Abraham Lincoln: Saint or Sinner (1 Viewer)

[Mitch]

Guys...

I watched on BBC4 a rather interesting documentary about abe entitled above. It had many established historians from the UK and US such as Harold Holzer David W Blight Eric Phoner Lerone Bennet to name but, a few.

Now, I must admit to being not well versed in this area reading very few books but, due to this I have ordered several more as this documentary was excellent and thought provoking.

I probably went along with the image of Lincoln as the great emancipator but, this was scuppered to a great extent in this programme and some of its findings.

I watched it a few times and took some twenty pages of notes but, was amazed at the reasons why the emancipation really came about expansion in the west and a need to ensure defence of the ''free soil policy'' was at the core. It raised issues of the treatment of the sioux indians and the trials after the reservation uprisings were quashed and the hangings and imprisonment of some of the sioux.

What I did find amazing was that emancipation and deportation were indesoluably linked. I was also amazed at the belief that the escalation of the war was the real cause for the emancipation proclomation.

So, what I want is for the guys who know more about this to give me some opinions are these issues raised in the programme are they new?? and, any reading lists about this as it has sparked some interest. The programme itself as I say was excellent and worth searching for through the BBC lists it was on sunday 9pm

I look forward to your comments and assistance as this seems a very interesting area
Mitch

 

[Currahee Chris]

I watched it a few times and took some twenty pages of notes.........

Man alive- 20 pages of notes while watching TV???? Bro, you really need to relax ^&grin:tongue:

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.

You may put your pencil down now. ^&grin^&grin

 

[Mitch]

I did watch it a couple of times but, thats the researcher in me coming out. I don't know if it was about whether he was the best or not just addressing some of his actions. It did state that he was a part of US fabric and a institution in his own right. I know the anniversary is coming up but, did wonder why it was shown in the UK

I like the description the american churchill!!
Mitch

Man alive- 20 pages of notes while watching TV???? Bro, you really need to relax ^&grin:tongue:

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.

You may put your pencil down now. ^&grin^&grin

 

[Louis Badolato]

I don't think the question of his motives for the emancipation proclaimation are necessarily the defining factor in deciding whether Lincoln was a saint or a sinner. Upon being elected president, Lincoln basically stated that his principal responsibility as the president was to ensure the preservation of the union. I'm paraphrasing, but he said something along the lines of "if I can preserve the union by freeing all of the slaves, I will. If I can preserve the union by freeing none of the slaves, I will. If I can save the union by freeing some of the slaves, and leaving others in bondage, I will." There were slaves in some of the states that remained in the union, so politically, he could not free the slaves at the beginning of the conflict. When he did finally issue the proclaimation, it only effected slaves in the seceeding states, and slaves in the states remaining in the union remained slaves.

I personally think that Lincoln plainly was a good man, and wanted to see all of the slaves freed. However, he was also a person subject to the mindset of his time, and by todays standards would be considered a racist. While he wanted them freed, he saw African Americans as less intelligent and incapable of participating in the democratic process right away.

Lincoln was also a politician, so his principals about emancipation took a back seat to his political goal: preservation of the union (and consequently, his power as president). He was willing to sacrifice anything to preserve this goal, as evidenced by the unbelievable casualties he was willing to accept to win the war. For me, this is where the question of whether Lincoln was a saint or a sinner comes to the forefront. I believe in democracy, and I don't truly believe that Lincoln did. Regardless of what the Supreme Court subsequently said (after the civil war was over, and when it was packed with only proponents of the Union), I have never seen anything in the constitution as it existed pre-civil war that prevents States from choosing, upon a democratic vote, to leave the union. In particular, Texas' treaty with the United States wherein it joined the union specifically reserved it the right to seceed if it chose to do so. Once those states voted to seceed, I believe a person who truly believed in democracy would have let them go peacefully. Lincoln absolutely was unwilling to do so, and as a result hundreds of thousands of young men died in a war that only resulted in more than 150 years of acrimony between the north and south, and more than 100 years of abyssmal treatment of African Americans, who were subjected to "the badges and incidents of slavery" until the Civil Rights movement finally brought them true freedom during the course of my lifetime.

Ask yourself the following question: Had Lincoln respected the democratic process and allowed the southern states to leave the union peacefully, how long would slavery have survived in the south, and how long would the south, which lacked any industry, and was a terribly poor aggrarian society, have remained an independent country before it petitioned to rejoin the union to obtain the benefits of the north's powerful industrial economy? I have always believed the Civil War was a terrible mistake, and that the United States will always be split politically and culturally as a result. So to me Lincoln was not a saint, he was a politician, which places him firmly in the ranks of the sinners.

 

[jazzeum]

Mitch,

Harold Holzer, Eric Foner and David Blight are three of the most recognized experts in the field. Bennett is anti Lincoln so I would discount anything he says. On the other hand Harold is very pro Lincoln so I guess they balance each other out.

I would recommend reading Eric Foner's recent book The Fiery Trial about Lincoln, Slavery and a bit of reconstruction. You'll find it illuminating on these issues.

I would also be interested in what you ordered and I'll give you my thoughts about it as I have read many books on Lincoln and am just finishing Lincoln and His Party in the Secession Crisis by David Potter. If you want a book that tells you how the country got to the situation it did in 1861, please read David Potter's the Impending Crisis. There is no better book.

Lincoln was anti slavery but that doesn't necessarily mean that when he became President he was pro Black. The Republican Party (a successor to the Whigs) believed in economic development. They saw slavery as a retardant to progress. Lincoln on slavery was not an abolitionist but belonged to the conservative wing of the Party. However, over time he greatly changed to where he saw emancipation as a positive good. The Lincoln of 1860 and the Lincoln of 1865 are completely different men. I recommend you read his second inaugural address. Ronald White has done a masterly analysis of it in his "Lincoln's Greatest Speech." Highly recommended.

On emancipation, Lincoln saw this as a way to deny the Southern states the ability to rely on their slave population in order to wage war. By the time it was issued slaves were already talking about freedom and some generals had attempted to confiscate slaves as contraband (a very interesting issue) and the Proclamation was an attempt by Lincoln to make the Southern ability to wage war more difficult. It should not be viewed as a document to necessarily free the slaves because Lincoln didn't have the power under the Constitution to do that but it was an exercise of his powers as Commander in Chief. If you read the document, it reads like a legal document and Lincoln was a very, very good lawyer.

Deportation was viewed as a way to get rid of the race problem and Lincoln didn't give up on this idea until 1863 when he issued the Proclamation. He just didn't think the races would mix. However, most blacks had no desire to return to their native lands, particularly the northern freed blacks.

Another thing to bear in mind that although the war did turn into one to rid the country of this might scourge, this didn't necessarly mean granting Blacks the full rights that we as citizens have today, particularly the right to vote. It meant that freed slaves would have the right to keep the wages they earned. Lincoln was coming around to the point of view of full citizen rights by late 1864, early 1865 but most of the country didn't believe that. In fact, most Northern state before 1861 didn't permit Blacks the right to vote and some had even taken it away. It was until various amendments to the Constitution were passed that these rights were enshrined.

Hopefully, this will be some food for thought as I need to get back to work

 

[Mitch]

Thanks for the books. Although you say Bennett is anti Lincoln much of what he said in the programme was either agreed with or said with much more conviction by the others.

Its fair to say that it was commented upon about Lincolns white supremacy views and, that from this programme it seemed to be saying that he was against slavery but, not really in terms of wanting to set the people free from oppression and took action against the south because of the free soil policy and the fact that west was the expansion and the new horizon and, this free policy could not be endangered by the slave gangs and cheap labour.

One of the historians stunningly said of Lincolns role in emancipation and deportation that it was the final solution to the negro problem. Now, I don't want a race row but, I am trying to come to terms with what I thought I knew and, what I have learned from this documentary.

In a nutshell the documentary raised some remarkable issues. lincoln wanted slavery abolished (though not true abolitionists as they thought slavery would eventually die of its own accord) but, then wanted blacks deported (they spoke of Haiti, carribean africa) the problems that Jefferson Davies created for Lincoln in relation to views on slavery etc and, the introduction of not ''total war'' but, ''hard war'' veiws about war crimes were raised and, a host of other issues about how escalation of the war created consequences that Lincoln did not expect and thus was forced to put forth the emancipation document which, they saw as a military directive primarily.

I must admit I saw the whole civil war things as rather boring but, this is really a very intyeresting topic and look forward to the continuing posts.
Mitch

 

[Mitch]

Forgot to put in the books I have ordered

Lincoln and freedom: Slavery emancipation and the thirteenth amendment
Harold Holzer

The civil war: A narrative 3 Vol set
Shelby Foote

Forced into glory Abraham Lincolns white dream
Lerone Bennett
Mitch

 

[jazzeum]

Mitch,

A few points. Lincoln's views in 1860 were not much different than most people at that time. In fact, during the Lincoln Douglas debates in 1858, he had to defend himself against accusations that he was pro Black or for mixing of the races (intermariage, etc.) as Douglas claimed.

As far as wanting to free the slaves, yes, there was the free soil and economic component, but Lincoln himself said that as far as he could remember he had always anti slavery.

As far as deportation being the "final solution" to the race problem, I don't think that's controversial because there were many who were for deporation and there was an American Colonization Society. Some just thought mixing of the races would never work in the long run. I don't think that should start a row.

As far as total war or hard war, Lincoln came to realize as the war progressed that the war needed to be a hard one. For example, McClellan didn't want to interfere with the institution of slavery and most at that time didn't either; they just wanted the union preserved. However, it became apparent that there would no unification or end to the war without denying the Southern states the ability to wage war. Grant and Sherman were advocates of hard war, which is probably why Sherman is still held in low regard in the South today.

I'm glad that you now think of the Civil War and the years leading up to it (generally 1848-1861) as something other than boring. It took over 100 years following the end of the Civil War for African Americans to finally become free.

 

[Nooooo9]

I would like to suggest that you also read "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James M. McPherson. It is subtitled "The Civil War Era" and it gives a very good overview of the events leading up to the conflict as well.

 

[Currahee Chris]

......So to me Lincoln was not a saint, he was a politician, which places him firmly in the ranks of the sinners.

Man Alive!! :smile2:

I must be born in the wrong freakin century or something. Louis, I gotta think somehow you are gonna argue that Jimmy Carter was the best President we ever had. ^&grin^&grin (btw- no offense to our President from Georgia). ^&grin

You seem to set some awfully high bars on performance Louis- gotta think it's hard being a junior associate working under you at your firm. :tongue:

Look guys, I don't get this at all- granted, I don't know much academically about the guy but second guessing Lincoln??? LINCOLN- SERIOUSLY???? Didn't our current President- Mr. Obama himself say HE was inspired by Mr. Lincoln??

I dunno fellas, at the end of the day, we are all human beings. This guy did more as a President than probably 22 of his fellow Presidents did COMBINED.

The guy was aces in my book- best of luck finding anyone in 1860 or 1865 or probably 2011 for that matter who could have had the intestinal fortitude to make the hard calls he did, under the enormous stresses he had to deal with.

The guy was a Saint through and through.

Now leave me alone while I eat my American apple pie!!! %^V

 

[jazzeum]

Forgot to put in the books I have ordered

Lincoln and freedom: Slavery emancipation and the thirteenth amendment
Harold Holzer

The civil war: A narrative 3 Vol set
Shelby Foote

Forced into glory Abraham Lincolns white dream
Lerone Bennett
Mitch

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.

I would start with Doris Kearns Goodwin's book on Lincoln. It's a bit hagiographic but a great study of him. To understand the historical context, I would order the Potter books that I mentioned. There are none better. I would also read McPherson's book about Lincoln as Commander in Chief and for understanding him, read Douglas Wilson's Lincoln's Sword: The Presidency and the Power of Words.

Almost forgot. William Lee Miller has written two tremendous books about Lincoln that are a must: Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography and President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman. Both highly recommended.

 

[jazzeum]

I've mentioned this previously but the New York Times is running a great series. They're following the Civil War and the events leading up to it day by day. Yes, every day there is an article, some by noted people in the field, such as David Blight, Daniel Crofts, William Freehling, Stephanie McCurry, Harold Holzer and so on.

The series started in November and is supposed to go through the end of this year. Hopefully, they'll keep it going.

Today is March 3 and tomorrow will be Lincoln's inaugural so you can expect a very interesting article about that.

Here is the link: Disunion.

 

[Mitch]

Thanks for the link. In relation to the books I choose one from each of the historians I was most impressed with from the documentary and asked my book guy for a reference to cover and he recommended the Foote volumes.
Mitch

 

[6th Wisconsin]

So to me Lincoln was not a saint, he was a politician, which places him firmly in the ranks of the sinners.

Perhaps, but as politicians go Lincoln managed to do quite a balancing act at the most trying time of our history. He was a masterful politician, but he was masterful on one side - the side for Union and emancipation. That is, he balanced the issues on that side of the equation to the irritation of the other side for disunion and slavery (which of course reviled him). On the Union/Emancipation side, sure he gave the most support to those wanting to preserve the Union above all, but he did not neglect the abolitionists completely and went over to their cause gradually when the time was right and when it was expedient as a war measure to do so. I do believe he leaned that way anyway, which is one thing that made him a good man. Lincoln trampled on a lot of people, and many saw him as wishy washy due to his balancing act.

I know many in the South would disagree, but look at the end results. Did the Civil War divide us??? It can be argued that it did. However, I think it united us even more, even if forcefully. Never again would disunion have a real chance; never again would African Americans be enslaved, even if it did take 100 years more to reach any real semblance of equality. To me he wasn't a saint but a genius. I have to admit I am a Lincoln supporter after objectively looking at what he accomplished during such difficult times. Nothing much is worth 600,000 people dying, but it was a great cause in the end. Cast my Southern vote for Abe!

 

[damian]

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/books/steers.htm

I think this settles Mr Bennet's point of view.

 

[jazzeum]

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]

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/books/steers.htm

I think this settles Mr Bennett's point of view.

Thanks for providing that. I had read that review awhile back, which is why my view of Mr. Bennett isn't terribly high.

 

[Mitch]

It an interesting review but, many of the points raised by Bennet were rather supported by other historians in the BBC4 documentary so, while I do not posit to know a lot about the topic from the documentary that sparked my interest and this thread it seems from what was said that Lincoln was hedging his bets on what was going to happen with the war and, the outcome.

Is the ability for many to dismiss the book and views of Bennett come from the way in which Lincoln has been portrayed because of the emancipation proclomation?? He is almost viewed as god like along with Washington and that was also something heavily drawn on in the BBC documentary. I am not being argumentative I am really interested
Mitch

 

[damian]

Thanks for providing that. I had read that review awhile back, which is why my view of Mr. Bennett isn't terribly high.

Yes it reminds me of reading David Irving on Churchill.

 

[jazzeum]

It an interesting review but, many of the points raised by Bennet were rather supported by other historians in the BBC4 documentary so, while I do not posit to know a lot about the topic from the documentary that sparked my interest and this thread it seems from what was said that Lincoln was hedging his bets on what was going to happen with the war and, the outcome.

Is the ability for many to dismiss the book and views of Bennett come from the way in which Lincoln has been portrayed because of the emancipation proclomation?? He is almost viewed as god like along with Washington and that was also something heavily drawn on in the BBC documentary. I am not being argumentative I am really interested
Mitch

I'm not sure what you mean by hedging his bets but his predicament was to keep the Union together and how he could do that. A lot of improvising to be sure. It's important to look at things as they were in 1861 and not how we may seem them 150 years later.

He was faced with a situation where 11 of the 15 Southern states had seceded. The Republicans had desperately tried to keep Virginia and North Carolina out of the secession column but the attack on Ft. Sumter changed that. Only Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri stayed out as border states and the trick was how to keep them from going into the Southern column. Moreover, he was greatly concerned that other countries would recognize the Confederacy as a separate country.

The Radical Republicans in Congress were chomping at the bit and pushing for abolition but Lincoln knew that he couldn't really soothe them because of the Constitution and his fear that the Border states would defect to the Confederacy. Any false move and in all likelihood there would be two countries for good. On top of that the slaves assumed that with Lincoln in the White House, they would be free and a few Union generals in the Border states or occupied Southern territory tried to free the slaves, which Lincoln had to countermand because of his concern about the Border states.

He wanted to end the war quickly and get the Southern states back into the Union but much of the army leadership were Southern and had gone with the Confederacy. Basically, an army had to be raised. It took him two to three years to find a commander who would fight the war he wanted it to be fought and who could compete with Robert E. Lee. The country was not yet ready for a hard war and so he had to tread carefully with disturbing Southern property, most of which was in slaves. However, he had to deny the South the ability to make war. Hence, the Emancipation Proclamation. Again, he was concerned about the reaction of the Border states and prior to issuing it had tried to convince those states to agree to compensated emancipation. No dice. He tried to convince Black leaders they would be better off in another country. Again, no dice.

In a famous letter to Horace Greeley, he said that he would free all the slaves or none of the slaves, or part of them if that what was necessary to save the Union. Uppermost in his mind was keeping the Border states in the Union.

Obviously, this is somewhat simplified but you can see the various issues he had to contend with in trying to save the Union, all of which would have probably killed most men (and he aged considerably in four years), particularly as the military situation was not good for the Union in the first few years.