Lincoln: Tyrant, Hypocrite or Consumate Statesman? (Dinesh defends our 2d Greatest Prez)

thehistorynet. ^ | Feb 12, 05 | D'Souza

[My2Cents]

Excellent.

[cyborg]

bttt

[Rembrandt_fan]

So grateful to see an unabashedly pro-Lincoln article show up on Free Republic. This greatest of Republicans deserves all honor we can give him, particularly here.

[papertyger]

I have to admit, I have always been very critical of Lincon...that is until I read D'Sousa's critique/explaination in "What's So Great About America." The worst part about ignorance is not knowing you are,

[Arkinsaw]

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.

Well, I agree that he ran roughshod over civil liberties, expanded the government, bent the Constitution, encroached on areas that were not the purview of the Federal government. He was a revolutionary. But I cannot ascribe to him the meanness of purpose that most of his critics attempt to paste on him today. In this, I believe that his character can withstand the assaults, at least to those of reasonable mind. The Southern-partisan criticism of Lincoln started as a device to point out the ridiculousness of the modern Northern purist tactic of judging Confederate leaders by modern politically correct standards by applying those standards to Lincoln. A bit of a joke and turning the tables to point out that the tactic itself was nonsense. Unfortunately, the less wise amongst pro-Southern folks starting believing their own joke. So now we have pro-Southerners ignorantly judging Lincoln by modern politically correct standards and Northern purists (and potstirrers) judging Confederates by modern politically correct standards....and all thinking they are brilliant. Both sides now have so much invested in the tactic that they no longer care to think about it rationally. In fact, these historical figures should be judged within the context of their own times and the moral frameworks within which they were formed and operated. There is much to admire about Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, there is much to admire about Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. All of them are merit criticism of varying sorts. But this business of judging them as politically incorrect monsters depending on your affiliation is not rational.

[Rabble]

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

Pure Hogwash!

[Darkwolf377]

Great piece. Some would have us believe that Lincoln trampled on the law of the land. Such a proposition would lead to the conclusion that this country for the past 140 years or so has been on the wrong track. I don't buy that for a second; for whatever reasons, Lincoln was helping this country live up to its ideals. Christians, in particular, who rail against the current foolish secular hatred of all things Christian, should appreciate Lincoln's ending slavery, a sin, and value that great move over the squawking about the correctness of ending slavery.

[Arkinsaw]

Pure Hogwash!

Indeed. For years I have been around Southern partisans. I have been around people who advocate secession today, I have been around Nathan Bedford Forrest fanatics, I have been around Confederate reenactors of every stripe. I've been around them around campfires when no one else is around, in SCV meetings, and in political conversation. Never have I met any of them who have ever advocated, favored, or thought wistfully about slavery, or for that matter segregation. I am sure they exist, as they do in everyday life, but I have not stumbled upon them in my time.

[Darkwolf377]

I agree to a point, but it's not quite as evenly split as you seem to be saying. (If I'm wrong there I apologize for misinterpreting your excellent post.) It's not as if everyone in Lincoln's time thought slavery was just fine and that one had to be a radical to hold the view similar to the current one. Slavery was not an acceptable establishment to many, or even most--including many southerners. So it's not as if by saying slavery was an evil that should be abolished in the nineteenth century one is being a revisionist, when in fact many believed that at the time. It's those who say the war was not about slavery who are doing the revizin'.

[Iris7]

A while back I came across a compendium of Lincoln's writings. All through the war Lincoln talked about and worked toward deporting every last black in the United States. Deport them where? Haiti was one candidate, and Honduras another, but Africa seemed too difficult logistically to him..

[Drammach]

Excellent article..

I would propose, however, that Lincoln was indeed, "a man of his times".. as are all people who deal with great issues and events within their own lifetime..
It takes more than a couple of examples showing an anti-slavery position to claim that Lincoln could have made the great leap of abolition without the support of the people..

With the South defeated, however, and the Union victorious, the Emancipation Proclamation takes on even greater meaning..
Lincoln's successful execution of the war gave him the political power to do something even more useful and meaningful.. The elimination of slavery..

The article points out quite clearly, that Lincoln was indifferent, or at least ambiguous on the subject prior, and even during the war..
Yet, once the matter of secession was decided, he acted in a manner completely opposite of his previously stated inclinations.

I think he knew exactly what he was doing and saying the whole time.. His intent was abolition from the beginning, but he knew better than to express that aim publicly, especially when it could have cost him the presidency..
He was a politician, and told the people what they wanted to hear.. Then, when the conditions and the political climate were right, completed his intended mission..

You can fool all of the people some of the time...
Lincoln fooled them just long enough to save America and it's basic principles of Equality and Freedom..

[kipita]

Based on my experiences, Slavery (and its effect) is to America as Feudalism (and its effect) is to Europe. Within both regions there existed a perceived higher echelon and lower echelon with few people in the middle. Both Slavery and Feudalism existed (and still exists) throughout the world when Lincoln was alive. America the beautiful has been the world leader in ending both as other countries have followed our lead. At some point we have to give credit to American leaders who have lead the way. To say the very least, I think Lincoln deserves partial credit.

[iowamark]

It is so interesting that it often takes an immigrant like D'Souza to appreciate American democracy; which the native born often take for granted.

[Once-Ler]

Fascinating article. Thanx for posting it.

[Wilhelm Tell]

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.

One of the most sordid aspects of human nature is the tendency of people to gladly accept an oppressor as long as there is someone lower in the heiarchy fixed in the "order of things" to be more appresed still.

[Tax Government]

Lincoln's crime was in not recognizing the union as a voluntary association of states, and in preserving it by force.

[Arkinsaw]

I agree to a point, but it's not quite as evenly split as you seem to be saying. (If I'm wrong there I apologize for misinterpreting your excellent post.) It's not as if everyone in Lincoln's time thought slavery was just fine and that one had to be a radical to hold the view similar to the current one. Slavery was not an acceptable establishment to many, or even most--including many southerners. So it's not as if by saying slavery was an evil that should be abolished in the nineteenth century one is being a revisionist, when in fact many believed that at the time. It's those who say the war was not about slavery who are doing the revizin'.

I've heard Southern partisans say many times that the Civil War was not about slavery. Thats not rational of course. The institution of slavery was the focal point and the trigger. But at the same time, I hear Northern partisans state give slavery as the sole cause of the conflict. Thats just simly two competing sound bites, neither of which add anything at all to understanding. Both pure propaganda.

The fact is that the Civil War is the most complex political event/eruption in US history. It's causation cannot be boiled down to one simple statement and maintain intellectual honesty. Slavery cannot be tossed out and still maintain intellectual honesty.

In reality, the reasons for conflict change for both sides as the war progresses. In fact, in many aspects, in the north the war becomes more about slavery as time passes and in the south the war becomes less about slavery as time passes. Partisans of both sides seize whatever fits their beliefs from this continuum and hold it up as a picture of the whole. Its like someone asking what a NASCAR race is like and having one person show them a photo of a crash and another show them a photo of the Winner's Circle.

Secession was more about slavery in the deep South states, whereas it was less about slavery as you move geographically farther from the deep South areas. For instance the concept of honor, local and regional loyalties, and opposition to what was viewed as military "coercion" of fellow states played a large role in the secession of states farther from the center. Whereas in the center, slavery was a clearly stated impetus in secession documents. You can not make the statement "The Southern states seceded over slavery" and give a clear picture of the whole.

We see these threads constantly and they are always the same. One side or the other trots out pieces of evidence to support their sound-bite one-liner capsule history and flings it at the other side. Then vice-versa.

The facts that are trotted out for one side or the other are generally correct, just as the photos of a NASCAR race are factual. Many times both sets of facts are contradictory, yet both true. Thats because they are part of a complex whole and not individual proofs.

So many in these threads start with a belief, and then mine the complexity for things that support that belief rather than studying the eruption holistically and establishing a belief based on that study.

I agree with your statement in regard to the common views of slavery at the time, even in the South. Lets put it this way, if you judge certain Lincoln comments by modern standards he is an out-and-out racist. But it is ridiculous to make such a judgment because its fairly clear that his views of the matter were somewhat advanced for the time. In addition, he was a politician who had to operate in a political environment where a large portion of the electorate, even in the north, were less advanced (to put it kindly). Lincoln said things from time to time to appeal to, or assuage, the feelings of that portion of the body politic. It is ridiculous to take such statements out of their political and temporal context and yank them into the modern day to call Lincoln a "racist" in the modern sense.

Similarly, we all know that there were fire-eaters. We also know that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were quite different from them. We know that a person like Patrick Cleburne didn't have an interest in the maintenance of slavery at all. We know that Alexander Stephens actually had more of a constitutionalist view of the situation than he did a social (slavery) view of it. Yet we trot out a Stephens political speech, presented to fire-eaters for political reasons, as a generic reflection of the Confederate leadership's primary motivations. That is as lame as calling Lincoln a racist based on similar constructions.

Such as trotting out Lincoln's statement that he would maintain slavery to preserve the Union (which he certainly would have) as evidence of inherent racism or lack of real concern over the fate of slaves. Thats fairly ridiculous (and was originally meant to be a facetious turn of the tables) and ignores that his views early in the war and later in the war were altered by events. We trot out comments of his in regard to the rights of blacks and whites in a politically charged environment as reflective of his inner views. Quite a reach.

Similarly, regardless of his views at the start of the war (which were fairly moderate actually), by the end of it Jefferson Davis was so wrapped up in independence for the sake of independence that I do not believe that slavery played any part at all in his thinking.

I've read hundreds of books and articles on the war from all sorts of points of view. My fundamental conception of the war is vastly different than it was when I first started studying it. I still find new facts that alter my views of the event from time to time. But the rate of change in my views has declined steadily as time has gone by.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the Civil War and plenty of abuses on both sides. Those who continually try to place blame on one side or the other in these threads will simply fail. It is sad to see facts ignored because they don't fit the propaganda of one side or the other. Those who engage in it are doing a disservice to the memory of both Lincoln and Lee who, despite any other flaws, desired an honorable reconciliation and reunion with malice toward none.

When you see the words "The war was not about slavery" you have someone trying to sell you a simplistic sound-bite for modern political or psychological reasons and not historical ones. When you see the words "The cause of the Civil War was slavery period" you have someone trying to sell you a politically correct sound-bite history and dismissing the complexity of event for personal reasons.

Its not a black and white answer. Very few things are.

[Arkinsaw]

Lincoln's crime was in not recognizing the union as a voluntary association of states, and in preserving it by force.

He recognized that at one time, and I think he did later as well. But presented with the reality of the thing, his abstract beliefs succumbed to political and practical motivations. Practically, one does not want to be the President of the United States responsible in history for half the country dissolving. It also seems clear that he did, in fact, have a real and profound affection for the union as a whole.

While I disagree with his choice in the matter, I can understand it. If/when the day comes that Aztlan votes to break off and rejoin Mexico I think many will be burdened with a similar decision between a belief in self-determination and the ballot box and a patriotic demand that our nation remain whole.

I think a lot of bad things came out of Lincoln's choices and fundamentally altered the state of our union by force of arms. I think that his stated justifications are a bit of a reach to say the least given the character of the union. At the same time, I appreciate the benefits of the continental union that he maintained and grateful that it was in place and whole during the 20th century. If it had not, we would be in a bit of a nightmare world. So I cannot blame him overmuch and have to attribute the actual outcome to the will of a power above our own.

[raynearhood]

It's a good article but only touches on the socioeconomic issues that helped to cause the divide in the Union. One major factor was the Transcontinental Railroad. The South wanted to start in the South because they believed they would have the most use for it in transporting goods to the western territories. The North didn't want the Railroad in the south so that it was better used for commercial travel from the North for passenger transport and manufactured goods. A large portion of the Congress predominately from the North, felt, also, that by putting something as great as the Trans-cont. R.R. in the South it would be seen as promoting slavery and would stain further the integrity of the United States.
Also, Republicans in Washington were trying to destroy slavery indirectly, without all out abolition, by taxing goods produced by slave labor. These and other issues were the cause of the Civil War. Lincoln supported the Republicans in Washington during his campaign, yet at the same time was the uniting statesman that he had to be in order to try to keep the Union in tact. It was his need to be uniting as President that kept Confederate soldiers from being treated as deserter or traitors after the war was over.
In the end, Lincoln was opposed to slavery, however didn't want to end it at the cost of the Union (same as the framers, just under different circumstances). After the Union was inevitably divided he officially emancipated the slaves. But, unlike the South, Lincoln never saw himself as the President of the North, but President of the United States.