Lincoln's First Inaugural Speech In 1861

Yes, I realize there is a presidential campaign going on today that is supposedly a grand epic contest. However, I continue to be engrossed in reading the archives recently provided to subscribers of the New York Times. As noted in my previous post, the New York Times has made available to their subscribers online access to articles dating back to 1851. Below is an excerpt from their March 4th, 1861 edition reporting about Abraham Lincoln's upcoming inaugural speech.

"The Inaugural will be found to treat the political crisis in a very positive, matter-of-fact manner. While the President will endeavor to conciliate the Slave States by the most positive assurances of the honesty and firmness of purpose of his Administration, he will in no manner evade the issue nor blink his policy.

He will in insist on the preservation of the Government in all its integrity. So decided is he in this connection that some of his friends have attempted to persuade him to tone it down. He replied that he had canvassed the subject throughly, and had matured his policy in accordance with his best judgment. The bold frankness of the document, which, by the way, is briefer than would be expected, will challenge the respect and confidence of the South, as well as the admiration of the North.

Mr. Lincoln stated this evening that the inaugural could not be printed, as some points might require modifying or extending, according to the action of the Senate tonight. His son is now writing copies of what is finished, one of which will be given to the Associated Press when he commences reading it.

Mr. Lincoln says nobody is authorized to speak for him as to the station assigned members of his Cabinet. He has not and will not give any one data on the subject."

Click here (subscription required) to read the entire article in PDF format. The article referenced how President Lincoln sent for Senator Seward, his former rival and future Secretary of State, who reviewed the speech and made suggestions.

How humorous to read about Lincoln's son drafting copies and only providing one draft for the Associated Press. Hardly the rapid news cycle we've become so accustomed to. It's also especially haunting to read this article knowing the bloody turmoil ahead. The gathering storm is certainly present in the excerpt above. Also referenced in the article was how a gentleman traveled incognito to Washington to present his credentials as Ambassador of the Southern Confederacy. And yet the tone of this article has a curious detachment from the metastasizing crisis that became the Civil War.

Assuming our planet and civilization survives, I wonder if 100 years from now people will review coverage of our current presidential campaign and find the emphasis oddly detached from reality. Global warming, predatory capitalism run amok and civilization itself in peril. A century from now will someone review the media's 2008 emphasis on celebrity hype and shallow symbolism and wonder how we could have been so detached from the perils confronting us?

Whatever. I just hope Barack Obama starts wearing flag pins and learns to bowl.

February 13th, 1861

My apologies for not posting in several days. Tomorrow, I'm taking an exam important to my profession and have used my spare time for studying. During study breaks I've indulged myself with the New York Times online archives. Sadly, the corporatist sensibilities that regulate so much of the media today also heavily influences the New York Times.

Nevertheless, one benefit to maintaining a subscription is free online access to their historical archives. Previously, subscribers could only access those archives dating back to 1980. However, in recent days the New York Times have made available online archives dating back to 1851! Below is an excerpt from their February 13th, 1861 coverage of the U.S. Congress officially certifying Abraham Lincoln's election as President by the Electoral College:

"The scene in the House was very impressive. Thousands of people were present filling every available spot. As many more left, being quite unable to reach the galleries. The arrangements for keeping the peace at the Capitol, and avoiding obstruction of the passage from one House to the other were perfect.

When the Senate entered the Hall of the House of Representatives, Vice-President Breckinridge took a seat with the speaker, and assumed the Chair. Senators Seward, Douglas and Lane occupied the centre seats of the front front row of Senators. From the moment the Senators took their seat and throughout the proceedings, the audience looked on with almost breathless interest and silence, appreciating fully the grave solemnity of the occasion, and the decorum belonging thereto. There were no manifestations of applause, disapprobation or uneasiness in the audience, and when the Vice-President had announced the result, and that Lincoln and Hamlin were elected, the vast audience, satisfied that the interesting event was consummated in peace arose silently and withdrew in an orderly manner from the chamber. Vice-President Breckinridge bore himself in the proceedings with marked dignity and courtesy."

The scene described in 1861 reads rather anti-climatic considering all the tumult to soon follow with the Civil War, Lincoln's assassination and Reconstruction. I would gladly copy and past the entire article for all of you but copyright law doesn't permit me. If you're a subscriber click here to read it all in PDF format. The article also contains other interesting dispatches nationwide including a Supreme Court case in which Kansas sought compensations for losses sustained during a pro-slavery demonstration.

To this point I'm especially engrossed by the Times coverage of Abraham Lincoln, slavery, the Abolitionist movement and the Civil War. Reading coverage from that period reinforces how far we've come. Indeed, Barack Obama is the likely nominee of the Democratic Party. And yet as the recent verdict in my home state regarding the Sean Bell shooting illustrates, we haven't come far enough.

Purgatory For Alan Greenspan

Alan Greenspan belongs to the Club of Emasculated Moderate Elites who enabled corporate theocrats to destroy the American Dream at home and annihilate our moral authority abroad. A prerequisite for membership is to first allow crazy ideologues to exploit their prestige and later disown the disastrous policies their reputations facilitated. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is a charter member of this club and a pathetic figure who criticizes the Bush Administration about Iraq when it no longer matters. Powell’s domestic policy soul mate, Alan Greenspan, joined him with his new memoir, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures In a New World.

Actually, one could argue that Greenspan was a charter member as early as 2001. The prescient and sagacious Paul Krugman wrote the following for his column entitled “Reckonings; Doing the Wrong Thing” on February 14, 2001:

“Three weeks ago Alan Greenspan, in his now-famous testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, gave decisive aid and comfort to the advocates of huge, irresponsible tax cuts. Rumor has it that Mr. Greenspan himself was taken aback by the feeding frenzy unleashed by that testimony, and that he is now engaged in a backdoor campaign to limit the damage. (Damage to the nation, or to himself? Good question.) The Medley Report, a newsletter on economic affairs, says that ‘many Congressional Democrats have heard Mr. Greenspan -- or his aides -- tell them that he actually favors something like $1 trillion in total tax cuts rather than $1.6 trillion.’

But if those rumors are true, Mr. Greenspan's performance yesterday, in his first official testimony since he let the genie out of the bottle, was a profile in cowardice. Again and again he was offered the opportunity to say something that would help rein in runaway tax-cutting; each time he evaded the question, often replying by reading from his own previous testimony. He declared once again that he was speaking only for himself, thus granting himself leeway to pronounce on subjects far afield of his role as Federal Reserve chairman. But when pressed on the crucial question of whether the huge tax cuts that now seem inevitable are too large, he said it was inappropriate for him to comment on particular proposals.

In short, Mr. Greenspan defined the rules of the game in a way that allows him to intervene as he likes in the political debate, but to retreat behind the veil of his office whenever anyone tries to hold him accountable for the results of those interventions.”

The upshot is that Greenspan’s reputation in 2001 was at stratospheric levels following eight years of prosperity under President Clinton. It was a flawed prosperity to be sure, aided by the Internet bubble and trade policies that rewarded corporate elites at the expense of too many working people. Nevertheless, the fiscal management of the country was far superior under President Clinton and most were better off than they are today. Greenspan and Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin were regarded as the architects of an economic renaissance.

As Krugman illustrated in his column over six years ago, Greenspan allowed the tax cutting privatization fundamentalists to exploit his reputation so wayward congressional moderates would go along. And when he had the chance to correct the record and prevent the fiscal insanity to follow, he choked. As Krugman put it in that column’s final paragraph:

“Mr. Greenspan faced a test of character yesterday. He didn't have to admit to a mistake; to do the right thing, all he had to do was ‘clarify' his previous remarks. Yes, the headlines would have said ‘Greenspan Makes U-Turn.’ But isn't it worth accepting some brief personal embarrassment in order to head off a looming policy disaster that you yourself have helped create? Apparently not.”

And what a disaster it’s been! Even without 9/11 and the Iraq War, the tax cutting privatization fundamentalists had us headed toward a path of deficits minus meaningful investments. It’s one thing to accumulate deficits if we make investments in infrastructure and human capital that deliver a return such as education, health care, renewable energy, bridges and levies. Contrary to generations of conservative propaganda however, the super wealthy don't "invest" their wealth into the economy and create jobs. Most horde it because they don't need to spend frequently on necessities.

Greenspan's conduct in 2001 resulted in less money for people who truly are the engine of economic growth: small business entrepreneurs, salaried employees earning under $100,000 per year and low wage earners.

Yet Greenspan continues to reject any accountability for his transgressions. According to the New York Times, Greenspan is “chagrined about his role in the Bush tax cuts.” The article describes Greenspan as surprised at how his endorsement of the Bush tax cuts would be perceived even as he recounts how Robert Rubin and Senator Kent Conrad, of North Dakota warned him.

Yet Greenspan’s bewilderment is at best disingenuous. Rather like Claude Raines “shock” at finding gambling in Casablanca. He endorsed Bush’s tax cuts because they empowered the Ayn Rand economic fetishists who promote wealth redistribution in favor of the wealthy while claiming to champion liberty and a culture of work. Indeed, as Harriet Rubin reported in the New York Times, Greenspan was an admirer of Rand’s work.

As a reward for his disservice to the American people, Greenspan’s book will no doubt soon become a best seller as the republic spirals towards fiscal insolvency. That is Alan Greenspan’s legacy unless a true progressive is elected president in 2008. Either way Greenspan’s reputation should be condemned to a special purgatory for so-called moderates such as Colin Powell who mortgaged America’s standing and future for their own self-aggrandizement.

Words of the People

How often do you read letters to the editor in newspapers? I do everyday. They can be a treasure house of golden nuggets. In today's New York Times (subscription required), Carol Shlesinger, of Livingston, New Jersey, wrote the following about the Protect America Act recently passed by the Democratic congress and signed into law by President Bush:

"I have no objection to increasing powers of surveillance by the administration as long as there is a quid pro quo: give the voting public the same rights of surveillance of their elected executive branch.

We could start with records of the lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq; continue with the list of those attending Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy conference; include phone records on the role of Alberto R. Gonzales and others in the firing of United States attorneys and ascertain who was responsible for inadequately protecting our troops with proper equipment and support.

After all, these are matters of national security."

Now why didn't I think of that? Ms Schlesinger, you should start a blog.

And this caustic letter from Fred Roberts of Decatur, Georgia absolutely speaks for me:

"To their shame, 16 Democrats in the Senate and 41 in the House voted to hand the president monarchical powers that the signers of the Constitution had withheld. The Fourth Amendment has served to safeguard citizens against warrantless searches and seizures; this president says instead: Just trust me.

These Democrats will no doubt be astonished, but Republicans will not stop calling them weak on terrorism. The rest of us just think they’re weak, period."

Mr. Roberts, that's what I call telling it like it is.

The American people are broadly culpable for empowering the Bush Administration's six year reign of indecency. Thankfully, in Ms. Schlesinger and Mr. Roberts there are at least two citizens who get it. A generation ago President Nixon referred to the "silent majority." I desperately hope that Ms. Schlesinger and Mr. Roberts represent the emergence of a newly empowered progressive majority that will keep silent no longer. Silence has empowered the agents of indecency for too long.