Lincoln: Tyrant or champion or both?

I have now interviewed both Dr. Tom DiLorenzo and Dr. Richard Ferrier regarding our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln. I entered the controversy intrigued, but really without a dog in the fight. As I have too often said, "It is not a question of who is right or wrong but what is right or wrong that counts."

I am not a Lincoln hater and I don't idolize the man. Like most of you, I am an interested student.

As usual, both sides have merits and shortfalls. However, in the wake of the two interviews, myriad e-mails and having read, "The Real Lincoln" and the Lincoln-Douglas debates, I have reached personal conclusions.

But, frankly, my conclusions are tainted. I have a few pet peeves. Honesty, to me, is important both in content and in character. I consider "Duty, Honor, Country" as more than a cute phrase, but a credo. Oaths are important, significant, and not to be entered into or broken cavalierly.

When any person swears a sacred oath to "preserve and protect the Constitution," they have made a lifelong commitment. I am routinely annoyed and offended by people who take the oath and subsequently (by thought, deed and action) undermine, abrogate or attempt to alter the very document that they have sworn to "preserve and protect."

I consider those who violate that oath as being guilty of fraud, perjury and treason.

When I interviewed DiLorenzo I told him he had provided me with an epiphany. I have frequently noted that when the framers were forming the republic, Jefferson and Hamilton had a long series of debates. Jefferson was arguing for states' rights, and Hamilton wanted a big federal bureaucracy – like we have now. Historically, Jefferson won the debate.

I have been trying to figure out at what point in our history Jefferson lost. I used to think it was inertia building until 1913, and then FDR. But actually, Lincoln should get the credit for defeating Jefferson for Hamilton.

DiLorenzo said, "One of the main themes of my book is that Abraham Lincoln was the political son of Alexander Hamilton … Lincoln took up the Hamiltonian mantle of big, centralized government, centralized planning, autocratic leadership. The great debates between the Jeffersonians and the Hamiltonians were ended at gunpoint under the directorship of Abraham Lincoln, in my view. And I think that debate was ended by 1865."

Ferrier told me his complaints with DiLorenzo were "falsehood in details, sloppiness of scholarship and a fundamentally wrong-headed view of the role of Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence, and American history and our political philosophy."

I'll get to the "falsehood" charge, but "a fundamentally wrong-headed view of the role of Lincoln" is really a kinda high-handed and pretentious way of saying, "I'm right and he's wrong." Although DiLorenzo didn't say so, I suspect he probably feels the same way about Ferrier and his other critics. By extension and association, Ferrier also must feel Professor Walter Williams has a "fundamentally wrong-headed view of the role of Lincoln."

Ferrier made some good points. However, in my view, in one defense, he further diminishes his idol as disingenuous, calculating and adroit at parsing "weasel words."

In discussing slavery, he confirmed Lincoln said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between white and black races, and I have never said anything to the contrary." He corrected the DiLorenzo citation, but said, "Lincoln, who was a lawyer and was careful with his words, did not say 'I do not believe in that equality. I do not think it is a good thing.' He said, 'I have no purpose to introduce it.' Those are the words of a careful lawyerly politician …"

In other words Lincoln was using Clintonian verbiage carefully qualifying the definition of what "is" is. So, when Lincoln said, "I have no purpose," Ferrier says he meant, "I don't at the moment intend to bring about such equality." And if he had said anything else in Illinois in the 1850s, he couldn't have been elected to dogcatcher. So Lincoln (according to Dr. Ferrier) was being duplicitous – in other words, dishonest.

Both these professors score points in the debate. DiLorenzo apparently misstates citations and uses quotes to support his position and ignores quotes that undercut it. By the way, Ferrier likewise seems comfortable ignoring facts that contradict his preconceived opinion.

DiLorenzo and Ferrier are academics and scholars. I am not. However, a lot of the things Lincoln did were specifically designed to abrogate, eviscerate and destroy the very document to which he swore an oath. For Ferrier and company to say, "Well, gosh, the other guys were doing it too," is not an adequate defense.

Karen DeCoster has been accused of excess in her criticism of Lincoln. However, in my view, she is right when she says he was, "A conniving and manipulative man … he was nowhere near what old guard historians would have us believe."

"Tariff revenue from the three largest northern ports accounted for 95% of all revenue collected. "

But just because the goods were delivered in Philadelphia, e.g., doesn't mean that the purchasers and taxpayers were Philadelphians. But you know that very well because you have been called on it before and you didn't have an answer then and you don't have an answer now. But you thought because it wasn't I who called you on it before, maybe you could get away with pulling it on me. Well, as WhiskeyPoopoo likes to say, although never with justification: "It won't fly." You, like WP, have this pathetic need to cling to the false images that were instilled in you as a child and will go to any length to try to accomplish that.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1 Corinthians 13 11

It is time for you to try to do the same, I sincerely hope it is not too late,

When exactly did VA and NC, along with the other states to join the Confederacy later, decide to join? And exactly why was it they joined again? Something lincoln had done, it just alludes me at the moment....

You've been reading too much Confederate propaganda. Try a more objective source:

"The claim that [Lincoln's] call for troops was the cause of the Upper South's decision to secede is misleading. As the telegraph chattered reports of the attack on Sumter April 12 and its surrender next day, huge crowds poured into the streets of Richmond, Raleigh, Nashville, and other Upper South cities to celebrate this victory over the Yankees. These crowds waved Confederate flags and cheered the glorious cause of southern independence. They demanded their own states join the cause. Scores of such celebrations took place from April 12 to 14, before Lincoln issued his call for troops. Many conditional unionists were swept along by this powerful tide of southern nationalism; others were cowed into silence." (Original emphasis; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 278.)

What was it that caused the Virginians and North Carolinians to go Confederate? Listen to their own words:

"`We must either identify ourselves with the North or the South', wrote a Virginian, while two other North Carolina unionists expressed the view of most of their fellows: `The division must be made on the line of slavery....'" (Emphasis added; Battle Cry, p. 277 , quoting from the Staunton Vindicator and the Wilmington Journal.)

>> Time to kick some neoconfederate keyster

This is a contradiction in terms. Keyes is a unionist and always has been. The neoconfederate "conservatives" have been relentlessly attacking Keyes lately. Oddly enough, they've all claimed to be "Reaganities" lately since I've been pointing out their non-stop "I hate Republicans" threads to the forum.

Since Reagan holds the SAME views as Keyes does, either they are holding Keyes to a different standard than Reagan or they are simply unaware of historical facts. If Neo-confederates practiced what they preach, they would've have voted against Reagan in 1980 since he was a "Yankee transplant" in California (which they claim to despise), born and bred in Illinois (I cannot tell you how much they my state's culture and its people)-- ironically, they accuse of being a "southern basher" for attacking the DEMOCRATS and RINOs in the south, rather than the PEOPLE as a whole in the south. Unlike them, I do not attack people SOLELY because of their region). Reagan, of course, praised Lincoln many times in speeches and in one state of the union address, he said he would have followed Lincoln's policies exactly if he had been in his shoes back in 1861. Everytime one of the southern GOP candidates for Governor makes a statement along those lines, they declare him a "scalawag" and vow not to vote for him. Reagan and Lincoln have very similar backgrounds, both being from Illinois, being charismatic, charming speakers, were attacked for having an "inferior" education, didn't join the GOP until being middle-aged, made very pro-human dignity statements (Lincoln=slavery, Reagan=abortion), but had no limus test on the subject and didn't do enough to stop it as President, as so forth.

The one difference is that Reagan was a great deal more conservative than Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was generally centrist, and it's kinda funny that the neo-confederates scream he was a socialist when the truth is that the "liberal" wing of the GOP in 1860 (the "radical" Republicans) wanted to get rid of Lincoln and vice-versa. Lincoln vetoed a lot of their pro-big government legislation, especially their socialist reconstruction plan. If the neoconfederates fail to realize this, either they are lying to spite Lincoln or they failed American History 101. This is basic college stuff.

Of course, Lincoln did flirt with some wacko liberal stuff and I will not make excuses for this. Lincoln appointed some leftist nuts to office and it taints his record. But you know what? So did Reagan (on a lesser scale). For example, his proposed "running mate" in 1976 was one of the most liberal Republicans in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Schweiker (RINO-PA). Again, we must examine his record as a whole. We also must bear in mind Reagan was president during generally peaceful times. During military conflicts, many of the Democrats made the same charges against Reagan that their 1860 counterparts made of Lincoln (they said Reagan suppressed civil liberties, spent millions of federal money to fund contras, overthrew existing soverign states, installed puppet governments, plotted assignations, etc., etc.) They make the same charges against Bush now.

No politician is every perfect. They lie, they cheat, they steal. Even the best of 'em.

It's kind of ironic, the GOP at the end of reconstruction (1876) was not nearly as conservative as today's GOP. Still, the two issues that they held then that are identical to modern Republicanism was staunch support for the 2nd amendment, and a platform to reduce immigration. Since the neo-confederates are generally closer to Libertarians, these are the only two issues I've seen them take a truly "conservative" stance on as well. Their beef is not one of ideology, but anger of losing a millitary campaign that ended 150 years ago.

My views are closer to that of the great General Sam Houston, founder of the Republic of Texas, and one of the few voices of sanity among southern Democrats of the 1850s. Houston believed in the right of states to leave the union. He believed in local sovergnity. What he did NOT believe in was JOINING the union of CONFEDERATE states, taking up arms against the north for their cause, or in any way supporting the continuation of slavery (Houston's views on slavery mirrored Lincoln-- he did not plan to abolish it, per say, but he was DEAD SET against expanding it or making it permanent). The confederates violated states rights and unconstitutionally "removed" Houston from office because he believed Texas was a independant REPUBLIC after secessing in 1861, that it would remain NEUTRAL in the war and he would never pledge allegance to the pro-slavery confederate declarations.

I believe this nation would be better off today if Houston had been nominated on the Constitution-Union ticket and won in 1860. Lincoln did an OKAY job under incredibly difficult circumstances, perhaps Houston would have done better. I can tell you one thing though, if Houston were alive today to post his views on the confederacy ("an utterly useless and lost cause"), half the Dixiecrats on this forum would start screaming he "hates my hertiage" and is a "history revisionist" Ditto with Reagan.

The confederates violated states rights and unconstitutionally "removed" Houston from office because he believed Texas was a independant REPUBLIC after secessing in 1861, that it would remain NEUTRAL in the war and he would never pledge allegance to the pro-slavery confederate declarations.

Houston, as I understand, wanted no part whatsoever of secession:

"The Federal Constitution, the Federal Government and its starry flag are glorious heritages bequeathed to the South and all sections of our common country by the valor and patriotism of Washington, and all the brave revolutionary soldiers, who fought for and won American independence. Our galaxy of Southern Presidents-Washington, Jefferson, Monroe. Jackson, Taylor. Tyler and Polk cemented the bonds of union between all the States which can never be broken. Washington declared for an indivisible union and Jackson made the secession of South Carolina and of other States impossible. Jefferson by the Louisiana Purchase added a vast empire of country to our union, and Polk followed his example by further extending our Union to embrace Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and California. Monroe established the Monroe Doctrine which for all time preserves and safeguards the Governments of the Western Hemisphere against foreign conquest. All our Northern Presidents have been equally patriotic and just to the South. Not a single Southern right has been violated by any President or by any Federal Administration. President Lincoln has been elected, because the secession Democratic leaders divided the Democratic party and caused the nomination of two separate Presidential Democratic tickets and nominees.

Both branches of Congress are Democratic; therefore it will be impossible for President Lincoln's administration to enact or enforce any laws or measures that can injure Southern rights. But grant for the sake of the argument that the time may come when both branches of Congress are Republican and laws are enacted and enforced which will injure or destroy Southern rights what shall we then do? I answer that sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, nor would there be the least danger of the Republican party ever controlling both branches of Congress and all branches of the Federal Government if the secession leaders would permit the Democratic party to remain a solid indivisible party. But if the day should ever come when Southern rights are ruthlessly violated or injured by the Republican party, we of the South will then fight for our rights under the Stars and Stripes and with the Federal Constitution in one hand and the sword in the other we shall march on to victory.

I believe a large majority of our Southern people are opposed to secession, and if the secession leaders would permit our people to take ample time to consider secession and then hold fair elections the secession movement would be defeated by an overwhelming majority. But the secession leaders declare that secession has already been peaceably accomplished and the Confederate Government independence and sovereignty will soon he acknowledged by all foreign governments. They tell us that the Confederate Government will thus be permanently established without bloodshed. They might with equal truth declare that the fountains of the great deep blue seas can be broken up without disturbing their surface waters, as to tell us that the best Government that ever existed for men can be broken up without bloodshed."

-- Sam Houston, 1861

Where are you getting this idea that he favored neutrality?

Walt

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.