It is occasionally fun to read an article about how some figure from American history would deal with a contemporary problem: How would George Washington handle Iraq? How would Alexander Hamilton deal with the WTO? What would Aaron Burr do if he had a gun in his hand and a clear view of Zacarias Moussaoui? But these exercises are often more interesting than they are useful.

Now along comes Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in yesterday’s Wash Post, assuring us that there’s absolutely no way Abraham Lincoln would support President Bush’s foreign policy, on the grounds that Lincoln opposed the Mexican War because it was a preventive war and therefore unjustified, a threat to democracy, etc. (Quotes are supplied, including an amazingly gratuitous one that is meant to rebut Bush’s “messianic” vision of himself.)

None of this is surprising–Schlesinger is basically a court historian of the Democratic Party. But his column makes me wonder: Does Schlesinger actually think the Mexican War was a bad idea? I suppose we can debate its origin. As for its outcome, it seems indisputable to me that it made possible the spread of liberty over a large portion of North America. The tragedy is that the United States didn’t grab even more territory back when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed — today, Baja California could be like a southwestern version of Florida, Monterrey could flourish like Phoenix, etc. Do the ends ever justify the means? Seems to me that in 1848, they sure did. Good thing Schlesinger was not a member of the Polk administration.