The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
The Nation's Pulse
Print Email
Text Size

The Nation's Pulse

Celebrating Lincoln Fifty Ways

By on 2.11.13 @ 6:08AM

A Chicago-area businessman’s patriotic pilgrimage.

On the eve of the anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth a story has come to light that got very little attention when it occurred, but deserves it, for it is an example of the selfless patriotism that the 16th president inspired in Americans, and still does.

Last September, Chicago area businessman Mickey Straub embarked on a pilgrimage he had been thinking about for several years. His mission: to recite aloud Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address from the steps of all 50 state capitols within the course of 50 days.

“I wanted to make the trip during a national election campaign, not for political reasons, but because that is a time when many Americans are focusing on our nation’s values, its history and its future,” he said after the trip. 

His trip began in his hometown, Burr Ridge, Illinois, last September 4 with a presentation to a veterans’ group at the local Veterans’ Memorial. From there he headed by automobile — a Lincoln, of course — to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, where Lincoln had stayed at the home of David Will the night before he gave one of the nation’s most memorable addresses. Straub then proceeded to the state capital, Harrisburg, where he recited the address. He continued by auto to 47 other state capitals. (Scheduled airlines took him to other two, Alaska and Hawaii.) He also spent three of the 50 days “at rest,” as he put it later.

On arriving at a state capitol building he first introduced himself to capitol police on duty, to explain the purpose of his visit. He said he would like to pay his respects to workers in the offices of various state elected officials. He says the police were uniformly helpful and cordial. He also told them he would like to take 50 to 100 photos in and around the capitol. They directed him to various offices and legislative chambers. An outgoing man, Straub introduced himself about. Often, officials or staff members served as impromptu guides to legislative chambers and other sites. In Columbus, Ohio, for example, a State Senate official took him up a long, winding non-public staircase to the top of the dome. The man also took him into the Governor’s office where a bust of Lincoln commemorates the fact that in that room where Lincoln received the telegram notifying him in 1860 that he had been elected the 16th President. 

Along the way, as he toured a capitol, Straub kept his eye peeled for inscriptions that included the words, “God,” “Lincoln,” and “Liberty.” Many capitols also had one of the Liberty Bell reproductions that had been distributed to all capitols in the 1950s.

After touring a capitol he went to the front steps to recite the Gettysburg Address. In some cases there was no one there to hear him. He was not seeking publicity, so he had no publicist promoting his visit in advance. In most cases, though, workers from the state offices came out to hear him, as did tourists he had met during his building tour.

The last stop on Mickey Straub’s patriotic adventure was at his home state capitol, Springfield, Illinois, last October 17. On the steps of the capitol the board members of a trade association of which he is a member joined him as he recited Lincoln’s immortal words.

He made a final pilgrimage, a visit to Lincoln’s tomb, in Springfield. There, the Catholic archbishop led the small group in prayer.

Mickey concluded from his journey of 14,900 automobile and 15,000 air miles that his faith in the goodness of the American people was stronger than ever and that the experience was, for him, “very humbling.”

Photo: Wikimedia Commons

About the Author

Peter Hannaford was closely associated for a number of years with the late President Reagan, beginning in the California Governor’s office. His latest book is Presidential Retreats.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (73) |

Jack in Wi| 2.11.13 @ 7:02AM

Americans should read about the real Lincoln. He was far from a saint. He gave us the first draft, first income tax, printed money like crazy, and leveled a 3rd of the country. All this worsship of a very flawed indivigual is rather disgusting. He was no friend of liberty. He was the guy who destroyed the limited government our founders left us. Thanks to him we got Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, The Bushes, Clinton and Obama. Lincoln gave us the idea of unlimited federal power and an unlimited executive.

Virtue| 2.11.13 @ 7:55AM

Spot on. A dictator who set the stage for executive - nay, imperial - power.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.11.13 @ 9:56AM

Jack, do you ever get tired of being a putz? Would that our politicians of today would love the Declaration and Constitution as much as Lincoln did. Only the loony Ron Paul brigade thinks that Lincoln is the source of evil in the modern world.

JimP| 2.11.13 @ 10:48AM

Actually, Vern, it is you that is mistaken. If you knew the history of that era as well as you think you do, you would be agreeing with Jack and Virtue. I don't fault you for not knowing. We were all taught the same very one sided version of events of that time. Many of us continued to read and study that era out of general interest and ended up discovering the truth about Abe. I encourage you to read more extensively about Lincoln and the war. There are facts that even Lincoln admirers and hagiogrpahers do not dispute, but gloss over, that when viewed objectively show Lincoln to be, as Dr. Walter Williams, PhD Economics, describes him, as "the Great Centralizer".

RCV| 2.11.13 @ 11:40AM

Vern: Don't you get as tired as I do of these idiots who slander Lincoln. He not only preserved our union, but freed 3 million people from human bondage. Jack notwithstanding, I think that qualifies as a "friend of liberty".

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.11.13 @ 1:35PM

The fact is RCV most of those who complain about Lincoln are getting their stuff from DiLorenzo. They haven't done any independent study of his political philosophy vis-a-vis Calhoun, Douglas, the Democrats, or the Abolitionists and Fire-eaters. I did. That's why I changed a few years ago from a negative libertarian view of Lincoln to a positive view.

Lord Charnworth has an excellent biography of Lincoln out there. He does not spare Lincoln from criticism, but he understands and appreciates Lincoln's moral center, and why he pursued the policies that he did. That can be said for the knee-jerk Lincoln bashers.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.11.13 @ 1:37PM

"can't be said"

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 2:31PM

“That can’t be said for the knee-jerk Lincoln bashers.” Knee jerk Vern? What about 620,000 lives lost is it you don’t get? Men’s “moral compass” or center as you see it justified the deaths of hundreds of millions in the last century while other men justified on moral grounds not lifting a finger to stop it. The United States stands out as the only large scale industrial nation to resort to civil war to end slavery all at one time. Why 1860 Vern? Why not twenty years later when the industrial revolution would have made slave labor inefficient and unnecessary across the bulk of agriculture? Why not 1787 when the Constitution was ratified? Why not in 1775 when the North was begging the South to come help it with its little troubles with England? Why not 1619 at Jamestown when the first black slaves arrived?

If enough people embrace freeing livestock in this country from bondage and another Lincoln comes along to channel that crusade how do you think having all the livestock taken from framers across the country will turn out Vern? You think their reaction to that would be knee-jerk? Look it up Vern, the overwhelming bulk of Confederate forces had no vested interest in slavery but they fought against the Union and overwhelming odds. Why Vern? Knee Jerk reaction on their part?

Occam's Tool| 2.11.13 @ 8:24PM

Well, Thom, one cannot time travel twenty years into the future and predict industrialization's outcome in 1860.

The vast bulk of the Southron soldiers were semi-illiterates fighting for their home soil for their planter aristocratic leaders.

Had the Union split, the split would not have stopped there. The destruction of a potential rival is why the Brits supported the South until Lincoln made it about Slavery.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 9:19PM

That was true all the way back to 1619 thus what was the urgency to bring on war that has cost us more than all our other wars combined and would result in about 6 million dead today if fought with the same weapons and tactics? Something about holding together a "union" at the point of a gun makes your speculation about what the future might have held while mine is discounted not quite right there.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 10:02PM

"The vast bulk of the Southron soldiers were semi-illiterates fighting for their home soil for their planter aristocratic leaders."

Occam,
If you are going to invoke stereotypes and generalities like this to make your point of view sound morally superior you might want to think about what happens when that is used against your “group”. It wasn’t that long ago that people using similar language got over 10,000,000 men to fight for them which caused the deaths of over 40,000,000 in Europa alone. I don’t think you will find any real evidence that your “inferiors “ in the South fought over 4 years against overwhelming odds for their aristocratic leaders. Fighting would mean dying or being maimed for life during those times. The Butcher’s bill was quite steep for both sides but the righteous ones suffered a lot more causalities for their trouble while having overwhelming superiority of everything. Perhaps being righteous and literate got in the way of being an effective soldier? Perhaps the West Point aristocrats of the South knew something the West Point literates of the North didn’t know about war? Had the forces been closer to a fair fight this conversation would take on a completely different slant. You disagree?

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 10:03PM

Be careful of your generalities Occam, those you look down your nose at in the South today are your strongest defenders and we are still semi-illiterates since we don’t have all the Ivy League schools that the North has. With Northern populations fleeing the “literate zone” for the “illiterate zone” going on four decades now in order to find a “job” perhaps there is something you missed about why men fight in your Northern Schooling? Just asking.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.11.13 @ 2:27PM

Charnwood

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 2:40PM

You get your view of history from opinion pieces Vern? How about looking at what they did that isn’t in dispute?

JimP| 2.11.13 @ 6:49PM

Once again you are mistaken, Vern. But since you brought up DiLorenzo, his works are a good starting point for folks who know as little as you and RCV, and his books are thoroughly documented so people can verify the info. The people who have done little "independent" research would appear to be the ones, such as yourself, who resort to ad hominem criticisms of Lincoln dissenters. Objective analysis of all the facts of that era leave no other conclusion but that Lincoln was not the paragon of virtue that he is made out to be.

Best regards,

JimP

Occam's Tool| 2.11.13 @ 8:13PM

RCV, Vern: hey, you guys disagree on many points, but there are some things we should be fairly agreed upon: Lincoln and Washington were our greatest Presidents. And, while I'm at it: brush your teeth. Shoelaces are useful. Make sure the milk in your fridge is thrown out after the due-by date. Be sure to put the new auto tags on. Don't cough on people.

It should be pointed out that Jack in Wi. likes these folks:

"MOSCOW (AP) — Sorcerers, psychics, and faith healers may be on the way out in Chechnya, where the leader of the mountainous, overwhelmingly Muslim region in Russia’s Caucasus has ordered a crackdown on the practices.

Kremlin-backed strongman Ramzan Kadyrov called on Chechens to steer clear of “charlatans” claiming to have magic powers, whom he accused of exploiting people’s sufferings for money.

Kadyrov said at a meeting with municipal leaders in Grozny, the capital, on Saturday that “turning to wizards and false healers won’t bring them any relief and is banned by Islam,” according to a statement from the Chechen government. He went on to threaten that anyone engaging in such practices would feel the force of the region’s feared security services."

Occam's Tool| 2.11.13 @ 8:14PM

Incidentally, Jack also hates Lincoln because Lincoln was no anti-semite.

Interestingly, another good friend of Jews as a President was Sam Grant. His dad drove him up the wall.

RCV| 2.11.13 @ 8:53PM

Grant is our most under-rated President. His enemies - including the Southerners glad to be rid of his Reconstruction rule - created a scurrilous mythical portrait of his Presidency.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.12.13 @ 12:08AM

Agreed, RCV, about Grant.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 11:43AM

My chief complaints with Lincoln worshipers (aka Republicrats) is that when pressed on the material facts of the civil war and Lincoln’s trampling of the Constitution they ultimately embrace “might makes right” or “the end justifies the means” arguments and simply ignore the precedents his unconstitutional actions set in motion that are very much with us today. To those that take any criticism of Lincoln’s crusade as being pro-slavery please take your non-sense elsewhere. The essence of slavery or involuntary servitude is the taking of the fruits of labor of another for your benefit. Slaves got free room and board, healthcare, an education consistent with the tasks they were required to do at a minimum. They had significant economic worth to those that held them in “slavery”. The current welfare state programs are hardly an improvement on that without overlooking we don’t ask them to produce anything of value in return. The progressive income tax is no less an institution of slavery than was practiced in the 1860s. With about half the country living a subsidized life off the taxes paid by the other half who is the slave and master in this scenario? The Founder of the Democrat Party would burn down Washington DC and the DNC today just for starters.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 11:44AM

Lincoln the 1st said this in 1847, “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”. The South didn’t have the right to succeed? I guess if you ignore the 9th and 10th amendments, the votes of 11 sovereign state governments and Lincoln’s own comments to this effect then perhaps. What difference does it make…now?

Lincoln followed that with this this gem on the eve of the war in March 1861, “Lincoln, when asked, “Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”?” Where did the bulk of the funds come from to fund Lincoln’s Federal government? Follow the money but don’t look for this in a government school history book.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 11:46AM

From a concerned Yankee printed in Union Democrat Manchester, New Hampshire. 19 February, 1861. “The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing… it is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No…we must not let the South go”. It would strike an impartial observer that the economic output of the “South” was the slave here and the North didn’t want to let its “slaves” go any more than the South wanted its economic interest taken without due process and compensation.

And this, “They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the peoples pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the union”. New Orleans Daily Crescent-1861.

This gem comes from the darling of the Progressive movement Woodrow Wilson, “It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their indepdence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 11:47AM

The truth of why the South fought is born in blood and this fact Lincoln worshipers simply ignore, “As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty per cent. of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.” Major General John B. Gordon.

Lincoln the 1st said he did not have the power to end slavery and it was not his purpose to end slavery particularly if it destroyed the Union yet it was he who called up an army three times the size of the South’s to put down a rebellion that did not exist and then pushed for the 13th amendment minus the votes of 11 Southern states or 1/3 of the “several states” mentioned in the Constitution. It was Lincoln that ignored the sovereignty of 11 state government votes; it was Lincoln that didn’t order his forces out of Fort Sumter when offered the chance to do so. It was Lincoln’s crusade that cost over 620,000 lives when the population of the US was less than Californifcation today. It is the ghost of the real Lincoln that haunts the Republicrats today and renders their arguments against the new Lincoln the 2nd hollow.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 11:47AM

Lincoln threw the Constitution under the bus not just in the 11 Confederate states but in several Northern States. Was there a rebellion in the North where there were no slaves? The essence of the Constitution has long been in the grave in practice so the current Lincoln usurper needs to only rally his supporters to his moral crusade… founded on the principles put down in writing by Karl Marx. The Supreme Court certainly won’t stand in the way as it didn’t in the 1860s.

One of the universal truths of worshiping an icon, a myth surrounding any man is that it takes on a life in time its supporters wish to see rather than the one that really existed. History is filled with contradictory quotes from men of great and infamous deeds. You can find something supporting your position and going against it in most politicians’ writings. In the end only actions count. The nemesis of half a dozen of the finest Union Supreme West Point commanders had this said about him by a man that had been his “slave”.

“I was raised by one of the greatest men in the world. There was never one born of a woman greater than Gen. Robert E. Lee, according to my judgment. All of his servants were set free ten years before the war, but all remained on the plantation until after the surrender.” William Mack Lee (Robert E. Lee’s black servant). This happens to be historically accurate.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 11:48AM

Had the South freed its slaves in 1861 and then voted to succeed, the bulk of them would have remained in the South out of simple economic needs just as the bulk of those reading this stay in ever increasing police states north of the Mason-Dixon Line and west of the Rockies today. The relationship between the “Master” and his “slaves” has never been as simple as a Harriet Beecher Stowe novel of fiction lays it out. The ancestors of slaves of the 1860s have re-enslaved themselves to the same Democrat Party of Slavery in the 1860s and live off the taxes forced on others to buy the votes of a new class of slave that is comfortable living in contempt of the tenets of liberty and off the fruits of someone else’s labor. While I don’t agree with virtually anything Jefferson Davis said related to justifications for slavery this quote rings true today and as far back in time as there are records.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 11:49AM

“The Slave must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline, and thus made unfit for slavery. And as soon as he becomes unfit for slavery, the master will no longer desire to hold him as a slave.” George Washington Carver would agree with this quote and made much of his life’s work trying to free the Negro from the mindset of a slave. Mission failure it seems. If the essence of the 1954 decision that said “separate but equal” is inherently unequal was true then the black population of today would have the same academic scores as the white population. At no time since forced interracial busing has this been even remotely true. What is true is that academic standards and scores across the board have fallen which perhaps speaks to what “equal” will ultimately look like in government schools. Those who break free of the slave mindset are called every despicable name in the book if they don’t walk the party line of the new slave party. The slave holders of today employ a more sophisticated method to maintain their slaves on the plantations while increasing their power and wealth from that but the end result is the same.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 11:50AM

Despite the 13th amendment which the application of the 16th amendment made mostly moot and the card board cut out portrayals of Lincoln the 1st by the Democrats’ Hollywood propaganda machine slavery is very much alive and well in this nation today. The differences today are a matter of degree not kind but slavery exists far and wide in a confederation of “several states” held together at the point of a gun. There is nothing that binds this nation together today absent force of arms and common geography. Just as it was in 1861 the thought of losing the revenue from the new class of institutional slaves known as the “rich” sends the radicals of our time into the streets threatening violence against those that object to being “slaves”. The House Negros of the 1860s had a much better life than the field Negros but they were both still “slaves”. The new Lincoln the 2nd wants confrontation and fans the flames of class and race war with every breath. He quotes Lincoln the 1st and follows the same moral high ground justifications for might makes right to cut the enumerated Constitution out of the picture with every move. He cannot be impeached and is immune to being held accountable for his transgressions against the Constitution. He channels the myths wrapped around Lincoln the 1st’ and the Republicans are befuddled by having their own Icon thrown into their face as justifications for trampling the Constitution.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 11:52AM

. Where in the world might have Lincoln the 2nd got the idea that he could get away with that? Every February the Republicrats parade the great emancipator and hide all the damage done to the fidelity of the Constitution. Those horse tracks you see on the Constitution and Bill of Rights were from the first Lincoln; the second only wants to smooth out the rough spots with a bus….
Perhaps this is why Goldwater said there isn’t a dime’s difference between the Democrats and the Republicrats. The Constitution exists to limit the power, reach and concentration of power by our “betters”. The second Lincoln has the same goals as the first and what they do is what matters not what they say.

As long as Republicrats worship the myth of Lincoln the 1st they have no moral argument against the 2nd Lincoln. The streets are going to run red if the ninnies in the Republicrat Party don’t take off their blinders. If Lincoln the 1st is the benchmark by which we allow the Constitution to be thrown in the toilet you had better be preparing for that is going to bring about as the tide turns against even lip service to the enumerated words in the Founding Documents. The history of the world is not the black and white presentation you get from the clef notes an agenda based history book provides today.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 11:53AM

Lincoln the 1st’s crusade destroyed the social contract agreed upon in 1787 after an 8 year war where colonies became sovereign states and then formed a Federal government with limited and specific powers. All that went out the window in the 1860s and the poison fruit that has birth is coming home to roust via the new Lincoln and his radicals. Churchill was right about “democracy” and the worst of it is on parade every day now. What do our representatives argue about every day in Washington DC? Who is going to be robed more to pay for the supporters of the ones wanting to do the robing. Will the next Civil War be about “slavery”? Economic issues? Are the two really different in the end?
The unintended consequences of do gooders have a long and tragic trail in history. The Civil War the 1st came about after a decade of increasing strife between two sides with irreconcilable differences on several levels. Slavery as moral argument was thrown in the mix after the save the “Union” line didn’t quite ring true with the Northern masses but the foundation of the war was always economic. The same is true today. There is no political solution to having half the country vote to transfer more and more of the tax burden to the other half and get more and more from government as opposed to off their own merits. Slavery is slavery.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 11:54AM

. It takes many forms and operates to different degrees but throughout history all forms of slavery has been an equal opportunity oppressor without regard to the silly emphasizes today on one’s ethnic background. If you aren’t carrying your own weight today and doing the bidding of those that support you, you are a slave to them just as the ones providing you the fruits of their labor are also slaves to your “Master”.

The sooner enough people stop worshiping the myths of the past and embrace the whole truth of the matter the sooner this country can start to become “free” again. Freedom is not going to be free contrary to the wishes of the 5% with their heads planted firmly up their arse . Until that day, most are in peril from the actions of those that seek to make “might makes right” the driving force in our society. That is what MOB rule is. There will be blood as the saying goes if we continue down this path on the backs of past trampers of the Constitution. Lincoln the 1st would have lost the 1864 election had the 11 Southern States been allowed to vote. The Nation was divided in more ways than just along the debarkation point between North and South then just as it is today.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 11:55AM

For over 4 decades the world has been trying to push a two state solution on Israel knowing that is not defendable from several past wars. Some might say doing the same thing repeatedly knowing the results do not change is insanity. For there to be Peace in that geographic local someone will have to win and someone have to lose. For about the same amount of time factions within this country have been trying to force upon those that embrace being an American every failed ideology and economic policy the rest of the world has tried and the cost of that failure is measured in tens of millions of dead people most of whom were disarmed first. Evil knows no geographic boundaries, political labels or race. It only knows what serves the interest of Satan if you believe in such. Tyranny’s Religious and atheist victims alike fill the graveyards around the world. Most got there because they put their faith in wishful thinking. The Founders of this Republic put everything on the line to be free from their “betters”. The odds were heavily against them. Their legacy was a system of self-government like the world had never seen before. As a diverse group of flawed men they were never the less well versed in the fallacies of mankind toward power and dominion over others. They crafted a government framework that worked to keep man’s lust for power in check.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 11:55AM

Their decedents have worked overtime to throw that down the toilet using one moral justification after another. Which is worse, the first transgression against principle or the last? What difference does it matter… now?

There will be blood. Lincoln the 1st set that precedent in spite of our Constitutional restrictions on the Federal Government’s power and function. The Supreme Court is a worthless rubber stamp. Exactly what “Union” did he save at the point of a gun? Not the one ratified in 1787 and amended with the Bill of Rights. Perhaps Republicrats should ask Steven Spielberg about Lincoln the 1st and 2nd’ intentions? That Democrats have taken the myth of Lincoln as one of their own now should say all that needs to be said about the fallacies of idle worship.

“an enduring weakness of democracies is their lack of accountability…” That’s why the Founders didn’t spill their blood to form a “democracy” in place of a Monarchy. You end up in the same place eventually.

JimH| 2.11.13 @ 12:42PM

Thom, to reply to ‘Was there a rebellion in the North where there were no slaves? The answer is yes if you consider the draft riots which occurred in NYC in 1863. This was a revolt of mostly immigrant Irish who objected to being drafted. It required that the Union army come in to the city to suppress it. If I recall correctly, one feature of the draft at the time was that a person drafted who had money could buy his way out by providing someone to take his place.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 1:20PM

I’m referring to the broader actions of Lincoln to repress dissent, shut down the “press” that disagreed with his polices, jailed lots of people who worked against him and invaded states who had not voted to leave Lincoln’s “union”. The draft riots are kind of an irony because the “union” only put 50% of its able bodied men into uniform while the South put 80%. The shear incompetence of the “union” leadership made the draft more of an act of desperation than necessity for the North. The “union” put three times as many men under arms as the South, over twice in the Army and the rest in complete total naval superiority yet acted like it was the underdog the entire war. More of the myth of the Civil War that doesn’t find itself in government history books.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 1:20PM

I apologize to that those that can’t handle more than 140 character text box responses or the 1500 imposed “assault character” limits but history, liberty and the whole truth is not compatible with such artificiality. Be it a limit on the characters, words or submissions or bans on specific firearms and their magazine capacities such devices serve the interests of those placing the limits not those trying to exercise their inalienable rights in a Constitutional Republic. Come Tuesday night we’ll get more “Lincoln” from his prodigy and the Republicrats will sit silent because they are wedded to the mythology of the first great imperial American President and don’t wish to make hypocrites of themselves in public. If freeing men from bondage is the moral duty of the Republicrat Party then where is the Republicrat Lincoln of today? How many millions more must die to keep the institution of Abortion alive and well; how many more millions must be made slaves to fund the welfare state of Lincoln the 2nd? History is often full of ironies that even the best Hollywood writers can’t beat.

Occam's Tool| 2.11.13 @ 8:15PM

JimH: yes, $300.00. Lincoln paid for one himself.

AllAmericanAmerican| 2.11.13 @ 11:52AM

Game. Set. Match.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.11.13 @ 1:38PM

Lincoln followed that with this this gem on the eve of the war in March 1861, “Lincoln, when asked, “Why not let the South go in peace”? replied; “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”?”

Please supply the source for this quotation.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 1:40PM

Look it up Vern. This and many others are out there that you won't find in your government history books.

RCV| 2.11.13 @ 2:20PM

I thought that would be the response of Thom, whose posts above (though claiming to be a friend of "liberty") provide the most morally deficient defense of slavery I have ever read. It is hard to believe that someone in the 21st century could try to justify the holding of three million human beings, with God-given rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" on the basis of, "Heh, their masters give them food and shelter and besides, they're not 'ready' for freedom.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.11.13 @ 2:29PM

Yes RCV, the best response to Thom is just to let him talk more.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 2:44PM

Prove it isn't true then Vern? After all, all you have is quotes and opinion pieces that agree with your views of a myth.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 2:44PM

RCV and Vern, demonstrate one line where I defend “slavery”? Just one? You can’t.

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.11.13 @ 2:28PM

I have looked for it Thom. I've traced it back to Confederate literature. Nothing beyond that. Hope you can do better.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 2:47PM

The Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861 is fiction Vern or it is just anything Southern you have problem with?

Moe Blotz| 2.11.13 @ 3:18PM

When President Lincoln awoke after a three day bender, a wee bit groggy, he aksed his aids what bills he had signed whilst imbibing. When told about the several items he had signed he responded, " I FREED WHAT?"

Butch| 2.11.13 @ 7:58PM

I freed WHO? Great one, Moe.

RCV| 2.11.13 @ 2:49PM

The quote is made up, by a former Confederate Admiral, Raphael Semmes, in his 1869 book, "Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States." No citation to any Lincoln speech, book, or Congressional record.

As for Thom's defense of slavery, the summary I gave of his defense appears in his postings above.
I love folks who think it is a greater infringement of liberty to impose unfair tarrifs that hurt a state, than to hold three and one-half million human beings in bondage.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 3:04PM

You have not provided a single instance of where I defend slavery, not one. Everything you know about the Civil War came from a book someone else wrote that wasn't alive when it was on going. A 24 volume set of books on the Civil War would be just a good start on its complexities. I have history books that agree with yours and Vern’s mythical view of Lincoln and quote newspaper clipping form Southern newspapers to make your case yet leave out the same in the Northern Newspapers making my case. Neither of you will deal with the undisputed material facts of the war and its causes. You both make my case that you worship the idle you construct in your own minds and ignore anything that challenges that view. The events leading up the tragedy of the 1860s are a bit beyond the sound bites you both hold as truth. If you had made an intellectual case here rather than resorting to dismissing that which disagrees with your own preconceived notions there might have been hope for the future.

RCV| 2.11.13 @ 6:00PM

Thom, I'm 65 and have been reading extensively about American history, including the source documents of our Constitution and the Civil War for decades. And that includes many, many writings of people alive at the time, including Lincoln and Grant and Calhoun.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 7:16PM

So? I'm just short of 61 and there is only one set of Founding documents and one set of Founders and their writings. That hasn't changed since about our Founding between 1787 and 1791 but our views of what words mean in the context of their author's writings certainly has. As I said earlier, you can find contradictory comments in politician’s writings going back just about as far as you wish to dive into. People are works in progress to some degree or the other and they often change their minds about things said earlier in their lives. Present company no exception. Wisdom however like principle stands the test of time and the Founders had a lot of wisdom to base their imperfect decisions on. They had the luxury of sorts to look upon thousands of years of failure with regard to self-rule. They weren’t looking to make heaven on earth but they weren’t looking to invite hell on earth either and “democracy” has a history of becoming self-directed hell followed by dictatorships. Several of the Founders didn’t sign onto the Constitution because they saw weakness and the ability of Federal power to become concentrated again in the hands of a few. I think we are living their concerns.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 7:17PM

We’ll both probably be gone before the final ACT in this passion play but the words and wisdom of those that founded this Republic haven’t changed. We have. The bulk of United States citizens show contempt for what the Founders were trying to preserve longer than one election cycle.

The people who ratified the Constitution and Bill of Right didn’t have study their lifetime to understand the principles of limited government set down in the Founding documents, they lived the downside of not having that.

The Constitution would not have been ratified as is if those people had the hindsight we have on what has become of their words and principles.

Butch| 2.11.13 @ 8:00PM

To RCV: Would you have gotten married if you had known for a certainty that you would have been KILLED if you'd dare seek a divorce?

RCV| 2.11.13 @ 8:58PM

The states, which had lived through the failings of a loose confederation, made the choice with open eyes. The arguments, as correctly noted by Thom, were well-aired during ratification by both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. And our ancestors, who lived through the Civil War, also came out of that imbroglio convinced of the need to forge one national identity out of the disparate state and regional loyalties. Hence the post-war Amendments.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 9:12PM

RCV, I don't think that answers Butch's question. The principle is important if one wants to be taken seriously with phrases like, "the rule of law".

RCV| 2.11.13 @ 10:35PM

And, Butch, the direct answer to your question is Yes, I would have. Because in fact I made an express commitment to my wife to be with her for all our lifetime, one I took seriously and meant to keep, and have kept for 43 years and counting.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 3:21PM

So you prescribe to the view that holding the Union together at any cost is justified while singling out one portion of the electorate for economic harm in order to force your will upon a minority? Did the North offer to compensate the South for its economic lose if it freed the slaves? Does any part of the Bill of Rights apply to those that legally owned “slaves” when the Constitution was ratified and the Bill of Rights approved?

C. Vernon Crisler | 2.11.13 @ 4:08PM

Here is the result of my research on it back in 2007:

Now Lincoln was sometimes given to making jokes, and it could very well have been an attempt at humor. Or it might have meant only that the South did have obligations to the country to pay its fair share of taxes. But did Lincoln actually say it? I checked the footnote for these statements, and the Kennedy brothers cite as an authority, not Lincoln’s writings or speeches, but a book by Confederate captain Ralph Semmes. In his book, however, Semmes did not provide any source for the statements.

The quotation was also used by Assistant Secretary of War for the Confederacy, Albert Taylor Bledsoe. He too provided no source for the statements. The earliest that I could find was from an editor of the Southern Literary Messenger named Frank Heath Alfriend, who was also a biographer of Jefferson Davis. As we might have expected, Alfriend did not cite any source for the statements attributed to Lincoln.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 4:50PM

Vern,
On balance, with 3.5 million slaves the South had about a 1/3 of the population. What percentage of the Federal government revenue came from the South? More than 1/3rd? I believe the answer will speak to the view held by many in the North who weren’t being “taxed” on the same per capita level. Lincoln the man and his confederacy of support were complicit with this view because they wanted to do economic harm to the South. Following the money leads nowhere else. No man is an island not even the real Lincoln. He needed support and had to tend to his flock just as Davis did. They were both politicians and the reverence we hold towards Lincoln today tends to ignore that fact while we routinely berate every politician today for being less pure than Jesus Christ (with the possible exception of King Obama). The tariffs were real and directed at the South which did economic harm to the 80+ percent that didn’t have a stake in slavery. It was a wedge issue and it went horribly wrong by sane people’s standards. Lincoln was surrounded and supported by people that had vengeance in their hearts and were willing to forgo the Constitution no less than Lincoln the 2nd and his supporters. The material facts of the Civil War weren’t clear to even those that supported it until after the war was over and Lincoln and all the secrecy was gone. It wasn’t a pretty sight for all the crusaders that went into the endeavor with some false sense of moral superiority.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 4:50PM

My singular point was stated at the beginning of my thread. If we are going to let “might makes right” or “end justifies the means” rule our lives than the republic kind of democracy is already dead. I’m an honest fan and critic of Ronald Reagan and I have a fundamental problem lumping him in with Lincoln as some do. Reagan saw great evil in the various forms of Marx’s collectivism but he didn’t invoke a war to end it. If a state had succeeded in 1980 as many Blue states have suggested since then would Reagan have called up an army to put down a rebellion? I think he would have called the Governor of said state(s) and ask what he could do to help them pack… He was a man of dialog not force of arms as a first choice.

Lincoln is a historical figure with plenty of undisputed acts attributed to him. We don’t need to invent anything about him but we do have to accept the truth about the man else we will probably repeat his mistakes.

RCV| 2.11.13 @ 5:56PM

First of all, it's "secede".

Even if we accept the view that the Constitution was a compact between states, rather than enacted by the People of the United States and ratified by their state delegates, as it says, secession still violated the Constitution.

In that compact, the states ceded to a joint Federal government various powers and agreed to limit their own. They also agreed to an exclusive procedure by which that agreement could be amended.

Was there a right to unilaterally abrograte that agreement? Clearly not, as any common law trained lawyer knew. A contract that can unilaterally be abrogated is illusory, and not a contract at all. The Constitution expressly forbade states making agreements, alliances or compacts among themselves, or entering into any "confederation" (Art. I Sec. 10)

The South had redress for any grievances they had within the Constitution's framework. They chose not to exercise those, but instead to unilaterally seize Federal forts, raise armies, and enter into a "Confederation", all expressly forbidden by the Constitution they had ratified. (Art. I Sect. 10)

The Constitution expressly recognizes the power of the Federal government to take action in "Cases of Rebellion"; it even authorizes suspension of Habeas Corpus during rebellion(Art. I Sect 9 (2)). Washington recognized this in forcibly putting down with arms two rebellions, the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion.

CJW| 2.11.13 @ 6:23PM

Interesting discussion. South Carolina made a tactical blunder in attacking Fort Sumter. Had it simply left or seceded, without any violence, Lincoln would have have a problem raising an army to invade SC. What then, sanctions,economic blockade?

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 6:50PM

No one died at Sumter (from Confederate fire). Anderson could have left at any time without interference. He acted upon his own orders. He had every chance to avoid conflict without harm to him or his men before April 12th. This endevor had gone on for nearly 4 months during which he could have left without restraint. His command was close to running out of supplies.

Had SC just ignored him Lincoln would have still did what he did. In hindsight firing on Sumter seems like a blunder but in the full light of daylight it had no impact on Lincoln's decisions.

Occam's Tool| 2.11.13 @ 8:18PM

Firing on Sumter was NOT supported by many in the Confederate government at the time, including Robert Toombs. Lincoln was simply smarter than his opponents. Over and over and over. After a while, this begins to look like genius.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 8:39PM

Occam,
Not to make too fine a point here about “smarts”, how many Supreme commanders did Lincoln appoint during the four years of the war? How many times were the Confederates outnumbered in total? The Army alone was over twice the size of the entire Confederate forces. How many more men did the Union lose (KIA) than the South who it outnumbered about three to one in uniformed men? Lincoln may have outsmarted many of his distractors in the North but none of his battlefield decisions did anything but get more of his men killed than the Confederates. At no time since the Civil War would an American public knowingly embrace the losses suffered by the Union against a grossly inferior force such as the Confederacy represented. The full scope of the losses weren’t released until after the war which speaks to depth of “smarts” you speak to. I’d be real careful assigning smarts to Lincoln when he told Hooker to make the same attacks for seven days and take the same causalities he took at Chancellorsville in order to run the Confederacy out of men in May of ’63. That kind of thinking comes from either armchair generals who have no real idea of what it takes to conduct combat operations or someone desperate. Find men willing to suffer as Lincoln ordered Hooker to execute and get back to me and we’ll talk.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 6:36PM

"Even if we accept the view that the Constitution was a compact between states, rather than enacted by the People of the United States and ratified by their state delegates, as it says, secession still violated the Constitution."

No such thing appears in the Constitution. The 9th and 10th amendments says those powers not enumerated in the Federal Constitution are held by the States or the people to use shorthand. Why in the world would the 9th and 10th amendments be added if your world view was in force? If your world view held water West Virginia would have been forced back into Virginia right?

Under your view, the “several States” are redundant at best and irrelevant at worst. I don’t remember Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion folks getting their respective state legislatures to vote on the matter at hand, did they? Equating a genuine rebellion or criminal acts as it became with the votes of state governments (several) is a bit of a stretch even without the 9th and 10th amendments.

RCV| 2.11.13 @ 10:30PM

"We, the People of the United States ...". The opening words of the Constitution.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments hardly refute the notion of a binding contract. It simply clarifies further the allocation of powers between the newly established cental government, and those of the states.

The fact is, Thom, that the Constitution expressly forbids individual states from entering into a confederacy. In plain language. It forbids them from raising armies or navies. Those powers were expressly ceded to the central government and expressly forbidden to the states IN THE CONSTITUTION.

RCV| 2.12.13 @ 2:26PM

Why would West Virginia "be forced back into Virginia"? Like Maine's separation from Massachusetts and Vermont's from New Hampshire, it was approved by both state governments. The two states did have a dispute about two counties, but that dispute was resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Virginia v. West Virginia.

RCV| 2.11.13 @ 10:21PM

No response to the Constitutional analysis, Thom?

Occam's Tool| 2.11.13 @ 8:20PM

Less than 1/3. The North was far richer than the South in 1859. Slavery deeply impoverished the South.

Thom| 2.11.13 @ 8:50PM

The North had more of everything important including over 4 times the able bodied men for combat and factory work. The bulk of immigration, population growth and wealth came through the Northern Ports. The Irish came right off the ships in NYC and into blue uniforms and on to the front. Without slavery, the South could not compete with those factors and would have still been improvised.

Butch| 2.11.13 @ 8:03PM

Lincoln was the godfather of the omnipotent Federal government. He is no hero to me.

RCV| 2.11.13 @ 10:22PM

...well, you and a very small minority of Americans.

More Articles by Peter Hannaford

More Articles From The Nation's Pulse

I Want My MTV

June 14, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

Federal Kudzu Is Strangling This Great Nation

June 11, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

The Sopranos and Other Falsettos

June 7, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

The Three-Mile-An-Hour God

June 6, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

American Exceptionalism Put to the Test

May 30, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/11/celebrating-lincoln-fifty-ways

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|71 comments

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord|90 comments

Obama’s Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield|51 comments

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut|23 comments

The Woman Who Wrote Liberty Valance

Bill Croke|26 comments

Not Super, But Pretty Good

Aaron Goldstein|17 comments

The Loss of Trust

Thomas Sowell|27 comments

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin|87 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 4:55PM

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 4:01PM

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 2:46PM

Are Young People Souring on Obama?

Matt Purple | 2:24PM

Boehner to Enforce Hastert Rule with Immigration Reform

Jordan Gonzalez | 1:10PM

U.S. to Restart Negotiations with Taliban

Kaylin Bugos | 12:01PM

Sen. Paul’s Immigration Amendments Boost Ballot Integrity, Border Security

Kevin Mooney | 11:56AM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.