Posted on 04/12/2002 7:49:37 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
|
When I came to the USA, and even before when for a year or so I attended the American High School in Munich, Germany, Abraham Lincoln, America's 16th president, was treated by most of my teachers as the greatest and, more important, best US president. Everyone credited him with preserving this free country's union and freeing the slaves, for which, understandably, he was admired and all felt a debt of gratitude. Then in college, too, I never heard a critical word about Lincoln. The Gettysburg address was always represented to me as perhaps America's greatest post-revolutionary political statement. Professor Harry V. Jaffa, a prominent teacher at my alma mater, Claremont McKenna College, wrote about Lincoln and depicted him as a man who is deeply committed to American political ideals. Judging by his selection of Lincoln quotes, for example in his How to think about the American Revolution (Carolina Academic Press, 1978), this seemed entirely justified. As an example, take the following remark by Lincoln in 1859:
Based on statements such as this one, Jaffa maintained that Lincoln was a champion of the American political tradition. Consider, again, the following from Lincoln:
Jaffa's major defense of Lincoln comes in Crisis of The House Divided (Doubleday, 1959). He argues forcefully in favor of a very positive assessment of Lincoln, versus Stephen Douglas, as the most honorable statesman of American history. When challenged by others who would come up with a very different assessment of and supporting quotations for such an assessment from Lincoln, Professor Jaffa tells them that "Lincoln's disavowal of abolitionism was absolutely necessary to his political survival in the climate of opinion of Illinois voters in the 1850s. To have failed to make such disavowals would simply have disqualified him as a political leader of the antislavery cause." So, it was politically necessary for Lincoln to disavow his principled objection to slavery, based on his true regard for the meaning of the Declaration, so he could appear to be more moderate than the often violent abolitionists who were widely held in disfavor not just in the South but also in the North. So, all of what Lincoln says about blacks, including disparaging their intellect, must be taken as a political ploy rather than what he really thought. In response to reading some critics of the Jaffa line, I've started to read up on Lincoln. For example, I've explored much of Edgar Lee Master's tome, Lincoln The Man (Dodd, Mead & Co., 1931) and Charles Adams' When in the Course of Human Events (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000). Some of what I have encountered paint Lincoln very differently from how he came across in my early education in America. Of course, there are always detractors and revisionists from the received view, about nearly everything of interest in human history. Heroes and villains are often identified based on the author's ethics, religion and politics, and given the diversity of these views among us, one would expect that the character and achievements of Lincoln, as those of others, are subject to intense debate. However, there is a difference here, it seems to me. Hardly any dispute seems to be evident about Abraham Lincoln in mainstream or secondary educational forums, be it on PBS or C-Span, in either the class rooms or the text books, or anywhere in the prominent popular media. One exception is "Booknotes," on C-Span, hosted by Brian Lamb. Lamb does ask biographers or other authors of a Lincoln volumes about some of the more difficult aspects of Lincoln's legacy and has had some dissenters from Lincoln admirers on his program, such as Lerone Bennett, Jr., author of Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream (Johnson Pub. Co., 2000). Yet, most of the time the Lincoln critics are kept away from discussions and the major publishers seem to publish only laudatory works, as if there were no serious dissenting voice. Challengers are considered either non-existent or members of some lunatic fringe. This despite the fact that there can be perfectly sensible questions about whether Lincoln really followed the central elements of the American political tradition. Even his championing of political freedom raises some questions since political freedom may mean no more than the right to take part in politics. That is quite different from the right to individual freedom or liberty, which means the right to act on one's own judgment, even against the majority's will. Pure democracy was, after all, not what the Declaration of Independence announced to be the essence of this country. So a debate about Lincoln would be quite appropriate. A very different atmosphere surrounds Thomas Jefferson, of course, and it suggests that the historians are embarking on some agenda, with ulterior motives, rather than on the disinterested study of American history. Several works impute to Jefferson dubious motives, not to mention conduct, and there is a lively debate about whether he was a great president, a good man or even a principled Founder of the republic.
The Attack on Free SocietyFrom what I have managed to gather, just as the Jefferson critics are heard out, neither should the Lincoln critics be dismissed. There appears to be a rather peculiar reason why they are dismissed, having little or nothing to do with their scholarship or even relevance. It appears to do with a rather nuanced sort of political correctness, one directed against the nature of a bona fide, pure free society and its necessarily limited government. To begin with, from the time of the American founding there has been a serious difference of opinion among the major figures as to the kind of government that America should have. This focused mainly on the priorities of our political institution. Should we be mainly concerned with the respect and protection of individual liberty or with making our country united and strong, indeed, so strong that individual liberty gets sacrificed to this strength? Alexander Hamilton, who supported a strong central government, argued about this with Thomas Jefferson who favored limiting government severely. The country's most renowned early supreme court justice, John Marshall, took the Hamiltonian line, favoring judicial as against legislative supremacy, as in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Then came Lincoln who, contrary to received opinion, seemed less interested in carrying forward the ideals of the US Declaration, which he invoked only when it came to his later discussions of slavery, than in securing a united and thus very powerful American state (needed to keep the country united). And he appears to have believed that once the country was established, individual rights to resist state power had to go. (Professor Jaffa, too, argued that the idea of secession is misguided because democracy is supreme, as against the right to disconnect from the rest of the country. So his loyalty to Lincoln appears to be based more on his own belief that individual liberty is less important than a kind of "America first" stance, never mind its exact content.) The works I've been reading lately, from various sides of the debate, tend to support a murky view of Lincoln. They suggest more of the ambitious, albeit impressive and even grand, political figure than of the devoted supporter of the unique high American ideals. Contrary to the impressions created by what has to be considered as more a myth or legend than historical reality, Lincoln comes off as a pragmatic, shrewd, but fundamentally not really principled politician. He had goals, yes, but these are not the ones for which he is commonly praised, namely, his devotion to liberty. Rather they were to head up a strong country, a world power, never mind its exact political character. One way to come to appreciate this view of Lincoln is to consider how utterly unprincipled he sounded about slavery. In this regard Professor Thomas DiLorenzo's book, The Real Lincoln (Prima Publishing, 2002), is quite an eye opener, as is the aforementioned book by Adams, When in the Course of Human Events and, especially, Jeffrey Hummel's Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men (Open Court, 1997). So is the earlier mentioned Lincoln The Man. Not having ever been a scholar about Lincoln, I had been relying mainly on the common view of him, except for occasional skeptical notes from one or another historian or pundit, such as Doug Bandow and Joseph Sobran. So, I had thought that Lincoln always found slavery repulsive, a grievous assault upon blacks and an gross affront to the ideals of the US Declaration.
Slavery Not an IssueYet, consider, for example, this from our 16th president's 1860 inaugural address: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." And two years later, as the sitting president, Lincoln wrote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)" And there is this, as well, from 1858: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." One would suppose these remarks would generate a serious and very visible public debate about the man. Yet we have, instead, mostly laudatory works such as William Lee Miller's Lincoln's Virtues (Knopf, 2002) and Stephen B. Oates, With Malice Toward None (HarperTrade, 1993), not to mention Carl Sandberg's Abraham Lincoln, The Prairie Years and the War Years (Harcourt Brace, 1953). I have heard many of the disputes about whether Jefferson's declaration gave authentic expression to his ideals, but I have heard and read nothing like that about Lincoln in prominently published works and discussion forums, despite the pronouncements along lines I just quoted. Consider, also, that nearly all societies with slavery managed to abolish the evil institution, at about the same time as the American Civil War commenced, without the immense loss of life and blood, presumably spent so as to abolish slavery. The war, then, seems to have been an anomaly in the history of abolition. Its enormous costs was, moreover, enough to have paid every master for all his slaves and made it possible to get rid of the system without any shed of blood whatsoever. What about the issues of secession and economic protectionism, what role did they have in producing the war between the states? Broadly speaking it seems that various unfair national economic policies, favoring Northerners and imposed on Southerners, prompted the secession movement, not primarily the resistance to freeing slaves. Not that the bulk of the South didn't believe in slavery or that many in its white population didn't try to justify it on the most discredited grounds of white supremacy. They did, but this wasn't at all sufficient to bring them to armed conflict. And given Lincoln's recorded views about slavery, this looks quite plausible — enough so, in my view, that it should generate some kind of public debate, not unlike that conducted about Jefferson's recorded attitude toward slavery in light of his slave holdings and possible secret fraternization of a slave woman.
Lincoln Cared Little for FreedomEven if we assume that the union was needed to preserve America's status of a free country, there are problems with this because Lincoln did not appear to care much about the quintessentially American kind of freedom, namely, the right of every individual to his or her life, liberty and property. Nor did he care about the most important legal freedom in America, the one still cherished even by many politicians, academics, and journalists, namely, freedom of the press. Here is some clearly damning evidence of this, in President Abraham Lincoln's order to General John Dix, issued on May 18, 1864:
Lincoln had ordered, as well, the suspension of a free society's most cherished legal principle, the writ of habeas corpus — which is to say, the requirement that those arrested be charged, put to trial and be otherwise accorded vigorous legal protection against arbitrary treatment by officials of governments. In the case of Lincoln, suspending the writ basically gave him the powers of an absolute ruler who need not contend with critics, opponents and such and has full legal authority to carry out whatever policy he wanted to. Even in war, a free society cannot tolerate such a policy and no champion of such a society, it seems clear to me, would ever ask for the powers Lincoln wanted for himself and the government he administered. No, I am not an expert on the matter of Lincoln and his loyalty to American ideas but I can tell, as any reasonable person can, that with these and dozens and dozens of other pieces of evidence at hand, the moral and political merits of Abraham Lincoln need to be widely debated, not swept under the rug. Nor should school children be shielded from this debate, just as they should not about Jefferson's ideas and conduct. Just as the issue of whether Jefferson's words in the Declaration express his true character and ideas is of the utmost historical importance, so the same is true with Lincoln. For, as another aspect of the puzzle, Lincoln also said many things that would appear to support just exactly what most Southerners wanted to do. As he said, in January of 1848, "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better." And there is, of course, the famous Gettysburg address the sentiments of which include the main principles of the Declaration. So we seem to have here not a clean and simple Honest Abe at all, but a historical figure whose official representation, in our educational institutions and popular media, seems to conflict very seriously, once we look past the idolatry, with some very credible pieces of historical evidence. Isn't it time that the country abandon its silence on the subject of the true Abraham Lincoln? Isn't it time, also, to abandon the tactic, deployed, sadly, even by Professor Jaffa, of dismissing Lincoln critics as apologists for slavery, thus sparing oneself the trouble of coping with damning evidence? Machan, who teaches at Chapman University in Orange, California, advises Freedom Communications, Inc., on public policy matters. His most recent book is Initiative — Human Agency and Society (Hoover Institution Press, 2000). His email address is Tibor_R._Machan@link.freedom.com. |
I don't know, Twodees, I just don't know. That question calls for a bit of speculation.
If he had it to do over again, he might not have even wanted to become President. It must have been an awesome burden contending with all of that internal disorder.
Was he ever asked that question?
"It may be worthy of remark, that this act was passed by the first congress of the United States, sitting under a constitution which had declared 'that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus should not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety might require it.'""If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so."
"That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide; until the legislative will be expressed, this court can only see its duty, and must obey the laws."
Chief Justice Marshall, Ex parte Bollman & Swartwout, 4 Cranch 75, 8 U.S. 75 (1807).
Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney cited this case in his ex parte Merryman decision as well, and had this to say:
"I understand that the president not only claims the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus himself, at his discretion, but to delegate that discretionary power to a military officer, and to leave it to him to determine whether he will or will not obey judicial process that may be served upon him. No official notice has been given to the courts of justice, or to the public, by proclamation or otherwise, that the president claimed this power, and had exercised it in the manner stated in the return. And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of congress.""The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article. This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department."
"It is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power."
Under Article I Section 9 of the Constitution. Yes I know where it's at. So do all the lincoln quacks on this thread. But it's under the POWERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH!!!! lincoln suspended habeas corpus all by his lonesome because he wanted to, and he felt it was right. And some around here get the idea that fell under the Militia Act as well. Just because a new nation had been created, Congress wasn't in session for another three months, abe had to do something didn't he? That's the logic used by those that worship at the feet of the tyrant. The Militia Act does not say, nor does it imply, that under circumstances that it covers (of which the creation of the Confederate States of America was not one, but hey nobody seems to care about that) that all the powers in the Constitution and all the powers of the federal government suddenly fall upon one man. That would make him a king, and I don't think the Founders (except Hamilton and his cronies) would like that very much. Do you?
Without such a statement, it is sheer inference that the powers which are only reserved to times of rebellion or disturbed public safety are also reserved to the legislative branch exclusively.
Taney makes the inference, Lincoln disagreed. Each was responsible for making his own judgments about the extent of his powers, and if the President had abused that power, it was up to the Congress to impeach him. The Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional authority to tell the President his job.
I suspect that the real answer is that the President acted on the presumption of Congressional approval, when the Congress was not in session, because "public safety required it." That's not "really strict" either, but "really reasonable" which is a better standard, in my opinion. Is it really to be supposed that a measure that "rebellion or public safety may require" would have to wait until a special session of Congress could be called? And I thought Congress did give its approval once in session, although I have to look that up. Do you know?
By the way, Article Three gives the Congess power "to declare the punishment of treason." But Article Three concerns the judicial branch. So what's up with that?
Remember, I want REALLY strict construction.
What's the statute that the Marshall opinion keeps referring to?
No, Walt only believes everything politicians say that agree with his predetermined historical agenda. That which contradicts it might just as well never have been said by the politician at all, as he willfully ignores those statements without any reason other than that they contradict that agenda.
An answer to that is found in your next statement: Why did President Lincoln offer, in his first inaugural, to support the proposed 13th amendment
Lincoln sought ratification of that amendment from his first inaugural through spring of 1862. Considering it said something quite the contrary of the emancipation proclaimation, it would have been silly for him to be supporting both at the same time.
Lincoln, in that speech, was waxing rhapsodic about the communist revolutions of Europe in 1848. He was very enthusiastic about the revolutionaries and used quite a few of them in his officer corps. Lincoln didn't give a tin-plated shit about America or about Americans' rights. He cared mightily about his own power and the power of government which could be used to shape society. That's a trait of dictators.
That's one small mistake in Taney's opinion, probably due to his outrage over the tyrant's usurpation of powers. The legislative article does contain a slight reference to the executive branch where the position of VP as president of the Senate is established.
Ahem... exParte Merryman is a circuit court decision. The courts most certainly do have the power to block an unlawful order of arrest by whomever, whether it be an insane President or a power drunk local assistant DA.
Are you sure you're a scholar? I mean, I've made it clear many times that I'm not, but you're supposed to be a professor and you keep making such terribly specious little arguments like this. Heck, son, I'm an electrician and I know better than to refer to Merryman as a Supreme Court ruling. I hope you're not tenured. It's obvious that you'll need firing soon enough.
Or do I understand you to say that it meant nothing, but was poetic excess because he was "waxing?" If so, perhaps you would grant as well that the text should not be cited as evidence that Lincoln understood a right of secession, which is why this came up. I didn't quite follow the transition from the speech, to his officer corps, to tin-plated shit. Perhaps you could go over that again.
To the extent that Taney had to rely upon an inference as distinguished from the express language of the Constitution, was he guilty of attempting to make law from the bench? How long would Taney's opinion have been if the Constitution plainly stated what Taney said it means? Should the uncertainty that is implied by the need for inference affect a court's willingness to second guess the propriety of an alternative interpretation from a separate, but independent, branch of government?
By the way, on a related topic. What would you say is meant by "The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States?" If you can just tell me briefly what you think that means, without insult or dismissive shorthand, I would be interested in your understanding of this point. It seems to me striking in its open-ended character. And the explicit powers given the president in the rest of the article seem remarkably terse. Except for the kicker: "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed . . . ." What's a strict construction of that?
Ahem... exParte Merryman is a circuit court decision. The courts most certainly do have the power to block an unlawful order of arrest by whomever, whether it be an insane President or a power drunk local assistant DA.
Gee, I thought that we were supposed to be really shocked at Taney's words because he was Chief Justice. I'm sorry I misunderstood that. So we are supposed to be really shocked at Lincoln's actions because a circuit court judge disagreed with Lincoln on the Constitution?
I said what I did because I think, with President Jackson, Alan Keyes (Phd in Constitutional Affairs from Harvard, under Harvey Mansfield) and others, that the three branches are co-equal, and that means that the President, the Supreme Court, and the Congress, have co-equal and ultimate responsibility to interpret and execute their offices under the Constitution.
You think that Lincoln acted not out of a deep sense of responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," but from tyrannical ambition. I think that he did what he clearly judged to be necessary to accomplish the plainest minimum to remain faithful to his oath. If Congress had disagreed, and found the matter grave, they had the right, had the duty, to impeach him. The man in whom is vested the executive power of the United States, solemnly sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as the instrument of national government, cannot, Lincoln believed, defer to the Supreme Court, or any court, or any other power, in his judgment of what is necessary to satisfy that oath. And the Constitution provides the remedy should the President abuse this duty -- they make him not be president.
Are you sure you're a scholar? I mean, I've made it clear many times that I'm not, but you're supposed to be a professor and you keep making such terribly specious little arguments like this. Heck, son, I'm an electrician and I know better than to refer to Merryman as a Supreme Court ruling. I hope you're not tenured. It's obvious that you'll need firing soon enough.
I don't recall referring to anything as a Supreme Court ruling, certainly not in the quote you referenced. But if you think that the assumption that we care about Taney's words because he was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and not because it was the opinion of a circuit court judge, is specious, then go ahead. Others might find your insulting condescension, based on such a point, just a bit specious. Perhaps you can instruct me on the significance of the point, before I get fired.
Perhaps someone else can say what they think about these matters. Twodees seems to be particularly provoked by me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.