See other History Articles
Title: Lincoln's Party
Source:
The Reactionary Utopian
URL Source: http://www.sobran.com/columns/index.shtml
Published: Feb 4, 2006
Author: Joe Sobran
Post Date: 2006-02-04 07:56:11 by Zoroaster
Keywords: Lincolns, Party
Views: 122
Comments: 10
The Reactionary Utopian Lincoln’s Party January 19, 2006 As we debate the constitutional wartime powers of the president, it’s instructive, and exciting, to read a new book called Lincoln’s Wrath, by Jeffrey Manber and Neil Dahlstrom (Sourcebooks). It will come as a shock to anyone who still believes in the myth of the Great Emancipator. A shock, I say, because Lincoln has been enshrined as the very incarnation of freedom. To many people, calling him a destroyer of freedom sounds not just wrong, but impossible, paradoxical, bafflingly counterintuitive. What on earth can you mean? John Hodgson knew what it meant. The book tells how he ran afoul of the Lincoln administration for the crime of publishing his opinions. Lincoln took the view that his “vast reservoir” of powers, as one of his admirers has called them, included suppressing any critics and any opposition press. What about the First Amendment? Lincoln never directly mentioned it; in all his many speeches extolling liberty, I don’t recall a single word about the need for freedom of speech or a free press. In this he stands in striking contrast to Jefferson. Lincoln explained that just as “often a limb must be amputated to save a life,” by analogy “measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation.” So “the nation” could be saved only by amputating several limbs of the Constitution. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus on his own authority; the first Republican Congress obligingly passed an act authorizing the confiscation of private property used in aid of the “rebellion.” Since the Republicans regarded any failure to support his war as pro-Confederate “treason,” this meant, in practice, the seizure and destruction of printing presses of hundreds of Democratic newspapers. More than 10,000 dissenters were also arbitrarily arrested, without warrants or specified charges, and held without trial. This reign of terror wasn’t conducted by government agents alone. Much of the dirty work was done by mobs and rioters, who knew they too could act with impunity, even enjoying Lincoln’s tacit approval. Though he never openly endorsed mob violence, he did nothing about it and never condemned it. Lincoln gave the impression he didn’t even notice it. He kept his own role in it carefully out of view. He knew that Republican fanaticism was on his side, and he had no need to sully himself by praising it. A useful partnership between a Republican government and private initiative (sound familiar?) took care of everything for him. Lincoln had a keen sense of the importance of public opinion. “With public sentiment,” he said in 1858, “nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.” In a perverse way, his respect for public opinion also taught him the necessity of controlling it — by persuasion, if possible, but by force, if necessary, and also, at times, by bribery and patronage. He secretly paid friendly publishers and sometimes wrote anonymously for them. (During his run for the presidency, Lincoln’s Wrath notes, he himself held “secret ownership” of one German-language paper, through which he cultivated the support of the large body of German immigrants in the West at that time.) In West Chester, Pennsylvania, one brave publisher named John Hodgson stood up to the pressure. Lincoln’s Wrath is largely his untold story. After a mob wrecked his press in August 1861, and Federal officials demanded what was left of it a week later, Hodgson decided to fight back. He sued the officials in court and eventually won; they claimed they were only acting under Lincoln’s orders (sound familiar?) but failed to prove his direct involvement. Like Macbeth, he couldn’t be tied to the crime; but his moral responsibility is clear. Ironically, Hodgson’s paper was called the Jeffersonian. It stood for the constitutional principles Lincoln was busy amputating — principles that would have made Jefferson himself eligible for Republican arrest. Democrats saw their party as the party of Jefferson and limited Federal power, and the Republicans as the party of expansive centralized power in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, the Federalists, and the Whigs. In effect if not in fact, Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to make the United States a one-party system, in which dissent could be treated as rebellion and treason. Today it often seems that Lincoln’s party hasn’t changed much. Joseph Sobran
Poster Comment: History repeats itself.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Zoroaster (#0)
Every American should know the history of the Civil War. I mean the War Between the States. I mean the War of Northern Aggression. Probably the easiest and most readable introduction is Bruce Catton's trilogy. The slaughter was just horrendous, and totally avoidable. If there is Hell, Lincoln is in it.
Totally agree. He was our first dictator. Threw Americans in jail in violation of the Bill Of Rights. There were many Union death camps for prisoners from the south. In the end, he got what he deserved. Mark
Many historians believe slavery would have died out without the Civil War. The issue was states' rights, not slavery--the lost of life, 600,000, was simply not worth it. Plus the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment turned the Constitution on its head, effectively ending the Jeffersonian Republic.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
a noble sentiment that I echo. But the bible says people will all be judged at once when jesus returns. It does not say that they are judged immediately on 'death'. that is a common misconception.
I agree 100%. slavery was becoming uneconomical at the time of the war. and every decade it was becoming more uneconomical. in time it would've been done away with by the southerners themselves. and the deaths of the 650,000 americans who died in that war were not worthwhile at all. the newspapers controlled by the big-money people fanned the flames of war for years, that's why the war happened.
As a proportion of the population, today that would be a little over five million people.
"I am to misbehave" -- Mal Reynolds, Firefly
the cherokee population of tennessee was almost completely wiped out by the civil war. there were many towns in north and south where the majority of the adult male population died. and in the south there were a lot more civilians killed than we want to know. and it was the beginning of the centralization of power in washington which is the death-knell of the republic as well as the destruction of our nation.
My ancestors are from Tennesee and Kentucky, and I have a little bit of Cherokee in me. So it's pretty easy to understand how I feel about the war. As William Faulkner said, the past isn't over. It isn't even the past.
"I am to misbehave" -- Mal Reynolds, Firefly
In effect if not in fact, Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to make the United States a one-party system, in which dissent could be treated as rebellion and treason. Today it often seems that Lincoln’s party hasn’t changed much. well, now isn't this interesting? good article!
I view Lincoln as the man who destroyed the Republic, and created the Federal Leviathan that we all now suffer under. We were supposed to be a nation of fifty different states, and each state was to have their own ideas about how to best effect the creation of a government that could insure liberty and justice for all. If one state started going wrong, people could leave it and go to another state that was doing a better job. This was intended to be a check and balance against unwarranted government powers and errors in government policies. Of course, thanks to Lincoln, the only thing states get to decide for themselves nowadays is what colors their state flag can have, within Federally set limits of course. Lincoln may in fact be the very worst president this nation ever had, and that's saying something. There is little doubt as to why he has been elevated to near diety status by this Federal government.
#2. To: YertleTurtle (#1)
#3. To: YertleTurtle (#1)
#4. To: YertleTurtle (#1)
If there is Hell, Lincoln is in it.
#5. To: Zoroaster (#3)
slavery would have died out without the Civil War. The issue was states' rights, not slavery--the lost of life, 600,000, was simply not worth it.
#6. To: Red Jones (#5)
the deaths of the 650,000 americans who died in that war were not worthwhile at all
#7. To: YertleTurtle (#6)
#8. To: Red Jones (#7)
the cherokee population of tennessee was almost completely wiped out by the civil war. there were many towns in north and south where the majority of the adult male population died. and in the south there were a lot more civilians killed than we want to know.
#9. To: Zoroaster (#0)
Democrats saw their party as the party of Jefferson and limited Federal power, and the Republicans as the party of expansive centralized power in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, the Federalists, and the Whigs.
#10. To: YertleTurtle (#1)
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest