Abraham Lincoln as a Role Model?

It was less than a month ago that we were treated to a series of staged "historical events" such as Barak Obama's "historic" re-creation of Abraham Lincoln's 1861 arrival at Union Station to his later use of Lincoln's Bible during the Inauguration.

It will probably be considered politically incorrect to do so but, when you pause to remember the historical record, it would seem that President Obama is no better at remembering his American History than he is at nominating Cabinet Secretaries who aren't tax-cheats. Consider, if you will, the following myths surrounding "Honest Abe" that are now taken to be nothing less than divinely revealed truths.

Abraham Lincoln was a not very successful country lawyer who always lived on the edge of poverty because he supported the "little guy" against "Big Business."

Nice try, but no cigar. Lincoln was a leading attorney on the behalf of both the Alton & Sangamon and Illinois Railroads. (See John W. Starr, Lincoln & the Railroads, New York: Ayer, 1981)

Abraham Lincoln led a Union that had taken the moral "high ground" and had gone to war to abolish the evil of slavery.

Saying that the Civil War was fought solely to end slavery is as ridiculous as claiming that the Allied Powers fought World War I to punish the nations thought to have been involved in the murder of Archduke Ferdinand in June, 1914.

Since no reputable historian still parrots that absurdity, I suggest reading James M. McPherson's Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) and his earlier Battle Cry of Freedom (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988). In both of the books McPherson, a Pulitzer Prize winner, describes how the northern states had long resented the south's political power within Congress as well the south's successful opposition to protectionist tariffs that would have benefitted the industrial north, as the actual reasons for going to war following the Secession of 1861. "Slavery," as McPherson amply demonstrates in both volumes, was simply a topic chosen to incite public opinion.

Abraham Lincoln was the Commander-in-Chief-of a nation that had unified under his leadership.

To the contrary, there were a considerable number of citizens in the states (particularly in the "Border States") that had remained with the Union who thought that Lincoln had no authority over the Confederacy and that Lincoln was the leader of what, since the Nuremberg Trials, the United Nations would now call an illegal "War of Aggression."

Many of such citizens, known at the time as "Copperheads" or "Peace Democrats," would eventually be imprisoned by the federal military for the "crimes" of being opposed to Lincoln's policies or for not being supportive enough to suit Lincoln himself.

Abraham Lincoln was a staunch defender of the Constitution and the champion of civil rights for all Americans.

Although it may sound nice, this statement is nothing more than other myth. In fact, Lincoln ignored the Constitution time and time again by claiming that his policies "were for the good of the Union" whenever someone would point out that he was ignoring the very document whose principles he had sworn to uphold.

Not only did Lincoln (acting without the consent of Congress) suspend the Constitutionally-guaranteed writ of

habeas corpus, he also refused to obey a ruling by the United States Supreme Court (see ex parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861)) that his action was unconstitutional.

Abraham Lincoln "freed the slaves" with his Emancipation Proclamation.

I left this old wives' tale for last because it is the one most often trotted out by most of the supposed "Lincoln Scholars" as their "proof" that Lincoln was either the second coming of Moses or a closet racist. Since neither of these positions can be conclusively determined from the text of that document, I will merely quote verbatim its pertinent section:

"... all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free... [Emphasis added]"

It invariably surprises the great majority to learn that there were actually two Executive Orders of Emancipation issued by Lincoln. The first, issued on September 22, 1862, declared the freedom of all slaves in any state of the Confederacy had not been returned to Union control by January 1, 1863. The second order (the one that gets all the publicity), issued January 1, 1863, merely named the specific states where the order of September 22 applied.

To summarize, if Barak Obama plans to emulate the policies of Abraham Lincoln, we are in serious trouble indeed.