Abraham Lincoln as Statesman

American History ^ | April 2005 | Dinesh D'Souza

[quidnunc]

The key to understanding Lincoln's Philosophy of Statesmanship is that he always sought the meeting point between what was right in theory and what could be achieved in practice.

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.

-snip-

[Clintonfatigued]

It's interesting that some Lincoln detractors include conservatives, including Charley Reese (who says the nation would have been much, much better if The Confederacy had won the war).

I don't buy the Lincoln-bashing. While it's true he wasn't perfect, he came to power at the most difficult time in American history, and rose to the occasion with intelligence, modesty, and faith that's inspiring.

[DoughtyOne]

I spent the better part of my life thinking Lincoln was a great president. I am no longer as convinced as I once was. I am a firm believer in state's righs. I believe the federal government is here to protect the states from invasion, conduct trade policy and little else. What the federal government is today, is probably the best damnation of Lincoln there could be. With stronger states, we wouldn't be in as big a mess as we are today. Lincoln set the state for the federal supremacy.

I'm not convinced of this, but it is definately a point I ponder from time to time.

[stevem]

I don't buy the Lincoln-bashing.

Shelby Foote isn't any kind of knee jerk Northern sympathizer, yet is convinced that Lincoln was an extremely intelligent pragmatist.

I have always been curious regarding Lincoln haters. I wonder what they think was his goal. Was it a worth while goal? If yes, how else could he have succeeded?

[jocon307]

"And ultimately it was because of Lincoln that slavery came to an end. That is why the right wing can never forgive him."

WOAH! I thought this was a very good article, very informative, etc. until I came to this stunner at the end. What is D'Souza saying? That those on the "right" would like to re-introduce slavery?

What the f......!?!?!?!

Oy vey, and we were mad at Peggy Noonan!

[Clintonfatigued]

If I'm not mistaken, Lincoln did not plan for centralization of power to be permanent. He wanted to gradually restore states' rights once reconstruction was completed, and the reconstruction he supported was condemned by many in his own party as overly lenient and forgiving. The mass centralization of power in D.C. is unfortunate, but the Radical Republicans who came to power following Lincoln's death are responsible for starting that.

Incidently, the South didn't support states' rights until it was clear that the majority of the American public opposed slavery. In fact, the slave-owning territories had once attempted to have slavery Federally protected.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

I think the real damage that was done to Constitutional federalism occurred in the early 20th century. While I don't agree with everything Lincoln did during the Civil War, I don't see any permanent damage done by Lincoln's actions to hold the Union together.

The contributions America made to the world in the 20th century would not have been possible if Lincoln had not held the Union together.

[irv]

With stronger states, we wouldn't be in as big a mess as we are today.

And the continued existance of slavery would be such a small price to pay for avoiding that. </sarcasm>

[DoughtyOne]

Not to be arguementitive, but it's a little difficult to put the object lesson (catsup) back in the bottle isn't it. Once this supreme demonstration of federal power was completed, that was the effective end of states rights. Whether the south plead that case before the war or not, that was the outcome.

[JohnCliftn]

Always strange to read of Lincoln's statesmanship without reference to Charles Francis Adams, Ambassador to Britain.

[DoughtyOne]

I don't think all the federal abuses that are evident today occurred in Lincoln's time. I would agree with that. I do think he laid the groundwork for it. As for what we could or could not have done in the 20th century without a dominating federal government, I'm not sure that's a good arguement for userped state's rights.

[rdl6989]

While it's true he wasn't perfect, he came to power at the most difficult time in American history, and rose to the occasion with intelligence, modesty, and faith that's inspiring.

Well said! Abe Lincoln, as a mortal man, made mistakes. Putting Burnside in command of the Army of the Potomac being one of the big ones. He was still a great American.

[A Jovial Cad]

Good article, but it's guaranteed to bring out the tiny brigade of loons who still believe in the "Lost Cause" around here.

I've been to the Lincoln Memorial twice, and it moved me deeply both times. His leadership truly saved this great nation, and ultimately the world.

[stevem]

If I'm not mistaken, Lincoln did not plan for centralization of power to be permanent.

Lincoln assumed somewhat despotic powers. The congress was happy to have him do it. Which congressman of the day would anyone choose to trade Lincoln for? What other national figure could one look to for guidance? Taney? What an inspiration that guy must have been.

My guess is Lincoln was first and foremost in his view that despotism is no way to run a railroad. The problem is in a real crisis, consensus has zero hope of getting anything done. I think he would be aghast at the centralization of powers today.

These days we could take a lesson from Lincoln on how to treat the judiciary.

[Non-Sequitur]

bump

[Colonel Kangaroo]

My feeling is that if Lincoln had not prevailed, we would have seen a 20th century marked by an American people divided under two rival federal governments. Not only would American power have been divided in the face of the rest of the world, but tension in North America would have pushed both Washington and Richmond into stronger positions with respect to their states. The federal government in Richmond was also moving toward greater powers to the detriment of the Confederate state governments. I don't see how that would abate under the pressure of an intra-American cold war.

[quidnunc]

Lincoln did what he had to do to win the Civil War and maintain the Union.

He couldn't have done that without doing as he did.

Had the South been allowed to seceed the United States of America would be a second-rate and the Confederate States of America a third-rate one.

[DoughtyOne]

I look at what takes place today, and I draw comparisons. California has been overrun by citizens of a foreign nation. Our federal government is loathe to pay out the costs of the foreign citizens add to our state's expenses. In addition we now have a president who makes no pretense at all about courting the state for support. When mudslides ripped through several communities in Southern California, federal aid was refused. There was no such refusal for counties affected by Florida's hurricanes.

What happens if a state in the union decides to break away in the future? Do we have another civil war?

What protections does a state like California have, if the federal government tells it to go to hell, forces unfunded mandates upon it, allows it to be inundated by foreign souls, but won't support it in return.

I do belive that Lincoln's object lesson still carries weight.

[Sola Veritas]

"These days we could take a lesson from Lincoln on how to treat the judiciary."

Well, I can agree with that statement. I understand that when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus that Chief Justice Taney ruled him unconstitutional. It is said that Lincoln considered having Taney arrested, but didn't follow through. He simply ignored Taney. I believe Lincoln said that, "more rogues than honest men find shelter behind habeus corpus."

It is ironic that to "save the union", Lincoln had to deliberately violate the Constitution. I think that Lincoln was a consumate pragmatic politician that did whatever was expedient at the time. Is this greatness? Personally, I don't know. Does it make him bad? I don't know about that either.

[DoughtyOne]

I've more or less played devil's advocate on this thread. I don't know about the questions you raise either. These are serious matters.

I don't have a drive to dishonor Lincoln, but I do think there are grave issues raised with some of his actions. I am not convinced his legacy is as bright as is comonly related. Neither am I convinced he was a deeply flawed President. There is fertile ground for discussion on these matter.

Thanks to you and others for participating on this thread.