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.

[Paul Ross]

It should also be pointed out that Lerone Bennett is a shameless, unrepentant communist agitator, and just plain vile in his venoumous vituperation against anything noble in American history. He is sickening. And his scholarship is partisan, and notably less than 'balanced' or fair. His attempts to refute a panel of Lincoln scholars in Chicago in front of a black audience was a disaster for his credibility. He was pretty thoroughly debunked. And yet this character and his worthless propagandistic book are listed as if credible by this article, rather than outside-the-pale defamation which was par for the course during Lincoln's presidency. The South as well as the North was ripped with passionate controversy. And Lincoln, standing in the middle, got it from both sides.

[Sir Gawain]

your point is simply wrong.

As is your assertion that the refusal to rescind the EP means he cared about blacks. You can possibly surmise that he was a man of his word for refusing to do it. That's about it, at least from the quote you used to support your argument.

[ppaul]

The worst thing that ever happened to the South was the death of Abraham Lincoln.

If you know your American history, I don't need to explain why.

[humbletheFiend]

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

"The principle [of the Proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another," the London Spectator observed on October 11, 1862, "but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States" government.

Do you think that the Emancipation Proclamation was a violation of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of "property, without due process of law" and its injunction that "private property [not] be taken for public use, without just compensation" being made to the owner?

[stainlessbanner]

The British Parliment compensated former slave owners:

Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. This act gave all slaves in the British Empire their freedom. The British government paid compensation to the slave owners. The amount that the plantation owners received depended on the number of slaves that they had. For example, the Bishop of Exeter's 665 slaves resulted in him receiving £12,700.

We created a wicked war that killed 600,000 Americans.

[WhiskeyPapa]

your point is simply wrong.

As is your assertion that the refusal to rescind the EP means he cared about blacks. You can possibly surmise that he was a man of his word for refusing to do it. That's about it, at least from the quote you used to support your argument.

My point is a lot better documented in the record than your point is.

And the main proof is what I have been saying. President Lincoln refused to rescind the EP. Why did he do that? Why did he tell Frederick Douglass that there was no man in the country whose opinion he valued more?

Why did Douglass say of Lincoln:

"Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical and determined."

These are facts. Where are yours?

Walt

[humbletheFiend]

The British Parliment compensated former slave owners:

Do you think that the Emancipation Proclamation was a violation of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of "property, without due process of law" and its injunction that "private property [not] be taken for public use, without just compensation" being made to the owner?

[WhiskeyPapa]

My pet monkey says:

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

Mr. Lincoln can speak for himslef:

"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not. Yet I have neither adopted nor proposed any measure, which is not consistant even with your view, provided you are for the Union....

"I know as fully as one can know the opinions of others that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us some of most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of colored troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt the rebellion, and that at least one of those important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers....I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections, often urged, that emancipation, and arming the blacks, are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted, as such, in good faith. You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union... negroes, like other people act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept.... Peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."

Walt

[billbears]

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.

This statement is so sad and to me explains how well the myth of lincoln has taken hold in this nation. The tie Jefferson to Davis, and Hamilton to lincoln through Clay in political thought is very easily followed. Jefferson's political descendants seceded from the union and began the Confederacy while the political descendants of Hamilton was the ilk like Clay and good ol' abe. Anyone should be able to see what this war boiled down to was between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, the rights of the states and how much power the federal government should have, the 'American System' pushed by Clay or the idea of private and free enterprise

[stainlessbanner]

I found an interview with Bennett here

I have not read any of his work, but I have read several other sources the author cites and I deem them as credible.

What's so bad about Bennett?

[stainlessbanner]

I'm not sure if it was violation of the 5th amendment - I would have to read more on the subject and I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar.

Surely there could have been plans to discuss compensation for slaves prior to the onset of war (had it actually been about the moral issue of slavery). Do you think it a violation of the 5th? Remember slavery was legal at the time.

[Sir Gawain]

If you believe freedom is a basic human right, then it can be argued that this basic human right trumps any property rights. For instance, if I wish to exercise my basic human right to self-defense and someone has a sign up on their property that says "No Firearms", which right takes precedent?

[Triple]

"Do you think that the Emancipation Proclamation was a violation of the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of "property, without due process of law" and its injunction that "private property [not] be taken for public use, without just compensation" being made to the owner?" -
24 posted on 4/12/02 8:47 AM Pacific by humbletheFiend

Lincoln did, that is why the EP did not apply to the North and sections of Lousiana.

[humbletheFiend]

Do you think it a violation of the 5th?

Well, if I knew the answer to the question, I wouldn't have asked. I can say that at least a prima facie case can be made that there was a violation so long as it is conceded that the property owner qualified as a person entitled to the protections of the amendment.

Beyond that, I suspect that the relevant Fifth Amendment provisions might have to be considered along with the U.S. Government's powers to preserve civil order. During the riots in LA, would it have been appropriate for National Guardsmen to confiscate cans filled with gasoline without providing compensation or any judicial process?

If there was a violation, is it too late to seek compensation?

[humbletheFiend]

Lincoln did, that is why the EP did not apply to the North and sections of Lousiana.

No matter what Lincoln may or may not have felt, do you believe that the descendants of slave owners are entitled to reparations?

[4CJ]

"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?"

If they can't win with the facts, win with emotions.

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Do you think that a human being can be property? I have no sympathy for slaveholders. They do not deserve to be compensated for their crime.

[ml/nj]

Why not just find the most recent Lincoln thread and bump it? This article offers nothing new. It references the same writers, the same arguments ...

Ah, the old Clinton defense.

One person knew about it once, someplace, so it should never be discussed again.

I've actually read a number of the books he mentions, so maybe all of this should be old hat to me. I thought his comparison between the sorts of criticism Jefferson and Lincoln face was new and well stated:

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.

ML/NJ