Perspective of a Patriot

Context is everything so I thought it very appropriate that today was the time for me to review Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address right after reading State Sovereignty and the Senate with its review of the damage to federalism that was a result of the passage of the 17th amendment. The casket of federalism was virtually sealed by the 17th amendment but a major step in weakening this important structure in our system of government came because of the Civil War which many people blame more or less on the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. Lincoln was very much aware of how his election was viewed among the Southern states as seven of the then thirty-six states had announced their secession before his inauguration. It was because of those secessions that  so much of this address was given for the purpose of calming their fears while asserting his intention to not recognize their secession. It failed to calm  or reclaim any states, but  it contains some valuable food for thought as we try to restore the foundations of the liberty that was protected by the Constitution. I’d like to review some of his statements from the speech with a view to our present circumstances.[quote]

Quoting from the party platform:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend;

Today we have a federal government that  dictates in large measure how and where to build roads and other forms of transit (I’m not just talking about the interstate system here), what kind of medical care should be provided at government expense (and who should be aligible to receive it), what forms of energy should be pursued, and they hope to define what kind of identification states should issue for official purposes. That’s just a short list of federal intrusions upon state control over state domestic institutions off the top of my head.

All members of Congress swear their support to the whole constitution

This is still true today. Sadly it would seem that the majority of the members of Congress should be fired (replaced in elections) and charged with perjury based on their implementation of their oath of office.

Lincoln makes a compelling argument for the perpetual nature of the nation which we should consider today anytime we hear or engage in speculation on the subject of secession:

if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it — break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

. . .

It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, — that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void

This is not to say that curcumstances could never warrant the breaking of the perpatual union, but to do so peacably and legally would require the consent of the whole government as well as the desire of the seceeding state(s). Lincoln put it this way:

If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other.

This absolute truth is the reason that we can predict the coming of a crisis on some issues – we are able to see instances where neither the majority nor the minority are willing to compromise of acquiesce. Whether we find ourselves in the majority or the minority on any given issue we must remember that:

A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks, and limitations, and always changing easily, with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that rejecting the majority principle, anarchy, or despotism in some form, is all that is left. (emphasis added)

I think that Lincoln captured the essence of what the Constitution was designed by the founding fathers to ensure:

While the people retain their virtue, and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government, in the short space of four years. (emphasis added)

The question will always remain for each succeeding generation – do the people today retain both their virtue and their vigilance?