"Lincoln unified the country at gunpoint and curtailed civil liberties in a way that makes President Bush look like an ACLU zealot."

Perhaps someone who's better acquainted with history can elucidate what Lincoln did that compares with establishing an extrajudicial kangaroo court outside the nation's borders, committing acts of torture and sending people to foreign governments known to commit torture, and creating broad new executive powers (and apparently a whole new fourth branch of government) out of whole cloth.  My understanding is that the Constitution gives the government the right to suspend habeas corpus in times of insurrection, which Lincoln did - and even then, principally with respect to vital supply lines into and out of the capital, which was, at that time, surrounded on three sides by enemy territory and was perilously close to becoming completely surrounded if Maryland tilted to the Confederacy.  Is there a great deal more to be told, or am I unwise in expecting Jonah Goldberg to make a salient and defensible point?

What we could use right now is a president who could reconcile the warring sides.

Lincoln was pushed into a situation where the issue at stake was so high-- the Union  must be saved-- that compromise was impossible.  

Several Southern states had already seceded before Lincoln could even take the oath.  And Ft Sumter was attacked within a month of his taking office.

In any event, the likely focus of Obama's first year or more, will be stabilizing the economy.  Unless, of course, there is a major terrorist attack.  Then the president will have two immense crisies on his hands.

What a world.  What a job.  The man will have to be incredibly good to maintain his popularity for very long.  Disappointment could so easily emerge.

"and sending people to foreign governments known to commit torture,"

That was started by Clinton administration with the approval of the next AG i the Obama administration.

Is there a great deal more to be told, or am I unwise in expecting  adaglas  to make a salient and defensible point?

Extraordinary rendition was formalized under Clinton, through a 1995 executive order, it is true. Holder, however, would have had nothing to do with it; it wasn't a legal opinion or Justice Department memo or anything else that would have to pass through the Justice Department.

Clinton, of course, should not have done what he did, but he made policy regarding a handful of what were considered to be exceptional cases. Bush, on the other hand, can easily be said to have popularized extraordinary rendition, targeting hundreds (possibly thousands?) of individuals, so many that not just one illegal secret prison, well away from the reach of the United States legal system, was needed, but an entire network of them.

e.g., way to fail to tar our soon-to-be AG with something he had nothing to do with.

You know, there was once a statement about security organizations that went something like "I know bad stuff goes on, but I don't want to know about it." Yes, extraordinary rendition started under Clinton, and in fact something like it without even those executive safeguards was going on before. But this administration made it policy, greatly increasing the number of folks in the program. What's more,

www.aclu.org/.../22203res20051206.html

One of the great disappointing results of the Bush Presidency will be in fact that programs which might be necessary in some limited, controlled fashion got so abused and therefore ultimately publicized that they will no longer be available to future presidents. Interestingly, the attempt to EXPAND executive power will result in a CONTRACTION of executive power. And while we used to be able to trust a President to make these tough decisions, we've now grown so cynical that we would never do it again.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for ER, but I can't know all the situations that are extant in the world, and can't say with certainty that there might be a situation where that was the right course of action.

"Six hundred thousand Americans died at the hands of other Americans during Lincoln’s presidency. Lincoln unified the country at gunpoint and curtailed civil liberties in a way that makes President Bush look like an ACLU zealot. The partisan success of the GOP in the aftermath of the war Obama thinks so highly of was forged in blood."

Ergo, according to Goldberg the Civil War and its resulting carnage would not have occurred but for Lincoln's actions as president.  May I reasonably infer then that he believes that Lincoln should have allowed the South to secede?  As his predecessor, the Former Worst President Ever Buchanan would have done?

This is what passes for respectable conservative discourse these days.  The sound you hear is Mr. B. spinning in his grave.  

I have an idea -- lets get rid on that useless penny and replace it with a one cent coin with a picture of Obama on it.

The first poster is right: The Constitution does allow for the use of armed force and the suspension of rights during an armed rebellion, which is what Lincoln faced within 5 weeks of taking the Presidential oath. Seven southern states had already seceded and formed the Confederate States of America. Over 100 Federal arsenals and forts in the seceding states were threatened with either seizure or destruction. Lincoln calmly waited after becoming President, hoping that maybe cooler heads would prevail on the Southern side, but on 12 April, 1861, Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, which was a new Federal installation guarding Charleston harbor. Armed rebellion forced his hand in using force to uphold his oath of office: to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, which did NOT (and does not currently) permit secession or rebellion. Suspending the writ of habeas corpus, freeing slaves in the rebellious states, instituting martial law in Southern areas brought under Federal control; all of these measures were necessary and proper as Lincoln dealt with a crisis unique to his Presidency: armed rebellion and the destruction of the Union. He prevailed, and we're a much better nation because he did.

I love these little Internoodle pissing matches when some guy talks about something that some long-dead guy did or said and then everybody jumps in and, to justify their ideology, says, well, no he didn't or that's just part of the story or you're missing the point of what he said or things were much like they are today or yeah but he had to say that because etc. etc. etc., as if any of it carries even a smidgen of relevance to the problem at hand.

Imagine the reception you'd get if you, say, submitted an application to the FDA for a new cholesterol-lowering medication. "Well," you write, "we tested it in lizards, which are cold-blooded, and we tested it in jellyfish, which, um, don't have circulatory systems, and we also consulted medical textbooks from two hundred years ago. And, yeah, so therefore..." This is what it's like to read speculation about Lincoln vs. Obama. Cheeses Christ, how many human beings were on the planet in 1860? How many democracies were there? How many intercontinental ballistic missiles did Jefferson Davis have at his disposal? How many moose did Seward shoot from a helicopter? How'd that MRSA affect Whitman's nursing chores? How about all those women in Congress--how's they vote on Civil War legislation?

To repeat: people bring up the past to justify their a priori point of view. They sift through mountains of unrelated historical crud to find one uneaten corn kernel. It's Dumpster diving of the mind. Sometimes their readers or listeners are stupid enough to believe them. The longer a guy's been dead, the better: Lincoln! Jefferson! Nomads from the "Holy Land" from 2000 years ago! Yeah, that's relevant!

I bet folks went crazy when Nathan Bedford Forrest was on "Dancing with the Stars!" (Don't get me started on Forrest. I can hear the whining on both sides: "He founded the KKK!" "Yeah, but he got kinda enlightened in later life!" Listen, if you two kids don't STFU I'm coming up there with my belt in my hand.)

Before all you historians out there jump down my throat, I'm not saying there's no value in studying history. I furnished an entire apartment from Dumpster diving, although that statement lacks the cache it once had.  History has it's place. We need to know where that place is, and where it isn't. For example, General Sherman taught us that if you're in enemy territory it's handy to burn it to the ground. Or not! Hearts and minds, and all that. See what I mean?

I just checked the calendar, and 2009 is just around the corner. And it's going to clean our clocks, unless we stop paying attention to myths fading in the rearview mirror and start taking 2009 and the rest of the future seriously.

Party too much with the past and one day the organ you're going to need most of all tomorrow--your imagination--is going to wake up with a nasty, itchy drip.

waynejm wrties, "...May I reasonably infer then that he [Goldberg] believes that Lincoln should have allowed the South to secede?

Yes, waynejm, the Copperhead Democrats of New York wanted to let the South secede in order to avoid a war.  Some things never change.

In any event, the Democrats stance before and even during the Civil War cost them the White House for most of the 67 years between Appomattox and FDR's 1932 landslide.  (There was Wilson 1913 to 1921, but only because the anomaly of the Bull Moose Party put him in.  Like Perot in '92.

But, you're right, Goldberg seems to be suggesting something feckless.  But, the Democrats have been doing the same over Iraq for six years.  

Obama and Lincoln may have something in common.  Lincoln vehemently opposed the Mexican War.  Some think Iraq and that war have elements in common.

Frankly, if the Iraq War brings as much benefit to the United States and the world as the Mexican War did, Bush will be soundly vindicated.

Of course, some of you might disagree and prefer that Mexico still possessed California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

Chan, I have to somewhat dispute those results in the 1912 election.  Certainly if TR had won the Republican nomination from Taft, the GOP would have won.  However, in 1912, at the high tide of Progressivism,  Taft's stand pat Conservatism finished third, with only 23.2 % of the vote and 8 votes in the Electoral college.  In a Taft-Wilson battle, enough of those votes would have gone to the more progressive Democrat to put him in the White House.  

As for Iraq being as good for the US as the Mexican War, huh?  Even if everything goes well from here on out, it won't equal the sheer economic value of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, four states that contain incredible local GDPs, natural resources (Texas Oil, for example) and the populations within.  How on earth would the value of the Iraq war equal that?

I wonder what Goldberg thinks of George Washington. Sure, he was a great general and president and all. But the war effort he led during the Revolution was the bloodiest war fought on American soil until the Civil War. Governments were overthrown at gunpoint; radical mob rule swept across the country. Political cleansing led the the forced expulsion of tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of Americans, and breaking up families across the land. (Including a Loyalist ancestor of mine, whom the Connecticut legislature divorced by statute from his wife and children so that they could stay while he was exiled to Canada. He would die penniless in London.) The economy collapsed as a result. And ultimately an even more powerful central government than the king's regime was imposed in America, which led to President Washington leading an army to collect taxes.

Crock1701 writes, "...As for Iraq being as good for the US as the Mexican War, huh?  Even if everything goes well from here on out, it won't equal the sheer economic value of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, four states that contain incredible local GDPs, natural resources (Texas Oil, for example) and the populations within.  How on earth would the value of the Iraq war equal that?"

Well, Crock, what is the value to the U.S. and the West of a pacified Middle East?  What is the value of Jihadist terrorism essentially dismantled or severely curtailed?

I realize there is a difference between the value of removing a great negative as opposed to adding a great positive.  But since Jihadhist terrorism taken to its logical end-- possession and use of suitcase nukes or bio-terror weapons-- then the ultimate potential negative is the destruction of the West.

The value of preventing the fall of the West must be something akin to the value even of California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.

Rhubarbs writes, "...the war effort he led during the Revolution was the bloodiest war fought on American soil until the Civil War. ... And ultimately an even more powerful central government than the king's regime was imposed in America..."

You make a lot of excellent points, Rhubarbs.  And, if we had stayed with the Crown, the U.S. and Canada would be one nation from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Circle.  And we'd all have a Single Payer health plan.

I suspect my ancestors were Tory Loyalists, too.  Tarred and feathered, homes burned, no doubt.

But Chan, surely you must consider that the value of the acquired Mexican territories played a vital roll in... preventing the fall of the West, in a far more practical manner, twice.  If there is no potential Mexican territory to be regained, would there be a Zimmerman Telegram, and with it US Entry into World War I, a decisive blow in the victory of the Democratic European powers over those of Monarchy?  Without the deep water ports of California, and a dominance from the Atlantic to Pacific, would the US have expanded further into the Pacific, becoming a major power in the Far East and the only real check on Japan, leading to Pearl Harbor?  Without Pearl Harbor, could the US have been unified to defeat Nazi Germany?  Without the natural resources in those areas, would US forces have been sufficient to win the War?    Certainly, the positive economic consequences of the Mexican War are easier to grade than any potential negative hypotheses.  However, it does appear that negative hypotheses deriving from the Mexican Cession, with their implied failures of defeating Kaiserism and Nazism, would greatly outweigh any hypothetical victory over Jihadism and "pacified" Middle East. (Though I do wonder how that would come anyway from our best case scenario in Iraq right now, i.e. an Iraq that doesn't fall apart again and survives as an Iraq after we leave.  Not sure how A leads to B there.)  

Crock1701, we are in complete accord.  I haven't often thought without California and Texas we would not have had the resources or the power to get ourselves into WWI or WW2.

Your added insights about the Zimmerman Telegram and the Pacific deep-water ports, further amplifies that truth.

So, put that way, no question the ceased Mexican territories were invaluable on a profound scale.

Unfortunately, the precedent for Iraq is probably more like the Romans fighting the barbarians.  A necessary, but costly and draining war of centuries that the Romans won over and over.  Until exhausted by those wars, she fell.

If we could reinvent Fortress America somehow, if we used oil only for lubrication and making plastic duckies, if Europe would carry her share-- then we wouldn't have to fight this thankless fight.

America, like all the brilliant civilizations of the past, will someday be a tragic memory.  But, like death, it is our duty to forestall that eventuality with all our might and breath, as long as we can sustain.