He then begins his elementary analysis of nullification at the Nullification Crisis of the 1830's; ignoring a multitude of occasions the principle of nullification had been invoked prior to the 1830’s (particularly in New England). He makes the claim that South Carolina backed down from its stance on nullification"in the face of President Andrew Jackson's fierce reaction," then mentions in parentheses that a compromise was reached. Compromising and reducing the tariff so that South Carolina had nothing to nullify any more doesn’t quite count as backing down, as if they were scared to tears of the wrath of President Jackson. It sounds to me more like South Carolina and the other southern states were the winners in this showdown; the tariff rate was more than halved by 1835 from its 1830 rate. The threat of nullification was enough to get the federal government to back down on its harsh protectionist policy, exactly as it was designed to do. This is why nullification should be a tool states are willing to use today to combat unconstitutional acts such as the Affordable Care Act and prevent federal overreach.
Nevertheless, he then begins making a poor attempt at disqualifying nullification by saying, "You don’t need to embrace Lincoln’s robust nationalism...to reject nullification and secession," and makes the wholly original (sarcasm intended) observation that secession is nowhere in the Constitution! Wow, that settles it then! …Not quite. He forgets one of the most basic principles of the Constitution: all powers not granted (ie. secession, nullification) to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. A power showing up nowhere in the Constitution would only be an argument against Federal power, not state power. Just because my right to take a shower isn’t enumerated in the Constitution doesn’t mean I don’t possess that right. Conversely, because (federal) government is not specifically granted that power in the Constitution, it may not interfere in my right to shower, and so on. Rights are not government grants to be given and taken away; rights are possessed by nature of being a human being.
He next attempts to make the argument that the Declaration of Independence did not mean secession; it simply meant Revolution. Oh, so since we call it the American Revolution it couldn’t possibly have been an act of secession? That sounds like the argument a 3rd grader would make.
He doesn't for a second consider that by seceding, or declaring their independence from England, the colonies were initiating a revolutionary act, and that is what is meant by the “Revolutionary War.” He doesn’t consider that secession and revolution may overlap, depending on the circumstances. The two terms most definitely overlap in the case of the American Revolution. A revolution can be defined by either attempting to overthrow the government, or defending against a tyrannical government's initiation of violence and attempt to make war on its citizens; the American Revolution was the latter.
Further, the Confederacy was in no sense initiating a revolution by seceding; they hoped for nothing but peaceful separation. The implication here by using the term revolution while discussing the southern secession is that the south was acting in rebellion and ultimately wanted the Union overthrown, they were traitors (“The friends of secession aren’t eager to invoke the right to revolution, though. For one thing, when a revolution fails, you hang”), etc. None of which was the case.
I would even hesitate to call the 1776 war for independence a "Revolution" in the first place. They simply seceded from Britain and defended themselves against the British when they initiated war against the colonists. To me, it was not a revolution in the strictest sense, since they did not attempt to overthrow or modify the existing government. We would be hard pressed to call it a revolution if the colonists had seceded and then simply been left alone by Britain. What WAS revolutionary was the act of secession itself, however. Secession was revolutionary in that it recognized the right of the sovereign as paramount to the state; the state was a creature of the people and the people had a right to alter it or dissolve their bonds with, it if it was in their best interests, but not for light or transient causes. Also, it was the outcome of the war and the ideas on government and inalienable rights coming from the colonists during that period were what was revolutionary, not the war itself.
The revolution was their attempt at self-government by dissolving their political association with a state that they no longer shared mutual interests with. The fact that we call it the "American Revolution" does not change the fact that the colonists were seceding when they declared their independence from a tyrannical government. The south did the exact same thing; they were declaring their independence from a tyrannical government. In each case they simply wanted to be left in peace to govern themselves; for better or for worse. On the same token, the fact that we call the Southern War for Independence the "Civil War" does not make it de facto a civil war. Civil wars mean two factions fighting over power in one government, one trying to overthrow another. This is the reason why libertarians (who oppose war, who oppose the initiation of force by one individual against another) always side with the South in their act of secession and decry the North’s aggression.
Lowry tries to diffuse the "Dictator Lincoln" claims many make in regard to Lincoln's assumption of extraordinary unconstitutional powers. He claims the south created a "national emergency" by firing on Fort Sumter and "Lincoln replied with every lever at his disposal — and then some," absolving Lincoln of any wrongdoing. This unconvincing narrative leaves out the most important aspect about Fort Sumter: all the events leading up to the firing on Fort Sumter. These events include Abraham Lincoln refusing on countless occasions to entertain the southern diplomats who wanted to ensure a lasting peace, deceiving the South in thinking that the status quo would be honored (ie. no re-provisioning of Fort Sumter), and ultimately going back on his word (not his word per-say, but speaking through Secretary of State Seward) and attempting to resupply Fort Sumter which, based on the communications between himself, cabinet members, and members of the military, he knew would provoke war. Essentially, Lincoln knowingly deceived the Confederacy the whole time leading up to Fort Sumter, and ultimately gave sanction to the re-provisioning of Fort Sumter which he knew meant war (and that’s what he wanted). All these facts are conveniently omitted from this narrative so as to make it appear as if Lincoln was on the defensive and needed extra-constitutional powers to prevent an invasion of the North, a dubious neoconservative assumption nonetheless.
He then claims many "agrarians" (as if anyone today is backwards enough to want to live in an economy dominated by agriculture) get it right when they talk about Lincoln's policies favoring central banking, tariffs, and internal improvements, all of which "tended to create a vibrant, diverse economy open to men of various talents." I'm not sure what economics text book this guy's read (probably one by Krugman) but none of those policies create wealth; they either redistribute it or destroy it. A quick perusal of Frederic Bastiat's That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen will explode any claim that these policies create wealth. This wealth he claims is created as a result of these policies may simply be described as the effects that are seen; he ignores all the unseen effects, and all the taxpayers who had their money taken for these political causes.
I also enjoy how Lowry exclaims that Lincoln was in favor of "sound" banking, as if Lincoln would have ever claimed to be in favor of “unsound” banking. The question to pose would be “is central banking sound, stable banking?” And the answer would be NO. The reality is central banking, just like the rest of the left-over Whig platform Lincoln adopted, was just another way to enrich his buddies and other special interests on the taxpayer’s dime.
No matter what any Lincoln apologist may say, the facts remain: he imprisoned over 10,000 Americans without Habeas Corpus; he unilaterally, unconstitutionally suspended Habeas Corpus; he shut down over 300 newspapers; he deported a Congressman; he ordered an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the United States Roger B.Taney; he imprisoned 20 members of the Maryland legislature; and he engaged a war of aggression upon the southern states which was insanely immoral. Even if it was waged to free the slaves (which it wasn't), almost every country on earth was capable of ending slavery peacefully. Why couldn't the freest nation on earth, America, do the same?