Why restrict ourselves to historical reality when the myth everyone wants to believe is so much more exciting? For example, Mr. Obama seems to bask in the idea of being identified with Lincoln, the man who in many ways acted more like a dictator than a president; the man who presumed he could supercede the rule of law with a presidential decree (the Emancipation Proclamation); the man who imprisoned over 13,000 private citizens without charging them with a crime...simply because they were critical of his regime; the man who thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court when he disagreed with its decision; the man who conducted the most vicious and reprehensible kind of war against 5,000,000 of his fellow Americans, destroying their homes and land, and leaving them in a state of utter devastation. OK, there may be grounds for comparison.
As we know, the Great Emancipator emancipated no one. His proclamation only applied to the states that had seceded, not the states he had actual governance over. Furthermore, his proclamation was issued primarily to demoralize the South and to keep France and England from becoming her allies. As a matter of personal belief, Lincoln never envisioned an integrated nation. In 1858 he stated, "There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which...will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality." His plan was to free the slaves so they could be deported to the Carribean or Africa. So if this is who Mr. Obama wants to identify himself with, then so be it. But let us all beware.
2 comments:
There is certainly room for some ambivalence about Lincoln's decision to go to war over the issue of secession.
It would seem on the face of it to be a basic principle of self-determeination that a fee people should be able to freely choose to associate or disassociate from a polity. However, I don't think it'll all that simple.
Let's forget about Virginia or South Carolina in 1861 for a moment and consider Albuquerque in 2009. Should the citizens of Albuquerque be able to disassociate from the rest of the state? From the nation? Or should the people of Robin Street (my street) be able to declare they are no longer a part of the United States and will no longer in any way support the nation? If they shouldn't be allowed to do such a thing, why, exactly, should the people of Virginia or Alabama be allowed to dissolve those bonds? Where exectly do you draw the line?
Lincoln certainly ruled as a wartime president and like other wartime presidents (FRD most notably, but also Wilson, Johnson, Nixon and Bush) he expanded executive power in his role as commander in chief. Lincoln certainly suspended many basic rights and, in the minds of many, abused his power. I believe, on balance, he was justified in doing so to keep the nation together. And I was just reading some documentation yesterday that unambiguously makes clear that Lincoln was opposed to the insitution of slavery on principle and was determined that it not be allowed to spread into the territories. There's no question in my mind that, all the political manuevering and strategic calculation aside, Lincoln was a foe of slavery and that his actions resulted in an earlier end to a wicked institution than would have otherwise been the case.
Bill, I'm certain that Lincoln was strongly against slavery, but I believe he was not in favor of an integrated society (as the 1858 quote suggests). I also would agree that he had the right and perhaps the responsibilty to attempt to hold the Union together. I only suggest that there may have been other approaches. And the sheer savagery of the assault against the South seems over the top. Maybe it was the only way, but I believe it's clear that the South wasn't looking for war, only for their freedom.
As for where to draw the line: the Union was formed by the willing consent of each state, which previously were sovereign entities. In contrast, the governors of Albuquergue never voted to join up with New Mexico, because it was, at the time, determined to be in their best interests. Albuquerque was always part of New Mexico, as was Robin St. I think the state lines are the lines. Keep in mind that we do not live in provinces or shires, we live in states. The Founders considered each state to be a national entity, unifying for the common good by an agreed upon constitution.
I know this is all ancient history now, but I do think the misinformation about the Civil War contributes to the distorted thinking today concerning the correct relationship between the federal government and the states. Also, don't forget that I'm orginally from Virginia (smile!).
Post a Comment