The Real Abraham Lincoln

The Laissez Faire Electronic Times ^ | Tibor R. Machan

[Sir Gawain]

The Real Abraham Lincoln

by Tibor R. Machan

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:

Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result, but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of "Liberty to all" — the principle that clears the path to all — gives hope to all — and, by consequence, enterprise, and industry to all.

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:

The expression of that principle ["the idea of political freedom"], in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity.

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 Society

From 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 Issue

Yet, 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 Freedom

Even 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:

You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce . . . and prohibit any further publication thereof . . . You are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison . . . The editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforementioned newspapers.

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.

[Ditto]

The Emancipation Proclamation was just for European consumption, to keep them from recognizing the south.

That it did, and what it also did was add nearly 100,000 troops to the Union side. Black men who were liberated by Union troops.

I always get a chuckle out of people who criticize Lincoln for 'not following the Constitution' on one hand, and then criticize the EP for not freeing slaves in the border states. Those criticisms can only be the result of ignorance of the Constitutional and ignorance of what the EP was, (which was likely the case with the London Spectator), or deceptive and dishonest propaganda which is the most surely the case with Prof. DiLorenzo.

[humbletheFiend]

How does the title "David, First Duke of Bakersfield," sound to you?

[davidjquackenbush]

Well, somebody has to organize the territories . . .

[x]

Neely's recent book "Southern Rights" takes a look at the Confederacy's treatment of dissenters and shows that they have little to reproach Lincoln for.

Machan's admissions that he isn't a Lincoln specialist are honest and refreshing, thought they make one question why he wrote the article and why his editor saw fit to print it.

Economists like Williams and di Lorenzo and libertarian philosphers like Machan rely on the model of individual or consumer choice. It's a good model for many things, but if I individually opt out of the political community and don't leave or if half my neighbors choose to do so and half don't, it becomes very hard to keep any kind of government going. Anarchists might cheer this result on, but anarchy has been shown to have faults, flaws and failings of its own.

Libertarians generally recognize that problems and complexities are involved in public choices have aren't present in private ones. But on secession, some libertarians and economists act as though the decision was as simple and clear cut as buying soap, perhaps because in this case, they see the public choice as inclined to support their view.

It's simple enough to choose this car or this CD, choosing to be ruled by this government or that often does lead to war. Even had Lincoln let the South go, eventually there would have been war over the Western territories or the border states or over anomalous communities in Northern or Southern states that wanted to join the other country. That's not to say secession in itself is wrong or impossible, but there are better and worse ways of going about it, if it's what one wants.

The other thing is that some economists tend to see tariffs in the same way that some look on dancing, drinking, gambling or smoking, not just as a bad choice, but as a snare of the devil. So long as governments exist they will have to be funded somehow, and tariffs aren't so bad a choice. They were accepted by the founders. Protective tariffs may not be a wise choice, but surely there are much worse things in human history and the annals of government.

[TexasKamaAina]

Leaving is rebbellion two mutually hostile neighbors would be created.

Well, there was certainly one hostile neighbor: the invader.

[one2many]

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).

Precisely why the Confederate Constitution reined in the shysters.

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.

Precisely. He was the Bill Clinton of his era; reviled by many (who later recanted for political expediency after the monster's death).

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?

The writer shouldn't hold his breath; this is the ONLY trump card the disinformationists hold and they will not give it up willingly and honestly.

[one2many]

STATIST PIG BUMP

Wlat you are just asking for a

PINKO ALERT

Do these people know how you and your fellow travelers vote?
Here is your reply to Leesylvanian from another thread:

==================================

Leesylvanian:

Keep in mind when dealing with WP that you're dealing with a man who favors the government's rights/authority over those of the people. He voted for Clinton twice. 'Nuff said!

Wlat (WhiskeyPapa):

Well, I've never said I voted for Clinton twice, so I am glad you will be glad to post a retraction.What I said was that I had never voted for a Republican presidential candidate. I voted for John Anderson in 1980. In '84 I voted Democratic. Same in '88. In '92 I DID vote for Clinton, although I was for Perot until he went batty. In'96 I didn't vote. In '00, I did vote for Al Gore. --Walt

780 posted on 2/28/02 10:49 AM Pacific by WhiskeyPapa

[one2many]

Yes the imp really is an Algore supporter; and worse! See my post above; it has the admission.

[one2many]

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "

Very good.
Thank you for posting
Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 2

Now allow me to post the beginning of Article I of the Constitution:

It says:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.

It does not say:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives and an Ape Linkum.

Perhaps you can direct me to another place in the Constitution where the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is given to the Chief Executive.

LINCOLN WAS A TYRANT AND A MURDERER AND HIS MYTH IS PROPPED UP BY TYRANTS TODAY.

[jwh_Denver]

Bttt

[one2many]

A marine? ROFLMAO

Truer words were never laughed aloud!

A PINK marine maybe....

You know, one that would look good shooing the flies away from Dookakis on that tank.....

The pitiful serf.

[one2many]

Your 112 nails it.

Below is a quote that you may want to explore. Short of getting the complete works of Thornwell; an expensive proposition perhaps best pursued here; the next best thing is to assimilate the information in the excellent historical reference work found here.

A Tip o' the Kepi to you Yankee brother!

"The parties in this conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders --they are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, jacobins on the one side, and the friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battle ground - Christianity and atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity the stake." --JAMES THORNWELL

[one2many]

"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." --Chief Justice Taney

Sorry I hadn't seen this when I made my post about this very thing a while back. Of course Taney and I (and any honest man) can only come to the one conclusion; Ape Linkum usurped the authority of Congress from the onset of this sorry episode in which he caused the deaths of 620,000 American soldiers and countless civilians.

He surely rots in an everlasting fire.

[one2many]

Quack:

really strict construction would require that the Constitution say: "powers not explicitly assigned to particular branches may only be exercised by the branch whose powers are being discussed generally in the Article in which the non-explicitly assigned power is mentioned."

You did notice didn't you, in 128 on this thread, that quack is apparently arguing that power not specifically denied to the executive may be assumed by him (the executive). Of course I am waiting, indeed we ALL are waiting, for him to conjure up some interpretation of Article II that gives the executive the right to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Hint: It ain't there buckaroo!

Chilling isn't he? A natural born torturer of the truth. One wonders what his goals are.

[one2many]

You may be assured that Culloden was remembered by what these disinformationists call "rebs"; --both in the era of the Revolution and the era of northern aggression.

“Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul." –Thomas Paine

[Twodees]

Lincoln's defenders act as though anyone can be elected to office and, seeing that a power is granted in the Constitution, may use it even though it was granted to another branch. These are the same idiots who will argue that since the states delegated some powers to the federal union they created, then they are totally subservient to that union in every respect. They're devotees of invented clauses and imagined text for the Constitution, as well as of the most bizarre extensions of language imaginable.

Every one of them should be deported as seditionists.

[4CJ]

“Let them call me a rebel and I welcome it, but I should suffer the misery of demons were I to make a whore of my soul." –Thomas Paine

I like that. Thanks.

[Quix]

Welllll, I got . . . something . . . carpted out?

quite a number of paragraphs into your piece. . . . Regardless of Lincoln's flaws, He stood authentically ENOUGH for ENOUGH PRIORITY PRINCIPLES AND IDEALS . . . that SOME of us would just as soon leave the image be.

Muck raking can tarnish virtually anyone--even Mother Theresa--as some have found. Ideals and Heros happen to be useful, even valuable.

Then part of me wonders about the psychology of trying to bring down paragon models, ideals. . . . but not enough to really get into it very vigorously.