Lincoln, more than any other American statesman, understood himself to be acting from Declaration Principles..

This Foundation is about acting from Declaration Principles.

Your Chairman, Ambassador Alan Keyes, and your President are on record numerous times as holding that Lincoln did exemplify those principles. It becomes our duty, then to correct falsehoods and sneers against the chief exemplar of our mission. Uncorrected, those lies will be retold and believed, by some, to the detriment of this Foundation and the Republic it seeks to serve.

Perhaps you would like to see some of these falsehoods. It's not a pretty picture.

Here is one, from Ilana Mercer, published at the conservative site that runs Dr. Keyes' columns, Worldnetdaily.

If anti-slavery sentiments were his muse, the dissembling Lincoln never let on until 1854, which is when he began getting religion on slavery.

Stripped of bafflegab, Lincoln's proclaimed primary objective was to destroy federalism and states' rights. His victory included much more than waging a war that killed 620,000 young men. Lincoln's "achievement" went beyond murdering roughly 50,000 Southern civilians, blacks included. His coward's conquest transcended the destruction of the Southern economy. Lincoln's victory is fulsome yet fetid today. It lives on in the unconstitutional, violent and mob-dominated institution over which President Bush now smirkingly presides.

Having exposed every dank nook and cranny in Lincoln's putrid pedigree, DiLorenzo understandably expresses sadness that the loss of state sovereignty – and by extension, individual sovereignty over the state – seems not to matter to most Americans.

The sections in bold are outright lies. Congressman Lincoln introduced legislation in 1849 for the abolition of slavery in the district of Columbia, and stood against the "peculiar institution" in word and deed in various ways long before 1854. The second claim in bold type borders on the delusional, if Ms. Mercer actually managed to convey her thought in the words she wrote. Imagine what would happen to a Presidential candidate who proclaimed an intention to destroy federalism and states' rights in 1860!

Mercer wrote in praise of a forthcoming book, to be published by no less a company than Random House. The author of the book, a Professor DiLorenzo, then took after our critique of Ms. Mercer in the following language:

The claim by Ferrier and Quackenbush that Lincoln never talked about his career-long devotion to the Whig/mercantilist agenda of protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for the railroad industry, and government monopolization of the money supply from 1854 on belies their claim that they have read all of Lincoln's post-1854 speeches. In virtually every one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln made it a point to champion this corrupt economic agenda.

Even when commenting on the Dred Scott decision on June 26, 1857, he bitterly denounced Andrew Jackson's refusal, some 30 years earlier, to recharter the Second Bank of the United States. He repeated this complaint a month later in a debate with Douglas. Indeed, as soon as Lincoln took office, he oversaw what James McPherson calls a "blizzard of legislation" during his first 18 months in office that tripled the average tariff rate, began spending federal tax dollars – for the first time ever – on railroad-industry subsidies, and nationalized the money supply with the National Currency Acts.

We had written, "Lincoln's entire recorded corpus of thought, from his serious re-entry into national politics until his election as president, is devoted substantially – and, many would say, obsessively – to the sole issue of slavery. His public speeches, his private correspondence – everything he wrote, said and did – is focused like a laser on the issue of the evil of human servitude, and how to stop it from permanently corrupting the Union he loved."

[all quotations taken from WND, which gave space to both sides in this controversy -rdf]

Again, everything in bold type from Dr. DiLorenzo is false. If you have the least doubt about these things, please read the speeches and debates yourselves. The exercise will do you good; it is always a joy to think through American political matters with Lincoln as a guide.

I have already written of the damage reckless falsification does to public discourse and political liberty. Now I ask you to consider the true proposition these lies displace. A moment's reflection will tell you that it is this: Lincoln was a man who knew how to let political principles, in particular, the Principles of the Declaration, work their way through prudent action to a moral end, achieved for moral reasons. That proposition, and others like it, all respecting human beings' God-given ability to govern themselves morally, looking to the laws of nature and of nature's God, is what will be lost if the public believes the cynical, low-minded, and erroneous tale of "Lincoln the Corporate Pawn."

Lincoln was not God. Every action in his public life may and should be examined with care. Were he here to speak with us, he would confess many mistakes, I suppose. But he would never for a minute tell us that he did not love Declaration Principles, and hence did not really mean his continual public condemnation of slavery. No. Not in a thousand years.

For the Truths of the Declaration he lived and he died, and for that death and that life, Americans honor and love him to this day.

Liberty and Union, Now and Forever!

Dr. Richard Ferrier
President, Declaration Foundation