I just finished
Lincoln by David Herbert Donald (two-time Pulitzer prize winner), a wonderful book about the 2d best president (my opinion) and one of our greatest Americans (universal opinion). A biography constructed largely from Lincoln's own words, it is deliberately written from Lincoln's point of view - what he knew when he took critical actions and why he reached his decisions. I found it to be a fascinating historically and politically, and I highly commend the book to the Kos community. What makes the book particularly interesting is its historical timeliness: comparing then with now.
I am but a modest student of American history, but based on this book I can think of no President that wreaked more havoc among civil liberties than Lincoln (and Donald says as much).
At the start of the war Lincoln assumed and exercised powers that clearly belonged to Congress, admitted he did so, and later asked it for forgiveness (and approval). He explained they were not in session, he did what he had to do, and he believed they would have approved. Though it was then extremely doubtful he had the authority to do so, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus by executive order (which CJ Taney of SCOTUS held unconstitutional in Merryman (discussed here). Lincoln promptly ignored him and the ruling (how would that fly today if Bush simply ignored the Guantanamo decision?)). Once suspended, he then imprisoned, without charge or redress, people he felt harmed the war effort, many of whom did nothing but exercise free speech in opposition, and held them for the duration of the war. People were afraid to be critical even in private letters. He actually ordered the seizure of newspaper presses and imprisoned newspaper editors he felt were damaging the war effort and his ability to raise troops. He was brutally hammered by all sides in the North on his conduct of the war and the loss of life, to the point many otherwise abolitionists felt that the North should withdraw from the war and make peace with the South. There were wide-spread, strident and extensive calls to remove him from office.
While there was no polling then, the book makes it pretty clear there were points where Lincoln had extremely little support from the public, high disapprovals, and he was besieged constantly by opinions that he simply did not measure up - intellectually or physically -- to the office of the Presidency. Although he was never viewed to be personally corrupt- he was "Honest Abe" after all -- he freely, repeatedly, blatantly, pointedly and purposefully engaged in using patronage and spoils for no other purpose than to silence critics, punish enemies, and reward friends to such an extent that we would now call it corrupt. (As an aside, I also found it interesting that Lincoln, as a lawyer, sought out and represented large corporate interests - mainly the railroad, but also patent work - because it paid better.). Lastly, he was roundly critized for having "no plan." Lincoln often responded by saying that attitude in his motto: "My policy is to have no policy." It infuriated his critics (and this quote is not out of context, it really was his "policy"), who claimed that it showed the President had no principles.
Sound familiar? It did to me. In light of the foregoing, why do we view Lincoln the way we do? First, because he won. Second, because his cause is now deemed just. I emphasize is now just because at the time it was not clearly deemed so: we know half the US population thought slavery was fair and secession right, but even among the largely abolitionist North many felt the war and Lincoln's policies were wrong. Many refused to fight (and a then constitutionally suspect draft that caused riots was instituted by Lincoln). Europe, then anti-slavery, was a continuous threat to side with the South, and no help for the just cause and the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in part to keep Europe out. At the risk (certainty) of being troll-rated, I have never felt Bush deliberately lied about Iraq. Wrong about WMD after the fact? Yes. Hyping it? Yes. But I believe Bush always acted, and still acts, on the sincere belief and premise that Iraq was or would be a continued danger and that rolling the Arab world over into freedom and democracy is essential to stopping terrorism, defending the country, and winning the war on terror. And so the Golden Historical Braid: I believe that what we see and hear now will matter little 50 or 100 years from now if it works. If in 100 years the Arab world has embraced democracy and historians can trace that change to what Bush now does, I believe he will get Lincolnesque credit. If he fails he will be rightly condemned as a failure. And the lesson for the critics? Just as you are now convinced about everything you say, so were they then. In the end, the public will readily accept the ending justifying the means. By no means will Bush ever be Lincoln. On the other hand, they didn't think Lincoln would be Lincoln either.
Finally, how does Alito fit in this golden historical braid? Everyone knows Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation(s). What may not be appreciated is that it Lincoln's emancipation policies (and his issuing greenbacks to pay for the extraordinarily expensive war, and some other policies, noted partly above) were of dubious constitutional validity and Lincoln was worried about it. When CJ Taney died during Lincoln's term he needed a new chief justice, and he needed one that would uphold his policies. What to do?
"A lawyer himself, the President wanted to name a man deeply versed in the law, rather than an ideologue or a theorist; he hoped the new Chief Justice would recognize that `the function of courts is to decide cases - not principles (emphasis in original).'" But he wanted his policies upheld, so in selecting Samuel Chase he said "'we cannot ask a man what he will do, and if we should, and he should answer us, we should despise him for it. Therefore, we must take a man whose opinions are known.' Chase's record, the President thought, put him unquestionably on the right side of these basic issues."
History really does repeat itself. A fascinating man in extraordinary times. And a great book, by a great author, about that man.