H.L. Mencken on Abraham Lincoln

"Five Men at Random," Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76. | H.L. Mencken

[H.Akston]

"Part of Lincoln's genius was in knowing what the country would accept, and another part was helping to guide it where it needed to go.

Walt"

Careful there walt. "Where it needed to go" tells me that he wasn't interested in "saving", but in "creating" something new. All you Lincoln-lovers insist that he saved what was. That, as you nearly let slip that you know, is balderdash.

The nation we live in now, structurally, is quite different from the one most of you Lincoln-lovers credit him with saving. Most of the problems we have now - with empire building and judicial activism, are a result of living in that structure which fosters less justice than the ones the Founders created.

The Yankees couldn't handle a true Republic, with consent- of-the-governed as a principle in its fabric. I will give Lincoln the benefit of the doubt though, becuase he didn't guide the Nation after the war, when these destabilizations really took place.

Had he lived during Reconstruction, he indicated in his words prior to and during the war that he'd have preserved more of the just, original structure than we have now. For example, I don't think Lincoln would have allowed the 14th Amendment to have been 'ratified', and I use that word generously.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm

Lincoln didn't "guide the Nation" when it was most malleable. Radicals did. Lincoln was killed by a madman from Maryland, a week after Lee had surrendered.

It's the radicals, Walt. Be they republicans, abolitionists, abortionists, anti-abortionists, populists, Lincoln-lovers, egalitarians, or Islamic whackos. Radicals are the danger. Their excesses open the door for exploitation, e.g., affirmative action, and busing.

[Twodees]

King is good at times, but I think that Mark Steyn is today's answer to Mencken. Steyn has the gimlet eye for the hypocrisy in politicians and the absolute lack of respect for the profession of the poseurs who presume to rule us today, just as ol' Henry had when he was poking at them in the 20's and 30s.

To comment effectively on politicians a writer must be an absolute cynic with a finely developed sense of the ridiculous, and a strong stomach as well. He must also be absolutely unimpressed with the alleged virtues of the political class.

I think Steyn is our modern supplier of the kind of devastating commentary that Mencken once delivered.

[chkoreff]

> Instead we chose to slaughter a million people and discard the original vision of the republic. This is a persistant part of the neo-reb myth.

You won't find much difference between what Washington and Madison thought and what Jackson thought right down to what Lincoln thought. Their ideas were the same.

Washington urged an "immovable attachment" to the national union. So did Lincoln. The changes I bet you don't like came later.

Jefferson advocated the right of secession, from England in the Declaration of Independence and from the Union in subsequent writings.

[TheDon]

1838? You needn't go back so far.

Abraham Lincoln
FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861

...

"I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself."

...

[TheDon]

Let me know your thoughts on this thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/fo cus/news/703307/posts

[TheDon]

Yes, it is plain from his inaugural address that he did not want a war with the South, and he was willing to bend over backwards to prevent it. But he was not willing to relinquish his Constitutional duties as President.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Jefferson advocated the right of secession, from England in the Declaration of Independence and from the Union in subsequent writings.

Quote?

Walt

[Treebeard]

I wonder how you'd handle, being the liberal you seem to be, the concept of Aztlan, which movement is gaining lots of ground. I can't do blockquote yet, but here's an excerpt from another thread re. secession of a number of US states with large Hispanic populations:

"Several professors at the University of New Mexico and a prominent local Hispanic activist were contacted for comment on UNM Professor Charles Truxillo's (a guest on Hannity & Colmbs just yesterday) concept for a new Hispanic nation called the Republic of the North. The professors were asked in particular about Truxillo's contention that U.S. states retain the right to secede. Truxillo said the states had that right under the Articles of Confederation of 1777, in which each state retained its own "sovereignty, freedom and independence." He said the Articles of Confederation were not superseded in that regard by the U.S. Constitution of 1787 and added that, although the North's victory settled the question of secession militarily, it was never resolved by court ruling. "The bottom line: What's possible is what people want to be possible. If five states wanted to secede and the rest of the country wanted to let them go, it could happen." ( Daniel Feller, professor of history) ***END QUOTED TEXT***

Would you let 'em go, because in this PC world, we wouldn't want to offend anyone with 'nationalism', would we? Would you shoulder a weapon and fight against them like your forbears presumably did in 1861?

[FOOTY]

He corrected the major errors in the latest printing. None of them have any great bearing on his thesis, which you haven't demonstrated you even know.

[TheDon]

He corrected the major errors in the latest printing.

Got anything to back that up with? :)

[Aurelius]

"I find this argument laughable coming from the slave holding states."

The argument isn't coming from "the slave holding states", Idiot. And anyone on FreeRepublic who wants to disassociate himself from the idiots won't ally himself with FreeRepublic's supreme idiot, WhiskeyPapa.

[TheDon]

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel about Walt.

[budo]

(This is a general address - it was just simpler to append the last post than start scratch....) A whole lotta' yadda yadda here....Lots of quotes from founders on both sides of the divide, but, curiously, no one here has asked the questions ( & I do not have the impression the questions remain unasked due to their highly rhetorical nature...),that lies at the heart of the entire debate: were the anti-federalists correct in their suspicions of the federalists' motives; were they correct in their predictions of the adverse implications that would ensue if the federalist agenda were to be adopted; were they correct that appending a bill of rights to the constitution would prevent the adverse implications...? The answers are yes,yes, & no. The Lincoln-worshippers fall squarely ito the federalist camp, and without irony, fully support consolidated, centralized, 'federal' power (the exact opposite of what 'federal republic' is supposed to mean... but we are all used to dishonest appropriations of terms & their definitions by now, right?). Its also amusing that so many of this ilk populate a forum which calls itself 'free republic'...is the forum merely hosting the bloviated blather of liberty's adversaries, or is it yet another nest of neo-con connivers?

By the way, Colt .45, I like that CSA flag insert. How would I go about adding my favorite, the battle flag, to my posts?

[billbears]

Well said. While not on this thread, the questions that you ask have been covered in part and in whole on other lincoln threads. However I have found it hard to get a federalist to admit that as a point of view.

[537 Votes]

The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost gem-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it.

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address is actually better, even though teachers don't require their students to memorize it.

[TheDon]

It is an ongoing experiment, but as the wealthiest, most powerful, and, dare I say it, freest nation on earth, so far, I think we are doing rather well. Our nation is not perfect, but I don't think anyone can point out a better one. That is not to say we can't work to make it better.

[budo]

I think honesty requires the admission that the 'experiment' you mentioned certainly did exist, but that even in its earliest fledgling state, it had many slippery opponents with publicly unspoken agendas who were much more interested in maintaining historical status quo, shall we say, with themselves - of course - at the oligarchical top. And that the experiment reached its zenith very early on, shifted trajectory 'south', and has been increasing in velocity ever since; nadir is still in front of us. So, the experiment is long-dead, replaced with the same old might-makes-right empire-building model that has never acquitted itself as a moral & tenable process for human beings in the whole of our collective history. I also say that comparisons between America and the rest of the world in this context are especially odious because America remains the only place where the experiment was even attempted, which means the only valid comparison is between America as it is, and America as it once was. With THAT comparison, the contrast is stark & inescapable. Countering your observations directly:the unique concept of decentralization - not massing - of power was the goal of the experiment; Americans were once free, now they are not, & comparisons to other peoples who are even MORE subject to tyranny should be of no comfort; and as for wealth, I like Jefferson's take: "I place economy among the first & most important virtues & public debt among the greatest dangers; we must make our choice between economy & liberty, or profusion & servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."

[budo]

A necessary component of the federalist heart is dishonesty...they are political animals of the (merely) highest pragmatism. Unfortunately, every Hamilton does not have his Burr.

[TheDon]

It is perhaps hard to accept that people may choose a more centralized government than you would like, I too would prefer a less statist government than currently exists. But, the experiment is still in full force, and "this government of the people, by the people, and for the people" is still very much in the control of the people. It is unfortunate you cannot appreciate living in the greatest nation of man to ever grace this world.

[budo]

Ah, yes...the kum by yah gloss. And sleight-of-hand, too. Are you contending that the people of the southern states chose 'more centralized govt', rather than having it rammed down their throats, via fire & sword? If so, then it follows that every people in history who were overrun, conquered & stiched into whichever megalomaniac's patchwork empire chose those fates as well. Pretty funny definition of 'choice'. Isn't it plainly evident that the last vestige of the experiment we have been discussing expired at Appomattox? And is the ability to appreciate the relative diffrentiation of America &, say, a yurt in outer Mongolia, apropos of anything? Or, is the description of my 'unfortunate' lack of 'appreciation'an example of the oh-so-short & placidly contented perspective of the thoroughly domesticated bovine who would urge all to capitulate overrated liberty & join the herd? Not me, brother.