Essentially this is an essay that superficially refutes an Obama-Lincoln comparison, but underneath the argument misrepresents Lincoln and his presidency so that it appears legal and altruistic. The truth is that after April 1, 1861, the majority of Lincoln's actions were the exact opposite of Presidential behavior sanctioned by Constitutional law.
It should be noted that the author does not present any footnotes for his opinions, and sets up false authority for his assertions. He cannot know what Lincoln read or thought. Instead, he must rely on opinions and vague quotes from second and third hand sources. That is not scholarly work.
It should be kept in mind precisely who Lincoln was. He was essentially an orator that presented well polished equivocations and very little specific policy by which he stood and on which he acted.
For example, the author makes this statement which includes an undocumented Lincoln quote:
“And in the ultimate sense, the Civil War, by preserving the Union and eliminating slavery, was waged ‘in order that each of you may have through this free government . . . an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise and intelligence; that you all may have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspirations.’ Such a “nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel.”
Sounds like Lincoln was dedicated to that. But looking back a few years, he said these things:
“Cast into life where slavery was already (existing, I do not know) how it could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself.” (1852 eulogy of Henry Clay)
Equivocation.
Then in 1854 in a speech in Peoria, Lincoln said he looked forward to a future of a white American northwest. He called for the exclusion of slavery from the territories, but not for the commonly presumed reasons. Instead he stated in that speech that his reason was to preserve those territories as land for free whites to move to. Specifically Lincoln said,
“The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted with them.”
Equivocation.
After the Dred Scott decision, he said:
“We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. This is what we have to do.”
Mr. Lincoln varied his message.
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favour of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races”.
Those words came from the mouth of Abraham Lincoln in his debate with Stephen A. Douglas in 1858.
Equivocation.
Then in March-April of 1861 he supported an amendment to the Constitution, the Corwin amendment that would legalize slavery in any state choosing to be involved in it.
This amendment was passed by both the House and Senate and said:
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said state."
"I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable," would be Lincoln's response to this amendments passage, as said in his first inaugural address, March 4, 1861.
Equivocation.
Then in 1862 he said:
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
Equivocation.
His speeches and quotes are so widely varied, one could conclude anything one wants to. However, the one issue on which he did not equivocate was that he would preserve the revenue stream described in his first inauguration speech.
Preservation of the tariff revenue stream meant coercion and subjugation of the Southern states.
He did so, beginning with the invasion of Charleston and Pensacola in April of 1861.
Good Post, thanks!
Like you don't have a hardened agenda yourself.
It should be noted that the author does not present any footnotes for his opinions, and sets up false authority for his assertions. He cannot know what Lincoln read or thought. Instead, he must rely on opinions and vague quotes from second and third hand sources. That is not scholarly work.
You provide no footnotes yourself. Moreover, when was the last time you saw bibliographic footnotes in the National Review or other magazines of that sort, the New Republic, the Nation, the Atlantic? I'm not even going to say what that comment makes you look like.
The same with the assertion that "He cannot know what Lincoln read and thought." Why in heaven's name not? And how can you come any closer with your own selective quotes? Gabor Boritt, relying on Herndon's account, documents Lincoln's reading of the Mills, Carey and Wayland, and Lincoln left behind enough documentation of his own ideas about economics, so why do you say that Guelzo "cannot know" such things?
“Cast into life where slavery was already (existing, I do not know) how it could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself.” (1852 eulogy of Henry Clay)
Equivocation.
Bullsh#t. Look at the actual quote:
Having been led to allude to domestic slavery so frequently already, I am unwilling to close without referring more particularly to Mr. Clay's views and conduct in regard to it. He ever was on principle and in feeling, opposed to slavery. The very earliest, and one of the latest public efforts of his life, separated by a period of more than fifty years, were both made in favor of gradual emancipation of the slaves in Kentucky. He did not perceive, that on a question of human right, the negroes were to be excepted from the human race. And yet Mr. Clay was the owner of slaves. Cast into life where slavery was already widely spread and deeply seated, he did not perceive, as I think no wise man has perceived, how it could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself. His feeling and his judgment, therefore, ever led him to oppose both extremes of opinion on the subject. Those who would shiver into fragments the Union of these States; tear to tatters its now venerated constitution; and even burn the last copy of the Bible, rather than slavery should continue a single hour, together with all their more halting sympathisers, have received, and are receiving their just execration; and the name, and opinions, and influence of Mr. Clay, are fully, and, as I trust, effectually and enduringly, arrayed against them.
He's talking about Clay, a slaveowner who thought slavery wrong but didn't know how it could quickly -- "at once" -- be eliminated without creating even more problems.
He's right about Clay, and right that a prudent, thoughtful statesman would avoid the extremes of justifying and encouraging slavery on the one hand and demanding immediate emancipation on the other.
Now whether one ought to be a prudent and thoughtful statesman, rather than an agitator and activist for immediate change, come what may, is a question that people will argue about, but accept the premise that politicians try to negotiate between evils and its hard to disagree with Lincoln in this matter.
After the Dred Scott decision, he said:
“We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. This is what we have to do.”
No equivocation there.
Mr. Lincoln varied his message.
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favour of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races”.
Those words came from the mouth of Abraham Lincoln in his debate with Stephen A. Douglas in 1858.
Equivocation.
By no means. These were two different questions: 1) the expansion of slavery against the right to freely sell one's labor and 2) social and political equality between the races. And Lincoln was unequivocal on both. That may not be to our taste today, and he may have changed his mind over time, but it would have been quite clear to people of his own time where he stood.
Moreover the idea that he "varied his message" is also a little silly. In a debate you deal with the charges and attacks that are thrown at you. Lincoln was dealing with the attacks Douglas had made on him. You may regard his comment as contemptible (though maybe more because of the fact that he said it, rather than what he said, which reflected the belief of the vast majority of Americans -- North, and especially South), but in other forums, where he didn't have Douglas breathing down his neck he may have expressed himself differently. Is that equivocation? Only to the extent that politicians don't always use the same tone and words with every audience.
Come clean on this: if you were alive in 1850 or 1860 you'd be pro-slavery, a defender of the Southern way of life. Certainly people who wail as much as your friends do about the wrongs done to the South would be. Maybe I would too. Almost everybody accepted the existence of slavery where it already was established. In that context, Lincoln was ahead of the country in seeing the wrong of slavery and looking forward to its eventual demise.