Posts Tagged ‘Abraham Lincoln’

The Promise and Peril of Executive Power

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

From The New Republic by Eric A. Posner …

The Discretionary President: The Promise and Peril of Executive Power

by Benjamin Kleinerman

University Press of Kansas, 322 pp., $34.95

Kleinerman

Kleinerman

Imagine that U.S. agents nab a terrorist who knows the location of a ticking nuclear bomb and receive authorization from the president to torture him. Torture violates the law. So what happens next? Many people think the answer is straightforward. The agents and the president would face trial, conviction, jail time. The law is the law, and applies to everyone.

But there is a tradition of liberal political thought that suggests otherwise. Many of the American founders, influenced by Locke, believed in executive prerogative—the doctrine that the president enjoys the power to do what he believes is necessary to protect the country from threats to its security. The Constitution gives lawmaking authority to Congress, but general laws passed during times of peace cannot anticipate all the contingencies that arise in an emergency, and Congress is ill-equipped to pass new laws after the emergency has begun. If the president does not have discretion to take emergency actions that lack legal authorization or even violate existing laws, he will not be able to protect the nation. But if the president does have discretion to take actions he believes are necessary during an emergency, what prevents him from crowning himself dictator?

Benjamin Kleinerman offers a way out of this dilemma. He argues that the president needs the discretionary power to disregard the law during emergencies, but also that actions taken pursuant to this power should not be regarded as within his legal power. The president may use his “extra-constitutional” authority to take such actions if they are necessary to protect the nation; the actions must be taken during “extraordinary” rather than ordinary times, and they must not reflect the president’s personal views about what is morally important or politically expedient. If the president does not satisfy these conditions, the public must pressure Congress to impeach him. If he does satisfy them, his actions undergo a kind of constitutional baptism that washes away the taint of illegality.

Consider the example of Abraham Lincoln, who is Kleinerman’s hero. In the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln confiscated the property of slave owners without congressional authorization or legal process—a clear violation of the law at the time. But the Emancipation Proclamation was a military necessity in the war against the Confederacy. It was not motivated by a moral repugnance of slavery; that is why Lincoln did not emancipate all slaves, such as those in the friendly border states. And because this action took place during extraordinary times, it did not set a precedent that the executive can unilaterally confiscate property whenever it wants to do so. Lincoln acted outside of the Constitution, but because the people ultimately validated his actions, his actions became constitutional. (For unexplained reasons, it was sufficient that Northerners delivered this validation while Southerners remained mute.)

Kleinerman lambasts George W. Bush for not following this formula and instead claiming constitutional authority to protect the country using whatever means necessary. But Kleinerman cannot make up his mind about the ill consequences of Bush’s actions. He says that Bush has created dangerous precedents that will allow future executives to engage in abuse, but also that Bush might inspire a legalistic backlash that will prevent future executives from protecting the nation, and even that Bush will have created insufficient discretion for future executives because even Bush’s lawyers acknowledge that certain legal constraints remain. All three cannot be the case. Meanwhile, Lincoln, according to Kleinerman, avoided these bad consequences by acting extra-constitutionally. Lincoln established no legal precedents, while preserving maximal extra-constitutional discretion to address emergencies in the future. But why should it matter whether the precedent is legal or political?

To support this argument, Kleinerman makes some tricky assumptions about political psychology. He claims that the public is apathetic about government but fretful about security. If an emergency strikes, people eagerly put their faith in a president who takes a muscular response. If they believe that the president has the legal right to disregard statutes in emergencies, they are likely to acquiesce in an executive response that is unwise and even abusive. If they believe that the president has no such right, so that the president will have to claim extra-constitutional powers to break the law, they will be in a better position to judge the extent to which he upholds constitutional values, so that constitutional structures may be re-established when normal times return. Congress, in turn, can more easily impeach a president who abuses his discretionary power if emergency actions taken by the executive are regarded as extra-constitutional than if they are regarded as legal under the Constitution.

This is pretty fancy footwork for the public, and even for its leaders in Congress—whom Kleinerman does not trust to act responsibly during a crisis, which is why he prefers discretionary powers for the executive to a role for Congress in emergencies. If the public forgives the president for violating the law during one emergency, that act establishes a precedent which a subsequent president will cite during the next emergency. This precedent is political, not legal; but the two types of precedent tend to merge in practice. Many of the legal powers enjoyed by the executive today evolved as a result of congressional, judicial, and public acquiescence in claims to authority by past presidents that were legally questionable but politically justified at the time.

The same is true for executive prerogative. Every president who has exercised emergency powers has claimed the legal authority to do so. Bush and Lincoln did not act as differently as Kleinerman says. The Emancipation Proclamation anticipated Bush’s executive orders by locating the president’s authority to free the slaves in his constitutional commander-in-chief power. Bush’s lawyers, like Lincoln, noted the extraordinary circumstances of the claim to power—it was wartime in both cases, and in both cases military necessity was thought to justify the actions. And although Lincoln acknowledged constitutional difficulties in a way that Bush did not, the presidency was a far weaker institution in 1861 than it is today. By neglecting the development of presidential power starting with the New Deal in 1933, which involved vast delegations of power from Congress to the executive to address emergencies, Kleinerman misses a big part of the story. Today, presidents can almost always find what authority they need in statutory law, judicial precedent, and the examples of their predecessors.

If Kleinerman’s argument is finally unconvincing, his book nonetheless offers many rewards. Hobbes, Locke, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and Lincoln march splendidly across its pages, dispensing wisdom in extraordinary prose. The Americans in that group of authorities all agreed that the president of the United States must have the discretionary authority to disregard laws where necessary to address an emergency. They disagreed about whether the president enjoys implicit constitutional authority to take these actions or must act outside the Constitution. This distinction mattered to the founders and to Lincoln because they had to explain how their visions of limited government left the executive the discretionary powers it needs to protect the nation. But history settled the debate. Executive prerogative has been institutionalized. The only remedy for abusive behavior by presidents is political: in impeachment or at the polls.

Eric A. Posner is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Am I on the “Right Side” of History?

Monday, April 19th, 2010

By Scott Yenor

The Assembly Room in Philadelphia's Independen...

Constitution Hall

Pres. Obama thinks Iranian protesters will be “on the right side of history.”  An obscure Arkansas congressman supported the cap and trade bill because it was on “the right side of history.” Opponents of extending government’s control over the delivery of health care is, as NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof contends, are “on the wrong side of history.” Bill Clinton knew that he was “on the right side of history” and that Barack Obama would be “on the right side of history.” A pro-same-sex marriage group is called “the right side of history campaign.” Even after legal recognition for same-sex marriage was denied in a Maine referendum, Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign (a same-sex marriage advocacy group) beamed: “It’s still inevitable. It’s always been inevitable.”

The idea that history has a right side is connected to the idea that history has an end.  History ends with the appearance of a universal, omni-competent administrative state, which recognizes each citizen as equal and free and with the disappearance of repression and national difference, and the eradication of political, social, and cultural prejudice. Those on the right side of history possess a prophetic wisdom about where history is headed despite the actions of individuals at any particular time.

Resistance is futile—much like Nazi resistance to the Allies or the South’s attempt to cling to its peculiar institution. This is the trope’s rhetorical power.  Since resistance is futile, why resist?   Being “on the right side of history” gives rise to conviction, which sustains acts opposed by today’s benighted public opinion. The public may oppose cap and trade or gay marriage or an extension of government control over health care, but controversial and unpopular decisions will be baptized with the blessing of history.

The view that we know the direction of History (I now use a capital letter to designate its capital importance) seems to take hold among those apprehensive about History’s direction as well. Resignation is indeed a rational reaction to an inevitable.  Others resist. Whittaker Chambers, once told the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1948: “I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side. . .but it is better to die on the losing side than to live under Communism.” Yet the short span of 40 years showed that the losing side had won, something in itself illustrative about our sometimes inability to detect the direction of History.

Purveyors of “right side of history” progressivism can be false prophets too.  Does the persistence of Britain’s National Health Service look as “inevitable” today as it did in 1947?  Does Canada’s?  After all, as Ben Stein’s father, Herb, quipped, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Was AFDC reform inevitable?  Was it inevitable that the United States would turn around its historic crime wave?

If History’s end is inevitable, why fight for it?  Since History is coming anyway, why is it necessary to campaign on its behalf?  Faith in a progressive prophecy justifies our elected officials in opposing the public in order to be on the right side of history, but those fighting to bring it about show that that end is not inevitable or determined.

The clearest wisdom on these matters is seen in how the American Founders and their latter day heir, Abraham Lincoln, thought about the future of slavery.  From today’s perspective,

slavery’s abolition may seem inevitable, and indeed more than a few progressives treat slavery as something flattened by History’s steamroller.  That is not how it appeared to John Jay and Lincoln.  Jay, rightly charged by English abolitionists with hypocrisy for condemning slavery in principle but tolerating it in practice, discussed how the abolition of slavery could come about. It was by the spreading of the doctrine of human rights, which serve as a “little lump of leaven which was put into three measures of meal: even at this day, the whole mass is far from being leavened, though we have good reason to hope and to believe that if the natural operations of truth are constantly watched and assisted, but not forced and precipitated, that end we all aim at will finally be attained in this country.”  There was nothing inevitable about the future—statesmen would still have to mold public opinion in the direction of natural equality.

All three of Lincoln’s greatest speeches before becoming president—the Peoria speech on restoring the Missouri Compromise; the Dred Scott speech; and his “Crisis of the House Divided” speech—deal with the consequences of America’s failure to uphold the “natural operations of truth.” Slavery seemed to be on the march, spilling over the lines that had contained it.  Public sentiment and law had turned against blacks—freed and slave.  The Declaration of Independence had been reinterpreted to exclude members of the human family, and had been denigrated as an instrument merely useful for asserting the rights of Englishmen instead of being a statement of right good for all times. Some denied the truth about human equality; others saw slavery as a positive good.

In response, Lincoln did not stand up to proclaim that these moves were “on the wrong side of history.”  In fact, his melancholy about perhaps being on the losing side is not entirely dissimilar to Chamber’s.  Yet, like Chambers, he resisted and not in the name of History, but in the name of justice, truth and right.  Better to lose elections or die on the losing side than allow slave power to triumph!  Lincoln’s central effort is to show that all acknowledge by their actions that slaves are human beings and that the Declaration’s promises are the key to “the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere.”

Lessons from these episodes abound.  A few years ago, it was fashionable to display one’s opposition to Pres. Bush’s action and to show one’s virtue with the bumper sticker with an Edmund Burke quotation:  “All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Could it mean that there is no right side of history?  Could evil triumph?  Luckily we had “good people” bumper stickering to put an end to this reign of terror.

Lincoln’s actions show that, not History alone, but rhetoric informed by truth and evidence, move people.  Relying on History alone—History secretly controlled by reason—destroys the incentive to effort, undermines the ground of judgment, and destroys humanity.  Lincoln and the Founders believe in progress, and progress implies an end.  They see the place of human effort in bringing about that end, which means that it may not ever come about.  Theirs ennobles human effort, as it combines, darkly, with our grasp of truth and right to achieve human progress.

There is nothing inevitable but death and taxes.  The desire to evade the one has led some to wish an increase in the other, but they will not inevitably get their wish.

The views expressed in this essay are not necessarily those of the Jack Miller Center.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The Father of Big Government?

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

From NRO, April 12, 2010

Yes, the federal government doubled during the Lincoln administration. But after the Civil War it dropped right back down again.

Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln

There is a persistent rumor in the ether of talking heads that runs something like this: If we want to know who the “father” of big government in the United States is, point the finger at . . . Abraham Lincoln.

Of course, it has been a long time since Abraham Lincoln was headline news, and most Americans will meet this with little more than a shrug of the shoulders. But there is a certain strain of conservative thinking today (some of it on display at the Conservative Political Action Conference this February) that gets its jollies from wailing that big government has been a slow-growing cancer in American life, so slow in fact that its origins need to be traced back to the 16th president. Sometimes the motivation for this is a neo-Confederate urge to take yet another shot at the man who presided over the loss of the Lost Cause. Sometimes it comes from the satisfaction paleo-conservatives get in beating up their neo-conservative rivals, who are supposed to have given away the conservative store in the Bush years by endorsing big-government solutions under the standard of “compassionate conservatism.”

Whatever the motivation, they’ve got the wrong man in Abraham Lincoln.

First of all, let’s agree on what we mean by “big government”; then let’s discuss how its bigness ought to be measured. I think it’s reasonable to assume that by “big government,” we mean mostly the federal government, and a federal government that has grown to such a gargantuan size that the entire American system seems to have become a relentless, interfering bureaucracy rather than an of-by-and-for-the-people democracy. One obvious way we can measure such bigness is to look at the federal bottom line. In 1860, the entire federal budget consisted of exactly $63.2 million. Even if we factor for inflation between then and now, we still get a federal budget whose modern equivalent would be only about $1.5 billion. That’s just a little less than what the General Services Administration alone plans to spend in 2010 on office supplies, computers, vehicles, and whatnot.

Now shift to the Civil War years and the Lincoln administration. In raw numbers, the federal budget leapt from $66.6 million in 1861 (the first year of the Civil War and the first of the Lincoln administration) to $1.29 billion in 1865 (the year the war ended and the year Lincoln was assassinated). Now, the Lincoln-haters smile, isn’t that big government? Bear in mind, of course, that there was a war in progress, and wars are pricey for nations to wage. The war years were plagued by an annualized inflation rate of 14.4 percent (comparable to the runaway inflation of the Jimmy Carter years). The only way not to spend a lot of money fighting wars is to avoid them altogether. And I’m not sure anyone really believes it would have been a good thing for President Lincoln to have simply let the South secede from the Union – unless you’re a lineal descendant of Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee.

But does this prove that Lincoln was the author of “big government”? Not if we factor for inflation: In today’s dollars, even the 1865 federal budget would still translate into only $17.9 billion (which wouldn’t even pay for NASA in 2010). And not if we look at what happened after the war. Between 1865 and 1870, the hydrogen went out of the federal balloon in a hurry. By 1870 the federal budget had shrunk down to $293 million – only 22.7 percent of the size it had been in 1865. It would have shrunk even more drastically, had it not been for the cost of servicing the wartime debt (which accounted for 44 percent of the budget) and paying pensions to wounded soldiers (another 9.6 percent). Sure, we could have repudiated the debt, and sure, we could have told the veterans to forget it. But I don’t believe any of us would have wanted to do that either, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee.

The budget kept on shrinking, too. By 1880, the federal budget was only 16.7 percent of what it had been in 1865 (debt service was now down to 36 percent, but pensions were up to 21 percent as the veterans of the Civil War aged). If Lincoln had plans to create “big government,” none of his successors seems to have known what they were.

But maybe budget numbers are not the best yardstick for measuring the size of government. Let’s try the number of federal civilian employees. In 1851, the federal government had only 26,300 people on its payroll. The Civil War immediately boosted that to 36,600 in 1861 and eventually to 53,000 in 1865 – double the 1851 number. By 1871, the number of federal employees had dropped back to 51,000 – and this was while we were still stuck in reconstructing the South. If we want to find a period in the 19th century when government payrolls really soared, we won’t find it in the years of Abraham Lincoln. We would have to look instead to those well-known presidential high-rollers, Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison, who by 1891 had tripled the number of federal employees, to 157,400. And the single greatest leap in federal employment occurred under Franklin Roosevelt, in the eight years between 1932 and 1940, when the federal workforce rose from 605,000 to just under 1 million.

Yes, the federal government grew enormously under Abraham Lincoln. But that was only in comparison to the bite-sized federal government that had prevailed in the 1850s, and it occurred only under the unprecedented circumstances of civil war. The real measure of Lincoln’s “big government” is how quickly it shrank back to more recognizable proportions once the wartime emergency was over. Rahm Emanuel might say that Lincoln wasted a good crisis. It would be better to say that Lincoln managed a crisis without making it worse.

- Allen Carl Guelzo is the director of Civil War Era Studies at Gettysburg College.

-

The opinions expressed by Professor Guelzo are not necessarily those of the Jack Miller Center.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Pathway to the Founding

Sunday, April 11th, 2010

Jack Miller Center’s

Pathway to the Founding Online Essays

The Jack Miller Center has begun collecting online introductory essays and book recommendations for topics and themes that broaden understanding of the American Founding. These essays are designed as introductions to the intellectual and political life of American Statesman, our U.S. Constitutional heritage, and the ancient and modern thinkers the Founders drew upon when designing our system of free government.

According to Mike Ratliff, President of the Jack Miller Center, “These essays are intended to convey the richness of the American and Western political tradition, while at the same time presenting often complex ideas in accessible form.  The JMC staff has assembled a stellar list of contributors from many of our country’s leading scholars, and we look forward to seeing their reflections on the ideas and questions of perennial importance to life of a free society.” The essays will appear periodically on the Jack Miller Center website over the next year. A sample of featured essays includes:

Abraham Lincoln (Allen Guelzo, Gettysburg College)

Montesquieu (Thomas Pangle, University of Texas)

Thomas Jefferson (Jeremy Bailey, University of Houston)

James Madison (George Thomas, Claremont-McKenna College)

Adam Smith (Sandra Peart, Jepson School of Leadership)

The American Presidency (Benjamin Kleinerman, Michigan State University)

Benjamin Franklin (Lorraine Pangle, University of Texas)

Alexander Hamilton (Peter McNamara, Utah State University)

David Hume (Scott Yenor, Boise State University)

John Adams (Richard Samuelson, California State San Bernardino)

Publius, Federalist Papers (James Stoner, Louisiana State University)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

National History Club Offers Essay Prize on Leadership

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

LEADAMERICA ESSAY CONTEST

Essay Guidelines:

For all High School and Middle School Students:

This contest invites students to write an essay of not more than 2,000 words (supplemented with a bibliography) on Historical Leadership. Using an event from the past students should write about how the leadership by a person or a group of people contributed to the development of society, and what today’s leaders and citizens can learn from this.

Students should feel free to explore any time period and a person or a group from any place in the world. A few examples are: Presidents (foreign leaders), Explorers, Inventors, Civil Rights Leaders, Doctors, Army Generals, Sports Figures, etc.

Entries may be submitted in one or more of the following forms: 1) Microsoft Word document or 2) PDF document. All entries must be received by April 1, 2010 and can be emailed to Bob Nasson at rnasson@nationalhistoryclub.org (please type “LeadAmerica” in the subject line).

Prizes:


1st prize: A full scholarship to attend LeadAmerica’s National Leadership Summit (Summer 2010) at Georgetown or John Hopkins Universities in Washington, DC or Baltimore, MD (a $2499 value)

2nd prize: A $1000 scholarship towards attendance at LeadAmerica’s National Leadership Summit

10 Honorable Mentions: A copy of the book, Letters from Leaders, provided by LeadAmerica

*** Winning essays will be featured on both the NHC’s
and LeadAmerica’s websites.  ***

*** 1st and 2nd prize winners will be featured in the
NHC Spring eNewsletter ***

The National Leadership Summit, hosted by LeadAmerica, provides high achieving students with the opportunity to build real world career skills and analyze leadership attributes within the environment of our nation’s capital.  For ten days, students participate in leadership case studies on individuals like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, while debating current policy initiatives confronting the United States such as Health Care, National Security and the Environment through the National Leadership Summit campaign simulation.  In addition to exploring policy, students practice skills central to future success such as coalition and platform building, networking, public speaking, conflict resolution and communication, while also visiting sites like Capitol Hill, Mount Vernon and the Smithsonian Museums.  Students also complete LeadAmerica’s leadership curriculum through engaging activities and a ropes challenge course, which foster necessary skills such as teambuilding, time management and culminate in the formulation of a personal mission and vision statement.

To learn more about LeadAmerica and the National Leadership Summit, please visit http://www.lead-america.org/conferences/nls/nls_hs.asp or contact an Admissions Counselor at 866.FYI.LEAD.

.

Bob Nasson,
Executive Director,
National History Club
153 Milk Street, Suite 410
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
617-439-4091; www.nationalhistoryclub.org
rnasson@nationalhistoryclub.org
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Prof. Allen Guelzo on Lincoln the War President

Sunday, February 28th, 2010

Allen Guelzo discusses Lincoln’s Presidency during the Civil War Years in the fourth installment of our exclusive interview.

Founding Principles: Video Transcript

Friday, February 19th, 2010

Founding Principles

Each of us can come up with our own list of the great ideas that give life to American political and economic institutions.  However, we may be surprised at the similarity of our lists.  That reflects the power exerted by the ideas debated with such intensity by our founders.  Certainly there would be differences in our lists, just as the founders differed. However, over the past five years, we have talked with hundreds of profound students of American history, politics and literature.  Whenever we have paused during Miller Summer Institutes or other programs to write such a list, the result has been a short list of seven to twelve great ideas.  We hope you will reflect on the great principles cited that follow and perhaps inspire you to draw up your own list.  Few exercises can be of more value to you as a citizen of our great nation.

In “A Defense of American Constitutions” (1787) John Adams, on the individual’s right to own private property:

“The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.  If “Thou shall not covet” and “Thou shall not steal” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”

Alexander Hamilton, (Federalist #71, 1788) on the separation of powers in government:

“The same rule which teaches the propriety of a partition between the various branches of power, teaches us likewise that this partition ought to be so contrived as to render the one independent of the other…  The representatives of the people, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the people themselves, and betray strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any other quarter,  as if the exercise of its rights, by either the executive or judiciary, were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity.”

Thomas Paine, in Common Sense (1776), on the rule of law:

“But where say some is the king of America?  I’ll tell you, he reigns above and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Great Britain.  Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter;  let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the Word of God;  let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king.  For as an absolute governments the king is law,  so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

George Washington, (Letter to the Hebrew Congregation, Newport, 1790), on the freedom of religion:

“The Citizens of the United States of American have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy:  a policy worthy of imitation.  All possess alike liberty of conscious and immunities of citizenship.  It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoy the exercise of their inherent national gifts.  For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under it’s protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”

Abraham Lincoln, (“Reply to Senator Douglas, Chicago” 1858) on the principal of equality:

“We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years,  and we … find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers;  they were iron men;  they fought for the principal that they were contending for…  We have-besides these, men descended by blood from our ancestors-among us, perhaps half our people, who are not descendants at all of these men…  but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence, they find that those old men say that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;” and then they feel that … is the father of all moral principal in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration…”

Regarding individual liberty, George Washington said:

“If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

And, the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances…  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated… No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Lincoln: Bad News Bicentennial

Sunday, February 14th, 2010

The last few times the nation has been called upon to throw major parties for the anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, the results have been something less than admirable. The Lincoln Centennial in 1909 is mostly remembered now for a bloody race riot in Lincoln’s own home town of Springfield, Illinois, and a new version of the penny, with Lincoln’s profile on the obverse. The Lincoln Sesquicentennial in 1959 was marked by a special address to Congress by poet and Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg, and a new version of the Lincoln penny.  Perhaps the best thing which can be said about the Lincoln Bicentennial in 2009 is that, once more, we got a new version of the Lincoln penny.

Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth President of th...

President Lincoln

Maybe this should not come as a surprise. Lincoln’s historical reputation hit its highest point in the 1910s and ‘20s, and has been slipping gradually in stature ever since; among African-Americans, who once idolized him as a second Moses, Lincoln’s standing as the Great Emancipator has nose-dived since the 1960s, to the point where Lincoln is now routinely discounted as a scheming white supremacist who only wanted to use black people for his own political ends. Part of this is surely produced by the general decline in civic literacy in American schooling, where it’s enough a struggle just to identify who Lincoln was, entirely apart from the larger task of explaining what he did; and the decline of Lincoln’s fortunes among blacks is surely linked to a healthy unwillingness to see themselves as merely the step-children of benevolent white folks. Neither of these represent irreversible developments — provided that the Lincoln Bicentennial could be deployed in what it is now fashionable to call a ‘teachable moment.’ But the ‘teachable moment’ has come and gone, and little if anything of the Lincoln Bicentennial seems to have served the purpose of reminding Americans of either who Lincoln was or what he did.

The bulk of the blame has to fall squarely on the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, which was created (and funded) by Congress in 2000 to act as the forum for the celebrations of Lincoln’s birth in 2009. Almost from the start, the Commission became a political football, with Michael Bishop, the Bush Administration’s pick as executive director, at loggerheads with the Commission’s co-chair, Illinois Democratic senator Dick Durbin, and the Commission’s two most prominent Democratic appointees, Harold Holzer and Chicago Congressman Jesse Jackson, jnr. Once control of Congress shifted into Democratic hands in 2006, Bishop was out as executive director, and in his place came Eileen Mackevich, who had no particular connection to anything Lincolnian apart from having run the Chicago Humanities Festival. Lincoln had once declined an invitation to join a Chicago law firm, complaining that the place would kill him. The Commission, now with the skilled technicians from the Land of Blagojevich securely at the controls, proceeded to confirm Lincoln’s apprehensions, post facto.

It was books, rather than “town halls” and exhibitions, which ended up carrying the day for Lincoln’s bicentennial. Lincoln has always been a profitable subject for book publishers over the years (along with diet books, cook books, the Kennedys, and Hitler), and the bicentennial year would surely be no exception. Although we were warned by the Boston Globe in the fall of 2008 that “at least 50 titles about Lincoln are due out between next month and 2010,” there is, after it all, no difficulty in picking out the giant among the pygmies, and that is Michael Burlingame’s two-volume Abraham Lincoln: A Life, over 2000 pages long and built over the span of two decades on the most exacting research. If Burlingame’s Lincoln does not win the Pultizer, the National Book Award, and the Lincoln Prize, there is no justice. Crowding behind Burlingame are Thomas Krannawitter’s Vindicating Lincoln, Barry Schwartz’s Abraham Lincoln in the Post-Heroic Era: History and Memory in Late Twentieth-Century America, Stephen Berry’s House of Abraham (on Lincoln and the Todd family), Charles Lachman’s The Last Lincolns and the inevitable Harold Holzer’s Lincoln, President-Elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter, 1860-1861. Much-ballyhooed but almost empty of anything significant are Ronald White’s A. Lincoln: A Biography and George McGovern’s Abraham Lincoln. And far down at the bottom are the contributors to Eric Foner’s stillborn Our Lincoln: New Perspectives on Lincoln and His World, which struggles to drape Lincoln in the toga of Progressive deification.

Curiously, no one attempted a Lincoln movie, although rumors continued to bob-up all through 2009 about a Steven Spielberg ‘Lincoln,’ with screenplay by Tony Kushner and starring Liam Neeson as Lincoln and Sally Field as Mary Todd Lincoln. There were, however, no shortage of documentaries produced, from PBS, the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, and National Geographic. Almost predictably, PBS’s “Looking for Lincoln” was another long soak in racial bathos, with Henry Louis Gates ‘looking’ for someone who could persuade him that Lincoln was not really a white supremacist. But PBS also produced a corking-good documentary on “The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln,” based on James Swanson’s Manhunt, while the History Channel took on the unlikely subject of the 1876 scheme to rob Lincoln’s tomb, “Stealing Lincoln’s Body.” At least one major theater production has emerged from the bicentennial, James Still’s The Heavens Are Hung in Black, a three-act play commissioned for the re-opening of Ford’s Theater in Washington after an 18-month refit. And Norman Corwin’s 1959 play on the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, The Rivalry, was dusted-off for a new audio-CD production by the LA Film Works, featuring Paul Giamatti as Stephen Douglas and David Straithern as Lincoln.

Lincoln in music had a much better time during the bicentennial. Over and above the by-now ritualized performances of Aaron Copland’s A Lincoln Portrait (1942), the Naxos label issued ‘The Lincoln Portrait Project,’ a CD which began with the Copland piece, but reached out to include both new and old works written around the Lincoln theme – Morton Gould’s Lincoln Legend (first performed in 1942 by Toscanini), Charles Ives’ setting of Edwin Markham’s lugubrious poem, “Lincoln the Man of the People,” and two works by Paul Turok (Variations on an American Song, based on the 1860 campaign tune ‘Lincoln and Liberty, Too’) and Ernest Bacon (a twelve-movement suite, Ford’s Theatre). Orchestra programs around the country tacked the Copland Lincoln Portrait onto their programs, although frequently undoing the dramatic potential of the music by hiring in the role of solo narrator a celebrity who couldn’t have told Lincoln from a half-note. The Chicago Symphony and the San Francisco Symphony programmed the Copland with James Earl Jones as the narrator, the Boston Pops got by with a local TV personality, and the Philadelphia Orchestra passed all understanding in giving the narrator’s ticket to Alec Baldwin. Curiously, there remained an impressive backlog of ‘Lincoln music’ which was never touched by either performance or recording during 2009 — Daniel Gregory Mason’s Lincoln Symphony (1936), Roy Harris’s Symphony no. 10 “Abraham Lincoln” (1965) and Herbert Elwell’s Lincoln – Requiem Aeternam (1946). Unhappily, music directors rarely feel the urge to consult historians when drawing up the next season’s program.

The Lincoln Bicentennial has not lacked for quantity, which may be some consolation. He is still very much a lively target of interest for scholarly books, although the moguls of the book trade are very likely to want to give the Lincoln subject a rest after so many books during the bicentennial. And if it gave us nothing more than Burlingame’s Lincoln, we would still have cause for gratitude. But it is disappointing that the public side of the Lincoln commemorations was so lackluster – worse than lackluster, so unfocussed and so liable to trim its course to the demands of the political bien-pensants. There were moments, particularly under the aegis of the ALBC, when it was not clear whether Lincoln was being celebrated or indicted. And there is certainly no sign that the bustle of Lincolnian activities promoted by the ALBC made much of a dent in slowly-rising indifference to Lincoln which has been in-process for the last four-score-and-ten. That, unhappily, is an important failure, because the more we lose a grasp on Lincoln, the more we will tend to drift away as a nation from the Lincolnian ideals of self-transformation, of economic mobility, and of the ennobling power of free labor and commerce. Those were the qualities which Lincoln believed made America the “last, best hope of earth.” Let’s hope that the Lincoln Bicentennial does not turn out to have been the last, best hope for Lincoln.

Allen C. Guelzo is Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era and Director of Civil War Era Studies, Gettysburg College

Allen Guelzo is also the author of Lincoln (Oxford University Press, 2009), Abraham Lincoln as a Man of Ideas (Southern Illinois University Press, 2009).

Man of Ideas

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Miller Center Network Publications

Thursday, February 11th, 2010

The Jack Miller Center wants to congratulate the members of our JMC network who have published a book length manuscript in the last calendar year. Few accomplishments are as meaningful and lasting for authors, and those who read them.

The list also is a demonstration of the broad intellectual interests of our network. Although many directly address America’s Founding and History, the list includes subjects and authors that compose the intellectual, historical, and political resources the American Founders drew upon as well as current events that are of interest to all of us.

Nathan Busch, Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Future of Non-Proliferation Policy, co-edited with Daniel H. Joyner (University of George Press, 2009)

Ross Corbett, The Lockean Commonwealth (SUNY, 2009)

Donald Critchlow, ed., Debating Conservatism (Rowman and Littlefield, 2009),  Politics and Hollywood (Routledge, 2009)

John Dinan, paperback edition of The American State Constitutional Tradition

Jonathan Dunn, From Schoolhouse to Courthouse: The Judiciary’s Role in American Education, co-edited with Martin West (Brookings Institution Press, 2009)

Robert Faulkner and Susan Shell, co-editors of American at Risk: Threats to Liberal Self-Government in an Age of Uncertainty (University of Michigan Press, 2009)

Michael Gillespie, paperback edition of The Theological Origins of Modernity

Allen Guelzo, Lincoln (Oxford University Press, 2009), Abraham Lincoln as a Man of Ideas (Southern Illinois University Press, 2009)

William Hay, Lives of Victorian Political Figures, Part IV (William Bagehot) (Pickering and Chatto Publishers, 2009)

Louie Herbert, More than Kings and Less than Men: Tocqueville on the Promise and Perils of Democratic Individualism (Lexington Books, 2009)

Steve Kautz, The Supreme Court and the Idea of Constitutionalism, co-edited with Arthur Melzer, Jerry Weinberger, Richard Zinman (Penn Press, 2009)

Christopher Kelly, Rousseau on Women, Love, and Family, co-edited with Eve Grace (University Press of New England, 2009)

Harvey Klehr, co-author of Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (Yale University Press, 2009), The Communist Experience in America (Transaction Publishers, 2009)

Benjamin Kleinerman, The Discretionary President: The Promise and Peril of Executive Power (2009)

Robert Koons, The Waning of Materialism: new Essays on the Mind/Body Problem, co-edited with George Bealer (Oxford University Press, 2009)

Ralph Lerner, Playing the Fool: Subversive Laughter in Troubled Times (University of Chicago Press, 2009)

Paul Rahe, Montesquieu and the Logic of Liberty: War, Religion, Commerce, Climate, Terrain, Technology, Uneasiness of Mind, the Spirit of Political Vigilance, and the Foundations of the Modern Republic (Yale University Press, 2009), Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect (Yale University Press, 2009)

Eric Sands, American Public Philosophy and the Mystery of Lincolnism (University of Missouri Press, 2009)

Brian Schoen, Fragile Fabric of Union: Cotton, Federal Politics, and the Global Origins of the Civil War (Johns Hopkins Press, 2009)

Colleen Sheehan, James Madison and the Spirit of Republican Self-Government (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

Susan Shell, Kant and the Limits of Autonomy (Harvard University Press, 2009)

Steven Smith, The Cambridge Companion to Leo Strauss (2009)

Barry Strauss, The Spartacus War (Simon & Schuster, 2009)

Jeffrey K. Tulis, The Constitutional Presidency, co-edited with Joseph M. Bessette (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009)

Gordon Wood, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (Oxford, 2009)

Michael Zuckert, The Anti-Federalist Writings of the Melancton Smith Circle, co-edited with Derek Webb (Liberty Fund, 2009).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Prof. Allen Guelzo on Lincoln the Orator

Monday, February 1st, 2010

In the third installment of the Miller Center’s interview with Allen Guelzo, the discussion turns to Lincoln’s Oratory and Rhetoric.