The remarkable thing about D'Souza's interpretations of this era of US history is that they can be inaccurate and misleading in so many ways. He truly does contain multitudes. But if one actually reads Lincoln's speeches for real, there's a much more complex picture (thread)
Sure, Lincoln called himself a "conservative" often. It's a time-honored American political tradition to call oneself a conservative and one's opponent the dangerous radical. DDS wants to claim the mantle of Lincoln's conservatism for today's Right Wing./1
But the mere fact someone says they're "conservative" doesn't mean they are, or that the meaning of "conservatism" hasn't changed over time. And that's where DDS's screeds always lie: they act as if political labels and positions are fixed over time. And that's simply untrue. /2
For example, today's Republican Party is anti-immigrant and anti-refugee. D'Souza himself has gleefully spouted this line for years. But Lincoln was disgusted by this type of Nativism in the 1850s-60s; he scornfully attacked the Know-Nothing Party for its anti-immigrationism /3 
Most folks don't know that Lincoln proposed federal legislation to encourage and support immingration in 1863; D'Souza and today's Republicans are certainly unaware of it. But the vision was actually quite sweeping, especially for its time. From his Dec. 1863 annual message: /4
D'Souza is so eager to point out how Lincoln called himself a conservative and intimated that the Dems were the radicals, but we should bear in mind that the Dems called themselves conservatives and Lincoln and the Republicans "radicals." So how meaningful are these labels? /5
For example, can D'Souza's argument, that since Lincoln said he was a conservative, today's conservatives are the real heirs of Lincoln, really hold up when we compare their positions on the Constitution? Today's Republicans are willing to ignore major parts of it (emoluments) /6
Which would have horrified Lincoln, who saw the Constitution as the lodestar of US law and liberty. Contrast the wink-wink, whaddya gonna do attitude of congressional Republicans re Trump's constitutional violations with one of Lincoln's earliest public speeches (1838): /7
And this is the rub, isn't it? D'Souza wants to wrap himself and today's Trump GOP in the aura of the self-proclaimed "conservative" Abraham Lincoln, but he and they want no part of what Lincoln actually meant when he described his principles, or the policies he advocated /8
The more accurate comparison for today's Trump movement would be the southern secessionists--who also insisted on their essential conservatism. This group was willing to break up the Union and bring war if necessary to protect their grip on national political power /9
Like the secessionists of 1860, today's self-styled "conservatives" threaten violence and discord if the national elections don't go their way. Like the secessionists of 1860, today's self-styled "conservatives" want to restrict the suffrage and homogenize the electorate /10
I've given a few examples of how D'Souza and today's "conservatives" are far different than the party of Lincoln (which had its own self-proclaimed "Radical" wing btw), but there are plenty of others: support for labor, govt programs for education, etc. /11
For example, I don't think D'Souza embraces Lincoln's position on Labor & Capital. In his 1861 annual message, Lincoln decried the "effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government" in language that echoed Marxian critiques: /12
In fact, Marx (who followed events in the US avidly, and had been a correspondent for the NY Herald) was a consistent supporter of Lincoln's-he praised Lincoln's embrace of free labor ideology, his support for workers, and emancipation. /13
In 1864, Marx wrote an open letter to Lincoln on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association in Great Britain. I'm giving a big excerpt here, bc it's a remarkable document, and underscores the wide gulf between Lincoln himself and D'Souza's superficial caricature: /14
(You can read the whole letter here: marxists.org/archive/marx/i…)
BE CAREFUL DINESH YOU MIGHT BURST INTO FLAMES IF YOU LOOK AT A MARX DOCUMENT /15
BE CAREFUL DINESH YOU MIGHT BURST INTO FLAMES IF YOU LOOK AT A MARX DOCUMENT /15
So, from someone who *has* read Lincoln's speeches, and his letters, and his public statements, and those of innumerable other figures from this era, you'll excuse me if I point out that there's one person "spouting obvious nonsense" here, and it ain't who D'Souza thinks. /16
The upshot: things change over time (that's literally what history is the study of!) and are usually more complicated than political hack-takes allow. D'Souza likely knows this, but sold his intellectual soul a long time ago. But as historians, we can't let it go unopposed. /fin
