Abraham Lincoln: Friend or Foe of Freedom?

Thomas J. DiLorenzo Author Lincoln Unmasked and The Real Lincoln
and

Joseph A. Morris President Lincoln Legal Foundation

Remarks delivered at

The Heartland Institute’s 23rd Anniversary Benefit Dinner October 25, 2007 Chicago, Illinois

Abraham Lincoln: Friend or Foe of Freedom?
Copyright ©2008 The Heartland Institute Published by The Heartland Institute 19 South LaSalle Street #903 Chicago, Illinois 60603 phone 312/377-4000 fax 312/377-5000 www.heartland.org All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form. Opinions expressed are solely those of the authors. Nothing in this report should be construed as necessarily reflecting the view of The Heartland Institute or as an attempt to influence pending legislation. Additional copies of this booklet are available from The Heartland Institute for the following prices: 1-10 copies 11-50 copies 51-100 copies 101 or more $4.95 per copy $3.95 per copy $2.95 per copy $1.95 per copy

Printed in the United States of America ISBN-13 978-1-934791-05-9 ISBN-10 1-934791-05-9 Manufactured in the United States of America

Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page v Joseph L. Bast, The Heartland Institute Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 1 Dan Miller, Chicago Sun-Times Opening Statement Lincoln: Foe of Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 5 Thomas J. DiLorenzo Opening Statement Lincoln: Friend of Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 13 Joseph A. Morris Rebuttal: Thomas J. DiLorenzo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 21 Rebuttal: Joseph A. Morris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 25 Cross Examination Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 29 Speaker Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 37 About the Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 39 Order Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 41 - iii -

Preface
Welcome to The Heartland Institute’s 23rd Anniversary benefit dinner. We are absolutely delighted to have you here with us. There are almost 600 people here tonight, which is outstanding. Among those 600 people, there are approximately 70 elected officials. These are the best, most interesting, smartest elected officials of the 7,300 state elected officials in the United States. If some of them are sitting at your table, by all means engage them in conversation, congratulate them, and slip them some money because they may need it for their next campaign. There are also approximately 30 think-tank folks in the audience tonight. Because there are so many, I won’t name them all, but I would like to call attention to two very special guests in the room with us tonight.

Thanks, Scott and Fred When The Heartland Institute was started 23 years ago, I was the first employee ... but it wasn’t my idea. Heartland was actually the idea of a young guy named Scott Hodge. Scott proposed it to Dave Padden, and Dave thought it was a good idea. Scott then followed his girlfriend off to Minnesota and left the position open for me to come in and take it and the rest, as they say, is history. Scott went on to join The Heritage Foundation, where he did tremendous work, and then from there to the Tax Foundation, which he now serves as president. Thanks for everything, Scott! Scott is doing a fantastic job at the Tax Foundation and if you are not a member or supporter I would encourage you to become one. -v-

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? The second really outstanding person in this room, among many outstanding people I guess, is Fred Smith. Fred is president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which got started the very same year Heartland got started, 1984. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is in Washington, DC. It’s doing terrific work on a variety of issues, but we are most attracted to and most admire is their work on environmental issues and climate change, where they are just second to none in the quality of research they are doing. Fred, you’ve always been a mentor and a role model for me. I really appreciate you being here tonight.

Rest in Peace There are some people – friends of freedom, we call them – who are not here tonight, who passed away since we last met here in October 2007. Most recently, John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, passed away on September 26. John was a friend and an outstanding, hard-working guy. The National Taxpayers Union is one of the most important organizations in the country. John was only 45 years old, and he will be sorely missed. Another man down is Tim Wheeler. As many of you know, especially you libertarian activists, Tim was one of the original writers for National Review. I got to know him over the years as a freelance writer and ghostwriter for various prominent people. A remarkable, tireless, and talented writer, and an absolutely principled free-market advocate. He passed away on August 5. Prof. Hans Sennholz passed away on June 23 at age of 85. He was one of the founders of the modern libertarian movement, a teacher of four generations of students at Grove City College, and president of FEE, the Foundation for Economic Education, for five - vi -

PREFACE years. Richard Rue passed away on May 16. Rick worked for the Lincoln Legal Foundation and for The Heartland Institute in the 1990s, and then for the United Republican Fund and a number of other groups. He passed away in California. Nobel Laureate Dr. Milton Friedman passed away on November 16, 2006. Dr. Friedman was, of course, the greatest economist of the twentieth century, a brilliant libertarian thinker, and in many ways and at many times a friend to me and of The Heartland Institute. He may have been the shortest giant who ever lived. God bless you, Milton, and bless Rose, too. And finally, Lord Ralph Harris passed away on October 19, 2006. He was the first employee of the Institute for Economic Affairs, the grand-daddy of libertarian think tanks, based in London. He was an advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. We honor the memory of these distinguished men, and we rededicate ourselves to their cause of lifting the heavy hand of tyranny from the backs of men and women, here and around the world, who strive to be free.

Growing Organization The first time The Heartland Institute held an anniversary benefit dinner, we had 18 people show up. Half of them were board members, about a quarter or a third of them were the spouses of board members, and there were two guys who were catching a smoke outside the door that the hotel asked to come in because we were paying for the meals anyway. It was a very small but dedicated group. Each year we get a little bit bigger. And although we haven’t set a record this year — we had at least 600 people once before — - vii -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? this is already an outstanding and really successful event ... and you haven’t even heard from the speakers yet! I would like to thank the people who reserved platinum tables and gold tables, because it’s their contributions that make it possible for us to offer free tickets to some of the high school and college students who are joining us here tonight. I would like to quickly name those platinum and gold table buyers. They are Planned Realty Group, United Republican Fund, Michael Keiser and Philip Friedmann, Herbert Walberg, Assurant Health, Dave Padden, The New Coalition for Economic and Social Change, Lincoln Legal Foundation, and Pfizer. Please give a round of applause for our platinum and gold table sponsors.

A Mixed Year Heartland has had a great year, and it has grown dramatically. The number of donors is more than 2,000, up from 1,400 just a year ago. The number of contacts with elected officials is increasing dramatically. Our press coverage has never been as good as it’s been recently. We’ve published twice as many books in the past 12 months as in the previous 12 months, and a whole lot more policy studies and research and commentary pieces. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been such a good year for freedom – and the ultimate objective for The Heartland Institute is, of course, to advance freedom. In many states we saw massive tax increases and tax increase proposals. The federal government is still spending every year hundreds of billions of dollars more than it brings in. We’ve seen new proposals to socialize our health care system – an idea that was bankrupt 20 years ago and 10 years ago. Why presidential candidates are still talking about nationalizing our health care - viii -

PREFACE system is beyond me, but it’s an indication that our educational job obviously is not finished. It’s incomplete. And we can’t seem to move the ball down the field on school choice. One of the most important things we can do to expand freedom in America is to give parents the power to choose where their kids go to school. But the teacher unions are powerful, and they act as a buffer against any of our efforts to expand these programs. There has been some progress, some very modest programs, but again it’s a disappointment for people who are advocates of freedom. Likewise with tax and expenditure limitations. We’ve been trying to get states to adopt constitutional amendments that would limit their spending and their taxing ability. That effort ran into some very fierce opposition last year, and we’re not making much progress. And finally, on the environment. Don’t get me started on the environment! Former vice president Albert Gore gets the Noble Peace Prize for producing a propaganda film that most scientists will say exaggerates, lies, and distorts the actual science on climate change. It’s a symbol of what’s wrong in America with public policy today. We’re not making a lot of progress. If this is an issue of concern to you, I hope you will talk to me or to Fred Smith, because Fred’s shop is doing terrific work on this as well.

Heartland’s History Let me conclude quickly by giving you a little nutshell description of The Heartland Institute – since it is, after all, The Heartland Institute that brings you here tonight and that your contributions are supporting. Heartland was started 23 years ago. I was a student at the - ix -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? University of Chicago at the time. Dave Padden brought together a group of 15 people to pledge $100 a month to fund this new start-up think tank. The reason they gave only $100 a month – and some of you have heard this before – is because they thought I would blow $1,000 if they gave it to me all at one time. So they figured, let’s make him come and ask for it month after month. And I did that. It was also tremendous discipline to produce results when your donors are expecting to get a progress report from you every four weeks. In the first year we had a budget of $24,000. This year, for the first time, we’ve broken five million dollars in our budget. It is a big accomplishment. A lot of people in this room are responsible for it. You all are applauding now for the donors, and not for the beneficiary of that kind of generosity. We now have 32 full-time staff, which is an amazing thing for us to have. We have 115 policy advisors, academics at major universities and not-so-major universities all across the country. A couple dozen of them are with us here tonight. We have 527 legislative advisors, elected officials who have voluntarily chosen to join the advisory board to The Heartland Institute. And Heartland takes some pretty hard, principled libertarian positions on the issues of the day – so to have more than 500 elected officials sign up to formally endorse our programs is a pretty big deal. We have 2,100 donors to our organization. And I will end on maybe a slightly sour note, because it is often asked who funds The Heartland Institute. If you “Google” The Heartland Institute, the first result that comes up is The Heartland Institute Web site. The second is something called Source Watch, an organization that just attacks conservative groups, and the third one is Exxon Secrets, which -x-

PREFACE identifies all of the groups that ever got any money from ExxonMobil Corporation. The Heartland Institute appears on each of those Web sites. We’re accused of being a front for big corporations, in particular Exxon. It’s not the case. No corporation gives more than 5 percent of The Heartland Institute’s annual budget. This year, all the energy companies combined are going to give less than 5 percent of our total annual budget. If funding influences our opinions, then when 95 percent of our income is coming from energy consumers and not energy producers you would think we’d have a pretty strong anti-oil company bias, but in fact we don’t. The truth is we have a program and people absolutely committed to principles and the ideas of free enterprise. Our donors support us because they agree with those ideas, not because they want to change our message. So that’s what The Heartland Institute is, and that’s why you are here tonight helping us raise money to keep this fantastic program going and expanding all the time. I am deeply grateful to every one of you who bought a ticket or table tonight ... and I hope you have a real good time. Joseph Bast President, The Heartland Institute October 25, 2007

- xi -

Introduction
By Dan Miller1
Good evening, I’m Dan Miller. I’m business editor of the Chicago Sun-Times and have been a member of and donor to The Heartland Institute for a couple decades. I am honored and delighted that Joe Bast tapped me to moderate this debate. It’s great to be with friends and old faces. And speaking of old faces ... I’m sure Fred Smith doesn’t remember anything about meeting me when I was chairman of the Illinois Commerce Commission, but I want you all to know that Fred is in the cross-hairs of a smear campaign that hits not only the Competitive Enterprise Institute – and we’ve been privileged at the Chicago Sun-Times to publish several articles by CEI people – but also The Heartland Institute, Cato, and so many others. The effort now on the part of the left is to demonize all of the people who favor limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. It’s a very, very serious effort to undermine everything that people in this room have worked for. Fred is especially in the cross-hairs, and Joe is just a micro- inch away from the cross-hairs. It’s something that you’ve got to be aware of. They’re after us – they’re after us big-time.
1

Dan Miller is business editor of the Chicago Sun-Times. -1-

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? Remember, being paranoid is not irrational if they’re really after you ... and they’re really after us.

Lincoln’s Legacy Like many of you, I presume, I grew up and grew older regarding Abraham Lincoln as one of our greatest presidents. He preserved the Union against the rebels, he freed the slaves, he urged reconciliation during Reconstruction, he was humble and a leader of enormous charisma, and persistent. It was only in recent years, however, that I realized others have challenged those assumptions. Yes, he preserved the Union – but where in the Constitution does it prohibit states from seceding? And by what legal right did Lincoln prosecute the Civil War or, as one of our debaters tonight calls it, “the war between the states,” or, when he gets really personal, “Lincoln’s war”? Yes, the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, but only the slaves in the secessionist South, where the proclamation had absolutely no force of law. Where the proclamation could have had some force of law, in the border states that didn’t secede, such as Maryland and Kentucky and Pennsylvania, it specifically permitted slavery to continue. Humble? Yes, yes, Lincoln in his speeches and his personal life dramatized an innate humility. But politically, when he won the presidential nomination in 1860 here in Chicago, he had demonstrated the political savvy and cruelty that exploited the moment of the instance that he was nominated. My point is this: Reasonable people – and you wouldn’t be a Heartland person if you were anything but reasonable – can discuss and disagree about Lincoln and his legacy. But we don’t have to be disagreeable. We all share a common respect for
-2-

INTRODUCTION individual liberty, small government, the rule of law, and firm property rights. Tonight we’ll hear from two articulate and informed scholars about whether and how those values played out in the life of Abraham Lincoln.

Tonight’s Debate Here’s how the debate works. One debater, Tom DiLorenzo, will begin with a 10-minute presentation on the subject at one podium. The second debater, Joe Morris, will have an equal amount of time at the other podium. My job is not to interfere with the free flow of ideas. While the debate is going on, please write any questions you may have for either or both of the debaters on the cards available from Heartland staffers in the room. After the presentations I’ll select some questions from the cards. Around 8:40 p.m. I’ll signal the last question.

-3-

Opening Statement

Lincoln: Foe of Freedom
By Thomas J. DiLorenzo2
I couldn’t resist Joe Bast’s invitation to come to Chicago and persuade 600 people from Illinois that Abe Lincoln was a tyrant and an enemy of freedom. I thought that was going to be a real challenge! So I’ll get right to it.

Corwin Amendment One of the first things Abraham Lincoln did after he was elected and before he was inaugurated was to instruct William Seward [U.S. Senator from New York] to get a constitutional amendment through the Senate that would forbid the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the South. And Seward did. It was called the Corwin Amendment, named after [Ohio Republican Congressman] Thomas Corwin. Lincoln also instructed Seward to get a federal law passed that would nullify the personal liberty laws that existed in some of the

2

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ph.D. is the author of Lincoln Unmasked and The Real Lincoln, among other books, and an American economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland. -5-

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? New England states. Under these laws, the New England states refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. And so Lincoln did everything he could to get a constitutional amendment passed that would have forbidden the government from ever interfering with slavery. That amendment was passed by the House and the Senate and several states. In Lincoln’s first inaugural address he supported it explicitly.

Hampton Roads Four years later, in February 1865, there was a peace conference between Alexander Stephens, the vice president of the Confederate government, and his entourage, and Lincoln and Seward and a few others. They met at Hampton Roads, Virginia. They talked about ending the war, of course. Lincoln and Seward told them the Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure – and, therefore, when the war was over it would no longer be in effect in any way. They also told them the Thirteenth Amendment, which was making its way through Congress at the time, to abolish slavery, could easily be defeated if the South would just rejoin the Union. There were 36 states at the time, and Seward instructed Stephens they needed only 10 states to defeat the Thirteenth Amendment. This dispels one of the bigger myths about Lincoln, who people say didn’t do anything about slavery at the beginning of his administration because he didn’t have any political clout to do it. In fact, Lincoln maintained the same position for the last four years of his life, and that position was: “We won’t touch Southern slavery, I’m only interested in opposing the extension of slavery into the territories. Stay in the Union and you can keep your slaves.”
-6-

DILORENZO: FOE Destroying the Union In terms of saving the Union, I contend Lincoln actually destroyed the Union. The Union was a voluntary Union. The states ratified the Constitution – they were sovereign, that’s why they had to ratify the Constitution. But the Union was no longer voluntary after 1865. The parallel I think of is a woman who leaves her husband because he’s been abusing her. He drags her back into the home, chains her to the bedpost, and threatens to shoot her if she leaves again. The union has been preserved! They’re back together again! To me, that is the sense in which the Union was preserved, at the cost of 620,000 lives. For several generations, historians have referred to the “Lincoln dictatorship.” One example is the historian Clinton Rossiter, who was editor of The Federalist Papers in the 1950s and 1960s; he was a Cornell University history professor. He said this: “Dictatorship played a decisive role in his successful effort to maintain a union by force of arms. Lincoln’s amazing disregard for the Constitution was considered by nobody as legal.” It doesn’t sound like Lincoln was a friend of freedom if you look at statements like this by distinguished scholars.

Lincoln the Dictator Now why did people like Rossiter say things like that? I have here a short list of some of the things Lincoln did to deserve that reputation. (A student who likes my books attended a talk I gave at Washington University; he made up a t-shirt that said, “Dictator To-Do List.”) 1. The illegal suspension of the writ of habeous corpus on his own. The Constitution allows for the suspension of the writ, but
-7-

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? only by Congress. After he suspended the writ, Lincoln appointed William Seward to be in charge of a sort-of KGB-style secret police that rounded up anywhere between 15,000 and 30,000 Northern civilians for merely opposing the Lincoln administration. These were not spies or traitors – they were people like George Brown, the mayor of Baltimore; Congressman Henry May of Baltimore; and 20 members of the Maryland state legislature. Of course, the Constitution requires the federal government to provide for a republican form of government in the states, and so arresting those state and local elected officials was a direct denial of that aspect of the Constitution. There were Northern gulags like Fort Lafayette in New York Harbor. It was said that the only place there was genuine free speech in the North during the war was in these prisons, because once you’re imprisoned for free speech, what have you got to lose? If you want to read about this I would recommend a book by James Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln. Randall taught at the University of Illinois for many years; James McPherson calls him the preeminent Lincoln scholar of the last generation. All these facts I’m rattling off here are in this book, among other places. 2. He shut down more than 300 opposition newspapers. In some instances, the editors and owners were thrown into prison, and in some instances there were mobs of sort-of Republican Party activists who literally destroyed the printing presses of the opposition press. They didn’t destroy every last opposition press, but they sent a pretty strong message. 3. He started a war without congressional approval. 4. He confiscated firearms in the border states. In fact, the whole invasion of the South was a violation of the Second Amendment. As James Madison said, the purpose of the Second
-8-

DILORENZO: FOE Amendment was to deter a federal army from ever invading a sovereign state. 5. Lincoln micro-managed the waging of war on civilians for four long years. I make this case in my book, and I can make it if we have questions later. James McPherson estimated that about 50,000 Southern civilians were killed by the Union army one way or another during the war. One anecdote that I’ll offer: On one day, more than 4,000 artillery shells exploded in the city of Charleston, South Carolina – at a time when there was no Confederate Army there. It was civilians and maybe some wounded soldiers, and that was it. It was not a a battle – it was just the bombing of a city. And this went on throughout the South. 6. All telegraph communication was censored. 7. He confiscated private property. Two confiscation acts allowed the U.S. government to take the private property of people who were criticizing the Lincoln administration. 8. He arrested his detractors. The most outspoken Democrat in Congress at the time was Clement Vallandigham from Dayton, Ohio. He made very stirring Jeffersonian-sounding speeches criticizing the suspension of habeus corpus and other things. After he was gerrymandered out of Congress by the Republican Party, he went back home to Ohio to run for governor. Sixty-seven armed federal soldiers broke into Vallandigham’s home in the middle of the night. He was arrested and thrown in prison. He ended up being deported and spent the rest of the war in Canada. It would be as though President Bush had Hillary Clinton deported to Iran. Roger Taney, the chief justice, issued an opinion that the suspension of habeus corpus by the presidnet alone is unconstitutional. Lincoln responded by issuing an arrest warrant
-9-

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? for Taney. He gave it to his friend and employee at the time, Ward Lamon. There are several very good sources on this, like Ward Lamon’s book, which is in the archives of the Huntington Library, and the biography of Benjamin Robbins Curtis, who was a supreme court justice who authored the opposing opinion in the Dred Scott case and defended Andrew Johnson in his impeachment. 9. He rigged Northern elections. West Virginia was allowed to secede, illegally, from the rest of Virginia. The Constitution requires Congress and the state legislature to agree on partitioning a state and creating a new state. That didn’t happen. Northern elections were rigged with the help of federal soldiers. These are among the reasons why generations of historians have referred to Lincoln as a dictator.

Jefferson on Secession So what did Thomas Jefferson think about secession? He said if the western part of the country ever seceded from the east, “[t]hose of the Western confederacy will be as much our children and descendants as those of the Eastern.” That was in 1804, many, many years after the Declaration of Secession – which was the Declaration of Independence. Contrast that with Lincoln. In his first inaugural address, when discussing the possibility that states might secede, he used the words “invasion” and “bloodshed.” He was the anti-Jefferson as far as I’m concerned. In terms of economics, Lincoln was a mercantilist, so he was against economic freedom. He was a protectionist, a champion of corporate welfare, and a champion of inflationary finance through central banking. He admitted that he spent his entire career as a
- 10 -

DILORENZO: FOE Whig politician advocating those things. That was essentially the political agenda of Alexander Hamilton. I consider Lincoln to be the political son of Alexander Hamilton. He opposed equality under the law. Despite a few fanciful statements he made about equality, he said this to Stephen Douglas in 1858, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”

All Created Equal? Lincoln was a member of the Illinois Colonization Society, which wanted to use state funds to deport the small number of free blacks that were in the state out of the state. To some extent, they did that. He also said in another debate with Douglas, “The African (he always referred to black people as “the Africans,” as though they were from another planet) upon his own soil has all the natural rights that that instrument [the Declaration of Independence] vouchsafes to all mankind.” Lincoln said such things many times, that was his position. Yes, blacks and whites can be equal, but not if blacks are here in America. If they’re on their own soil, that’s where they can be equal. I think you have to understand that to understand what Lincoln means when he quotes the Declaration of Independence. He voted against black suffrage in Illinois, he opposed allowing blacks to testify in court in Illinois, he voted against abolishing the slave trade in Washington, DC while he was in Congress, he was a strong supporter of the Fugitive Slave Act. One of the reasons Lincoln gave for opposing the extension of slavery into the territories was that he wanted to save the territories
- 11 -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? for “free white people.” It wasn’t a moral reason, it was just politics. The people in the territories wanted them to be all-white, and so as a politician he thought there was a lot of votes there among the Free Soil Party, so that’s what he did. Lincoln met with a group of free black men in the White House in 1862, and he urged them to lead by example and go to Liberia. Those men wisely said “no thank you,” because, as they explained to him, some thousands of blacks had already gone to Liberia, but most of them had perished. Lincoln told them their descendants would ultimately outnumber them, if they were to go to Liberia and procreate once they got there. It didn’t seem like a good deal to those men at the time, and they wisely rejected his advice. Yes, Lincoln did quote the “all men are created equal” portion of the Declaration of Independence in the Gettysburg Address. But, as the great H.L. Mencken said, the Gettysburg Address was “poetry, not fact.” Mencken pointed out that it was the Confederates who were fighting for government by consent: They no longer consented to being ruled by Washington, DC. It was the Northern army that was fighting against government by consent. So those are some of the reasons I think Lincoln does not deserve the reputation as a man of freedom. And by the way, all the other countries and regions and states that ended slavery in the nineteenth century did so peacefully. Britain, Spain, the Dutch, the French, the Danes, the New Englanders, even New Yorkers. They all found a way to end slavery peacefully.

- 12 -

Opening Statement

Lincoln: Friend of Freedom
By Joseph A. Morris3
Ladies and gentlemen, Abe Lincoln was not perfect. Abe Lincoln was a clever, calculating pol. Abe Lincoln was from Illinois ... What’s news? I think it is a healthy thing that the world recognize that no politician is perfect, because it is a mistake, it is dangerous to liberties, to translate political leadership into sainthood. It is a mistake to think that political leaders are the source of salvation on this Earth. But once we recognize that, I think it’s important that we face the facts and understand what principled and constructive and accomplished political leadership is, and what it can do. It’s only fair to recognize what Abraham Lincoln achieved for the people of the United States, which in my view was to make real the promise of the Declaration of Independence.

3

Joseph A. Morris, J.D., is president of the Lincoln Legal Foundation and a partner in the law firm of Morris & DeLaRosa, with offices in Chicago and London. - 13 -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? Holding Lincoln to a Standard Tom DiLorenzo, I think, has performed a real service by doing something that other scholars who have been critical of Lincoln in the past have not done. Other critics of Lincoln have complained that he dithered over slavery, that he was too patient with his generals, that he was either too much the politician or not enough, that he was too lax with the South or not strict enough with the South in the contemplation of Reconstruction. What Tom DiLorenzo has done is something that, frankly, I think is unmatched in history since Lincoln had a critic by the name of Douglas, who was a senator from Illinois, with whom he debated in 1858 and whom he challenged for the presidency when Douglas was the national candidate of the Democrats in 1860. Tom DiLorenzo has tried to hold Lincoln to the standards of a lover of liberty. The challenge that DiLorenzo puts to President Lincoln is, “Well, where were you on this notion of equality that you think is so important in the Declaration of Independence, that is the centerpiece theme of your argument at Gettysburg? Where were you on the question of the respect for civil liberties, which presumably is the warp and woof of our constitutional system? And where were you on the fundamental question of what is the United States of America, and what is the nature of this federation of states, and what does it mean to have a constitution in a context of an experiment by human beings to govern themselves?” Those are the right questions to ask, and those are the right standards to which to hold Abraham Lincoln. Obviously, we’re advocates of different points of view on the answers to those questions, and you are the jury of history on the question of where we come down on Abraham Lincoln against the DiLorenzo yardstick.
- 14 -

MORRIS: FRIEND I am here to argue facts for Abraham Lincoln, and let’s begin with some fundamentals.

Dedicated to a Proposition Lincoln is perhaps best-known for those words he uttered at Gettysburg. The opening lines that Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg are ones we all remember ... and little understand. And I respectfully submit that in those words with which Lincoln opened the address at Gettysburg, you will see the essential kernel of Lincoln’s understanding of what the American federation and nation is, and why it ought to matter to those of us who are lovers of liberty. Remember those words: Fourscore and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now, I think we all have some grasp of the proposition “all men are created equal.” Let there be no doubt about it, Lincoln was an opponent of slavery. He made it very clear throughout his career in Illinois as a political man that he did not think it was right to live off the sweat of the brow of another. He told us over and over again, as he would not be a slave, he would not be a master. We understand that Lincoln was an advocate of the notion that all men are created equal, even if that means that in a particular situation at a particular time, they find themselves in a political society that holds only imperfectly to that standard. And I think we understand even the higher calling of his argument, that this was a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to a proposition – unlike the Danes and the Britons and the Irish
- 15 -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? and the French, and people all around the world, whose nationhood was a fact of nature, it was an accident of history, it was a condition they found upon them when they emerged into the sunlight of civilization. The American nation was something that was created as a series of conscious acts, coming out of a revolutionary past, with ideas in mind. What other nation can say as its birthright that it’s dedicated to a proposition, rather than merely occupying a piece of land or speaking a particular language or embracing a particular culture? Lincoln told us that this was a nation dedicated to a proposition, and by opening our eyes to that fact, if nothing else, Lincoln deserves the undying gratitude of people who love liberty the world over.

Brought Forth a Nation But he also said they brought forth a nation. They brought forth “a nation.” He didn’t say they brought forth “a contract.” He didn’t say they brought forth “a deal” or “a confederation.” He said they brought forth a nation. And that is what the arithmetic compels you to conclude, because if you recall that he spoke at Gettysburg in 1863, and you know from the Elizabethan English of the King James Bible what fourscore and seven years means, you know that the calculation from 1863 of fourscore and seven years takes us back not to the constitutional ratification of 1789 or the constitutional convention of 1787, but to the year of the declaration of American independence, to the revolutionary year of 1776. Why does it matter, in the mind of Lincoln or the minds of us today, that there was a 13-year gap between the creation of a
- 16 -

MORRIS: FRIEND nation and the creation of its government? It matters because – and here is an important issue on which Tom DiLorenzo and I disagree – it matters because the point is that a nation and its government are not the same thing. The nation precedes the government. The government is the creature and the servant and the subordinate of the nation. The nation, the people of a nation, can bring a government into being and they can change it ... and they did. If you love liberty, the single most important gift to the human spirit of Abraham Lincoln’s imagination was to nail down the distinction between a people and its peoplehood and its nationhood, on the one hand, and its political units and its governmental distribution of powers, on the other. That’s what Lincoln meant when he insisted that “the Union” – the nation, the American nation – should be preserved. Was Lincoln a willy-nilly Franklin Delano Roosevelt, an advocate of a centralized national government with Hillary Clinton as its philosopher queen ... as Tom DiLorenzo suggests in his book, Lincoln Unmasked, where he elevates Hillary Clinton – I’m not making this up – to the apotheosis of a Yankee? What you meant Tom, was the apotheosis of a Yankee fan. In fact, as president of the United States, Lincoln was an extraordinarily circumspect chief executive who looked to the Congress, to the Senate and the House, to take the lead on most making of public policy. He saw his responsibility in a domestic context as taking care that the laws be carefully executed.

Author of the Civil War? Now let’s turn to the central indictment Tom delivers against Mr. Lincoln: that Mr. Lincoln was the author of the Civil War.
- 17 -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? Tom DiLorenzo told you about a lot of dancing and prancing and political gimmickry on the part of Mr. Lincoln, both before and after he became president and even as late as the Hampton Roads conference. It’s true. But the aims of Lincoln’s amazing political maneuvering were never in doubt and they never varied: To preserve the Union and end slavery. With all due respect to Tom’s narrative, Mr. Lincoln did not in fact urge the South to stay in the Union in exchange for forgoing prohibitions on slavery. On the contrary, Mr. Lincoln disclosed, to the shock of Alexander Stephens, that the Thirteenth Amendment had been passed out of Congress and was on its way to ratification by the states. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits slavery everywhere in the United States; it prohibits involuntary servitude everywhere and forever. Stephens was shocked by that, and that was the effect Lincoln intended, because what Lincoln wanted to do was end the war and stop the bloodshed. And he essentially said to Stephens at the Hampton Roads conference, “If I were you, Mr. Vice President of the whatever-you-are, the rebellion, I would go back and tell your brethren: Rejoin the Union. Drop your arms. I will not negotiate with you as long as you are under arms. Rejoin the Union, send your delegates back to Washington. I will embrace the states once again in their rightful places in the American federation. Send your votes back – you’re not going to stop the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, but I bet you can ensure that it is phased in with all deliberate speed.” What was Lincoln attempting to do? He was attempting to stop bloodshed. He knew that the train, which he helped leave the station – to end slavery – was never coming back. Slavery was the issue of the war. And what about the start of that war? Facts that Tom
- 18 -

MORRIS: FRIEND DiLorenzo has a hard time answering are very simple. Mr. Lincoln became president of the United States on the fourth day of March in 1861. Prior to the end of February 1861, seven southern states had already purported to secede. In early February 1861, the Confederate so-called Congress had already convened in Richmond. By the 18th and 19th of February 1861, Jefferson Davis was already the president of the so-called Confederacy. Jeff Davis was the rebel president before Abe Lincoln ever arrived in Washington and took his oath of office as president of the United States. If you want to know who started the Civil War, look south and look to people who had one and only one issue – maybe Tom and I will get a chance to debate this. One and only one issue was the real precipitant of that war, and it was the cause of slavery.

- 19 -

Rebuttal

Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Well, I’m sure Joe is not calling Lincoln a liar when he says slavery was the only cause. Lincoln himself always said the extension of slavery was what he was strenuously opposed to. He explicitly said, at his first inaugural for example, that he had no intent to disturb Southern slavery. On the Gettysburg Address, fourscore and seven years ago, of course that’s not when the country was founded – it was with the Constitution. And yes, Lincoln said “a nation was founded,” but the founders did not create a nation. They created a confederacy, a union of states, but it wasn’t a nation and there wasn’t a national government.

Do We Have a Nation? Lincoln wanted it to be a national government. Alexander Hamilton’s agenda at the Constitutional Convention was to get a permanent president who would appoint all the governors and have veto power over all state legislation – essentially a king. That’s why Jefferson himself hated Alexander Hamilton. I’ve just written a book on this, called Hamilton’s Curse, which is coming out next year.
- 21 -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? But Hamiltonians never succeeded. They invented the myth about 20 years later that America was created by “the whole nation,” that “the whole people” created the Constitution, when in reality, of course, it was the citizens of each individual state. And when the King of England signed a peace treaty with the American revolutionaries, he signed it with each individual state, named by name. He didn’t sign it with something called “the United States nation.” That just didn’t exist. And so what Lincoln is doing in the Gettysburg Address, when he talks about “a new nation,” is putting in his own words this myth that the country was created by the whole people and not by political conventions of the citizens of the sovereign states. In fact, the thinking of the Jeffersonians was that, if this constitution is ever to be enforced, then the people themselves organized in political communities at the state level is how it is to be enforced. And if the day ever comes that the federal government becomes the sole arbiter of the limits of its own powers, it will inevitably decide that there are no limits to its own powers ... and that’s what we got after 1865, when through the federal judiciary, the federal government has been since then the sole decision maker about the limits of its own powers.

Jeffersonian Mantle In What Lincoln Believed, Michael Lind makes the case that the main reason Lincoln brought the “all men are created equal” language into the Gettysburg Address is that he wanted to win votes from the Jeffersonians in the North – he wanted to wrap himself in the Jeffersonian mantle. If you read the whole Declaration of Independence, it is a declaration of secession from the British Empire. Lincoln totally
- 22 -

DILORENZO: REBUTTAL perverted the Declaration of Independence, in my view, by turning it from a secessionist document, a Jeffersonian document, to a document that was anti-secessionist. He was a clever lawyer, as we all know, a clever semanticist, and that’s what he did. But if you read the last couple of paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, you’ll be reminded that the individual states declared themselves as essentially individual countries with the power to raise taxes and to wage war. They didn’t create a nation. Lincoln said they did, but that was simply wrong.

Who Started the War As for who started the war: Lincoln started the war. Nobody was hurt, let alone killed, at Fort Sumter. The South Carolinians didn’t want a foreign fort in what they considered to be their territory, any more than George Washington would have wanted a British fort in New York Harbor. Lincoln responded to the shelling of this fort – which harmed nobody – with a full-scale invasion of all the southern states that ended up killing one out of four men of military age in the southern states and in addition 50,000 civilians, according to James McPherson, and the bombing of cities, the total destruction of farms, countryside, and so forth. President James Buchanan didn’t think he had the authority to wage war on the states that had seceded, but Lincoln did. Those are my points of disagreement for now.

- 23 -

Rebuttal

Joseph A. Morris
This debate over the question of when America began is not mere metaphysics. It really matters. I think it matters for the reasons that I’ve described, and I just urge you all: Go yourselves to the texts. I carry around in my pocket my Cato Institute copy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It’s there every day, and I make my living with it. The Declaration of Independence opens with the immortal words, “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” – one people. Already in 1776, the Congress assembled at Philadelphia was exercising power – by itself, without sending messengers back to the 13 colonies to canvass the views of the leadership in the 13 colonies as to what this new “emerging American nation” – so-called by Benjamin Franklin – was going to do. They identified themselves as one people, a people – not a government, but a people. And then they proceeded to spend the next 13 years experimenting with the kind of governmental institutions that they thought would be most conducive to their happiness and to their liberty.
- 25 -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? Madison on Secession Now, Mr. Jefferson was blessed, as some great men are, by having a great man at his right arm. And that great man was James Madison – who, probably more than anyone else, was responsible for the form and text of the document that we revere as the Constitution, as the fundamental law of our political regime, of our government. And when, as Tom correctly told you, in the 1800s Mr. Jefferson fulminated a bit off the ranch on the question of secession, it was Mr. Madison who reined him in. Although he was a Jeffersonian Republican and a southern agrarian and disliked Alexander Hamilton every bit as much as Tom DiLorenzo or you or I might dislike Alexander Hamilton, it was Mr. Madison who correctly pointed out to Jefferson and attained Jefferson’s concession, that the Constitution, which contains no express provision opposing secession, contains no express provision providing for it. As a matter of fact, Madison pointed out to Jefferson, that to allow what Mr. Calhoun wanted in South Carolina – nullification by the states of federal decisions – or to allow the secession of an individual state, would be to allow one state on its own to amend the federal constitution, and that wasn’t the deal. The deal from the outset was, once you joined the federation as a political matter, you were bound by the three-fourths rule and you were bound by the republican guarantee clause and you were bound by the territorial provisions. Remember, by the time we get to the Civil War, we have way more than 13 states in the union. Where did those other states come from? Those states were carved out of territories that had been, in a sense, the common property of the original 13 states acquired at various times and in various ways. If you are seceding, do you get to take your share of those other derivative states and
- 26 -

MORRIS: REBUTTAL territories with you? Utter nonsense, Madison argued, and he walked down the line of Jefferson’s arguments and answered them, and his answers stand today.

Supreme Court and State Sovereignty Was it the Civil War that the turned the Supreme Court of the United States into what it is today, the final arbiter of what the Constitution means? Mr. DiLorenzo, I’d like to introduce you to a fellow by the name of John Marshall, and a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States called Marbury v. Madison in 1804. By the time the Civil War arrived, that was already old law, and it had been used and used over and over again by advocates of the South and southern states in various contests and contexts where they were challenging northern interests. That included the case that, probably more than any other single episode in American history of the era, was responsible for the launch of the war, and that was the Dred Scott decision. In that case, the Supreme Court of the United States – the final word of law in the United States, presided over by Chief Justice Taney – held ... and how’s this for states’ rights? ... that a state in the North, a state of free soil, a state that opposed slavery, was not free to prohibit a southerner from passing through that state with his chattel slaves in tow and in his possession, and to treat them as slaves inside those states. There were no states’ rights for northern states that opposed slavery. As a matter of fact, Chief Justice Tawney held for the Court in the Dred Scott decision – in a decision that shocked the conscience of the nation – that Africans, black human beings, not only were not but never could be citizens of the United States, or citizens of a
- 27 -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? state entitled to the privileges and immunities of a citizen of the state. What’s that for states’ rights? In states like Illinois and Indiana and New York and Connecticut and Massachusetts, which back then were recognizing African-American people as citizens with full rights and with immunities of a citizen in their states and expecting those rights and privileges and immunities to be respected in the other states as well under the supremacy clause and the full faith and credit clause. What’s that for states’ rights?

Confederate Constitution Don’t look to the constitution of the Confederacy, much admired by Tom DiLorenzo, for meaningful answers to those questions. Because the truth is, ladies and gentlemen, that that constitution, for all its fancy rhetoric, was never successfully implemented by the so-called lovers of liberty of the South – which had, if you want to get into the facts, a far larger, more brutal, and more pervasive KGB and political suppression system than did anything Mr. Lincoln or Secretary Seward imagined.

- 28 -

Cross-Examination

Questions from the Audience
By Dan Miller
Miller: I am just stunned by the quality of these questions! Let’s get to as many as we can. Tom DiLorenzo, please describe the academic and newspaper efforts to create the Lincoln myth. Why is the media and the academy so dedicated to creating that myth? DiLorenzo: A lot of what’s written about Lincoln sort of makes him into a saint or god-like figure, which no politician should be made out to be. In any rankings by historians of the greatest presidents, Lincoln and FDR are always at the top. Whoever is the most forceful chief executive, who creates big government or starts a war, is a war-time president – those are always the presidents the historians rank at the top. And the journalists, of course, to the extent that they have any education about this, they were educated by these same historians who always rank FDR and Lincoln at the top. I imagine that’s where this comes from. A lot of the literature is deification of Lincoln. People have asked me if I think Lincoln should be at Mount
- 29 -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? Rushmore. I always say nobody should be on Mount Rushmore. It’s sort of a deification of politicians, which is a very unhealthy thing for a society. Miller: Joe Morris, our government is said to be a government of checks and balances. But if a state cannot leave the Union, what check is there? Morris: States do and ought to have an enormous amount of power and responsibility in a federal system, and Mr. Madison, I think very rightly, pointed out that the new United States of America under the Constitution was not a unified, centralized nation-state like France, nor was it an impossible, highly atomized mere federation like the Articles of Confederation attempted to be, the Confederacy attempted to be, or some other con-federated systems in human history attempted to be. It was something altogether new. It was a notion of divided and shared sovereignty – that is, on some level, each state is sovereign, and on some level, the national government is sovereign. There is a unified sovereignty of the American people, that in turn is distributed on a subsidiary basis, in part to the government at the national level and in part to the governments at the state level. There are some functions that states ought to have that ought not to be functions of the federal government. The Constitution attempts to enumerate the federal governments powers. Public pressure, the pressure of constituencies of interest groups, for a century and more has attempted to press the federal government to take over those responsibilities from the states. People who love liberty will and ought to press in the opposite direction. But let me tell you one thing: The doctrine of states’ rights
- 30 -

CROSS-EXAMINATION ought to be a doctrine of honor and sincere profession in this country. The notion of states’ rights – those words should be honorable words, they should be on the lips of defenders of liberty. But states’ rights, in the modern political context, have an acid taste to them, because southern lovers of slavery and southern opposition to the equality of human beings, for more than a century, before and after Mr. Lincoln’s time, tried to hide behind the rights and proper powers of sovereign states to perpetuate those inequalities. Miller: Tom, Jefferson Davis said that blacks must be integrated into the society, must be allowed to work, save money, buy property. Abe Lincoln said that all blacks should be sent back to Africa. Whose approach won, who triumphed? DiLorenzo: I’m not necessarily a defender of the Confederacy, any more than a critic of FDR is a defender of Hitler. Keep in mind my book is about Lincoln, it’s not a defense of anything the Confederate government has done. I do defend the right of secession, and I think I devote one page to the Confederate government, where I compare their constitution to the U.S. Constitution. The people who are trying to smear me by calling me a neo-Confederate make this assumption that if you criticize Lincoln you’re a defender of the Confederacy. That’s like saying a critic of FDR is a defender of Hitler and Mussolini, and that’s just not right. Miller: Joe, why not let the South secede? Wouldn’t the North be in a better position to end slavery once the North was free from the Fugitive Slave Act?

- 31 -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? Morris: One reason is that you would have left a quasi-totalitarian regime in power in the South, and it would be immediately next door to the United States, and that would not be a healthy thing. Miller: Tom, did Lincoln not clearly show, in his second inaugural address, that both sides had significant responsibility for the war and the deaths? DiLorenzo: That may be his most celebrated speech. People have written entire books about that speech. In the second inaugural address, Lincoln said “the war came” – which is a real cop-out, isn’t it? He just happened to be sitting there in his office one day and holy cow, the war came – and then he blames the whole thing on God and absolves himself. He said the war was God’s punishment for the sin of slavery, and both North and South were responsible. He blamed the whole thing on God. And keep in mind that New York City didn’t abolish slavery until 1852, and New Hampshire passed a law ending slavery in 1857. Miller: Joe, if Wisconsin were allowed to secede today, would you regard it as appropriate to send our boys to shoot people from Wisconsin? Morris: A very simple answer, and it’s the answer of Sumter: Only if they shot first. It’s the answer that should have been given at Waco. That’s what we had at Waco, some lunatics who were seceding from the United States in their little compound. It was absolute madness to invade that compound. You had the compound
- 32 -

CROSS-EXAMINATION encircled, you essentially have them in prison. All you had to do was just sit there. An attempt by Wisconsin or any other state to secede would not be harmless. It would not be without injury to the rights of Americans in Wisconsin or people elsewhere in the other 49 states with absolute rights and privileges in the state of Wisconsin. So it would not be harmless, and it ought to be resisted. There are many ways in which to resist it. There are legal ways to resist it. There are economic ways to resist it. There are violent ways to resist it. My answer on the question of violence is, there’s no need to resist any such act, any such political or other act, by violence unless violence is initiated by other Americans. I’m not admitting the legitimacy of a peaceful secession – I am saying a peaceful secession is an absolute absurdity in modern America, but it does not need a violent response. A nonviolent secession in modern America is doomed to failure. DiLorenzo: Thank God the Russians had Gorbachev and not Lincoln. Fifteen republics peacefully seceded. Of course, I would not send troops into Wisconsin to keep them from seceding. It would be barbarianism to do such a thing. Miller: Tom, why didn’t Lincoln use the courts? DiLorenzo: Because he knew he would lose. That’s why they never tried Jefferson Davis – they had him imprisoned, but they never tried him. One of the most prominent lawyers in New York City at the time, Charles O’Conor, offered to defend him pro bono. The trial would have been in Virginia. I think they knew they would not have won on the issue of the constitutionality of secession, and they didn’t want to lose through
- 33 -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? the courts what they had just gained through 620,000 deaths. Miller: It’s just amazing to me the integration, the hard drives of the people of The Heartland Institute – and indeed, of all people of libertarian persuasion. All of the questions I have here are remarkable. Nevertheless, this is the last question. Tom, and then Joe: What would the United States look like today if the South had been allowed to secede peacefully? DiLorenzo: There’s a new book out by Charles Adams, titled When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession. It’s a collection of European essays on the Civil War. It’s really fascinating: Charles Dickens is in there. All of these authors, from England, France, Greece – all over Europe – seem to recognize that when the South seceded it nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, and that was a law that socialized the cost of slavery. It forced the northern states to run down runaway states, and they returned most of them to their owners. That’s why the underground railroad ended up in Canada. And these European authors recognized that this would break the back of slavery. Regardless of what the Southerners were saying, these European authors thought the smarter ones surely had to understand that this really was the end of slavery. In my opinion, a real statesman could have sped that up by offering compensated emancipation of some form, like the rest of the world had done. Slavery could have been ended very quickly and peacefully. Lincoln talked about it a lot, but he never used his legendary political skills to actually get it done. He went to war instead.

- 34 -

CROSS-EXAMINATION I think the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century was a time of consolidated government power – in Germany, in Russia, and everywhere else – where centralized, monopolistic bureaucracies were created. The United States would have been the one counter-example of decentralization and federalism that was allowed to work for the rest of the world to see. Today, we usually hold up Switzerland as an example of that. I think allowing secession would have tempered the imperialistic proclivities of the U.S. government. We wouldn’t have had the Spanish-American War, for example. Just as the secession of Wisconsin would temper the proclivities of the U.S. government to tax the pants off everybody, like it’s doing now. That was always the idea behind secession, or the threat of secession. And if we hadn’t gotten into the Spanish-American War, I doubt we would have had a Woodrow Wilson to plunge us into World War I, and without World War I there probably wouldn’t have been a World War II. I also think the two sides of the country could have reunited if they thought it was in their interest to do so. Morris: Let’s make sure we got that straight: Abraham Lincoln is responsible for World War II ... Tom DiLorenzo argues in his books that if the South had won the Civil War, the shame of slavery could not have survived. It didn’t make economic sense for the South, he writes. I respectfully submit that any survival of slavery after 1865 – in fact, the survival of slavery into 1865 – was a shame and a scandal on its face and a denial of American principles. That it could be acceptable that slavery would last into the last third of the nineteenth century is just completely unacceptable to me.

- 35 -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? Had the South succeeded in its rebellion and its secession, I don’t think the North would have gone a merry and homogenous way. Had this precedent of secession been successfully established, I think we would have seen an atomization of the rest of the North. I think the New England secession would have occurred. I think the Mid-Atlantic states would have gone their own ways. The West never would have been opened as the West was opened, as the American West. Spain and Mexico would still have significant presences in North America, and the dominant power in North America would probably be a very strong British Empire. There would have been by the early twentieth century no arsenal of democracy to resist World War I – as if Woodrow Wilson and the United States started World War I? If there had been no United States, including a strong and economically vibrant, decidedly American, South, then, by the middle of the twentieth century, there would have been no leader of the West, no America to defeat the Nazis and ultimately to defeat the Communists. So in my view, if the rebellion had succeeded, if secession had been established as a viable precedent for the United States of America, the lamp would have gone out on the hilltop, and the experiment in human self-government would have failed.

- 36 -

Speaker Biographies
Thomas J. DiLorenzo earned his Ph.D. in economics from Virginia Tech and is an American economics professor at Loyola College in Maryland. Tom is an adherent of the Austrian school of economics, a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and an affiliated scholar of the League of the South Institute. Tom is the author of more than 10 books, including The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. That’s the one about which Barron’s newspaper wrote, “more than 16,000 books have already been written about Abraham Lincoln, but it took an economist to get the story right.” He also wrote How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country from Pilgrims to the Present and Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know about Dishonest Abe. I’ll bet you can deduce where he’s comin’ from on that one! Tom has spoken out in favor of the formation of the Confederate States of America, claiming the South had the right to secede. He also has criticized the crediting of the New Deal with ending the Great Depression. Tom lectures widely and is a frequent speaker at Mises Institute events as well as on national media.

- 37 -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? Joseph A. Morris is a partner in the law firm of Morris & DeLaRosa, with offices in Chicago and London. He maintains an active practice, conducting trials and appeals, particularly in the areas of constitutional, business, labor, administrative, and international law. He is a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, and several other courts. Joe serves pro bono publico as president and general counsel of the Lincoln Legal Foundation – which tells you where he’s coming from! – and he’s an active member of many other civic, charitable, and other organizations. Joe served under President Ronald Reagan as assistant attorney general and director of the Office of Liaison Services at the U.S. Department of Justice. He also has been an American delegate to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. He is a national director of the American Conservative Union and has been chairman and president of the United Republican Fund of Illinois. A frequent lecturer and debater, Joe appears often on national and local television and radio.

- 38 -

The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit public policy research organization based in Chicago. Founded in 1984, its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, market-based approaches to environmental protection and health care finance, tax and spending limitation, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies. Heartland publishes books and policy studies, hosts an online clearinghouse for public policy research and commentary called PolicyBot, organizes events featuring experts on public policy issues, and supports a growing network of prominent senior fellows. Heartland’s unique contribution to the national debate over public policy is its series of five monthly public policy newspapers: Budget & Tax News, Environment & Climate News, Health Care News, InfoTech & Telecom News, and School Reform News. These publications feature the best work of the country’s leading think tanks and present research and commentary as news. Heartland sends these public policy newspapers to every state and national elected official in the U.S., plus 8,440 local officials, 2,000 journalists, and thousands of subscribers, Heartland supporters, and opinion leaders.
- 39 -

LINCOLN: FRIEND OR FOE OF FREEDOM? More than 130 academics and professional economists participate in Heartland’s peer review process, and nearly 100 experts on the staffs of other think tanks serve as contributing editors of Heartland’s publications. Approximately 500 state legislators serve on Heartland’s Board of Legislative Advisors, providing feedback and guidance to Heartland staff. A 15-member Board of Directors oversees a staff of 35. Heartland’s annual budget of approximately $7 million is funded by 2,100 donors. No corporate donor gives more than 5 percent. Contributions are tax deductible under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. For more information, contact The Heartland Institute, 19 South LaSalle #903, Chicago, IL 60603, phone 312/377-4000, fax 312/377-5000, or visit http://www.heartland.org.

- 40 -

Abraham Lincoln: Friend or Foe of Freedom? Order Form
Number of copies x Price/copy = $ Total enclosed

volume discounts
prices include shipping/handling Copies 1-10 11-50 51-100 101+ Cost/copy $4.95 3.95 2.95 1.95 Discount — 17% 33% 50%

If charged to a credit card, please provide this information: [ ] Master Card Card Number Signature Name Title Business Street City, State, Zip Preferred Phone Preferred Email
Please mail this form and check or money order to The Heartland Institute, 19 South LaSalle Street #903, Chicago, Illinois 60603. Questions? Call 312/3774000. For more information about The Heartland Institute, visit our Web site at www.heartland.org.

[ ] Visa

[ ] American Express Exp. Date