Was Lincoln a Great Statesman?

In viewing the definition of a Statesman in Johnson’s dictionary of the English language (1755) edition, A Statesman is defined as…..
1. A politician ; one versed in the arts of
government.
2. One employed in public affairs.
Under this true and simple definition Lincoln could be said to have been a Statesman. However, he was in rebellion to the lawful authority of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitutions tenth amendment which is worded quite plainly….
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
No power was granted to the States in union collectively to prevent a State from exiting the union individually.
The perpetuity of the union under the Articles of Confederation was not a part of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution.
The 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution begins with the wording….”We the people”: in such case we need determine: Was the United States ended with the ratification of the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and a union of “We the people” a replacement of the “United States”?
If it was a union of States, then we need to examine just what constitutes a “State”. Here we refer again to Johnson’s dictionary of the English language (1755) edition which defines a State as…..
“Mode of government..”
Each State had its own constitution establishing a “Mode of government”.
Therefore if the States were the “United States”, then clearly the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution was a product of the State governments, rather than that of, as James Madison stated in his letter to Mr. Everett in August 1830…..

“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government. It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the state constitutions.”

Mr. Madison had already explained in the CONstitutional debates #39 and #62 that the 1787 CONstitution was a partially Federal system and a partially national system.
If indeed it excluded the State governments then it was an act of rebellion to the lawful authority of article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which clearly states…..
“Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

Again….
“nor shall ANY ALTERATION AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER BE MADE IN ANY OF THEM; UNLESS SUCH ALTERATION BE AGREED TO IN CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND BE AFTERWARDS CONFIRMED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF EVERY STATE”.

Clearly the State legislatures by LAW would have been required to ratify and changes in the Articles including the replacement of them, thus making the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution a treaty/charter/compact between the State governments, the States.

Madison stumbled in his letter with the statement that….
“It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed”.

By the lawful authority of the Articles of Confederation, the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution had to be ratified (formed) by the State legislatures: Again, in this it was a compact/charter/treaty between State governments, NOT a contract between “We the people”.

Now when Lincoln claimed he was trying to “preserve the union”, he was in fact destroying the union of States, and establishing in place of that union of States a single State under a wholly national system wherein the very State governments which made up the United States,were removed from the equation and left without any part in legislation or any participation in the central body. One must consider these question….
If a man beat his wife into submission in order to preserve the marriage after she left him, could that marriage still be considered as such, or was the marriage replaced with a tyranny, and subjugation of the wife?
Would the wife be considered sovereign and independent, or would her freedom be limited not by her own choice, but rather that of her captor?

If Lincoln was attempting to preserve the union of States, then he failed, and utterly destroyed that union, and federalism.
If Lincoln was attempting to end slavery in the U.S. then that was accomplished with the secession of the Southern States, and passage of the13th and 14th amendments which one would think would have passed basically unopposed.
As for the accusation that South Carolina was the aggressor: That is a false assertion. The People of South Carolina had every right to protect the land and Waters surrounding Fort Sumpter within Charleston harbor. which belonged exclusively to the people of South Carolina. The people of South Carolina were within their rights to prevent the invasion of their waters by the U.S. with its attempts to traverse South Carolina waters to resupply the U.S. fort without first establishing a treaty to do such. The land underneath the waters as well as the waters surrounding Fort Sumpter belonged to South Carolina….(See the SCOTUS opinion in….

Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan
44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845)

Which states that the United States never held municipal jurisdiction within a State once a State is formed and admitted to the union: the soil, the shores, the waters, and land beneath the waters belong to the State respectively: Hence all the land and waters that the U.S. would need to traverse to resupply any U.S. Fort, including Fort Sumter without benefit of a treaty to do so constituted an invasion of South Carolina or any Southern State wherein a U.S. fort may exist. Once a State has seceded it is no longer part of the U.S. hence the U.S. as a foreign entity must establish treaties with those States that have seceded. It must also be noted at that time, that each State owned the land and waters three miles out from the low tide mark. Fort Sumter lying within South Carolina’s Charleston Harbor clearly was within that three mile boundary.

Also in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), we find that the U.S. Court stated:

“There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.

“Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.

“[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”

Also in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:

“This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”

Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as follows:

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Here we see that any jurisdiction of the States as a collective in government formation has NO JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILES SQUARE THAT IS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT WITHIN A U.S. FORT, AN ARSENAL, A U.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING, MAGAZINE, OR DOCK YARD, THUS ANY JURISDICTION BEYOND THAT IS THAT OF EACH STATE RESPECTIVELY/INDIVIDUALLY.

The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution was and is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and had no jurisdiction within the States.

The fact is that Lincoln as a Statesman by definition was also in rebellion to the lawful authority of the CONstitution to which he gave an oath to defend.

One Response to “Was Lincoln a Great Statesman?”

  1. Adrian G. says:

    Right on. Thanks for posting.

Leave a Reply