Lincoln’s Surveillance State
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
* Apr. 19, 1861 -- Lincoln imposed a blockade on Southern ports of South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Did Congress declare war? No. Constitution violated.
* Apr. 20, 1861 -- Lincoln ordered the Sec. of Treasury to spend public money for defense without congressional appropriation, violating the Constitution.
* Apr. 27, 1861 -- Lincoln made the unprecedented move of suspending, through an unconstitutional order, the writ of habeas corpus, or the protection against unlawful imprisonment. Lincoln signed a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because the Judge rendered an opinion that Lincoln acted unconstitutionally by suspending the writ of habeas corpus.
* Lincoln had U.S. Rep. Clement Vallandigham of Ohio arrested for “disloyal sentiments and speeches.” Vallandigham opposed the Morrill Tariff and the central bank.
* An estimated 13,000 Northern citizens were detained for merely expressing opposition to the war. This group contained hundreds of newspaper editors and owners. None of these people ever heard evidence against them and were never brought to trial.
* During the war, adult male civilians in the South were compelled to take a loyalty oath to the federal government or be shot. In the words of Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, Lincoln had established “a military despotism.”
LewRockwell.com also has some interesting articles on Lincoln, but they redesigned the site so a lot of links on Google are broken for now.
Historical evidence for the purported warrant comes from a book written by a Lincoln confidant and bodyguard named Ward Lamon in the 1880s.
Wow...
If that's all you see in Lincoln... you have really bought in to all of that Southern Propaganda.
No reason to argue the point with you ... clearly you are the type for whom the world is "black and white". Your mind is made up.
I just wanted to let you know, you'll probably be unhappy here in the United States, because the majority do not share your view.
War has historically been against a nation-state, or possibly a land mass or ethnicity. And there is clear endgame: surrender by recognized leaders, or unequivocal military domination. But terrorist cells have no leaders, and cannot surrender en masse. And the only way to dominate them militarily is to dominate the entire globe.
The "War on Terror" is not a war. It is declaration of ownership, that says we can deploy military might whenever and wherever we want.
Those characteristics make them great vehicles for political manoeuvring and expansion of government spending and powers. And this is why I think neither will ever end; I could not see any politician willingly throwing away such a tool. I mean, look at the War on Drugs... we've been "fighting" for over 40 years and are no closer to an end.
Look at what we've lost already to the War on Terror, then try to imagine what we will have given up 30 years from now.
But yes, both the WoD and WoT employ similar tactics: disproportionate power and violence under the guise of safety, while downplaying the human and financial costs to a broader public who is mostly insulated from the reality of the situation.
In both cases, I don't think the motivations for doing so are singular; there's a little racism in there, a little classism, a little jingoism, a good helping of perverse financial incentives, and perhaps most insidiously, Just Because We Can. (See "Lord of War" or "Thank You For Smoking": people like doing what they're good at.)
Me: Ok, ok, so you're at war. Is this a civil war?
This Other Guy: No, no it isn't.
M: Ok, so you are at war with someone.
TOG: Yes!
M: And... who are you at war with?
TOG: Terrorists! We're at war with terrorists!
M: Fair enough... so where's their army?
TOG: Ah, no, see, this is kind of tricky. This is an unusual enemy. His army can be everywhere!
M: Ok, but you aren't fighting them where they might be, you have to fight them where they are. You can't do much war otherwise...
TOG: Well yes, but you can't just wait for them to pop up and blow up your brains. You have to be everywhere!
M: So then, if you're everywhere, you will always have someone to fight with.
TOG: Yes! And he's definitely going to be a terrorists!
I never really decided to stop flogging that point. But I haven't in years. Maybe I'll start up again. Maybe people are more ready to hear it. Perhaps you would care to take up the term too?
Slavery wasn't just "used more as a political weapon"--it was one of the primary political and human issues dividing the united States (downcase intentional). The acts of secession were seen as in violation of the Constitution and a detriment to building a United States (upcase intentional). To suggest slavery was merely "used more as a political weapon" reads as if there's an implicit statement that it was not a huge political problem. The facts of history overwhelmingly suggest that it was. There is a reason that long before the civil war, Americans considered themselves to be members of either free states or slave states.
Moreover, there is far more historical evidence to suggest that the war, and not slavery, was "used more as a political weapon" to resolve the divisive issues surrounding slavery and the primacy of the US Constitution. Suggesting that slavery was used as a political weapon falls down when one looks at the post-assassination history, particularly the negotiations between the Johnson administration and the reconstructing state governments in the South. American support for the abolition of slavery had been present since the time of the Constitution. The problem in the intervening 70 years was that most people saw slavery as constitutionally protected, requiring a political solution that would abolish it permanently (e.g., an amendment). The war was, ultimately, the political weapon used to find a solution.
Even as far back as the ratification of the Constitution, these tensions existed. Twenty years prior, in the 1770s, there were already known and notable movements to abolish slavery in the colonies. Lincoln introduced an amendment to a resolution abolishing slavery in DC in 1849. The Compromise of 1850 leaves zero room to suggest that slavery was not an inherently and fundamentally divisive issue for which the Congress was trying to find any peaceful, political way possible to resolve it while mitigating growing tensions. The Kansas-Nebrasks Act of 1854 brought Lincoln back out of what looked like political retirement because he felt it was wrong to leave the slavery question a matter of popular vote in new territories. His opinions on slavery are well-documented, before and during his presidency.
> This declared indifference, but I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself...it deprives our republican institutions to taunt us as hypocrites...the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity...it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self interest.
> The doctrine of self-government is right-absolutely and eternally right-but has no just application as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that whether it has such just application depends on whether a negro is not or is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man, is not to that extent, a destruction of self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also governs another man, that is more than self-government-that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal,' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another...What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without the other's consent.
> Allow all the governed an equal voice in the government, and that and that only is self-government...Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a ‘sacred right of self-government.'...Let us return to the position our fathers gave it...Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence. We shall have so saved [the Union], that the succeeding millions of free happy people, the world over, shall rise up, and call us blessed, to the latest generations.
Perhaps close to your cited statement on Lincoln's wanting to keep slavery and the Union, you are mischaracterizing his intent:
> ...Nebraska is urged as a great Union-saving measure. Well I too go for saving the Union. Much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the extension of it rather than see the Union dissolved, just as I would consent to any great evil, to avoid a greater one. Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature-opposition to it is in his love of justice...repeal all past history, you still cannot repeal human nature.
For Lincoln, as with others who sought a political solution, the biggest problem was maintaining fidelity to the Constitution and the Union, while solving what was seen as a national problem:
> You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union.
The apologists for the Confederacy who to this day stupidly refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression, those who try to rewrite the intent of the actors before, during, and after the Civil War--those who attempt to hide behind the statement that the Confederacy seceded to exert and protect States' Rights--willfully ignore history to advance an insidious viewpoint.
Nobody involved, not even Lincoln, disputed that the secession and the resulting Civil War was a matter of States' Rights. More importantly, everyone at the time knew exactly which rights the States were seceeding and fighting to protect.
This is a matter of historical record, not some alleged pro-North viewpoint.
---
Now, beyond that, it is a matter of historical record that Lincoln committed constitutionally questionable actions, based on his interpretation of his wartime powers and other factors. That he committed "many constitutional wrongs" is a likely candidate for debate, but can only be discussed if you care to mention what those wrongs were. This article definitely highlights some of them. Arguing that he "increased the size and scope of the federal government" also requires significant explanation of exactly what you mean. Excluding the wartime expansion of budget and federal employees, which dramatically shrunk after his death and the war's end, what specifically are you referring to here?
As far as your point that it's pro-Union versus pro-North, the Union in the 1860s is practically equivalent to the North. It doesn't detract from the fact that the North meant the Union, and the South the Confederation. Since all the states that attempted to secede are in the South, I think it's fair to say pro-Union is semantically equivalent to pro-North. However, pro-Union seems to be the terminology preferred by victors as it implies consensus while pro-North made it seem like regional differences (in truth it was). The Civil War was about regional differences largely over slavery. For instance, the South sometimes calls the Civil War by another name, ``the War of Northern Aggression." History is always POV. To indicate the indecisiveness on terminology, Wikipedia interchangeably refers to the Union or the North. It's absolutely about the differences with the North and the South. That's why the South attempted to leave the ``united States of America." If the South had won, I might argue that the USA wouldn't cease to exist, it just would only include a subset of the original members.
--
Out to dinner, will draft when I come back
--
Either way though, bikeshedding about the name of each belligerent is to miss the whole point of that wonderful long post. I encourage you to give it another look once you return from dinner before you give your fully-considered response.
That the war was regionally divided does not lend credence to equating pro-Union with pro-North. This is key. Those who fought against state secession were motivated by wanting to preserve the Union and resolve the slavery question, not by wanting to preserve the North and destroy the South. War broke to preserve the Union in the face of Southern states wishing to break it to persist in determining their own right to perpetuate enslavement of Africans. War resulted in resolving both the status of the Union and slavery.
Though I am inclined to agree with you, and have found your posts here extremely illuminating, I am going to play devil's advocate for a moment. The argument I have heard is not that those fighting for the Union wanted to "destroy" the south, but that they wanted to subjugate it economically. While I don't think I could be persuaded that that was the sole motivation and that the slavery issue was nothing more than a cynical cover for it, I could perhaps imagine that there was some degree of truth to it nonetheless. What do you think of this?
The largest counterpoint to this suggestion is in the primary sources themselves. If the claim were true, we should see it throughout the secessionist documents we have available. And we do not. Slavery is the primary issue prevalent in all secessionist sources that convinced the states to withdraw from the union. There was mention of worry about the Republican call for tariffs in the 1860 election, but this did not spread across the whole of the South, nor was it a rallying cry among the secessionists as they whipped up public opinion in support and defense of first the secession, and then the Confederacy itself.
Ultimately, the sources speak for themselves. Take a look at the literature of the time, the pamphlets, the various arguments made for the purposes behind and need for secession and war. Wherever the states seceded, and even within those states wherever pro-Union--by which I do not and the people of the time did not mean the North, but the constitutionally declared perpetual union of the States--had an almost singularly consistent theme: slavery. There were parties and factions, candidates and referendums, that self-identified as slaveowners vs non-slaveowners. There were no demonstrable parties or groups or calls for rallying against the North and dividing the Union to repel Northern economic subjugation.
[EDIT] I worry that I may have failed at directly answering the question by my chosen vector of interrogating secessionist documents, as opposed to those of the Union instead. On that front, to my knowledge, there is ample evidence to suggest that some in the North preferred to allow secession to stand than fight a war to preserve the Union. Some of this has often read to me as the kind of if-you-don't-like-it-then-good-riddance kind of attitude that occurs in these kinds of situations. I don't at the moment have much at my fingertips to state emphatically whether there is significant evidence to support the idea that the North used slavery as a cover to subjugate the South economically. Popularly speaking, this would be difficult to prove. We would need some very strong and persuasive documents from monied interests in the North with significant political power and/or connections, a direct line to the Congress and President, and demonstrated influence on Lincoln's decision to reject secession.
In the end, while secessionist and Northern declarations may have included a varying number of otherwise important reasons for the conflict, there was only one issue that so polarized the nation that one side was willing to break away from the Union and the other was willing to dispute the legitimacy of such an act.
---
Interestingly enough, this economic argument actually began immediately after war broke out (which, curiously for those who wish to dub the war one of Northern aggression, was initiated by the Southern states). More curious, however, is that this argument did not have primacy in America. Instead, it was found in the pages of the London press, arguing from afar that the war was one of tariffs and economic issues perpetrated against the "free trade economy" of the South by the North, had no basis in any principles beyond that of the North's lust for sovereignty, and advocating that the North ought to recognize the seceded states. And then, though certainly never taught to any American student who studies the Civil War, a (now) infamous man who was ever watchful of economic matters, particularly of matters that focused on the abuses of economic power for another group's gain, came out to dismantle these arguments in their entirety. His name? Karl Marx.
Marx wrote a series of articles in 1861-62 attacking the London press and politicians for fabricating reasons to explain the war that were opposed to the facts of what was actually happening in the states. In one article, he even runs down a list of seceded states and data that was available at the time showing that border states, like Tennessee, rejected secession, but were then subjugated by force of arms from the Confederacy, who laid claim to such territory as being rightfully "theirs" and places where the institution of slavery ought to exist.
* If you're interested in more of Marx's articles against the London press, these two are the earliest:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/11/07.htm
A complete listing of his Civil War articles can be found at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war...
You have this backwards, please read the history. The 3/5's compromise was an initiative by northern states to REDUCE the electoral influence of southern states, who argued for 1/1 ratio.
Representation was apportioned according to free, legal persons. The slaveowners argued for representation according to total (free and non-free) population, specifically including slaves, to increase their presence in Congress and the electoral system. The compromise was struck to mitigate disproportionate representation on the basis of counting the slave population who secured no rights as persons, but allowed greater place at the legislative and electoral table.
The compromise can hardly be called a Northern initiative, as it was, specifically a compromise. The South increased its representation 3/5 more than the North wished it to have. During debates for amending the Articles of Confederation, the North wanted to increase the South's burden of taxes, while the South wanted to diminish it. During the Constitutional Convention, however, the greater interest was found in the Southern states' desire to have greater proportional representation that did not exclude slaves (they were both property not deserving of recognition as legal persons, but human beings which the South believed entitled them to greater representation).
As for the capitalization of the U in United States, what a silly pile of garbage. The U is capitalized in both the constitution itself and in the federalist papers.
On that subject, there's a video that it would be great it every American watched. It's made by a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It's about evidence that explosives were used on 9/11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
No contest. Just for anyone reading this, please remember that having crackpots in a movement doesn't make it a crackpot movement.
I didn't say Lincoln preferred slavery. However, I did say that if it were possible to keep the Union (e.g Northern influence) and slavery, Lincoln would have pushed forward for compromise. However, the rift between the North and the South became too big.
As far as the spelling is concerned: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/75428/capitalizin... http://www.standupamericaus.org/sua/wp-content/uploads/2011/...
It was common to use the lower case spelling for ``united" until the Civil War. Remember, you are citing the Federalist Papers, which supports a strong federalist government and thus a capital ``u." The Constitution, yes, capitalized, but some argue it was out of convention for title case. The Declaration of Independence used the lowercase ``united." It widely varied until the end of the Civil War.
You seem to be implying that Lincoln preferred slavery, but allowed it to go because he had to. This is not the case. While Lincoln did say he would have preserved both slavery and the union, he meant that he was against both, but that he placed more importance on preserving the union than on ending slavery. Here is the full quote:
"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. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
I apologize for any confusion if I implied he preferred slavery. I do not believe that to be the case. Perhaps the nuance I was trying to put forward was that he preferred preserving the union, even if that meant keeping the savagery of slavery.
Perhaps an analogy to present day might be DADT. The Obama administration preferred to avoid resolving the issue of DADT immediately, even though his administration wanted to end it at some point, since it would cost significant political capital. However, given the public support at the right time and conditions, DADT was repealed.
"If I could do X and Y, I'd do it" implies a preference for both. Anyway, I get what you mean now, especially since it's the same thing I said.
Governance without the consent of the governed is illegitimate.
The problem is there's no end, nor can there be an end. It's too nebulous. We have always had terrorism, and always will. Just like the war on drugs or poverty.
And just because Lincoln did it.... That doesn't make it right.
Enough with the vapid worship of historical figures. Lincoln is dead. We don't need his permission for anything.
But, as the author points out, these were temporary measures. The founders knew in time of war that somebody, one person, had to be trusted for a short time to work outside the system as he saw fit. They gave presidents broad mandates. For times of war.
But now politicians have redefined the term "war" to mean just about anything. We have a war on drugs, war on terror, war on poverty, war on damned near anything. In addition, Congress has stopped declaring war, even when tens of thousands of soldiers die.
Finally, we toss terrorism into the mix -- amorphous, quasi-state-sponsored, with no real command structure and nobody ever to surrender. It'll just go on forever. Add that to wartime executive powers, and you've got a freaking problem the size of Kansas. Yet nobody seems to really come out and say it. Media personalities will ask every questions imaginable and not address the huge elephant in the room. Meh.
What's that saying about those who fail to remember history are doomed to something something?
We are not in a war, no matter what some say.
(The article actually implies this, but I wanted to clarify for those not reading the article completely.)
I guess it depends on your perspective.
Maybe you aren't, but hundreds of my good friends are, at the behest of the president that, assuming you are a US Citizen, you had a part in electing (also, assuming you are a part of society).
So the people who actually fund and execute wars think "we" are at war. I would say that should pretty much settle it.
Fixed that for you.
But the nation itself is not at war, if that makes sense. So any changes in the day-to-day routine for the average citizen (or the governors of the average citizen) should not be evaluated as if the whole nation is on a war footing.
The problem is that Executives, the Congress, and the Courts have engaged in constitutionally dubious actions during wartime (or ostensible wartimes).
The only solid point is that, regardless of whether one is a critic of the NSA programs, this so-called "war on terror" must reach its culmination so we can right the ship and move forward.
Even if you agree with that, it shows the problems America has today. Because it has stopped declaring wars through Congress, and defining how the war will end, and letting the president start new wars, either directly or indirectly (arming enemies of other countries), there is now a perpetual war.
The "cyber-war" (if they choose to believe they are in cyber-war) is perpetual by definition - which means all those extra-legal powers that are supposed to be temporary, will be virtually permanent, which means the Constitution and other laws will be applied at a much lower standard than before.
Now, this was while he was Sec. of State, before he became Sec. of War. His views later changed, after he took the position as Sec. of War. Ask yourself, "Why?" [1]
It's an interesting piece of history: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Chamber
1. Here's a possible way to think about it: Programmers are familiar with the idea that software is not inherently good or evil; it's how it's used that matters. "A Victorinox can be used to fix your car (good) but it can also be used to disassemble it (evil)." Similarly the data being gathered by mass surveillance programs can be used to further "national security", or it could be used for other (evil) things.
If you accept this way of thinking about surveillance by a government of its own citizens, then it stands to reason that there should be some rules about how the data can be used. Check and balances. Alas, as we see, secrecy governs all aspects of the surveillance process. There is no judicial review of the collectors, except by a secret court... and one that itself lacks details about the process (i.e. how the data is collected). How can the public, even by proxy of its representatives, ever hope to review the application of these programs if they are not even permitted to know about them?
Under this sort of scheme, if a young man with good intentions informs the public, he's already broken the law. No one needs to prove he's harmed national security. It's assumed. Not that she is a good example to compare with, but I guess Rosa Parks broke the law too. She was damned if she did (arrested) and damned if she didn't (to live in a segregated country). The thing is, after she was arrested, she had the support of many people, some of who had considerable influence.
"Mr President, I served with Abe Lincoln. I knew Abe Lincoln. Abe Lincoln was a friend of mine. Mr President, you're no Abe Lincoln." (Prolonged shouts and applause.)
Also... Any kinetic action aimed at an ideology is futile, for as long as there are human beings who differ in their opinions, there will be strife.
What is the most viable option for citizens to change this?
Will everyone have to be on encrypted VPN's?
Will there be a riot on Pennsylvania Ave. that sparks a revolution?
Will each community put up their own wifi weather ballons and set up massive intranets in their neighborhoods?
Or will everyone accept the fact that we're the new slaves - except our cages are a little bigger and less transparent than before?
A VPN only protects data in transit. While everyone should practice good network security, it's not a complete solution. We need a government that will reliably respect our rights, including the right to privacy. Revolutions don't have a very good track record at producing such. I have more hope for the political process, but haven't entirely figured out what that should look like either.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/mar/29/what-di...
It would be easy, comments Oakes, “to string such quotations together and show up Lincoln as a run-of-the-mill white supremacist.” But in private, Lincoln was much less racist than most whites of his time. He was “disgusted by the race-baiting of the Douglas Democrats” and he “made the humanity of blacks central to his antislavery argument.” In a speech at Chicago in 1858, Lincoln pleaded: “Let us discard all this quibbling about…this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position,” and instead “once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.”7
Lincoln’s statements expressing opposition to social and political equality, Oakes maintains, were in fact part of his antislavery strategy. Extreme racism was at the core of the proslavery argument: if the slaves were freed they would aspire to equality with whites, therefore slavery was the only bulwark of white supremacy and racial purity. Lincoln “wanted questions about race moved off the table,” writes Oakes, and “the strategy he chose was to agree with the Democrats” in opposition to social equality. Lincoln understood that most Americans—including most Northerners—believed in white supremacy, “and in a democratic society such deeply held prejudices cannot be easily disregarded.” Thus the most effective way to convert whites to an antislavery position, Lincoln believed, was to separate the issue of bondage from that of race.