Posted on 07/20/2018 8:55:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
President Trump has once again drawn the sneers and condescension of the Leftist establishment media with his claim that “I am the most popular person in the history of the Republican Party—92 percent. Beating Lincoln. I beat our Honest Abe.” Lincoln, sniffed Newsweek, “died a decade before the telephone, which is used for polling, was even invented, and about 80 years before job approval polls for presidents started.” CNN intoned magisterially, “That’s a hard claim to back up.”
But lost in the media contempt was the salient fact that Lincoln, as revered as he has been since his death, was a wildly unpopular President in his day, even within his own party. As Trump continues to receive relentlessly negative media coverage despite a booming economy and outstanding success against ISIS and with North Korea, this is good to keep in mind.
Just before Lincoln took office, the Salem Advocate from his home state of Illinois editorialized that “he is no more capable of becoming a statesman, nay, even a moderate one, than the braying ass can become a noble lion.” Lincoln’s “weak, wishy-washy, namby-pamby efforts, imbecile in matter, disgusting in manner, have made us the laughing stock of the whole world.” The Salem Advocate argued, just as Trump’s critics do today, that the President embarrassed Americans before the world: “the European powers will despise us because we have no better material out of which to make a President.”
The Salem Advocate wasn’t alone; the most respected pundits in the nation agreed that Lincoln was an embarrassment as President. Edward Everett, a renowned orator, former Senator and Secretary of State, and 1860 Vice Presidential candidate for the Constitutional Union Party, wrote that Lincoln was “evidently a person of very inferior cast of character, wholly unequal to the crisis.” Congressman Charles Francis Adams, the son of one President and grandson of another, sneered that Lincoln’s “speeches have fallen like a wet blanket here. They put to flight all notions of greatness.”
Critics decided what they saw as Lincoln’s despotic tendencies, often denouncing the very things for which Lincoln is revered as great today. When he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, the Chicago Times decried it as “a monstrous usurpation, a criminal wrong, and an act of national suicide.” The Crisis of Columbus Ohio sounded the alarm as hysterically as John Brennan crying treason after Trump’s press conference with Vladimir Putin: “We have no doubt that this Proclamation seals the fate of this Union as it was and the Constitution as it is.…The time is brief when we shall have a DICTATOR PROCLAIMED, for the Proclamation can never be carried out except under the iron rule of the worst kind of despotism.”
On the day the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, January 1, 1863, former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis said that Lincoln was “shattered, dazed and utterly foolish. It would not surprise me if he were to destroy himself.”
The Gettysburg Address didn’t go over any better. Edward Everett spoke for two hours just before Lincoln, and was showered with accolades. One man who was in the crowd, Benjamin French, recounted: “Mr. Everett was listened to with breathless silence by all that immense crowd, and he had his audience in tears many times during his masterly effort.” One of the reporters present, John Russell Young, praised Everett’s “antique courtly ways, fine keen eyes, the voice of singular charm.”
The Harrisburg Patriot & Union, by contrast, in its account of the commemoration at Gettysburg wrote: “We pass over the silly remarks of the President. For the credit of the nation we are willing that the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them and that they shall be no more repeated or thought of.”
Everett himself, an experienced speaker who knew good oratory when he heard it, thought otherwise, writing to Lincoln: “I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes.” In response, Lincoln was grateful but self-deprecating: “I am pleased to know that, in your judgment, the little I did say was not entirely a failure.”
Lincoln did not even command much respect within his own party. The poet and lawyer Richard Henry Dana wrote to Charles Francis Adams in 1863 that “the most striking thing” about “the politics of Washington” was “the absence of personal loyalty to the President. It does not exist. He has no admirers, no enthusiastic supporters, none to bet on his head. If a Republican convention were to be held to-morrow, he would not get the vote of a State.”
In 1864, Lincoln was indeed renominated, but in a way that left Attorney General Edward Bates disgusted: “The Baltimore Convention,” he wrote, “has surprised and mortified me greatly. It did indeed nominate Mr. Lincoln, but…as if the object were to defeat their own nomination. They were all (nearly) instructed to vote for Mr. Lincoln, but many of them hated to do it.”
This is not to say that Trump is a new Lincoln, or that he will be as heralded after his administration as a distant memory the way Lincoln has been. But the lesson is clear: contemporary opinion doesn’t always line up with historical assessment. A notably unpopular President in his day, Abraham Lincoln, has become one of the iconic heroes of the Republic. It could happen again, and likewise the reverse could happen: the near-universal accolades and hosannas that today greet Barack Obama may one day, in the harsh light of history, appear to have been naïve, wrongheaded, and foolish in the extreme – at best.
And they completely ignore the Hartford Convention (which didn’t make it partly because they were just too late, and it was kind of moot), and the damn near treasonous New Englanders altogether in “1812”. Yet no one questioned their ability to secede. Only whether it was justified. Lincoln basically made it “illegal” to secede. Despite the fact that is exactly what the Founders did - break off from Britain.
Oh indeed our F S Key monument in Baltimore has already been painted with “blood”, and other actual founder monuments have been threatened.
It did not take long, not at all
I also recognize there are such people who cannot throw off habit and group think, and must lash out against those who bring them unpleasant facts contrary to what they wish to believe.
They much prefer a comfortable fiction to an unpleasant truth. You and several others here are such people.
Geesh, no, it’s clear from the RevWar they were willing to break off from something they didn’t get along with anymore. And also clear they believed in states’ rights, else there would be no 10th A. Never mind most of those people really felt the biggest connection to their own state, not the nation. That continued largely all the way down to the “CW”, such as Lee unable to fight against his own home. And largely why people did side based on their home; not nearly as unpredictable as the RevWar had been, not knowing if your neighbors were friend or foe.
My mother and half my larger family were/are Southern, scattered from Texas to Florida, the Carolinas, Virginia & Maryland.
They are all welcomed "rent free" in my head & heart.
Georgia Girl 2: "Drinkin shine, singin Dixie and flying the stars and bars."
Sure, and telling each other endless Godawful lies to hide the truth and ease your consciences.
Enjoy!
Georgia Girl 2: "And Sherman is still burning in Hell. 😂"
Maybe, but Sherman's son Thomas became a Jesuit priest and perhaps put in a good word for his old man. :-)
And jeffy is still there with him, shining his boots.
Surely the framers of the 14th never intended it to justify Abortion, or Homosexuality, or a ban on God in public places, or any of the myriad things for which it has been twisted to legalize.
I never thought much about the Civil War in those days, but I started to notice a pattern that much of what is wrong with our Federal structure today kept tracing back to that era.
Since then i've found quite a lot of information to lead me to believe the existing Federal Deep State/Corruptocracy/influence peddling/"establishment", began around the Civil War era.
The money/power cabal the Confederates were fighting are still in control, and they are the enemy that all conservatives are facing when it comes to reigning in the power and influence of Washington DC and it's behind the scenes "Aristocracy."
It has nothing to do with Confederate vs Union. Or Democrat vs Republican. Or American vs British.
Some people are naturally subservient and fawn over their “betters”. There are tons of Americans who get all giddy over the British royal family. Explain that one to me. It’s just weird.
There is no question that Lincoln and Kennedy have achieved something akin to sainthood simply by being assassinated. If we want to learn from history and choose good leaders in the future we should use reason, not our emotions.
It has nothing to do with whether I am a Confederate. Im sure you’re right that there were confederates who put their leaders up on a pedestal on the basis of emotion. There are just some people who tend to do that, regardless of what side they are on politically.
I think it’s a weakness and one of the worst characteristics of man - a willingness to believe other men are supposed to rule them. It makes it that much harder for the rest of us to assert our independence when others give it up so readily.
There’s nothing wrong with admiring a good leader - I admired Reagan - I admire Trump. I’m sure there are plenty of people who admire Lincoln and Kennedy for the right reasons - those aren’t the people I’m calling disgusting.
What I think is disgusting is the people in this country who get obsessed with the British Royal family and there is a similar fascination with celebrities and wealthy dynasties in this country - like the Kennedys. It’s unhealthy in a self-governing nation to have the attitude that there are people who are superior.
I think anointing sainthood to past leaders like Lincoln does a disservice to everyone - and calling him the Great Emancipator - as if one man freed the slaves.
Like I said, Martyr Syndrome. It really helps the reputation of some.
You are right, people seem to largely need someone to worship. Look how commies who officially drop God adopt the cult of the personality with their leaders, and Marx/Lenin with the paper-hanging all over.
Actually, though, I must say there is less danger venerating a past person, than a current. If they’re alive they might acquire too much power.
Well said.
Of course, personally I think much of the rottenness we have falls back to the fed income tax, and also to the Senate-by-people amendments. Gee, isn’t it interesting they’re all from the same time period? When we could no longer tell who conservatives were or liberals just by their labels? This is the Progressive period I fault with changing the nature of Democrat and Republican.
Enjoy and don’t fall on your face.
central_va: "There is also nothing in the Constitution preventing it either.
Had there been, it would have NEVER been ratified."
Here's what's important to remember:
Important to remember that Chief Justice Chase was also a Democrat running for the Democrat nomination for President.
His opinion here reflects those of Southern & Southern-sympathizing Northern voters of the time.
It would be good to remember now, with all this animosity, especially with Dems rioting over statues, that those very people you all speak ill of, who were actually fighting in that war, had less animosity between themselves than people today. Perhaps we can take a lesson from that fact. These people were largely brothers and they knew it. The fact that many would “allow” monuments to these “traitors” at all is testament to their tolerance and perhaps understanding that it was just a POV they didn’t fully support.
Heck, as a graveyard nut who has dealt with various characters, I’ve had Sons of Confederate Veterans types asking why Sons of Union Veterans of CW aren’t more active and why they are letting great memorials to great Union generals rot in basements.
I guess better rotting in basements than rotting in Hell. LOL!
Totally agree, and what's even more weird is when they treat Hollywood actors(!!) as if they were royalty.
You got me on that one.
enumerated: "There is no question that Lincoln and Kennedy have achieved something akin to sainthood simply by being assassinated."
I remember Kennedy's assassination quite well, but how many today remember the deaths in office of Presidents:
Point is: even assassination does not guarantee perpetual fame & honor.
enumerated: "There’s nothing wrong with admiring a good leader - I admired Reagan - I admire Trump.
I’m sure there are plenty of people who admire Lincoln and Kennedy for the right reasons - those aren’t the people I’m calling disgusting."
In my memory of Kennedy he was growing increasingly unpopular in the fall of 1963 and certainly would not have performed as well against Republican Goldwater in 1964 as LBJ did.
Assassination changed all that.
And something similar happened with the near assassinations of both President Reagan and Pope John Paul II.
It gave them a boost in popularity that lasted the rest of their lives.
enumerated: "I think anointing sainthood to past leaders like Lincoln does a disservice to everyone - and calling him the Great Emancipator - as if one man freed the slaves."
No... there are two Presidents in US history who truly do stand above all others because of the degree of difficulty of their challenges and the astonishing successful results.
Those are Washington and Lincoln, all others are several steps below them.
Lincoln the Great Emancipator did in fact free the slaves -- first by Presidential proclamation, then by Constitutional Amendments, it's most unlikely that anyone else among competitors in the election of 1860 could have, or would have, achieved what Lincoln did.
Sure, lots of posters say: only at horrendous costs in blood & treasure.
But I don't blame Lincoln, I blame Davis who both started the war and refused to stop it on any terms better than Unconditional Surrender:
Totally false.
The 1776 Declaration of Independence had nothing to do with "getting along with anymore".
Benjamin Franklin spent 16 years in London trying to negotiate better conditions when the colonies "didn't get along with anymore".
By the time Franklin returned to Philadelphia in 1775 it was way, way beyond "getting along" -- the Brits had already declared Americans in rebellion, a declaration of war, and had begun to wage war against us.
OlLine Rebel: "And also clear they believed in states’ rights, else there would be no 10th A"
Sure, but no Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure, which is what Deep South Fire Eaters began in December, 1860.
OlLine Rebel: "And largely why people did side based on their home; not nearly as unpredictable as the RevWar had been, not knowing if your neighbors were friend or foe."
No, in fact there were huge regions all over the South of anti-slavery Unionists, from Western Virginia to Eastern Tennessee, Western NC, Northern Alabama, Northern Texas & Northern Arkansas, plus vast majorities in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland & Delaware.
In total, Confederate states alone (not counting Border States) provided over 100,000 white troops to the Union army, plus another 100,000 colored troops.
So there were very often no clear dividing lines.
No, because the Hartford Convention destroyed the old Federalist party and brought single-party rule (Democrats) for the next 27 years.
Our Founders did not believe in declaration of secession at pleasure and that's how they viewed the Hartford Convention.
So they abolished the Federalist Party.
the OlLine Rebel: "...and the damn near treasonous New Englanders altogether in “1812.
Yet no one questioned their ability to secede.
Only whether it was justified."
Nonsense, President Madison responded to New England secession threats by moving US Army units from the frontier with Canada to nearby Albany, NY in case they were needed to suppress rebellion.
He also sent New England troops home to vote against secessionists.
Neither Madison nor anyone else at the time considered New Englanders' beefs legitimate cause for secession and were willing to use military force, if necessary, to top it.
the OlLine Rebel: "Lincoln basically made it “illegal” to secede."
Nonsense, "secession" by mutual consent is just as legal today as it was in 1788 and as it would have been in 1860, had Fire Eaters sought out & achieved mutual consent.
But they didn't think it necessary.
That proved unwise.
the OlLine Rebel: "Despite the fact that is exactly what the Founders did - break off from Britain."
But our Founders never "broke off from Britain" until long after Britain broke off from them!
By declaring Americans in rebellion, a declaration of war meaning American leaders would hang if captured, and waging war in their colonies, Brits had long before broken any bonds of legitimate government.
So the Declaration of Independence in 1776 merely recognized what Brits had already done.
Nothing remotely resembling such conditions existed in 1860 when Deep South Fire Eaters began declaring unilateral unapproved secession at pleasure.
Of course there were sympathizers on both sides to the opposite, and joiners, too. (And MD was NOT “vast majority” unionist. Not in the least.) That is not the point.
But it wasn’t NEARLY as much a crap shoot as the RevWar. Not nearly. The RevWar mixed it up alot more.
How is my basic statement wrong on breaking off? Seriously? Yes they tried to keep begging their side but finally some tinderboxes just exploded and it kept going and getting bigger. These were British colonies; they by rights belonged to Britain. Stop focusing on the DOI, BTW, and focus more on actual conflict - as stated, rebels already impeded Brits a year earlier (and tried earlier than that) and it was basically recognized as a general rebellion by appointing Washington to head New England operations. And at the exact time of the DOI adoption, Howe just arrived in NY harbor. Not alot had happened over a year, war-wise, except some stalemating around Boston.
Conversely, do you honestly believe there was no “olive branch”-type negotiating in Congress for years before the CW? And does it really matter? Does it really matter if your wife wants to leave you just this second or has been festering for years? She’s going to leave. What are you going to do? Shoot her?
And what is your position on the “1812” war, with New England “traitors” wanting to secede because they didn’t want to fight with Britain?
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.