March 10, 2007

Dopey WNJ Letter of the Week

Daniel Pritchett of Smyrna thinks the comparison made by a past letter writer of George Bush to Abe Lincoln was insane:

Abraham Lincoln, unlike President Bush, understood the difference between a just and an unjust war. After President James Polk invaded Mexico in 1846, falsely claiming that it was a response to a Mexican attack, Congressman Lincoln spoke out in protest and later voted for a House resolution that declared the war "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the president."

Lincoln would be just as angered and opposed to the Iraq invasion, launched by another deception on the American people.

To attempt to compare Lincoln's leadership during the Civil War -- a war that was fought to save the United States and our Constitution, as well as to free people from slavery -- with George Bush's invasion of Iraq, which after four years has benefitted no one except the war contractor Halliburton, is the grossest form of political blasphemy.

You just knew a mention of Halliburton had to get in there! He also quotes radical leftist historian Eric Foner to make his "point."

*Sigh* Lincoln's transgressions against the Constitution -- again -- make anything Bush has done look like stealing a piece of Bazooka gum from a 7-11. What's funny is Pritchett's contention that Lincoln "fought to save the Constitution." Yeah -- he only had to completely disregard it in order to save it.

Right.

UPDATE (3/11 at 10:07am): Pritchett has another letter in the Journal today (2nd letter down); however, it seems like he had his best friend write about the Lincoln-Bush comparison (6th letter down)!

Posted by Hube at March 10, 2007 07:36 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Is it just me or has the WNJ had some really dumb letters lately? I was waiting for you to take this one. Didn't have to way long.

Posted by: Paul Smith at March 10, 2007 11:24 AM

So I'm getting here that you're not a real big fan of Lincoln, right? :)

Question for you though- granting that many of your points about Lincoln are factually correct (though I don't agree with your conclusions), what do you think Lincoln should have done? I personally believe that Lincoln was faced with a set of impossible choices and so chose the ones that allowed for a future for the United States. I don't see an alternative course that could have done that, but maybe you do.

Also, you could add the point that a large portion of the financing of the Civil War was -to say the least- questionably obtained after Congress attached strings to the funding authorizations. That point may become more and more germane in the coming months.

Posted by: JR at March 10, 2007 02:16 PM

BTW, and just to head off somebody misunderstanding what I'm saying here-- this is a question about Lincoln, and I am in NO WAY linking the Civil War with Iraq, nor Bush with Lincoln. That's about like saying Tom & Jerry compares in any way favorably against Bugs Bunny. Ludicrous on it's face.

Posted by: JR at March 10, 2007 02:24 PM

JR: Excellent question(s), of course. First and foremost, I am not necessarily arguing that Lincoln did or did not do the "right" thing considering [many of] his circumstances. Lately I've only invoked his name in order to show to the moonbats who claim Bush is the biggest usurper of the Constitution ever that there was indeed a much BIGGER usurper -- Lincoln.

I personally believe that Lincoln was faced with a set of impossible choices and so chose the ones that allowed for a future for the United States.

Hmm. You mean if the North had allowed to the South to secede, there wouldn't have been a United States? Sure there would have -- one without the [former] southern states.

Keep in mind that the South had other gripes other than being able to maintain slavery. But certainly, the legal conflict whereby slaves were recently deemed to be mere "property," and the federal government's right to determine [non-state] federal lands to be free of slavery was a key question that may ultimately HAD to have been settled by armed conflict since it was likely neither would budge on the legal arguments.

I'm far from a Civil War expert, but one of Lincoln's beliefs was that the South did not have an inherent right to secede. He believed that since the individual states had ratified the Constitution, they made a pact "in perpetuity" to be part of the Union. I think that reasoning would have horrified the Founders. Such reasoning could have easily been used by the British 80 years prior, eh?

Did Lincoln trash the Constitution ... to "save" it. In many respects, absolutely. Unilaterally dismantling habeas corpus. Jailing/exiling those who merely disagreed with him. Having federal troops intimidate Democratic voters. Etc. One can argue that it was necessary to do this to save the Union. OK, fine. But then one shouldn't trash GW Bush, OTOH, for taking potentially "extra-Constitutional" measures in a type of war the US has never fought before. This goes back to my original point, y'see? :-)

Posted by: Hube at March 11, 2007 08:50 AM

Of course you are quite correct about the United States still existing in the face of seccession. I guess I wonder what kind of a nation it would have been without the South. Kind of fun to speculate about, but of course that type of question really has no answer that can be known.

As to your point about George Bush, I absolutely agree with you. Lincoln was much worse. And what about Jackson? 'He has made his decsion, now let him enforce it.' in reference to a Supreme Court decision about relocating the East Coast tribes.

Bush is just not in their league at all.

Posted by: JR at March 11, 2007 10:51 AM