Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Abe Lincoln's Antiwar Record

By Eric Foner, The Nation. Posted March 7, 2007.


How falsified quotations have allowed conservatives to misappropriate Lincoln's legacy.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Eric Foner

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

An old marketing adage states that no product exists whose sales cannot be improved by associating it with Abraham Lincoln. The same seems to be true in politics. As Congress debated resolutions condemning the escalation of the Iraq War, the remaining supporters of George W. Bush's Iraq policy invoked Lincoln to tar the war's opponents with the brush of treason. But this reflects a complete misunderstanding of Lincoln's record.

The latest example of the misuse of Lincoln came in a February 13 article in the Washington Times by conservative writer Frank Gaffney. Gaffney quoted Lincoln as declaring that wartime Congressmen who "damage morale and undermine the military" should be "exiled or hanged." Glenn Greenwald, on Salon, quickly pointed out that the "quote," which has circulated for the past few years in conservative circles, is a fabrication. (Conservative use of invented Lincoln statements is nothing new -- Ronald Reagan used a series of them in a speech to the 1992 Republican National Convention. But today, when Lincoln's entire works are online and easily searchable, there is no possible excuse for invoking fraudulent quotations.)

Greenwald did not point out that Lincoln's record as a member of Congress during the Mexican War utterly refutes the conservative effort to appropriate his legacy. Lincoln was elected to the House of Representatives in 1846, shortly after President James Polk invaded Mexico when that country refused his demand to sell California to the United States. Polk falsely claimed that he was responding to a Mexican invasion.

Shortly before Lincoln's term in Congress began, he attended a speech in Lexington, Kentucky, by his political idol Senator Henry Clay. "This is no war of defense," Clay declared in a blistering attack on Polk, "but one of unnecessary and offensive aggression." A month later, Lincoln introduced a set of resolutions challenging Polk's contention that Mexico had shed American blood on American soil and voted for a statement, approved by the House, that declared the war "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President."

Clay and Lincoln objected as strenuously as any member of Congress today to a war launched by a President on fabricated grounds. When Lincoln's law partner, William Herndon, defended the President's right to invade another country if he considered it threatening, Lincoln sent a devastating reply. Herndon, he claimed, would allow a President "to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect. ... If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him?" The Constitution, he went on, gave the "war-making power" to Congress precisely to prevent Presidents from starting wars while "pretending ... that the good of the people was the object."

Like Bush, Lincoln spoke of the United States as a beacon of liberty, an example to the world of the virtues of democracy. But he rejected the idea of American aggression in the name of freedom. He included in an 1859 speech a biting satire of "Young America," a group of writers and politicians who glorified territorial aggrandizement. Young America, he remarked, "owns a large part of the world, by right of possessing it; and all the rest by right of wanting it, and intending to have it. ... He is a great friend of humanity; and his desire for land is not selfish, but merely an impulse to extend the area of freedom. He is very anxious to fight for the liberation of enslaved nations and colonies, provided, always, they have land." Substitute "oil" for "land" and the statement seems eerily relevant in the early twenty-first century.

Conservatives should think twice before invoking Lincoln's words, real or invented, in the cause of the Iraq War and before equating condemnations of Bush's policies and usurpations with treason.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: war, conservatives, lincoln

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
more shades of 1984
Posted by: Arvy on Mar 7, 2007 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Who controls the past, controls the future
Who controls the present controls the past."
George Orwell from "1984"

"Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind"

George Orwell

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

lincoln no hero as the 'books' say...
Posted by: ellie on Mar 7, 2007 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as president, at the time lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation, he also signed a writ of exicution for what turned out to be 38 Dakota (Indian) men for a food stealing incident.... the people were starving and the famous saying of '... let them eat grass' was recorded into history from the mouth of a minnesota Indian agent... the 38 men were taken to the gallows singing their death songs...

murder the hungry while freeing slaves, hmmmm... hero????

if in doubt look up the "Mankato Masssacre"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Read a little further Posted by: feduphoosier
Judy in Big Thicket
Posted by: Judy in Big Thicket on Mar 7, 2007 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eric Foner is right on point responding to this particularly dangerous faux Lincoln quote. The truth of Lincoln's position on preemtive invasion is revealing.
The traditional Republican party, which claims Lincoln, long ago vanished. This current bunch of neo-con nuts like to claim the history of the traditional party, but instead they are pathetic shadows of the corporate hawks who haunted World War II by continuing to deal with our enemies (companies like Ford and IBM) and who provoked Eisenhower's warning about the development of the "military-industrial" complex.
Today, Lincoln is not alone in haunting the halls of Congress. But, he must be disgusted at the crass manner in which his legacy is misused.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Beepath
Posted by: Beepath on Mar 7, 2007 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The greatness of Lincoln came through when asked how the South should be treated after having lost the war....he said "to let 'em up easy." Shame dubya doesn't "know some history."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

President Abraham Lincoln, in his own (real) words
Posted by: feduphoosier on Mar 7, 2007 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?

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.

Ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors to bullets.

Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts.

I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.

I don't like that man. I must get to know him better.

If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem.

My dream is of a place and a time where America will once again be seen as the last best hope of earth.

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.

No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent.

Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as a heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors.

Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.

I have never had a feeling, politically, that did not spring from ... the Declaration of Independence ... that all should have an equal chance. This is the sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence ... I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it.

Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disentrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. -U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 in a letter to Col. William F. Elkins: Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)

- Abraham Lincoln

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Judge Lincoln (and every person) by his actions, not his words
Posted by: Torgo on Mar 7, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lincoln Unmasked

The Real Lincoln

Lincoln the Great Manipulator, the practicioner of insincere, voodoo religious rhetoric

From Thomas DiLorenzo's article above:

As preparation for his political career Lincoln read the Bible (which he mocked) over and over (along with Shakespeare and various books on rhetoric and speech making). He cynically used Biblical language to make political points, sometimes insinuating that his policies were the will of God, and at other times absolving himself from all responsibility for them, saying, for example, that all the death and destruction of the war was the work of God, and that he had nothing to do with it. That was the theme of his Second Inaugural Address. The war just "came," he said, and was God’s punishment of America’s sins (pretending to know what is in the mind of God).

"Much of what Lincoln said [in the Gettysburg Address] carried the sounds of the Bible," writes Boritt. It was "the music of the ancient Hebrew turned into King James’s English." For example, "Four score seven years ago" is similar to Psalm 90: "The days of our years are three score years and ten." When he wrote that our forefathers "brought forth" a new nation, he knew that that was how the Bible announced a birth, including the birth of Jesus. The Israelites are also said to have been "brought forth" from slavery in Egypt. "Hallowed ground" is from the story of Moses, not 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The phrase "shall not perish" is from John 3:16 in the New Testament. The word "consecration" also has a biblical lineage.

So what was the purpose of Lincoln’s insincere, voodoo religion? Why did he so cleverly portray the platform of the Republican Party as literally the work of God? It was to explain "why the bloodletting must go on," says Boritt, admitting that he did not even mention slavery in the speech."


The work of God? As DiLorenzo writes, it is a serious blasphemy to presume to know the mind of God.

Of course these days conservatives will claim that Bush and "the troops" are doing God's work in Iraq, and I distinctly remember Democratic figure Paul Begala (8 years ago) saying on TV that NATO bombers were "doing the Lord's work" by bombing Yugoslavia. I might add: bombing civilian targets and public infrastructure in the guise of stopping a "genocide" that did not exist, no more than Iraq's WMDs existed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Government of the people, by ---
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Mar 7, 2007 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the people, and for the people". Lincoln sure got that right as a condensation of the idealistic dreams of our Founding Fathers.

That's very different from the realistic nightmare "government of the people, by the bought, for the corporate establishment" that we live under today.
Bob Reichenbach,Director,
The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Treason
Posted by: freedom_rings on Mar 7, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is amazing how people in this administration even mention treason. The large majority of the people in our government at large are guilty of treason! We are the aggressors in an illegal war. Many of the laws passed in the last 6 years and even prior are unconstitutional and illegal as is written in our constitution. It is unfortunate that our fellow citizens go along with all this while very few of us watch our republic slip away. Now we get to be entertained as corporate interests use their lobbying power to rape the innocent people in Iraq of their most important resource, all in the name of liberty. How are we able to spread democracy if we no longer practice it???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lincoln and habeus
Posted by: DCostello2 on Mar 7, 2007 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before everyone gets all gushy over Lincoln, let's remember that he was the first to suspend habeus corpus. He also put preservation of the Union above all things, including abolishing slavery. I'm not saying Lincoln was evil but he wasn't a saint either. There are arguments being made that Lincoln's actions back then helped pave the way for W's actions today. Why didn't Lincoln let the South succeed? It's written in the Constitution that they can. What Lincoln should have preserverd above all things was the Constitution and not the Union.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lincoln and habeus Posted by: brunowe
» RE: Lincoln and habeus Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Lincoln and habeus Posted by: mr. joshua
» RE: Lincoln and habeus Posted by: grammasanity
Lincoln and Total War
Posted by: The Western Confucian on Mar 8, 2007 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just as the current president once spoke of being a "humble nation," Lincoln's words are irrelevant. Lincoln was a warmonger, just like Bush. He unleashed "total war" on the South, civilians included, the first such war in history. Cities and towns were burned to the ground. The Civil War, more properly called the War of Northern Aggression, is considered by historians to be the first modern war, and that's no distinction to be proud of. About 600,000 were lost on each side, more than America lost in all her other wars, most of them unjust as well, put together. The slaves Lincoln freed with the Emancipation Proclamation were those living in Confederate controlled lands; U.S. Grant marched south with his wife's slaves in tow. Robert E. Lee wanted to free the slaves. This, of course, is not meant to excuse the South of its sins, just as opposing Mr. Bush's War, as I strongly do, is not meant to exonerate Saddam Hussein's rule. But the fact remains, George W. Bush is cut from the same cloth as the first Republican president.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lincoln and Total War Posted by: feduphoosier
Civil War might have been avoided
Posted by: jmooney on Mar 8, 2007 4:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know. This'll be unpopular but I think the southern states had a right to step out of the union. They had the right to vote themselves in, why not the right to vote themselves out. I think had they known they would have to fight to get out of the union in which they entered they never would have entered in first place.

I don't hate Lincoln, but I think he was someone who wanted to look good in history and saving the union was his way of doing it, but in saving it he sort of destroyed it as it was originally designed. Might not our country be better off now as two entities? Might that not have constrained our global imperialism that is now deepening?

I submit Lincoln should have told the South, "You go on, but we are going to welcome runaway slaves into the north with open arms." Had he done that the South would have gone ape shit and probably would have back away from the precipice. But he wouldn't do that because the North didn't want blacks living up there with them. They didn't want to compete with them for cheap labor.

To me, Lincoln did wage a war or choice and it cost us more than 500,000 lives. What might those people have brought to the table had they been allowed to live. And there is much evidence that Lincoln took many of the same types of extralegal actions that the current White House occupant has taken in his ill conceived war on terror.

War is rarely the answer. In some few instances where one must defend oneselves, fighting is necessary. But we weren't fighting off the South in the Civil War. If anything, one could say they were fighting off the interlopers from the North.

I hate slavery and hate the fact that the aftermath of the Civil War was so badly botched that it led to American apartheid, but maybe had Lincoln avoided a war and put his effort into paid emancipation (a man with his political skills could have made that happen had he focused on it, not done it half assed as was the case) we could have ended slavery in such a way as to have uplifted blacks out of their sub-status into the mainstream much more smoothly and effectively and avoided all the difficulties we've had in opening up full equality to them.

To the extent I believe in centralized planning helping to spread out the wealth, Lincoln's destruction of state's rights (the ultimate of which was the right to opt back out of the Union) was positive. But I think the empire building, blundering, unchecked federal government we got out of Lincoln's "nation building" was perhaps too high a price to pay. I used to feel it was better that we ended up as one big nation, but now I am not so sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lincoln and Bush have alot in common
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Mar 8, 2007 7:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author failed to mention that Lincoln was very much like Bush in his conduct of war.. and protection of the country!

During the Civil War, Lincoln appropriated powers no previous President had wielded: he used his war powers to proclaim a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money without congressional authorization, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. Nearly all of his actions, although vehemently denounced by the Copperheads, were subsequently upheld by Congress and the Courts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a couple of points
Posted by: jacquesclouseau on Mar 11, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to mention two things. First, Lincoln presided over our CIVIL war, and a president's actions during a civil war occur in a completely different context than in any kind of foreign war. In other words, let's not try to compare apples and oranges, or Lincoln's actions during the Civil War and Bush's actions during the Iraq "war." Second, an appeal: could we please stop wasting space hypothesizing about what MIGHT have happened differently? Discussions about whether the Southern states would have survived if they had left the Union are just a lot of hot air. Since there's no way to prove what might have happened, discussions of this sort are just imaginative excercises. If you'd like to engage in imaginative excercises, fine -- but please don't confuse them with history. They belong more to the realm of fiction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]