When I was a boy in school, it seemed in every classroom the portraits of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln sternly looked down upon us children, as if they were gravely critiquing our performance and behavior. I have come to realize that the two men in the two portraits were politically (and in many ways personally) polar opposites. One of the effects of the invariable display in the classrooms of the State's schools of the two men together, was to give the children the impression, year after year, that these men were two players on the same team; that they would have agreed with one another and worked together. In truth, I think George Washington would have been appalled by Abraham Lincoln, as were many of Washington's direct descendants.
I doubt there is another figure in our nation's history, or perhaps the history of the world, which has been more methodically, less accurately, and more thoroughly mythologized. For instance, even many of the most famous quotes attributed to Lincoln, including many that are routinely taught to American schoolchildren, either have no basis in fact, or have been proven to be complete fabrications.
Lincoln is still considered the Great Emancipator, even though a study of the record, the testimony of those who knew him best, and his own words, demonstrate that he did not believe in the equality of white and black people, and he was not really interested in freeing the slaves, except late in the war, as a political maneuver and war strategy, officially emancipating them specifically only in the areas not controlled by the Union army.
Lincoln did not even oppose secession on principle, but only when it did not serve his purposes. This fact is demonstrated by his orchestration of the secession of western Virginia, and setting up of a puppet government there. Even Lincoln's own attorney general believed the act was unconstitutional, since a state can only be created by its people, not by the President or US Congress.
It is also a myth that Lincoln wanted to avert a war, but was forced into one by the hot-headed South. In a letter to U.S. naval commander Gustavus Fox, Lincoln exposes that he had anticipated the results of attempting to provision Ft. Sumter (in other words, that the fort would be fired upon, whipping up the flames of war), and that the "cause of the country (was) advanced" by this goading of the South into firing on the fort.
So, what were Lincoln's motivations? In his own words, his politics were "short and sweet...a national bank...the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." Another term for "internal improvements" is corporate welfare. In short, Lincoln was a champion of mercantilism, and was the classic modern politician, advancing the agenda of his greedy supporters, even to the point of destroying through force the obstacles in their way (Southern Agrarians and Federalism).
Economist Murray Rothbard defines Mercantilism as "a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the State."
So, here's to Honest (?) Abe, the triumph of his Mercantilist agenda, the centralization of governmental power, the national bank, the destruction of Federalism, and the seemingly unstoppable path toward total power of the central government on which he so violently put our nation. His ideals are really coming home to roost in 2009.
Thanks for reading...
