It’s a Free Country. For How Much Longer?

[David Lockmiller]

On April 3, 2024 the New York Times published a book review of the three books written by Parker Henry, a graduate student in philosophy at Stanford University. He has previously written for the New Yorker. The title of the three-book review is: “It’s a Free Country. For How Much Longer?”

The author of one of those books being reviewed is the historian Allen C. Guelzo and the book is titled OUR ANCIENT FAITH: Lincoln, Democracy, and the American Experiment.

The book reviewer wrote as follows:

In 1861, Guelzo writes, when rioters in Baltimore attempted to stop Union militia members from traveling to Washington, Lincoln authorized “his generals to arrest and imprison suspected saboteurs without trials or charges.”

As critics accused Lincoln of leading an unconstitutional dictatorship, he wondered whether free republics had a “fatal weakness”: “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?” Lincoln erred on the side of governmental strength . . . .

I do not believe that this is a correct conclusion by the book reviewer.

The quotation is part of President Lincoln’s Message to a Special Session [of Congress], July 4, 1861:

[T]he assault upon, and reduction of, Fort Sumter was, in no sense, a matter of self-defence on the part of the assailants. They well knew that the garrison in the Fort could, by no possibility, commit aggression upon them. …In this act, discarding all else, they have forced upon the country, the distinct issue: “Immediate dissolution, or blood.”

And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man, the question, whether a constitutional republic, or a democracy—a government of the people, by the same people – can, or cannot, maintain its territorial integrity, against its own domestic foes. It presents the question, whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, according to organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily, without any pretense, break up their Government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: “Is there, in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness?” “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?” So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the Government; and so to resist force, employed for its destruction, by force, for its preservation.

Ironic, almost four years later, President Lincoln returned to this same question of democratic government on the night that his reelection was confirmed:

On November 10, 1864, in response to a serenade from his supporters, President Lincoln began his short speech with this observation:

"It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its own existence, in great emergencies."

[Rob Wick]

David,

As usual, you only tell half the story. Here is the full quote from Parker:

"Lincoln erred on the side of governmental strength, but he knew that motives and endgames were important. He warned his generals against revenge ('blood cannot restore blood') and insisted that 'as soon as the Rebel armies laid down their arms,' they should immediately be 'guaranteed all their rights as citizens of a common country.'”

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this comment. Most historians agree that Lincoln's actions, in the hands of someone less heroic, would immediately be seen as anti-democratic and authoritarian. That you choose to highlight the word "erred" can only lead me to believe that, once again, you cannot stomach someone failing to see Lincoln as the god you have created. For a more nuanced image, I urge you to read James G. Randall's Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln and Daniel Farber's more recent, Lincoln's Constitution.

Also, you misuse the word "ironic." It isn't ironic that Lincoln discussed the topic in both 1861 and 1864 in different speeches. I would define that as coincidental.

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

The following is from a post that I made on August 21, 2020.

Thread title: RE: Maryland constitutional questions after Fort Sumter

The first constitutional issue was whether the federal government could intercede and prohibit a vote in the state legislature of Maryland on the question of whether or not that state would secede from the Union.

Team of Rivals, page 354:

For days, the rioting in Baltimore continued. Fears multiplied that the Maryland legislature, which had convened in Annapolis, was intending to vote for secession. The cabinet debated whether the president should bring in the army "to arrest , or disperse the members of that body." Lincoln decided that "it would not be justifiable." It was a wise determination, for in the end, though secessionist mobs continued to disrupt the peace of Maryland for weeks, the state never joined the Confederacy, and eventually became, as Lincoln predicted, "the first of the redeemed."

The second constitutional issue was whether the president had the constitutional right to rescind the basic constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest.

Team of Rivals, page 354-55:

Receiving word that the mobs intended to destroy the train tracks between Annapolis and Philadelphia in order to prevent the long-awaited troops from reaching the beleaguered capital, Lincoln made the controversial decision. If resistance along the military line between Washington and Philadelphia made it "necessary to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus for the public safety," Lincoln authorized General Scott to do so. In Lincoln's words, General Scott could "arrest, and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to public safety." Seward later claimed that he had urged a wavering Lincoln to take this step, convincing him that "perdition was the the sure penalty of further hesitation."

Lincoln had not issued a sweeping order but a directive confined to this single route. Still, by rescinding the basic constitutional protection against arbitrary arrest, he aroused the wrath of Chief Justice Taney, who . . . blasted Lincoln and maintained that only Congress could suspend the writ.

Lincoln later defended his decision in his first message to Congress. As chief executive, he was responsible for ensuring "that the laws be faithfully executed." An insurrection "in nearly one-third of the States" had subverted the "whole of the laws . . . are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" His logic was unanswerable, but as Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall argued in another context many years later, the "grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure."

The book reviewer wrote as follows:

In 1861, Guelzo writes, when rioters in Baltimore attempted to stop Union militia members from traveling to Washington, Lincoln authorized “his generals to arrest and imprison suspected saboteurs without trials or charges.”

As critics accused Lincoln of leading an unconstitutional dictatorship, he wondered whether free republics had a “fatal weakness”: “Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?” Lincoln erred on the side of governmental strength . . . .

I do not believe that this is a correct conclusion by the book reviewer.

[Rob Wick]

Quote:I do not believe that this is a correct conclusion by the book reviewer.

Well, you're wrong. Look at the definition of "erring on the side."

"to use or show more of (something) than may be needed so that one can be sure that he or she is using or showing enough of it."

As he often did, Lincoln showed enough strength so that Maryland (and others he also wanted to take notice) knew that if they attempted to do serious harm, they would be dealt with firmly regardless of public opinion. Yet he also gave them an out in that his orders were specific and not too broad (a point that Parker makes and you, again, hide).

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

(04-04-2024 02:54 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Well, you're wrong. Look at the definition of "erring on the side."

"to use or show more of (something) than may be needed so that one can be sure that he or she is using or showing enough of it."

As he often did, Lincoln showed enough strength so that Maryland (and others he also wanted to take notice) knew that if they attempted to do serious harm, they would be dealt with firmly regardless of public opinion. Yet he also gave them an out in that his orders were specific and not too broad (a point that Parker makes and you, again, hide).

Best
Rob

Dictionary.com states:

"err on the side of caution" means "to reduce risk by planning or acting more carefully than might seem absolutely necessary."

Example: "Budget for all your known expenses, but err on the side of caution by also allowing funds for unforeseen circumstances."

I quoted Doris Kearns Goodwin in my Post #3:

Receiving word that the mobs intended to destroy the train tracks between Annapolis and Philadelphia in order to prevent the long-awaited troops from reaching the beleaguered capital, Lincoln made the controversial decision. If resistance along the military line between Washington and Philadelphia made it "necessary to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus for the public safety," Lincoln authorized General Scott to do so.

[Rob Wick]

David,

Where did anyone say "caution?" As always, you are comparing apples and oranges. My definition was "erring on the side of" without any other word.

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

(04-05-2024 08:18 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  David,

Where did anyone say "caution?" As always, you are comparing apples and oranges. My definition was "erring on the side of" without any other word.

Best
Rob

In your post #4, you write: "As he often did, Lincoln showed enough strength so that Maryland (and others he also wanted to take notice) knew that if they attempted to do serious harm . . . ."

The problem is that the book reviewer did not make reference to this action taken by President Lincoln. And, I am not sure whether the Maryland legislature issue is considered to be "an apple or an orange."

[Rob Wick]

David,

Try to follow me here. Your main argument was that Parker was incorrect when he wrote that "Lincoln erred on the side of governmental strength, but he knew that motives and endgames were important. He warned his generals against revenge ('blood cannot restore blood') and insisted that 'as soon as the Rebel armies laid down their arms,' they should immediately be 'guaranteed all their rights as citizens of a common country.'”

I said there was nothing wrong with Parker's point of view, which merely meant that Lincoln was willing to use extralegal force if needed but preferred not to and would likely have set limits on its use; hence, Parker's idiom "erred on the side of governmental strength."

I then proffered a definition of "erred on the side" without any other words. You attempted to define "err on the side of caution," which neither Parker nor I ever wrote. Hence, your attempt at definition was the apple to my orange of trying to define "erred on the side."

Quote:The problem is that the book reviewer did not make reference to this action taken by President Lincoln.

Really? And what do you call "erred on the side of governmental strength," then?

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

(04-05-2024 05:04 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  David,

Try to follow me here.

Best
Rob

Rob,

I have no idea what you are saying here.

The issue was that if President Lincoln had permitted the bad guys to destroy access to the rail transportation for the troops from New York, Washington was in danger of being successfully attacked and captured by rebellion troops. As Doris Kearns Goodwin is quoted in my post #3: "Seward later claimed that he had urged a wavering Lincoln to take this step, convincing him that 'perdition was the the sure penalty of further hesitation.'"

There is no possible way in the world, that the step taken by President Lincoln can be considered as "Lincoln erred on the side of governmental strength" by doing too much. Democracy for the world may have been lost if this necessary step for the protection of Washington had not been made.

[Rob Wick]

David,

You need to get over the use of the word "erred." As it is used it doesn't mean Lincoln made a mistake. It is used as I described it in an earlier post as an idiom. You also need to get over your hero-worship, but I think Lincoln has a better chance of coming back to life before that happens.

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

(04-06-2024 07:20 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  David,

You need to get over the use of the word "erred." As it is used it doesn't mean Lincoln made a mistake. It is used as I described it in an earlier post as an idiom. You also need to get over your hero-worship, but I think Lincoln has a better chance of coming back to life before that happens.

Best
Rob

Thanks for the compliment.

[Gene C]

I'm confused here.

Who erred on the use of the word "erred"
A. Rob
B. David
C. Parker Henry
D. Ida Know

[Rob Wick]

(04-06-2024 05:24 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I'm confused here.

Who erred on the use of the word "erred"
A. Rob
B. David
C. Parker Henry
D. Ida Know

Gene,

Twarn't me!

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

(04-06-2024 06:28 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

(04-06-2024 05:24 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I'm confused here.

Who erred on the use of the word "erred"
A. Rob
B. David
C. Parker Henry
D. Ida Know

Gene,

Twarn't me!

Best
Rob

Gene, it twer' Rob.

Ask yourself, Gene: "Just how far would a train filled with Union soldiers get without rails to run over?"

[Rob Wick]

When I argue with you, David, it always takes me back to my childhood, given that I gave up your viewpoint of Lincoln at age 8 for a more mature picture of who he was. I do think you would be money ahead to buy a book on how idioms are used. I'm sure a city as big as San Francisco has a few bookstores. Maybe try to find a book that presents a more mature and nuanced view of Lincoln while you're at it.

Best
Rob