In a speech in 1848 on the Mexican War, Abraham Lincoln said, “…Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and belive, is to liberate the world…”
The transcript of the entire speech is here in the Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress. In that thread, and indeed just about everywhere on the Web you can find reference to it, the statement is used to bolster claims that Lincoln (while in Congress as a representative of a state, at least) supported the right of states to secede from the Union.
I read it differently in the context of the speech as a whole. I read it as a statement of realpolitik, an acknowledgement that people may from time to time revolt against their givernment, and if they have the power by force of arms to make it stick, they may govern themselves as they see fit.
“Feh,” I say. The quote is in the middle of a discussion of how the border between Mexico and Texas should be decided. Lincoln’s answer is that the border should be fixed according to who is actually controlling what territory. Though it recognizes some sort of right to revolution, it also recognizes that revolutions may be put down by force of arms.
The South rebelled. The South got its ass righteously kicked. End of story.
“The sword is mighty, but principles laugh at swords. Overwhelming force may crush truth to earth but, crushed or not the truth is STILL the truth.”
If the principle of self government was true in the Declaration of Independence, and true in Lincoln’s speech concerning border designations, it’s true concerning the South’s right to hold their own revolution (not rebellion, THAT was the term assigned it by the Federal government in an attempt to dodge the fact Mr. Lincoln’s “U.S.” was becoming a tryantical hegmonic government.).
The South’s “War for Independence” was a carbon copy of the “American Revolution” in act and deed. The difference was that England was much further and less capable of affording the costs associated with a long distance, long term war, AND the did not have the backing/support of another country.
“If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession of 3,000,000 colonists in 1776, why did it not justify the secession of 5,000,000 Southerns from the Union in 1861?”
Horace Greeley
This is not an outdated principle, Can you count how many “new” countries the U.S. has helped create from states in Russia, and other well established countries?
I don’t understand. Does anything in your post address my question? Did Lincoln support the right of states to freely secede, WITHOUT interference by the central government? That was certainly your implication in the GQ thread earlier.
I wouldn’t call it a revolution. The Confederacy didn’t propose any ideology, governmental structure, or view of society. In fact, the Confederate constitution was almost identical to the U.S. constitution, except for its explicit statement that slavery be allowed, and a single, six year term for the president. The mood of the founders of the Confederacy was not revolutionary…if anything, it was reactionary. It saw US society changing, though large-scale immigration, rapid industrialization and the growing belief that slavery was a moral evil, and its response to those changes was to secede and say “Leave us alone and let us live as we always have lived.”
Also, most of the states making up the Confederacy seceded before President Lincoln even took office. Their secession and the labeling of it as a rebellion had nothing to do with Lincoln’s attempt to create “a tyrannical, hegemonic government”.
What “constructive” can be said about a society that went to war to preserve a society that depended upon human slavery in order to keep an essentially feudal economic and social system in place?
Lincoln proclaimed a “right of revolution” as distinct from a “right of peaceable secession”. It would be foolish for any American to deny the right of revolution–we had revolted against Great Britain, and the Texan settlers had revolted against Mexico, which precipitated the discussion on the House floor in which Lincoln took part. In both cases, the revolting parties expected to have to fight for their freedom. They did not expect their overlords to freely concede it.
You know, BobT, you could always go find a thread about abortion, or gun control, or whether God exists, or pornography. I’m sure you could bring everyone to consensus on those issues.
Well it sure sounds like Abe was in favor of “secession” if the people thought they could do better. This idea is also supported in the Declaration of Independence, only the declaration refers to it not as “secession”, but “dissolving political bands”. And thats just what our forefathers did.
After the Declaration of Independence, the states kicked English ass. Things didn’t work out quite so well for the southern states that attempted to secede. See, that’s the bit of Lincoln’s speech that the Confederate apologists are apparently missing: Sure, Lincoln says, you can try to “shake off the existing government.” But just because you try it doesn’t mean the “existing government” has any sort of obligation to let you get away with it, and if you get your ass kicked for the attempt, well that’s just the way these things work out.
Also, I am not sure of the legitimacy of the Southern states claim that they had the right to secede to preserve the lifestyle of its people when they denied basic rights to approximately 4 million of its 9 million people. I know that slaves considered property instead of people, but in fact they WERE people that lived under one of the worst forms of tyranny ever invented.
I’m having a little trouble with the pragmatic interpretation of the “right to revolution” statement. Does this mean I have a “right” to break into your home, kill you, and rape your wife and daughters if I have the balls and the guns to get away with it? I had supposed that the term “right” implied some appeal to a higher moral principle- to rebel against tyranny for example- rather than “I’m powerful enough to get my way”.
Well, read the entire speech, and don’t just take the line out of context. When Texas won its independence, there was a disagreement with the Mexicans as to where the border was. The Texans said the border should be the Rio Grande, the Mexicans, the Rio Nueces. Later, after Texas joined the US, Polk, to provoke a war. sent troops to the Rio Grande, who were shot at by Mexican troops.
Lincoln, in his speech, is arguing that Polk’s claim, that the border is the Rio Grande, and therefore he had the right to send soldiers there, is false. So, Lincoln’s saying, “Look, Texas had a revolution against Mexico and set up their own country, and we can all agree they should have, but in their revolution, they didn’t control all the way to the Rio Grande, so the border shouldn’t be there.”
The speech hurt him enough as it is. If he had said something like “Texas had no right to gain its independence from Mexico, and we should give it back”, that would have ended his political career.
