The Inevitable Lincoln/Darwin/D-Day Post

Lots of hubbub today over birthdays. As fate would have it, 164 years after Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born on the same day, I came into being. If you simply MUST make me pair all three together, well, fine, I will, but I take no pleasure in it.

We do a disservice to these great men by following the accident of history and drawing too many parallels, but certainly neither was afraid of the occasional truth in a world all too burdened with falsehood. Darwin had the courage to follow facts instead of dogma and set a path for evolutionary biology that is as wondrous as it is grounded in science. As he said in the final line of On The Origin Of Species:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

As for Lincoln, I've often praised him for his political foresight, his acknowledgment of the realities of a house divided, and his work to save the union. Here's President Barack Obama today.

Obama pointed out that the men building the Capitol wondered whether each workday would be their last, fearing that the metal they were using in the construction would be requisitioned for use in the war. "When President Lincoln was finally told of all the metal being used here, his response was short and clear: 'That is as it should be,' " he said. "The American people needed to be reminded, he believed, that even in a time of war, the work would go on; that even when the nation itself was in doubt, its future was being secured; and that on that distant day, when the guns fell silent, a national Capitol would stand, with a statue of freedom at its peak, as a symbol of unity in a land still mending its divisions."

Which is nice and all, but I prefer Cooper Union, cutting through the rhetoric of his opposition and speaking the truth of how they seek only to have everyone be placed "avowedly with them," and how "They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying." It is truth that binds these two.

And truth that imperils them. The Gallup poll showing that only 39% of Americans believe in evolution is very dangerous, not just for our future as a competitive nation educationally and economically, but dangerous to the idea of rationality, which those who believe in must protect with an eternal vigilance. It is ignorance - ignorance of history, ignorance of facts, ignorance of reality, whether by design or by accident - that has brought us to the crisis where we now find ourselves, both domestically and abroad. There will always be those who counter thought with the need to believe - and hey, if anyone wants to pick up a quick 6 trillion dollars, talk to the Islamic creationist in that article who's offering that sum for anyone who shows him a fossil proving evolution - and there must always be those who lighten those dark corners with reason before it envelops. In many ways, that's a core purpose of the progressive blogosphere - aha, I knew I could find the connection somewhere!!!

I say all that to say this - the Library of Congress has released several never-before-scanned photos of Lincoln onto their Flickr page, including this slick one showing Lincoln with the Johnny Cash look:



In solidarity, I am not wearing my hair the same way today. But I appreciate Abe and Charles' contributions ... especially because otherwise, the next most-famous celeb on this birthdate is Lorne Greene.

Beware of Histo-tainment

I'm very glad that Matthew Pinsker penned this op-ed today taking a more critical look at Doris Kearns Goodwin's pop pseudo-history "Team Of Rivals". As a yarn, I hear the book is quite good, but as a piece of history it's not exactly true to the source. And since it's become accepted wisdom among the DC chattering class and the politicians they influence, that's a serious problem.

There were painful trade-offs with the "team of rivals" approach that are never fully addressed in the book, or by others that offer happy-sounding descriptions of the Lincoln presidency.

Lincoln's decision to embrace former rivals, for instance, inevitably meant ignoring old friends -- a development they took badly. "We made Abe and, by God, we can unmake him," complained Chicago Tribune Managing Editor Joseph Medill in 1861. Especially during 1861 and 1862, the first two years of Lincoln's initially troubled administration, friends growled over his ingratitude as former rivals continued to play out their old political feuds [...]

By December 1862, there was a full-blown Cabinet crisis.

"We are now on the brink of destruction," Lincoln confided to a close friend after being deluged with congressional criticism and confronted by resignations from both Seward and Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase. Goodwin suggests that Lincoln's quiet confidence and impressive emotional intelligence enabled him to survive and ultimately forge an effective team out of his former rivals, but that's more wishful thinking than serious analysis.

Consider this inconvenient truth: Out of the four leading vote-getters for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination whom Lincoln placed on his original team, three left during his first term -- one in disgrace, one in defiance and one in disgust.

The Village has more of a sense of bumper stickers than history, and Goodwin, whose scholarship is not exactly spotless, is a Villager in good standing, so this will probably pass through the Beltway without comment. But I hope someone in the office of the President-elect is paying attention. Pinsker doesn't even tackle the false equivalence between the Civil War and our day - the real rivals were seceding from the Union and massing an Army at the time. This was a moment that called for unity between anyone who wasn't a Confederate, necessitating Lincoln's choice - and it STILL DIDN'T WORK VERY WELL.

That is not to say that any of these rivals potentially in Obama's cabinet would create similar controversy. And I'm not talking about Hillary Clinton in this context - her political future would rise and fall on her ability to carry off positive results, and if she made peace in the Middle East her signature goal, the consequences would be very beneficial. But if you want to broaden out the analogy, is there that big a difference between the Republicans and the Confederates? I mean, this is really what Obama is talking about, even exploring, that ought to have you worried. Is it that wise to put people in the Cabinet who want us to be avowedly with them," as Lincoln put it?

Maybe the traditional media shouldn't keep parroting this concept when its application was actually flawed? Or is that the point, a back-door way to imprint bipartisan leadership on the new Administration?

Testing The Young President

A day after the Iraqi Cabinet approved a withdrawal agreement that would remove US forces entirely from the country by the end of 2011, the White House is trying to snooker the press by saying that they agreed only to "aspirational dates." There is nothing aspirational about this agreement. It is a firm deadline for withdrawal that wouldn't even allow for residual forces in the country.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is out there today claiming that no we can't leave on this kind of schedule. This is just the beginning of the pushbacks that we can expect to see from the military as we move into a new Administration.

The U.S. military would require two to three years to remove its roughly 150,000 troops and equipment from Iraq safely, and the timing of that withdrawal should be based on security conditions on the ground, the nation's top military officer said today.

"To remove the entire force would be, you know, two to three years," Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at a Pentagon news conference.

While Mullen said that he and the top commanders for Iraq and the region, Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Ray Odierno, were "comfortable" with the status of forces agreement signed with Iraq today, he described some logistical hurdles to a U.S. troop withdrawal along a fixed timeline.

"We have 150,000 troops in Iraq right now. We have lots of bases. We have an awful lot of equipment that's there. And so we would have to look at all of that tied to, obviously, the conditions that are there, literally the security conditions," he said.

"Clearly, we'd want to be able to do it safely."

This isn't some option thrown out at a briefing. This is a signed agreement between the US and Iraq that has very strict demands on withdrawal. Mullen is treating it like some war game scenario that he doesn't like. And he wants a word with Obama.

Mullen emphasized that he still believes any U.S. troop reductions should be based on the levels of violence in Iraq - a position that runs counter to the official Iraqi stance.

Anticipating possible policy shifts on Iraq under the Obama administration, Mullen indicated the Joint Staff was planning for a range of options. "We're always taking into consideration plans based on what we understand possibilities might be," he said.

"President-elect Obama has also said is that he would seek the counsel of myself and the Joint Chiefs before he made any decisions. And so I look forward to that discussion, look forward to the engagement," he said.

This lays the groundwork to undermine the agreement, and to push the President-elect in that effort. And by the way, the most likely outcome of this is to erode support in the Iraqi Parliament, which only trusts the US as an honest broker because of the presence of Obama. If the agreement is vacated there will be a very early showdown between militia and the occupying forces, which could prove deadly for US troops and embarrassing to the incoming President.

They have a word for this, I believe - sabotage. And this isn't the only area of military/national security issues where we might see something similar. While Obama and the military may be able to salvage a productive working relationship, we have examples like the Air Force general who is already pushing Obama on the missile defense boondoggle:

The Air Force general who runs the Pentagon's missile defense projects said that American interests would be "severely hurt" if President-elect Obama decided to halt plans developed by the Bush administration to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe.

Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, told a group of reporters Wednesday that he is awaiting word from Obama's transition team on their interest in receiving briefings [...]

"What we have discovered is that a lot of the folks that have not been in this administration seem to be dated, in terms of the program," he said. "They are kind of calibrated back in the 2000 time frame and we have come a hell of a long way since 2000. Our primary objective is going to be just, frankly, educating them on what we have accomplished, what we have been able to do and why we have confidence in what we are doing."

Note the framing in terms of how American interests will be "severely hurt" if the incoming President, who's totally ignorant about us big boys and our big toys, by the way, cancels this program. Indeed, the contractors and the military-industrial complex are already gearing up to push back hard if one dime of military spending is cut.

The uniformed services are trying to lock in the next administration by creating a political cost for holding the line on defense spending. Conservative groups are hoping to ramp up defense spending as a tool to limit options for a Democratic Congress and president to pass new, and potentially costly, social programs, including health care reform.

They also like the idea of creating an unrealistically high baseline of expectations for defense spending that will allow them to claim President Obama has cut defense spending.

Let us be clear: There is no indication that the president-elect intends to cut defense spending, and indeed, during his campaign he promised to increase the size of the ground forces, which makes an increase in spending almost inevitable. As with any transition, there will be some adjustments to specific programs, but cutting individual weapon systems is not and has never been synonymous with cutting spending overall.

There are so many things wrong with this emerging process that it is hard to address the issue concisely. Promoting overspending on defense in order to forestall popular social spending is undemocratic - it creates a false tension between national security and other public policy goals.

The informal alliance between the services and conservative think tanks threatens to further politicize the military. The abuse of national security arguments to win political arguments is both morally suspect and threatens the security of the nation by delinking strategic assessment from public policy.

And now there's this Mullen incident, which is very reminiscent of how the JCS rolled Clinton in 1993 on the subject of gays in the military.

In yesterday's 60 Minutes interview, which had a lot of positive signs in it (including Obama's desire to keep moving forward on a new energy economy despite falling oil prices, to dismiss neo-Hooverist griping about deficit spending and instead use government to stimulate the economy, to overhaul the auto industry, and more), Obama was clear that he would have his national security team execute a drawdown policy in Iraq as soon as he entered office. Mullen is already laying down the marker that he disagrees. This tension will also spill over to the intelligence community. One of the brightest moments in the interview was this exchange:

Kroft: There are a number of different things that you could do early pertaining to executive orders. One of them is to shutdown Guantanamo Bay. Another is to change interrogation methods that are used by U.S. troops. Are those things that you plan to take early action on?

Mr. Obama: Yes. I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world.

That is excellent news, and yet there's still the matter of implementation, and without new leadership at the top, expect similar Admiral Mullen-like scenarios as Obama attempts to climb out of the muck of the Bush Administration.

"I am confident President-elect Obama understands the need for new leadership of the intelligence community and will appoint competent, capable people who will work aggressively to ensure the safety and security of Americans without undermining our laws and Constitution," Feingold said in the statement.

"For eight years, the current Administration has shown contempt for the rule of law, including in intelligence-related matters, while repeatedly refusing to work cooperatively with Congress. At the same time, the Administration has failed to develop comprehensive strategies to protect our nation against our most immediate threat, al Qaeda and its affiliates. New leadership is needed to move our intelligence policies in the right direction," Feingold's statement concludes.

It's quite something when you see a headline like Democratic Pressure on Obama to Restore the Rule of Law. But this is not totally about Obama's instincts by themselves, but the need to fight against and, in some cases, clear out those who may have more loyalty to the status quo than following the orders of their new chief executive. This has historically been an issue for Democratic Presidents in the modern age, and in this incoming Administration it will be no different. If Obama thinks he can just use his own personality - or force of character - to stop the challenges from inside his own government, I wouldn't call him naive, but let's say he'd be shouldering a heavy burden. One that he plans to make heavier by seeding the government with even more Republicans at every level.

This is something that Obama needs to think about, IMO. A "Team of Rivals" government is a nice theory on paper, but Lincoln's era was quite different - the real "rivals" split off and formed their own government and seceded from the Union, and Lincoln's political foes were kind of thrown together by circumstance. Obama is doing this by choice, and he had better be prepared to be undermined at the highest levels. In many respects, it's already happening.

Happy Shift Into Middle Age To Me

I guess I should mention that you are now reading a blog by an author who is part of a new demographic group. Yesterday I was 18-34. Today I'm 35-49. The site is now more adult contemporary, more interested in Dave Koz and smooth jazz, needing more time to stretch before a morning run.

Making you older for reading this, too.

Could be worse, I could be exactly 164 years older and be Abe Lincoln.

Your Liberal Media

There were 3 stories on the House debate in the LA Times today, two SPECIFICALLY about the debate itself (here and here) and what various Congressmen said. Don Young's bogus Abraham Lincoln pro-hanging quote didn't rate a mention.

Yet Amanda Marcotte said mean angry things on the Internets and that gets splashed across the front page.

The other Times article even had this passage.

During the House debate, 392 of the chamber's 434 current members spoke. Many of the lawmakers sprinkled their speeches with quotations from President Lincoln, Napoleon and other historic figures.

...without saying that the Lincoln quote was bogus and the utterer of that quote called for the hanging of 246 members of Congress.

Pathetic. I'll be sending a letter.

The Answer Is Ignorant

Yesterday I wondered if Don Young was either stupid or ignorant when he read a quote on the House floor attributed to Abraham Lincoln that was completely fabricated. I have my answer.

This morning, Young’s spokeswoman Meredith Kenny told ThinkProgress repeatedly that Young does not plan to take any action to correct the record or clarify his House statement.

Kenny said that Young had learned of the quote from Tuesday’s Washington Times op-ed by Frank Gaffney, and noted that the Times has not yet issued a correction or retraction. Kenny said she “couldn’t confirm or deny” that Young would correct his statement even if the Times published a correction.

Kenny added that Young didn’t literally mean that those supporting the Iraq resolution should be “hanged,” merely that they should not be “undermining the morale of our military.”

Ignorant, and worse yet, willfully ignorant, knowing full well that the quote is fake but choosing not to fix it until the source where he read it does the same.

The postscript, where Young benevolently suggests that he isn't actually calling for the hanging of 250 US Congressmen, is charming. Nice to know that my represenative in Congress will be allowed to live for one more day as long as he watches his step.

Stupid or Ignorant?

This is a question I often have about Republicans. Ignorant I can deal with, ignorant is treatable through knowledge. Stupid, I got nothing.

A case in point: just now on the House floor, Don Young used the same bogus Lincoln quote that was thoroughly debunked on the Internet after showing up on the front page of the Washington Times. Lincoln never called for the hanging of Congressmen, and even the author who attributed the quote to him has admitted that.

And yet, Young still used the quote.

Does he KNOW that it's completely fabricated, but it sounds good in the mouth of someone of Lincoln's stature, or did he see it on the front page of the Moonie Times and assume it was true and never bother to check any further? Which is it? Like I said, I think ignorance is the better option.

Lincoln Is Pro-Hanging

Once again, the right is attempting to appropriate our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln, for themselves. This time, they've wholesale made up a quote and attributed it to him, one that is ludicrous on its face:

“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

Conservatives retyped the quote uncritically after it appeared in the Washington Times this week, even though it's a total fabrication.

In that spirit, I would like to resurrect this Lincoln quote from the Second Inaugural:

"We must not waver, must not falter, until the nation's Social Security system is in the hands of private money managers who will impart their wisdom on the retirement funds of our elderly."

Sure, you can SAY that the Social Security system didn't start until the 1930s, but can you PROVE he didn't say this? Can you?

Abraham Lincoln - Feb. 12, 1809

Potrait of the President as a Young Man

Today is Abraham Lincoln's birthday, and it's also mine, and due to this historical coincidence I've always been interested in his Presidency and his leadership. These days, people on all sides of the political spectrum throw around Lincoln's name and try to take his mantle as their own, from Barack Obama ("But the life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible. He tells us that there is power in words. He tells us that there is power in conviction. That beneath all the differences of race and region, faith and station, we are one people. He tells us that there is power in hope.") to Rudy Giuliani, who had the gall to compare Bush to Lincoln this weekend:

The former New York City mayor came to Bush's defense as he promoted his White House candidacy at a California Republican convention. Drawing parallels between Iraq and America's Civil War, Giuliani compared Bush's political troubles to Abraham Lincoln's. When the Civil War was unpopular, Giuliani said, Lincoln "kept his eye ahead."

"He was able to say, 'I know my people are frustrated, and I know my people are angry at me.' " But after weighing public opinion, Lincoln had "that ability that a leader has — a leader like George Bush, a leader like Ronald Reagan — to look into the future," Giuliani said.

Lincoln's name is now a shibboleth that Presidents and aspiring Presidents attach to themselves when they want to prove to the nation that they would make a great leader. There's very little historical accuracy in these attempts, and it's important to get a clear picture of who Lincoln was, why he became President, and what he stood for.

I'm not going to be able to do all that in one blog post. But it's important to rebut this Republican revised image of Lincoln as a warrior king who showed no mercy to his enemies and dismissed his critics. Riiiight, let's conveniently forget that Lincoln spoke out at great political cost against James Polk's Mexican War. Let's forget that Lincoln, a neophyte in matters of war upon reaching the White House, actually took the time to learn military history and made himself a top strategist. Let's forget that he brought many of his fiercest critics into his war cabinet.

And let's not forget that he was profoundly saddened by the need to pit brother against brother in a civil war. From the second inaugural (h/t Yglesias):

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Abraham Lincoln's primary concern was ridding the nation of the terrible and untenable burden of slavery, which divided this house of America against itself. He was unafraid to show the difference between those who would perpetuate slavery and those who would stand against it. And he drew back on history for his seminal Cooper Union speech, investigating the views of the original Founders in logical fashion, showing that a majority of them opposed the introduction of slavery into Federal territories. But this was a rhetorical device. In the most important parts of the Cooper Union speech, he spoke against intolerance, from those Southerners who hated him more than any candidate before or since. And in these phrases, these paragraphs, I think you can plainly see the allusion to the present day. Lincoln was unafraid to call things what they were, and to present it as folly.

And now, if they would listen - as I suppose they will not - I would address a few words to the Southern people.

I would say to them: - You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite - license, so to speak - among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify [...]

When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication.

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events [...]

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us [...]

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

Abraham Lincoln, by refusing to budge or be silenced, by speaking his truth and trusting in the rightness of his beliefs, actually saved American democracy, and those who today would subvert American democracy are misappropriating his legacy for their own nefarious ends.

As Lincoln came to the helm, the very concept of democratic government was in peril. At Gettysburg he spoke immortal words of a "high resolve" that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." These words are seen by many as a rhetorical flourish, but there is a deeper truth to them than most suppose. As Francis Lieber – one of the handful of European ex-revolutionaries who gathered around Lincoln - noted, this planet possessed a sole democracy that merited the name, and that was the United States. True, Europe had its enlightened monarchies, and in Switzerland there was a colorable democracy – but only one significant nation stood for freedom and a genuine democratic franchise, and that was the United States. Moreover, the challenge raised by the South was a mortal one, not only to the Union, but also to its most fundamental values, starting with human dignity, namely recognizing the humanity of those whom the Constitution shamefully called 3/5 persons. Lincoln's success in upholding the Union reinvigorated the notion of democracy, and must be attached to its resurgence globally in the second half of the 19th century. Lincoln thus rekindled a torch that had faltered soon after the revolution.

In the last six years, the noble legacy of America's greatest president has been used shamefully by the advocates of the new politics of American Empire. These folks have no real affection for Lincoln. Following the Straussian program, they seek to recraft American history and the legacy of American leaders to fit their own agenda. Hence, they have crafted a vision of a dark new Lincoln, a man intoxicated by the power of his office, who swept aside civil liberties and took great liberties with the Constitution in the exercise of his war powers. In sum, they have captured, and sought to glamorize, what may be the darkest and most doubtful elements of an indisputably great man. In truth there are many unsettling things that were done with a sense of urgent necessity in the course of the Civil War; things which seem difficult to reconcile with the vision of the man from Springfield. But it's plain first that the necessity claimed was legitimate and second that Lincoln was not happy in doing these things, that he did not seek to craft some new imperial order. Moreover, the hallmark of Lincoln's contribution to this war effort was a vision of humanity and justice, a repudiation of cruelty, and a denunciation of the use of military necessity as a doctrinal justification for excesses (all of which repose in his General Order No. 100 of April 23, 1863, the seminal document of international humanitarian law).

It is an accident of history that America's greatest, most peace-loving President presided over its bloodiest war. He was placed into uncertain times and was forced into a lot of uncomfortable judgments. But he was committed in his belief to repair this nation and set it on the right path. Hemmed in by a group of intolerant foes who would destroy the Republic to keep slaves in their fields, Lincoln did not equivocate or back down. And he taught us all a valuable lesson that served the Democratic Party well in 2006 and will continue to do so if they heed it.