Wisdom from the past

A letter sent by then Lawyer and member of congress Abraham Lincoln about the Mexican-American war to his friend and Law partner William H. Herndon


Washington,February 15,1848

DearWilliam,

Your letter of the 29th of January was received last night.Being exclusively a constitutional arguement, I wish to submit some reflections apon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know acuates you.Let me first state what I understand to be your position; It is that if it shall become necessary, to repell invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of an other country; and that whether such necessity exists in any given case, the President is the sole judge.
Before going further, consider well if this is or is not your position. If it is, it is the 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 soil was ourswhere hostilities commenced; and the 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 as false in fact as you can prove your house is not 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 you have given him so much as you propose. If today 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, "be silent, I see it, if you don't".
The provision of the Constitution giving war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing thier people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people as the object.This, our Convention understood to be the most opressive of all Kingly oppressions,and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this opression apon us.But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where Kings have always stood.

Wize man, that Lincoln...too bad politicians have such short memories.