Shattering Lincoln’s Dream
I just got a copy of a thoughtful new book, Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President, by Thomas L. Krannawitter. The book mentions me a couple of times, in polite disagreement. Krannawitter, now of Hillsdale College, is a disciple of Claremont McKenna College’s Harry V. Jaffa, as I once was.
The Jaffa school has an unfortunate tendency to talk as if Lincoln agreed with men who didn’t always agree with each other: Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton. Unanimity among such strong-minded men of genius would be almost miraculous.
I know of no evidence that Lincoln ever read or mentioned, let alone studied, The Federalist (though Krannawitter opines that he “echoes” Federalist 49). In fact Lincoln hardly seems aware of the whole ratification debate, the most crucial controversy in American history.
Though Lincoln was largely right about slavery, he was wrong about secession—a separate question, as most Northerners once understood. During his war, millions of Northerners who opposed slavery also recognized the right of a sovereign state to secede from the Union. This led Lincoln to crack down on dissent, closing down hundreds of newspapers (many permanently) and having a few thousand war critics arrested. His excellent biographer David Herbert Donald calls his presidency the worst period for individual liberties in American history.
Lincoln’s knowledge of history was shaky, too; in his First Inaugural Address and ever after, he insisted that the states were not, and had never been, sovereign. “The Union,” he said in that speech, “is much older than the Constitution.”
So much for the Articles of Confederation, which says plainly that “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence . . . ” And so much for the Declaration of Independence he so often appealed to, which claims for the 13 former colonies the full status of “free and independent states”—or as Willmoore Kendall put it, “a baker’s dozen of new sovereignties,” as opposed to Lincoln’s “a new nation.”
New Jersey and Pennsylvania were sovereign states, just as France, Russia, Prussia, and Holland were. Independence, sovereignty, and autonomy were almost implied by the term statehood. A state was not a subdivision, like a province or county, of a larger entity.
Northern Abolitionists, if they meant what they said, should have welcomed the secession of slave states; and some of them did. But for Lincoln “the Union” was sacred, its terms beyond compromise or negotiation. When Southern cannons killed a horse at Fort Sumter, he launched a war that would kill 600,000 young men. As a result he has received a deification any Roman emperor might envy.
I have sometimes been accused of hating Lincoln; the charge is false. He had qualities that command my esteem and almost affection. The only American President I really loathe is Franklin D. Roosevelt—liar, adulterer, warmonger, friend and benefactor of Stalin and the Soviet Union, betrayer of Christian Europe, father of the nuclear age, enemy of the U.S. Constitution, and a few other things. What’s more, it’s personal. Several members of my family had to fight in his accursed war; I thank the Lord none of them was killed, though my older cousin Jack was terribly wounded and came home from France permanently mad. (In his lucid moments I never heard him suggest he’d been fighting for freedom.)
Lincoln, we should also remember, was a passionate segregationist, a fact Krannawitter barely touches on, though it might interest our new President to know that the Great Emancipator’s preferred solution was to abolish slavery and to remove all “free colored persons” from the United States. In 1862 he proposed an amendment that would authorize Congress to pay for this huge project. “I cannot make it better known than it already is,” he wrote in his State of the Union Message to Congress, “that I strongly favor colonization.” Nor was this a sudden enthusiasm; he had been arguing for it since the early 1850’s. As President, Lincoln did in fact create colonies for black freedmen in Haiti and what is now Panama, giving up on the cause only when these fizzled out. Very few blacks were attracted to such schemes; the United States was the only homeland most blacks had ever known, and it was naive—indeed, utopian—to think they could easily leave it and adapt to Africa.
In August 1862, Lincoln became the first president to invite blacks to the White House; the purpose of this little celebrated historical event was to urge them to lead their liberated brethren (“the African,” as he often called them; he would have thought “the African-American” a contradiction in terms) to exercise their freedom by settling abroad. Separation was best for both races, given a physical difference that would make assimilation impossible. (To white audiences he often expressed his horror at racial “amalgamation.”)
For months we have been hearing that the election of a black man to the White House was the fulfillment of Lincoln’s dream. It would be truer to say that the election of a mulatto was a cruel mockery of his actual dream of a unified, and white, America.
This article first appeared in the February 2009 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
Entries(RSS)
In his lucid moments I never heard him suggest he’d been fighting for freedom.
You also never heard him say that he'd fought to make the world safe for socialism, be it the soviet type or the western welfare state variety.
I met Krannawitter at a book signing at the National Press Club. I asked him if he had any information on Henry Todd Lincoln, whom Tom Landess mentioned at the JRC conference in Charleston. He had no idea that Robert sired an idiot.
Challenging the conventional deification of Lincoln risks accusations of racism and even hate crime. Very much like the social (and, in some places, criminal) penalties for "holocaust denial." (In this context, I point out--without agreeing--that SSPX's Bp. Williamson apparently disputed not the fact, but the scale and techniques of Nazi Germany's crimes against Jews. None of which, of course, has anything to do with Catholic doctrine and SSPX's rift with the post-conciliar Vatican.) Of course, anyone who refutes the bogus "science" of "human-caused global warming" sets himself up for ridicule, media marginalization, academic persecution and unemployment.
What in the HELL has become of us, our freedoms and our very sanity?
@ #3 "What in the HELL has become of us, our freedoms and our very sanity?"
Mr. Hidgon, I think many of our social (not political) problems came about when the average American man had no reason to rebuke or even acknowledge villians and morons. I think this happened with the greatest generation after the turbulence of WWII.
I had randomly come across an opinion of a man by the name of Bob Whitaker. His theory was basic but it struck a strong cord with me. He thought that the "greatest generation" was not really that great. As youth they were raised on the personality cults of Roosevelt or the flappers for the older GI's and after Pearl Harbor that generation was whipped into 100% complete obedience to the Federal Government. After returning home the young GI's bought a home or went to college. Those who went to college were taught to worship centralized government even more the GI's with kids to feed. They were also taught "modern" social theories by their "esteemed" professors, middle aged men who were most likely completely sheltered from the "great call" of WWI.
Later in the goodtime/boomtime fifties up until the mid sixties, the prevailing social attitude was "Why rock the boat? Who cares what dummies say? Uncle Sam can whip those crazies/commies!"
Like I alluded to before, folks in general will be much more affected by personal confrontation than by concerned or angry letters and postings. Propaganda triumphs over an awed and thankful audience.
Great to read a new article by mr Sobran !!!
I wouldn't add or detract a word from this excellent article.I appreciated the timely Lincoln issue.Forgive me this suggestion:Chronicles has done a consistent service on its exposure of Abe and FDR.I'd love to see an issue on what I consider the most loathsome and destructive President of all:Lyndon Baines Johnson.
"The only American President I really loathe is Franklin D. Roosevelt—liar, adulterer, warmonger, friend and benefactor of Stalin and the Soviet Union, betrayer of Christian Europe, father of the nuclear age, enemy of the U.S. Constitution, and a few other things."
Well stated, Mr. Sobran. FDR was trully an obnoxious fiend (as are many of our presidents). One could logically deduce that the aftermath of the "Good War" set European/Western Civilization on the path to its eventual destruction.
So when Lincoln claimed that the Union pre-existed the States, a truly laughable notion, was he being deliberately deceptive or was he really that ignorant?
@6 Leo
I'd like to take this opportunity to recommend A Texan looks at Lyndon by J evetts Hailey available from amazon at $1.49 plus S&H
@7 Cherusci
I'd like to recommend the Roosevelt (Rosenfeld) Myth by John T. Flynn who revealed that Old Rubberlegs was corrupt down to his hobby: Stamp collecting.
I'm sorry, Mr. Sobran, there is absolutely nothing about Abraham Lincoln that I admire. Like Sherman, he wanted to destroy a culture and not merely maintain the "cash cow" South in the Union to pay for his ever growing central government or its fascistic involvement with Northern commerce and shipping. Sherman writes about the South and how its' people "kept apart" from the Northern colonies, preferring their own culture. Of course, this culture has been condemned as based solely from the institution of slavery, but that was not the case. Indeed, it was the South that stepped forward to end African slave trade early on, not the North which was profiting exceedingly from the notorious "Triangle Trade".
The problem with both Lincoln and Sherman is that the people of the South would not worship at the altar of the federal government. Both men worshiped this idol and not the God of the Bible worshiped by the people they wished to destroy. Lincoln was willing to put up with the isolationist South and its slavery so long as the tax money they paid - about 75% of all federal taxes - continued coming in. With that money, Lincoln could grow his tyranny and enshrine his administration in the history of the developing American Empire; without it, his plans of a centralized power as desired by Hamilton, went - quite literally - South.
Therefore, when it became apparent that the South was going to secede denying him that income, Lincoln planned for a war which would, once and for all, end the power of a section of the nation which refused to move from Republic to Empire and from the sovereignty of the States and the People to the centralized rule of the Federal Government. Towards that end, Abraham Lincoln was willing to kill as many "Americans" - North and South - as was necessary. You say you deplore Roosevelt, but compared to Lincoln, Roosevelt was a puny criminal. All the Americans killed in World War II did not come near the number murdered by Lincoln nor did any portion of the nation suffer the devastation suffered by the people and the states of the South under that tyrant.
Roosevelt may have been an "enemy of the Constitution", but after Lincoln was finished, there wasn't much left for Roosevelt to destroy.
It is highly unlikely that Lincoln did not read the Federalist Papers. During his term in the House of Representives he spent much of his considerable free time at the Library of Congress reading(Congress was a part-time job in those days, even when it was in session). That he did not read the seminal document of the unionism he championed
is, I repeat, unlikely.
Not only Lincoln but many prominent Americans of North and South championed emancipation and colonization of blacks (there was even a society created to support the policy). Lincoln supported the policy because he thought slavery wrong and detrimental to the republic but he did not think that whites and blacks would ever get along well enough for them to be free citizens together (he cited the widespread prejudice against blacks as evidence of this). Most Americans of the time would not support emancipation without colonization in any case.
Lincoln's law partner Billy Herndon said that the future president never read anything but newspapers, and nothing Herndon said could change his habits. What is the evidence that he spent his time reading in the Library of Congress?
I plan to spend February memorizing this wonderful ditty in memory of "Honest" Abe.
Southrons, hear your country call you,
Up, lest worse than death befall you!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Lo! all the beacon-fires are lighted,--
Let all hearts be now united!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Advance the flag of Dixie! Hurrah! Hurrah!
In Dixie's land we take our stand, and live or die for Dixie!
To arms! To arms! And conquer peace for Dixie!
To arms! To arms! And conquer peace for Dixie
Hear the Northern thunders mutter!
Northern flags in South winds flutter!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Send them back your fierce defiance!
Stamp upon the cursed alliance!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Chorus:
Fear no danger! Shun no labor!
Lift up rifle, pike, and saber!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Shoulder pressing close to shoulder,
Let the odds make each heart bolder!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Chorus
How the South's great heart rejoices
At your cannon's ringing voices!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
For faith betrayed and pledges broken,
Wrongs inflicted, insults spoken,
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Chorus
Strong as lions, swift as eagles,
Back to their kennels hunt these beagles!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Cut the unequal bonds asunder!
Let them hence each other plunder!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Chorus
Swear upon your country's altar
Never to submit or falter--
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Till the spoilers are defeated,
Till the Lord's work is completed!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Chorus
Halt not till our Federation
Secures among earth's powers its station!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Then at peace and crowned with glory,
Hear your children tell the story!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Chorus
If the loved ones weep in sadness,
Victory soon shall bring them gladness--
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Exultant pride soon vanish sorrow;
Smiles chase tears away to-morrow!
To arms! To arms! To arms, in Dixie!
Chorus
Mark Higdon, @3: "What in the HELL has become of us, our freedoms and our very sanity?" To answer your question: We have become imprisoned by the ideological applications of Liberalism. Read James Burnham's Suicide of the West. It is the prevailing American doctrine eroding our Western-based culture. At the time he wrote the book (1964), he did note that the Deep South was "in a more general and institutionalized way, non- and indeed anti-liberal. There are liberals in the South, and their tribe has been increasing, as there are non-liberals in the North, East, and West; and a fair amount of liberal doctrine has seeped gradually into the Ssouthern mind....But the South as a whole, or at any rate the Deep South, remains for elsewhere ascendant liberalism, a barbarian outpost, under heavy siege but not yet conquered, in spite of manifestos, court orders, freedom riders and paratroops." If this situation still exists in the South, I don't know. Anyway, that is our problem and it is a serious problem, primarily, because in general it excludes God from the affairs of men. As Burnham states, "The logical starting point for liberalism, as for most other ideologies, is a belief about the nature of man...[which is] not fixed [the traditional belief] but changing, with an unlimited or at any rate indefinitely large potential for positive (good, favorable, progressive) development....[man has not been wounded by Original Sin]....Liberalism is rationalist....reason is man's essence, and in a practical sense his chief and ultimately controlling characteristic. Liberalism is confident that reason and rational science, without appeal to revealtion, faith, custom or intuition, can both comprehend the world and solve its problems." How terribly ironic when one looks back over the past two hundred years of "progress". I would suggest that the Global Warming thing is a Liberal construct to achieve a goal that will further restrict our civil freedoms.
Re: #12
"It is highly unlikely that Lincoln did not read the Federalist Papers. During his term in the House of Representives he spent much of his considerable free time at the Library of Congress reading(Congress was a part-time job in those days, even when it was in session). That he did not read the seminal document of the unionism he championed is, I repeat, unlikely."
Sure. And it likewise follows that given all times I've frequented McDonald's, I must have eaten a Big Mac. I mean, that is logical, isn't it?
Still waiting for proof that Lincoln read the Federalist or that Lincoln spent a lot of time reading in the LOC. Isn't there a moderator who can weed out disinformation from this site?
Dear Juvenal: I have just read your post. I do not have the citation in front of me as I write but I do have it in my library (it is from a biography of Lincoln). I will find it presently and quote you chapter and verse.
Dear Caedmon: stay out of McDonald's - those Big Macs aren't good for you!
Dear Juvenal: I haven't found the book yet describing Lincoln's reading habits as a Congressman but I did run across an interesting site listing books Lincoln did or may have read (with a rating of the probability of same). It's at: http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/28.2/bray.html
Alas, The Federalist Papers are not on that list but I'm not sure how definitive it is. I don't blame Lincoln for not reading Billy Herndon- style books: Herndon was fond of 19th century novels and German philosophy! As a busy father and professional myself, my reading tends to be newspapers and magazines with books squeezed in when I can ( a situation with which Lincoln, a voracious reader in his youth, might empathize).