Reagan's 11th Commandment should apply to Abraham Lincoln, too

Readers of my Grand Old Partisan blog sometimes e-mail me to trash the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln (R-IL).  Not content to recycle the same-old same-old absurd insults (dictator, tyrant, warmonger, racist and so on), some of these ranters cite bogus Lincoln quotes floating around the internet, such as:

"I have no intention of interfering with slavery or freeing the slaves.  The white race is supreme and blacks will never marry whites, serve on juries or vote.  This is my firm belief."

Of course, Abraham Lincoln never said this or wrote this or even thought this.  Ronald Reagan (R-CA) had these words of advice for anyone who feels compelled to malign Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President:

Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.

And that includes Abraham Lincoln!  Reagan's 11th Commandment.  Learn it.  Love it.  Live it.

Michael Zak is a popular speaker to Republican organizations around the country.  Back to Basics for the Republican Party is his acclaimed history of the GOP, cited by Clarence Thomas in a Supreme Court decision.  He is also the author of the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar.  His Grand Old Partisan website celebrates more than fifteen decades of Republican heroes and heroics.  See www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.

Comments

[Mike]

Everyone seems to make fun of whatever president is running. If your're not made fun of as a president then there's something wrong.

[Hola]

"...that was because President Lincoln was using his war powers as commander-in-chief, to deny rebels their human "property." He also cited the Confiscation Act, which said slaves held by rebels "shall be forever free.."

The War Between the States was not a rebellion. The states were exercising their right of secession; they weren't looking to overthrow the federal government and take it over. You are a thrall of big government.

[Kaj Grüssner]

Michael Zak

what is wrong about calling Lincoln a psychotic, mass murdering monster? After all, he

1. Invaded (in his mind) his own country because a given part of it refused to pay the egregious, protectionist tariffs he and his party imposed on them

2. Deported a member of Congress who disagreed with him

3. Sponsored the Fugitive Slave Act which strengthen the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution (so much for being the Emancipator)

4. Put thousands of Northern political dissidents in prison camps

5. Shut down hundreds of Northern newspapers

6. Encouraged his commanders to use genocide and the deliberate targeting of civilians as a war tactic

Lincoln didn't emancipate anyone. He started a war that led to the deaths of more than 600,000 Americans, a war he started because the South refused to pay the tariffs he and his party wanted to fund their massive corporate welfare schemes to then benefit of Northern industry.

Calling him a psychopathic, mass murdering monster is being lenient. He destroyed the union and set it on its path to become the totalitarian, military empire it is today.

You see Michael, we who dislike Lincoln generally dislike totalitarianism and violence. You, however, obviously love violence and war, so of course you love Lincoln.

[Tom]

Well, at least you're admitting that it was a paraphrase, not an actual quote.

You're the one claiming it was an actual quote from a reader and have yet to provide the evidence to support that claim.

You also claimed that Lincoln never thought or said any of the things claimed in the quote when in fact it has been proven that he thought and said ALL of these things.

You claim that the content of the supposed reader quote was "adsurd insults" when Lincoln himself said every single thing you take issue with.

You are basically claiming that Lincoln was violating the constitution directly by issuing the emancipation proclamation. Incidentally it was done as a political move, not because he believed in rights for slaves.

You have fallen back on semantics instead of admitting you were wrong.

[Michael Zak]

Well, at least you're admitting that it was a paraphrase, not an actual quote.

Indeed, the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to areas in rebellion. As explained in my GOP history book, that was because President Lincoln was using his war powers as commander-in-chief, to deny rebels their human "property." He also cited the Confiscation Act, which said slaves held by rebels "shall be forever free. Emancipation in loyal slave-holding areas would have to wait until respective state governments abolished slavery or the 13th amendment was ratified.

[Tom]

And the paraphrase in spot on correct.

Like it or not , Lincoln was a racist, a big government fanatic, and someone who regularly violated the constitution to further his own goals, not to mention advocated the murder of thousands of innocent women and children during the civil war.

Lincoln was no great emancipator, you do realize that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in southern territory right?

The fact is the paraphrase is in fact a very accurate portrayal of the man.

Your complaint is that someone has finally shown the real Lincoln to not be the rosy picture that has been painted for the past century.

[Michael Zak]

Explaining this to you one more time, that quote is from an email I received from someone weeks ago and is typical of the many bogus Lincoln quotes floating around the internet. Certainly, the bogus quote can be seen as a paraphrase of Lincoln's statements at Charleston and at his first inaugural, but it is not an actual quote. Lincoln-haters do the Great Emancipator a disservice by taking his actual statements out of context, slamming them together to form one bogus quote, and claiming they convey an accurate portrayal of the man.

[Tom]

What Mr. Zak has failed to do repeatedly is provide a source for his quote which oddly enough only appears on his blog and nowhere else on the internet prior to his post.

So he's created a made up quote, that basically paraphrases what Lincoln has actually said and then lambasts Tom Woods for criticizing Lincoln for what's he's actually said and done.

Forgive us if we don't put any stock in your critical thinking ability Mr. Zak, it's obviously deficient.

[Michael Zak]

Of course people can criticize Abraham Lincoln, as they do criticize Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. In fact, my book criticizes Lincoln for, among other things, selecting a Democrat as his 1864 running mate and for not calling Congress into special session in 1865.

What no sane person ought to do, however, is what some Tom Woods disciples do, refer to the Great Emancipator as a "psychopathic monster" "mass murderer" etc.

[Mike]

So, does is logic about being always uncritical of Republicans universal Mr. Zak?

Can we not be critical of Teddy Roosevelt?

How about Herbert Hoover?

[Kaj Grüssner]

Michael

Who has claimed that the Confederacy was a wonderland? For someone who requires exact quotes you have no problems with distorting what others say.

The notion that the Confederacy would have copied the tariff code, by which you of course mean imposed high tariffs, is laughable. The South exported 3/4 of its production. No export driven economy wants tariffs, because a tax on imports is a tax on exports. Further, there was no domestic industry to protect from foreign competition.

As for "imposed production directives on factories, nationalized industries, enforced internal travel restrictions, neglected to create a supreme court as required by its constitution, imposed conscription before the Union did, muzzled the press"

do you think it MIGHT have been due to the Northern INVASION of the South? Had it no been for the war, no such measures would ever had been thought of. After all, not even Lincoln, who did all those things up North as well, would have done half of it had he not decided to invade.

Without Lincoln's invasion, there would have been peace. Slavery would have been abolished peacefully like in EVERY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY. Heck, even Brazil managed to get rid of it without a war. Both North and South would have prospered, and there probably wouldn't exist a military empire police state today.

As for not creating a Supreme Court, why is that bad? For the last century at least, the US Supreme Court has been nothing but a rubber stamp for every violation of the constitution and outrageous power grab of the Federal government, mainly the White House.

And still, with all that, the US of today is far more totalitarian than the Confederacy was, and more is to come.

Without Lincoln's invasion, there would have been peace. Slavery would have been abolished peacefully like in EVERY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY. Heck, even Brazil managed to get rid of it without a war. Both North and South would have prospered, and there probably wouldn't exist a military empire police state today.

[Guest]

Just so it's somewhere on the site, here is the Lincoln quote to which Tom Woods refers:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

The Avalon Project : First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

[Mike]

So which state did not have a Constitution? You didn't answer that one.

Yes, the Constitution was written to prevent tyranny, that is why the powers of that government were to be few and enumerated, as Madison said. But nullification is a limit on Federal power, and this is completely in keeping with the spirit of the constitution's limits. Jefferson clearly spells rhis out in the Kentucky Resolution. It only applies to Unconstitutional laws. All other laws were understood by the ratifiers of the constitution to be invalid. It also does not follow that only the federal government should have the power to decide what lies within its power. If only one side can decide the interpretation of a contract, that side will tend to find in its own favor. The Constitution can only prevent tyranny if its limits on power are followed, clearly the government either cannot or will not limit itself. What other remedy do you suggest for the prevention of tyranny?

As for Hamilton, He agreed with Madison that the power of the Federal governemtn would be limited and enumerated when he was trying to sell the poeple in the new government. He changed his tune once in office. This is not the foundr you want to hang your argument on. He was also in favor of a "President for life" and having state governors appointed by the Federal government. This is the opponent of tyranny???

As for finding the exact quote, it isn't anywhere. But that is semantics. Lincoln did express all of those sentiments in the quote. That's the important thing. You are making yourself look very silly.

Almost as silly as your insistence on putting your biography on every blog post.

[Michael Zak]

Hola, here is a link to his first inaugural address:

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Where is that bogus Lincoln quote?

[Hola]

"Thank you very much for contacting me about the bogus Lincoln quote. I have read the Lincoln-Douglas debate transcripts many times over the years and have yet to find this alleged quote:

“I have no intention of interfering with slavery or freeing the slaves. The white race is supreme and blacks will never marry
whites, serve on juries or vote. This is my firm belief.”

===

You are a moron. There is no way of getting around it. That quote is from his inaugural address, which you would have learned had you any inkling of intellectual curiosity (especially when many have told you that you're mistaken) and had clicked on the links.

[Michael Zak]

One of the reasons for establishing the Constitution was precisely to PREVENT tyranny. The Founders recongized that as independent countries or only loosely bound by the Confederation states could easily slip in despotism. Worried by the Shays Rebellion, Alexander Hamiltion wrote that a dictator could have arisen had the insurgents been led by a Caesar or Cromwell.

[Michael Zak]

The notion that the Confederacy was a free-market wonderland is absurd. The Richmond regime imposed production directives on factories, nationalized industries, enforced internal travel restrictions, neglected to create a supreme court as required by its constitution, imposed conscription before the Union did, muzzled the press, and, oh yeah, kept a third of its people in slavery. BTW, among the first laws passed by the Confederate Congress was to enact, nearly word-for-word, the U.S. tariff code. See "Look Away" bu William Davis, for more information.

[Michael Zak]

Thank you very much for contacting me about the bogus Lincoln quote. I have read the Lincoln-Douglas debate transcripts many times over the years and have yet to find this alleged quote:

“I have no intention of interfering with slavery or freeing the slaves. The white race is supreme and blacks will never marry
whites, serve on juries or vote. This is my firm belief.”

Being placed within quotation marks implies that Abraham Lincoln spoke or wrote those words, as stated. These sentences, as stated, are nowhere to be found in Lincoln's writings or speeches, which means that it is a bogus quote. One may indeed claim, though others may disagree, that the alleged quote is a paraphrase or summary of Lincoln's words or beliefs, but the alleged quote is not actually a quote, meaning it is a bogus quote.

BTW, don't forget to place Lincoln's Charleston speech in context, that he was appealing for the votes in a Democrat-dominated area against a Democrat senator who owned more than a hundred slaves.

[Kaj Grüssner]

Mr. Zak

Please explain this, in detail:

"And don't forget that Thomas Woods' beloved Confederacy was far more statist than is the United States even today."

Leaving aside that Woods obviously has no love for the Confederacy, what you claim is ludicrous. To name a few out of an ocean of examples:

1. The Confederacy was a free trade zone.
2. It had no income tax.
3. It had no central bank.
4. It had no Patriot Act or NDAA or anything remotely similar. In fact, the American Revolution was to a great extent fought against such measures
5. It was heavily DE-centralized.

All the states making up the Confederacy really wanted to do was to go their own way, being fed up by the constant protectionist tariffs the North imposed to provide subsidies to Northern industry. I'm sure you don't know this, but protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare and strong centralized government was the very clear and outspoken Lincoln and Republican agenda. Just before Lincoln took office, the tariffs were hiked again, going upwards. This was one of the major reasons for the South wanting to leave.

[Mike]

And really, Mr. Zak, you haven't seen a link or citation to the quotes provided by Dr. Woods?

Are you serious? You realize what a hyperlink is, don't you.

He cites and provides links to both.

But to make it easy for you. Here they are, copied directly from TomWoods.com

http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/the-writings-of-abraham-lincoln-04/

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

I mean, really, are you accusing Dr. Woods of fabricating Lincoln's first inaugural address?

[Mike]

Mr. Zak, which state did not have a Constitution, and which Founder are you citing?

James Madison didn't seem to think so in Federalist #45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

But if you'd taken the time to actually read "Nullification", by Dr. Woods, you'd see that state governments can be equally rotten, but that their damage is done on a smaller scale, and that those governments are easier for the people to control.

The founders didn't trust any government, and wanted to let power limit power. Thus power was divided among both branches of government, and among governments.

And what company are you in when you push for greater centralized power, well their you stand with Hitler and Stalin.

You want to promote freedom, that is, the least possible government interference in the lives of the people, then nullification is a powerful and vital tool.

[Michael Zak]

To answer your question, I received it from the University of Don't Believe Bogus Lincoln Quotes Floating Around The Internet.

[Michael Zak]

I have yet to see Tom Woods or anyone else on this website provide a link or citation for that alleged Lincoln quote. They can't, because it is a fabrication. This article and nearly all the comments are based on a lie, that Abraham Lincoln said or wrote those words attributed to him within quotation marks.

That alleged Lincoln quote is one of many bogus Lincoln quotes floating around the internet. Tom Woods and his followers should not be so blinded by their hatred for the Great Emancipator as to follow the "make stuff up" school of political discourse.

[Younger Cato]

And where exactly did you receive your PhD from?

[Michael Zak]

Chad, your policy agenda is actually very statist. As the Founders observe, statist tyranny is much more likely in a state unbound by the Constitution. And don't forget that Thomas Woods' beloved Confederacy was far more statist than is the United States even today. See www.grandoldpartisan.com and my history of the GOP for more information.