Sacred Ground: The Lincoln Myth

Preface
For some of us the time comes when we are forced to recognize that much of what we have been taught -- what is "common knowledge" -- is simply untrue.  That is the case, I believe, to some extent in all the academic disciplines but perhaps less so in the hard sciences than the soft sciences and liberal arts.  Here, I am concerned with history, which seems to be the subject of more ideological tampering than other disciplines.
In this essay I assert that the commonly accepted history -- the orthodoxy -- of the American Civil War period and the persona of Abraham Lincoln are largely innocent of salient fact, intellectual honesty and the application of common sense.  Further, I will argue that Lincoln's abuse of constitutional powers did great violence to Jeffersonian view of federalism and ultimately became the template for contemporary statism.




So effective has been the work of generations of big-government elitists in crafting the 'historical' persona of Abraham Lincoln, that even most conservatives (1) reflexively join with progressives in defense of the indefensible. Similarly, it has become a literal heresy to say that the Civil War was not primarily fought over the issue of slavery or that the Southern states had a generally acknowledged right of nullification and eventual secession.  I begin with the last point.

Nullification, Secession and Slavery
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison worried about the usurpation of state sovereignty; they set out documents (the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves) which specified the means by which states might check the power of the central government.  If the government enacted legislation that went beyond its enumerated powers, the states could interpose, i.e., by having state authorities challenge and stand between the state and central government.  Or they could nullify federal laws by declaring them null and unenforceable.  Nullification was  exercised first by New England states (against then President Jefferson himself) on the issue of a federal shipping embargo.  Later, and more widely known, in 1832, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina refused to collect federal tariffs, and -- but for the government's agreement to lower rates -- on the occasion of armed confrontation, there might have begun an earlier "civil war".

Here, a couple of things are worth noting.  First, the states thought of themselves as sovereign "countries", superior to the central government in the sense that the government was a creature of their own making, limited by carefully enumerated powers ceded to it by the states for their collective benefit.  Secession was a right generally agreed upon and discussed at length during the conventions to ratify the Constitution.  As we shall see, Lincoln himself subscribed to the principle when it suited his purposes.  Second, while slavery was an incendiary issue, abolitionists constituted a relatively small minority within the states. (2)  Lincoln was contemptuous of them.  The primary cause of Southern disaffection was economic -- specifically the protective tariff act (Act of Abomination, 1828) which protected northern industry while raising costs and suppressing foreign trade in the South.  And the fact that tariff legislation could be passed at all demonstrated a growing disparity in political power favoring the North.

Lincoln the Man
The enduring stereotype of Lincoln gives the picture of a man born in humble circumstances who rose to become a small-town country lawyer, eventually entered politics and was always dedicated to ideas of human equality and the moral imperative of ending slavery.  The truth is that he was born into a relatively affluent rural family in Kentucky.  In his twenties the was elected to the Illinois House of Representatives, and while congress was in recess he "read the law" and was admitted to the bar in 1836.  He became the equivalent of today's top-flight corporate lawyer commanding high fees and representing America's expanding industries to include the wealthiest -- the railroads.  While Lincoln objected to slavery on moral grounds (as did many people, including slave owners), he never believed that blacks were equal to whites, was against intermarriage, full citizenship, voting rights and jury service for blacks.  He opposed the expansion of slavery in the new territories primarily because he wanted the West to be all white. (3)  He strongly favored the deportation of slaves to Liberia, Haiti and Central America.

Abraham Lincoln was a singularly fine writer and speaker.  His speeches were laced with (then well-known) biblical (4) and literary allusions and he would trot out the occasional inkhorn phrase.  Lincoln was a master of rhetoric, and his Gettysburg Address may be one of the finest political speeches ever delivered.  Never mind that it was a self-serving, counter-factual reconstruction of history and motives in which he sought to obscure the nature of an unnecessary war. (5)


The standard fare of the Lincoln myth portrays a man of  high moral principle -- a consummate humanitarian who was ever determined to serve the interests of human equality.  A man above politics, incorruptible.  Honest Abe!  But an unbiased reading of history (if that's any longer possible) would seem to reveal a very different man; a man who said -- eloquently to be sure -- whatever the political circumstances of the moment required.

On many occasions Lincoln stated that his primary concern as president was to preserve the union, that secession would never be tolerated. (6)  Yet twelve years before his inauguration he delivered a speech before Congress that echoed the very Jeffersonian ideas he despised:

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”

~ Abraham Lincoln, (speech in Congress January 1848)

And Lincoln favored the secession of West Virginia (from the Confederacy) since it augmented both his military and political power.  The point would seem to be that the principle of secession was abhorrent to Lincoln only when it threatened Northern dominance.

As the legend goes, Lincoln's enduring legacy lies in his elimination of slavery.  He did no such thing, and if anything points to his political cunning, if not cynicism, it can be found in his Emancipation Proclamation in which "Lincoln freed the slaves".  It is a fact that the only slaves he declared free were those in the South where he had neither jurisdiction nor the power of enforcement.  The status of northern slaves did not change.  An examination of his reasons for issuing the proclamation does not reflect well on Mr. Lincoln.

First, the war was going badly for the North, and Lincoln had a real fear of losing the conflict.  He sought to accomplish three objectives by the issuance of the proclamation.  First, to augment the military manpower of the North by allowing free blacks into the Union army.  Second, he believed that in publicly proclaiming that the war was being fought for the high moral reason of freeing the slaves (no longer preserving the Union) he would discourage Great Britain and France from supporting the South.  Finally, he hoped to foster slave rebellions on plantations largely managed by southern women while their husbands and fathers were away at war.

History texts rarely mention the darker side of Abraham Lincoln, and when they do, it is either a superficial treatment or an argument to justify his behavior.  About he closing of opposing newspapers (more than 300), the suspension on habeas corpus and the imprisonment of political enemies (estimated to have been between 13,000 and 40,000) is touched on lightly, if at all.  Less still is said about the wanton killing, theft, destruction of property and cruelty to civilians by -- notably but not exclusively -- Generals Grant, Sherman and Sheridan, which Lincoln sanctioned.

Victors write history; no surprises there.  But the apotheosis of Lincoln and the sanctimony of the North regarding the Civil War conceal the roots of modern American statism and its attendant and growing penchant for tyranny.  Lincoln and the Whigs-become-Republicans established the pattern for the destruction of federalism, which necessarily depends on the principle of state sovereignty.  Without acknowledged sovereignty the states are powerless to check the growth and abuses of central government, and, as we now see, the will of the people (the Founders used "people" and "states" interchangeably) is mocked, despised and ignored by the elitist governing class -- to some extent, independent of party.

The power of the Lincoln (and by extension, Civil War) myth is ubiquitous, and it is the cornerstone of American political correctness (cowardice posing as comity).  To criticize Lincoln or the conduct of the war by the North or call on the principle of state sovereignty is to invite attack and accusations of racism.  Which brings us to the core of the Lincoln myth -- white guilt.  As a Jewish mother is said to manipulate and control her children with guilt, so do the ruling elites control any opposition in terms of race.

Whether it is fear of racist charges or ignorance, it is interesting to observe that conservatives toe the line as carefully as liberals.  Since conservatives are rightly concerned with performance to the Constitution and the principles of federalism that lie behind it, one would think they would be critical of Abraham Lincoln.  Not so.

Perhaps the best example of a conservative -- fearful or clueless regarding the Lincoln myth -- is Glenn Beck.  Now I generally approve of Beck's efforts to uncover statists distortion of history, and -- with a few exceptions -- do not find much fault with his work.  In his singular determination to find the roots of statism he seems to be satisfied that they go back no farther than the early progressives -- especially President Wilson.  He dares not go farther back than, say Hoover or Teddy Roosevelt.  But Abraham Lincoln, the father of American statism, gets a pass.  The myth is powerful.  It is ironic, I think, that Glenn Beck's next mega-gathering (Eight/Twenty-eight) is to be assembled at the Lincoln memorial.  Other conservatives may be critical of Lincoln, but they are reticent, perhaps because they understand that Honest Abe is an icon of mainstream Americana that's simply too politically hot to handle.  Sacred ground.

Afterword
Like most Americans I pretty much accepted the standard Lincoln/Civil War narrative presented by media, public education and universities until I was well into middle adulthood.  It was then, I think that I began to question the orthodoxy of history in general.  Why, I can't be sure, but I suspect that it is because I began to listen for contradictions between facts I knew with certainty and narratives I heard.  Cognitive dissonance, one imagines.  In any case I began to reexamine -- regularly, if not systematically -- what I had learned, seeking information that was "heretical".  Heretics in today's liberal view were often mainstream in their own time but are shunted out of the mainstream of modern history, political and economic thought.  Among many others, Adam Smith and Bastiat come to mind.
This essay, such as it is, was largely influenced by the work Thomas DiLorenzo (The Real Lincoln, Lincoln Unmasked), H.W. Crocker III's Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War, Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, and Andrew Napolitano's The Constitution in Exile. The South Was Right, by J.R. and W.D. Kennedy -- despite its heavily polemical style -- is written with clarity, and it is extremely well-documented.
Some of the best writing I have found in defense of the "Southern Heresy" comes from Pennsylvania historian and polymath, Douglas Harper.  His site is primarily dedicated to etymological compilation, but he links to his essays on Lincoln and the Civil War. 


_____________
1.  Libertarians (most notably the late Murray Rothbard and Tom DiLorenzo) have been far more outspoken in their criticism of the Lincoln myth than conservatives.  Thomas Sowell, and Andrew Napolitano are exceptions, and Rush Limbaugh may be another. 
2.  There apparently was widespread uneasiness with the idea of slavery among people in the North, South and in the new territories, but the abolitionist movement itself, though abundantly vocal, was not of immediately great consequence.
3.  The Lincoln family moved from Kentucky to Illinois partly because of legal challenges to the title of their farm, but also because of slavery, which depressed the income of whites who did not own slaves.
4.  Lincoln did not attend church with his family, and he never professed to be a Christian.  Whether one was religious or not, the Bible was widely read, and it provided in large measure the lingua franca of American culture.
5.  That "...our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation..."  is patently false.  The United States were just that -- sovereign states united for a few, specific common purposes.
There is good reason to believe that slavery would have collapsed under its own weight.  George Washington had noted that when slaves grew old or were injured and became unproductive, they still required food, lodging and medical care.  After holding slaves for several generations, the burden could balance the profit.  The precedent for freeing slaves without violence had been established in Europe.  Governments simply compensated slaveholders for the loss of their "property".  If Lincoln had pursued that course, 650,000 lives and an enormous amount of American wealth would have been spared.
6.  By wide agreement the constitutional central government, until Lincoln's time, had no choice but to "tolerate" secession.
Today's statists like to trot out the argument that the Northern victory in the Civil War destroyed forever the legitimacy of the principles underlying nullification and secession.  That, in my view, is rather like asserting that when government takes (as it not infrequently does) life, liberty and property by main force and without due process -- well, you can see where I'm going.  Socialist Francis Bellamy's Pledge of Allegiance immortalizes the Whig/Lincoln trope -- one nation indivisible, which is fundamental to the continuation of centralized power.