WEBVTT

NOTE The Fallacy of Anti-Secessionism

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.680
The election in 1860 of Abraham Lincoln as president led almost immediately to crisis

2
00:00:07.680 --> 00:00:15.880
with the secession of South Carolina in December of that year.

3
00:00:15.880 --> 00:00:23.760
The issue of whether the southern states were justified in their secession seems to me one

4
00:00:23.760 --> 00:00:28.000
of much more than purely historical interest.

5
00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:36.200
It raises, as I'll attempt to show, the issue of the conflict between two fundamental philosophies

6
00:00:36.200 --> 00:00:42.000
of government, and this issue I think still confronts us today.

7
00:00:42.000 --> 00:00:51.000
I'd like to begin by considering an argument that the Southern states acted too hastily

8
00:00:51.000 --> 00:01:02.440
and precipitously in their secession, for this reason I call the fallacy of anti-secession

9
00:01:02.440 --> 00:01:06.520
that I want to consider whether this argument is correct.

10
00:01:06.520 --> 00:01:11.680
The argument was classically raised in an article that appeared in American Historical

11
00:01:11.680 --> 00:01:19.800
Review in July 1931 by the historian Arthur Cole, which his article was in the form of

12
00:01:19.800 --> 00:01:43.800
I have a question. At Lincoln's election in 1860, an immediate menace to slavery in the states, and his claim was that the Southern states falsely thought that Lincoln threatened the immediate overthrow of their social system, but in fact, Lincoln was not an abolitionist.

13
00:01:43.800 --> 00:01:51.800
He said on one occasion, if he could preserve the Union by freeing all the slaves, he would do that.

14
00:01:51.800 --> 00:01:58.800
If he could preserve the Union by keeping all the slaves and slaves, he would do that also.

15
00:01:58.800 --> 00:02:04.800
He offered the Southern states, he supported a constitutional amendment

16
00:02:04.800 --> 00:02:09.800
that would guarantee slavery in the states where it already existed.

17
00:02:09.800 --> 00:02:27.800
So according to this argument, the Southern states were wrong in succeeding in that there was, Lincoln posed no threat or at least no immediate threat to any of the institutions of the Southern states.

18
00:02:27.800 --> 00:02:34.800
It's possible to accept Pol's premises and still reject his conclusion.

19
00:02:34.800 --> 00:02:50.800
This was the line taken by the Southern historian J.G. Derulak-Hamilton in an article that came out exactly one year later in the American Historical Review in July 1932 under the identical title.

20
00:02:50.800 --> 00:02:53.800
The article came out under the...

21
00:02:57.800 --> 00:03:00.800
I liked it better before.

22
00:03:04.800 --> 00:03:08.080
The article came out under the identical title,

23
00:03:08.080 --> 00:03:13.520
Lincoln's election in 1860 and the immediate menace to slavery in the states.

24
00:03:13.520 --> 00:03:20.000
And Hamilton's argument was that even if it was correct that Lincoln didn't favor abolition,

25
00:03:20.000 --> 00:03:28.200
that at the time in 1860, Lincoln was not viewed by most of the people in the United

26
00:03:28.200 --> 00:03:32.400
States as the dominant force in the Republican Party.

27
00:03:32.400 --> 00:03:40.280
The leader of the party was William H. Seward, who became Secretary of State, and he was

28
00:03:40.280 --> 00:03:46.760
a very strong abolitionist, as were other very prominent Republicans such as Thaddeus

29
00:03:46.760 --> 00:03:50.760
Stevens in Pennsylvania and Charles Sumner.

30
00:03:50.760 --> 00:03:58.200
So according to Hamilton's argument, even if Lincoln didn't favor abolition and didn't

31
00:03:58.200 --> 00:04:04.520
pose an immediate threat to the Southern states. The states were still justifying and fearing

32
00:04:04.520 --> 00:04:10.360
that their social institutions were about to be overthrown. Now, it seems to me Hamilton's

33
00:04:10.360 --> 00:04:17.560
argument is valid as far as it goes, but I think in understanding this issue, one needs

34
00:04:17.560 --> 00:04:23.900
to consider exactly the issue of Lincoln's intentions, and it is this that I think poses

35
00:04:23.900 --> 00:04:31.800
the conflict in political philosophies that I spoke of earlier and in analyzing Lincoln's

36
00:04:31.800 --> 00:04:38.400
policies and thus attempting to determine the justification for Southern secession, I'm

37
00:04:38.400 --> 00:04:45.440
going to be relying on the work of two scholars who frequently engaged in debate. One of these

38
00:04:45.440 --> 00:04:52.680
is Harry Jaffa who was a retired, now retired, he was a professor of political science at

39
00:04:52.680 --> 00:04:57.580
at Claremont University in California and he was a follower of the famous political

40
00:04:57.580 --> 00:05:05.280
philosopher Leo Strauss who taught for many years at University of Chicago. His opponent

41
00:05:05.280 --> 00:05:15.280
in the debate, which lasted well over 20 years, was a scholar whom perhaps many of you will

42
00:05:15.280 --> 00:05:20.800
know, Emmy Bradford, who was a professor of English at University of Dallas for a great

43
00:05:20.800 --> 00:05:29.800
many years. I won't disguise my opinion that the two scholars differ very much in what

44
00:05:29.800 --> 00:05:38.520
Nietzsche calls their order of rank, but Bradford seems to me by far the superior figure, really

45
00:05:38.520 --> 00:05:47.280
an outstanding intellect and person of really universal scholarship, whereas Jaffa is much

46
00:05:47.280 --> 00:05:53.280
are much more propagandist for certain philosophical theses of dubious character.

47
00:05:53.280 --> 00:06:06.280
But in spite of their very different evaluations of Lincoln, the two had a surprising measure of agreement on the nature of Lincoln's doctrines.

48
00:06:06.280 --> 00:06:16.280
Jaffa in a book called Crisis of the House Divided pointed out that the basis of Lincoln's political philosophy

49
00:06:16.280 --> 00:06:21.640
found in the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, part of that second sentence,

50
00:06:21.640 --> 00:06:27.880
which is, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

51
00:06:27.880 --> 00:06:36.380
That is, the sentence that all men are created equal was, according to Lincoln, the key proposition

52
00:06:36.380 --> 00:06:39.040
in the American system of government.

53
00:06:39.040 --> 00:06:45.480
And he thought that from this statement, all men are created equal, we could immediately

54
00:06:45.480 --> 00:06:57.400
We see that slavery is forbidden, that slavery contradicts the essence of the American principle.

55
00:06:57.400 --> 00:07:03.920
His argument seems to me doubtful, I'm not engaged here in defending slavery, it's just

56
00:07:03.920 --> 00:07:08.880
a question of whether this particular argument works.

57
00:07:08.880 --> 00:07:13.760
What he apparently meant by saying that, Lincoln meant by saying that all men are created equal

58
00:07:13.760 --> 00:07:20.960
was that there isn't any difference in essence between people such as that that exists, say,

59
00:07:20.960 --> 00:07:27.800
between human beings and animals. And so he thought that because human beings don't have

60
00:07:27.800 --> 00:07:34.960
this kind of fundamental metaphysical difference amongst themselves, then slavery is unjustified.

61
00:07:34.960 --> 00:07:40.320
Now, it isn't clear how that argument is supposed to work because it assumes that in order for

62
00:07:40.320 --> 00:07:46.880
For slavery to be justified, you have to have some superior metaphysical essence over the

63
00:07:46.880 --> 00:07:49.600
person you're enslaving.

64
00:07:49.600 --> 00:07:55.400
One could question why is that a case and why couldn't you have a case where you enslaved

65
00:07:55.400 --> 00:07:58.960
someone who was in some respect superior to himself.

66
00:07:58.960 --> 00:08:05.160
It seems like very much a non-sequitur, but that never stopped Lincoln.

67
00:08:05.160 --> 00:08:12.440
But regardless of whether he was justified in his argument, that was what he thought

68
00:08:12.440 --> 00:08:22.680
was the overriding imperative, such that anything in the Constitution that sanctioned slavery

69
00:08:22.680 --> 00:08:30.800
was to be read as in the light of this principle would have effect only as a practical measure.

70
00:08:30.800 --> 00:08:40.320
This is a view of Lincoln that Mel Bradford certainly accepted in a very important article

71
00:08:40.320 --> 00:08:47.920
called Lincoln and the Language of Hate and Fear, which came out in his, which is reprinted

72
00:08:47.920 --> 00:08:53.960
in his collection, Bradford's collection of essays against the barbarians in 1984.

73
00:08:53.960 --> 00:09:02.640
Bradford drew particular attention to Lincoln's speech in Peoria in 1854, shortly after the

74
00:09:02.640 --> 00:09:04.720
passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

75
00:09:04.720 --> 00:09:12.920
Remember, the Kansas-Nebraska Act left the question of slavery in the territories up

76
00:09:12.920 --> 00:09:15.600
to the people of the territories.

77
00:09:15.600 --> 00:09:21.700
Lincoln was, of course, against this, and he said that, as he interpreted the Constitution

78
00:09:21.700 --> 00:09:28.420
in the Light of the Declaration of Independence, slavery was, as he said, had to be taken as

79
00:09:28.420 --> 00:09:35.580
in the course of extinction. As Bradford pointed out, there are provisions in the Constitution

80
00:09:35.580 --> 00:09:43.460
that certainly explicitly recognize slavery, such as that the slave trade cannot be prohibited

81
00:09:43.460 --> 00:09:52.020
until 1808, and there's the three-fifths clause which refers to, which seems to be a direct

82
00:09:52.020 --> 00:09:53.020
reference to slavery.

83
00:09:53.020 --> 00:10:00.660
It is true, as Lincoln and his follower Jaffa emphasize, slavery isn't mentioned by name

84
00:10:00.660 --> 00:10:08.700
in the Constitution, but it's certainly implicitly present, and one could hardly think that any

85
00:10:08.700 --> 00:10:16.220
state having slaves would have ratified the Constitution had there been anything prohibiting it.

86
00:10:16.220 --> 00:10:24.260
But Lincoln's view was that in the Constitution that seemed to allow slavery was just there

87
00:10:24.260 --> 00:10:33.240
as a practical compromise to get the states into the Union, but that what the ultimate

88
00:10:33.240 --> 00:10:48.240
The aim of the Constitution was to get rid of slavery. According to Lincoln then, this is the fundamental point here, not the question of justification of slavery.

89
00:10:48.240 --> 00:10:57.240
He was in effect saying that anything in the Constitution would be interpreted according to his particular philosophical views.

90
00:10:57.240 --> 00:11:03.440
who's he wasn't going to be bound by the explicit language of the Constitution, but by his view

91
00:11:03.440 --> 00:11:07.320
of what the essence of the Constitution was.

92
00:11:07.320 --> 00:11:17.040
I should mention that when Lincoln had this view, that to say that all men are created

93
00:11:17.040 --> 00:11:24.520
equal clause overrides whatever in the Constitution seems to allow slavery, it shouldn't be taken

94
00:11:24.520 --> 00:11:41.520
He was seen as if he were some sort of libertarian purist saying he's so shocked by slavery that he wants to establish some sort of immediate Rothbardian free market order.

95
00:11:41.520 --> 00:11:50.520
Quite the contrary, he was himself, and this is one point that historians such as Arthur Cole made,

96
00:11:50.520 --> 00:11:59.120
himself was no particular advocate of rights for blacks apart from ending the technical

97
00:11:59.120 --> 00:12:01.600
legal status of slavery.

98
00:12:01.600 --> 00:12:12.000
As Bradford points out, again, in another very important essay which he called The Heresy

99
00:12:12.000 --> 00:12:18.680
of Equality, which came out, it's reprinted in his essay collection, A Better Guide Than

100
00:12:18.680 --> 00:12:28.680
and the Reason in 1979, Lincoln had no objection at all to any laws in Illinois that severely

101
00:12:28.680 --> 00:12:33.360
restricted the rights of free blacks in that state.

102
00:12:33.360 --> 00:12:41.580
He was not a supporter of black rights to vote, and in fact, Lincoln was himself a strong

103
00:12:41.580 --> 00:12:48.600
supporter of colonization schemes by which blacks would be encouraged to settle in Africa.

104
00:12:48.600 --> 00:13:00.000
The historian James G. Randall, in his book, Lincoln the President, was a pioneer in describing Lincoln's attitude.

105
00:13:00.000 --> 00:13:07.500
So, in fact, Lincoln's attitude could be summarized as saying that he didn't like slavery and he didn't like Negroes either.

106
00:13:07.500 --> 00:13:15.500
Jaffe, in Crisis of the House Divided, has a very tough time trying to explain the passages,

107
00:13:15.500 --> 00:13:25.500
particularly ones in the Lincoln-Douglas debate, where in 1858, where Lincoln clearly indicates he was no friend to black equality.

108
00:13:25.500 --> 00:13:34.500
For example, on one occasion he said that there's a physical, which I hope, there's a physical difference between the white and black races,

109
00:13:34.500 --> 00:13:40.020
which I believe will forever forbid their living on terms of perfect social and

110
00:13:40.020 --> 00:13:47.260
political equality. Jaffa's way of explaining this is, the way is he said,

111
00:13:47.260 --> 00:13:53.620
well, Lincoln began by this phrase, in the sense I quoted, by saying that he had

112
00:13:53.620 --> 00:14:00.980
never said and he did not say and had never in the past said that there is

113
00:14:00.980 --> 00:14:08.980
Equality between the two races. But, Jaffa points out, that didn't preclude Lincoln from saying this in the future.

114
00:14:08.980 --> 00:14:24.980
So, in other words, even when Lincoln says, I've never said this, and I don't say this, and I've never said this, according to Jaffa, that's an indication that he really did believe this, but he just thought it in expedient to say this in the future.

115
00:14:24.980 --> 00:14:33.540
Well, I'm sure under that method of interpretation by which Jeff is here following the footsteps

116
00:14:33.540 --> 00:14:39.020
of his teacher Leo Strauss, according to which in many political writings there's a secret

117
00:14:39.020 --> 00:14:41.580
meaning that has to be uncovered.

118
00:14:41.580 --> 00:14:46.680
I'm sure by that method of interpretation one could really interpret anything any way

119
00:14:46.680 --> 00:14:54.740
one wants, but as Bradford says in one sentence that I like very much, he says, secret meanings

120
00:14:54.740 --> 00:15:00.340
have no place in public documents.

121
00:15:00.340 --> 00:15:07.900
So it's evident then that when Lincoln said that all men are created equal, one shouldn't

122
00:15:07.900 --> 00:15:15.180
– those who think that slavery is wrong shouldn't rush to enlist under his banner

123
00:15:15.180 --> 00:15:23.020
because he was by no means wanting to aid the blacks in any substantial way.

124
00:15:23.020 --> 00:15:28.980
What then did he have in mind when he said that why was he so against slavery if, as

125
00:15:28.980 --> 00:15:34.660
it seems, he didn't particularly wish to advance the cause of blacks?

126
00:15:34.660 --> 00:15:42.860
Well, as Jeff again points out, Lincoln had a peculiar interpretation of what was involved

127
00:15:42.860 --> 00:15:50.900
in the equal rights that he believed that everyone was guaranteed by the Declaration

128
00:15:50.900 --> 00:15:51.900
of Independence.

129
00:15:51.900 --> 00:16:01.600
In Lincoln's view, everyone surrendered all his rights to the government by a kind of Lockean compact.

130
00:16:01.600 --> 00:16:10.000
I don't think this is actually correct interpretation of Locke, but it was Lincoln's view that in true democracy,

131
00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:12.700
people had surrendered all their rights to the government.

132
00:16:12.700 --> 00:16:19.700
And it was in this that their equality resided, that all the rights were given to the government.

133
00:16:19.700 --> 00:16:38.700
and it was the function of the president as the leader of the people to decide how the rights of the, how the purposes of the constitution declaration were to be enforced.

134
00:16:38.700 --> 00:16:48.700
So what in effect your rights meant, the equal rights under Lincoln's view, was in effect anything Lincoln thought they meant or anything Lincoln wanted them to be.

135
00:16:48.700 --> 00:17:18.700
Both Jaffe and Bradford pay particular attention to an early speech that Lincoln gave in September 1838 at the Springfield Lyceum in which Lincoln said that he feared a crisis was ahead for the United States and he thought there was a popular despotism in the offing by which some popular reader would create great

136
00:17:18.700 --> 00:17:26.620
Discontent. At that time the figure of Napoleon was very much in the public mind and there was a great

137
00:17:26.620 --> 00:17:31.820
deal in throughout the 19th century especially early 19th century both in Europe and the United

138
00:17:31.820 --> 00:17:37.980
States there was a great deal of interest in what was called Bonapartism and the fear that there

139
00:17:37.980 --> 00:17:44.220
would be some popular dictator that would arise. So Lincoln in this talk seemed to be suggesting

140
00:17:44.220 --> 00:17:52.820
I think that he was saying, how could we counteract this menace? But at the same time, he manifested

141
00:17:52.820 --> 00:18:00.080
what was clearly an attraction for this type of leadership. He seemed to be saying that

142
00:18:00.080 --> 00:18:07.700
we need a strong leader of almost Bonapartist tendencies to counter this alleged threat

143
00:18:07.700 --> 00:18:13.820
of despotism. So the literary critic Edmund Wilson points out in his excellent book, Patriotic

144
00:18:13.820 --> 00:18:20.980
Gore, which published, I think, in the Oxford in 1965. Lincoln, although warning, seemed

145
00:18:20.980 --> 00:18:29.380
to be himself assuming the role of the despot he was allegedly warning against. And Bradford,

146
00:18:29.380 --> 00:18:41.860
in an essay that also came out in Better Guide Than Reason, called, like, Lincoln, the Declaration

147
00:18:41.860 --> 00:18:53.060
and Second Puritanism pointed out, similar to Wilson, that Lincoln intended the notion

148
00:18:53.060 --> 00:18:59.940
of equality, that's just what Jaffas said as his basic principle, as a means of promoting

149
00:18:59.940 --> 00:19:05.460
this kind of democratic despotism.

150
00:19:05.460 --> 00:19:12.460
In doing that, what, according to Bradford points out, Lincoln, the notion of equality

151
00:19:14.340 --> 00:19:20.860
has no fixed meaning. According to Jaffa, Lincoln didn't favor equality of condition,

152
00:19:20.860 --> 00:19:27.060
he favored equality of opportunity. But what exactly is that? What, as we see today in

153
00:19:27.060 --> 00:19:33.260
affirmative action programs, if people don't finish in the same place, then it would be

154
00:19:33.260 --> 00:19:39.540
He said, well, that shows their opportunities were equal, so it immediately leads to just

155
00:19:39.540 --> 00:19:44.740
a sort of equality, namely equality of condition that Jaffa says Lincoln was against.

156
00:19:44.740 --> 00:19:51.620
So Bradford's argument then is that equality, as Lincoln used it, had no meaning other than

157
00:19:51.620 --> 00:20:00.940
what Lincoln himself wanted to impose, in that like both people, both Jaffa and Bradford

158
00:20:00.940 --> 00:20:13.700
that Lincoln, instead of believing that laws were fixed, the Constitution has certain definite

159
00:20:13.700 --> 00:20:23.940
requirements, thought of the leaders somehow above fixed law and someone who was entitled

160
00:20:23.940 --> 00:20:29.620
because of his superior insight to govern the rest of us.

161
00:20:29.620 --> 00:20:35.940
Jaffa, and in this respect, Bradford doesn't go along with him, although regards Lincoln

162
00:20:35.940 --> 00:20:42.420
as some sort of Aristotelian philosopher, and according to, in Jaffa's view, which I think

163
00:20:42.420 --> 00:20:48.500
is the wrong one, Aristotle thought that the prudence by which he meant the individual

164
00:20:48.500 --> 00:20:56.780
judgment of the wise man overrode any strict moral imperatives. And so, on this view, which

165
00:20:56.780 --> 00:21:03.300
which Jaffa attributes to Lincoln, that Lincoln could do whatever he thought was best because

166
00:21:03.300 --> 00:21:11.020
as a superior person and a leader, he was entitled to decide what was in the long-term

167
00:21:11.020 --> 00:21:16.900
interests of everyone else. This hardly comports very well with Lincoln's professed devotion

168
00:21:16.900 --> 00:21:23.460
to equality, but fortunately reconciling that is his problem and not mine.

169
00:21:23.460 --> 00:21:30.740
Bradford, as one could expect, took a much more critical view of Lincoln's doctrines

170
00:21:30.740 --> 00:21:38.340
than did Jaffa, and as Bradford pointed out in the essay I mentioned on what he called

171
00:21:38.340 --> 00:21:46.660
secular puritanism, a particularly dangerous aspect of Lincoln's policy was the importation

172
00:21:46.660 --> 00:21:53.100
of religious language into his view of constitutional politics.

173
00:21:53.100 --> 00:21:59.540
Freudian himself was not a religious believer, as he said in 1846 in a congressional campaign,

174
00:21:59.540 --> 00:22:06.860
I am not a member of any Christian church. I don't think it's been argued he was a believer

175
00:22:06.860 --> 00:22:13.660
in some other religion than Christianity. But in any event, although he wasn't a religious

176
00:22:13.660 --> 00:22:22.660
believer, he frequently used biblical language, as Bradford points out, in his talks, particularly

177
00:22:22.660 --> 00:22:32.660
When he referred to slavery, for example in 1858 in his famous house divided speech, he used the sentence in the Bible,

178
00:22:32.660 --> 00:22:43.660
a house divided against itself cannot stand, to indicate that the union couldn't remain permanently half slave and half free.

179
00:22:43.660 --> 00:23:09.160
In doing so, as Bradford emphasizes, Lincoln was engaged in a particularly dangerous type of rhetoric, in that his opponents, the southern advocates of slavery, were seen not just as political foes, but as religiously evil or satanic forces,

180
00:23:09.160 --> 00:23:15.960
who could not be dealt with by rational negotiation but had to be crushed.

181
00:23:15.960 --> 00:23:25.320
In his argument, Bradford here relied very much on the work of another great scholar, Eric Vogeling,

182
00:23:25.320 --> 00:23:32.120
who had in the, as early as in his book in 1937, Political Religions, had pointed out very much

183
00:23:32.120 --> 00:23:42.520
The use of religious symbols in political thought in the fascist and communist movements in the 20th century.

184
00:23:42.520 --> 00:23:55.520
And again, Bradford had a particular way with words, and I'll quote in one sentence he mentions, which is in his collection, the reactionary imperative.

185
00:23:55.520 --> 00:24:02.520
He has this in one footnote. He says, I assume here the calculus of Eric Vogtland's New Science of Politics.

186
00:24:02.520 --> 00:24:05.520
That's a characteristic Bradford phrase.

187
00:24:05.520 --> 00:24:13.520
So he was there using Vogtland's analysis and extending it himself to show how the religious,

188
00:24:13.520 --> 00:24:21.520
Lincoln used religious concepts to brand the Southerners as evil and satanic,

189
00:24:21.520 --> 00:24:51.520
and rather than view as, so it was quite definitely not the case that Lincoln was a supporter of compromise, but in fact, quite an extreme radical in his views who, although didn't favor immediate abolition of slavery, was one who thought that what he wanted, this imperative, should be immediately carried out and the Southerners, had they relied, had they accepted the results of the election of 1860,

190
00:24:51.520 --> 00:25:02.020
would have been left entirely in the hands of Abraham Lincoln, and it's easy to see why they were reluctant to follow that course.

191
00:25:02.020 --> 00:25:15.020
I think, as I say, the fundamental issue in the debates over secession between Lincoln and his opponents was not that of slavery,

192
00:25:15.020 --> 00:25:26.620
But one which, again, Bradford put his finger on this time in an essay that came out in his last book, which is called Original Intentions, which was published posthumously.

193
00:25:26.620 --> 00:25:44.920
In that book, he has an essay on the Reconstruction Amendments, where he uses the two terms popularized by the British political philosopher Michael Oakeshott, which he called nomocratic and teleocratic orders.

194
00:25:44.920 --> 00:25:53.480
A nomocratic order is one of fixed laws, as they rule by very strict provisions.

195
00:25:53.480 --> 00:26:03.080
The view there is that the power of the government is dangerous, that it has to be drastically restricted.

196
00:26:03.080 --> 00:26:10.920
The government can only do what's explicitly allowed in the Constitution.

197
00:26:10.920 --> 00:26:17.640
A teleocratic view, on the other hand, which is quite akin to that of the French Revolution,

198
00:26:17.640 --> 00:26:24.680
is one that subordinates law to some sort of philosophical principle, just as, say, Lincoln,

199
00:26:24.680 --> 00:26:33.000
as an example, when Lincoln thought that equality was the fundamental imperative, any laws that

200
00:26:33.800 --> 00:26:40.040
went, seemed to go against that would be strictly subordinated to this philosophical principle,

201
00:26:40.040 --> 00:26:49.000
And as the previous speaker mentioned, Lincoln in his speech said that if the end is moral,

202
00:26:49.000 --> 00:26:51.640
any means to that end is moral.

203
00:26:51.640 --> 00:26:57.240
Of course, you could take that, Lincoln wasn't, I don't think, much of a philosopher, but

204
00:26:57.240 --> 00:27:01.400
I mean you could take that as, it wouldn't take it the other way, saying if you found

205
00:27:01.400 --> 00:27:05.440
something wrong with the means, then on that principle that would disqualify the end, but

206
00:27:05.440 --> 00:27:07.680
Lincoln clearly didn't want to do it that way.

207
00:27:07.680 --> 00:27:18.240
But this is the key issue here is if you take the telecratic order, then as Bradford very

208
00:27:18.240 --> 00:27:25.320
effectively argued, and I think quite correctly, that then anything at all, you're completely

209
00:27:25.320 --> 00:27:35.200
the mercy of whoever is the alleged champion of the principle behind that order, that only

210
00:27:35.200 --> 00:27:46.840
By having the strictly delimited form of government, can we at all avoid the dangers of despotism?

211
00:27:46.840 --> 00:27:52.960
One need not go as far as Jacob Burkhardt, who said that all power is evil, to recognize

212
00:27:52.960 --> 00:27:57.600
that the nomocratic order is much to be preferred.

213
00:27:57.600 --> 00:28:04.880
And I think if one views the debate between Lincoln and his critics in the light of the

214
00:28:04.880 --> 00:28:12.000
work of Jaff and Bradford, one can see that this is not only an issue of historical importance,

215
00:28:12.000 --> 00:28:19.160
but one that faces us today as we see increasingly attempts by the government to operate entirely

216
00:28:19.160 --> 00:28:22.160
independently of any fixed law and order.

217
00:28:23.160 --> 00:28:32.160
The Theory of Money and Credit