Posted on 02/17/2015 4:22:50 AM PST by Kaslin
What’s most amazing is that Lincoln later picked Stanton to become his War Secretary after the resignation of Simon Cameron.
At the time of his selection Stanton was still an avowed critic of Lincoln. Lincoln was willing to overlook this because of Stanton’s superb managerial skills. As their relationship matured Stanton became one of Lincoln’s warmest admirers. Standing at the foot of Lincoln’s bed as latter died of a gunshot wound to the head, Stanton proclaimed of Lincoln: “Now he be belongs to the ages.”
“I claim not to have controlled event,” Lincoln candidly wrote in 1864, “but confess plainly that events have controlled me.”
Lincoln’s critics (both contemporary and posthumous) have often pointed to this confession as a sign that while Lincoln successfully rode the whirlwind of Civil War, he was not the builder of the nation that others have claimed- a kind of second founding father after Washington.
But it was this essentially negative trait (negative in the sense that it was passive and did not require action) that allowed Lincoln to remake US society on the basis of the words of the Declaration of Independence that declared “all men are created equal,” to include African Americans.
He was able to accomplish this revolutionary object through passive management of the Civil War without turning it in to a “remorseless revolutionary struggle,” which might have irreparably divided the nation during Reconstruction.
Nowhere was Lincoln’s task more arduous than in managing and massaging the personalities of his generals (and to a lesser extent, members of Congress).
Many of Lincoln’s strongest critics were generals who felt that Lincoln wasn’t taking their advice on how to conduct the war. Yet Lincoln ignored personality (and public opinion) in supporting his generals and stuck to the principle of rewarding those that fought and won battles.
The most striking examples of this were the cases of General George McClellan and US Grant.
McClellan was the commander of the Army of the Potomac and later general-in-chief of all Federal forces.Mostly on the strength of a strong personality, McClellan dazzled soldiers and politicians despite the fact that he squandered several opportunities to beat the Confederates in battle. He was glamorous, good-looking and just credible enough to be plausible.
Lincoln however was not fooled.
Instead, Lincoln found himself drawn to the unpopular and often shy US Grant. Grant won battles even though he was publicly ridiculed for being a drunkard, slovenly and lacking in refinement. When a group protested Lincoln keeping Grant in command despite hearsay that Grant was a drunkard, Lincoln only reply was asking them what brand whiskey Grant drank so he could get some for his other generals.
Lincoln was also a complex man. It showed in the complex relationships he had with those in his own family. But he had a loving family, which is a lot more complex than just good intentions and happy relations.
For example, Lincoln’s father does not fit very prominently in biographies of Lincoln. This is because Lincoln was reticent when it came to his father. When he did speak of him, Lincoln was somewhat scornful of his father’s lack of ambition. They were, Lincoln was very sure, incompatible.
He might have echoed Winston Churchill who once said that to his mother he owed everything, to his father, nothing.
Both men however owed much to their fathers. Many of the traits they used to become a successful chief executives and a successful commanders-in-chief in times of war came from their fathers, like sense of self and self-confidence.
There are times in life when people feel like nothing is working well for them, when in fact, the period may be leading to another, more fertile time. Lincoln had several stretches where he despaired of ever amounting to much in the world or where it seemed his ambition outran his ability.
But driven by the inward necessities of his heart he persevered, because he had heart. Heart matters more than brains, as some in America have found out to their sorrow.
So I wish America would know Lincoln more thoroughly, because his heart still shines so brightly for us all, not just as a president, but mostly as a man.
No I believe Lincoln did impose the first income tax which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in their 1894 Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust decision. Wilson enacted the first legal income tax after the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
Except that you would be wrong because he didn't.
I’ve been fascinated with Roger Taney since college and have read several biographies on the man, from Charles Smith, James F. Simon and Bernard Christian Steiner. And in none of them did the biographer mention Lincoln issuing an arrest warrant. Taney mentioned his fears in his memoirs, edited by Samuel Tyler seven or eight years after Taney’s death, but gave no evidence to support his fears. So if his own biographers didn’t find enough evidence supporting the claim that Lincoln ordered his arrest, and if Taney himself not only couldn’t provide any evidence to support his fears but instead remained on the bench till his death, then I think that’s pretty convincing evidence that no such warrant ever existed.
I don’t buy this rumor, however often it is repeated, and neither do historians. Despite their differences over slavery and secession, Lincoln would not have made a martyr out of Taney by arresting him. There were Unionist newspapers who called for his arrest. This “couldn’t find a Marshall willing to do it” is obviously false. A President could deputize anyone. There would have been many Unionists who would have volunteered to arrest Taney.
See “Lincoln and the Court” by Brian McGinty
also, Phillip Magness “Between Evidence, Rumor, and Popular Perception:
Marshal Lamon and the “Plot” to Arrest Chief Justice Taney”
http://www.bu.edu/historic/conf2012/Magness.doc
You’re right - it is oft repeated, but never by anyone serious about the history. It doesn’t even make logical sense. Why would bother with arresting taney? He had already proven (by ignoring the writ of habeas corpus) that taney was toothless and impotent to cause any real damage to the united States in its time of insurrection.
And that was what was at the heart of taney’s ruling - antagonistic efforts to weaken and disrupt the administration he so hated.
The Democrat Party. Screwing up America since 1861.
So basically you have no supporting documentation to prove your little theory. Just to keep saying no he didn’t over and over will not prove your point. :-)
Again no proof to back up your assertion. Where is your proof?
You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof rests with the person making the charge. As we have seen, their is no proof of the “arrest Taney” assertion.
The key word is rebellion. The Yankees saw rebellion; the Confederacy saw separation. The Founding Fathers wanted separation; instead they got a war to forcefully bring them back into the Empire.
The Union was in no fear of being invaded. Yes, Gettysburg and several Maryland battles were in Yankee territory. However, Lee’s intent was to defeat the Union army and end the war. He was NOT after holding Yankee territory or winning over the people.
Nobody does. Which is why Taney's biographers have discounted the claim.
Not exactly.
He resigned his commission rather than wage war against his State and family.
He was then faced with a dilemma of whether to serve his State, which was faced with invasion.
To my mind, Lee’s choice was every bit as honorable as that of George Thomas, who chose to remain loyal to the Union when faced with the identical dilemma. Each was faced with a conflict of loyalties, where “treason” against one or the other of those loyalties could be avoided only by refusing to fight for either side.
It seems likely that some of those faced with such a choice made it for less than fully honorable reasons, but I believe Thomas and Lee acted with complete honor.
Did you ever wonder why that "and domestic" was there?
Have you thought about who decides what constitutes a "domestic enemy"?
Yes. A lot. It would have to be somebody willing to risk his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor for it.
You’re question makes no sense.
typo ‘’Your’’
Or in the case of jeff davis, his reputation and the lives of a bunch of his neighbors...
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely, Dwight D. Eisenhower”
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.