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-

[Monterrosa-24]

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.

[MRMEAN]

Whether or not Lincoln's unconstitutional actions to "save the Union" were justified, the reality is that if he had never been elected, there would have been no Southern secession, and no Civil War. Slavery in the South would have continued somewhat longer, but within a few decades of the historical Emancipation would no doubt have been abolished, as it was in every civilized nation. American Negroes may well have been better off if there had been no Reconstruction, and the Southern White KKK reaction. Even a victorious CSA would no doubt have eventually abolished slavery.

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.

[MRMEAN]

Collectively the CSA and the USA would have been much stronger than the USA alone as been.

Elaborate, please.

[nkycincinnatikid]

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?

[Sivad]

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.

[Nevadan]

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.

[A Jovial Cad]

I notice right off the bat that you didn't have the courage to post to me all by your lonesome, but had to ping one of your allies just in case you got in too deep, and needed backup. This is typically the case with members of the loony "Lost Cause" brigade, so that doesn't surprise me a bit...

"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.

[A Jovial Cad]

Something like that, except that bushy old boy can't be bothered with such exacting things as facts if they at all get in the way of his hazy nostalgia for the "Lost Cause."

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...

[A Jovial Cad]

"Lincoln was the great destroyer"

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.

[goldstategop]

A good read of our greatest President, whose consummate statesmanship both preserved the Union and brought about the end of slavery. Abraham Lincoln's central achievements were to preserve constitutional government bequeathed by the Framers and in managing and deflecting popular racist prejudice in the Free North in the cause of bringing about the extirpation of that "peculiar institution." The fact critics on both his right and his left misunderstand him, only testifies to place he has secured in history. And he would appreciate the sight of a Southerner - a Republican President no less! - paying tribute to making possible freedom in an America built on the rule of law and justice for all. Such is wheel on which history turns.

Denny Crane: There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."

[goldstategop]

Lincoln and the new Republican Party said they would respect the South's right to maintain its institution. But they did not accept the corollary that the South had the right to expand slavery to federal territories. Nor did they accept the notion the South was free to secede from the Union on its own and defy the very basis of constitutional government that secured their own rights simply because other Americans elected a government they disagreed with. The Constitution was posited on a design both of limited federal power and majority rule. It was not the Republicans who wanted to push what was objectionable to the rest of America into the territories; it was the South. It was the South that refused to accept the verdict of the country on Election Day to further its sectional interests.

Denny Crane: There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."

[goldstategop]

My thoughts agree with yours. The answer is the American people can dissolve the Union that binds together if they so wish; but it must by the consent of all of them and not because one section does not like the policy followed by the rest. If majority rule is not secure then neither is it possible to accord minorities the protection they rightly deserve from the temporary passions of the majority. A democracy depends on the minority recognizing the legitimacy of an elected majority to carry out its program and on the majority's recognition the existence of alternative points of views makes the whole stronger, not weaker in unity and spirit of purpose.

Denny Crane: There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."

[Non-Sequitur]

I understand that when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus that Chief Justice Taney ruled him unconstitutional.

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln is the only American president to order a mass execution.

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.

[Non-Sequitur]

Slavery in the South would have continued somewhat longer, but within a few decades of the historical Emancipation would no doubt have been abolished, as it was in every civilized nation.

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?

[Non-Sequitur]

...I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

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?

[freedom moose]

I love threads like this and when I read them I realize that my knowledge of this time period is very limited beyond the usual text book stuff. On other WBTS threads I have asked for book suggestions (and followed those suggestions)
this time I'd like to ask knowledgeable Freepers for a recommendation on the definitive pro-Lincoln book and the definitive anti-Lincoln book.