Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

H.L. Mencken on Abraham Lincoln
"Five Men at Random," Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76. | H.L. Mencken

Posted on 06/20/2002 1:32:32 PM PDT by H.R. Gross

H.L. Mencken on Abraham Lincoln

From "Five Men at Random," Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76.
First printed, in part, in the Smart Set, May, 1920, p. 141

Some time ago a publisher told me that there are four kinds of books that seldom, if ever, lose money in the United States—first, murder stories; secondly, novels in which the heroine is forcibly overcome by the hero; thirdly, volumes on spiritualism, occultism and other such claptrap, and fourthly, books on Lincoln. But despite all the vast mass of Lincolniana and the constant discussion of old Abe in other ways, even so elemental a problem as that of his religious ideas—surely an important matter in any competent biography—is yet but half solved. Was he a Christian? Did he believe in the Divinity of Jesus? I am left in doubt. He was very polite about it, and very cautious, as befitted a politician in need of Christian votes, but how much genuine conviction was in that politeness? And if his occasional references to Jesus were thus open to question, what of his rather vague avowals of belief in a personal God and in the immortality of the soul? Herndon and some of his other early friends always maintained that he was an atheist, but the Rev. Willian E. Barton, one of the best of later Lincolnologists, argues that this atheism was simply disbelief in the idiotic Methodist and Baptist dogmas of his time—that nine Christian churches out of ten, if he were live today, would admit him to their high privileges and prerogatives without anything worse than a few warning coughs. As for me, I still wonder.

Lincoln becomes the American solar myth, the chief butt of American credulity and sentimentality. Washington, of late years, has bee perceptible humanized; every schoolboy now knows that he used to swear a good deal, and was a sharp trader, and had a quick eye for a pretty ankle. But meanwhile the varnishers and veneerers have been busily converting Abe into a plaster saint, thus marking hum fit for adoration in the Y.M.C.A.’s. All the popular pictures of him show him in his robes of state, and wearing an expression fit for a man about to be hanged. There is, so far as I know, not a single portrait of him showing him smiling—and yet he must have cackled a good deal, first and last: who ever heard of a storyteller who didn’t? Worse, there is an obvious effort to pump all his human weaknesses out of him, an obvious effort to pump all his human weaknesses out of him, and so leave him a mere moral apparition, a sort of amalgam of John Wesley and the Holy Ghost. What could be more absurd? Lincoln, in point of fact, was a practical politician of long experience and high talents, and by no means cursed with idealistic superstitions. Until he emerged from Illinois they always put the women, children and clergy to bed when he got a few gourds of corn aboard, and it is a matter of unescapable record that his career in the State Legislature was indistinguishable from that of a Tammany Nietzsche. Even his handling of the slavery question was that of a politician, not that of a messiah. Nothing alarmed him more than the suspicion that he was an Abolitionist, and Barton tells of an occasion when he actually fled town to avoid meeting the issue squarely. An Abolitionist would have published the Emancipation Proclamation the day after the first battle of Bull Run. But Lincoln waited until the time was more favorable—until Lee had been hurled out of Pennsylvania, and more important still, until the political currents were safely funning his way. Even so, he freed the slaves in only a part of the country: all the rest continued to clank their chains until he himself was an angel in Heaven.

Like William Jennings Bryan, he was a dark horse made suddenly formidable by fortunate rhetoric. The Douglas debate launched hum, and the Cooper Union Speech got him the Presidency. His talent for emotional utterance was an accomplishment of late growth. His early speeches were mere empty fire-works—the hollow rodomontades of the era. But in the middle life he purged his style of ornament and it became almost badly simple—and it is for that simplicity that he is remembered today. The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost gem-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.

But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: dixielist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201 next last

1 posted on 06/20/2002 1:32:32 PM PDT by H.R. Gross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: H.R. Gross
An Abolitionist would have published the Emancipation Proclamation the day after the first battle of Bull Run.

And resistance to the rebellion would have collapsed the same day.

Even after three years of war Lincoln said that giving up the support of the blacks would cause the loss of the war within three weeks.

Part of Lincoln's genius was in knowing what the country would accept, and another part was helping to guide it where it needed to go.

Walt

2 posted on 06/20/2002 1:38:13 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: H.R. Gross
and so leave him a mere moral apparition, a sort of amalgam of John Wesley and the Holy Ghost.

Sounds as though he didn't know much about John Wesley who went into more situations of personal peril than Lincoln ever did (and saved England from a civil war rather than causing one), though both of them did have demented wives. It is said that some men waylaid Wesley one night and said, "We be the devil's brothers" to which Wesley was to have replied, "Well, then, you know me. I'm married to his sister."
3 posted on 06/20/2002 1:41:01 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

I find this argument laughable coming from the slave holding states.

Hi Walt, looks like these idiots haven't given up yet!

4 posted on 06/20/2002 1:45:13 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheDon; WhiskeyPapa
I've heard of H L Mencken, but not of you two. Run those credentials again, for those of us who missed them.
5 posted on 06/20/2002 1:48:15 PM PDT by Treebeard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: H.R. Gross
My favorite quote from another thread:

It's time for another exciting episode of "The Tyrant Lincoln, Who Cut Down My Great-Great Grandma's Magnolias."

6 posted on 06/20/2002 1:50:34 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okchemyst
I see, so you don't agree that the South held slaves. I guess you just discredited yourself.
7 posted on 06/20/2002 1:51:24 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
I find this argument laughable coming from the slave holding states.

The southern states were right about self-determination and wrong about Blacks. Americans are now up to speed on the idea that Blacks are people, and as a result we can say that they too have lost on self-determination as a result of Union actions.

8 posted on 06/20/2002 1:59:17 PM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
Yeah, you can infer that from my post. With logical abilities like that, I bet you're a history professor.
9 posted on 06/20/2002 2:00:01 PM PDT by Treebeard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
"I find this argument laughable coming from the slave holding states."

You mean Maryland, West Virginia, New Jersey, Kentu... Oops, those were Union states. Sorry.

OK, I guess I'm not sure what you find laughable?

10 posted on 06/20/2002 2:02:40 PM PDT by OBAFGKM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: okchemyst
Your debating skills could you some help. By constantly attacking your opponent, rather than addressing the topic, you give the impression that you cannot address the topic to your favor. Are you a liberal? You can usually tell a liberal because not being able to engage in debate, they simply resort to attacking their opponent.
11 posted on 06/20/2002 2:05:21 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: H.R. Gross; dighton; Orual
Dump.
12 posted on 06/20/2002 2:06:11 PM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OBAFGKM
I find this argument laughable coming from the slave holding states.

If you need a dictionary with some of the words, try www.dictionary.com.

13 posted on 06/20/2002 2:06:38 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
http://www.dixienet.org/dn-gazette/professors-sc.htm
14 posted on 06/20/2002 2:06:47 PM PDT by groanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
"If you need a dictionary with some of the words, try www.dictionary.com."

Your debating skills could use some help. By constantly attacking your opponent, rather than addressing the topic, you give the impression that you cannot address the topic to your favor. Are you a liberal? You can usually tell a liberal because not being able to engage in debate, they simply resort to attacking their opponent.

15 posted on 06/20/2002 2:10:33 PM PDT by OBAFGKM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster; stainlessbanner
fyi
16 posted on 06/20/2002 2:13:59 PM PDT by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: H.R. Gross
The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.

Well, actually only about 66% of the people in the south had the right to govern themselves but Mencken, being a professional curmudgeon, never allowed facts to slow him down when he was on a good rant.

17 posted on 06/20/2002 2:14:40 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OBAFGKM
Nice to know that no one can support the views of DiLorenzo, the Michael Bellesiles of Lincoln studies.
18 posted on 06/20/2002 2:22:32 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OBAFGKM
Nice try. It would score some points, except I was commenting on someone else's inability to respond to my point. I see you have nothing of value to contribute either.
19 posted on 06/20/2002 2:23:54 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TheDon
Don't forget that the Union had slave holding states too. Slaves states on the Union side were exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation.

Slavery was a minor issue in the Civil War.
20 posted on 06/20/2002 2:43:10 PM PDT by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson