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]

A) the appropriation of $2,000,000 from the US Treasury without Congressional approval and
B) the appropriation of funds, materials, labor, etc. for building naval ships without the approval of Congress.

Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress

April 15, 1861

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,

Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and interest may seem to demand.

In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand, Eight hundred and Sixtyone, and of the Independence the United States the Eightyfifth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

--------------------------------------------

What is your source that Lincoln did those things without Congressional approval. His first act was to call Congress back into session.

[billbears]

Try historical documentation. Even the most ardent lincoln supporter admits freely Chase took 2 mil out of the Treasury to support these 75,000 'volunteers' as you call it. Secondly, he purchased two or three ships and built four of which the first had come online by June. I'll supply names of the ships(if I can find them) and exact timeline of building the ships, which shows there is no way Congress could have passed the appropriations bills necessary to began building even if they had showed up in April(of which they didn't!!). That the little piece of paper you most gladly post didn't mean a thing. Congress didn't convene and began voting for an additional three months!! lincoln used the Militia Act for three months to run the government, set up the war effort, and get everything in place before Congress reconvened to rubberstamp all his actions

[WhiskeyPapa]

Try historical documentation. Even the most ardent lincoln supporter admits freely Chase took 2 mil out of the Treasury to support these 75,000 'volunteers' as you call it.

I don't know if I fit the classification of "ardent Lincoln supporter" or not, but I know I have asked you twice to show this in the contemporary record.

Where can we see your charge documented?

I don't buy it just because you say it.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

lincoln used the Militia Act for three months to run the government, set up the war effort, and get everything in place before Congress reconvened to rubberstamp all his actions

The language of the Militia Act SPECIFICALLY allows the president to do this. I have posted it dozens of times; maybe you will actually read it this time.

"And it be further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."

Gee whiz.

Walt

[billbears]

Good quote Walt. Now maybe after posting it dozens of times as you say you'll actually read it!!

if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."

Hmmmm...does that say taking money from the Treasury? Does that say suspension of habeas corpus? Does that say purchase and building of ships? It doesn't? Didn't think so.

[Ditto]

Secondly, he purchased two or three ships and built four of which the first had come online by June.

They built 4 ships in 40 days? Dang! Was Henry Kaiser working for them?

Please post your sources. I would love to see them. The Militia Act did give the president to call up the Militia and spend was was necessary to do so. If Congress didn't like it, they could have easily overturned it when they returned in July. As to the ships, I want to see the evidence.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Hmmmm...does that say taking money from the Treasury?

Based on the documentation you've provided, this statement is a fantasy construct by you.

Where can I find it in the contemporary record?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Does that say suspension of habeas corpus?

We often hear from the CSA apologists that secession is not SPECIFICALLY prohibted in the Constitution.

Tell me where the president is SPECIFICALLY prohibited from suspending habeas corpus?

Walt

[billbears]

The Militia Act did give the president to call up the Militia and spend was was necessary to do so

No it doesn't. From good ol' Walt's posting

to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia

Doesn't say ONE word about spending. Would you like to take twelve guesses and the first eleven don't count? It's because the Militia Act was not meant to be used on this scale!!

[WhiskeyPapa]

Would you like to take twelve guesses and the first eleven don't count? It's because the Militia Act was not meant to be used on this scale!!

As the language clearly allows the president the authority to call up the militia of EVERY STATE (including the single state where an issurection obstructs the laws -- if that situation applies), then your statement can only be seen as wishful thinking.

Walt

[billbears]

It does not and I repeat does NOT cover spending!!! Perhaps you know of a way to rally 75,000 men without spending money but apparently the President and the Secretary of the Treasury didn't. Therefore under Constitutional law, they SHOULD have gone to Congress, but....they didn't.

[WhiskeyPapa]

It does not and I repeat does NOT cover spending!!! Perhaps you know of a way to rally 75,000 men without spending money but apparently the President and the Secretary of the Treasury didn't. Therefore under Constitutional law, they SHOULD have gone to Congress, but....they didn't.

Show me in the contemporary record that Lincoln went outside the law in doing this. Is that so hard?

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

As Lincoln was fond of pointing out, he was known in many circles for occasionally not faithfully representing all the facts in every detail.........

What are you talking about?

Walt

[Twodees]

Neely doesn't have any arguments and neither do you. Booth was one of yours, employed by the radicals. Surely you don't think an actual Southern firebrand could have moved around the capitol and all through northern society as freely as Booth did. Solid, loyal union men were being imprisoned without specific charges for simply making comments about Lincoln or any of his acolytes, and somehow, theis brazen Confederate supporter was able to hobnob with high society for the duration of the war, and even walk, unchallenged into the President's box to shoot him.

The nonsense one is required to believe in order to hew to your version of history is beyond belief.

P.S. Preston Brooks was a fine gentleman, much more sound of character than the whining slob he caned in the well of the Senate. I hear that Sumner wet his pants and cried like a little girl as his colleagues snickered. Sumner hid in his house, feigning grave injury for nearly two years after getting his desserts from Brooks. His political descendant represents Massachussetts today, Teddy Kennedy. Northern politicians haven't changed a lick, have they?

[Paul Ross]

He is a communist. You're interviewer totally skips over his politics, faithfully declared in Ebony which is in large part, responsible for his few claims to journalistic awards, and the rest due to the usual 'affirmative action policies' of white guilt by effete East Coast editors. He is no historian. His sources do not support his over-broad conclusions. He doesn't adjust his views in response to countering evidence. He instead tries to besmirch either the primary evidentiary material or the critic. His characteristic response to withering critism...'that's absurd' and in other venues he attempts minimize the authors of real history as merely 'white bigots' this tells you that he is incapable of defending the extremist claims he makes. He just calls names. Typical communist mud-slinger.

[Ditto]

Solid, loyal union men were being imprisoned without specific charges for simply making comments about Lincoln or any of his acolytes...

That's more DiLorenzo BS. They got arrested if they encouraged soldiers to desert or hampered the war effort. Lincoln was subject to significant criticism during the war and no harm came to the critics. Half of Washington was 'Peace Democrats' like McCelland. For the first few years, even the Abolutionists were on Lincoln's case all the time. As long as they didn't mess with the Army, they had no problem.

[rdf]

On this day in 1865, President Lincoln is shot by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theater

Sic Semper Tyrannis.

"I, MyPetMonkey, and Twodees, and all others who have praised treason and murder of the President of the United States of America, duly elected, and re-elected, protected by the laws of nature and of nature's God, do hereby recant, reject, and withdraw my immoral and unpatriotic remarks approving of his murder, which remarks were made in the heat of passion, and in nowise reflect my true and rational sentiments, and which, moreover, tend to undermine the dignity and moral authority of the forum on which they appeared, to wit, Freerepublic.com."

*******

Signed
...
...
...

Fill in the blanks, gentlemen, if you would ...

Dr. Richard Ferrier,

President,
Declaration Foundation

*********

Regards,

Richard F.