do as well."
Because, simply put, that would shift responsibility onto Congress, which is not something they have been willing to do since Pearl Harbor. Much easier to simply hit the President over the head with it while denying responsibility. See: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam.
And that STILL does not change the fact that you HAVE YET TO ANSWER MY POINTS.
Hardly. It wasn't what they went to war over (taxation of Southern agriculture to help the North and West was hardly new by ANY means).
And I notice you do not address the role blackmail and threats played in Southern "advocacy" during the election years leading up to Lincoln.
Yes, Johnny, let's justify one war by referencing another war of a different time and different cause.
"I would welcome any state today to tell Obama thanks but no thanks."
For what justification? The Founders hardly invisioned that the Union could be dissolved just because of the political equivalent of the wind changing direction without the consent of both parties involved (after all, the reason for our separation from Britain was the violation of our INALIENABLE RIGHTS AS BRITISH CITIZENS rather than simply because the King was taxing us).
"Nothing wrong with a handshake and lets go our seperate ways. Then, if the federal government improves, maybe a handshake would bring both parties back in union. "
Agreed. The problem is that the South didn't SEE it that way. They more or less explicitly stated "vote for our guy or we will forcefully leave the union, and god HELP anyone caught in the crossfire." That is something entirely different.
"It's not blackmail, it's a check and balance that almost doesn't exist today."
Again, what you are proposing is quite different from what the Southern States did in 1860. THAT WAS blackmail, no way around it.
Government will always be through force to some extent (see the Whiskey Rebellion). The question is when that force is used illegally.
Compared to your drivel, I wholeheartedly agree. At least Petegry tried to debate this rationally, and largely succeeded.
No he didn't. Most of those were fairly reasonable extensions of the Constitution's power (particularly the Federal Reserve and Homeland Security).
Your POINT is?
Like today, taxation is nothing new but the governor of Texas spoke of leaving the union.
I'm all for states rights. If the U.S. government oversteps what a state considers reasonable, then by all means break the union.
Wonderful.
Now, how exactly is THAT supposed to invalidate my point?
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of "legal and historical precedent," knave?
No it wasn't. It was about the South's determination to go to lengths that no other nation had gone to in order to perceive slavery by waging insurrection, as you would DAMN WELL know if you actually have READ the accounts of the Confederate leadership.
Taxation as a secondary cause at best.
U can't tie King Lincoln and the war of northern aggression together with the founding fathers. Trying to join tyranny with liberty just doesn't work.
And so I suppose that the South was well within its rights when it used the threat of armed force to force everyone else to play to their tune, as they had during the last thirty years before the outbreak of war?
No, they said "Vote for us, or we will KILL YOU" to a VERY large extent (see the preparations the Confederates made for a march on Washington against POLK following Lincoln's election and PRIOR to his inauguration).
Oh, and does that give the States the right to do whatever they feel like doing, and to break away from the union simply because they did not get their way?
In that case, we go back to the articles of Confederation, with balkanized states incapable of defending liberty and highly vulnerable to being picked off by an invading power one by one.
Perhaps you forgot the reason why the Founders- having experienced the ordeal of the British occupation- were frequently some of the strongest SUPPORTERS of the Constitution and the reduction of State's rights?
I will wait for history to judge Lincoln as for Obama I will judge him now and find him wanting he should not be mentioned in the same breath with Lincoln Weather you like Lincoln or not he was a great leader he was a great orator and he was a great speech writter. This is the essence of the argument from his first Inaugural Address
"Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever — it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."
It is inductive reasoning but it ain't chopped liver.
Hardly. The Emancipation Proclamation set up the legal justification for the elimination of slavery in the areas of the CSA that were occupied by the Union, and was a stepping stone to the total abolition that was being drafted while Lincoln was still in office.
It was partially cynical, but to state that it and Lincoln freed "no one" is so intellectually dishonest I can hardly wrap my head around it.
I already HAVE, knave. Or did they conveniently not teach you about things like the Whiskey Rebellion and the New England Crisis in the War of 1812?
Now, are you going to shape up, or are you just going to act like a spoiled brat that has neither the ability to argue nor the sense to see when he is beaten?
Oh yes, and how was it between "tyranny and liberty", hum?
Or perhaps did you forget the fact that the CSA could not claim that any of its inalienable rights were violated, only that it had lost at the ballot box and chose to go down fighting in the most tragic bloodbath in this nation's history?
The South's refusal to accept the election results of 1860 is what caused the war. And thus the blood of all those killed in the war are on ITS hands.
The fact that the South's rebellion simply did not FIT ANY of the criteria that the Founding Fathers used to justify our rebellion against the British Empire obviously escapes you, DOESN'T it?
And no, the South's decision to not respect the vote of the majority of the nation to the point of bloodshed before crying about how it was victimized and aggressed upon IS the epitome of hypocrisy.
Because they wanted it THEIR way or the highway.
Oh yes, always the scare of a clear and present danger to pick them off one by one, puhlease. Just like we have an enemy around every sand dune, puhlease.
Americans are wising up to the fear mongering by the U.S. government, it won't fly forever.
Obama had a lot of help "enslaving" the American people.
Oh PuhLEAZE. The American people have not been enslaved yet. Perhaps worn down and hooked on the entitlement mindset, but hardly enslaved like in any despotism of note.
True, if the American people DO become enslaved in the future, it is entirely likely that the things you mention might have been stepping stones to bring that about, but as the Founders themselves would point out, that has more to do with human mentality than with whether the Federal Reserve exists.
"Oh yes, always the scare of a clear and present danger to pick them off one by one, puhlease. Just like we have an enemy around every sand dune, puhlease. "
Um, have you EVER actually taken a break from refighting the Civil War to look at the rhetoric of the Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese, the Cubans, the Venezuelans, and virtually every other tinpot regime there is? We don't want for enemies, and it WAS Ben Franklin himself who eloquently drew up the picture telling the colonies to unite or be destroyed by France. During the Seven Years War. BEFORE the Revolution.
"Americans are wising up to the fear mongering by the U.S. government, it won't fly forever."
Oh puhLEAZE. Not another flat Earther who apparently thinks that the rest of teh world doesn't care about us one way or the other.
Even a CURSORY look at modern history would debunk that, and not merely because of much-maligned "US meddling (see Pakistan and Indonesia if you don't believe me)."
[...] Read the original post: » Transformational Leadership or Constitutional Statesmanship … [...]
[...] » Transformational Leadership or Constitutional Statesmanship … – Since his victory the president has made very clear his reverence for the idea of transformational leadership. He has identified “transformative moments” that must be seized, lauded “leaders who are able to bring about transformative … [...]
Great post.
Lincoln also waged that war for 3 months before he ever called Congress into session to gain Congressional approval.
Actually, Lincoln and the ego-in-chief are very much alike. Lincoln was a master politician. That is all. He was no "great emancipator," nor was he a great leader. Freeing the slaves for Mr. Lincoln was a political ploy to garner support for his illegal war against the very constitutionally seceded southern states.
Nobody ever bothers to say that he only freed the slaves in the seceded states. (which he had no control over) The north was allowed to keep slaves.
The writer of this piece obviously was only taught the victor's version of the history of that dark time, and does not have a clue what motivated southerners to secede.
Something interesting to note is that there was a General in the Confederate Army whose given name at his birth was States Rights Gist. Hmmm… seems to indicate that southerners were concerned about states rights long before that first shot was fired in the war between the states. It really is time for folks to get off slavery as an excuse for that war. It was an issue in that war because Abraham Lincoln made it one.
Another way that the 2 are alike is that they are both as racist as the day is long.
At what point does over taxation become slavery?
"For Lincoln, the Constitution was inviolable. He knew that the presidential oath he took to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution defined his responsibility."-
Give me a break! Lincoln is praised by "Lincoln scholars" for having been an obsessive micromanager of the war. He knew everything. He knew that Southern civilians were murdered and plundered from the very beginning, even before the Battle of First Manassas commenced.
He authorized the bombing of Southern cities and he was also apparently obsessed with experimenting with larger and larger weapons of mass destruction – to be used on fellow Americans. He profusely thanked and rewarded officers like Sherman and Sheridan for waging war on civilians, as they did during Sherman’s March, the burning of Atlanta and Columbia, South Carolina, and the burning of the Shenandoah Valley. General Sherman wrote that Lincoln "especially enjoyed" his stories of how Southern women, children and old men were terrorized by Sherman’s "bummers," as his looting, pillaging, plundering, and raping "soldiers" were called.
In reality, the Lincoln Memorial is a temple to the idea that government in America is not voluntary, and never will be as long as Lincoln is its primary symbol and as long as Lincoln mythology remains the state’s cornerstone ideology. Lincoln micromanaged the murder of some 350,000 fellow Americans, including more than 50,000 civilians, in order to "prove" his point that the central government is indeed not voluntary, the states were never sovereign (so he said), and that any group of citizens who contemplate leaving it will be killed en masse, their cities and towns burned to the ground, and their wealth and personal belongings confiscated by the U.S. Army. If we standardize for today’s population, Lincoln’s killing machine would lead to the death of more than 6 million Americans.
Neocons will apparently never stop lying about Lincoln, but we can all stop believing their lies.
He "SPOKE" a wall down.
Let's let them ALL hear US…
You must be logged in to post a comment.