Abraham LincolnMike Rappaport

Last Thursday was the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln.  My views about Lincoln have changed dramatically over my adult life. 

In my 20s, I had the standard libertarian objections to Lincoln.  He fought the Civil War for union rather than to free the slaves; he had exercised excessive executive power, and harmed civil liberties; and was in favor of big government. 

Somewhere along the line, I changed my mind.  I don't think Lincoln fought the Civil War exclusively for union, but also to free the slaves.  He believed that a union without slavery in the territories would lead ultimately to emancipation.  But union also has important advantages: Small countries that border one another often impose trade restrictions and fight wars with one another.  Federation into a union can address those problems.  While union creates other problems, a system of checks and balance can do much to reduce them.

Lincoln was both a gradualist and market oriented.  While he certainly opposed slavery, he understood that the emancipationist position was opposed by most Americans in 1860.  Thus, he favored gradual, compensated, emancipation, including colonization.  These positions seem very unattractive to us now, but they were quite attractive in 1860, given the various constraints at that time.  They would have provided a realistic means of ending slavery and keeping a union that preserved freedom generally.  Of course, when the war made it feasible to end slavery more quickly, Lincoln did not shy from taking decisive action.

Lincoln was also market oriented.  He emphasized that poor people could work their way up the economic ladder -- he had -- and disagreed with the claims of some southerners that slaves were better off than poor, but free workers in the North.  It is true that Lincoln did follow in the footsteps of the Whig's who favored government action to support infrastructure like roads and railways.  But even if one concludes that it was better not to provide this government support -- a matter without an obvious answer -- it must be recognized that Lincoln followed the traditional classical liberal, Adam Smithian line that allowed government to act in these areas on the grounds that markets could not provide them. 

I don't agree with everything that Lincoln did.  But on the most important things, he was right.  So I have changed my mind and now regard him as a truly great President.   

Comments

[dearieme]

"truly great": do you mean that in the sports' commentators sense of 'mildly competent' or as in 'only Washington and Lincoln'?

[james wilson]

Lincoln found himself in a time cast to form a less imperfect union, so he followed Yogi Berra'a dictum--when you reach the fork in the road, take it.
A very noble cause for many reasons. Samuel Clemens, a draft-age gentleman who hated injustice and slavery, made haste to the silver fields of Nevada to comtemplate it all.

[pj]

He was a truly great man in a tragic time, when suffering, injustice and death were unavoidable. His greatness was that he laid the groundwork for emerging from that tragedy as a better nation. Now, again, we face a time of tragedy, when misery is unavoidable. Our current leaders are demonstrating themselves failures by laying the groundwork for more and more suffering.

[The Objective Historian]

Welcome post; enjoyed reading it.

Hmm. There must have been a way for him to keep to the Constitution; perhaps he could have asked for an amendment to deal with the alleged spies in the North. He had the votes right?

But I think in the end he felt the rebellion was a violation of the Constitution which he had to defend by any means necessary, even violating it himself (although certainly his breaking the law subjected him to prosecution ultimately; it's not as if he did anything secretly from all others and so was not prepared to face the noteriety and consequences). Had the Confederate States sued for dissolution of the U.S. it would have been different.

I think war or no war he was eager to accelerate the legal end of slavery, the means which was embedded knowingly in the Constitution by the founders. But I think the slavery issue was derivative of the illegal use of arms against the Federal government at Fort Sumpter.

He was a fine man; but a terrible Commander-in-Chief and thus not a great president contrary to conventional wisdom; 4 years and 300,000 dead for the North to defeat the South would be as if it took the USA today took 4 years and 300,000 dead to defeat Bolivia, Peru, Uraguay, and, maybe, Columbia. It should have been over in months.

But; are USAers courageous warriors or what?

TOH