The
Weirdest Defense of Lincoln Yet
by
Thomas J. DiLorenzo
The
financial newsletter writer Jude Wanniski apparently believes that
he has mystical powers. In a recent article on Supply Side Investor
("Defending
Abraham Lincoln,’ June 25 he criticized my book, The
Real Lincoln, while admitting that "I figured I did
not need to read the DiLorenzo book." At least he’s more intellectually
honest than some of my other critics.
His
weird article was a response to an article on LewRockwell.com by
Clyde Wilson ("DiLorenzo
and His Critics"), who addressed the anti-intellectual
penchant of some of my critics to argue that all historical understanding
is settled, at least when it comes to Lincoln and the War between
the States, and that there is no need for further research. Wanniski
apparently didn’t even read Wilson’s article, for he refers to it
as a book review, which it definitely is not.
 |
Abraham
Best and Greatest:
Lincoln as a Roman god
|
Like
many other Lincoln idolaters, Wanniski believes that entire books
can be dismissed by simply referring to a simple sentence or two
from Father Abraham. Just like that. Just like magic. For example,
he uses tongue-twisting Clintonian spin to argue that Lincoln’s
1848 defense of the right of secession was not really a defense
of the right of secession. Here’s what Lincoln said:
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.
Ignoring
all of American history, including the long history of the belief
in the right of secession that I document in The Real Lincoln,
Wanniski argues in fine Clintonian fashion that Lincoln only
said that a people can "TRY" to secede "IF THEY HAVE
THE POWER." But of course, Lincoln’s army murdered 300,000
fellow citizens, including one out of every four white males between
the ages of 20 and 40, roughly the equivalent of almost 3 million
men if we standardize for today’s population. His army also pillaged,
plundered, raped, and burned its way through the South for four
years, as I also discuss in my chapter on "Waging War on Civilians"
(which of course, Wanniski has not read).
Might
makes right is Wanniski’s argument – if it can be called an argument.
"This is
why Lincoln is admired," he says. Well, if that’s true, then
the former Soviet Union must be every bit as "admirable"
in Wanniski’s world for it, too, kept together a vast Union by violence
and murder. He probably also applauds the mass murder of the Chechens
by the Russian government, which has also used its military power
to keep Chechnya from seceding. It is telling that Vladimir Putin
invoked the legacy of Lincoln as part of his "justification"
for mass murdering the Chechens, who were trying to secede from
the Russian Union.
If
might makes right, as Wanniski argues, then there is no sense studying,
learning, and debating history, philosophy, law, politics, religion,
economics, or any other subject. Arguments can always be "won"
at gunpoint, according to Wanniski.
Wanniski
must not know that many Northern newspapers – and, indeed, a large
portion of the American population, North and South, in 1860 and
1861 – believed that using military force to prevent a state from
seceding would destroy the Union in a philosophical sense
because it would no longer be a voluntary compact. In my book I
cite dozens of Northern newspaper editorials that bemoaned the fact
that doing so would destroy the Jeffersonian principle that governments
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed (see Howard
Cecil Perkins, Northern
Editorials on Secession).
Despite
his admission of not having read my book, Wanniski nevertheless
denounces it as "trivial and sophomoric" because he apparently
believes that it does not jibe with his viewpoint on the subject.
Wanniski
claims that I "do not know" that almost all whites were
racists in the mid 19th century, including Abraham Lincoln. Yet
I comment on precisely that point in my book by discussing how Lincoln’s
persistent denunciations of racial equality, and his lifelong desire
to deport all the black people in America to Africa, Haiti, or Central
America, were in keeping with what nearly everyone in the North
believed at the time. I bring it up in the book because the Lincoln
Cult adamantly denies that Lincoln held such views, contrary to
the words he spoke and the actions he took over his entire lifetime.
But Wanniski would know nothing of this, since he didn’t read the
book.
June
27, 2002
Thomas
J. DiLorenzo [send him mail]
is
the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The
Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an
Unnecessary War
(Forum/Random House, 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola
College in Maryland.
Copyright
© 2002 LewRockwell.com
Thomas
DiLorenzo Archives
|