Most Americans — including most historians — regard Abraham Lincoln as the nation's greatest president. But in recent years powerful movements have gathered, both on the political right and the left, to condemn Lincoln as a flawed and even wicked man.
For both camps, the debunking of Lincoln usually begins with an exposé of the 'Lincoln myth,' which is well described in William Lee Miller's 2002 book Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography. How odd it is, Miller writes, that an 'unschooled' politician 'from the raw frontier villages of Illinois and Indiana' could become such a great president. 'He was the myth made real,' Miller writes, 'rising from an actual Kentucky cabin made of actual Kentucky logs all the way to the actual White House.'
Lincoln's critics have done us all a service by showing that the actual author of the myth is Abraham Lincoln himself. It was Lincoln who, over the years, carefully crafted the public image of himself as Log Cabin Lincoln, Honest Abe and the rest of it. Asked to describe his early life, Lincoln answered, 'the short and simple annals of the poor,' referring to Thomas Gray's poem 'Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard.' Lincoln disclaimed great aspirations for himself, noting that if people did not vote for him, he would return to obscurity, for he was, after all, used to disappointments.
These pieties, however, are inconsistent with what Lincoln's law partner, William Herndon, said about him: 'His ambition was a little engine that knew no rest.' Admittedly in the ancient world ambition was often viewed as a great vice. In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Brutus submits his reason for joining the conspiracy against Caesar: his fear that Caesar had grown too ambitious. But as founding father and future president James Madison noted in The Federalist, the American system was consciously designed to attract ambitious men. Such ambition was presumed natural to a politician and favorable to democracy as long as it sought personal distinction by promoting the public good through constitutional means.
What unites the right-wing and left-wing attacks on Lincoln, of course, is that they deny that Lincoln respected the law and that he was concerned with the welfare of all. The right-wing school — made up largely of Southerners and some libertarians — holds that Lincoln was a self-serving tyrant who rode roughshod over civil liberties, such as the right to habeas corpus. Lincoln is also accused of greatly expanding the size of the federal government. Some libertarians even charge — and this is not intended as a compliment — that Lincoln was the true founder of the welfare state. His right-wing critics say that despite his show of humility, Lincoln was a megalomaniacal man who was willing to destroy half the country to serve his Caesarian ambitions. In an influential essay, the late Melvin E. Bradford, an outspoken conservative, excoriated Lincoln as a moral fanatic who, determined to enforce his Manichaean vision — one that sees a cosmic struggle between good and evil — on the country as a whole, ended up corrupting American politics and thus left a 'lasting and terrible impact on the nation's destiny.'
Although Bradford viewed Lincoln as a kind of manic abolitionist, many in the right-wing camp deny that the slavery issue was central to the Civil War. Rather, they insist, the war was driven primarily by economic motives. Essentially, the industrial North wanted to destroy the economic base of the South. Historian Charles Adams, in When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, published in 2000, contends that the causes leading up to the Civil War had virtually nothing to do with slavery.
This approach to rewriting history has been going on for more than a century. Alexander Stephens, former vice president of the Confederacy, published a two-volume history of the Civil War between 1868 and 1870 in which he hardly mentioned slavery, insisting that the war was an attempt to preserve constitutional government from the tyranny of the majority. But this is not what Stephens said in the great debates leading up to the war. In his 'Cornerstone' speech, delivered in Savannah, Ga., on March 21, 1861, at the same time that the South was in the process of seceding, Stephens said that the American Revolution had been based on a premise that was 'fundamentally wrong.' That premise was, as Stephens defined it, 'the assumption of equality of the races.' Stephens insisted that instead: 'Our new [Confederate] government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea. Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. Slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great and moral truth.'
This speech is conspicuously absent from the right's revisionist history. And so are the countless affirmations of black inferiority and the 'positive good' of slavery — from John C. Calhoun's attacks on the Declaration of Independence to South Carolina Senator James H. Hammond's insistence that 'the rock of Gibraltar does not stand so firm on its basis as our slave system.' It is true, of course, that many whites who fought on the Southern side in the Civil War did not own slaves. But, as Calhoun himself pointed out in one speech, they too derived an important benefit from slavery: 'With us the two great divisions of society are not the rich and the poor, but white and black; and all the former, the poor as well as the rich, belong to the upper class, and are respected and treated as equals.' Calhoun's point is that the South had conferred on all whites a kind of aristocracy of birth, so that even the most wretched and degenerate white man was determined in advance to be better and more socially elevated than the most intelligent and capable black man. That's why the poor whites fought — to protect that privilege.
Contrary to Bradford's high-pitched accusations, Lincoln approached the issue of slavery with prudence and moderation. This is not to say that he waffled on the morality of slavery. 'You think slavery is right, and ought to be extended,' Lincoln wrote Stephens on the eve of the war, 'while we think it is wrong, and ought to be restricted.' As Lincoln clearly asserts, it was not his intention to get rid of slavery in the Southern states. Lincoln conceded that the American founders had agreed to tolerate slavery in the Southern states, and he confessed that he had no wish and no power to interfere with it there. The only issue — and it was an issue on which Lincoln would not bend — was whether the federal government could restrict slavery in the new territories. This was the issue of the presidential campaign of 1860; this was the issue that determined secession and war.
Lincoln argued that the South had no right to secede — that the Southern states had entered the Union as the result of a permanent compact with the Northern states. That Union was based on the principle of majority rule, with constitutional rights carefully delineated for the minority. Lincoln insisted that since he had been legitimately elected, and since the power to regulate slavery in the territories was nowhere proscribed in the Constitution, Southern secession amounted to nothing more than one group's decision to leave the country because it did not like the results of a presidential election, and no constitutional democracy could function under such an absurd rule. Of course the Southerners objected that they should not be forced to live under a regime that they considered tyrannical, but Lincoln countered that any decision to dissolve the original compact could only occur with the consent of all the parties involved. Once again, it makes no sense to have such agreements when any group can unilaterally withdraw from them and go its own way.
The rest of the libertarian and right-wing case against Lincoln is equally without merit. Yes, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and arrested Southern sympathizers, but let us not forget that the nation was in a desperate war in which its very survival was at stake. Discussing habeas corpus, Lincoln insisted that it made no sense for him to protect this one constitutional right and allow the very Union established by the Constitution, the very framework for the protection of all rights, to be obliterated. Of course the federal government expanded during the Civil War, as it expanded during the Revolutionary War, and during World War II. Governments need to be strong to fight wars. The evidence for the right-wing insistence that Lincoln was the founder of the modern welfare state stems from the establishment, begun during his administration, of a pension program for Union veterans and support for their widows and orphans. Those were, however, programs aimed at a specific, albeit large, part of the population. The welfare state came to America in the 20th century. Franklin Roosevelt should be credited, or blamed, for that. He institutionalized it, and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon expanded it.
The left-wing group of Lincoln critics, composed of liberal scholars and social activists, is harshly critical of Lincoln on the grounds that he was a racist who did not really care about ending slavery. Their indictment of Lincoln is that he did not oppose slavery outright, only the extension of it, that he opposed laws permitting intermarriage and even opposed social and political equality between the races. If the right-wingers disdain Lincoln for being too aggressively antislavery, the left-wingers scorn him for not being antislavery enough. Both groups, however, agree that Lincoln was a self-promoting hypocrite who said one thing while doing another.
Some of Lincoln's defenders have sought to vindicate him from these attacks by contending that he was a 'man of his time.' This will not do, because there were several persons of that time, notably the social-reformer Grimké sisters, Angelina and Sarah, and Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, who forthrightly and unambiguously attacked slavery and called for immediate and complete abolition. In one of his speeches, Sumner said that while there are many issues on which political men can and should compromise, slavery is not such an issue: 'This will not admit of compromise. To be wrong on this is to be wholly wrong. It is our duty to defend freedom, unreservedly, and careless of the consequences.'
Lincoln's modern liberal critics are, whether they know it or not, the philosophical descendants of Sumner. One cannot understand Lincoln without understanding why he agreed with Sumner's goals while consistently opposing the strategy of the abolitionists. The abolitionists, Lincoln thought, approached the restricting or ending of slavery with self-righteous moral display. They wanted to be in the right and — as Sumner himself says — damn the consequences. In Lincoln's view, abolition was a noble sentiment, but abolitionist tactics, such as burning the Constitution and advocating violence, were not the way to reach their goal.
We can answer the liberal critics by showing them why Lincoln's understanding of slavery, and his strategy for defeating it, was superior to that of Sumner and his modern-day followers. Lincoln knew that the statesman, unlike the moralist, cannot be content with making the case against slavery. He must find a way to implement his principles to the degree that circumstances permit. The key to understanding Lincoln is that he always sought the meeting point between what was right in theory and what could be achieved in practice. He always sought the common denominator between what was good to do and what the people would go along with. In a democratic society this is the only legitimate way to advance a moral agenda.
Consider the consummate skill with which Lincoln deflected the prejudices of his supporters without yielding to them. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates during the race for the Illinois Senate, Stephen Douglas repeatedly accused Lincoln of believing that blacks and whites were intellectually equal, of endorsing full political rights for blacks, and of supporting 'amalgamation' or intermarriage between the races. If these charges could be sustained, or if large numbers of people believed them to be true, then Lincoln's career was over. Even in the free state of Illinois — as throughout the North — there was widespread opposition to full political and social equality for blacks.
Lincoln handled this difficult situation by using a series of artfully conditional responses. 'Certainly the Negro is not our equal in color — perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man. In pointing out that more has been given to you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given to him. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy.' Notice that Lincoln only barely recognizes the prevailing prejudice. He never acknowledges black inferiority; he merely concedes the possibility. And the thrust of his argument is that even if blacks were inferior, that is not a warrant for taking away their rights.
Facing the charge of racial amalgamation, Lincoln said, 'I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that because I do not want a black woman for a slave, I must necessarily want her for a wife.' Lincoln is not saying that he wants, or does not want, a black woman for his wife. He is neither supporting nor opposing racial intermarriage. He is simply saying that from his antislavery position it does not follow that he endorses racial amalgamation. Elsewhere Lincoln turned antiblack prejudices against Douglas by saying that slavery was the institution that had produced the greatest racial intermixing and the largest number of mulattoes.
Lincoln was exercising the same prudent statesmanship when he wrote to New York newspaper publisher Horace Greeley asserting: 'My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.' The letter was written on August 22, 1862, almost a year and a half after the Civil War broke out, when the South was gaining momentum and the outcome was far from certain. From the time of secession, Lincoln was desperately eager to prevent border states such as Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri from seceding. These states had slavery, and Lincoln knew that if the issue of the war was cast openly as the issue of slavery, his chances of keeping the border states in the Union were slim. And if all the border states seceded, Lincoln was convinced, and rightly so, that the cause of the Union was gravely imperiled.
Moreover, Lincoln was acutely aware that many people in the North were vehemently antiblack and saw themselves as fighting to save their country rather than to free slaves. Lincoln framed the case against the Confederacy in terms of saving the Union in order to maintain his coalition — a coalition whose victory was essential to the antislavery cause. And ultimately it was because of Lincoln that slavery came to an end. That is why the right wing can never forgive him.
In my view, Lincoln was the true 'philosophical statesman,' one who was truly good and truly wise. Standing in front of his critics, Lincoln is a colossus, and all of the Lilliputian arrows hurled at him bounce harmlessly to the ground. It is hard to put any other president — not even George Washington — in the same category as Abraham Lincoln. He is simply the greatest practitioner of democratic statesmanship that America and the world have yet produced.
This article was written by Dinesh D'Souza and originally published in the April 2005 issue of American History Magazine.
For more great articles, subscribe to American History magazine today!
Subscribe Today
Loading ...
You say Lincoln "never acknowledges black inferiority"…
Well… September 18, 1858…
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
You're being presentist- Lincoln can be accused of Anglo-centrism (that is loving his own race the best), but he never delegates blacks to subhumanity, as the classic racist does (Adolph Hitler, southern feudalistic slave-holders, etc.), which I believe was this blogger's point. It is because we are not willing to accept the fact that our present social morals will look just as antiquated and unjust in the future – and thus accept Lincoln's morality assuming he did historically fall into the position I gave him as just for his time – that we are so myopic in politics today that our political system almost looks anarchic.
Lincoln was being politically diplomatic for his times. If you carefully read his words he was merely saying, "Since I'm white, I would prefer the superior race to be white. Since I am white, I choose to believe this to be the case."
Lincoln knew he had to get elected first, before he could do anything with slavery. He had to be careful how he addressed issues surrounding the black race. On a later occasion he said this:
" I should like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another man say it does not mean another man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get this statute book in which we find it and tear it out. ”
“ Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man—this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position, discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal."
At Alton Lincoln tried to reconcile his statements on equality. He said that the authors of the Declaration of Independence: "… intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal — equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all: constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, every where."
So it is clear that the original post of Bubba is a case of serious quote mining in an attempt to distort the true Abraham Lincoln. When all Lincoln's speeches and words are put into proper context, he clearly believed the black race, or any race, had the Divine right to be free, and thus develop their own inimitable capabilities and superior qualities within a free republic. He also quite clearly believed – in his time – that the white race held a superior advantage in comparative status to the black race, but not necessarily a a situation which could never change. There is no hypocrisy or racism with Abraham Lincoln, only a very astute statesman, and a clever politician. And an honestly good man.
All the above information came from various web sites highlighting the Lincoln Douglass Debates. Follow up comments are mine.
"Of course the Southerners objected that they should not be forced to live under a regime that they considered tyrannical, but Lincoln countered that any decision to dissolve the original compact could only occur with the consent of all the parties involved. Once again, it makes no sense to have such agreements when any group can unilaterally withdraw from them and go its own way."
I believe the purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to unite groups of people (in their own various sovereign states) under the umbrella of a representative government. The States preceded the construction of the Union and have the right to leave said union, "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
If you think secession was unconstitutional you need to go back and read the fOUNDING fATHERS' own words. They did HOPE that the nation could stay together but they felt that states DID have the right to secede. Several Northern politicians wanted the North to secede during the war of 1812 and none said they couldn't. Several states, after approving the Constitution, wrote that they were accepting it but added that they could retain all powers if they saw fit.
Lincoln argued that the South had no right to secede — that the Southern states had entered the Union as the result of a permanent compact with the Northern states….Where was that written or agreed upon? Didn't Virginia have the option to secede before she joined the union? In a voluntary union a state should have the ability and right to leave that union if the citizens of that state so wish.
Lincoln do not say that the states had absolutely no right to dissolve the union; he said their use of that right in the civil war was invalidly used.
Pickett, of the South, was fond of using the analogy of a group of men forming a gentleman's club, and then having the right to quit this club when they choose. The states of course were the men, and the union was the club. However, his analogy was overly simplistic and flawed. On the surface it seems innocent and fair, but in reality the complexity of intertwining interests made it extremely difficult for any state to just up and leave. WIth the ratification of the constitution, a unifying entity was born. And that entity was not just going to be cast aside because a portion of the ratifying components wanted to up and quit on an issue as vain as slavery. All the states would need to be involved in the dissolution process, and the union's demise would have to be ratified just like its birth, and then the issue of lands and property would have to be settled judicially. If everyone in the country agreed on this course of action and patiently followed natural law in these proceedings, civil war would have been avoided. But I dare say we would not have a country today.
No one can be naive enough to believe that the independent confederate states in time would not have been constantly bickering and even warring with one another. America would have been mocked as the divided states of America by the rest of the world. And this division going into the twentieth century would have laid America bare to powerful international forces. Divided we fall, united we stand. Thank you Abraham Lincoln and all others who prevented such a tragedy.
D'Souza's arrogant and dismissing claims that secession was unconstitutional flies in the face of easily verifiable reality: NY, RI and VA all joined the union on the condition of unilateral withdrawal should they find the new Constitution tyrannical; in Jefferson's First Inaugural, he invites discontented states to withdraw peacefully; the Hartford Convention of 1814 seriously contemplated secession for New England; and most obvious: if Lincoln was so valiantly defending the Constitution, willing to sacrifice untold lives, treasure and blood, you would think that the SPECIFIC CLAIM OF PERPETUAL UNION would be in writing, that the mechanics of secession would be well spelled out, like the Presidential Oath or the 10th Amendment. Instead, D'Souza merely uses his own self-suited logic, as did Lincoln, in formulating and espousing imagary constitutional principles that are not on paper but merely within a man's own head, heart and soul.
The key to a valid secession are in your words and the words of founding fathers,
"unilateral withdrawal should they find the new constitution tyrannical."
How was the constitution tyrannical in 1860? There was no tyranny against the South. The South feared the end of slavery through peaceful political means and therefore seceded, not because of tyrannical reasons, but because of self centered and even wicked reasons – the unlawful perpetuation of a slave institution which was at one in the same time unscriptural, and destructive to a maturing civilization.
The South then, and some elements today, have fabricated false claims of Northern tyranny in order to give credence to their actions. The South could have put the idea of secession on the table and then allowed the process to move forward constitutionally, but they chose rebellion and war instead.
The South benefited greatly from Northern industrial commerce and trade. The South did not rise economically without the help of the North, and of course their slaves. Many judicial and economic factors had of necessity be included in any process of secession. The South sought to circumvent this process, and by doing so they did illegally secede.
Your own final point contradicts your endorsement of Lincoln. You say, "He is simply the greatest practitioner of democratic statesmanship that America and the world have yet produced." Therein is the problem. Lincoln and every other president are obligated to be the greatest practitioner of the Constitution. Almost every president including Lincoln is a nationalist thug. Lincoln and his cabal hate the 10th Amendment.
Lincoln like Samuel Chase and other Constitution-haters twist and mangle the Constitution to advance their Statist policies. Would the original 13 colonies ratify a Constitution barring them from leaving the union? NO! Who knew the Constitition better? Jefferson or Lincoln?
In his First Inaugural Address, President Thomas Jefferson stated: "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." (Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jefinau1.asp)
President Jefferson later wrote to William H. Crawford in 1816: "If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture." (Source: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1450.htm).
Your first selection of Jefferson's inaugural does not help your argument. The Jefferson quote you chose is not at all advocating secession by any state which desires to do so, but just the opposite. Read the sentence carefully,
"…If there be any which desire to dissolve this union… let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with WHICH ERROR OF OPINION MAY BE TOLERATED WHERE REASON IS LEFT FREE TO COMBAT IT."
Thomas Jefferson is clearly saying, "Let people embrace their errors of opinion, such as a careless secession from, and dissolution of, the union. Let them be tolerated, for intelligent reason, unhindered in our free republic, will combat their error and prevail,"
On your second quote I could not locate the exact source therefore could not confirm what, "… the first alternative to a continuance in union without it…" exactly means.
Found it. Jefferson is writing to William H. Crawford concerning Crawford's letter to one named Fisk:
" In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose :
1,licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many; or,
2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, "let us separate." I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture.
I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter, and hold the former at arm's length, by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations and war. No earthly consideration could induce my consent to contract such a debt as England has by her wars for commerce, to reduce our citizens by taxes to such wretchedness, as that laboring sixteen of the twenty-four hours, they are still unable to afford themselves bread, or barely to earn as much oatmeal or potatoes as will keep soul and body together. " http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff15.txt
Jefferson is clearly NOT referring to an easy dissolution of the union but rather speaking of European commerce and war which benefits the few and hurts the masses. He is saying that if certain states would prefer the first alternative of European corruption, then let the other states separate from them. This would be a good cause for secession.
Conclusion: Thomas Jefferson is not condoning secession in order to preserve the institution of slavery, or any other greedy commercial considerations, or philosophical high mindedness. Your use of these Jefferson quotes in the manner they are being used is a serious case of quote mining; and when used in their proper context, are not at all supportive of your debating point but rather destroying it.
The letter to William H. Crawford in the above cited link: http://www.constitution.org/tj/jeff15.txt can be found in correspondence # 27.
The person that wrote this article has no idea what the Constitution of these United States is really about. Lincoln utterly torched the Constitution. I think the last comments by Lin hit the nail on the head. All Lincoln accomplished was handing more power to the federal government and removing power from the states. Totally anti-constitutional! Not to mention no other country ever had a civil war to end slavery, they were all able to abolish it without a war!
The guy that wrote this article states over and over the word "democracy". It was never set out to have a democracy in this country. It was designed to be a republic. "I pledge allegiance to the flag…. and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands…"
A democracy and a republic are two different things. Know your history.
If anyone cares to read it, the following article is an excellent and accurate portrayal of Lincoln – http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo138.html
My personal opinion of President Lincoln – I'm ashamed as an American that he was president of these United States as am I ashamed of most all of our presidents since.
Real presidents that are set apart, unique, courageous, bold, and heroic are George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson…
It is a shame how history is distorted, and our children today are taught fiction and myth as history.
The establishment today can't stand hearing about men like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson because our founders ideology shakes the very foundations of the corrupt federal government and geo-political spectrum of today. Our founders, those very men who persistently, battle after battle, fought the crown to ensure freedom, & the inception of our republic… if they were alive today, would instantly be in a war with our federal government.. live or die…come hell or high water… they'd be spilling blood.
It is better for our land to be drenched in blood than for us to become slaves to our own government. 1776 – George Washington
Now in a more present day concern.. consider the words below, and think of today.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. – Thomas Jefferson
You seem to fail to realize that Thomas Jefferson (at least), that paragon of the U.S. republic, was completely a failure when it came to battling in the Revolutionary war, staying at home and avoiding any political participation concerning Virgina's state army until it was thrust on him (failing when he did to). All our presidents have been flawed, and there was no political Fall of America from the Paradise of the Pure Constituion. George Washington was far more admirable, Andrew Jackson questionable – Lincoln himself was far less the dictatorial Ceasar then he was.
"… All Lincoln accomplished was handing more power to the federal government and removing power from the states. Totally anti-constitutional! Not to mention no other country ever had a civil war to end slavery, they were all able to abolish it without a war."
The above statement is a phony argument. The South seceded for the very reason of preventing an end to slavery by peaceful democratic means. It was the South which clamored for war, and enthusiastically sought for it. It was the carelessness of an unwarranted secession, the South's defeat, and Lincoln's death, which allowed the radical republicans to gain unprecedented power. The fault of a crippled constitution and States losing their constitutional power can be directly placed on the southern secessionists.
"The guy that wrote this article states over and over the word "democracy". It was never set out to have a democracy in this country. It was designed to be a republic. ' I pledge allegiance to the flag…. and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands…' "
I'm sorry to inform you, Jeremy, that we are both a democracy and a republic. Where did you go to school?
"… My personal opinion of President Lincoln – I'm ashamed as an American that he was president of these United States as am I ashamed of most all of our presidents since."
I'm ashamed that there are still people who are ignorantly blaming Lincoln for what was clearly the fault of the South. To wit: Perpetuating the wicked institution of slavery; the subversion of its demise through peaceful political means by seceding; forcing the war issue by attacking fort Sumter; continuous civil rights violations by reason of smoldering resentments and racism.
" Real presidents that are set apart, unique, courageous, bold, and heroic are George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson."
You are selecting presidents, except perhaps for Washington, who all had serious flaws,
Jefferson could be labeled a pedophile and abuser of slaves; Jackson despised the constitution when he unconstitutionally rejected the Supreme court decision in favor of the Cherokee Indians. They all had human failings. To emphasize Lincoln's vices and hide the sins of other preferred presidents is hypocritical.
Like most of the anti Lincoln comments posted here, this one is also filled with distortions, historical errors, and confused resentment.
Lincoln did not care about slavery. Yes it was all about the economy. I would not go to war over slavery. They could of worked it out. What i do not like about schools is that they do not teach the truth to kids, they just teach them what they think they should know. If you are going to bad mouth Andrew Jackson ( Not a very good president either) then schools should tell the truth about Lincoln to.
Schools which in fact do enlighten their classes on the complete truth of 19th century history, circa Civil War period, will unambiguously teach:that Abraham Lincoln did have faults; and he did things which were legally questionable or clear violations of constitutional rights; but they will also reveal that he did everything in his power to avert civil war and deal with the slavery issue through democratic means. They will show him being the first to list his own faults, and first to admit his need of Divine grace. They will also ' properly ' educate their students that President Lincoln did not take executive action merely to play the tyrant, as was the case with so many tyrants in the South; but rather preserving the union, regardless of mistakes and personal cost along the way, was paramount in his mind. They will also unveil the real reasons for a mass secession that took place in 1860. It was not precipitated by tyranny against the South by the North, or illegal economic wrongdoings against southerners by northerners. In the final analysis it was merely an egregious attempt to perpetuate the institution of an immoral slavery among seceding states.
This is not an American History Website, it is a Despotic Rhetoric Propaganda Website!
This article, which the author did not attach his or her name and I don't blame them, is nothing more than rhetorical propaganda, which Lincoln himself was expert at using. There are many factual and critical errors in this article that can not stand up to period documents of truthful history. This author claims today's researchers who disagree with him/her are "revisionist historians", but I say that he/she is simply taking the first shot to claim others are what he/she actually is, an untruthful "revisionist history writer". Revisionist writers like this author are in the cloth of the despotic Lincoln himself, who was neither honest or an emancipator.
The problem with today's untruthful revisionist writers is that they have learned their trade from earlier untruthful revisionist writers and have done little to no research on their own.
Readers have to do their own research and make up their own minds. These propagandists are becoming history dinosaurs and will be relegated to the history and political grave yard.
Since the article looks at both points of view, i.e., liberal and conservative, northern and southern, positive and negative, opinions of Lincoln, I would say the only stale rhetoric being posted here are from those who continue their droning whine against anyone who favors Abraham Lincoln. Everyone who disagrees with their anti-Lincoln sentiment – according to them – is a 'revisionist,' or a 'despotic propagandist,' Such ad hominem nonsense is empty headed.
Those who despise Lincoln have their opinions of the man, and many disagree with them. To those who hate his memory I would say, grow up! And stop accusing others of what you yourselves are guilty of – harsh rhetoric propaganda and opinion revisionism. Furthermore, stop quote mining Lincoln or the founding fathers in order to hold up your untenable arguments. It's not working, It's a sign of ignorance, and it is the same confused evil that plunged this nation into civil war.
For those who actually do their own research, and are not carried away by parochial or historical sentiments, they will find that Abraham Lincoln did have faults; he did things which were questionable or clear violations of constitutional rights; but they will also find that he did everything in his power to avert civil war and deal with the slavery issue through democratic means; and was the first to list his own faults and the need of Divine grace. He did not take executive action merely to play the tyrant, as was the case with so many tyrants in the South. Preserving the union, regardless of mistakes and personal cost along the way, was paramount in his mind.
"And ultimately it was because of Lincoln that slavery came to an end. That is why the right wing can never forgive him."
What? Is the author claiming that current conservatives/right-wingers are in favor of slavery and are mad that it came to an end? Huh?? That cannot be taken seriously.
That is just a slur so he does not have to admit to the serious concerns conservatives have with a central government that has grown too powerful, expensive, destructive of our liberties and states' rights, etc.,and the role Lincoln played in this trend.
Lincoln didn't play a role in this trend. If you are referring to the fourteenth amendment and its subsequent abuse by the courts, Lincoln had nothing to do with either. Yes, Lincoln did some things during the war that were in the nature of breaking the constitution. But he didn't do such things – like suspend habeas corpus – simply because he wanted to play the tyrant. Times were desperate, and he did what seemed best for the moment. His actions can certainly be criticized. But I would say that the fault of a trend toward big government lies with the south.
Antebellum states – north and south – had more freedom and authority. They lost this balance of power for everyone on account of the Civil War. The Civil War; Reconstruction; the fourteenth amendment; court activism and abuse using the fourteenth amendment; strong civil rights legislation; all were the result of stubborn Southern, cruelty, recalcitrance, and stupidity.
I find it funny that people have no root sources to support their "facts"
Lincoln was constitutionally elected, He had a mega dilemma on his hands. A very dissatisfied South (because of the election); and a nation heading for civil war, most of which didn't want to go to war.
Regardless how people feel about President Lincoln the facts are that:
* He did every thing in his power to avert war before the South fired on Fort Sumpter and claimed all federal lands within their respective states. * (first inaugural address)
* He did everything he could to shorten the war. Unfortunately he had a chronic military leadership problem. Nevertheless, he was still hoping for a quick end to hostilities and a political solution to the problem. Unfortunately the South was winning at this point, so why would they want a political solution. And Lincoln understood this. * (letter to Horace Greeley)
* Had he lived, he would have rejected many of the harsh reconstruction policies after the war. * (a priori based on his last inaugural address)
One fact gets obfuscated by those who attempt to blame Lincoln (falsely) for the Civil War:
The Civil War was the result of Southern secession. The secession was the result of the 1860 election. The election was the result of a majority of Americans who wanted to put an end to the wickedness of slavery, once and for all; even though Lincoln made it clear that he would not executively force an end to slavery, but that he was personally opposed to it. and would fight against it democratically.
The rich property owners and racial philosophers of the South saw the political handwriting on the wall – the legislative end to the lucrative slave market; and a black culture, free and becoming more and more educated, multiplying right there in the heart of Dixie. They are the ones who chose to plunge the nation into blood violence, not Lincoln.
It should also be noted that the South did not fire on Fort Sumter with trepidation and concern that this action would cause a war with the Northern States. The entire South erupted into cheers at the Sumter incident; and glad that it was indeed precipitating a war. Those scenes from Gone with the Wind, God's and General's, and Cold Mountain are no lie. People in the South lived in delusionville. They had warped notions of Almighty God blessing them with glorious victories in battle. They looked up to Stonewall Jackson as some kind of Joshua. Even though the North had its own sins and failings, the South was predominately responsible for plunging the nation into civil war by reason of its fanciful attitudes, and thereby destroying our liberties in decades to come.
"… and thereby destroying our liberties in decades to come."
This should have been written 'hindering' not 'destroying.' The constitution did suffer a major imbalance shift as a consequential result of the Civil War. Radical republicans after Lincoln's death seized power and took advantage of the Northern victory. The whole country has suffered from this constitutional anomaly one way or another ever since.
Abraham Lincoln in Perspective:
http://www.writersintouch.com/article_view.php?articleid=6736
In as much as I do not doubt Lincoln's sincerity about his cause against slavery, he was elected by the North and carried out the North's agenda which was tyranny, not liberation. We should judge the northern cause by motives that existed before the war and the actions taken after the war. Before the war, the North suffered an economic depression while the South was prosperous. The more populated North used its power to put up protectionist laws and taxes to force the South to buy its inferior manufactured products over England's. The laws were stacked against the South and the South had enough. Most southerners were not large, slave-owning plantations, but in fact, small farmers facing northern oppression. When the war ended, did the North actually free the slaves? In fact, there are documented cases of the union army forcing former slaves to stay on their plantations to harvest cotton for the north. Many were offered a very low wage and in some cases, were cheated out of those wages. Did the North stop the Jim Crow laws? Did the North protect the black people from the slavery of share-cropping and lynch mobs? No. The black people were locked into a different form of slavery that was not lifted until the civil rights movement of 1960s. The North milked the South for decades and the black people endured the worst of the exploitation. While they milked the South, they invaded the lands of Native Americans and murdered them as well. The north were tyrannical conquerors, not liberators. The historians that praise the north need to take off their blind folds and see the war for what it was – an imperialist invasion. My argument is not an excuse for the Southern institution of slavery, but a reminder that the war between the states was as much about freeing the slaves as America's entry into WWII was all about ending the Holocaust.
Thanks for your academic response and opinoin Clifton, but obviously I, along with numerous non-partial historians, completely disagree with your Southern biased assessment and conclusions, especially the false accusations constantly being lobbied against Abraham Lincoln. Certainly there were financial opportunists in the North who had their greed problem just as the slave plantantion owners in the South had theirs; and as Abraham Lincoln so aptly said it, ' the war was a scourge on the nation as a whole because of the wicked practice of slavery;' for so many in America – directly or indirectly- historically had their hand in it.
An honest evaluation of Abraham Lincoln's life – rather than revisionist attempts to exacerbate Lincoln's faults and weaknesses, or their focusing on his controversial executive decisions, in order to push their agenda forward – show his character to be one of pragmatism and intelligence; one of caring for his fellow man.
More importantly, regardless of who owned slaves or who didn't, regardless of taxes and anything else the South had enough of, the record is indisputable that the South seceded to protect the institution of slavery and not for any other reason. Honest research will show that the dominating concern and diliberations in the various state legislatures which chose secession was all about slavery and their right to preserve it at all cost.
No! Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant. No! the North did not invade the South at all, and certainly not per revisionist view points and reasoning. But the North did send troops to stand against a reckless insurrection, and to protect federal property.
What triggered off the war? The Southern aristocrats – which controlled their respective state legislatures – refused to work things out with the North by not agreeing to keep their immoral practice out of the territories. Not spreading slavery into the territories was the only point that Lincoln would not budge on. Gradually phasing out slavery, or letting it die of its own lack of political ability to survive, Lincoln did support. That record is also clear.
Your last comment about WWII is not a valid debating point. As already mentioned and historically proven, the war was never about freeing the slaves, that is a sleight of hand that revisionists push, but it was about an all out effort to preserve and expand slavery, and choosing rebellion, secession, and war to accomplish that end.
"…That is why the right wing can never forgive him."
What scant and vague knowledge I have on this topic does not jive with this statement. I would like to read some substantiation for this statement, please.
Was the Southern Democrat demographic of that time not the wellspring of resentments and the primary source of backlash groups like the KKK? Weren’t the majority of Christians of that time fighting to end slavery? Lincoln himself a Whig turned Republican and Douglas was the Democrat.
I understand that racism is a human failing and neither political party has a monopoly on it. But, my current understanding of this history is the left-leaning preponderance for wanting to maintain the status quo of slavery and second-class citizenry of blacks.
I’m not just being politely modest in estimating my knowledge, here. My pursuit to enlighten my ignorance led me to this article.
My knowledge on this may be 5th grade level, but my wisdom in life is not. I cannot respect any teacher, or their teachings, when I smell bias. So, PLEASE substantiate your summarizing statement.
You can start by substantiating which “right wingers,” then or now, have expressed such undying lack of forgiveness or any other form of negativity directed at Lincoln's accomplishment.
ON A SECOND, UNRELATED TOPIC:
I am specifically looking to refresh or confirm my vague memory of a Lincoln-Douglas campaign incident.
In one debate, Lincoln said one thing and then in another debate, he said the opposite or something that conflicted. Douglas criticized him on his inconsistency. Lincoln’s response, with all his statesmanship eloquence, was exceptionally well stated. But, I can’t recall or find any of the specifics.
Can you fill in the missing details or point me to a source that will?
Thanks.
Hi Corn Dogg,
Are you related to Chili Dogg, a few posts above? Anyway I'm not sure whether your comment was directed at me or the author of the article. I would like to respond if I may.
First off I agree with anyone who is complaining about, or criticizing, any author, of any given article, when said author attempts to take a historical reality and then make a conjecture as to why a certain modern day political group is 'probably' behaving the way they do based on that historical reality. We all tend to do it at times in a passing comment, and on rare occasions the speculation fits. But for the most part, especially in a professional essay, or in depth historical treatise, the writer needs to avoid this sort of extrapolation.
The excerpt that you cited is a classic case of blurring historical facts with present racial attitudes. I would like to personally state, The right wing does not hate Abraham Lincoln because he ended slavery. Most of the right wing, except for anti- Lincoln radicals, love Abraham Lincoln. However, there are many conservatives who blame Abraham Lincoln for the transfer of so much power to a centralized federal government post bellum; but this to is a misguided interpretation of history. These critics cite Lincoln's enormous use of presidential powers, at times above and beyond constitutional limits. Some of the more scholarly and astute Lincoln critics delineate excellent constitutional arguments; yet equally competent historians have answered their charges in a manner so as to acquit the sixteenth president of flagrant, or tyrannical, abuses during the course of his administration. Non biased historians can furthermore prove that it was not Abraham Lincoln's extreme use of presidential powers, but national conditions and post-bellum social forces after his presidency that instigated an increase in the size of the U.S. Federal government. A clear pattern throughout history is as follows: When the people behave, the government stays small; When people increase in numbers and misbehave, the government gets big. An easy to read and enlightening book on Lincoln's use of power is 'Lincoln's Constitution,' by Daniel Farber.
Although very intellectual, Lincoln was not a book worm, or a strict constitutional constructionist to the point of executive paralysis like his predecessor. James Buchanan (Lincoln's predecessor) was a paralyzed strict constructionist, and could be likened to the driver of a vehicle whose house was in flames, but decided that he must strictly obey all the traffic lights along the way, waiting for each one to turn green before he could proceed in his effort to reach home and family. Most historians will rightly argue that Lincoln went though a few red lights, but that he did it with caution and for good reason. It was all in his motive. Lincoln did not assume executive powers, and do what he did, to play the tyrant as detractors claim. A thorough study of his life and character completely destroys all accusations of this nature.
Here's one concise essay on Abraham Lincoln in Perspective:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B7lAWzevz5aKM2YwZWM3ZGUtMWQ3NC00ZWNkLWE4ZTktMTlkZjNiMmVjMWI0&hl=en_US
And here's the Lincoln-Douglas debate on the question of inconsistency you requested. It starts around the 4th or 5th paragraph. Lincoln's rebuttal is further down the page. Good reading and God bless.
Fifth Lincoln- Douglas Debate October 7, 1858
http://history1800s.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=history1800s&cdn=education&tm=123&f=00&tt=3&bt=1&bts=1&st=11&zu=http%3A//www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/debate5.htm
P.S. You also had some other questions about Southern democrat demographics: " Was the Southern Democrat demographic of that time not the wellspring of resentments and the primary source of backlash groups like the KKK? " You likewise posited a question-statement on Christians and slavery.
Democrats in the ante -bellum South were a much different breed than we think of democrats today. They were Jeffersonian or Jacksonian democrats. Or, power to the people, rather than to the government, democrats, but they also had divisions among their ranks. Some wanted a strong Union based on a lesser centralized government paradigm, others preferred secession and the re-establishment of a new constitution; one which gave States more sovereignty and would permanently establish slavery. Preserving slavery was the core issue of secession, no matter how much revisionists try to avoid this fact.
As far as Christians fighting against slavery, that all depended on one's Christian upbringing and teaching. In the South Christians were taught for the most part that slavery was good and ordained by God, therefore it was righteous. In the North it was vehemently condemned from the pulpit. It took a Civil War to resolve these national contentions and divisions, which then led to the bitter backlashes and covert operations of anti-government and anti-black societies (KKK) breeding among of those who lost the war. Reconstruction abuses fueled these flames as well.
The bitterness, the hating, the attempts at revisionism are still ongoing in the 21st century, as you can see from a number of posts on this site, but especially among literature streaming out of southern nationalist movements and confederate heritage groups. But as already mentioned, there are a few well schooled and honest dissenters which bring up legitimate questions on constitutionality. If Abraham Lincoln were alive today he would not have a problem with these proper constitutional questions and challenges. His problem resulted when enemies of the constitution tried to use the freedoms of the constitution to destroy the Union. This crafty manipulations on the part of these subversives, which were incessant during the time of the Civil War, are what forced his hand to do things, like suspend habeas corpus. This in turn brought serious outcries against him from various quarters.
I know this response was long, but considering the scope and dimension of the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln's presidential and constitutional role, it really is quite concise.
“Are you related to Chili Dogg?”
Only so far as we focused on the same sentence in this article. I know nothing else about Chili.
“…I'm not sure whether your comment was directed at me or the author of the article.”
My comment is directed at anyone who can support or justify the conclusion of this article that only, “…the right wing can never forgive [Lincoln],” though I think it more appropriate that the person who wrote this statement should be the one to support it.
“Democrats in the ante -bellum South were a much different breed than we think of democrats today. They were Jeffersonian or Jacksonian democrats.”
The left has changed over time. I agree. That’s kind of why I used the phrase “…of that time.” But, when did the right wing change so much from their Lincolnian roots as to never forgive him? Or, did Lincoln not have significant political support from his right? Did he have significant support from the left?
The body of this article covers Lincoln’s critics on both the left and the right. But, the summary conclusion states ONLY, “…the right wing can never forgive [Lincoln],” and it states, “…THAT slavery came to an end,” not HOW Lincoln ended it. It is understood that Lincoln went through some Constitutional red lights to end slavery. But, why is it that the right, and only the right, is unforgiving that Lincoln ended slavery? And, if it’s all about Lincoln running Constitutional red lights, is this one-sided statement implying that the left has forgiven him for ending slavery because he over-stepped the Constitution to do so?
The conclusive statement contrasted with the article’s main body is so one-sided and unsupported that it SEEMS to come out of left field (pun cautiously intended). So, I posted my request to please substantiate it. Please can someone specify who exactly will never forgive Lincoln for ending slavery? List their names. Show the evidence. Make the cases that support the statement.
It seems a bit emphatic, me repeating and rephrasing my question. It is not that big of an issue for me. I only found and read this article while attempting to re-discover the details of the Fifth Lincoln- Douglas Debate, for which I thank you very much; I doubted that I would find it without a thorough academic search digesting many volumes.
[...] President Abraham Lincoln issues General War Order No. 1, setting in motion the Union armies. [...]
Executive Order – General War Order No. 1
January 27, 1862
Abraham Lincoln
Ordered, That the 22d day of February, 1862, be the day for a general movement of the land and naval forces of the United States against the insurgent forces; that especially the army at and about Fortress Monroe. the Army of the Potomac, the Army of Western Virginia, the army near Munfordville, Ky., the army and flotilla at Cairo, and a naval force in the Gulf of Mexico be ready to move on that day.
That all other forces, both land and naval, with their respective commanders, obey existing orders for the time and be ready to obey additional orders when duly given.
That the heads of Departments, and especially the Secretaries of War and of the Navy, with all their subordinates, and the General in Chief, with all other commanders and subordinates of land and naval forces, will severally be held to their strict and full responsibilities for prompt execution of this order.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
Abraham Lincoln was the evilest human that ever lived, eviler than Pol Pot, Hitler, Cheney and Stalin combined