Randall writes this truly brilliant passage:
"...Whether any great question is primarily constitutional is doubtful. Laws and constitutions have importance not in themselves, but because of the social purposes which they embody. The question of nullification, for instance, was first of all social and economic; only in a secondary sense was it constitutional. In South Carolina there were certain conditions of society which the political leaders of the state deemed important; and the state-rights view, with the nullification theory as a corollary, was urged not for its own sake, but as an essential means of defending and preserving these conditions. The motives that produced the nullification principle, the real springs of action, were social and economic; the arguments were constitutional. Economic factors connected with secession cause scholars to regarded as more than a movement for constitutional rights. For the constitution itself there is the economic interpretation, and for Jeffersonian principles an economic basis has been argued. The desire to protect property interests, as a stabilizing social force, may in large part account for the constitutional views of Hamilton and his followers, and even of Washington himself; but if the constitutional opinions of these men be studied for their own sake, these underlying motives might well escape notice. What Hamilton said about implied powers should always be read in the light of the fact that Hamilton wanted a national bank, and that, in general, he wanted a strong government for the stabilization of the particular economic system to which he was devoted. Not always do the words of a speech reveal the speakers motive. True historical insight must penetrate through the statements, writings, and arguments of political leaders to the broader human purposes which they were seeking to accomplish. Viewed in this light, constitutional history becomes a part, and an important part, of social history...."
But he also writes this, only a few pages away:
"...Lincoln did not play up the glories of war. In 1848 he referred to POLK's uneasy conscience… With scathing bitterness he then spoke of being succeeding brightness of military glory that attractive rainbow that arises in showers of blood… He did not believe that war was inevitable. In his first inaugural he said he would act with a view and I hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles. The present writer is not impressed with the argument that such statements constituted a trick or maneuver, that Lincoln had cryptic and hidden purposes, that his motives were provocative, and that his solemn declarations were a kind of deception. On this controversial subject one line of interpretation is given in the article by Charles W Ramsdell, Lincoln and Fort Sumter… Ramsdell's argument is that Lincoln deliberately maneuvered to have the South fired the first shot, that is, that Lincoln really intended to bring on war. The present author does not agree, as a matter of historical fact, with this representation of Lincoln's motives. In the treatment of this subject, reliable clues have been overlooked, while stock phrases which misrepresent Lincoln's purpose are tiresomely repeated. One should remember Lincoln's statement to Mrs. Gurney in September 1862: "If I had had my way, this war would never have been commenced." To brush this statement aside as insincere as a kind of dodge; accusations of insincerity should never be raised unless proved. To take bodies of evidence showing Lincoln's peaceful appeals and efforts and wave them aside by the too easy assertion that the President did not mean what he was saying, or intend what he was doing, is simply to color the whole treatment by an author's interpretations and conjectures...." J G Randall, Introduction, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln
Randall candycoats Lincoln's harsh remarks regarding the proper scope and extent of judicial power. Foreward to the Revised Ed., xxii., exalts in Lincoln's espousal of a strong executive and commander in chief,
No comments:
Post a Comment