|
|
Abraham Lincoln: Tyrant, Hypocrite or Consummate StatesmanAmerican History | Single Page | 6 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post
This speech is conspicuously absent from the right's revisionist history. And so are the countless affirmations of black inferiority and the 'positive good' of slavery — from John C. Calhoun's attacks on the Declaration of Independence to South Carolina Senator James H. Hammond's insistence that 'the rock of Gibraltar does not stand so firm on its basis as our slave system.' It is true, of course, that many whites who fought on the Southern side in the Civil War did not own slaves. But, as Calhoun himself pointed out in one speech, they too derived an important benefit from slavery: 'With us the two great divisions of society are not the rich and the poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals.' Calhoun's point is that the South had conferred on all whites a kind of aristocracy of birth, so that even the most wretched and degenerate white man was determined in advance to be better and more socially elevated than the most intelligent and capable black man. That's why the poor whites fought — to protect that privilege. Subscribe Today
Contrary to Bradford's high-pitched accusations, Lincoln approached the issue of slavery with prudence and moderation. This is not to say that he waffled on the morality of slavery. 'You think slavery is right, and ought to be extended,' Lincoln wrote Stephens on the eve of the war, 'while we think it is wrong, and ought to be restricted.' As Lincoln clearly asserts, it was not his intention to get rid of slavery in the Southern states. Lincoln conceded that the American founders had agreed to tolerate slavery in the Southern states, and he confessed that he had no wish and no power to interfere with it there. The only issue — and it was an issue on which Lincoln would not bend — was whether the federal government could restrict slavery in the new territories. This was the issue of the presidential campaign of 1860; this was the issue that determined secession and war.
Lincoln argued that the South had no right to secede — that the Southern states had entered the Union as the result of a permanent compact with the Northern states. That Union was based on the principle of majority rule, with constitutional rights carefully delineated for the minority. Lincoln insisted that since he had been legitimately elected, and since the power to regulate slavery in the territories was nowhere proscribed in the Constitution, Southern secession amounted to nothing more than one group's decision to leave the country because it did not like the results of a presidential election, and no constitutional democracy could function under such an absurd rule. Of course the Southerners objected that they should not be forced to live under a regime that they considered tyrannical, but Lincoln countered that any decision to dissolve the original compact could only occur with the consent of all the parties involved. Once again, it makes no sense to have such agreements when any group can unilaterally withdraw from them and go its own way.
The rest of the libertarian and right-wing case against Lincoln is equally without merit. Yes, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and arrested Southern sympathizers, but let us not forget that the nation was in a desperate war in which its very survival was at stake. Discussing habeas corpus, Lincoln insisted that it made no sense for him to protect this one constitutional right and allow the very Union established by the Constitution, the very framework for the protection of all rights, to be obliterated. Of course the federal government expanded during the Civil War, as it expanded during the Revolutionary War, and during World War II. Governments need to be strong to fight wars. The evidence for the right-wing insistence that Lincoln was the founder of the modern welfare state stems from the establishment, begun during his administration, of a pension program for Union veterans and support for their widows and orphans. Those were, however, programs aimed at a specific, albeit large, part of the population. The welfare state came to America in the 20th century. Franklin Roosevelt should be credited, or blamed, for that. He institutionalized it, and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon expanded it. Pages: 1 2 3 4Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to
            Tags: American History, Historical Figures, Politics
 |
SPONSORED SITES
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Copyright © 2010 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
Loading ...
6 Comments to “Abraham Lincoln: Tyrant, Hypocrite or Consummate Statesman”
You say Lincoln "never acknowledges black inferiority"…
Well… September 18, 1858…
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that 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; and I will say in addition to this that 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. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
By Bubba on Feb 3, 2009 at 4:59 pm
"Of course the Southerners objected that they should not be forced to live under a regime that they considered tyrannical, but Lincoln countered that any decision to dissolve the original compact could only occur with the consent of all the parties involved. Once again, it makes no sense to have such agreements when any group can unilaterally withdraw from them and go its own way."
I believe the purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to unite groups of people (in their own various sovereign states) under the umbrella of a representative government. The States preceded the construction of the Union and have the right to leave said union, "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
By Terry on Feb 4, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Lincoln argued that the South had no right to secede — that the Southern states had entered the Union as the result of a permanent compact with the Northern states….Where was that written or agreed upon? Didn't Virginia have the option to secede before she joined the union? In a voluntary union a state should have the ability and right to leave that union if the citizens of that state so wish.
By Patricio Bridges on Aug 10, 2009 at 11:25 am
D'Souza's arrogant and dismissing claims that secession was unconstitutional flies in the face of easily verifiable reality: NY, RI and VA all joined the union on the condition of unilateral withdrawal should they find the new Constitution tyrannical; in Jefferson's First Inaugural, he invites discontented states to withdraw peacefully; the Hartford Convention of 1814 seriously contemplated secession for New England; and most obvious: if Lincoln was so valiantly defending the Constitution, willing to sacrifice untold lives, treasure and blood, you would think that the SPECIFIC CLAIM OF PERPETUAL UNION would be in writing, that the mechanics of secession would be well spelled out, like the Presidential Oath or the 10th Amendment. Instead, D'Souza merely uses his own self-suited logic, as did Lincoln, in formulating and espousing imagary constitutional principles that are not on paper but merely within a man's own head, heart and soul.
By Bob Bird on Sep 14, 2009 at 1:05 am
Your own final point contradicts your endorsement of Lincoln. You say, "He is simply the greatest practitioner of democratic statesmanship that America and the world have yet produced." Therein is the problem. Lincoln and every other president are obligated to be the greatest practitioner of the Constitution. Almost every president including Lincoln is a nationalist thug. Lincoln and his cabal hate the 10th Amendment.
Lincoln like Samuel Chase and other Constitution-haters twist and mangle the Constitution to advance their Statist policies. Would the original 13 colonies ratify a Constitution barring them from leaving the union? NO! Who knew the Constitition better? Jefferson or Lincoln?
In his First Inaugural Address, President Thomas Jefferson stated: "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp)
President Jefferson later wrote to William H. Crawford in 1816: "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture." (Source: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1450.htm).
By Lin on Dec 7, 2009 at 11:37 am
The person that wrote this article has no idea what the Constitution of these United States is really about. Lincoln utterly torched the Constitution. I think the last comments by Lin hit the nail on the head. All Lincoln accomplished was handing more power to the federal government and removing power from the states. Totally anti-constitutional! Not to mention no other country ever had a civil war to end slavery, they were all able to abolish it without a war!
The guy that wrote this article states over and over the word "democracy". It was never set out to have a democracy in this country. It was designed to be a republic. "I pledge allegiance to the flag…. and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands…"
A democracy and a republic are two different things. Know your history.
If anyone cares to read it, the following article is an excellent and accurate portrayal of Lincoln – http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo138.html
My personal opinion of President Lincoln – I'm ashamed as an American that he was president of these United States as am I ashamed of most all of our presidents since.
Real presidents that are set apart, unique, courageous, bold, and heroic are George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson…
It is a shame how history is distorted, and our children today are taught fiction and myth as history.
The establishment today can't stand hearing about men like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson because our founders ideology shakes the very foundations of the corrupt federal government and geo-political spectrum of today. Our founders, those very men who persistently, battle after battle, fought the crown to ensure freedom, & the inception of our republic… if they were alive today, would instantly be in a war with our federal government.. live or die…come hell or high water… they'd be spilling blood.
It is better for our land to be drenched in blood than for us to become slaves to our own government. 1776 – George Washington
Now in a more present day concern.. consider the words below, and think of today.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson
By Jeremy on Jan 8, 2010 at 4:22 pm