Lincoln disavowed wars of aggression

Abraham Lincoln's letter to Herndon explaining his opposition to the Mexican-American War as a member of Congress has probably been over-quoted since the Iraq War began. But I think its worth repeating as long as George Bush continues to make Lincoln comparisons to justify the Iraq invasion.

Lincoln took an unpopular stand against the invasion of Mexico and gave a series of speeches in Congress to show that it was an unnecessary war of aggression based on lies by President Polk. In response to a letter by his law partner who argued in favor of the war, Lincoln wrote:

Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country, and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are--first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,--I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

I remember how angered I was that George Bush politicized the dedication of the Lincoln Presidential Museum by using Lincoln's legacy to justify the war in Iraq. It bothers me that when I toured the Museum I saw no mention of Lincoln's opposition to the war against Mexico or any details about his term in Congress beyond marks on a time line. Someone could easily tour the Museum and see nothing to rebut Bush's offensive portrayal of Lincoln as an advocate for unprovoked wars.

But this morning I had a hopeful vision. It's just a wish but it might come true. I imagined that next year, as we celebrates Lincoln's 200th birthday, the first African-American President in our history will speak about Lincoln's legacy in the town where Lincoln lived and Barack Obama announced his campaign. What a contrast it would be between Obama speaking of Lincoln's true legacy and Bush distorting that legacy to justify a war of aggression based on lies. What a refreshing difference.