Vindicating
Lincoln?
by
David Gordon
by David Gordon
DIGG THIS
Vindicating
Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President.
By Thomas L. Krannawitter. Roman & Littlefield, 2008. Xv +
355 pages.
When I reached
page 222 of Vindicating Lincoln, I almost threw the book
across the room. There I read, "First, the latest iterations
of European philosophy during the antebellum period were
to be found in the writings of G.W.F. Hegel and Charles Darwin,
whose teachings, when transported to the United States, were often
interpreted as justifications for, not arguments against, black
slavery" (emphasis added).
Can Krannawitter
be ignorant of the fact that Darwin did not discuss human evolution
until The
Descent of Man in 1871? Perhaps the passage was a trivial
slip, that only a reviewer intent on blood would highlight. But
several pages later, Krannawitter rides again: "In the antebellum
South, religious thought incorporated the ideas of Hegel and Darwin
to provide a potent defense of slavery that was well received
by many Southern whites" (p. 234).
In trying
to understand how Krannawitter could be guilty of so gross a mistake,
we arrive at a key to the book. He was a student of Harry Jaffa,
and his book defends to the last detail Jaffa's analysis of Lincoln.
I
[Krannawitter] believe in honesty in advertising, and I therefore
disclose to the reader that I am a student of Jaffa's. To be fair,
I should have concluded almost every paragraph with a footnote
acknowledging Jaffa's teaching, but I knew that the reader would
tire of it, so let me state here that Jaffa's influence is present
throughout the book. (p. xiii)
Now the mystery
is solved. Jaffa makes exactly the same mistake, and it has not
occurred to Krannawitter to check the claims of his revered teacher.
It would
be an even more serious mistake, though, to dismiss Krannawitter's
book as incompetent; whatever his failings, and they are many,
he raises an important issue. If we think that slavery is unconditionally
wrong, must we not acknowledge that Lincoln's waging war against
the South was correct? By contrast with Lincoln, many of the leaders
of the Confederacy thought that slavery was a positive good. Must
not all libertarians, then, reject the Southern position that
secession was constitutionally justifiable? To think otherwise,
he claims, is to support slavery. Why then, Krannawitter asks,
has a coalition between libertarians and pro-Southern writers
formed to assail the Great Emancipator?
Copyright ©
2008 Ludwig von Mises Institute
David
Gordon Archives
|