Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:34:49 UTC+0100 From: Lorenzo Penya <Laurentius-AT-PINAR1.csic.es> Subject: Lincoln's aggression In a previous post (on October 24) I'd put forward an analogical argument against the legitimacy of the Catholico-Mohammedan secession in Yugoslavia, Bryan quotes my argument: When the Southern states illegally seceded, thus triggering the American civil war, did US troops commit aggression against the secessionists by attacking them? You only can call such an attack an `aggression' if you assume the right to secession. The Southern states had no such right either from a moral or from a legal view-point. To which he replies (on Nov 13): I consider Lincoln's attack aggression, yes. Later on, UticaRose-AT-aol.com commented (on Tue, 14 Nov 1995) Bryan's "strike back" involved one concession which was truly remarkable. Lincoln's attack as aggression ?? Suppressing a slaveholder rebellion was not an act of aggression, except in the later mythology of the lost cause. Can a war of liberation be characterized as aggression ?? Against whom and for what end ?? Certainly not aggressive toward the enslaved Afro-Americans residing in the South. and Bryan replied (on Mon, 13 Nov 1995 surely these are different time- zones) I stand by my characterization for several reasons. 1. Legally, - and this is important in the context of my argument, which involved Lorenzo's urging of a legalist point of view - legally, states have the right to secede. The states that made up the CSA did so. 2. Ethically, I've always supported the right to secede. We can go into this at greater length if folks care. 3. Tactically, Lincoln bore most of the blame for initiating full scale war. The south's only warlike acts were to seize federal military bases - which could not be expected to persist. Four or more of these sites were taken peacefully. Lincoln set aside diplomatic solutions to these seizures and decided on full-fledged war. 4. I don't support governments, generally; this places me at odds with Leninists and Gramscians, but I live with it (and we argue about this on this list). So I'm not willing to support a bourgeois military machine even in a good cause. Maybe you are. Of course I'm not coming out in support of slaveholding. And I consider the southern states to be reprehensible. Their *act* of secession I admire, but my hope would be for continued fits of secession, the breaking down of state authority and replacement by local communities. Among other reasons, I like this strategy because it seems to open up new possibilities for class struggle... (My apologies for the long quotation, but I do not know how to summarize what it says.) 1.-- There was no legal basis for the secession. The Constitution of the United States of America and the other juridical documents founding the new Republic at the end of the 18th century made no provision for eventual secession. The colonies renounced any such right (supposing they had it before entering the Union) and committed themselves to perpetual union. The international treaties recognizing the existence and independence of the USA attributed to them (to it, as we now say) a certain territory (very large, even before the Louisiana purchase, but that's neither here nor there) without any provision whatever for future dismantlement or breaking up of the new state (`state' in the international political-law sense). If I am wrong, please, Bryan, be so good as to quote the legal documents upon which, to your mind, the Confederates could base their secession. Admittedly, the ruling dynasties in England, Spain, France and Belgium supported the rebels (to different degrees). They wanted to recognize the secession. They did not dare do so. Even had they been so bold as to extend official diplomatic recognition to Richmond, their act would have been legally worthless, since they were bound by international treaties making it mandatory to recognize the independence and integrity of the USA. That the lack of any provision for secession in the Constitution meant that separation was banned is borne out by three juridical arguments: (1) There was no legal precedent for any right to secede, so the mere absence of a recognition of any such putative right meant its rejection (a common-law argument which is clearly consonant with the procedures characterizing the Anglo-Saxon juridical tradition, but is also valid from a more general view-point). (2) Granting any right to secede to the states would entail putting the international community before a thorny dilemma and multiplying reasons or pretexts for war; since the juridical order exists so as to favour human peaceful and fruitful coexistence, in cases of doubt such interpretation as is the most favourable to securing such ends is the one to be preferred. (3) if a separation had been ever so vaguely envisaged, some provision would have been made for the assignment of common assets, the territories acquired through the westward expansion -- the Louisiana purchase, Oregon and the lands seized from Mexico through the rapine war of 1847; when the secession took place, even the Federal installations in Dixieland were a subject for dispute (hence Fort Sumter and the first shots of the civil war). As far as i know Lincoln's own statement (in his Inauguration speech) against the legality of any secession on the part of the Southern states has never been convincingly countered by pro-confederate advocates to this day: I hold that in contemplation of universal law and the constitution, the union of these states is perpetual. [...] It is safe to assert that no government ever had a provision in its organic law for its termination. No state upon its mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union. I therefore consider that the Union is unbroken and shall take care that the laws of the Union are faithfully executed in all the states. Lincoln told the secessionists (as if he had thought of Bryan Alexander's argument): `You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors'. 2.-- The only reason for secession was the desire to preserve slavery and even, if possible, to enlarge the slave territory north of the Mason- Dixon line in the new Western territories (the Kansas events anticipated the war). Thus, secession and slavery rest or fall together. If slavery is wrong, so was secession, which had no other purpose but that of maintaining and strengthening slavery. The secessionists had no other plans. Their movement did not aim at a better form of government, at any sort of publicly supported welfare or anything of the sort (that's obvious, but it must be remembered). Some separatist movements may have some degree of moral legitimacy on account of their advocating some social or moral advance. No such thing was the case with the Confederates. Thus, from a moral view-point (still more strongly than from a legal one) their secession was unjustified. They were the initiators of conflict and for the worst possible cause. 3.-- When a band of criminal terrorists kidnap innocent and defenceless civilians, public armed forces are right to intervene against the aggressors. The confederates were a gang of such criminals, only on a huge scale. Slavery is against natural law, but it can be cogently argued to also be against positive law, too. In fact by upholding slavery, before abolition, the governments of the time were violating basic clauses of their own juridical principles; so abolition could be convincingly argued for from a purely legal view-point. The secession meant that all people kept illegally in bondage were to waive any hope of liberation. Secession also meant increased difficulties for the functioning of the `underground railway', the clandestine path to freedom in Canada for many run-away slaves. What is more (and less contentious) secession endangered the rights of freemen (and freedwomen), i.e. of blacks who had been individually emancipated. That is obvious, too: the slave-owners were bent on making their life more difficult in order to thwart their help to runaway slaves and renewed uprisings (like Nat Turner's). Thus, acting against a massive kidnapping of millions by a bunch of merciless criminals, Lincoln (despite his lukewarm attitude towards abolitionism at the start of the war) was acting rightly. The kidnappers, not the police, are to blame in such cases. (Unfortunately, the police nowadays very often helps the criminals, especially if they are skinheads.) 4.-- Bryan, you do not support governments of big or middle countries, but apparently you do support governments of small countries. Dixie still was a huge country, you know (at least 10 times bigger than Spain). It developed a bourgeois military machine (nay, many former members of the federal military joined the Confederate army, as they were Southerners). You do not support slavery. But without the American civil war, slavery would still exist. To start with, in the so-called Confederate States of America themselves. Then in Russia, in Cuba, in Brazil, in Africa, in India, in China, etc etc. Abolition of bondage or serfdom (the difference is very tricky) by Czar Alexander II was a direct consequence of the American civil war. The 1st Spanish Republic abolished slavery in Puerto Rico en 1873. The restored Spanish monarchy finally was compelled to abolish it in Cuba in 1880 (by the Zanjon pact). Some years later, it was at last abolished in Brazil. And so on. Nothing like that would have happened without the American civil war. Nor is it likely that later on the confederates themselves would have peacefully given up slavery. Nor is it credible that, should Lincoln have followed Buchanan's policy (doing nothing against the rebels), later on the federal government would have started a recovery war against the South: had the confederacy been allowed to take root and secure international recognition, the enterprise would have become all but impossible. It is always regrettable when human affairs lead to war and progress cannot been achieved through peaceful means. But among all wars waged by humans, none has been more just, or more conducive to greater human happiness and fraternity, than Lincoln's war against the Confederate States of America. |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Prof. Lorenzo Penya | Fax & Voice Tph #(home): +341/8030948 | | Editor of SORITES +----------------------------------------+ +--------------------------------| Main Tel (w): +341/4117060, ext 18 | | Regular Mail Address: | Altern. Tel (w): +341/4111098, ext 286 | | CSIC - Institute of Philosophy | Fax (w): +341/5645252 | | Pinar 25 +----------------------------------------+ | E - 28006 Madrid, Spain | E-address: Laurentius-AT-pinar1.csic.es | +++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++=+++ ftp://olmo.csic.es/pub/sorites/Editorial.Cabinet/Lorenzo.Penya/Profile.html ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005