But what happens when you find out that the history you learned for years, reading in elementary, middle school, high school and even college text books only told half the story ... on someone you were told was the best president ever.
And what if the other half of the story made you think that he might have been ... the worst president ever?
I'm talking, of course, about our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln.
Interestingly, this is my second column on the misconceptions of Honest Abe. My first column about him dealing with the rumors of his sexuality, which linger to this day.
Lincoln, of course, wasn't all bad. He did free the slaves ... and made those funky stovepipe hats all the rage. But there's something about martyrdom that seems to wipe the slate clean of all his not-so-innocent transgressions.
Our history books teach us that Lincoln ran for office repeatedly, losing over and over. He opposed slavery and won the presidency. The south hated him and seceeded. We had a civil war to bring them back into the fold. The north won and everything was clear sailing after that.
Our history books leave out a lot of details. And fudge some facts.
Here's some facts you may have missed:
- Not only was Lincoln despised in the south, he didn't campaign in the south at all ... and was completely absent from the ballot in nine southern states. He recieved less than 40 percent of the votes nationwide. The other 60 percent being split by three other candidates.
- Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment. It would have given Constitutional protection to slavery in any state in which it already existed.
- The Emancipation Proclaimation did not free the slaves in all states. It only freed the slaves in non-Union states. In other words, only slaves being held in Confederate states.
- Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the war.
- Lincoln spent money without congressional authorization, acting as though the executive branch were a monarchy, unchecked by the other two branches of government.
- Lincoln imprisoned 18,000 "confederate sympatizers" without due process. They never got a trial.
You may wonder how I could possibly oppose such a great feat. The semantics of it make it sound American as apple pie, right? Let's try it in a different direction. "Lincoln consolidated the states under one federal directive." Doesn't sound as pretty that way, does it?
It's often stated that prior to the Civil War, people used the third person plural when referring to this nation: "The United States are ..." After the Civil War, that reference became third person singular: "The United States is ..." In other words, we went from being 36 indiviual "states" ... to one collective "nation."
Power had flowed upward ... from the people ... to their states ... to the federal government. Now the reverse is true. The federal government tells the states ... and their people what to do. It's almost as though in one fell-swoop we went from being a Republic ... to a totalitarian government.
By further explaination, Lincoln killed the 10th Amendment. I say often that the 10th Amendment is the "forgotten Amendment." it was forgotten in the mid 1860's ... when Lincoln was forcing the southern states to conform to northern ideals.
Please don't misconstrue this as some Confederate propaganda. I can't imagine anything worse than the concept of one human being "owning" another. But what we've got now is the federal government owning us all ... and we've got Lincoln to thank for it.
1 comment:
Interesting post. A few points:
-What does the South's disdain for Lincoln during his candidacy have to do w/ evaluating his presidency?
-To me, context counts for a lot in an historical discussion and it seems to get lost in translation in your post. For example, the drum beat for secession was beating pretty loudly even before Lincoln's election. The Corwin Amend was a desperate attempt to prevent the Civil War. As disdainful as the amendment appears to 21st century eyes, I can see where keeping the country together took the upmost priority.
The Emancipation Proclamation is a bit more involved than your analysis indicates; in fact, it made freeing the slaves one of the Union's objectives in pursuing the war (not one of Lincoln's more popular decisions at the time, but certainly the moral thing to do). Actually, considering the Corwin Amend, Lincoln's (unpopular) decision to make abolishing slavery a priority in the war is quite impressive. Furthermore, slavery had de facto ended in the North, which is why the first order of the Proclamation pertained only to those slaves who had already escaped to the north (considering this fact, I'm not sure why you think it was necessary to have northern states under the order). The second order of E.A. then applied to all slaves in the southern states several yrs later. My only issue w/ E.A. is that it only named Confederate states and it did not apply to border states (like Maryland) who sided w/ the north, yet were slaveholders. The Lincoln Admin most likely justified this by claiming that EA was wartime provision, etc etc and eventually, the 13th Amend banned the practice nation-wide. On the flip side, if the North ticked off those border states, it's questionable as to whether the Union would've prevailed w/out the support of key border states.
-You've criticized Lincoln for exercising executive power and becoming totalitarian during and following the war; I agree w/ your concerns about what a president can do and justify during war. Unfortunately, he's not the first or last president to suspend habeas corpus and individual rights during war -- I've heard the same accusations leveled agst FDR. I've always wondered if the Bush admin pursued war in Iraq to benefit from what the American people will tolerate during war.
-10th Amendment has a lot of controversy surrounding its interpretation/impact; I wouldn't claim that Lincoln is responsible for that one, though. Debates of a strong Federal govt vs. states rights go all the way back to the "Founding Fathers," who couldn't agree on this either. I wish someone would challenge NCLB under it, though.
-Interesting article -- it's always valuable to go beyond our schools' interpretation of history!
Post a Comment