Animal rights activists often like to tout a purported quote from our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln. Here’s the alleged quote:
I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of the whole human being.
I read at least one Lincoln biography a year, and I have never come across that line–and believe me, it would have caught my attention! So, I did a little on-line research. And guess what? It’s fake. I checked many sites for this, but this one involves a lot of research and checking, and seems to sum it up reliably:
An examination of such website claims led to a single quotation, the earliest source of which I’ve found is a book by Jon Wynne-Tyson, British publisher and author of books on vegetarianism and animal rights. He claims that Lincoln said or wrote (unclear which): “I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.”1 Wynne-Tyson cites as the source for the quote, “Complete Works,” which presumably refers to the Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln.2 But he provides neither volume nor page number for verification…
I became intrigued at how such an unorthodox attitude (certainly for the 19th century) could have been held by Abraham Lincoln, and yet had come to light only within the past twenty-some years. My interest led me to Wynne-Tyson’s alleged source of Lincoln’s quotation, Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, first published in 1894, and reprinted with additional material in 1905. It was the latter edition that I found at the library of Binghamton University. As this work has not yet been digitized in a form that permits the text to be searched by computer, I was compelled, over two months, to read its entire 12 volumes—4,637 pages in all. Nowhere in those pages could I find any statement by Lincoln either for or against the concept of animal rights. In fact, the very phrase “animal rights” does not appear in the work. Yet whenever this alleged Lincoln quote has appeared on dozens of websites I’ve inspected, the citation (if given at all) is Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln. I conclude, therefore, that this alleged Lincoln quotation is, in all likelihood, a fabrication.
I checked several other sites, and all reached the same conclusion.
Lincoln certainly had a soft heart for animals. He didn’t hunt big game and may not have hunted at all. He owned a dog named Fido in Springfield (pictured, above), and a lapdog named Jip in the White House, as well as assorted cats. He saved a chick that had fallen out of its nest and once while riding with a friend, he doubled back to save a pig stuck in the mud, even though it meant he would be covered too. He gave what was probably the first presidential pardon to a turkey being fattened for Christmas dinner. But that wasn’t because he was worried about the life of the bird: His son Tad had named the turkey and made it his pet, and so Lincoln didn’t want to hurt his son.
But animal rights? No. He wore leather shoes and boots. He rode horses. He ate meat with relish. Besides, the core belief of “animal rights”–that humans and animals have equivalent moral worth–did not exist in the 19th Century in America, and indeed, would have been astounding and beyond the pale to Honest Abe–particularly given the difficulties of the time concerning the intrinsic equality of all humans. Heck, they are astounding and beyond the pale to me in 2010.
May 12th, 2010 | 10:24 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Rubin the Rabbit and Vera, Vera . Vera said: Honest Abe Wasn't For Animal Rights: Honest: First Things (blog)Animal rights activists often like to tout a purpo… http://bit.ly/d708yG [...]
May 13th, 2010 | 2:46 am
There’s evidence that the great Greek biographer,Plutarch, wrote in favor of treating animals humanely, and also, that vegitarianism, is the most natural diet for humans. He cites that, human teeth, unlike other animals, are designed for the tearing of flesh. Whether he would qualify as an animal rights advocate in the modern sense, is questionable, but I will do some further research in this area.
As for Lincoln, he was, as anyone is likely to be, a man of his times. He also, unfortunately, did not believe that African-Americans, were equal to whites. People, even very brilliant people, are influenced by their culture, in subtle ways. but I think that it’s safe to say that, if he was living now, he would believe that blacks and whites are equal. And, I don’t think one shouls hold one’s breath that he would be dismissive of animal rights.
May 13th, 2010 | 2:48 am
Sorry, I meant to say that Plutarch asserted that, human teeth are NOT designed to tear fleash, and hence, humans were not meant to eat animal meat.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Plutarch was wrong. Read my book Bret.
May 13th, 2010 | 4:07 am
That someone would spend as much time as you did searching for the authenticity of this quote shows a sick mind, a person so determined to spew his evil that he will spend whatever he has to to do it. You give new meaning to OCD. You add new dismensions to personality disorders. You need help badly, man.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 13th, 2010 at 9:04 am
Ha! I dislike mendacity, Abe Lincoln, as did the real Honest Abe. And the animal rights movement is overall one of the most dishonest I have encountered.
May 13th, 2010 | 10:03 am
[...] Honest Abe Wasn't For Animal Rights: Honest » Secondhand Smoke | A … Masters of Nature Camouflage: Unbelievable Animal Photography …24 hours – Animal [...]
May 13th, 2010 | 10:41 am
Bret: “Plutarch asserted that, human teeth are NOT designed to tear fleash, and hence, humans were not meant to eat animal meat.”
Well, if Plutarch said that, I hope he was a better philosopher than he was a dentist. Or a biologist, for that matter.
In fact, one of the arguments I have against vegetarianism being “more natural” is to tell the person to look in the mirror. See the pointy canine teeth? See the sharp flat teeth in front? Definitely the teeth of a (sometimes at least) predator, and if you’ve ever been to a barbecue, you know they can tear off meat quite well.
Contrast them with any herbivore’s teeth. Our molars are similar because they have similar tasks (grinding up bitten off pieces) but their front teeth are thicker and duller, for biting off plants.
While you’re at the mirror, look at your eye alignment. Herbivore/prey animals tend to have their eyes to the side for greater range of vision. Predators have them in front, straight ahead, for better distance judgment. Which way are your eyes aligned, Bret?
May 13th, 2010 | 5:31 pm
Are humans naturally herbivores?.
The answer: NO way and no reputable anthropologist would dispute that.
This post highlights a great tradition in AR of making up quotes and making up stuff in general…like saying animal testing isn’t saving anyone. Tell that to my grandma with a pig valve in her heart.
May 14th, 2010 | 2:28 am
I actually think that the great Greek biographer had a point. Our teeth are not conducive with being good predators. I have to disagree, Padraig. Look at a lion’s teeth. Now, THOSE ae the teeth of a predator. Our teeth are sharp, but we have to begin a digestive process, that will ultimately, turn our food into microscopic molecules, to be be absorbed into the blood, so naturally, our teeth must be somewhat sharp.
True, our eyes are alligned in front, so? Maybe this is to make us good predators, or maybe it’s just better for binocular vision, and to ESCAPE predators?
Also, we humans can live perfectly healthy lives on a vegitarian diet. This would be impossible if we were exclusively predators.
Also, no human would be motivated to be a vegitarian, if it was so unnatural. In other words, we uncounsciously, all ouf us, seek food our bodies need. If we don’t get enough sodium, for example, hormones secreted from our adrenals, cause us to seek out salty foods. But people, as long as they get enough B vitamins and proteins, live their whole lives without meat, and, sometimes, when they ear meat accidently, they become sick! Clearly, we humans do not HAVE to eat meat.
Some might argue that, because humans have been at war for at least thousands of years, we’re “naturally” violent. But humans, with enough motivation for change, and enough moral reasoning, are able to change and be better people. These aere just excuses, to continue engaging in behavior that they want to continue in. But they’ll find no comfort in genetics. Humans have a great capability, due to their (our) brain plasticity, to overcome genetic predispositions.
It’s moot really, because I’ve always conceded, that for our survival, in the distant past, hunting was necessary. Just like some wars are necessary, but regrettible. But now, with the plethera of food sources, hunting is unnecessary.
Mr. smith, I have recently picked up your book, and will read it. I have skimmed through it already, and it is very well written, and I’ll let you kow what I think when I’m done.
Melissa: I’m afraid you may have commited the strawman fallacy. No one has sais humans are NATURALLY herbovores. Wer’re NATURALLY omnivores, meaning we can eat either plants or animals. BUT, we can adapt, and live perfectly healthy lives as herovores.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Bret: Thanks for getting the book.
May 14th, 2010 | 3:05 am
Padraig: Respectfully, I think we have to be careful about making teleological deductions about what purposes body parts have. I’m guilty of this too, it’s easy to fall into it. But we really cannot say that sharp or dull teeth, or eyes in the proint of the head, etc., “mean” anything.
What it shows, evolutionarily speaking, is that, in the distant past, there were environmental pressures that influenced animal survival. And, animals that, by chance, happened to already have traits that were conducive to their survival, such as eyes in the front or sides, survived, and those that did not have these traits, that helped them survive, died off.
But these traits developed as a result of random mutations of the genes in the animals bodies. And if the mutations happened to help the animal survive, then those genes would be passed on through reproduction. Those animals whose random genetic mutations, caused malfunctions, and an inability to adapt to environmental pressures (which would be more likely, since the mutations are random, without direction) died out.
So if you’re right that sharp teeth, and eyes in the front help with animal predation, that only means that, some humans in the past, had mutations, random ones, that caused their genes to produce eyes that just happened to bo conducive to hunting, and if this helped us survive, then naturally those genes would be passed on to humans, and ulitmately us.
But, we live in a period when hunting in no longer needed. how we look, our eyes, in front for example, are merely evolutionary vestiges.
May 14th, 2010 | 1:34 pm
Wesley Smith: I have not finished it yet, but your book is well written, and you make respectable arguments. Clearly, it’s a book that’s worth reading.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 14th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Thank you very much Bret. I appreciate your taking the time.
May 14th, 2010 | 4:12 pm
@Bret – check out “Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human”. (Click my link.) The author makes a good case for the idea that we’re adapted to eating **cooked** food (rather than the more traditional argument of meat- vs non-meat). It’s a good read.
May 15th, 2010 | 1:14 am
DRH: I’ll take a look at it. Thanks.
May 15th, 2010 | 12:26 pm
Abe Lincoln, Charles Darwin & Albert Swietzer were all attributed animal rights quotes that they did not make. Early disinformation propagandists like Cleveland Amory, Brian Davis, & Al Pacheco and JP Goodwin made up those quotes top spread misinformation. . Thankfully the easy access to the biographical information on those three esteemed men proves to be damning evidence that lies told can easily be disproved by time and and understanding of who those men really were in history..
May 15th, 2010 | 12:29 pm
By the way : For Abe Lincoln who is dismayed that a lie about his true nature can not fly today because people take time to destroy the lie,I have an important observation for you. It is not evil to destroy a lie no matter how long it takes. The evil lies within the mind that created the lie not the one who exposes it.
May 16th, 2010 | 9:40 pm
Bret: “I actually think that the great Greek biographer had a point. Our teeth are not conducive with being good predators. I have to disagree, Padraig. Look at a lion’s teeth. Now, THOSE ae the teeth of a predator.”
Those are the teeth of a full-time carnivore. Ours are the teeth of omnivores, which can tear meat or plants.
Bret: “Respectfully, I think we have to be careful about making teleological deductions about what purposes body parts have. ”
You were fine with it when Plutarch did it. Or more generally, when it leads to the conclusions you want it to lead to.
Bret: “some humans in the past, had mutations, random ones, that caused their genes to produce eyes that just happened to bo conducive to hunting, and if this helped us survive, then naturally those genes would be passed on to humans, and ulitmately us.”
Thank you for restating my argument. Darwin’s, too. We evolved as part-time predators because it contributed to our welfare as a species.
Bret: “But, we live in a period when hunting in no longer needed. ”
Depending on where you live, and the food sources available, and your degree of resourcefulness. But yes, we spoiled urban/suburban Americans do not necessarily have to hunt for our dinner. Although I would consider any fishing for wild fish to be a form of hunting, and that is most certainly needed.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 16th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Add in, we were also almost surely scavengers. By the way, as Bret will learn in reading my book, gorillas have far sharper canines than humans and chimps, both omnivores, and they are vegetarian. You also have to look at the gut, and in the gut we are definitely not herbivores. Plutarch did not have the benefit of modern biology.
May 17th, 2010 | 12:56 am
These traits, acquired through evolution, have no use for us now. We do NOT need meat to live. So, it’s really irrelevant whether evolution provided us with certian tendencies.
And that’s important: they’re only tendencies. We are thinking creatures. We can conclude that our proclivaties are harmful. And, indeed, the hunting, and the other killing of cows, pigs,etc., for the “food” industries, causes considerable suffering.
Why would anyone, knowing the suffering that takes place, want to be a part of it?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 9:51 am
You just engaged in human exceptionalism Bret. Own it.
May 17th, 2010 | 9:46 am
Wes, true about lowland gorillas’ canines, but they are technically omnivores, eating a fair number of insects. And their largely herbivorous existence means they need a lot of territory, and are very sensitive to the habitat loss they’re experiencing. So, going mostly vegetarian is not working out terribly well for them.
I also thought hippos were herbivores despite their sharp teeth. Then I saw a video of a hippo fighting off alligators in order to feed on a wildebeest corpse in a river.
BTW, an animal that scavenges for meat is still considered biologically to be a predator, including vultures and crows. My first reaction to being told that was “nonsense, I’ve never seen a crow kill anything.” Then I saw a crow carry off a live baby rabbit. Not a pleasant experience, but educational.
May 17th, 2010 | 1:19 pm
Bret: “So, it’s really irrelevant whether evolution provided us with certian tendencies.”
Your original argument was that “vegitarianism (sic), is the most natural diet for humans.” What could be more natural than using what evolution provided us with, that is, the ability to obtain and digest animal protein?
May 17th, 2010 | 5:46 pm
Wesley Smith: One can, as I do, accept that humans are exceptional. So why don’t we BEHAVE exceptionally, by accepting that, while yes, other animals are less intelligent, they still have consciousness, and the capacity to suffer, like we do, therefore, they should be given the same moral consideration as us?
In other words,from what I can tell, the only “arguments that you have for denying non-humans the same rights as us, is well, their non-humanity, and that we’re smarter than they are. Frankly, I cannot see where/how these traits(i.e., nonhumanity, and less intelligence) have any moral relavence at all.
Now, if we shared no traits connected to morality, with other animals (i.e.,consciousness and sensory awareness), you would have a slam dunk case, obviously. But it’s disconcerting, frankly, that you accept, that at least some animals are conscious, and feel, but you’re unwilling (yes, unwilling) to take this to its proper, logical conclusion.
You, commendably, assert that we should treat other animals kindly and humanely, which,
I think, reflects your decency. But you still think that animals should serve us, ultimately. This just cannot withstand logical scrutiny.
Although you have written a good book, and have made a case for your position, I cannot, in good conscience, be converted to your views,vis a vis animals. You’re right on track regarding euthanasia, but not animals, in my view.
I challenge you to come up with a morally relevant argument to support your belief that animals should not be given the same consideration as us. As I’ve mentioned, your arguments rely on somehow thinking that being nonhuman, and less intelligent, means less moral consideration. I just don’t see the conection. Since they feel, and are conscious, their moral treatment follows.
Padraig: I’ve never argued that vegitarianism is the most “natural” diet for humans. that’s your inference, and maybe I should have been clearer, so this inference could not arise.
My point was, since Wesley was talking about an histoical figure, Lincoln, not really being in favor of animal rights(based on his interpretation of the evidence), I would just add that Plutarch had certain views. I’ve always held that, just because humans have natural tendencies, that does not necessarily imply that we should manifest those tendencies.
Evolution gives an animal what it needs, at a particular time. The traits, that arise from evolution, emerge only after thousands or millions of years, of mutation pruning, if you will. Therefore, they will still be “in” the genes of an organism, long after the environmental trigger that prompted the mutation is gone. And it takes thousands of years for it to be removed from the genetic code. Hence, we still have, as a vestige, the predisposition to hunt. BUT there’s no trigger now.
Protein can be derived from a variety of non-animal sources.
I think you misinterpreted mu comment regarding vegitarianism. I meant that one can live a perfectly healthy life, without eating meat. In fact, a healthier life. This conclusion is supported by numerous empirical studies, regarding human diets.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact