Posted on 05/07/2002 11:31:24 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
The Unreal Lincoln: Loyola College Professor Flunks Out
By ERIK ROOT
A war of unkind words has afflicted the WorldNetDaily website over a forthcoming book by Loyola College economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo entitled The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. The controversy began when a friend of DiLorenzo’s, Ilana Mercer, wrote a glowing review of the yet to be released book claiming that, if anything, Lincoln left a legacy of corruption. Richard Ferrier and David Quackenbush of the Declaration Foundation responded to the review (since the book was not released) with all smoke, no gun. DiLorenzo then jumped into the fray with more ad hominem which prompted Quackenbush to write apparent inaccuracies. The debate seemed to have ended with DiLorenzo’s let the ad hominem begin. According to WorldNetDaily, both DiLorenzo and Quackenbush will get one more chance to respond to each other after the book officially releases.
Most of the unkind words happen to come from DiLorenzo who tries to turn the tables claiming that all the ad hominem attacks emanate from his critics. This does not preclude him from bellowing Ferrier and Quackenbush are "irrational," hysterical, ill-mannered, "ideologically blind zealots," etc., at the same time he faults them for personal smears. But that is the preferred tactic when a professor’s peers find his "scholarly research" wanting. Charming indeed.
In the WorldNetDaily correspondence it is evident that DiLorenzo has not considered in a dispassionate manner the meaning of the words that Ferrier and Quackenbush utilize: statesmanship, reason, prudence, natural right, compact. Ferrier and Quackenbush use these words deliberately and purposely; they must be understood before one can comprehend the Founding as well its fulfillment in Lincoln. DiLorenzo glosses over these words as if they had no meaning and at one point irrationally invokes the word reason to discredit his detractors. This is modern rationalism on display. Despite DiLorenzo’s lucubration, I will address those points not covered by Declaration Foundation representatives since they did an ample job of refuting Dilorenzo on that which they chose to address. Since I too have not read the book (though I have requested a review copy from the publisher) I will devote myself to what Dilorenzo wrote in response to his critics. Ultimately, DiLorenzo has not uncovered anything new about Lincoln, but is parroting tired and old arguments which emanated many years ago from Paleo-cons and Libertarians.
As with most scholars who attack Lincoln, they do not base their research on primary sources but on secondary. When they refer to primary material they take it out of context. Let us first consider his use of secondary sources. He invokes Roy Basler (the editor of The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln), Pulitzer Prize winning Lincoln biographer David Donald, H.L. Mencken, 1000 northern newspapers, Clinton Rossiter, and finally abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. This list is curious and lends credence to the impression that DiLorenzo has not considered the totality of the evidence, or that he understands the differences between abolitionism and the Founding itself. In other words, DiLorenzo seems to understand Lincoln better than Lincoln understood himself. We ought to be wary of such arrogance.
Against his secondary sources, there are a cloud of witnesses. To name a few: David Potter, Don Fehrenbacher, Lord Charnwood, Charles Kesler, Thomas G. West, and ultimately, the foremost scholar on Lincoln alive today, Harry V. Jaffa. It appears that DiLorenzo has not weighed anything written by Jaffa (or anyone else in the forgoing list) for he answers most every objection DiLorenzo raises, and did so almost 50 years ago.
DiLorenzo claims Lincoln was not sincere about slavery before 1854 and barely mentioned it before that time. He enlists Garrison’s opinion to emphasize that Lincoln was opportunistic and cared not a wit about slavery before 1854. Garrison said that Lincoln had not a drop of anti-slavery blood in him. However, Lord Charnwood (to name but one biographer) describes a different Lincoln when the future president and some friends happened upon a New Orleans slave auction in 1831. Charnwood writes that they viewed that event with disdain and that the people viewed slavery with "horror" in the "home circle." Fehrenbacher is just one scholar who catalogues the fact that the southern opinion of slavery changed from a necessary evil to a positive good. By the 1850s the issue of slavery was a consuming topic not only for Lincoln, but the entire Union. Still, we do not hear from the Loyola professor of any opportunistic slavery proponents. If it was not a consuming topic there would not have been an increase in proslavery literature prior to Lincoln’s entry into national politics. Proslavery William and Mary professor, Thomas Roderick Dew, would not have seen fit to write treatises defending the institution beginning in the 1830s. Similarly, John C. Calhoun declared in the late 1830s-40s that the Founding was defective and that blacks deserved enslavement. This proliferation of pro-slavery opinion is what forced Lincoln to address the subject increasingly as the 1850s approached.
Like the secessionists, abolitionists rejected the Revolution. They believed that there was something inherently racist, so to speak, about the Founding. In principle, both the slave-holding states and the abolitionists thought it defective. In this sense they were on the same side. Garrison faulted Lincoln because he wanted to keep the Union together; Lincoln emphasized that the Union could only last if it adhered to the principles of the Founding. Abolitionists wished to throw out slavery via unconstitutional means and the South wished to secede via the same. Therefore, to invoke Garrison as a witness to Lincoln’s lack of dedication to emancipation is faulty and a stretch at best. It only demonstrates DiLorenzo’s lack of understanding about the era. The abolitionists wanted to effect their ends, republic be damned (and incidentally, this is the major problem with the abolitionist movement for their desire would have done more to entrench slavery). These undercurrents underscore the Lyceum Speech which (contrary to Dilorenzo’s ebullient assertions) gives insight into Lincoln’s political thought, and by extension, slavery, way before 1854. The year was 1838.
Like his 1842 Temperance Address, in the speech before the Young Men’s Lyceum, slavery does not hold the predominant position that it does in his later speeches. According to Jaffa, Lincoln is more concerned with the overarching problem of evil passions of which slavery is but one. In other words, the evils of slavery are no less addressed in these speeches than in his later utterances. The passions, if left to rule, are ultimately destructive:
...if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.
Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.
The question recurs "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; – let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap – let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; – let it be written in Primmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; – let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars."
The rule of law, not mob law, is the counteracting agent to arbitrary rule. The rule of law in the union points to an abstract truth without which it would mean nothing and would be mutable. Lincoln detected Americans were straying from that abstract truth articulated by the Founders when he said in the same speech that that the Founding principles "are [now] decayed, and crumbled away." America needs to be re-baptized, if you will, in the abstract truth of the Founding. This consistency is evident in the 1859 letter to Henry Pierce:
But soberly, it is now no child's play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation. One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied, and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them ‘glittering generalities’; another bluntly calls them ‘self evident lies’; and still others insidiously argue that they apply only to "superior races."
What is the self-evident truth that Calhoun thought was a lie? All men are created equal. Despite DiLorenzo’s "discovery" that slavery had little to do with the Civil War, primary documents contradict him. Alexander Stephens, the vice-president of the Confederacy, confirmed the predominance of the slavery issue in his Cornerstone speech:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other – though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution – African slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago.
So much for slavery not being the central issue of the war. It is clear from the above speech that southern opinion of the equality of human beings changed. Slavery was not a necessary evil, but was now a positive good that God had sanctioned. DiLorenzo fails to even acknowledge this fact and this makes his entire work questionable. He goes further and falsifies Lincoln’s record in so many instances that this response would be more prolix if I addressed every point he misconstrued. In the face of the preponderance of the evidence, it appears DiLorenzo’s political agenda is clouding his judgment. Ultimately, we have to wonder whether this professor considered everything before he wrote the book, or even if he understands complex political thought. In the end, what was in Lincoln’s heart? Only he and God know. What we do have before us are Lincoln’s words and his actions. Each is consistent with the other provided we keep his words in context. This Dilorenzo refuses to do, and that makes his work apocryphal.
Root is Local Government Editor for Carolina Journal, the monthly newspaper of the John Locke Foundation, also available on-line at CarolinaJournal.com.
But did the states have every right to secede? You claim that they did and use the fact that it is not specifically forbidden by the Constitution as proof. I claim that they did not and also point out that the same Constitution did not say that is was allowed. From Lincoln's point of view the south was wrong and he was well within his obligation as President to supress the rebellion. No congressional approval is needed for that.
You know you’re doing something right when you are the object of cheap shots, lies, and smears by a paid agent of the state whose job is to make up excuses and "justifications" for all the state’s wars and other military misadventures.
I don't know what courses Owens teaches, but I've never read anything by him justifying "military misadventures." This is the mother of all cheap shots, and it comes out of Di Lorenzo's own dirty mouth. At a time when we have to rely on "paid agents of the state" for safety and when some will die for our protection, such an attack is particularly vile.
Di Lorenzo also plays up Owens passing reference to "touches of Marxist economic analysis" turning it into the allegation that "[h]e begins his 'review' by charging that my book is based on 'Marxist economic analysis,' revealing a deep ignorance of economics on his part." It would be interesting to know just what Owens meant by "Marxist economic analysis," but if he's mistaken it's a natural error since so much of what Di Lorenzo writes does seem to rely on something very close to Marxian stereotypes. The danger of what Di Lorenzo calls "traditional Public Choice analysis" is that in the wrong hands it does end up being as reductive and one sided as traditional Marxist analysis.
Di Lorenzo also calls Owens a liar for claiming that Di Lorenzo sees slavery has having "nothing to do with the onset of the war." In general, it's a good idea not to resort to "nothing" "never" and "in no way," since the smallest objection proves you wrong. But Di Lorenzo doesn't tell us just what slavery did have to do with the beginning of the war in his view. Maybe once again, Owens is simply the ordinary rational person relying on rough common sense to interpret Di Lorenzo. He may miss some qualifiers, but understand and convey the essence of what Di Lorenzo writes.
Owens writes: " ... , John C. Calhoun, the architect of the theory of state sovereignty used to justify secession ..." Di Lorenzo responds "Owens says that I claim that John C. Calhoun was the architect of the doctrine of state sovereignty, which I do not. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, authors of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 that enunciated the doctrine of nullification, came first, as did myriad other members of the founding generation." Owens is making reference to state sovereignty as justification for secession. He's saying that in his view Calhoun was the originator of this theory, not claiming that Di Lorenzo says this. I'm not aware that secession is what Jefferson and Madison were about in 1798. It would take more research to establish the truth here, but it looks to me like a) Owens and Di Lorenzo are talking past each other, trying to create the best possible terms for their own case, b) Di Lorenzo accuses Owens of distorting, when Owens has a justification for presenting matters as he does and c) Di Lorenzo didn't read what Owens wrote.
Owens's article is flawed by a contradiction that Di Lorenzo doesn't pick up on. Owens's rightly notes that Davis, Stephens and other Confederates played up state's rights arguments in their memoirs to make them more prominent than they were at the time. He also rightly noticed that secession and rebellion are different questions. He also apears to claim that the Confederates could not and did not evoke the right of rebellion in 1860. In fact, that is what they did. Ideas of secession and rebellion were both in evidence in 1860 along with defenses of slavery. Secessionists combined a defense of slavery with recourse to older American traditions of rebellion. Recognition that Lincoln was in the tradition of the founders shouldn't obscure this.
Be that as it may, it does look to me like Owens is on firmer ground describing Lincoln as a Lockean. A Lockean is not the same thing as a Misean. Most people aren't Miseans and aren't anarchists or libertarians. Most political figures certainly aren't and there is no reason to expect them to be. Secondly, if Lincoln's recognition of the ongoing existence of slavery where it existed means that he was not a Lockean, then who in early 19th Century America was? Surely not Jefferson or Madison, certainly not Davis or Stephens. Even Locke himself would not qualify.
For the rest, one would have to read Locke and read him closely. I find it hard to believe, though, that Locke would approve of every rebellion, however unjustified or ill-conceived. In any event, this is a question that can only be resolved by closely reading Locke's works.
Owens is speaking of Lincoln's political philosophy. What Di Lorenzo focuses on are the means Lincoln used to save the Union and what he understood to be the Constitution and the Republic. Di Lorenzo tries to make out that these were his political philosophy. But they are the means that any leader would use finding the government and the social order threatened. Lincoln's methods are similar to those used by his opponents. Thus, Owens and Di Lorenzo are talking past each other. It's best to compare principles to principles and expedients to expedients, rather than making invidious identifications of the two among one's opponents and keeping them separate in analyzing one's own side.
On the whole, though, I'm still not convinced that Di Lorenzo has shown us "the Real Lincoln," or "the real" anything.
Your post was well written. But consider this: obviously the Framers would, as you have stated, be unhappy with either extreme federalism or extreme decentralism (Articles of Confederation). But there is a great deal in between these extremes. Toward which extreme do you think the Founders would be biased?
IMO, the Founders wanted to give the federal government just enough teeth for it to be able to accomplish the tasks listed in the Constitution...and no more. They had seen the effects of an out-of-control government and fought and bled to be free of it. Yes, they would've been sceptical about state right's absolutism, but they would've been much more appreciative of the state's holding very strong footing vis-a-vis the federal government.
So long as the states did not attempt to infringe on the federal authority granted by the Constitution, I think, as the Tenth Amendment indicates, that the Founders would've been satisified with such a federal-state arrangement.
Tuor
I'm saying that the Militia Act passed at the request of George Washington requires that United States law operate in all the states.
Walt
Secession was ILLEGITIMATE revolution. This is the case we must make. (And it's not too hard)
LOL!
Bump to that.
Hamilton vs. Jefferson
Economical Views
Hamilton
1. Believed in a public debt
2. Wanted to create a national bank to provide loans for businessmen, and to provide a place to deposit federal funds.
3. Believed that America should have a strong commercial society with a large industrial sector.
4. Believed that the government should foster business and contribute to the growth of capitalistic enterprise.
5. Favored a protective tariff to aid manufacturers
Jefferson
1. Opposed the National bank saying that it was unconstitutional and wanted to encourage state banks.
2. Felt that no special favors should be given to manufacturers.
3. Preferred an agrarian society with some industrial alternative to agriculture.
4. Felt that the national debt was harmful to society and all debts should be paid off quickly.
Social Views
Hamilton
1. Believed that mostly the wealthy should run society
2. Hamilton was a supporter of the upper class and many taxes like taxes on whiskey harmed the lower to middle class most.
3. Believed that voting qualifications should be high meaning that he did not want any dumbasses voting.
4. Hamiltonians were mostly merchants, bankers, manufacturers, or wealthy farmers.
Jefferson
1. Believed that the "Common" people were capable of running the government
2. Believed that voting qualifications should be lower because common people had a say too.
3. Jefferson supported the lower and middle classes mostly.
4. Jeffersonians were mostly, artisans, shopkeepers, frontier settlers, or owners of small farms.
Political Views
Hamilton
1. Admired the British aristocracy and believed it should be a model for American Gov.
2. Believed in a strong central Gov.
3. Favored a broad interpretation of the constitution to strengthen central Gov. at expense of state rights.
4. Hamiltonians, under certain circumstances, favored restrictions on speech and the press.
5. Believed at the time that America should break official bonds with France and tie itself closely to Britain.
Jefferson
1. Believed in a government more democratic than Britain's.
2. Jefferson wanted to reduce the number of federal office holders.
3. Jefferson favored freedom of the press and speech.
4. Jefferson also had a broad interpretation of the constitution but many times, it was only to favor himself or the situation (the damn hypocrite)
5. Wanted increased states rights and was suspicious of the central Gov. because of probable tyrannical overpowering like England.
|
|
Call it what you want... Triumph of the Hamiltonians Hamilton vs. Jefferson Nationalism vs. Sectionalism Federal vs. State Authority |
|
The point is since the creation of this country we have not been able to agree on several issues, and the division was drawn along geographic lines. War was inevitable. The point, then, is why couldn't we resolve the issues? Who really won the war? Is there resolution today?
Below is a series of eight documents beginning with the outright establishment of the United States as a nation under the Constitution and ending with the outbreak of the civil war. Each document is followed by some questions to assist you in processing the content/meaning of the document. As you read, keep in mind who the author of the document is (and their inherent bias) and who the audience is. In order to provide context for the issues, next to the list of documents is a brief timeline of sectional issues contemporary with the documents. Your job is to answer the questions for each document and ultimately decide how each issue/document contributed to growing sectional tension in the United States and what impact each had on the debate over federal vs. state authority. Keep a list of your own content and processing questions as you read. You will be provided texts for finding the answers.
| The Bank of the United States (1791) Hamilton vs. Jefferson Supremacy of the Federal Government (1819) Preservation of the Union (1850) Secession and the Integrity of the Union (1860) |
1791 - Strict vs. Loose Construction Debate 1814 - Hartford Convention 1820 - Missouri Compromise 1828 - Tariff of Abominations 1830 - Maysville Road Veto 1850 - Compromise of 1850 1854 - Kansas-Nebraska Act 1860 - South Carolina secession |
Please list for me:
a) the "big bureaucracy" that Alexander Hamilton advocated and established;
b) the steps Jefferson took to dismantle this infrastructure during his tenure as President;
and c) the role Lincoln played in resurrecting the Hamiltonian Leviathan.
And spare me the rest of that BS about Hamilton favoring "the rich" and the rest of that class warfare rhetoric. BTW, Jefferson was "rich." Har!
The centralizers won. Read the constitution. The Federal government is supposed to do very little. One of the few things it's supposed to do, protect the borders it doesn't do.
BUMP to that.
Allow me to ‘start the ball rolling,’ with a few observations courtesy of John Taylor of Caroline:
'On the same day [June 18, at the Philadelphia convention], Colonel Hamilton read a plan of government, containing, among others, the following proposals: "The supreme legislative power of the United States of America to be vested in two distinct bodies of men, the one to be called the assembly, and the other the senate," excluding the word Congress, "with power to pass all laws whatsoever, subject to the negative hereafter mentioned. The senate to consist of persons elected to serve during good behaviour. The supreme executive authority of the United States to be vested in a governor, to be elected to serve during good behaviour. To have a negative upon all laws about to be passed, and the execution of all laws passed. To have the intire direction of war when authorized or begun. To have the power of pardoning all offences, except treason, which he shall not pardon without the approbation of the senate. The senate to have the sole power of declaring war. All laws of the particular states, contrary to the constitution or laws of the United States, to be utterly void. And the better to prevent such laws being passed, the governor or president of each state shall be appointed by the general government, and shall have a negative upon the laws about to be passed in the state of which he is governor or president."
'It is needless to waste time in proving, that this project comprised a national government, nearly conforming to that of England...
'By Colonel Hamilton's project, the states were fairly and openly to be restored to the rank of provinces, and to be made as dependent upon a supreme national government, as they had been upon a supreme British government. Their governors were to be appointed by the national government, and invested with a negative upon all state laws; and all their laws, contrary to the laws of the supreme government, were to be void. The frankness of this undisguised proposition was honourable, and illustrates the character of an attempt to obtain a power for the federal government, substantially the same, not by plain and candid language, like Colonel Hamilton's, but by equivocal and abstruse inferences from language as plain, used with the intention of excluding his plan of government entirely. A power in the supreme federal court to declare all state laws and judgments void, which that court may deem contrary to the articles of the union, or to the laws of Congress; and also to establish every power, which Congress may infer from those delegated; comes fully up to the essential principle of Colonel Hamilton's plan; except that the court will both virtually, and directly, control the legislative, executive, and judicial state departments, by a supremacy exactly the same with that exercised by the British king and his council over the same provincial departments.'
John Taylor of Caroline, New Views of the Constitution of the United States, 1823
(italics in the original)
Mr. Hamilton’s plan did indeed ‘nearly conform to the government of England.’ Please note Mr. Hamilton’s specific language: “The supreme legislative power of the United States of America to be vested in two distinct bodies of men...with power to pass all laws whatsoever...” Quite frankly, I could scarcely believe Mr. Hamilton dared use the phrase – “pass all laws whatsoever.” The words enjoyed a certain notoriety:
But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can "of right make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever." What is to defend us against so enormous, so unlimited a power?
Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms, July 1775
In other words, Mr. Hamilton was proposing to reinstate a government with some of the same characteristics which had just caused the colonists to 'take up arms.' Tell us: would an American government modeled on that of Britain have qualified as a "big bureaucracy?" Fortunately, Mr. Hamilton’s plan for a national (rather than federal) government was rejected by the constitutional convention. But, as John Taylor noted almost two centuries ago, “(a) power in the supreme federal court to declare all state laws and judgments void, which that court may deem contrary to the articles of the union, or to the laws of Congress; and also to establish every power, which Congress may infer from those delegated; comes fully up to the essential principle of Colonel Hamilton's plan” – and that would seem to be a rather accurate description of our current state of affairs. In other words, Mr. Hamilton apparently did ‘advocate’ a "big bureaucracy" – a bureaucracy which seems, in fact, to have been established...
;>)
I have just enough time to ‘throw another log on the fire:’
Unlike many of the figures in the Hamiltonian tradition of American democratic nationalism, Abraham Lincoln (1809-65) needs no introduction...Among his contemporaries, Lincoln was distinguished neither as a thinker nor as a policymaker (such originality is not part of the job description of great politicians). His task as President, as he saw it, was to save the Union and to help his fellow Republicans in the Cabinet and Congress enact the Hamiltonian economic agenda that had been thwarted for decades by states’-rights Southern Democrats. In both tasks, he suceeded.
Lincoln himself contributed to later misunderstandings by his rhetorical appropriation of the words and image of Thomas Jefferson in his antislavery and pro-Union speeches. There was not a single element of the Jeffersonian program – states’ rights, agrarianism, strict construction of the federal constitution – that Lincoln, as a Whig and then as a Republican politician, did not reject with passion. Nevertheless, he realized that if the Republican party was to be more successful than the failed Whigs, it had to recruit Democratic voters in the West and the border South who idolized Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Lincoln’s solution was to turn Jeffersonian rhetoric against Jefferson’s own Southern Democratic political heirs, by a kind of intellectual ju-jitsu. Lincoln’s Jefferson was little more than the author of the Declaration of Independence, which itself was reduced to the phrase “all men are created equal.” Although the nineteenth-century abolitionist movement...had no significant roots at all in Jefferson’s or Locke’s secular natural-rights doctrines, Lincoln pretended that the antislavery movement was a natural development of Jefferson’s Enlightenment belief in human equality. What is more, like a mathematician demonstrating a topological inversion, Lincoln turned the Declaration of Independence, a manifesto of secessionism, into a symbol of Unionism, arguing that the preservation of the Union was necessary to achieve the goal of the Declaration: equality. This was sophistry of the highest order. Thus did Lincoln, one of the most cunning debaters in American history, enlist Jeffersonian rhetoric for Hamiltonian ends ... Lincoln as a great but conventional Hamiltonian nationalist may be a less inspiring figure than the alternate “Lincolns,” but the others are phantoms of the patriotic imagination ... Lincoln should be remembered as the Great Nationalist, the greatest of all of the American statesmen in the Hamiltonian tradition of democratic nationalism. Lincoln more than any other individual saved the Union from disintegration and set it on the road to becoming the dominant military and industrial power of the twentieth century.
Michael Lind, Hamilton’s Republic, 1997
"Lincoln should be remembered as the Great Nationalist, the greatest of all of the American statesmen in the Hamiltonian tradition of democratic nationalism. Lincoln more than any other individual...set [the Union] on the road to becoming the dominant military and industrial power of the twentieth century." And that, my friend, is from one of Mr. Hamilton’s ‘biggest fans’...
;>)
;>)
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.
