Posted on 02/05/2005 6:30:51 PM PST by 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-
(Excerpt) Read more at historynet.com ...
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.
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.
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?
"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!
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.
And the continued existance of slavery would be such a small price to pay for avoiding that. </sarcasm>
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.
Always strange to read of Lincoln's statesmanship without reference to Charles Francis Adams, Ambassador to Britain.
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.
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.
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.
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.
bump
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.
"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.
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.
Lincoln was a complete louse.
Collectively the CSA and the USA would have been much stronger than the USA alone as been.
Lincoln was the great destroyer.
Interestingly in the early Republic even slave owners acknowledged the evil of slavery, views hardened in the face of Abolitionist agitation. See Spreading the News.
Elaborate, please.
On 17 August 1862 a party of Indians, being refused food at a settlers cabin, massacred them and fled to the camp of Little Crow, where a general massacre of all the whites and Christian Indians was resolved upon. Within a week almost every farm cabin and settlment in southern Minnesota was wiped out and most inhabitants murdered with devilish barbarities. Attacks were made under Little Crow upon Ft Ridgely and New Ulm, both attacks were finally repulsed. Most of the hostiles then surrendered, three hundred of the prisoners were condemned to death by court martial, but the number was reduced by President Lincoln to thirty eight , who were hanged at Mankato 26 December 1862. Do you mean that mass execution?
Collectively, China and the USA would be much stronger than
the USA would be alone. Like the USA and CSA, "collectively"
doesn't mean much if the entities in question are not on
the same page. And, just how strong would they be when
Kentucky and Tennessee seceded from the CSA in 1884, Texas
and Louisiana in 1893, and South Carolina in 1905?
Lincoln was no louse. But, yes, Lincoln was the great des-
troyer, slavery destroyer, that is.
I by no means consider myself an expert, but I am fairly well read on the subject of the Civil War and Lincoln. From what I have read, Lincoln believed that slavery was a moral wrong, but he felt that he could not, as President, lawfully remove slavery from the South - only Congress could do that. Lincoln stated this several times during the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
What pushed the South over the edge (in my humble opinion) to withdraw from the Union was Lincoln's opposition to slavery being introduced into the territories. They knew that new states were going to be added - if none of these came in as slave states, then the balance of power between the slave states and the free states in Congress would be upset.
Lincoln believed in states exercising their rights as permitted in the Constitution, however, he did not believe that states could merely vote themselves out of the Union whenever they felt like it. Lincoln believed that secession, as preached by many Southern politicians of his day, would lead to the ultimate destruction of the United States as a nation. I think he was right. I believe that if Lincoln had allowed the South to secede as they did, we would not just have two nations here, but several.
Even some of the Southern states threatened to leave the Confederacy when they got upset with the Richmond government. Once the principle of secession, as practiced by the South, was permitted, then what could a national government legally do to prevent each individual state from seceding at one time or another as they saw fit?
Think about all the times in our history when one state or another was ticked off at the Federal government - heck, I've wanted my own state to secede myself!! If secession was legal, we would be a bunch of separate countries today - not the United States.
Lincoln did what he felt he had to do to save the idea of United States. Remember we weren't even a hundred years old at that time. Secession, as espoused by the South, was a direct threat to our existence as a country.
Let me qualify that I do believe that the people have the right (and the duty) to change the government if it no longer fulfills its duties to protect the rights of its citizens. The Declaration of Independence expressly states this fact. However, as long as we have the possibility to peaceably change the direction of our government through Constitutional means, I do not believe that secession is an option - yet.
"The whites of Minnesota were clamoring for the execution of the Indians. Lincoln the trial was a sham, but he also knew he needed votes from Minnesota. He offered a blood offering to the voters of Minnesota. To appease them he selected 39 Indians to be executed. Lincoln carried Minnesota the next election"
That's such a total distortion of the facts as they really were--and are--that it would be laughable were I not so acquainted with the loony source of such historically ignorant babble.
You refer, of course, to the Sioux Uprising of 1862 in the Minnesota Valley. Perhaps if you'd spent a little more time perusing what's between the covers of those rectangular things known as books instead of waving your Confederate battle flag around, you would've discovered that the conflict originated when four Indians murdered an innocent shopkeeper in cold blood--along with his wife, his best friend, and his best friend's wife.
The conflagration started--and spread--from there, and there were outrages on both sides. But the real slander of your nonsense is contained in the notion that Lincoln somehow profited politically from the hangings of the guilty parties rounded up in the aftermath of the conflict: he absolutely did not; indeed, quite the opposite.
Originally, 300 were scheduled to be hung by the neck until dead, until Lincoln intervened. He pardoned all but 38 (not 39), and stirred outrage among the white Minnesotans who wanted all of them executed. If anything, Lincoln's mercy hurt him politically in Minnesota. He won in Minnesota only because there were more pressing issues facing the nation in 1864--namely, the salvation of the Union, and a country most of us still cherish.
Peddle your Lincoln-hatred--and it's attendant scummy anti-American implications--to someone who doesn't know any better: I do.
He and his tiny crew of America Lincoln-haters spend a good deal of time doing just that--distorting facts, catering to base falsehoods, smearing those who preserved our wonderful nation for future generations, and just out-an-out making stuff up (they've been caught repeatedly at it).
You should check out some of their threads sometime, if you haven't already. You'd be amazed at the level of hatred they express for their country, the United States of America, and the men who preserved it at times...
Uh-huh...that may wash for a former "resident of El Salvador," but doesn't quite cut the mustard for the vast majority of Americans who know the real history of our country, as opposed to the fairy tales you seem to have learned.
Peddle your noxious bilge elsewhere--back down south in banana republic territory, preferably. Thank you.
Denny Crane: There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."
Denny Crane: There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."
Denny Crane: There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."
Chief Justice Taney on his own could not rule anything unconstitutional. It would take a majority of the Supreme Court to do that.
It is ironic that to "save the union", Lincoln had to deliberately violate the Constitution.
In all fairness to Lincoln that has never been determined.
That would depend on your definition of 'mass execution' wouldn't it? Four German POWs were executed for murder during World War II, does that qualify as 'mass execution' by Roosevelt? Six German spies were executed as well. Does that give FDR a mass-execution twofer? And what about the post-war war crimes execution.
There was not a single case were slavery died on it's own. In every instance it was ended through the actions of the government and in the face of strong opposition from the slave owners themselves. So if the south was willing to go to war to protect slavery from government action in 1860 then how long do you think it would have taken for such action to have been acceptable to the southern population?
Why not continue the quote? Lincoln went on to say in the next sentence "...but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
Can you point out a single southern leader who believed that the black man had any rights that were bound to be respected? On anyone who believed that the black man was their equal in any way whatsoever? If you can't do that, and if your complaint about Lincoln is that he was racist, then wouldn't you contempt have to extend to Lee, Davis, Jackson, et.al.? If you want to be honest, that is.
Guess he would be voting against Rice to be Secy State.
Probably not, since he wasn't a senator. But Davis no doubt would have voted against it, don't you think?
Only two countries in the Western Hemisphere resorted to civil war to end slavery, Haiti and the United States of America. Lincoln's flawed statesmanship ("Gentlemen, what then of my tariff?") and that of various hotheads on both sides destroyed the Republic and impoverished half the nation for decades.
Without Lincoln, secession might not have happened and could quite possibly been reversed if it did. Slavery would have been ended within a generation or so without the deep and lasting hatreds that the War Between the States engendered.
Our ancestors should have done better.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that only two countries resorted to civil war to protect slavery? At least on the part of the southern states?
Without Lincoln, secession might not have happened and could quite possibly been reversed if it did.
How do you think it could have been reversed?
Slavery would have been ended within a generation or so without the deep and lasting hatreds that the War Between the States engendered.
What do you base that on?
There are any number of good, solid Lincoln biographies out there. Davd Herbert Donald did one a couple of years ago, and did a second book which viewed Lincoln through the eyes of his supporters. Those are good places to start. But to know the man, read his writings. There are a couple of collections of his speeches and letters available?
The definitive one-sided, rabidly anti-Lincoln book? No question about it. "The Real Lincoln" by Tommy DiLorenzo.
“Without Lincoln, secession might not have happened and could quite possibly been reversed if it did.” Rifleman
What unconstitutional act did Lincoln commit that “forced” South Carolina to secede? Being legally elected President?? Other states followed South Carolina’s example before Lincoln was even inaugurated.
It’s true that Virginia and some others voted for secession after Lincoln called up volunteers to enforce the legal sovereignty of the United States over its own territory. But was that “unconstitutional” for Lincoln to act in that manner? I don’t think so.
It’s also true that he acted as he did to put down a direct threat to the authority and sovereignty of the United States by what he believed was the illegal act of secession. At that point, did he act outside the bounds of the Constitution? Come on, put yourself in his shoes. Wasn’t the South threatening the sovereignty of the United States, and, therefore the national existence of the United States? I don’t mean that the South was a threat to the U.S. by means of “invasion”, but it sure as h-ll was a threat by means of an “idea’ – that of “secession”.
A nation’s government, any national leader with a backbone at all, is going to oppose its own destruction. Secession, as practiced by the South, was a death knell to our national existence if allowed to stand. The South’s legal/moral grounds for secession and its method of invoking secession were, in my opinion, unfounded and illegal. Secession occurred even before Lincoln was inaugurated. Further secession occurred when Lincoln acted as any constitutionally elected President should have.
Your contention that “Without Lincoln, secession might not have happened” is both unfair and misapplied. You are blaming Lincoln for secession by being constitutionally elected. That’s like blaming a rape victim for being raped – “if she had not existed, the rape would not have happened”. I think it would be more accurate to state that “without slavery, secession might not have happened”
EITHER would DO/SAY anything to get $$$$$$$$$ & POWER! ANYTHING!
free dixie,sw
In what way?
Forget my reply 48. You've shown your true colors, and nothing would be gained by trying to debate you.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.