The Washington Post called out Senator Kamala Harris for her “little history lesson” during the vice presidential debate that “wasn’t exactly true.”
While on the subject of the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court things got heated when Harris responded to Pence’s argument that President Trump’s appointment is following precedent by suggesting that one of the most revered Republican presidents would be in favor of allowing a newly-elected president to fill a vacant seat instead of moving forward with a confirmation with just a few weeks left until Election Day.
“I’m so glad we went through a little history lesson. Let’s do that a little more,” Harris said arrogantly. “In 1864… Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection. And it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge not only of the White House but the Senate. But Honest Abe said, ‘It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States, and then that person will be able to select who will serve on the highest court of the land.’”
According to The Washington Post’s report, Harris’s description of events that took place under Lincoln was wrong.
“Harris is correct that a seat became available 27 days before the election. And that Lincoln didn’t nominate anyone until after he won,” the report stated. “But there is no evidence he thought the seat should be filled by the winner of the election. In fact, he had other motives for the delay.”
According to Lincoln historian Michael Burlingame, the president told his aides he wanted to delay his Supreme Court confirmation process because he was “waiting to receive expressions of public opinion from the country,” though the report noted, “that didn’t mean he was waiting for ballots so much as the mail.”
The Post further explained, “The overarching effect of the delay is that it held Lincoln’s broad but shaky coalition of conservative and radical Republicans together. Congress was in recess until early December, so there would have been no point in naming a man before the election anyway. Lincoln shrewdly used that to his advantage. If he had lost the election, there is no evidence he wouldn’t have filled the spot in the lame-duck session.”
National Review senior writer Dan McLaughin did not take this history faux pas lightly and accused Harris of “dishonesty” with her Lincoln story.
“Lincoln, of course, said no such thing,” McLaughlin said. “He sent no nominee to the Senate in October 1864 because the Senate was out of session until December.”
He added, “Kamala Harris is simply inventing history.”
