Lincoln, a civil war and the constitution of --zt

Just to see, feel very interesting, is reproduced here.

April 14, 1865 is a Friday evening, when the actor Booth, sympathy for the Southern cause (John Booth) into the Ford theatre in Washington DC (Ford 's Theatre) a box, took out his pistol, aimed at President Lincoln's head, pulled the trigger. He flees to shout: "tyrant fate forever!" ("Sic sempertyrannis!" Virginia state of Latin inscriptions on the original), Lincoln was elected to the south of independence and the civil war, and now, his life with the civil war ended. As president Lincoln American just do one thing: fight a civil war, America history only a civil war.

Now, we can see in the capital Washington Lincoln Memorial Hall, a Greek style tall white hall, the middle sat his huge marble statue, as if deep in thought. Future generations can enjoy for the establishment of the monument or memorial hall of honor in the capital Washington, President, only Jefferson, Roosevelt and his. Lincoln when the president but four years, in addition to Kennedy (John F. Kennedy), America history for such a short while after the death of this beloved president only he. However, although later generations to build haloes for him, but at that time, speak well of him is not much.

From his election, until he died, those who support him no more than half the country, not just the South against him, even in the north, he has always been a controversial figure. Democrats criticized him as a tyrant, and Republicans also has many people criticize him weak conservative, regardless of the Republican or the Democratic Party, all of them when he was trying to save the constitution, criticized him for violating the constitution.

The Confederate artillery Fort Sumter, after he had enlisted seventy-five thousand volunteers, the command is to stimulate the cause of another four states seceded from the union, the object is the lot of criticism: in the eyes of these people, Lincoln armed measures led to the outbreak of the civil war, and the constitution never authorized the president to civil war. At the start of the civil war, he to the Maryland, Missouri, Kansas several southern states in the union to sympathy, openly in the several states in support of the coup, the democratic political interference, troops, illegal arrest, politicians and representatives of the people, let dear Federalists won power, this is obvious anti democratic practices, it is. The federal government to state power. In Mali, Lanzhou, he ignored the provisions of the constitution, the administrative command to stop habeas corpus, the army without any legal procedures, arbitrary arrests, but without going through legal procedures prescribed in the constitution, and the trial of civilians in military courts, this is for serious violations of human rights. The Supreme Court in "Merriman" case (Ex Parte Merryman) decision he violate the constitution, he simply ignore the verdict, contempt of the Supreme Judicial power. "Declaration of the liberation of slaves" although with the name property confiscated the insurgents, people can see this is clearly in violation of the provisions of the constitution, but without congressional authorization to carry out abolitionist. In the reconstruction of the South's leading right above, he also has a fierce conflict and Congress: he advocated policies in Huairou, southern rebels forgiveness, Congress tried to tough measures to implement social cleaning, Lincoln through the army set up the state government of New South, Congress decided that no constitutional authority, one will not be admitted...... Some of Lincoln's critics have argued that it is fundamentally civil war is a violation of the Constitution and the unjust wars. They think the state autonomy and state sovereignty, not by the federal government deprivation; they think that the constitution is the agreement of free, the government has no right to force the state in the Union; they think that the government can not use of force against the people, have no right to civil war; they believed that personal freedom is the most important, while the state not to public safety and national unified as an excuse to deprive human rights...... Another critic although support war policy, but conservative old constitutional point of view, they think that the president's authority should be minimal, and the power of Congress should be maximum, in the civil war and reconstruction, the Congress led. Some critics think that Lincoln in this social revolution on the road too hesitant, in the struggle is too soft, the lack of determination and perseverance necessary......

All of these criticisms, but some of the old problems in the concrete embodiment of that time only, not only is the civil war period American, other countries, other times, often plagued by these problems: how to coordinate the local autonomy and state power,? Democratic powers (Legislative) and arbitrary power (administrative), how to coordinate? The efficiency of government decision whether to subject to judicial process fair? Whether can in order to national security and public interests at the expense of the rights and freedoms of citizens?

Yes, politics, history, philosophy and law professors, have such answers to all these questions, such as the theory of. But if in a USA civil war general national crisis, the political decision to answer these questions, it is not so easy. Legal, historical, political and social policy questions, never Euclidean geometry problem, the answer -- never eternal, immutable and frozen, facing these problems, every nation, every time, even every specific events of the parties, will be given different answers. Believe that human society regardless of the country, regardless of age, can be absolute principle according to the geometric theorem for general ("universal value" "general rules") to run, is the Classical Utopian, whether it is democratic, socialist, or other what doctrine, idealistic and in accordance with the principle of have already in the history of the head broken and bleeding countless times the.

In the civil war, Lincoln faced with these problems, gives his own answer. His approach, although some enlightening significance, but was not accepted by many people, but also did not put things right once and for all to USA completely solve these problems. In the period of reconstruction, in laissez-faire period, during the labor movement and the first World War, during the great depression, in the new period, during World War II, at McKinsey anti communism during the rampant, in the case of Brown to the civil rights movement...... Since the civil war, USA each historical period, the whole country and relation of parts, the relationship between government and people's freedom, power administrative power and legislative, judicial relations, and so on, to challenge the Lincoln problem for all these civil war again, and have this or that kind of form, ask then people give new answer......

Lincoln in the abolitionist's heritage is not undisputed. The abolition of slavery is the radical Republican Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment, and Lincoln was not the Radical Republicans, and then gone. The elimination of slavery the glory to him for a number of reasons: he is advocated to limit slavery before his election to the presidency; his government issued the "Declaration of the liberation of slaves"; the civil war he led is caused by slavery disputes; and the result of the civil war is to destroy the institution of slavery...... But the fact is, Lincoln has always believed that slavery is inhumane, but not a violation of the constitution, Lincoln was always claim is legitimate democratic constitution based procedure to solve the issue of slavery, rather than violence to abolish it. One of the historical cause of the civil war is the slave system, the results also lead to the abolition of slavery, but for the Lincoln, now that the war is the direct cause to split, so the purpose of war is simple and clear - to preserve the unity of the nation, and not the abolition of slavery. He and other contemporaries, never will be black as equal members of society should be USA, he doubted whether different racial harmony should be sent back to the Africa, black. "Declaration of the liberation of slaves" is the means of war rather than war aims, and it has not yet announced the national total abolition of slavery, but provisions, participate in "rebellion" slave black slaves as "enemy" of the property shall be confiscated, and did not participate in the "rebellion" slave owners can still bring slaves as the legitimate property retention......

So, in these heritage, Lincoln in just four years to leave our most beyond all dispute heritage, what is it? Is a unified America, one from split American, becomes a part of America constitutional thought, USA people about the national unified and indivisible permanent consensus. Only in this respect, the historical contribution of Lincoln is be above suspicion doubt.

Democratic autonomy concept USA historical origin and unique America people, have a tendency to extremes, reflected in the USA constitutional thought, is the extreme state right theory. Two yuan higher than the sovereign who is who? The embodiment of the people's sovereignty, sovereignty, whether it can be higher than the federal sovereignty, even to withdraw from the Federation, to reflect the secession of the form? Before the civil war it was a problem, but is always a big problem, after the civil war is no longer a problem. A constitutional law professor American once said vividly in his class: "those doesn't like (constitutional federal law country) 'the supreme law' in terms of people lost at gettysburg." ("The people who had troublewith the Supremacy Clause lost at Gettysburg.") is really make a pointed comment. The right of the state theory, if that is a state with a constitutional right to manage their internal affairs, so the state right now is not dead, full of vitality, is the inherent meaning America federal system; but if that is a state Supreme People's sovereignty, can when necessary to secede from the union independent, then the state power theory, had been killed in action during the civil war. It was Lincoln killed.

The right of the state on the outside, America constitution also has many other fuzzy and controversial, because of the changes of the times and become more be inopportune or inappropriate place, these defects, some through the democratic process, the legislature by a constitutional amendment way compensate -- such as the civil war of the constitution, the provisions of the slavery was legal, an increase of thirteenth, the fourteenth and the Fifteenth Amendment, respectively specified the slavery illegal, racial equality and blacks the right to vote; some by the Supreme Court judicial remedy -- such as the 1954 "Brown" decision desegregated, for instance in 1973 "Roe v. Wade" case that women have the right to abortion...... The problem of state power, perhaps through political or judicial way to solve, but, in the north and South cannot reach an agreement through the democratic process, and Drete • after Scott Case and blocked access to judicial settlement, the civil war may be the only option to answer this question. American history, there has never been a problem, Xiangzhou right theory problem, both sides make opposite so cannot compromise, not concessions, also never has any questions, like the problem in the constitutional framework to fall into despair, be driven into a corner. So, America constitution history, also only has the right of the state on this one problem, or unity and fragmentation problems, it's the answer never write in ink into any congressional amendment to the constitution or the supreme court verdict, but in about six hundred thousand people blood, spent four years writing the America history, so that future generations of people because the pain of memory and the formation of a be too strong to break the idea: "national unity is the Supreme".

The Southern independence is wrong? Yes. Lincoln at war against the south, right? Yes. Now the people are very difficult to these two problems given the opposite answer. But in fact, from my in front to the right of the state on the historical introduction can be found, Lincoln demonstrates his approach constitutional those historical and legal arguments, each all is so pale, while the southern demonstrate supreme sovereignty history and legal arguments, but each of them is so full. Lincoln said the federal founded in the state, and the historical facts; Lincoln said that the constitution is a contract between the people, rather than the states between the contract, and the historical facts; Lincoln said that the Constitution does not require the state has the right to withdraw from the Federation, but the Constitution does not ban, but also provides a "not prohibited state rights, belong to States and the people"; Lincoln said that the constitution implies "union shall be permanent" truth, but the British had also may discover the colony's charter, charter implies the colonial British forever belongs to the truth ah; Lincoln said that the federal government has the responsibility and authority to use force to safeguard national unity, but the power of the Constitution and in where?...... Lincoln as his best defender, is not to dwell on the words, he points out, want to preserve the constitution is the fundamental ideal, this statement in future generations widely among the famous "Gettysburg Address": the civil war in order to safeguard the democratic system, maintenance American for "all men are created equal" belief. American was first established in the faith based on the country, if the country apart, how can let this belief persuasive? In order to let "the democratic government and the belief people, by the people," lasts forever, we must uphold the unity of the country, even though the force to suppress the southern people's democratic decision not to hesitate to independence.

However, even this reason, nor with no chink in one's armour: first, from which we see the importance means rather than purpose attention absurdities; second, Lincoln borrowed from Jefferson "Declaration of independence" "all men are created equal" principle, is used to another crucial principle denied "independent": a manifesto a government must obtain the consent of the governed to rule, otherwise people or some people have the right to overthrow or change the government. And the truth, is the most southern eleven independent states the fundamental reason -- about twelve million people don't agree with the federal government to rule over them. And, in theory, Lincoln and his supporters, never satisfied with the answer to the question: how to prevent the tyranny of the majority to form democratic countries, how to protect minority interests? Lincoln said easily in his first inaugural address, in the final analysis is the most democratic decision. But the protection of the minority, is one of the basic tasks that the framers in the "Federalist Papers" of the constitution. The democratic state protection to the minority, only two ways: insist on minority protection the clause in the constitution; or, to withdraw from the Democratic National minority. The former means maintaining slavery, the latter means the South seceded from the union agreed. While the north for the former to say "no", Lincoln and the federal government for the latter to say "no". Both to South leave, and kept the slavery, it is said to be the majority, minority forced to leave, to be majority forced change......

But, argues Lincoln in theory flaw, what is the use? As you now put forward a theory, that the Brown case not hold strictly in the law, the abolition of apartheid is the error of law, then nobody will listen to you to continue your theory, because your theory "politics is not correct" (politically wrong). Similarly, if someone said that according to the constitution, the south is how to correctly, Lincoln how wrong, there is no one to hear the theory -- you at least any serious scholars and politicians will not listen.

Why is that?

People listen to it, not because the theory lacks sufficient evidence and strict demonstration, but because, people psychologically simply accepted the "union unified and indivisible" concept, any questions about this idea, no matter which according to the history and the constitution has how persuasive, people will not accept it. "Politics is not correct". The law is the basis of people's idea, when the historical changes people's concept, the law will follow, but to obey. The law is on the theory of logic, however, history is not the test logic, she defers from people's argument and debate, she only asked people to obey her "capricious" development. Theory can be opinionated commentary history, although history occasionally meekly fit, about this or that the theoretical verification, but her own wild decided, she is not willing to do any kind of theory. When the outcome of the results when the civil war the scoreboard, history has that lasted nearly a hundred years of states rights debate chose the winner. The winner has dominated the people's idea. But the winner claimed, is the theoretical logic of the reform in Antebellum constitutional. The Civil War

Quality is a constitutional change. After the revolution, people's ideas have changed, if the constitutional logic before get change to challenge and change, of course not accepted!

So, American constitution has a fracture. To admit that the sovereignty of the state to restrict the sovereignty of the state, from slavery to deny that the slave system, the Constitution does not have a fault?! However, a myth was covered with cracks, the history of a think American constitution from the past to today, be consistent from beginning to end the myth. Of course, this myth is not necessarily something to beautify America history and system of the people's work. The simplicity that: if the America history as be consistent from beginning to end, from the original foundation was set up in the ideal and the great principles, and then in every detail of every era must implement those ideals and principles, America must therefore becomes more and more great and wonderful. In fact, they are more likely to be this myth, superstition and spread, not its maker.

The common law tradition -- the improvement of traditional political myth from Anglo American Society of tradition and law. If the revolution can be likened to pull down the old building, reconstruction of the new housing, so improvement is rebuilding, expansion, renovation and decoration of the old house. The difference between the two is, the frame and the foundation of the old, the former should be abolished, the latter to recognize and use. If we seek the human perspective, you will find: any old things are linked, there is also a difference, the difference between revolution and mutual discord; and improvement in recognition of the old things need to change at the same time, also emphasizes the relationship between the two and vicarious relations. The revolution that the new value, new ideas can not be grafted to the old value and ideas above, and improved think, this is possible. Grafting in many ways, one of the most simple and direct, the most common: improvement is artificially to new ideas will be the reasonable development of the old ideas in a new case of experienced Chinese of reform, for it will not be unfamiliar -- although this assumption, often in the logic does not strictly, even very far fetched, absurd, but for most ordinary people, is made in the past. Improved the traditional way, nature will create a by-product: system, thought in the change and be consistent from beginning to end the myth, and often, this myth is must maintain political stability. But also is so, this myth makes people for this idea first founder history in particular, to pay no heed to their limitations, and their thoughts on the cover of time beyond limit ring.

The common law tradition of Anglo American, and so. On one hand, it emphasizes to follow precedent, seems to be constrained to the traditions of the past; but on the other hand, the judge can always be new ideas to explain to the old rule to, through the initiative judicial innovation, and set a precedent for future judicial. America law, from the legislation to judicial, followed the common law spirit tracks. Before that, USA constitutional amendment supplement method are two: one is to amend the constitution; the second is through the judicial interpretation of the hitherto unknown content added to the constitution. Each time amendments and judicial interpretations, all more or less in violation, change or beyond the original intentions of the framers. For example, the first constitutional initiative to allow slavery, the Thirteenth Amendment to cancel it; initially the framers did not think that black people had equal status, the Fourteenth Amendment to them; the Fourteenth Amendment abolished slavery makers but the default a segregation lawful and reasonable, but to in 1954, the Supreme Court not to say segregation in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, also called it off; the Fourteenth Amendment's aim is to solve the problem of southern whites deprivation of civil rights, the Supreme Court later is used to give the legal status of women's equality, even now also used to give gay equality of legal status, future is not know to give what kind of social group equal rights in nineteenth Century, who wrote these terms if people underground has the knowledge, may know...... USA constitution be too numerous to enumerate examples. But, because of the common law tradition, the judicial interpretation has always been to "the original intention of legislation" (original intent), even if the judges added into the concept of absolute impossible is the original constitution creators express ideas, also want to had become their "original intention". Amendment to the constitution, because the modern "people's will" coat, so attached "intent" of the situation is less, but no doubt, the new amendments merely reflect the old principle only, no idea, between them and the original constitution of ideological conflict. Most Americans will tell you, "America values" continue more than 200 years, the constitution is the best proof -- although, rarely a less precise statement.

The constitutional significance of judgment in civil war, and the amendment or the Supreme Court is the same as the major. Before the civil war, although there have been claims that the unification of the country be constitutional, but this claim has never become the consensus of all the people, every time the political crisis, people have always talked about the dissolution of the country. While the civil war with the consensus of the people, makes people no longer questioned the meaning of the unification of the country and the constitution should be. Lincoln and those who draw a forced analogy reasoning, but also in the continuation of the amendment and the judicial interpretation of the "constitution", be "meaning attached to America values" Tradition -- that he was simply trying to prove: the national unified and indivisible was constitutional intent and people's consensus, although historically, this is obviously not I want to read, but his constitutional idea. This assumption, the old concept of Lincoln in essence, reform the old constitution or the constitution at the same time, also saved the old constitution continues in the form of.

Lincoln before the civil war, American is "a self division houses," split "can't stand." Undoubtedly, in his view, the civil war is the split housing cracks, is to save, save. But considering the above about the constitutional reform and development of the topic, I have to say, if not to American analogy into the house, I think Lincoln's first inaugural address when, in the background of unfinished Houses of Parliament is a good symbol. Then American, saying with its is "a divided house", as it is a "unfinished houses", before the war of the constitution, but is an unfinished constitution. The leadership of Lincoln USA civil war, for the country and its constitution to complete the framework project -- the last appears to save, save "housing" project, in fact, perfect reconstruction of the "housing".

American now constitution, design is not the initial creation of the constitution, but after the continuous changes and added in the course of history, the constitution is just a product of historical development, it is like a machine, constantly changing components. The superiority of America is certainly a powerful system, but this advantage is not in a system design put things right once and for all created. Before the constitution, USA have autonomous history two hundred years of colonial society, and it has inherited the British common law and the spirit of the constitution, the Charter; more 200 years of continuous modifications and supplements, these modifications, always accompanied by debate and struggle, even pay the fresh blood.

He said to here. In fact, America history to bring my enlightenment, summed up is also very simple, that is: the history of creating system, thought cannot be. If have what thoughts create the system, but it is history in its hands.