The Lincoln Dilemma
The Abraham Lincoln DilemmaAbraham Lincoln is probably our most fascinating president if for only the way that
Lincoln ran the country during the Civil War. No other president before or after could in part keep this country together without going through the means at which he did it. However, by doing so, he left the country open to leaders who have used him as an example to further their own power, aka, President Dubya. The issue of secession is a large one in part because no other president before that believed they had the power to do anything about it. In fact, the entire idea of secession from the
Union was purposefully kept out of the Constitution for this very purpose. Realize that when the framers of the constitution met, they wanted a strong union, especially Hamilton who envisioned
America to be an Empire rather than a collection of states. By framing the constitution without an “Out Clause” the states were in many regards forced to comply with the federal government. While there were still rights within each state, this championed however the idea of a strong unified government. Some people, Libertarians especially, point blame at
Lincoln for enacting war against the South for seceding but if they have no constitutional merits for seceding how can they? In effect they were breaking the constitution for doing exactly this. It is “Constitutionally Plausible” for instance in
Canada to secede. Presidents before this avoided the issue entirely by claiming that the Constitution did not give the President any powers in preventing this from happening.
Lincoln believed that his ultimate goal was to keep the nation whole and not split. There have been instances where some have felt that Lincoln went too far, in his suspension of Habeas Corpus in 1861 the loss of Freedom of Speech due to militant action was, in his opinion, dangerous enough that he felt it necessary to do so. We avoid this topic in many history books when discussing
Lincoln and some might look at this issue as being the impetus that Presidents have used since then to protect the nation. The question of course when dealing with the constitution is keeping in context the time and place for it. The Constitution was created to safeguard against individuals freedoms being trampled upon at the same time there is the fear factor of Terrorism. However, even the term “Terrorism” is more a byproduct of the times and sends a different message to the public than just being a “Militant”. Our American forefathers were terrorists. Washington was a terrorist as was
Hamilton. The Boston Tea Party was the most famous terrorist act this side of 9/11. The aspect of this small nation at the time defeating the
British Empire is ‘Terrorism’. There always will be terrorism as I see it. Greenpeace is a terrorist organization as I see it. Every President since
Lincoln has impeded on these actions with the exception of a minor few that did not. Some others like FDR might have gone beyond the scope and detail of their duties but at the same time they did so with the idea of strengthening the
United States. The
Lincoln dilemma however looks at the increased powers of what the President and Chief Executive can do. While we are in a “War” that war does not threaten the sanctitude of the United States which was what
Lincoln had fought against. As this nation has pushed farther into the idea of becoming a Police State, we have used “Fear” as a means to push policies rather than logic. And rather than sitting down with our enemies we have cut off negotiations which has only made things worse. It was Bush that labeled Iraq, Iran and
North Korea the “Axis of Evil”, a term that is consistent with other aspects of this Republican controlled White House. They forced us into a war that should have never begun and we are paying the price for it.
Lincoln is fascinating if only for this reason. His legacy even with his low popularity was due to his measures that he created. Are we going to feel the same way about Bush in 50 years? I doubt it.