Abraham Lincoln: Saint or Sinner (2 Viewers)

[Scott]

"Shelby Foote's history is good but it is told from a Southern point of view."

I'm currently rereading Foote's trilogy after 20 years and I find Foote fair to both sides. This work is a narrative rather than a history yet the reader can tell that Foote knows his material. His treatment of Lincoln is sympathetic but so is his treatment of other figures. I try to stay away from the modern political twists that Lincoln was some sort of early Nazi/Communist. ^&confuse

 

[Rutledge]

I'm not sure that's the books I would start with.

Shelby Foote's history is good but it is told from a Southern point of view.

Indeed. God forbid he be exposed to the "Southern point of view". He would surely be ruined. :wink2:

The issue really boils down to the matter of states' rights. The Framers clearly were opposed to there being a "Federal Entity" that would possess overwhelming authority. States were not meant to be utterly subservient to a central authority. And, lest we forget, the USA was founded on the principle that the primacy of the individual is sacrosanct.

 

[Scott]

I'm reading April 1865: The Month That Saved America right now. Good explanation the the US Constitution didn't say anything about a nation but stated a union or collection of states and rights of individuals. US history really is a succession of groups and regions trying to further split away South and West but joining the Union under the best circumstances for themselves. The Confederacy could be said to have left the Union to get the best conditions politically and economically for that collection of states. (slavery is in there, see their founding documents)
Lincoln saw his duty as president to preserve the Union by treating the Confederacy as if some people within the Southern states seceded and not the states themselves. A pretty good legalism I'd say. The man was a successful lawyer after all.

With Lincoln you get an American folk hero while with Jefferson Davis you get a brave honorable man but nothing warm and uniting to most Americans.

 

[jazzeum]

The issue really boils down to the matter of states' rights. The Framers clearly were opposed to there being a "Federal Entity" that would possess overwhelming authority. States were not meant to be utterly subservient to a central authority. And, lest we forget, the USA was founded on the principle that the primacy of the individual is sacrosanct.

As somebody who is starting out in reading about the Civil War, if you're going to read a multi volume history, I would recommend Alan Nevins' history rather than Foote's as it is far more even handed.

As for the rest of your comment, I'm sure we could go down that path and argue back and forth but where would it get us. I'm sure nobody's mind would be changed so it's probably best to let that go

 

[wadepat]

Gentle Friends,

I am finding this thread to be very interesting. For the most part, it has been a good intellectual/academic/informed discussion of American history, but the topic can easily become very volatile and/or explosive. Discussing the origins, the history, the events, and the outcome of the American Civil War can easily ignite strong passions that result in heated and angry interactions. Please keep this fact in mind as you continue a peaceful and stimulating conversation. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated!

Warmest personal regards,

Pat

 

[Rutledge]

The man was a successful lawyer after all.

One of the most vicious indictments of the man's character that Ive ever read! ^&grin

 

[Mitch]

Guys...

Thanks for the imput so far. As an Englishman I am on the fence and want to know both sides to this story so, I don't mind reading both sides at all.

My six days of verylight reading and from the doc makes me think that Lincoln was hedging his bets and sort of standing on the side of the field watching the events take place.

I say this from a number of points from the reason war started IMO (and I stand to be corrected by the guys who know) the war started to stop the spread of slavery to the west territories about to open up and, to defend the free soil policy.

Was the republican party thus founded not as an abolitionist party but, that slavery should not expand in the west. From what has been said it seems there was a movement of white people to abolish slavery who prepared the groundwork with marches and sit ins but, Lincoln seems not to have been a part of this.

In august 1862 did he not call a delegation of five free black leaders for a meeting on colonisation? Does he not tell the delegation in no uncertain terms that were it not for them (I presume them means blacks) the war would not have started tells them that blacks and whites must be kept seperate in the US and even askd the leaders if they would volunteer to lead a colonisation movement in the country?

I cannot see this as being something the great emancipator would say and, add to this that in this period it seems that he actually had the emancipation proclomation drafted in his draw

Was this Lincoln playing both sides as he did not know how the war would play out??

Was he serious about colonisation or was it meant for pacification of public opinion at that time??

Does the state of the union speech not ask for the deportation in 1862??

Didn't the signing of the emanciaption proclomation significantly change the reasons and outcomes of the war it does seem so??

Was the emancipation proclomation as much an act of war as an act of mercy and, one that came from the failure to beat the confederate armies??

Lots of questions but, they seem to me, obviously, difficult times and very fluid but, there does seem a conflict in what was actually wanting to be achieved and this seems to come from Lincoln downwards
Mitch

 

[jazzeum]

Guys...

Thanks for the imput so far. As an Englishman I am on the fence and want to know both sides to this story so, I don't mind reading both sides at all.

My six days of verylight reading and from the doc makes me think that Lincoln was hedging his bets and sort of standing on the side of the field watching the events take place.

I say this from a number of points from the reason war started IMO (and I stand to be corrected by the guys who know) the war started to stop the spread of slavery to the west territories about to open up and, to defend the free soil policy.

Was the republican party thus founded not as an abolitionist party but, that slavery should not expand in the west. From what has been said it seems there was a movement of white people to abolish slavery who prepared the groundwork with marches and sit ins but, Lincoln seems not to have been a part of this. Lincoln was a founding member of the party or at least one of the principal reasons behind it. The party was composed of Northern Whigs, Free Soilers, Abolitionists, Know-Nothings and disaffected Democrats. It would not necessarily be accurate to call it an abolitionist party but it had abolitionists in it.

In august 1862 did he not call a delegation of five free black leaders for a meeting on colonisation? Does he not tell the delegation in no uncertain terms that were it not for them (I presume them means blacks) the war would not have started tells them that blacks and whites must be kept seperate in the US and even askd the leaders if they would volunteer to lead a colonisation movement in the country? Yes, generally but eventually he came to see that was the incorrect way to go. It was definitely a mistake on his part but it was part of the process by which he learned. I'm not sure about him telling the leaders that the war would not have started but for them. The Lincoln in 1861-62 was quite different than the one in 1865. This was a man who changed in office.

I cannot see this as being something the great emancipator would say and, add to this that in this period it seems that he actually had the emancipation proclomation drafted in his draw. He did have it in his draw but was still trying to get the border states to agree to compensated emancipation because he knew that, even though the Emancipation Proclamation would be ignored by the Confederacy, it would have a great impact.

Was this Lincoln playing both sides as he did not know how the war would play out?? I'm not really sure what you mean by playing to both sides. Maintenance of the Union was sancrosanct to him. I don't think anyone knew how the War would turn out. That was impossible to know. From a 21st century perspective we can see certain things but I don't know that you could see the future then, particularly with a poorly led Union army and a very well led Confederate Army. 1862 was the darkest year for the North.

Was he serious about colonisation or was it meant for pacification of public opinion at that time?? I believe he was but I don't believe colonization was a real option. After all, where you were going to find a home that would hold hundreds of thousands of persons, not to mention the 4 million slaves.

Does the state of the union speech not ask for the deportation in 1862?? Do you mean the First Inaugural. If so, I'll have to re-read

Didn't the signing of the emanciaption proclomation significantly change the reasons and outcomes of the war it does seem so?? Yes, definitely. It eventually led to African American serving in the Army, something the South actually started to do near the end of the War.

Was the emancipation proclomation as much an act of war as an act of mercy and, one that came from the failure to beat the confederate armies?? I see it as an act of war and an attempt to deny the use of slaves to help the South with the war effort. It's a very legalistic document, not an inspiring one like the Gettysburg Address or the Second Inaugural.

Lots of questions but, they seem to me, obviously, difficult times and very fluid but, there does seem a conflict in what was actually wanting to be achieved and this seems to come from Lincoln downwards
Mitch

Mitch,

These are very complicated historical issues so I will do my best but I am no expert. Please see my answers in bold.

I think a lot of your questions could be answered by reading a book like the Impending Crisis to give you the background.

I'm heartened that someone on the Forum is actually interested in this!

 

[Mitch]

Jazzeum...

Thanks for that my books come tommorow so, at least I will have some reading and have been given lots of other references. I am rather surprised myself how one documentary has stimulated such an interest. My interest really does not often go past 1912. God!! I will be buying figures next.

Cheers for the response
Mitch

 

[jazzeum]

It's a fascinating period of history. The writers of the Constitution themselves couldn't decide what to do with the slavery issue and they did what politicians normally do: they punted! If you look at the Constitution before the 13th Amendment, nowhere is slavery explicitly mentioned.

In all honesty, everybody, including the South, expected the institution to wither away but that all changed when Eli Whitney changed the cotton gin in 1793, which was a machine that automated the separation of cottonseed from the short-staple cotton fiber. Previous to the development of the cotton gin, farming cotton required hundreds of man-hours to separate the cottonseed from the raw cotton fibers. The cotton gin automated the seed separation process, making cotton production profitable. Had no gin been invented cotton production wouldn't have become as large as it was, requiring the number of slaves that it did.

The first sign that slavery would become a volatile issue was the the request for the admission of Missouri as a slave state in 1820, which the North opposed. Eventually Misouri was admitted as a slave state and Maine as a free state. Moreover, there could be no slavery north of the parallel 36 30 North. To Thomas Jefferson,

"this...momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. it is hushed indeed for the moment. but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper."

Slavery become a constant issue following the Mexican War when Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylavani put forward the Willmot Proviso, which would have banned slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico. After that, slavery was a constant issue, never to leave the attention of the public.

 

[VIRIATO]

Interesting stuff, makes me want to start reading about the ACW.
Thanks for posting,
Paulo

 

[Currahee Chris]

Here's all the notes you need and all the truth to the discussion-

They launch these "best president" polls each election or so which are assembled by preeminent American historians. Lincoln is usually number 1 or in the top 3. The guy is a bedrock of the fabric of America. Civil rights groups like the ACLU and such constantly praise him for his vision of a better America. If anyone can find fault with the job the guy did then they can probably find fault with the Blessed Virgin Mary. No doubt in my mind he would be the American Churchill.

Mitch-

sir- this post I have copied above is still the most relevant and accurate description of Mr. Lincoln. Please do not allow yourself to be a Chamberlain and led down a path full of slippery slopes- while my point isn't nearly as polished as Brad's or Louis's, I do have my finger pretty firmly on the pulse of my country and what I stated still rings true. Man up and be a Sir Winston and don't let yourself be beguiled by this chicanery. ^&grin^&grin^&grin

 

[jac28]

An interesting aside - My son, graduated with a history degree from Anderson University and said Prof. Dirck was one of the best teachers he ever had..

Jim

There used to be a great Lincoln blog run by a Professor from Anderson University in Indiana, Brian Dirck. Unfortunately, he is a full time Professor and is in the process of writing two books on Lincoln so he's had to temporarily discontinue the blog.

Brian has a Top 10 list of the best books on Lincoln and they are as follows:

Lincoln by David Donald
The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln by Phillip Paludan
Abraham Lincoln: Redeemer President by Alan Guelzo
The Young Eagle: The Rise of Abraham Lincoln by Kenneth Winkle
Lincoln's Men: How President Lincoln Became Father to an Army and a Nation by William Davis
Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream by Gabor Boritt
The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln by Michael Burlingame (Burlingame has written a masterly two volume bio of Lincoln, which won the Lincoln Prize, over 1,000 pages in length)
Mary Todd Lincoln: A Biography by Jean Baker
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America by Allen Guelzo
Blood on the Moon: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln by Edward Steers

 

[jazzeum]

An interesting aside - My son, graduated with a history degree from Anderson University and said Prof. Dirck was one of the best teachers he ever had..

Jim

Jim,

Small world, isn't it? He had one of the best blogs out there, with a lot of good material. I still correspond with him from time to time. He's written a few good books about Lincoln that have been well received. Hopefully, at some point the blog will get going.

Regards,

 

[Mitch]

Chris...

Your point is not lost on me at all. I just need to do some reading. I am sure my posts show that I am not easily swayed.
Mitch

Mitch-

sir- this post I have copied above is still the most relevant and accurate description of Mr. Lincoln. Please do not allow yourself to be a Chamberlain and led down a path full of slippery slopes- while my point isn't nearly as polished as Brad's or Louis's, I do have my finger pretty firmly on the pulse of my country and what I stated still rings true. Man up and be a Sir Winston and don't let yourself be beguiled by this chicanery. ^&grin^&grin^&grin

 

[Scott]

Considering how many of the founders and leaders of the US of A were and are lawyers, that's not always a bad thing. The opening of the west and land ownership lead to a need for lawyers. Poor Daniel Boone could have held onto all the land he claimed over his lifetime if he'd had a good lawyer. Consider that William B. Travis, Sam Houston, and Andrew Jackson were lawyers.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Considering how many of the founders and leaders of the US of A were and are lawyers, that's not always a bad thing. The opening of the west and land ownership lead to a need for lawyers. Poor Daniel Boone could have held onto all the land he claimed over his lifetime if he'd had a good lawyer. Consider that William B. Travis, Sam Houston, and Andrew Jackson were lawyers.

Scott, on behalf of the other members of my Honorable profession, who are only appreciated when needed, and then become the clients' best friend, I thank you.:wink2:

 

[Terp152]

It's a fascinating period of history. The writers of the Constitution themselves couldn't decide what to do with the slavery issue and they did what politicians normally do: they punted! If you look at the Constitution before the 13th Amendment, nowhere is slavery explicitly mentioned.

Brad
The adoption of the Constitution was not exactly a punt. The nothern representatives from states such as Mass, which banned slavery in their own state Constituition, knew the vote (to adopt the Constitution) would have failed with all southern states if slavery was banned. It was a pragmatic solution to an intactable problem of the time. Chris

 

[jazzeum]

I have to disagree Chris. Difficult questions involve difficult decisons and at last resort they failed to solve the issue and compromised by decreeing that the importation of slaves would be banned by 1808. Hindsight tells us they missed an opportunity particularly before the advent of the cotton gin. Jefferson in 1820, with the quote mentioned above, knew they had missed such an opportunity and that their compromise could lead to disunion.

 

[jazzeum]

The program that Mitch saw is available on Youtube.