Those who know me are aware that I thoroughly enjoy talking about and mixing two subjects--history and politics. In my view, they're really the same...but according to people with more letters after their name than me, it has been determined that politics and history are different. Yet, they both influence the other. History is the foundation of politics, and the control of history is the control of politics in our day. At family gatherings or other social functions I often steer the conversation to one of these two topics...it's not intentional, it just happens...it's in my nature. Being in Utah County, I often find my conversations littered with libertarian and conservative sentiments. No one wishes to be bogged down with the overbearing political baggage of actually claiming allegiance to the Republican party (and for good reason). Instead, we distinguish ourselves along more ideological titles and lines. Often, these distinctions include drawing a line between those who are supportive of freedom and limited government, and those who advocate a welfare state where government influence is welcome in large aspects of our life because it is for the greater good. Libertarian or liberal, the size of the government's role is often at the heart of this debate. As such, each side is prepared with the historical evidence which bolsters their position. One political weapon common to virtually every base of competing political ideologies today is the legacy of our nation's 16th President, Abraham Lincoln. I must also add to this mix the most pervasive of all political ideologies of the past century, progressivism. Oddly, progressives also lay claim to the Lincoln legacy. Progressives assert that they are carrying on his legacy, that they have inherited his mantle of ensuring equality for all by providing for all. Interestingly, it seems that as progressives have distorted Lincoln's legacy to fit their agenda, libertarian's have equally bought into this distortion of Abraham Lincoln and are playing right into the idea that he did, indeed, begin to usher in the era of big government. Forget the fact that the government remained relatively small and limited for 50 years after his death, and not until the likes of Wilson and Roosevelt did it actually multiply in size by hundreds of thousands of people and tens of thousands of pages of civic regulation.
It should be apparent by now that I am an ardent supporter of President Lincoln. In my view, he is in the same class as the Founders, not the opposite. He shared their views on limited government that acknowledged the inherent freedom of the individual, and that that freedom was not granted by government, but merely protected by it. It may not be as apparent, however, that I actually subscribe to many libertarian views on limited government espoused by the same people who sometimes vilify Lincoln, or at the least view him with some degree of suspicion. I mingle with the same individuals who recognize President Benson's inspired views on the Constitution and our political situation, not with those who write him off as simply a politically driven prophet who had a penchant for spouting personal opinion as prophecy. I also believe, however, the words of another prophet who, in my opinion, was the second most political prophet--Heber J. Grant. As prophet during the most progressive era in our nation's history, he considered his greatest challenge as prophet protecting the Saints from the pervasive political ideology that was polluting the pure and simple foundations that were at the root of this country's founding. He was a Democrat driven out of the party by what he called "FDR's neo-socialism."
President Benson himself spoke favorably of Lincoln and never offered any criticism of his Presidency. Indeed, most Latter-day Saint criticism of our 16th President often comes from members whose opinions I value and whose political principles often harmonize with my own, but not always. Where they see Lincoln as a statist, I see him as a servant of God who carried out a divine will. Where they claim he expanded the size of federal government, I respectfully differ. In preserving the Union he restored it, he didn't multiply it. Yes, some constitutional amendments resulted which, it could be argued are "Exhibit A" that President Lincoln expanded constitutional authority and, in essence, expanded the scope of the federal government. Of the 3 Reconstruction Amendments (the 13th, 14th, and 15th), only one was passed and ratified while Lincoln was alive--the 13th. It is the shortest and most straightforward and was simply an enumeration of the Emancipation Proclamation, which was now legally placed under the protection of the Constitution. This amendment actually serves to strengthen the freedoms promised individuals in our founding documents. The 14 and 15 amendments, unfortunately, have been used by activist judges to truly expand federal power. The fact that judges after Lincoln's time have distorted the meaning of constitutional amendment's to promote a progressive agenda cannot be laid at the feet of Lincoln himself.
Further evidence often cited by libertarian's is Lincoln's first political speech. Most recently, it was cited in a book that I highly recommend ("Latter-day Liberty"), though it's interpretation and postulated meaning of the following quote is one of the few questionable arguments made. According to the book, Lincoln stated in a speech, his first of a political nature, that "My policies are short and sweet. I am in favor of a national bank; I am in favor of the internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles." Fairly straightforward, you may say, and even more to the fact--they seem pretty pointed in their promotion of big government. Adding further to the prominent position that people place on these comments are that they were given in his first political speech, meaning they were somehow the unchanging base upon which everything else in his life was built. They were the first, so they must be the most important. Right? I say, not so fast. First, the actual quote itself is suspect--I have never found a primary source that can confirm its veracity and every time I find the quotation referenced, it is to a secondary source. Here's a link to Lincoln's writings, the complete collection, and you can check for yourself: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/ The very book that recently referenced that quote cited a secondary source, a magazine article written in 1916, nearly a hundred years after the supposed speech. As a matter of fact, every source I have found with that quote cites either another secondary source or no source at all. Further, none of its references contain a specific date for the speech, only general references to a year and possible month. Conflicting locations are also cited with each reference to this quote. The first verified speech we have from Abraham Lincoln in regards to politics was given in Sangamo County on 09 March 1832. A complete reading of that speech reveals that the quote in question does not come from that speech at all (the complete speech can be found here: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1832.htm.
My ideas concerning Lincoln have consumed most of my research for several months now. The paper I am preparing keeps growing in size. I am going to try to keep it at a more readable length, say 20-25 pages, though I may produce a longer version of 50 pages or more. While I will evaluate several pieces of evidence in my paper, it seems that libertarian criticism of Lincoln hinges on 2 main questions--did the South have a legal right to secede and was slavery or economics the cause of the Civil War. Each of those two questions alone account for approximately 200 pages of material I have studied over the past 2 months. I can't promise when my paper will be done. I am researching this in most of my free time, and am loving it. It is enlightening and illuminating research, and I feel that I am gaining a better ability to sift through distortions of the truth, bias, and even public opinion to arrive at a better understanding of the truth. Of course, it is merely the truth as I see and interpret it--it doesn't mean I'm right! It is simply my interpretation of the evidence I am studying, and my analysis of the quality of research which has been conducted by others. I will tell you right now, Thomas J. DiLorenzo--the leader of the modern crusade attacking Lincoln--is not someone whose work I would value as well researched, objective, and fair. His books The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked are full of shoddy research, blatantly misconstrued quotes, and a presentation of evidence which supports his theory while completely ignoring other, even more pertinent evidence, which weakens his position.
So, until my paper is finished, begin asking yourself what you really think about Lincoln. What type of a President was he? What type of a man was he? Did the South have a legal right to secede?
No comments:
Post a Comment