In Defense of Abraham Lincoln

“The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty.”
– Abraham Lincoln

No American, perhaps, has been so mythologized as Abraham Lincoln. In part, the myths were of his own making. Lincoln often concealed an immense intellect and political fortitude behind language, imagery and ideas familiar to the common man. Other myths created and repeated by scholars, historians and public figures of the last 150 years have elevated Lincoln to messianic heights and debased him with unfounded innuendo and accusation, both obscuring his true legacy.

Of particular interest is the Potemkin village of Lincoln advocacy among certain circles of today’s Republicans. There is Lewis Lehrman, a PNAC member and co-author of Ron Paul’s “The Case for Gold,” who attempts in “Lincoln at Peoria” to cement the image of The Great Emancipator without reference to the economic and Constitutional struggles of the Civil War.

Then there is a peculiar grouping around nonagenarian Harry Jaffa, speechwriter to Barry Goldwater and student of neocon guru Leo Strauss. Jaffa and his acolytes at the Claremont Institute see Lincoln, like Moses liberating the Israelites, as the fulfillment of the Declaration of Independence. In 1959’s “Crisis of the House Divided,” Jaffa casts Lincoln and Douglas in Plato’s dialogue between Socrates, who advocates the objective reality of justice (natural law), and Thrasymachus, who argues that justice corresponds only with the interests of the powerful (positive law). Strauss scholar Shadia Drury has shown that Jaffa’s mentor believed Plato’s real sympathies were with Thrasymachus, which suggests Jaffa’s work is in effect an “exoteric” softball.

DiLorenzo: the libertarian view

Poised to hit Harry Jaffa’s softball is Thomas DiLorenzo, hailing from the Mises Institute and Jesuit Loyola University Maryland. DiLorenzo’s only public debate seems to have been against Jaffa, at the Claremont Institute in 2002. In “Lincoln Unmasked” and “The Real Lincoln,” DiLorenzo provides the outline of right-wing anti-Lincoln propaganda:

Lincoln started the Civil War. Despite Lincoln’s efforts as a presidential candidate to assuage southern fears and avoid war, Southern states began seceding, without any attempt at legal process, before his inauguration. As Lincoln put it in his second inaugural, “Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.”

Lincoln was a dictator. In Constitutional terms, the Confederacy was an insurrection, not a secession. As such, Lincoln had the Constitutional rights to suspend habeas corpus (a privilege, not a right) and suppress the insurrection as commander-in-chief of the US military, which he did. To give right-wingers an analogy they can understand, would you sit idly by for “la reconquista” as foreign interests captured the state houses of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California, splitting from the Union to hand the infrastructure you paid for to Mexico?

Slavery would have died on its own. The oft-cited example of England’s abolitionist movement is not relevant, as England, unlike the American Confederacy in 1861, was not a vast, untamed, free trade paradise thriving on cotton exports. The explicit purpose of Southern secession was to expand slavery to the west and south, whatever the rationale. Lincoln was clear on his willingness to permit slavery in existing slave states, leaving new territories like Kansas and Nebraska free. The slave trade was not withering but growing explosively in 1861, and Confederate leaders had their sights not only on the new territories, but Cuba, Mexico, Central America and beyond.

Lincoln was a “Whig Mercantilist” and the political heir of Alexander Hamilton. DiLorenzo argues this point at length, and is absolutely correct. He is only one of the only popular Lincoln writers to discuss at length Lincoln’s economic program of protective tariffs, national banking and internal improvements, though with meager defense dismisses them as being ineffective and opposed to Constitutional principles.

The US Constitution is Hamilton’s not Jefferson’s.

Libertarians and other right-wingers like DiLorenzo make an a priori association of the US Constitution with free trade, state’s rights and small central government. While this was the prescription of Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith and Lord Shelburne, one must look to history and not the Mises Institute to find what “the founders” intended.

Why was the Constitutional Convention called in 1787? Precisely because the lack of an assertive central government with authority over trade, taxation and credit had left the post-Revolutionary colonies a squabbling mess and the laughing stock of the developed world. The distinctions between the US Constitution and the Articles of Confederation can be seen in Alexander Hamilton’s contributions to the “Federalist Papers” and his reports on credit and manufacutures.

The new federal government assumed the debts of the states, and the congress was granted sole authority over tariffs, taxes and money. The First National Bank was established with the second law passed by the US Congress. Our nation is called the “United States,” not the “Federation of Sovereign States,” and our Constitution does not provide for secession or any states’ rights in trade, currency or other matters pertaining to the “general welfare,” as indicated in the Constitution’s pointed preamble, and Article I: Section 8.

This is why Southern oligarchs, with sympathy from Jefferson, openly opposed the ratification of the Constitution. To read the pre-Constitutional “anti-federalist papers” is like reading today’s Tea Party and right-wing conspiracy propaganda. DiLorenzo, Ron Paul and other Lincoln-haters blaspheme the United States Constitution in their pretended support of it.

Lincoln Restored the Constitution

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
– Abraham Lincoln

To call public infrastructure, debt-free public currency, and an economic policy that advanced wages and industrialization – as opposed to a slave-based, de facto British colony – “anti-Constitutional” or “un-American” is just plain stupid.

We all want “liberty,” but the world is, as Lincoln understood, full of wolves clamoring for the sheep to be let out of the pen. A Constitutional Republic, and the “American System” of political economy, commenced by Hamilton and justified by Lincoln, allows the individual the maximum freedom and opportunity possible without opening himself and his fellow man to exploitation and worse. Expecting freedom to reign without the regulating influence of government was a fantasy even in the time of the founders. We should be thankful that the wisest among them were also the most assertive.

William McKinley – like Hamilton, Lincoln and John F. Kennedy silenced by the British empire – expressed Lincoln’s legacy well:

“[W]hether a thing is cheap or dear depends upon what we can earn by our daily labor. Free trade cheapens the product by cheapening the producer. Protection cheapens the product by elevating the producer. Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man.”

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “In Defense of Abraham Lincoln

  1. Stats says:

    So I was with you (not in complete agreement, but sympathetic) until you got to “silenced by the British empire”. So I guess you are a LaRouchite. How does one fall into LaRouche’s orbit? His demons, the British Empire, the “City” and the queen, seem laughably inept, unintimidating and mostly powerless. I can buy into a lot of the other conspiracy theory bad guys, but the United Kingdom? Really?

    • deadeyeblog says:

      “British” is a euphemism for a transnational empire of financial speculation, cartels and criminal enterprises that is currently centered in the City of London. The method and interests are what’s important, not the nationality. The “jews” and “jesuits” insofar as their involvement in criminality, are franchises of the “British” (who would have been called the “Venetians” a few centuries ago.
      The Confederate secret service was headquartered in Canada, where British intelligence agents could avoid the North’s naval blockade. Booth himself was handled by British intelligence.

  2. Franz says:

    Thomas DiLorenzo is a bit of a riot. I agree that reading him backward is a good way to understand all of part of Abe.

    What libertarian anti-Lincolnites cannot grasp is that the Northern industries were to become the ONLY real assertion of America for a century and that they’d have been destroyed in their infancy if the Free Trade Confederacy and the British Empire in Canada had been free to work their magic. Lincoln’s economic parables show him as one of the few men of his era who knew what free trade really is.

    DiLorenzo cites the free trade section of the Confederate Constitution as though it is some sort of human right. Free trade in fact was always a weapon. Lincoln knew it.

    Trouble is, the Sunbelt rose in the 1970s and got their free trade anyway. It did exactly what Lincoln said it would do, and some of the poorest people in the country STILL think the problem was Lincoln. It was the people Lincoln fought who were the problem and still are.

    But it’s always easier to feel than to think.

    • deadeyeblog says:

      Thanks – great comment.
      My personal favorite is DiLorenzo’s “Lincoln was a racist” meme. I guess it tested better than his original chapter: “Abraham Lincoln: n###er lover”.

  3. Very good work.

    The U.S Federal Constitution expresses the dirigist Hamilton, and knows nothing of this mythological self-regulating “free-market” guided by the beloved hidden-hands of private finance, as promoted by the Austrian School, and cloaked in the conjured spirit of Thomas Jefferson.

    I love this blog. I’ve linked mine to yours.

  4. “The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty.”
    – Abraham Lincoln

    love the quote. it is a great one for debates with austrian economists, especially when the source of the quote is the enemy of the wolves at the austrian school of economics.

    • I was led to believe that William McKinley was the only president killed for being a stooge of bankers by a real anarchist rather than by a patsy for the bankers. This is the first I heard that he was actually silenced by bankers too with a faux anarchist patsy. Is there a mix bag of McKinley in regards to money and banking?

      I have intuitive assumption that free trade is never trade if the other nation engages in unfair economic practice, and thus, a certain amount of protectionism is necessary. While free trade is ideal, making sure the shortages of commodities in nations are freely provided by nations who have an excess, industries tend to get subsidized by governments or industries.

      The trader being the master and the producer being the slave is an interesting enough to give it some thought, that the middle man who facilitates international trade collects the profit rather than the producer. however, i’m not sure how much of the value is facilitating the trade, how much of the profit is being collected and repressed due to international supply and demand, and how much the producer does collect as profit according to supply and demand in the domestic economy.

      The general problem of tariffs were that they were used to subsidize and favor one industry over another, whichever industry had the most political favor. I tend to favor some protectionism, though done in a more universal and flat way, like a sales tax, applied to exports and import, though I’m not sure how these would impact the concern of the trader being the master of the producer. Perhaps there must be a vigilant pursuit of free trade while making sure there is also a vigilant pursuit of fair trade.

      • anarchy is always faux anarchy in the absolute sense since the law of the jungle is the coercion of an understood of state of the biggest teeth and claws. i just meant real anarchy as is in a real reason of hatred of the marriage between private banks and the state rather than a misguided anarchist who was misguided for the purpose of the marriage of the private banks and the state.

      • deadeyeblog says:

        McKinley was basically a Lincoln Republican – he ran on promising high tariffs. He did advocate the gold standard as opposed to WJ Bryan’s bimetal program, but I don’t know a ton about the political situation at the time. I’m guessing McKinley was appealing more to industrial interests and Bryan to the farmers.

        Leon Czolgosz, the assassin, was basically being handled by Emma Goldman, a prominent jewish anarchist who was effectively a British agent. Google “Why the British Kill American Presidents” (by Anton Chaitkin) for some interesting backround.

        James Garfield was another genuine patriot and Lincoln ally who only lasted 6 months in office before he was shot by a “lone nut” assassin.

  5. […] had suffered defeat in proxy wars at the hands of nationalist leaders like Lincoln and Bismarck, it was losing Eurasia in its “Great Game” against Russia, and the power […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: