A Policy of Perpetuity

In the year 1861 Abraham Lincoln took office, and in doing so along traditional lines made an inaugural speech. The time after winning the election prior to Lincoln taking office was turbulent for the country, “In the months that followed Lincoln’s election, seven states stretching from South Carolina to Texas seceded from the Union”(Foner pg 476) which framed an extraordinary challenge to establish an official stance on the state of the Union which, under the previous administration, had been uncertain “As the Union unraveled, President Buchanan seemed paralyzed. He denied that a state could secede, but he also insisted that the federal government had no right to use force against it.”(Foner pg 476) Lincoln’s First Inaugural came after the secession and before the Civil War, needing to establish the ideology for the country to go to war, Lincoln argued that the Union was perpetual in nature, and the secession of the southern states was unlawful in that it denied this perpetuity.

In order to establish law as something to be considered unbreakable, Lincoln first presents “ I take the official oath to-day, with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws, by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest, that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to, and abide by, all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.” Drawing upon the same sentiments Andrew Jackson addressed in his Farewell Address “it is absolutely necessary that the laws passed by the constituted authorities should be faithfully executed in every part of the country”. In presenting this idea, Lincoln establishes a sense of duty to the law that he later calls upon in his speech.

He then sets the stage for the current state of the Union “I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.”(Lincoln) expanding to state “Again, 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?” concluding that “But if destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before , the Constitution having lost the vital element of perpetuity-- 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 revolutionary, according to circumstances.” By establishing this Lincoln disregards the southern states secession as a secession, but as a breeching of the law.

Now having established, that law must be followed, and that the secession was unlawful, Lincoln states “I therefore consider that, in view of the constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and, to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the states.”(Lincoln) and finally establishes his precedence for possible war “In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority” Though obviously preparing the Union for war, and taking a final stance on the issue of disunion, Lincoln closes his speech with a calls for resolution without war but resolute to it if need be “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect and defend" it.”

American Studies University Of Virginia 12th April, 2009 Andrew Jackson's Farewell Address
Library of Congress. U.S. Govt. 12th April, 2009 Abraham Lincoln’s First inaugural Address
Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty!: An American History, Seagull Edition, Vol. 1. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006, 2005

Is Law Mandatory?

Washington, having written a farewell address started a trend to be followed by later presidents President Andrew Jackson took a much similar tone to Washington’s Farewell Address “Being about to retire finally from public life, I beg leave to offer you my grateful thanks for the many proofs of kindness and confidence which I have received at your hands.” Jackson kept the same humble tones in speaking of self with foreboding warnings when speaking of the union. Jackson Kept very true to Washington’s ideas, at one point even quoting “The necessity of watching with jealous anxiety for the preservation of the Union was earnestly pressed upon his fellow citizens by the Father of his country in his farewell address. He has there told us ... . that "while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who, in any quarter, may endeavor to weaken its bonds"”. Jackson laid some interesting points to bear that, like Washington’s Farwell Well Address, have a strong effect on today’s politics, one such point that struck me was that law that is passed, must be abided by for government to exist, a common issue of contention into today’s world especially with the financial crisis the country is in today.

Jackson states “But in order to maintain the Union unimpaired, it is absolutely necessary that the laws passed by the constituted authorities should be faithfully executed in every part of the country, and that every good citizen should, at all times, stand ready to put down, with the combined force of the nation, every attempt at unlawful resistance, under whatever pretext it may be made or whatever shape it may assume.” , going on to insist “until the law shall be declared void by the courts or repealed by Congress, no individual or combination of individuals can be justified in forcibly resisting its execution. It is impossible that any Government can continue to exist upon any other principles.” This idea is complimented by Jackson’s belief that “Unconstitutional or oppressive laws may no doubt be passed by Congress, either from erroneous views or the want of due consideration; if they are within the reach of judicial authority, the remedy is easy and peaceful; and if, from the character of the law, it is an abuse of power not within the control of the judiciary, then free discussion and calm appeals to reason and to the justice of the people will not fail to redress the wrong.” thus stating that the power for change to the laws should always be possible and this is why all current laws should be abided.

Unfortunately at those times that “unconstitutional or oppressive laws” are passed the nation finds it harder to abide by them without rage and rash decisions. An example today is the recent American International Group’s (AIG) 165 million dollars in bonuses to their company’s Financial Asset Division after receiving bail out money of 170 billion in tax payer dollars.(NY Times). While people are outraged, “I know it would make me feel good -- shouldn't somebody go to jail?”(Jay Leno, Tonight Show 3.19.2009) the president reminds every one “Here's the dirty little secret, though. Most of the stuff that got us into trouble was perfectly legal. And that is a sign of how much we've got to change our laws -- right?” (President Obama, Tonight Show 3.19.2009). According to Andrew Jackon’s ideas, if we were to follow the public outrage and punish these people, we would risk the government “would cease to be a Government and be unworthy of the name if it had not the power to enforce the execution of its own laws within its own sphere of action.”

All in all it’s a tricky question on where to go from here, and Andrew’s Jacksons farewell address is a good reference to remember, especially before taking rash actions that go against the countries own laws “Despite questions about the legality of the retroactive 90 percent levy, Democrats and some Republicans said the tax on bonuses for traders, executives and bankers earning more than $250,000 was the quickest way to show angry Americans that Congress intended to recoup the extra dollars.”(NY Times), and I hope we can stay true to abiding by our own constitution in our future and avoid setting dangerous precedents for when it’s ok to ignore.

Sources-
American Studies University Of Virginia 19th March, 2009 Andrew Jackson's Farewell Address

Business The New York Times, 20th March, 2009 A.I.G. Planning Huge Bonuses After $170 Billion Bailout

Polotics The New York Times, 20th March, 2009 President Barack Obama on ‘The Tonight Show with Jay Leno’

Business The New York Times, 20th March, 2009 House Approves 90% Tax on Bonuses After Bailouts

Would George Washington approve of our progress?

In 1786, nearing the end of his 8 year presidency George Washington wrote a farewell address announcing “The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant “…“the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made”. As well in this address he laid out from his “much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation” where he felt the country is, which way its affairs will go, and the advice on how it is he would consider best to deal with them. His remarkable insight warned of troubles that to this day plague the United States and shed light upon solutions, some implemented, some not, in today’s government. Most remarkable to me was his focus on faction being a dangerous force that had to be controlled with in a government for it to hold consistent, an argument that is very relevant to today’s political arena. The question comes to mind, would Washington approve of the current two party system of democrats and republicans in presidential politics?

Washington presents an interesting idea, “liberty”, “is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction”. With this view one could quickly commit to the idea that political parties are a negative aspect, but Washington states “There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true” suggesting instead, they are “A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.” Using this logic we have the basis for an inquiry of today’s situation, is the “uniform vigilance” present today?, and if so, is it strong enough to combat today’s political organizations?

The answer to this takes further investigation, and another statement Washington makes comes into play. He states “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” continuing on to later state “Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” If we suffice to say that public opinion is the “uniform vigilance” Washington spoke of, we answer the first question, yes it is still present today. We move onto the next question, is public opinion “enlightened” enough to perform its duties?

Though this question is endlessly debatable I’ll present a few things to consider. Public opinion is not the base factor in electoral process; it is channeled and refined through multiple choke points before it is accounted for. By this, I speak of first, primary elections for presidential candidates, each party holds an election to decide who their candidate shall be. In doing this, they take a filtered, by the fact you may only vote in your previously chosen’s parties primary, selection of public opinion and choose who will be put forth for further consideration. Though these are not the only candidates for president, the political parties put forth the convincing argument of these are the only two with the financial and political power backing them to stand a chance, forcing a narrow view of possibility. The next refinement of public opinion is the fact that the popular vote, the count of the entire countries votes for president, is not what decides the end result of the elections. Instead, electoral votes on a per state basis based on population size of each state are.

Does this all answer the question, is public opinion enlightened enough to perform its duties of preventing factional spirit from consuming liberty? Not entirely, but it does seem to indicate that public opinion is ignored in its raw form, and is only accepted after being transformed into an acceptable form through the party system. Would Washington feel that his farewell advice had gone heeded? It is impossible to say, but I think that he would feel the spirit of his advice is being listened to, and though parties hold more power than perhaps he would of liked, the public’s opinion is still the foundation from which it all starts.

Sources-

The Avalon Project Yale Law School 12 February, 2009 Washington's Farewell Address

Library of Congress. U.S. Govt. 12 February, 2009 Washington's Farewell Address