pudge's Journal: MLK Revisited: Not to Dwell On This, But ...

As heard last night on PBS NewsHour, from one of the designers of the MLK memorial they're building on the mall in Washington DC:

BONNIE FISHER, Roma Design Group: Well, if you look at the memorial as a whole and its location on the mall, you referred a little bit earlier to its relationship to the Jefferson, which is across the way on the Tidal Basin, and the Lincoln Memorial, which is very close by, if you were to draw a line between the Jefferson and the Lincoln Memorial, that line goes right through the new site for the Dr. King Memorial.

We tried to build on that axial linkage and express it in the entry experience so that one realizes that Dr. King is one of the most important democratic leaders of modern times, in equal footing to Jefferson, who was the author of the Declaration of Independence, and to Lincoln with his Gettysburg Address.

Um ... no?

OK, now I am more opposed to this thing than ever. MLK did and said some great things, but he is not on equal footing with Lincoln, let alone freaking Jefferson. Not even close.

Lincoln is overhyped too.

[JesseL]

First let me say that slavery was a disgusting and abominable institution that I would never defend in any form.

Lincoln gets way too much credit these days for some actions that were rarely motivated by anything more noble than his desire to build the power of the federal government. He enslaved (through conscription) thousand of Americans and send them to their deaths. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to slaves in the Union and was primarily intended as a tactic to strike at the Confederacy by encouraging slave revolts. He killed the notion of state's rights. He started the snowball of federal bureaucracy.

Re:

[pudge]

Lincoln gets way too much credit these days for some actions that were rarely motivated by anything more noble than his desire to build the power of the federal government.

I agree, if you change "build" to "maintain." He did build the power of the federal government, but his primary goal was the preservation of the Union, and he believed the government already had the authority to do that, by force.

He enslaved (through conscription) thousand of Americans and send them to their deaths. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply to slaves in the Union and was primarily intended as a tactic to strike at the Confederacy by encouraging slave revolts.

How many slaves were in the Union at that time? Hardly any, I'd wager. Also, Lincoln had always wanted to abolish slavery, but refused to do so at risk of (here it is again!) losing the Union. At this point, the Union was already "lost" so there was no point in holding back a

Re:

[eglamkowski]

I like to say that Lincoln was the end of the beginning. FDR was the beginning of the end. When it comes to state's rights and accumulation of federal power, that is.

Re:

[pudge]

If you mean to imply under Lincoln we started giving the federal government too much power, I disagree. Also, Wilson was, IMO, the beginning of the end. Even FDR credits Wilson (and both, Bryan) for the ideas behind the New Deal.

Re:

[jdavidb]

I'm curious if you've read Thomas diLorenzo's The Real Lincoln or not.

Re:

[pudge]

I'm curious if you've read Thomas diLorenzo's The Real Lincoln or not.

No, but as you and I disagree on whether states have the right of secession, I can imagine you would disagree with me on whether Lincoln exercised too much federal power.

Re:

[jdavidb]

Well, I haven't read diLorenzo yet, so I was curious if you had a take on it. :)

And leaving aside the issue of secession, even with disagreement on that subject we might still both hold the opinion that Lincoln exercised too much power. For example, you might think, "States did not have the right to secede, and it was important to prevent that from occurring, so therefore everything Lincoln did is appropriate," or you might instead think, "States did not have the right to secede, but Lincoln broke the la

Re:

[pudge]

For example, you might think, "States did not have the right to secede, and it was important to prevent that from occurring, so therefore everything Lincoln did is appropriate," or you might instead think, "States did not have the right to secede, but Lincoln broke the law in order to prevent it, so he exercised too much federal power."

I don't know how anyone could think the latter. If the States have no right to secede, Lincoln is justified in using the force of the federal government to prevent it. Otherwise there is no way to prevent secession, should a State decide to do it.

Basically I think the question of whether or not Lincoln exercised "too much" power (and we could even question how to judge "too much": things not authorized in the Constitution, things not moral according to some ethical standard, things not practical, etc.)

The Constitution is all that matters. Nothing else defines what is too much power.

Re:

[baldass_newbie]

I like to say that Lincoln was the end of the beginning. FDR was the beginning of the end. When it comes to state's rights and accumulation of federal power, that is.

Some folks trace it back to Hamilton and the Whiskey Rebellion [wikipedia.org]. Think about it...a Federal army was raised to put down an anti-tax rebellion in one state.

I find it curious that someone would associate MLK with a Southern States' Rights advocate who, by virtue of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions [wikipedia.org], gave pretext for the Civil War. Ironic als

Re:

[pudge]

I like to say that Lincoln was the end of the beginning. FDR was the beginning of the end. When it comes to state's rights and accumulation of federal power, that is.

Some folks trace it back to Hamilton and the Whiskey Rebellion [wikipedia.org].

Yes, I thought you might say that. :-) Have you read The Probability Broach [bigheadpress.com]? A little bit nutty, but interesting.

Re:

[baldass_newbie]

I'll have to check it out.
Thanks.

Re:

[Jhon]

[1] I know they were two different 'Republican' parties, but still they both used the same appelation.

I don't know what you mean by "appelation".

Also, the "Democratic-Republican Party" which was founded by Jefferson became the Democratic party. It's more accurate to call him a Democrat than a Republican.

Lincoln was Republican. Very different ideologies.

Hardly any slaves?

[GMontag]

How many slaves were in the Union at that time? Hardly any, I'd wager.

There were plenty enough to prompt exclusion from emancipation in the 'Emancipation' proclaimation. Also plenty enough to prompt orders from the President to rescend the freeing of slaves, by Union Generals, in areas that were exempted by said proclaimation.

Oh, as far as that reperations business goes, google "Emancipation Day DC" or look it up on thomas.loc.gov and you can see where reperations were already paid, in 1862.

Let's skip the

Re:

[pudge]

How many slaves were in the Union at that time? Hardly any, I'd wager.

There were plenty enough to prompt exclusion from emancipation in the 'Emancipation' proclaimation.

But remember, the proclamation had to be narrowly tailored to fit into Lincoln's war powers, so he likely felt that he didn't have the legal authority to free non-Southern slaves. So that's no argument.

Let's skip the nonsense of Lincoln thinking that freeing Union slaves was illegal as legality certainly did not apply to his treatment of editors, writers, newspaper owners or to his suspension of habeas corpus.

Are you saying his suspension of habeas corpus was illegal? It wasn't. And again, no, if you look at the history of the Emancipation Proclamation, how it came about, he most certainly did fit it into his understanding of what was legal (which is much broader than what liberals today seem to think is lega