Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Gaffe-ney
Longtime GOP activist Frank Gaffney comes awfully close to suggesting war opponents are committing treason. In doing so, he takes a quote from Abraham Lincoln that makes Gaffney's own blather sound downright sane:
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
Problem is, Lincoln never said it. As Glenn Greenwald explains, the quote was basically fabricated by an editor at Insight magazine in 2003, and the pro-war crowd has been running wild with it ever since.
|2.14.07 @ 8:49PM|#
Wasn't Gaffney aware that Lincoln opposed the Mexican-American war while he was a member of Congress?
|2.14.07 @ 8:52PM|#
What's worse: that Gaffney is rhetorically threatening a majority of the United States Congress with execution, or that he is genuinely arguing that the Office of Special Plans was right to issue their ginned up report about Saddam/Al Qaeda connections, even though we now know for certain that it was false?
|2.14.07 @ 8:52PM|#
Well, they're willing to lie about Saddam's WMDs, making up Lincoln quotes to prop up their jingoist bullshit is well within their capacity and character (or lack thereof).
|2.14.07 @ 8:53PM|#
So, is Gaffney suggesting that everything Lincoln said is the
absolute truth? If he had said that, would it be more reasonable to
start hanging Congresspersons* or to disagree with Mr.
Lincoln?
-------------------------------------------------
* Not that hanging Congresspersons for other reasons is necessarily
a bad idea...
|2.14.07 @ 8:55PM|#
Wikipedia has a bit more on Lincoln's behavior during the
Mexican-American War:
He spoke out against the Mexican-American War, which he attributed
to President Polk's desire for "military glory - that attractive
rainbow, that rises in showers of blood." Besides this rhetoric, he
also directly challenged Polk's claims as to the boundary of
Texas.[12] Lincoln was among the 82 Whigs in January 1848 who
defeated 81 Democrats in a procedural vote on an amendment to send
a routine resolution back to committee with instructions for the
committee to add the words "a war unnecessarily and
unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States."
The amendment passed, but the bill never reemerged from committee
and was never finally voted upon.[13]
Lincoln damaged his reputation by an intemperate speech in the
House. He announced, "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the
weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and
demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste
and pillage the land of the just." Two weeks later, Polk sent a
peace treaty to Congress. No one in Washington paid any attention
to Lincoln, but the Democrats orchestrated angry outbursts from all
over his district, where the war was popular and many had
volunteered. In Morgan County, resolutions were adopted in fervent
support of the war and in wrathful denunciation of the "treasonable
assaults of guerrillas at home; party demagogues;" slanderers of
the President, defenders of the butchery at the Alamo, traducers of
the heroism at San Jacinto.
|2.14.07 @ 9:07PM|#
"* Not that hanging Congresspersons for other reasons is
necessarily a bad idea..."
Crimethink, you beat me to it!
|2.14.07 @ 9:19PM|#
the return argument will be
" you cant provy he he didnt say it! You dont have a plan!"
JG
Pro Defense Libertarian|2.14.07 @ 9:20PM|#
"Well, they're willing to lie about Saddam's WMDs."
Who lied about Saddam's WMDs?
|2.14.07 @ 9:21PM|#
I'm going to fabricate some Ronald Reagan quotes to refute the fabricated Lincoln quotes.
Guy Montag|2.14.07 @ 9:43PM|#
comes awfully close to suggesting war opponents are
committing treason.
Apparently he is not brave enough to go all the way and tell the
obvious truth.
|2.14.07 @ 9:46PM|#
Longtime GOP activist Frank Gaffney
Would this be the same guy who's been pushing the doomsday
scenario? Why yes. Yes it
would be.
Parabellum|2.14.07 @ 10:18PM|#
James K Polk was this countries greatest President. The Lincoln "endorsement" adds to the case.
|2.14.07 @ 10:28PM|#
Lincoln never said it....the quote was basically
fabricated
Nothing new here. People have been misquoting Lincoln for
years.
For some reason it makes Democrats feel good to repeat the myth
that "everyone was a racist then".
|2.14.07 @ 10:44PM|#
For some reason it makes Democrats feel good to repeat the
myth that "everyone was a racist then".
What you mean?
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|2.14.07 @ 10:57PM|#
Do EMPs affect pacemakers?
How many congressmen have pacemakers?
|2.14.07 @ 11:03PM|#
Do EMPs affect pacemakers?
I don't know. But I assume EMP would be one way to get American
Idol off the air.
|2.14.07 @ 11:13PM|#
"Problem is, Lincoln never said it."
Wasn't it Samuel Johnson who said, "Facts are the last refuge of
scoundrels."?
...er, wait...no, that was "patriotism"! "Patriotism is the last
refuge of scoundrels."
What's the difference anyway? Patriotism, facts--it's six of one,
half a dozen of the other to a scoundrel.
|2.14.07 @ 11:36PM|#
Reminds me of Goering quote (and it is correctly
attributed):
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor
in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But
after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy,
and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether
it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a
communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce
the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same in any country"
Patrick|2.14.07 @ 11:38PM|#
Actually, given that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and
imprisoned thousands of Northern war dissenters (including anti-war
newspaper editors and 31 Maryland legislators), it seems that
Gaffney is following squarely in the tradition of Lincoln.
In fact Lincoln even exiled a US Congressman from Ohio - Clement
Valladingham - for making anti-war remarks during a campaign
speech... again very Gaffney-like.
|2.14.07 @ 11:38PM|#
It would be nice if Congress would send bills to the President like the Declaration of War in the Mexican-American War. It basically said, "The President is a total dick for starting this war, but its too late to stop it now. (Note that it actually was.)"
Guy Montag|2.14.07 @ 11:51PM|#
James K Polk was this countries greatest President. The
Lincoln "endorsement" adds to the case.
Polk was only the second greatest President from Tennessee. How
could he be the greatest one of the nation?
|2.14.07 @ 11:53PM|#
Patrick, I was thinking of the Vallandigham case too, but
Lincoln's position probably wasn't as extreme as the quotation
ascribed to him. In his response to the Albany Resolves, he gave
some tortured reasoning to the effect that if someone speaks
against a law knowing it will probably lead people to break the
law, then the person has the responsibility to explicitly condemn
breaking the law. So by that standard, he argued, Vallandigham
incited unlawful conduct. Amusingly, Vallandigham did
explicitly condemn draft resistance and desertion, but Lincoln
either didn't know that or simply ignored it.
I'm taking this from the Geoffrey R. Stone book Perilous
Times.
Guy Montag|2.14.07 @ 11:57PM|#
In fact Lincoln even exiled a US Congressman from Ohio -
Clement Valladingham - for making anti-war remarks during a
campaign speech... again very Gaffney-like.
How could that be if Ohio was never made a State and we don't need
to pay incom tax?
Patrick|2.15.07 @ 12:06AM|#
The quote may be inaccurate, but that doesn't mean that Gaffney
isn't following in Lincoln's tradition.
It just means that much of Lincoln's conduct is a disgraceful as
Gaffney's rhetoric.
|2.15.07 @ 12:20AM|#
If one elimates the hidden premise that Lincoln is to be considered a demigod no matter what, but instead was just another politician that became corrupted with power, then you are left with a temptest in a teapot--because Lincoln did truly and frequently act like a tyrant in the 1860s, as opposed to his positions in the 1840s.
|2.15.07 @ 12:37AM|#
As George Washington said, "those neoconservatives are
idiots."
Or, to quote Oscar Wilde, "Frank Gaffney is a dillweed."
Parabellum|2.15.07 @ 12:53AM|#
Guy,
Although I certainly admire "Old Hickory" particularly for his
actions before assuming the Presidency-namely in Alabama, Spanish
Florida and Louisiana- I rate Polk #1. He only served one term, we
didn't get involved in a Civil War, and he added a whole lot of
real estate with little hassle or drama. The Mexican War went
swimmingly-as far as wars go, and he bluffed the British out of the
Pacific Northwest.We may have had a greater President but not one
who served a single term.
Parabellum|2.15.07 @ 1:17AM|#
"war opponents are committing treason......"
Well... if their opposition is purely political
based on wanting the Opposition President and his Party to FAIL.
And assuming, hypothetically, they would support the War if it was
conducted by an executive of their own Party and/or had the support
of a majority of the American People and/or their
constituency..
....
How would you characterize their opposition?
I would say if they are undermining the War effort and positioning
the USA to FAIL for Partisan political reasons, as opposed to
strictly moral and policy differences, they are fucking traitors
and are Damn lucky we don't live in a Just Society which would give
them their due.
especially if they voted for it
"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she
always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!"
Stephen Decatur
|2.15.07 @ 2:28AM|#
Wow, Jackson and Polk as great presidents. What are the qualifications? Ethnic cleansing? Imperialism? Unjust wars?
|2.15.07 @ 5:35AM|#
There are too many Daves on this board.
Gaffney was wrong, that quote is actually from Chief Seattle's
famous 1800's speech warning of automobile pollution, AIDS, global
warming, Three Mile Island, and Vanilla Ice.
|2.15.07 @ 9:52AM|#
I really don't think he cared if it was a real quote or not. It
served his point, one way or another. I doubt that knowing it
wasn't real would have kept him from publishing it anyways (and he
knew most of his readers would lap it up and assume it was
true)
-----
But thanks to the James K. Polk talk, I've got a song stuck in my
head.
In 1844, the Democrats were split
The three nominees for the presidential candidate
Were Martin Van Buren, a former president and an abolitionist
James Buchanan, a moderate
Louis Cass, a general and expansionist
From Nashville came a dark horse riding up
He was James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump
Austere, severe, he held few people dear
His oratory filled his foes with fear
The factions soon agreed
He's just the man we need
To bring about victory
Fulfill our manifest destiny
And annex the land the Mexicans command
And when the votes were cast the winner was
Mister James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump
In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tarriffs fell
And made the English sell the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
But precious few have mourned the passing of
Mister James K. Polk, our eleventh president
Young Hickory, Napoleon of the Stump
|2.15.07 @ 10:07AM|#
Strictly speaking, we cannot say that Lincoln never made the
comment in question, but only that we have no evidence that he did.
Besides, he probably used all the words in the quote, if not
exactly in that order, so why quibble over minor details? In any
number of possible worlds, Lincoln did make the statement. In fact,
in some of those worlds Ronald Reagan freed the slaves, Lincoln
married Hillary Rodham and the writers of "Lost" haven't just been
jerking viewers' chains for years.
(I gained these liberating insights, by the way, in Intelligent
Design threads here over the years. You claim dinosaurs and human
beings never coexisted? Then how do you account for the
Flintstones, Mr. Smarty-Pants Scientist?)
|2.15.07 @ 10:13AM|#
I wouldn't doubt for a minute Lincoln had thoughts along these lines, though was far too politically savvy to speak them. Sgt. Henry Hayward, 29th Ohio, March 2, 1863, letter to his sister, Cora: "I believe that if such men as Vallandigham should come here (Virginia) and talk the way he does in Congress the soldiers would kill him."
Some James|2.15.07 @ 10:24AM|#
I don't see his quotes from the Mexican War and the Civil War as contradictory. Sure, actually being in power probably helped some of that, but all of this assumes an equivalency (in both Lincoln's mind and actuality) between the two wars. Somehow I think our Civil War was kind of a bigger deal where treason would be more of an actual threat it would during than a war of expansion (or someone else's civil war, for that matter)
|2.15.07 @ 10:49AM|#
"Somehow I think our Civil War was kind of a bigger deal where
treason would be more of an actual threat it would during than a
war of expansion (or someone else's civil war, for that
matter)"
I don't think intolerance of dissent is ever justified in a free
country.
|2.15.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Your not living in a free country if there is a civil war going
on.
I often make the point, when someone defends the administration's
wiretapping and mail-reading practices on the grounds that he in
commander in chief and we are at war, that our homes and
neighborhoods are not battlefields.
Well, during the Civil War, they were.
Which is not to defend everthing Lincoln did, but he gets a little
more leash.
|2.15.07 @ 11:59AM|#
What I've always wondered about this type of argument is, Do the
people who make the argument actually believe what they are
saying?
That is, are they genuinely concerned about people getting killed
because of free discussion? I just don't understand the impulse to
argue this way. It isn't rhetorically clever and it doesn't have a
high correlation with what you'd call "the real world", so I can
only surmise that people who do this believe that there is
something menacing about public debate on the war.
|2.15.07 @ 1:48PM|#
JasonL,
Calling people traitors doesn't have to be clever or reality-based
to be successful.
Once you've got a lynch mob, all you have to do is point and yell
"Get 'im," and it works.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245