Looking Back to Understand the Present

There's an interesting series running on the History Channel this week about great American leaders. Monday night was about Lincoln, tonight is about Ben Franklin, and the remainder of the week is reserved for three parts about the presidents.

I watched the Lincoln part last night, and in the back of my mind two questions were lingering: 1) how does Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation compare to Bush's authorization of eavesdropping by the NSA without court approval and 2) how does our civil war compare to the one taking place in Iraq?

First, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, thereby freeing slaves in states that were rebelling, i.e., confederate states. Under normal circumstances he would not have had authority to do so. But since the country was in a state of war he used his executive powers as "...warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity." Obviously there is a parallel with Bush using similar military argument for authorizing NSA eavesdropping on American citizens without court approval. Gore Vidal, as author of Lincoln: A Novel he was a guest on the show, explained it in a humorous way when he explained that the war on terrorism is not really a war, it is like declaring war on dandruff. I would tend to agree with that statement, but any way you look at it it is interesting to have a historical perspective through which to view current events. It really outlines the severity of the situation back in 1863 as opposed to now.

That brings me to the second question. In light of what I wrote in a previous post about the Second Ammendment, what if another country had tampered in our civil war? Unlike the Revolutionary War, where the USA received supplies and naval support from France and the Netherlands (yes, they saved our asses once before we saved theirs in WWII), the Civil War was an internal conflict. I'm not trying to accept imperialism only where it is convenient here. I think there is a big difference between tampering in Britain's affairs with the colonies and tampering in the internal affairs of a nation. Britain and France and the Netherlands were imperial powers, Iraq is not.

If Lincoln had received aid from abroad, for example, he may not have issued the EP. One of his reasons for doing so was to free slaves so they could volunteer for the Union Army. 200,000 of them did so. With foreign aid, Lincoln may not have felt he could justify the EP and ultimately he may not have even suggested after the war that blacks be given the right to vote. John Wilkes Booth assasinated the president in reaction to things he said after the war in 1865, not in reaction to the EP (in 1863). On the opposite side, the case for aid to the rebellious states from foreign entities has obvious implications as it could have meant Union defeat and the destruction of the USA.

At the end of the Lincoln show, Gore Vidal was describing Lincoln's death and he actually began to cry. At first I thought he was just being dramatic, but it was real! How odd, to weep for someone who died sixty years before you were born.

The Lincoln episode will re-air on Saturday for those who missed it. I would also recommend an article in the current issue of Smithsonian Magazine about Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. I've got a copy of the magazine with the full article if anyone wants to see it.