This article has nothing to do with jihad. Maybe I will establish a new website for writing that isn’t related to jihad. In the meantime, here is something different.
It actually wouldn’t be hard for Trump to be more popular among Republicans than Abraham Lincoln was in his day. My latest in FrontPage:
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, former Supreme Court justice, 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.
dan christensen says
Who said “We want change” and then very little changed?
Who said “yes we can” and yet he could not?
Who, on his second full day in office signed an executive order calling for the closure of the detention facility at the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in no more than one year?
Who opened the gates of U.S.A. for every besieger desiring to conquer it?
b.a. freeman says
Barack Obama may one day … appear to have [been] naïve, wrongheaded, and foolish in the extreme – at best.
—
at best: indeed. in the harsh light of history, should civilization actually survive, mr. obama will hopefully be cast as the traitor he is. few people have done as much damage as this one man has done, intentionally or not. i can only class it as treason.
Hari Singh says
Lincoln had won the 1860 election in November with 39.8 percent of the popular vote. This absurdly low total was partly due to the fact that four candidates were on the ballot, but it remains the poorest showing by any winning presidential candidate in American history.
He suspended habeas corpus suspended a suspension he intended to enforce by deploying the military against state judges.He deported critics to the South, took Navajo land, wanted slaves sent back to Africa.
But he was great he saved theAmerican Union, ended slavery and passed amendments to the Constitution grant freedom to slaves and the right to vote.
If people knew more about Lincoln the SJW would insist they close the Lincoln Memorial and take down other statues.
In his second year Trump is more popular than Lincoln was in his second year.
Rarely says
Obama was such a terrible president it is sometimes easy to forget that he inherited the Middle East crises from George W.
CommoHull says
But he didn’t waste that crisis, did he?
Rarely says
Well never know what Obama would have done if Dubya hadn’t set up the pins.
gravenimage says
There is no doubt that George Bush could have handled the threat of Islam much better.
He was still a patriotic American, though–just limited in his efficacy. I think Barack Obama was something *much* worse.
Rarely says
gravenimage
Agreed Obama was worse. But Dubya should have left Iraq alone. The wars that ensued are directly responsible for today’s conditions including the refugee crisis. One of the stupidest moves since Vietnam.
Wellington says
No, Rarely, Bush 43 should not have left Iraq alone. After 9/11, no American President (well, maybe Obama would have) could or should have left Iraq alone.
Here’s why: 1) Saddam Hussein was regularly violating the truce terms of the 19991 war (e.g., firing daily on British and American jets flying over the two no-fly zones over Iraq); 2) even though SH and al-Qaeda hated each other they had a common enemy—America, indeed, SH gave sanctuary to an al-Qaeda figure like Zarqawi; 3) EVERY major intelligence agency on the planet, including the CIA, British Intelligence, Israeli Intelligence, even Russian Intelligence, believed that SH was not coming clean on the matter of WMDs (and note this: SH was the ONLY dictator in the world that had had WMDs AND used them); 4) SH was out of control—he was slaughtering his own people to a degree that sickened Bush 43 when he saw the evidence (e.g., people being slowly dipped in acid).
You know, it’s one thing to tolerate an authoritarian, thug-like ruler, but it is another very different thing to let a megalomaniac who had used his WMDs and was giving every impression to every major intelligence agency on earth that he still was harboring them, to remain in power, especially after 9/11. Bush 43 would have been derelict in his duty to let SH stay in control of Iraq. One knows this or should know it.
Where Bush 43 did err was in thinking that true democracy could be implanted in Iraq. Here he was greatly mistaken and many Americans (and others) died because of Bush 43’s ignorance of Islam.
If you wish to fault Bush 43, this, I would contend, is where the real fault lies. What Bush 43 should have done was pick out from the Iraqi officer corps, after “dethroning” SH, an authoritarian type who would have maintained order, a la Mubarak, in a very disordered land, compliments first and foremost of the worst religion ever created by man, i.e., Islam. A few US Special Forces could have remained to weed out the extra bad Muzzies, but the route Bush 43 took after getting rid of someone who needed to be gotten rid of is where the blame on Bush 43 should really be laid and not in taking out SH in the first place.
You’re a smart guy. So, reconsider. Think geopolitically, with the best interests of not only America but all of the West in mind, especially when taking into account just how awful the Islamic faith truly is.
Rarely says
Wellington.
Dubya made mistake after mistake on Iraq. I don’t remember all the details but the following should justify calling it an adventure in folly.
He was convinced that the Americans were going to be welcomed with open arms and expected New Year’s Eve type celebrating.
Colin Powell, a tremendous person, was hung out to dry at the UN on the WMD fiasco (by the CIA, I think).
Iraq had been a very effective buffer against Iran … no longer.
The Iraqi military was disbanded opening the door to the subsequent anarchy.
Yes SH was evil by any definition and had committed mass murder of Kurds.
BUT sometimes it’s better the devil you know.
Etc., etc., etc..
I don’t question Dubya’s intentions, just his wisdom.
Of course he had to do something about 9/11. Just what I don’t know but he made some very stupid decisions that bring us to where we are today.
No one can even guess what Obama would have done but my money is on something a lot stupider.
Wellington says
I believe, Rarely, we’re closer on this issue than may appear on first instance. I still think SH had to go and Bush 43 did the right thing getting rid of him but after that Bush made mistake after mistake—primarily, not solely, but primarily because of his ignorance of Islam.
It would be wonderful if the free world like America and Canada would only have truly democratic allies on their side, but we live in a real world where sometimes we have to make major compromises (e.g., aligning with Stalin against Hitler in WWII). But there is a limit. The free world can align with non-free leaders like the Somozas in Nicaragua or post-Ataturk heads of state before Erdogan or even with someone like Mubarak in Egypt, but after the Gulf War and 9/11, I would argue, Saddam Hussein just had to go. Besides, as I have mentioned before many times here at JW, he was starting to cozy up with al-Qaeda operatives in spite of them hating each other (e.g. Zarqawi). Bush here, or any American President, after 9/11 had no choice but to remove him. Leaving him in power would have been a gross dereliction of duty.
gravenimage says
Rarely, your belief that George Bush caused modern Jihad–including the Muslim invasion of Europe–in standing up to Saddam Hussein is just mistaken. Rolling over for Islamic aggression is always a bad idea. His only real error–and it was a major one–was in believing that Muslims are just like us in desiring freedom and democracy.
Rarely says
Pretty big mistake. Another definition problem. Their dictionary defines democracy as “tyranny of the majority”. They have no concept and Dubya SHOULD have known but he ran into Iraq on a “crusade” (his words and what a terrible choice of words) like he was on a mission to relieve the Alamo. His “don’t mess with Texas” attitude was inappropriate.
There was no reason to go into Iraq half cocked without a proper plan — including one for withdrawal. It was his job to stay calm and come up with an appropriate response. His response led to the huge refugee problem.
I don’t question his honesty or motives but sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Mark Swan says
Absolutely gravenimage, I agree.
gravenimage says
You are right, Rarely, that he should have known.
That many are still making this error is less defensible than it was right after 9/11, when most understood nothing about Islam.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Mark.
Hari Singh says
He made it worse, Obomber added five countries to the list of countries we are bombing.He expanded drone killings and listened to Hillary Clinton and destroyed a prosperous Libya and tuned it into choas and fundamentalism.
Vann Boseman says
I know I would follow a Robert Spencer website on Lincoln. It is surprising that Robert Spencer is that interested in him.
For me, after hearing “The Truth About Slavery” and “The Truth About Lincoln” by Molyneux a few years ago, I became sure that I did not want to focus on US history because I knew I wouldn’t like Lincoln. I happily went about focusing on global history being especially being drawn to slavery under Islam until I started a course on the history of the Middle East. I felt ok embracing my ignorance concerning Lincoln. When I learned that a mandatory course started the history of the Middle East with the rise of Islam, it was over for me and I had to change my mind about focusing on US history. I swam upstream through 3 courses learning more and more about Lincoln, despising him more and more as I went. It was becoming uncomfortable. I greatly appreciate Chris Calton’s audio files as they helped me take a step back and ameliorate my feelings about Lincoln.
For me, it was Lincoln that laid the American experiment in liberty to be crippled. Because of this I will always see him as the very worst president, even worst than Obama. For me, the foundations of liberty laid by the Declaration and Constitution were unique in human history, though the Constitution had a critical flaw, slavery. Because of the nature of how the flaw was removed, the American experiment in liberty would likely forever be crippled. All the warnings of Patrick Henry and the anti-Federalists would come true. The Constitution was touch and go during the antebellum years, but Jefferson provided a guiding light that was largely followed starting at his presidency and lasting until 1861 when it was mostly trashed by the Northern and Southern governments.
I don not see much comparison between Lincoln and Trump. Mostly, I see Trump as an anomaly the same way that Jackson was an anomaly. Neither were mainstream politicians. Trump shares being a populist with Jackson. Populists have been around since the beginning, though they almost never get elected to president. I thought it interesting that Trump had Jackson’s portrait prominently displayed. The “My politics are like the old woman’s dance” quote by Lincoln summed up Lincoln’s views directly slotting him as a mainstream whig/republican sort.
It was courageous of newspapers to print unfavorable things about Lincoln as he supported bad things happening to those papers that said bad things about him or his polcies.
Wellington says
Vann Bosemann: I have taken you on before on the matter of Abraham Lincoln. Frankly, it would be difficult to get things more ass backwards then you have. As General Douglas MacArthur said, “George Washington created the United States and Abraham Lincoln saved it.” But Lincoln is deserving of a following accolade I believe and it is this: Of all the great people in history, I mean truly great, from antiquity to the present, Abraham Lincoln is the only great human being I have ever come across that had no major fault. The first-rate historian, Samuel Eliot Morrison, I quoted to you before averring this very factor when comparing Lincoln to all of the great Americans like Washington, Jefferson, Quincy Adams, Jackson, Clay and Webster who came before him.
You have missed all of this. I think you always will. Abraham Lincoln did indeed save the greatest polity that has ever existed, “the last, best hope of mankind,” and you remain oblivious here. It is a huge oblivion on your part.
Wellington says
“…than you have.” rather than “…then you have.”
Mark Swan says
Absolutely Wellington, thank you for sticking with the truth.
Mark Swan says
Whoever feels the need to besmirch the good name of President Lincoln, should surely
ask themselves what have they accomplished in service to this country—then compare
it to what president Lincoln has done—just look at a photo of him before the civil war,
compare that photo to one from the end of the war—a man who served under immense
heartache—anyone should take great care in attempting to judge President Lincoln.
Vann Boseman says
Mark Swan, I do not buy that Lincoln served my country. I acknowledge that he was a logical thinker to a point. Lincoln was able to see that the thirteenth amendment had to be an outgrowth of the actions he took during the war. That does not mean that he or most Americans were not openly racist. I do not doubt that Lincoln was very troubled man. Being a troubled person does not mean that a person acts in a good way. I think suicide bombers are troubled people too.
Mark Swan says
Vann Boseman,
This is not just your country—it belongs to so many more, past, present and future.
If you have actually read His writing, His mind on paper and can honestly say that
you have found more logical thinking from a man—than your opinion is greatly
prejudiced. Openly racist—you seem to be drawing from your own resources.
He prosecuted a very deadly and necessary war—He was brokenhearted—
you seem to be the one who is troubled, by a good man.
Vann Boseman says
Mark Swan, I am a citizen of the United States and proud of that. As one person, I count too. I never said that others were not. Your intentional misrepresentation by implication reveals the instability of your argument predictably attacking me as you are not able to attack my argument.
Mark Swan says
What I could reply to, from your comment, addressed to me, I did so.
This commenting about President Lincoln is just your personal
opinion—I have my own personal opinion.
Vann Boseman says
Mark Swan, Remember the Alamo
https://youtu.be/j_7WISmYxAg
eduardo odraude says
There have been a lot of lies and distortions in a few pop history books about Lincoln, lately. To get some balance, it’s good to also see the critiques of those popular accounts.
One book I can personally testify is chock full of distortions and lies is Lerone Bennett’s Forced into Glory. As part of a master’s thesis i did, I had to check Bennett’s references and citations in detail. Looking at the original sources he quotes from, one frequently discovers that Bennett leaves essential details out and distorts what’s left in order to make his Lincoln-hating case. Lerone Bennett was behind a good deal of the modern hatred of Lincoln shown by one or two pop writers who have an ideological axe to grind. It’s easy to make Lincoln look horrible by quoting him out of context and ignoring his overall trajectory and the political constraints he had to work within if he was to be successful in ending slavery and preserving the Union. Be careful with pop history about Lincoln, because a significant percentage of it is trash. Instead, one can find a wide range of extremely readable scholarly works. Here are just a few of the books that are seriously scholarly Lincoln studies representing a fairly wide range of interpretations of Lincoln on race and slavery:
1. Eric Foner, The Fiery Trial
2. George M. Fredrickson, Big Enough to Be Inconsistent
3. Allen Guelzo, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation
4. La Wanda Cox, Lincoln and Black Freedom
5. Phillip W. Magness and Sebastian N. Page, Colonization after Emancipation : Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement
6. Richard Striner, Father Abraham
Striner’s is probably the most scholarly example of an argument that Lincoln was in no sense ever a racist and that anything he did and said that seemed racist was in reality just a political strategy necessary to achieve his goal of ending slavery.
Foner’s book is perhaps the most scholarly example of the view that Lincoln was not entirely without racism, but that he grew beyond racism while in office and always genuinely wished to get rid of slavery.
Fredrickson’s book is one of the most brilliant critiques of Lincoln’s racial attitudes and finds Lincoln somewhat more racist than do a lot of other major Lincoln scholars.
The serious literature about Lincoln of course is huge, but the three just mentioned are important and outstanding and together give a nice range of perspectives.
Also very useful as a scholarly argument against the Lincoln haters is Loathing Lincoln by John McKee Barr. Barr covers the whole history of Lincoln hatred and considers in some detail all the arguments that have buttressed that hatred from Lincoln’s time to the present day.
Wellington says
+1, eduardo.
And for any Lincoln hater, I would ask this theoretical: What, optimally, do you think Lincoln should have done once elected the 16th President of the USA and, by oath, bound to uphold the Constitution and the union of the states?
eduardo odraude says
A good question.
eduardo odraude says
I’ll add that like many, I revere Lincoln tremendously. That’s after a good deal of study not only of the secondary scholarship, but of Lincoln’s own writings and other primary source materials.
His particular understanding of the relation between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was uniquely brilliant.
His two-minute Gettysburg Address was reminiscent of Pericles’ Funeral Oration but outdid it.
Everett was right about the Gettysburg Address:
Vann Boseman says
Wellington, In answer to your question, Lincoln should have accepted the terms and compensation offered by South Carolina for withdrawal from Fort Sumter. Elizabeth Bayard Anderson, Major Anderson’s wife at Fort Sumter had this to say about Anderson’s decision to defend Fort Sumter, “I felt my cheek burn with indignation. I swear my dear husband, I would rather know that you were dead, yes dead, than have to see you and call you husband after you having proved yourself such a traitor, such a coward.”
Stipulations explicitly attached to the ratification of the Constitution by Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island made it clear that they reserved the right to leave the union should their people become unhappy with the union. Other states believed that those same stipulations applied to them too. Later, though not one of the sovereign states founding the Constitution, Texas also explicitly attached stipulations about leaving should their people be unhappy with the union.
gravenimage says
Fine posts above, Wellington and Eduardo.
eduardo odraude says
Yours are much appreciated as well, gravenimage.
Paul Klee says
It’s refreshing to read something here from Spencer and then from you which deviates from the standard fare served up on Jihadwatch. For all his faults and frailties, Lincoln was a visionary who pursued single mindedly without fear or doubt the mission to abolish slavery and preserve the union. But it is ludicrous to compare Trump to him.on any level. Lincoln was utterly without personal interest, conceit or vanity. What he did, he dd for his country without the prospect of reward or recognition. What Trump does may do good or bad, but his motives and interests are always personal.
gravenimage says
Vann Boseman wrote:
I know I would follow a Robert Spencer website on Lincoln. It is surprising that Robert Spencer is that interested in him.
…………………….
Robert Spencer cares about freedom. His being interested in Abraham Lincoln should not surprise.
More:
For me, it was Lincoln that laid the American experiment in liberty to be crippled. Because of this I will always see him as the very worst president, even worst than Obama. For me, the foundations of liberty laid by the Declaration and Constitution were unique in human history, though the Constitution had a critical flaw, slavery. Because of the nature of how the flaw was removed, the American experiment in liberty would likely forever be crippled.
……………………………..
Removing that flaw did not cripple liberty–it *fulfilled* it.
The great legacies of men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were tainted by the continuation of slavery. Abraham Lincoln finally removed that taint.
This did not threaten the Constitution–but the continuance of slavery did.
Wellington says
Magnificently stated, gravenimage.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Wellington.
Vann Boseman says
gravenimage, The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. The emancipation proclamation was a military tactic by Lincoln that was successful, even though it led to union desertions so high that the union military never again achieved the enlistments as before the proclamation, even counting black enlistments. Lincoln recreated the US as a country with a large central government that the founders never intended, unless you count Alexander Hamilton. As a logical progression of Lincoln’s military tactic, slavery was ended for black people while the liberties provided for by the Constitution became tainted forevermore by guaranteeing a large overbearing central government.
Wellington says
Initially, Vann Boseman, the Civil War was not fought to end slavery. Indeed, Lincoln said he would agree to a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing slavery in the states where it already existed. But what Lincoln and the Republicans would not tolerate was the extension of slavery into the territories. This is what gave rise to the Republican Party in the first place after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska in 1854. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 only exacerbated all this, disallowing as it did the prevention of slavery even in a territory like Oregon. Eventually, though, as the war wore on it was transformed also into a war to end slavery.
As for the claim that New York, Virginia and Rhode Island specifically reserved to themselves the right to leave the Union when they ratified the Constitution, this claim is absolutely false. In fact, New York and Virginia considered such an option and formally rejected it. Madison actually wrote to Hamilton about this very matter this very day (July 20th) back in 1788. See
https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/did-the-states-reserve-a-right-to-secede/
Finally, if Lincoln had accepted the terms of South Carolina for withdrawal from Fort Sumter it would have acknowledged the right of secession which would have directly gone against Lincoln’s entire idea of a perpetual union. South Carolina however aided Lincoln by stupidly firing upon Fort Sumter and thus made the South look like the aggressor. This played right into Lincoln’s hands.
Vann Boseman says
Wellington, You have a tremendous amount to prove to claim that “as the war wore on it was transformed also into a war to end slavery.” For people who existed on both sides and for those who fought on both sides, there were numerous reasons. I believe there is overwhelming evidence that for those fighting on the side of the South, that they believed they were fighting to preserve the United States in the South. I believe that for Lincoln there is more evidence showing that throughout the entire war that preserving the union at any cost was the overwhelming concern of Lincoln than showing that he had a considerable to end slavery.
The claim concerning the the states reserving to themselves the right to leave the union is not false. Several arguments against were raised against the view in the comments section of the article. There was a lot more that could have been said though. Regardless, threats to secede from the union occurred from New England within 5 years of the ratification continuing, primarily among New England states, until the 1830s when Southern states, primarily, began making such threats.
You asked what Lincoln should have done at the beginning of his presidency given his oath to uphold the Constitution. I replied with what I believed was the right thing for him to do. Lincoln did what he did in order to push forward his agenda which included a fundamentally different view of what the nature of government should be, preferring a nationalistic overview of government over the prevailing federalist overview including heavy use of protective tariffs, central banking, and government projects loaded with favoritism. To me, that is wrong headed supposition and answering your question without keeping that in mind is pointless. The South had issues of its own crippling its decision making as well. One of two bad leaders was going to win the Civil War. Lincoln was the one that won.
Wellington says
Vann Bosemann: I’m rather tired arguing with you. If you wish to see Lincoln as you do, that is your right but it is an EXTREME minority point of view. On the specific matter of New York, Virginia and Rhode Island reserving the right to secede, you are dead wrong. Did you bother to read the link I provided you? If you did, you can’t possibly argue that NY, VA and RI claimed the right you aver they did.
gravenimage says
Vann Boseman, the primary reason the Confederacy seceded was over the issue of slavery.
While all sort of side issues have been dragged into this conflict over the years as motivating forces–such as agrarian vs urban orientations–slavery was *always* the biggest factor.
The war to preserve the Union was not guaranteed to end slavery if won, but this was obviously always on the table–if things had just returned to the status quo after such a bloody conflict, slavery would have reemerged over and over again as an issue in the succeeding years, and everyone knew it.
You wrote:
As a logical progression of Lincoln’s military tactic, slavery was ended for black people while the liberties provided for by the Constitution became tainted forevermore by guaranteeing a large overbearing central government.
…………………..
I believe that the Constitution was tainted by the practice of slavery–*not* by its abolition.
I don’t believe that the Constitution ever guaranteed the keeping of human beings in slavery, nor that that was a “right” it ever should have been used to protect.
Wellington says
Vann Boseman, gravenimage, would have one believe that such things as the Emancipation Proclamation (effective January 1, 1863), Lincoln’s reconstruction plan proposed by him in December of 1863, the Wade-Davis Bill of 1864 and the putting forth by Congress of the 13th Amendment (fortunately ratified) really had nothing to do with the Civil War ever being at all about the ending of slavery. This is how out of touch this guy is.
Vann Boseman says
gravenimage, I agree that slavery, one way or another, was the reason the South seceded. Western states did not want slavery there because slaves were black, and the west did now want their presence there. There are a lot of permutations of the issue, but it all went back to slavery in one way or another. The cause of the war was not slavery as you seem to recognize. Many saw that slavery was going to end. The cotton plantations were leaching minerals from the soil. The innovations of the industrial revolution increasingly changed the dynamics of labor away from slavery being a viable option. Slavery was not going to be allowed to spread west or north.
Lincoln actually advocated for a number of policies that had nothing to do with slavery. I believe that the Constitution was tainted by slavery and by the presidency of Abraham Lincoln.
To me, it is unclear whether or not the Constitution sought to legitimize slavery. Contemporary to this period was Lysander Spooner, a lawyer, who supported John Brown and private military action against slave holders, who understood that secession was a valid American idea and supported the South’s right to secede. Certainly there was not a right to slavery advocated for in the Constitution. Lysander Spooner’s book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery was one of several books that changed the mind of Frederick Douglas who previously denounced the Constitution as advocating for slavery.
gravenimage says
No, I don’t believe that the end of slavery was a foregone conclusion–it took the fight of many brave people to bring that about.
It is lazy to assume that good is just going to automatically prevail without effort.
And the push for abolition had nothing to do with cotton leaching minerals from the soil. In fact, the South remained a big cotton-growing region for decades after the abolition of slavery.
Vann Boseman says
gravenimage, It is for you to prove that slavery had to be ended by a war. European powers , largely led the most successful fight against slavery in history, even ending it, at least on paper in Mecca and Medina. If you believe that the Civil War was a war against slavery (I do not believe that, but you do.) then there is a lot to explain why only the US and Haiti had to fight a war to end slavery when the rest of the world could end it more peacefully.
The push for abolition was small. It would hardly be worth mentioning had leaders of the South not have been upset about it to the point of paranoia. The notion that slavery would have had a natural death due to a number of factors is a different concept. Most leaders in the North and the South predicted it would happen. Some, like Jefferson Davis believed it would end in 10 years. Lincoln predicted it would end in 100 years. They would cite one or more of the reasons I mentioned above.
I am not an expert in agriculture, but I believe that crops have to be rotated in order for the soil to remain viable. While much of the Southern land was used to grow cotton during the Civil War by the North and the South, a lot of land used for farming was abandoned, allowing the soil a rest. That the South produced a lot of cotton after the Civil War does not speak to the production of cotton in the antebellum South and whether that level of production could have been maintained if the war had never happened. Regardless, people believed it was an issue.
Vann Boseman says
Wellington, Is the following the “Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788”? This looks pretty official to me. The very first sentence speaks precisely to what I claimed concerning Virginia’s stipulation in ratifying the Constitution. This is from the Yale Law School website:It doesn’t say “Proposed Ratification.” It actually starts out titled “Ratification.” At the bottom there is indication that there was a seal. I am pretty sure that this is the official document:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ratva.asp
Rarely says
Obama will never have a car named after him…a school in the West bank, perhaps, but a car…NEVER.
Mark Swan says
Good One Rarely.
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer in FrontPage: Hating Lincoln
………………….
Abraham Lincoln may perhaps have been our greatest president, but he was far from the most popular.
Wellington says
Far from the most popular in his time, gravenimage, but now close to universally acknowledged as America’s greatest President. The lowest ranking of any ranking done over the past fifty years has him as 3rd, and ordinarily he is 1st (which, as I think you know, is where I would place him).
As for popularity, it is eminently understandable that the President who conducted America through its most difficult time ever in its history would be far from popular with many. After all, extra awful times put a damper on the popularity of one who is trying to lessen the awfulness. No doubt.
gravenimage says
Agree on all points, Wellington.
I consider Lincoln the greatest president, with Washington and Jefferson close seconds–and all essential to American freedom and greatness.
Rarely says
I’m no expert on U.S. history but it seems to me that FDR should be in the competition for one of the top spots.
eduardo odraude says
I’d agree Lincoln was the greatest president. And that seems to be how he is usually ranked by historians now. He combined a number of virtues most admirably.
gravenimage says
True, Rarely. Despite my disagreements with him on some political points, I definitely put FDR in my top five for his brave guidance in the fight against Fascism.
It is just that Washington and Jefferson were so instrumental in the formation and defining values of the United States that I place them ahead of him.
One can certainly argue for exact rankings–but they are all great men, who all stood for American values as key points when this country was tested.
Vann Boseman says
Washington and Jefferson would have surely fought for Virginia. They were known to be loyal and patriotic in exactly that way even though they would have argued against secession, like Lee did. Herman Melville understood this saying, “Who looks at Lee must think of Washington, in pain must think, and hide the thought, So deep with grievous meaning it is fraught.”
Wellington says
Rarely: I think it arguable that FDR is one of the most overrated Presidents (though highly clever politically). Here’s why: The New Deal according to historians like Paul Johnson and Jim Powell actually prolonged the Depression. It gave the appearance of solving the problem without doing so. By 1938 unemployment was where it was when FDR took office in 1933. Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, admitted as much. The New Deal also really began (with precedents by Wilson and Hoover to be duly noted) a dependency on the federal government which plagues us to this day. That FDR was one of the luckiest Presidents there can be no doubt. WWII solved the Depression and put America back to work, not the New Deal per historians like Johnson and Powell. For the record, I agree with these men.
FDR also really screwed up at Yalta in February of 1945 when he conceded to Stalin too much. For instance, Churchill practically begged FDR to make sure elections in Poland would be monitored but FDR waved this away and Poland had to suffer being a satellite of the Soviet Union for half a century.
I would add that I think FDR did some very good things. I think his greatest accomplishment was to comprehend before the vast majority of the American people did that a new world war was brewing in Europe and once it started we eventually had to get involved. FDR deftly maneuvered matters in the late Thirties and in 1940 and 1941 to provide aid to Britain in spite of a profound and extensive isolationist sentiment by many Americans, including someone like Charles Lindbergh. But he needed a reason for America to get directly involved. The Japanese obliged by bombing Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, one of the stupidest mistakes in military history because now it became politically viable for FDR to bring America into the war, and as even Admiral Yamamoto knew (because he spoke English very well, knew the Americans very well in a way that almost no others in the higher Japanese brass did {they thought Americans would be pushovers} and had studied at Harvard), once unleash the Lion that was America, it would only be a matter of time as long as America kept its will that both Japan and Germany simply could not keep up with the industrial might of the United States.
gravenimage says
Vann Boseman wrote:
Washington and Jefferson would have surely fought for Virginia.
………………..
Both Washington and Jefferson–though both slave owners–realized that slavery was a terrible stain on American freedom. Washington freed his slaves in his will.
We will never know for certain how either of these men would have acted had they lived until the 1850s–but implying that they would have simply enthusiastically fought to preserve slavery is belied by their wrestling with the issue during their lifetimes.
Vann Boseman says
gravenimage, I did not imply that they would have fought to preserve slavery but stated the exact opposite of that. I strongly believe that they would have fought to defend what they believed their sovereign state, Virginia. It was not uncommon for many white Southerners to try to defend their states from what they perceived to be an invading army. There is even the case of two black slaves who were runaways from their master to fight for the Confederacy. These two actually carried weapons and fought. In all likelihood there were other blacks who actively bore arms against the North. It was very rare, I’ll grant you. It is worth noting to illustrate that defense against an invading army was a very common concern among Southerners who may well have strongly opposed slavery.
gravenimage says
Vann Boseman, virtually all the Blacks who “fought for the South” were slaves who served as valets for their masters.
The idea that Blacks actually fought for the South–that they were even allowed to do so–is a myth.
Vann Boseman says
gravenimage, Certainly you are right to the extent that most blacks who fought for the South were vatets for their masters and any assertion that they were doing so voluntarily is dubious. The South even had laws against blacks taking up arms against the North as part of the Confederacy. The reason that if happened at all, against all modern logic, was because a tiny fraction of blacks sought to defend their perceived country from a military invader. That is happened at all reveals a more general belief of Southerners perceiving a need to defend their country, right or wrong. There is this: https://youtu.be/FfGWEaF9PN8
duh swami says
Obama was the only President in history to play golf overhanded, while doing everything else underhanded…He was the most underhanded Prez since Wilson…He also fired a right handed shot gun left handed and absorbed the recoil with his face…Abe never did anything like that…
Wellington says
+1
Lydia Church says
I thank God that slavery was abolished!
I stand for every human justice for life from conception till death according to God’s righteous standard.
I applaud any good presidents and all good things done by them, and am thankful for that.
We can’t know all the details from our limited human perceptions anyway.
And I always welcome a fresh direction, we all need a little break from that stuff every once in a while.
; )
gravenimage says
+1
infidel says
OBAMA WILL SURELY BE EXPOSED IN HISTORY OF THE FUTURE for the Trojan that he is. AND TRUMP WILL BE FETED AS ONE OF THE GREATEST…
762x51FMJ says
Marxist Leftists are so concerned about changing the future that they demand we erase the past.
Life to them is the “collective dissatisfaction of life, that can only be cured if we progress, move forward, and accept a utopian vision of a perfect global society. This future paradise has no model because it has never existed because people will always argue otherwise.
Vann Boseman says
The following reveals a lack of Northern support for Lincoln’s view of secession in New York printed in Frederick Douglas’s Douglass Monthly and Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune on February 23, 1861:
“We have repeatedly said … that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, is sound and just; and that if the slave States, the cotton States, or the gulf States only, choose to form an independent nation, They have a clear moral right to do so. Whenever it shall be clear that the great body of Southern people have become conclusively alienated from the Union, and anxious to escape from it, we will do our best to forward their views.”
Certainly the reference to Jefferson’s support of possible secession was accurate. In 1816 he said, “If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in union … I have no hesitation in saying, let us separate.’“ Also at some point after his presidency he referred to the American Revolution as a secession.
gravenimage says
It’s well known that there were anti-war riots in New York City–I doubt this is news to anyone here (nor that some tried to give it a noble spin). This does not mean that they represented the main view in the North.
Vann Boseman says
gravenimage, I do not know why you are mentioning the New York City draft riots. Here I was speaking of a column written in a newspaper owned by Horace Greely and one owned by Frederick Douglas. I had not made any connection of that to the draft riots. The draft riot were generally about anger in being drafted to fight for the union, especially fighting for the union to free slaves. The article was printed months before Fort Sumter and was about the right to secession. There was considerable opposition in the North to the Civil War. How much opposition no one will ever be able to say for sure because freedom of the press was largely suppressed. I believe it must have been significant because of the desertions from the Union army more than any other specific thing.