The Civil War and the Trump Impeachment

Normally in democratic societies, if you don’t like the election results, you regroup and try harder to win in the next election cycle. Not so in 1860.

Voters in slave holding states split their vote between three candidates, leading to Lincoln’s election in 1860. For most voters in the South, Lincoln was an illegitimate president. They didn’t like the Republican party’s opposition to the spread of slavery westward, and they thought Lincoln would take measures toward the end of slavery.

Instead of regrouping and trying harder to win in 1864, a number of Southern states declared secession. Glad this sort of thing hasn’t ever happened since then.

Santorum and States' Rights

One of the inexplicable objections that some people have about Santorum is that he is insufficiently committed to states' rights. States' rights is the flip side of the coin of a small federal government, and so this objection implies that Santorum looks to increase the size and impact of the federal government. The objection could not be more fallacious.

The basis for this objection is Santorum's proposal of two constitutional amendments, one to define marriage, and the other one to define personhood (a pro-life amendment). Presently, different states have different laws pertaining to these issues. For example, as Rick Perry indicated earlier in the campaign, he has no problem with New York allowing gay marriage, so long as Texas can make up its own mind.

Perry's stance would end in pandemonium. If a gay couple duly married in Massachusetts were to move to Texas, would Texas recognize the marriage? Or if a gay "married" couple were merely to visit Texas, would their marriage not be recognized by Texas during their visit? Would a Vermont gay couple filing jointly for federal income tax have to pro-rate their tax by deducting days in Texas that they weren't recognized as being married?

In some ways, our present situation is reminiscent of the competing slave laws from state to state in 19th century America. Slave owners from the south taking their personal body servants with them on visits to the north risked having their slaves granted freedom by the states they might visit. Similarly, runaway slaves were considered free once they crossed into northern states. To solve these issues, southern states were altogether eager to use the heavy hand of the federal government to infringe upon the rights of northern states through fugitive slave laws and through the intrusive arm of the Supreme Court (e.g., the Dred Scot decision) which trumped state laws.

All this changed with the 13th amendment which outlawed slavery throughout the United States. Santorum's two amendments would likewise establish a common policy on marriage and on the definition of life. However, there is a considerable difference between the way pro-slavery federal legislation was imposed in the pre-Civil War era and the way that Santorum's proposed amendments would be enacted. The pro-slavery federal legislation reflected the heavy hand of an intrusive federal government that was expanding its role. Santorum's proposed constitutional amendments, however, give due consideration to states' rights. Here's how.

The most important factor in amending the constitution is that it involves a vote of the states' legislative bodies. The issue is not sent to the states until the proposed amendment passes by a 2/3rds majority of both the U.S. House and the Senate. Only then is the amendment sent to the states which utterly control the fate of the proposed amendment. Each state legislative body votes on the issue. Only when 2/3rds of the states pass the amendment does it become a part of the constitution.

Thus, this process is heavily weighted in favor of the states, giving due consideration to states' rights. The only role the federal government has would be in initiating the amendment process. This contrasts remarkably with the fugitive slave laws of the 19th century which infringed upon the rights of the northern states by a simple majority of the U.S. House and Senate, and the president's signature.

Santorum's amendments are necessary in order to avoid a free-for-all situation where some of the states infringe upon the civil rights of some humans simply because they have not yet been born, and where states define marriage differently. Failure to have a common position on these key issues will have grave consequences on our country. But Santorum respects states' rights by addressing these issues through a constitutional amendment process which puts the states in control of the process, a process determined by our Founding Fathers.

This overthrows the criticism that Santorum is against states' rights. Quite the contrary, his goal is to fix a problem within the United States by sending the issue to the states.

Be a Sarah Palin

In the American Civil War, the North got off with a bad start, suffering defeat after defeat, despite huge resources. These early defeats have been blamed, rightly so, on the fact that the North's brightest and best citizenry failed to sign up for military service in the early part of the war. This contrasted starkly with the Confederacy which had a culture that assumed that its best and brightest would serve.

After suffering further defeats in late 1862, leading citizens in the North came to understand that victory would only come if its brightest and best leaders would step forward for the war effort. Late 1862 and early 1863 brought into the Union army's leadership men of such worth, including, for example, Joshua Chamberlain, one of the many heroes at Gettysburg. This brought about a change in the Union's prospects for victory.

This week's election has thrust the whole of federal government into the hands of a party which could not be more wrong on nearly every issue. In some ways, Republicans must now feel like the North did in 1862, after so many serious defeats.

How then shall we now proceed? I would urge the same strategy which citizens in the North did during their dark days of the Civil War.

I urge our best and brightest Christians to consider getting involved in local politics, with an eye toward rebuilding the Republican party in district, state, and ultimately national levels. Sarah Palin has set the example and paved the way simply by starting out attending PTO meetings. We should do the same.

Not every Christian should feel called to politics. However, our churches need to encourage people to think seriously about it and to support them in their initial efforts. Pastors should preach it from the pulpit and mention it personally to people: we need faithful, competent believers dominating politics.

Who in your church will step forward for this honorable service?

Frankly, I don't have time to blog on politics. But perhaps in 1861 some Northerners took the same attitude: "I'm not going to take time off from my work at the university [or at the law firm, or at the corporation] to lead soldiers into battle; my job here is too important." But American politics is such an important cause.

As for myself, I've seen too many political losses when the stakes are so high. I don't want to lose any more battles. I might not be the brightest and best, but someone needs to help get our message out.

Join me in the political process.