Two reader/friends have attacked me for being in the Lincoln cult. I'd take both of them on now but for two things: 1, I don't know much about Lincoln, and 2, I am interested chiefly in Lincoln's intellectual/political progress as a hater of slavery in the year '48-'58, , not as a warmaker. I'm troubled by the fact that 600,000+ people died in the Civil War, and I accept Sid Smith's view below that Lincoln was eaten up by this too. Again, though: my interest is in the ways that Lincoln thru the amazing fire of his mind and speech and the marketing of the Lincoln-Douglas debates was able to sell a moral question to the American people. Which has enormous application to our own equivalent of slavery: our responsibility for the treatment of Palestinians, which is hated across the Arab world, and Europe too. So I'm still in the Lincoln cult. But my critics. First Jack Ross:
problems, the latest TAC has a review of his new book on Hamilton which
is the most spot on critique of him I've ever seen. Even Michael
Lind's book on Lincoln of a few years ago may be worth your time.
At
any rate, I'll explain why this isn't just academic: though I still
think the odds are long on it, Obama may yet turn out to be our
Kerensky. The reason Kerensky stayed in the war after overthrowing the
czar was a misapplied historical analogy – he believed that once the
hated monarchy was overthrown the people would rally to win the war as
they did in the case of Napoleon.
It is possible, though I
can't say how probable, that Obama has a similar misapplied historical
analogy with the "Team of Rivals", that this will somehow unify the
country to win the war in Afghanistan
(and perhaps even restore a pro-Israel consensus in the west) as it is
claimed Lincoln was able to unify the North behind his war. In other
words, if Obama becomes convinced the empire can be maintained in some
form, and we get bogged down in Afghanistan or even beyond, Doris
Kearns Goodwin and the whole Lincoln cult will have destroyed the
republic.
But I still think Obama is smart and knows what
he's doing – the real analogy in his mind still seems to be LBJ, who
knew he could never win in Vietnam but that he could not afford
politically to withdraw, and so deluded himself into the idea that
there was some kind of middle ground. It is to be hoped that Obama is
determined to avoid LBJ's mistakes in this respect.
And here is Sid Smith attacking the Lincoln cult:
in 1861. Dr. Woods intimates this aspect in his work, but perhaps some
historians (even DiLorenzo?) fail to see a character transition that
took place within Lincoln — a change brought on by the grotesque
horror of the war. And, of course, if a character change did take
place, then one must ask why. Was this a war that Lincoln started?
Did Lincoln start the war with one set of beliefs and, after seeing the
carnage, then try to justify the war with another set of beliefs?
is correct about Lincoln and the cause of…what do I call it… the
War between the States, the Civil War? The War of Northern…egads,
let's not go there!
should fascinate all, and it is crucially important at this time in
history for at least two reasons. One, little doubt that those on the
left and right who want to create a centralized national government
will invoke Lincoln to justify their actions. And if Hayek and Ludwig Von MIses are correct,
then God help us all. Socialism and fascism apprently do intersect
and merge under the proper historical conditions, not the least of
which are a nationalized economy and a Dear Leader.
yourselves — the winner of this debate, at least in my
mind, determines whether or not Memorial Hall should include the names
of the Harvard students who died while fighting for the Confederacy.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Memorial Hall contain names of
Harvard students who fought for Germany? And, hey, didn't the slave
trade begin in New England — home of fair Harvard?
no expert. In fact, one day I lean towards Sandberg's version of
Lincoln and the war, the next day towards DiLorenzo (exept that he
fails to empathize with Lincoln). This cognitive dissonance is
symptomatic of other trends: one day I am leaning towards the NY Lefty
tradition (Greenwald), the next day that of Thomas Woods. I don't
think I am alone in this, as a new concensus may emerge from those two
traditions. So it is imperative that those from both traditions
closely examine the assumptions underlying the cult of Lincoln.
