 |
| Harry Jaffa as a child |
A review of Harry Jaffa´s peculiar "A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War".
Strictly speaking, this isn't a book about Abraham
Lincoln. Rather, it's a book in which the author, Harry Jaffa, expounds his
peculiar brand of conservative philosophy, known to outsiders as West Coast
Straussianism. "A new birth of freedom" is essentially a West Coast
Straussian exegesis of the writings of Lincoln, Jefferson and Calhoun. The book
is of primary interest to conservatives and libertarians, or perhaps people
interested in Leo Strauss, the philosopher Jaffa claims to follow.
Only a very brief sketch of Jaffa's argument is possible here. Jaffa paints Lincoln as a philosophical genius, a leader who combined politics, rhetoric and classical philosophy. He compares Lincoln to Socrates, Aristotle and Euclid. By contrast, he sees affinities between Calhoun and Darwin, Marx, Hegel and Kant (thinkers Jaffa rejects).
To Jaffa, the secession of the southern states was unconstitutional. The thirteen colonies did have the right to secede from Britain, but the South did not have the right to leave the Union. The United States were founded on the natural rights of man. The British Empire and the Confederacy were not. It's lawful to rebel against the divine right of kings, but it's not lawful to rebel in order to safeguard slavery. But wasn't slavery accepted by the US constitution? Jaffa argues that this was a temporary tolerance dictated by prudence. The real intention of the founding fathers was to abolish slavery, something Jaffa attempts to prove by quoting the Declaration of Independence, the writings of Jefferson and other documents.
However, Jaffa also attempts to prove that Lincoln was really a moderate, and that all his actions were constitutional even in the narrow sense of that term. For instance, he claims that the abolishment of habeas corpus by Lincoln was constitutional, as were Lincoln's other actions in his twin capacities of president and supreme commander. Likewise, Jaffa argues that the secession of the South was unconstitutional even narrowly conceived, since no such right really exists in the US constitution.
Jaffa wants to prove that Lincoln, for reasons of both prudence and principle, always acted constitutionally. Both popular sovereignty and freedom from slavery are natural rights of man. But what if they collide? In order to avert the danger of Caesarism, Lincoln sought to abolish slavery gradually, by constitutional means. This was also the most prudential course of action, since any other action might have destroyed the Union. Jaffa attacks the radical abolitionists, who wanted slavery abolished right away, regardless of the consequences.
Needless to say, this isn't very convincing. The dark little secret is, of course, that Lincoln did *not* act constitutionally when he conducted the Civil War or abolished slavery. To put it in Jaffa's own terms: Lincoln was prudential in the sense that he pretended to act constitutionally, while actually carrying out acts of Caesarism. Politics, after all, is rhetoric. Right, Harry?
Did I mention that I support Abraham Lincoln?
Other chapters of "A new birth of freedom" attack relativism in the discourse of modern historians, dissect the ideas of the White supremacist Calhoun, and discusses Bible interpretation. There is a tension in the book between seeing the American revolution as something radically new, and seeing it as an "Aristotelian" moment, which would make the United States at bottom anti-modern and classical.
The book is a hard read, especially for those unfamiliar with the ideological background. And as already mentioned, it's not really about Old Abe. It's to a large extent a book about...Harry Jaffa.
Only a very brief sketch of Jaffa's argument is possible here. Jaffa paints Lincoln as a philosophical genius, a leader who combined politics, rhetoric and classical philosophy. He compares Lincoln to Socrates, Aristotle and Euclid. By contrast, he sees affinities between Calhoun and Darwin, Marx, Hegel and Kant (thinkers Jaffa rejects).
To Jaffa, the secession of the southern states was unconstitutional. The thirteen colonies did have the right to secede from Britain, but the South did not have the right to leave the Union. The United States were founded on the natural rights of man. The British Empire and the Confederacy were not. It's lawful to rebel against the divine right of kings, but it's not lawful to rebel in order to safeguard slavery. But wasn't slavery accepted by the US constitution? Jaffa argues that this was a temporary tolerance dictated by prudence. The real intention of the founding fathers was to abolish slavery, something Jaffa attempts to prove by quoting the Declaration of Independence, the writings of Jefferson and other documents.
However, Jaffa also attempts to prove that Lincoln was really a moderate, and that all his actions were constitutional even in the narrow sense of that term. For instance, he claims that the abolishment of habeas corpus by Lincoln was constitutional, as were Lincoln's other actions in his twin capacities of president and supreme commander. Likewise, Jaffa argues that the secession of the South was unconstitutional even narrowly conceived, since no such right really exists in the US constitution.
Jaffa wants to prove that Lincoln, for reasons of both prudence and principle, always acted constitutionally. Both popular sovereignty and freedom from slavery are natural rights of man. But what if they collide? In order to avert the danger of Caesarism, Lincoln sought to abolish slavery gradually, by constitutional means. This was also the most prudential course of action, since any other action might have destroyed the Union. Jaffa attacks the radical abolitionists, who wanted slavery abolished right away, regardless of the consequences.
Needless to say, this isn't very convincing. The dark little secret is, of course, that Lincoln did *not* act constitutionally when he conducted the Civil War or abolished slavery. To put it in Jaffa's own terms: Lincoln was prudential in the sense that he pretended to act constitutionally, while actually carrying out acts of Caesarism. Politics, after all, is rhetoric. Right, Harry?
Did I mention that I support Abraham Lincoln?
Other chapters of "A new birth of freedom" attack relativism in the discourse of modern historians, dissect the ideas of the White supremacist Calhoun, and discusses Bible interpretation. There is a tension in the book between seeing the American revolution as something radically new, and seeing it as an "Aristotelian" moment, which would make the United States at bottom anti-modern and classical.
The book is a hard read, especially for those unfamiliar with the ideological background. And as already mentioned, it's not really about Old Abe. It's to a large extent a book about...Harry Jaffa.
No comments:
Post a Comment