Perhaps some of you have already heard of the execrable Frank Gaffney’s use of a fake Lincoln quote invented in 2003 by another right wing columnist at the Moonie Times (details regarding this fictional creation are described in Glenn Greenwald’s blog at Salon) to imply that Democrats in Congress who argue against the Iraq war are traitors who should be hung. If not I’ll show you exactly how he began his column today in the Washington Times:
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
President Abraham Lincoln (emphasis in the original)
What Lincoln really said follows below the fold ….
But first, more on Gaffney’s playing of the “treason card.”
In his column, Gaffney claims that it is inappropriate for anyone in Congress to politicize the debate about this war, and in particular to criticize the actions of Douglas Feith who, as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in 2002 and 2003 headed up the now infamous Office of Special Plans which cherry picked raw intelligence of questionable value to claim that Saddam had vast quantities ov WMD, an ongoing nuclear weapons program and close ties to Al Qaeda, including some of the leaders of the 9/11 plot. All these claims are now acknowledged by anyone, other than the most diehard neoconservatives and Bush worshipers, as utterly and completely untrue.
Gaffney makes sneering asides to the fake Lincoln quote with which he began his column, as if to say, “Too bad no one would ever consider charging, convicting and then hanging these treasonous members of Congress today, unlike in Honest Abe’s era where Presidential power reigned supreme and a Congressman knew his place.” Since Gaffney makes so much hay out of his phony Lincoln, I thought I would display for your perusal the actual statements Lincoln made as a Congressman in 1848 on the floor of the House of Representatives in opposition to a foreign military adventure by then President James Polk, the Mexican-American War:
Some, if not all the gentlemen on, the other side of the House, who have addressed the committee within the last two days, have spoken rather complainingly, if I have rightly understood them, of the vote given a week or ten days ago, declaring that the war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President[James K Polk]. I admit that such a vote should not be given, in mere party wantonness, and that the one given, is justly censurable, if it have no other, or better foundation. I am one of those who joined in that vote; and I did so under my best impression of the truth of the case. How I got this impression, and how it may possibly be removed, I will now try to show. When the war began, it was my opinion that all those who, because of knowing too little, or because of knowing too much, could not conscientiously approve the conduct of the President, in the beginning of it, should, nevertheless, as good citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at least till the war should be ended. Some leading democrats, including Ex President Van Buren, have taken this same view, as I understand them; and I adhered to it, and acted upon it, until since I took my seat here; and I think I should still adhere to it, were it not that the President and his friends will not allow it to be so. Besides the continual effort of the President to argue every silent vote given for supplies, into an endorsement of the justice and wisdom of his conduct—besides that singularly candid paragraph, in his late message in which he tells us that Congress, with great unanimity, only two in the Senate and fourteen in the House dissenting, had declared that, “by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that Government and the United States,” when the same journals that informed him of this, also informed him, that when that declaration stood disconnected from the question of supplies, sixty-seven in the House, and not fourteen merely, voted against it—besides this open attempt to prove, by telling the truth, what he could not prove by telling the whole truth—demanding of all who will not submit to be misrepresented, in justice to themselves, to speak out—besides all this, one of my colleagues (Mr. Richardson) at a very early day in the session brought in a set of resolutions, expressly endorsing the original justice of the war on the part of the President. Upon these resolutions, when they shall be put on their passage I shall be compelled to vote; so that I can not be silent, if I would. Seeing this, I went about preparing myself to give the vote understandingly when it should come. I carefully examined the President’s messages, to ascertain what he himself had said and proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make the impression, that taking for true, all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof, if it had not been for the small matter, that the truth would not permit him. […]
…The war has gone on some twenty months; for the expenses of which, together with an inconsiderable old score, the President now claims about one half of the Mexican territory; and that, by far the better half, so far as concerns our ability to make any thing out of it. It is comparatively uninhabited; so that we could establish land offices in it, and raise some money in that way. But the other half is already inhabited, as I understand it, tolerably densely for the nature of the country; and all it’s lands, or all that are valuable, already appropriated as private property. How then are we to make any thing out of these lands with this encumbrance on them? or how, remove the encumbrance? I suppose no one will say we should kill the people, or drive them out, or make slaves of them, or even confiscate their property. How then can we make much out of this part of the territory? If the prosecution of the war has, in expenses, already equaled the better half of the country, how long it’s future prosecution, will be in equaling, the less valuable half, is not a speculative, but a practical question, pressing closely upon us. And yet it is a question which the President seems to never have thought of. As to the mode of terminating the war, and securing peace, the President is equally wandering and indefinite. First, it is to be done by a more vigorous prosecution of the war in the vital parts of the enemies country; and, after apparently, talking himself tired, on this point, the President drops down into a half despairing tone, and tells us that “with a people distracted and divided by contending factions, and a government subject to constant changes, by successive revolutions, the continued success of our arms may fail to secure a satisfactory peace[.]” Then he suggests the propriety of wheedling the Mexican people to desert the counsels of their own leaders, and trusting in our protection, to set up a government from which we can secure a satisfactory peace; telling us, that “this may become the only mode of obtaining such a peace.” But soon he falls into doubt of this too; and then drops back on to the already half abandoned ground of “more vigorous prosecution.[“] All this shows that the President is, in no wise, satisfied with his own positions. First he takes up one, and in attempting to argue us into it, he argues himself out of it; then seizes another, and goes through the same process; and then, confused at being able to think of nothing new, he snatches up the old one again, which he has some time before cast off. His mind, tasked beyond it’s power, is running hither and thither, like some tortured creature, on a burning surface, finding no position, on which it can settle down, and be at ease.
Again, it is a singular omission in this message, that it, no where intimates when the President expects the war to terminate. (emphasis added)
Yes, that’s right. The real Lincoln, when in Congress, voted to end the Mexican-American War, and spoke out regarding the reasons for his opposition to that war on the floor of the House of Representatives, in open debate. He even made mention of those who argued that he and others anti-war Congressmen should remain silent during the duration of the war, out of a patriotic duty owed as “good citizens” before listing reason after reason why he could not remain silent any longer. His reasoning parallels many of the same arguments that we hear from Iraq war opponents today. Let me paraphrase them for you:
1. That the President misled the country into war with Mexico.
2. That the silence of the anti-war faction, and their votes to fund the troops in Mexico, were used by the President and his supporters to falsely claim that the vast majority of Congress supported the war.
3. That the President refused to set a date by which the war would end.
4. That the war might result in the death of the current inhabitants of the territory to be appropriated by the United States, and/or the destruction/unlawful taking of their property (That’s right: he argued against the war based on what might happen to people who weren’t US citizens!)
5. That the President had no real strategy to end the war.
My god man! Based on this speech, Lincoln was clearly a traitor! I’m amazed he wasn’t hogtied on the spot, taken out and lynched by President Polk’s supporters from the nearest tree! I’m even more astounded that he was elected President of these United States only 12 years later despite his clear record as an America Hater. What a country, eh?
But seriously, next time you get the urge, Mr. Frank Gaffney, to play fast and loose with historical quotations by Great Men from America’ Legendary Past, in order to accuse opponents of President Bush’s wars of treasonous behavior — Don’t. Because, as with the case of Abraham Lincoln, the truth just might bite you in the [expletive deleted in the interest of promoting civility, balh, blah, blah].