I think it's worthy of note that Matt Continetti, David Brooks, and other quirkycons ("neoconservative" is a little limited) claim Abraham Lincoln as their "grandaddy." Paleocons, of course, despise Lincoln as a centralist tyrant. Liberals lionize him as one of their own: a partisan of human freedom, a strong state, and democracy. Quirkycons ("reformocons" seems self-serving) look to his strange mix of strong statism, Whiggish pefectionist moralism, the cult of self-reliance, and democratic triumphalism. I guess this is true of all great historical figures: we see what we want to see.
« Reihan: Ideological Conservatism | Main | Reihan: Priceless Giuliani Moments » Reihan: Lincolnian Conservatism?05 Oct 2007 04:29 pm Comments (13)
Jefferson had some comment once about there only ever being two parties, whether they were called Federalists and Republicans, Whigs and Tories, Optimates and Populares, Roundheads and Cavaliers, etc. Under this schema, it's pretty clear that Lincoln was of the Left (as understood by Jefferson) in his period. Not the extreme Left -- that would have been someone like Sumner -- but I certainly don't see him as by any means a 'national greatness conservative' or whatever. That's pretty clearly Disraeli, while there's lots of Gladstone in the left-liberal American tradition. 
Augustus at least pretended to keep up the old ways. And in reality, although there was centralization, it is very hard to compare the Roman Empire with the modern State. By modern standards, the Roman Empire would have been a confederation where people payed taxes to a central government and army, but regions kept much of their independence. Officials in Rome certainly wouldn't have cared whether David Caecilius Koresh was hoarding swords over in Transalpine Gaul on his farm. And if you ever have seen the modern show Cops," you will notice the regular motif of family members turning in family members, something which would have been an anathema to a Roman, whose primarily loyalty was to the ancestral - not the state.
Generally, I agree with your take on Lincoln, Bede, and I agree that Lincoln was no Augustus. However, to the extent that Lincoln and his defenders maintained the myth that the war was fought to save the Constitution and the Union, when the war badly damaged the first and destroyed the second, Lincoln was pushing the same kinds of fictions.
The War was fought to free the slaves. Preserving the Union was a fiction. I'm fine with that in some senses; but in others, I'm pro-secession for New England. It's just that the South ruined the precedent by seceding in favor of slavery.
How could the Constitution really apply in a land tht was half free/half slave. Look to Jim Crow's
Your taxonomy is lacking, unless you're include Straussians (or at least Claremont Review Straussians) as "quirkycons." And if you are, I don't think it fits.
Great post, great comments. I'd love to see someone write a revisionist history of Lincoln and the Civil War from the standpoint of a New England, small-government libertarian who regrets the imperial state that Lincoln and his party mid-wifed into being (especially now that it's controlled by southerners), and wishes we had let them go.
Jorge: I don't what state Jeffrey Rogers Hummell hails from originally, but his book EMANCIPATING SLAVES, ENSLAVING FREE MEN fits your bill in all other respects.
One footnote: I spelled his name. It is Jeffrey Rogers Hummel with one l, not two.
I meant to say "I spelled his name wrong." The missing word created a confusing paragraph.
Whatever Lincoln may have thought, the War was fought to put in high tariffs. What happened?--sky-high tariffs from end of Civil war through the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930, reduced in Cleveland and Wilson administrations. They industrialized America but their excesses created the robber barons. They improverished the South and all rural America.
well, I don't think it was that simple lee, but certainly northern industrialists were part of the coalition that defeated the South. But don't forget that much of the West, which in the later 1800s were susceptible to Populist messages like the South, were staunchly pro-Union. So the North had its agrarians, as well -- hell, Vermont, Maine, Michigan, many others, as well. Also, Lincoln was not a left-wing dictator -- what dictator goes up for reelection during the very war he's supposed to be in charge of, and barely scrapes through until late in the campaign? I think one can be a regional nationalist or secessionist, or whatever, and still be pro-Lincoln. That was the wrong time for secession, and over the wrong issue. The issues of habeas corpus, rights to trial by jury, and Empire are worthy ones to leave over, unlike chattel slavery.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
It's true that we see what we want to see, though I would add that the quirkies (?) and paleos aren't necessarily seeing a radically different man. This may not be terribly insightful, but the trouble isn't that admirers of Lincoln don't see his excesses and his critics don't see his idealism and personal virtues as a wartime leader. The former see the excesses as unfortunate exceptions or necessary evils, while for the critics the excesses are at the heart of why we reject him as a model, and the critics see the man's intelligence, ability and idealism and find it all rather terrifying how constitutional systems can be so easily overwhelmed and destroyed by an energetic and driven executive.
I think some paleos might have *slightly* less of a problem with Lincoln if he were just a centralising Caesar. His "strong statism, Whiggish pefectionist moralism, the cult of self-reliance, and democratic triumphalism" are, except probably for the cult of self-reliance, in and of themselves offensive to many a paleo when they are considered separately from the War.
I can look at Caesar or Augustus, for instance, as autocrats with some redeeming features, and it is possible to view Lincoln as a complex individual with his share of good qualities, but the debate necessarily becomes more heated when it comes to evaluating the merits of his political acts and his revision of American history. There may come a time when we get beyond the typically sharp divide between hero-worship and vilification of Lincoln, but that will probably only come after people cease using his name and image for their own goals in the here and now.
Posted by Daniel Larison | October 5, 2007 5:13 PM