The Danger in Republicans' Fight to Own Lincoln's Legacy

American Thinker ^ | 08/27/2018 | By William Sullivan

[SeekAndFind]

Human beings (and Americans are no exception) like their heroes and villains easily identifiable and the explanation of historical events simple. As such, both Republicans and Democrats have built easily digestible historical narratives regarding American political history since the Civil War. Peculiarly, there seems to be a debate about who gets to own the legacy of Abraham Lincoln.

On the left, the meandering and incoherent narrative goes like this. Lincoln and his mighty Union army launched a war against the racist, slave-holding Confederacy to rid America of the abominable institution of slavery and make equal citizens of the former slaves. Therefore, modern Democrats own his legacy of greatness, because Republicans "switched" to become Democrats at some undefined time before FDR's New Deal when all those big-government, socially conscious, expansive, and redistributive federal laws were visited upon all the states. Then, somehow, they switched back at some undefined time after LBJ's Great Society and the creation of the welfare state.

On the right, it goes like this. Lincoln and his mighty Union armies launched a war against the racist, slave-holding Confederacy to rid America of the abominable institution of slavery and make equal citizens of the former slaves. Because Lincoln was a Republican, modern Republicans own Lincoln's legacy of greatness. Dinesh D'Souza currently has a new book, movie, and massive campaign underway to prove to Americans that this is the case, suggesting that Trump is a modern avatar of Lincoln or some such.

Both arguments might fit nicely into simple talking points, but neither is the least bit accurate.

The foundation of both narratives – that Lincoln launched his war against the Confederacy to destroy the institution of slavery in order to make equal American citizens of the freed slaves – is never questioned, because doing so is political heresy.

[jeffersondem]

“It's not a “prideful boast”, just simple fact.”

Comes to mind the catch phrase that Aaron Spelling had grandpa Will Sonnett say over and over.

When the septuagenarian on horseback said it, however, you knew there was gravitas because it always came just before an overdue success, and not after an embarrassing gaffe.

https://youtu.be/9j1qkorFszY

[DiogenesLamp]

And as I have pointed out repeatedly, this "four score and seven year old" compact cannot be stronger than the bonds of loyalty required of the 1000 year old English Monarchy.

[DiogenesLamp]

I always liked and admired Malcom X. That man sure could give a good speech.

If you black you were born in jail, in the North as well as the South. Stop talking about the South. As long as you south of the Canadian border, you South. [laughter, applause] Don't call Governor Wallace a Dixie governor, Romney is a Dixie Governor. [applause]

Up here in the North you have the same thing. The Democratic Party don't – they don't do it that way. They got a thing they call gerrymandering. They maneuver you out of power. Even though you can vote they fix it so you're voting for nobody. They got you going and coming. In the South they're outright political wolves, in the North they're political foxes. A fox and a wolf are both canine, both belong to the dog family. [laughter, applause] Now, you take your choice. You going to choose a northern dog or a southern dog? Because either dog you choose, I guarantee you, you'll still be in the doghouse.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "...not after an embarrassing gaffe."

"Gaffe" like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder.
I'd say your talent for misreading & misunderstanding my words does not constitute a "gaffe" by me.

BTW, I'm still waiting, hoping to see jeffersondem show some sign of respect for James Madison's understanding of his Constitution.
What do you think, will it be a long wait?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "as I have pointed out repeatedly, this 'four score and seven year old' compact cannot be stronger than the bonds of loyalty required of the 1000 year old English Monarchy."

Total nonsense for a long list of reasons, beginning here: Brits abrogated -- revoked -- their charters and declared Americans in rebellion many months before July 4, 1776.
Just one reason why there is no legitimate comparison of 1776 & 1860.

Unless we put Confederates in the role of 1776 Brits.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: " That man sure could give a good speech. "

Sure, a demagogue with the best of them, Louis Farrakhan being another.
If you accept their premises, it can make sense, otherwise not so much.

In your example here we might note that about 20 African-Americans were elected & served in the U.S. Congress from 1865 to 1900, all Republicans from Southern states.
Since 1900 over 100 have been elected, about half from the South and all but a handful Democrats.

So, whatever gerrymandering happens is not intended to exclude blacks, but more likely to guarantee solid majorities in their districts.
These days some courts say it's not Kosher to put too many blacks in the same district.
They think more competition would be better, or at least could elect more Democrats, which our activist judges find appealing.

{sigh}

Here is a map showing current House African-Americans, blue is Democrat:

[DiogenesLamp]

In your example here we might note that about 20 African-Americans were elected & served in the U.S. Congress from 1865 to 1900, all Republicans from Southern states.

I happened to be poking around in the US Constitution the other day, and I noticed this following bit of text, and it made me go "Hmmmm."

No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

Now I do not know the history of those early black representatives from Southern States, but it made me wonder if they were newly freed slaves, or had they already been free men for seven years?

We know Abraham Lincoln's government would never break a constitutional law that wasn't necessary to break, so we will assume these were all free men for at least seven years prior to their election, but I thought perhaps you could shed some light on this particular point.

:)

[DiogenesLamp]

Sure, a demagogue with the best of them, Louis Farrakhan being another.

I think Malcolm X was qualitatively better than Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan wishes he could inspire in the manner of Malcolm X.

[DiogenesLamp]

Total nonsense for a long list of reasons, beginning here: Brits abrogated -- revoked -- their charters and declared Americans in rebellion many months before July 4, 1776.

Completely legal and within the legitimate powers of the King to do. Therefore not a legitimate gripe under their system of law.

Unless we put Confederates in the role of 1776 Brits.

Because they sent their massively superior invading Army into States wanting independence to subjugate them for their ruler?

Doesn't sound like the Confederate side of the conflict.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Now I do not know the history of those early black representatives from Southern States, but it made me wonder if they were newly freed slaves, or had they already been free men for seven years?"

You guessed correctly:

About half of those first 20 African-American Republican Congressmen were former slaves, but the dates of their emancipation are not given.
However, the question would be mute for any who took office in or after 1870 (emancipation plus seven years), which, it turns out, was all of them.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: " Farrakhan wishes he could inspire in the manner of Malcolm X. "

I'll take your word for that.
Neither interests me except as potential threats to the Republic.

[DiogenesLamp]

I was pointing this out in another debate on this subject on another website, and I figured I might as well remind you of it as well. You can guess where it came from. :)

That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security.

That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve.

That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness;

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Completely legal and within the legitimate powers of the King to do.
Therefore not a legitimate gripe under their system of law."

Perhaps in the king's mind, and in Parliament's, but not according to the acknowledged rights of Englishmen, which our Founders then considered themselves.
Their slogan "no taxation without representation" was near the heart of it, and revoking their rights as Englishmen put king & parliament outside legitimate authority over Englishmen.
Further, Brits responded to American protests with ever increasing "usurpations or abuses of power" in Madison's words.
All that made the Declaration of 1776 a matter, as they themselves said, of utmost necessity.
Nothing remotely similar existed in 1860, and that made 1860 secession not necessity but at pleasure.

All of which you well understand, but simply refuse to acknowledge.

DiogenesLamp: "Because they sent their massively superior invading Army into States wanting independence to subjugate them for their ruler?
Doesn't sound like the Confederate side of the conflict."

No, rather for a long list of reasons which I've posted before and it begins with both Brits and Confederates unilaterally abrogating -- revoking -- the accepted charter/compact of the previous "four score" years.
That abrogation, by itself, did not start war, but it did make Americans hopping mad and ready for whatever came next.

[BroJoeK]

Note yet again that word "necessary".
Our Founders had no doubt what "necessary" meant, they spelled it out in detail in their Declaration of 1776.
Necessity was the opposite of "at pleasure", which is what happened in 1860.

[DiogenesLamp]

However, the question would be mute for any who took office in or after 1870

Yes it would, but 1865 is not 1870. How many between 1865 and 1870, and how long had they been citizens?

A quick look at a few black representatives reveal, just as I suspected, some (Henry McNeal Turner, Tunis Campbell, Hiram Rhodes Revels for example) were clearly born free, and therefore met that requirement. About the status of Aaron Alpeoria Bradley, I am not sure. It says he escaped slavery, but I see nothing in his entry about becoming a citizen. It says he became a member of the bar in Massachusetts, but this does not necessarily mean he became a citizen of that or any other state.

I notice most black Republicans were elected after 1870, but I haven't gone through all of them to see if they had been citizens seven years before that date.

Maybe people at the time interpreted the 14th to be retroactive back to the date they were born. I don't know, but that would explain a few things.

[DiogenesLamp]

Note yet again that word "necessary".

I do. It is in the context of "necessary to their happiness", which any reasonable person will understand to mean "at their pleasure."

[DiogenesLamp]

Perhaps in the king's mind, and in Parliament's, but not according to the acknowledged rights of Englishmen, which our Founders then considered themselves.

Are we going to take the interpretation of that from those who feel oppressed, or are we going to take the interpretation of that from those who are doing the alleged oppressing?

We either take the King's position, or we take the people's position. Whatever we do, we do it for both the American War for Independence, and the Southern war for Independence.

We do not use one standard for the first, and a completely different standard for the second. We use the same standard for both.

So who gets to define oppression? The King/President or the People?

Pick one or the other.

[jeffersondem]

” . . . I’ll cheerfully grant your claim — if indeed you do so claim — than not all Democrats were/are perfidious to the Constitution all the time.”

It sounded like you said something different here: “The fact is Democrats hate our Constitution, always have, always will.”

And here: “Democrats: at war against the US Constitution since 1788.”

And here: “. . . you Democrats from Day One opposed the Constitution . . .”

And here: “It’s all just Democrats doing what Democrats naturally do: lie.”

You have made it sound monolithic.

[jeffersondem]

“That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness”

According to Smartacus, the actual text reads: “That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; provided, however, the people must first seek and obtain approval from those that govern the governed, unless it is really, really, really necessary.”

[DiogenesLamp]

He deliberately ignores anything which contradicts his desired narrative. He won't admit the Confederates had any legitimacy for what they did, and it's amusing to watch him attempt to pirouette around the similarities between what the founders did (which he dare not criticize) and what the confederates did.

It demonstrates serious cognitive dissonance. It shows a man can simultaneously believe two different things which contradict each other. :)