The Legend of Abraham Lincoln as Seen by Tolstoy (1 Viewer)

[jazzeum]

In 1908, Leo Tolstoy recounted the following story about Lincoln that speaks to Lincoln's greatness (with credits to Doris Kearns Goodwin for this account):

In 1908, in a wild and remote area of the North Caucasus, Leo Tolstoy, the greatest writer of the age, was the guest of a tribal chief "living far away from civilized life in the mountains." Gathering his family and friends, the chief asked Tolstoy to tell stories about the famous men of history. Tolstoy told how he entertained the eager crowd for hours with tales of Alexander, Caesar, Frederick the Great, Napoleon. When he was winding to a close, the chief stood and said, "But you have not told us a syllable about the greatest general and greatest ruler of the world. We want to know something about him. He was a hero. He spoke with the voice of thunder; he laughed like the sunrise and his deeds were strong as the rock .... His name was Lincoln and the country in which he lived is called America, which is so far away that if a youth should journey to reach it he would be an old man when he arrived. Tell us of that man."

"I looked at them," Tolstoy recalled, "and saw their faces all aglow, while their eyes were burning. I saw that those rude barbarians were really interested in a man whose name and deeds had already become a legend." He told them everything he knew about Lincoln's "home life and youth ... his habits, his influence upon the people and his physical strength." When he finished, they were so grateful for the story that they presented him with "a wonderful Arabian horse." The next morning, as Tolstoy prepared to leave, they asked if he could possibly acquire for them a picture of Lincoln. Thinking that he might find one at a friend's house in the neighboring town, Tolstoy asked one of the riders to accompany him. "I was successful in getting a large photograph from my friend," recalled Tolstoy. As he handed it to the rider, he noted the man's hands trembled as he took it. "He gazed for several minutes silently, like one in reverent prayer, his eyes filled with tears."

Tolstoy went on to observe, "This little incident proves how largely the name of Lincoln is worshipped throughout the world and how legendary his personality has become. Now, why was Lincoln so great that he overshadows all other national heroes? He really was not a great general like Napoleon or Washington; he was not a skilful statesman like Gladstone or Frederick the Great; but his supremacy expresses itself altogether in his peculiar moral power and in the greatness of his character.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Well it is not unusual for the legend to excede the man; the legend has much to commend it.

 

[theBaron]

I'm curious to see what our forum brothers from the South will have to say...

 

[UKReb]

I have always considered Lincoln to be the greatest American and perhaps the greatest political leader in history. I have also known many many Americans during my career and social life and even though one always reads how revered Lincoln still is today I'm not too sure the majority of them know exactly why?

Sure we all know about the slavery issue and you were all taught to recite The Gettysburg Address at school but very few that I have met fully understand the message and fewer still (as indicative on this forum) know much about the battle that prompted one of the most famous address's in the history of the world.

Although loathed by the people of the South the humane character of Lincoln I believe was best demonstrated by his policy of reconciliation with the ex-Confederate states as expressed in his second inaugural address on March 4th 1865. He spoke of "malice toward none" and "charity for all". A few weeks later death from an assassin's bullet cut short a great man's life. Master of combining practical politics with moral principles, in only four years as president, who had to face the greatest crisis in US history, he managed to establish why he is one of the few Americans who truly "belong to the ages"

Reb

 

[theBaron]

Well put, Reb!

 

[jazzeum]

I couldn't agree more with Bob's statement. I think we all have superficial knowledge of the man and I don't mean that in a bad way but you go through your obligatory learning in school and you don't really understand the man or understand his innate humaneness or his magnanimity. It's only when you read more that you really come to understand that the act of an assassin's bullet killed the best friend that the South would have had, as has been oft repeated. While others were pressing for revenge, he was trying to reincorporate the Southern states back into the Union as quickly as possible without revenge.

Washington is viewed as our greatest President but Lincoln saved the country. If Washington is viewed as number 1, Lincoln is 1A.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I have always considered Lincoln to be the greatest American and perhaps the greatest political leader in history. I have also known many many Americans during my career and social life and even though one always reads how revered Lincoln still is today I'm not too sure the majority of them know exactly why?

I would certainly agree with the second thought but not the first. No question he was confronted with one of the most difficult American crises and is to be commended for his objectives and his morality. Since I have been old enough to truly study the issue, to me it has been an issue of whether the ends justify the means; I have never been satisfied that they did. He may not have intended malice toward any but he sure unleased as much as we have ever endured. So if you think the ends of "freeing" about 3.5 million slaves a few years early was worth killing or maiming nearly 5% of the population at that time, then he was indeed great; if not, then at least he can be credited for great intentions, not to mention oration. I frankly think he would have better deserved the mantle of greatness had he lived to deliver on his promised reconciliation but we will never know. It is an unavoidable fact that his assination contributed to his percieved greatness but robbed him of the opportunity to finish what he started.

 

[UKReb]

I would certainly agree with the second thought but not the first. No question he was confronted with one of the most difficult American crises and is to be commended for his objectives and his morality. Since I have been old enough to truly study the issue, to me it has been an issue of whether the ends justify the means; I have never been satisfied that they did. He may not have intended malice toward any but he sure unleased as much as we have ever endured. So if you think the ends of "freeing" about 3.5 million slaves a few years early was worth killing or maiming nearly 5% of the population at that time, then he was indeed great; if not, then at least he can be credited for great intentions, not to mention oration. I frankly think he would have better deserved the mantle of greatness had he lived to deliver on his promised reconciliation but we will never know. It is an unavoidable fact that his assination contributed to his percieved greatness but robbed him of the opportunity to finish what he started.

Well as an American you are much better placed than me- just a mere Brit student of the war- to quote the above and assume you believe breaking the US into two or three republics would have been the better option rather than Lincoln unleashing hell to stop the house being divided. It may well have been a better solution which I cannot disagree with because I don't know.

However, some historians have claimed in such a scenario that slavery- such as your post refers to- would have died out on it's own by the turn of the 20th Century and that is most probably right as the few slave owning Southern states would have found themselves completely isolated by continuing an economy based on slave labour plus of course modern technology would have eventually made that labour base redundant. They also state that about the same time the North and South would have re-united. But that's probably an excessively optimistic-as well as unimaginative-point of view that discounts the real stakes of the conflict and most definitely does not align with current views expressed by the majority of my Southern pals.

It has always amused me how the North has always appeared to be almost gracious about the war (yeah! I know they won) by allowing the South to propound it's romantic myths without much correction. I suppose in the interests of national unity it's been probably for the best, but every so often a reality check on such "mythical lost causes" becomes necessary. Afterall the war was not some sectional disagreement or an argument between two equally worthy points of view but rather a struggle for a country's moral decency and the very future of democracy.

Reb

 

[Spitfrnd]

Well as an American you are much better placed than me- just a mere Brit student of the war- to quote the above and assume you believe breaking the US into two or three republics would have been the better option rather than Lincoln unleashing hell to stop the house being divided. It may well have been a better situation for you Americans which I cannot disagree with because I don't know.

However, some historians have claimed in such a scenario that slavery- such as your post refers to- would have died out on it's own by the turn of the 20th Century and that is most probably right as the few slave owning Southern states would have found themselves completely isolated by continuing an economy based on slave labour plus of course modern technology would have eventually made that labour base redundant. They also state that about the same time the North and South would have re-united. But that's probably an excessively optimistic-as well as unimaginative-point of view that discounts the real stakes of the conflict and most definitely does not align with current views expressed by the majority of my Southern pals.

It has always amused me how the North has always appeared to be almost gracious about the war (yeah! I know they won) by allowing the South to propound it's romantic myths without much correction. I suppose in the interests of national unity it's been probably for the best, but every so often a reality check on such "mythical lost causes" becomes necessary. Afterall the war was not some sectional disagreement or an argument between two equally worthy points of view but rather a struggle for a country's moral decency and the very future of democracy.

Reb

Well I favor the view that the split could have been averted and that slavery, as an institution would have collapsed under its own weight, as it did in every other civilized nation eventually. In fact, there is much evidence that it was not too far from that before the war.

The notion of the North as gracious is certainly not shared by the Southern population and yes, had they been more brutal, as history has frequently demonstrated, they would lost the battle for hearts and minds and undermined a fundimental premise for the war; the preservation of a strong union. I am not sure what you mean by the Southern romantic myths but to me the war was much less a struggle for moral decency than a conflict borne out of sectional differences that had festered since the formation of the union. Yes slavery was the rallying cry but the true causes for the conflict ran much deeper. What I have always wondered about is how those would have been resolved had the North let the South be and slavery had died by voluntary means.

 

[UKReb]

Well I favor the view that the split could have been averted and that slavery, as an institution would have collapsed under its own weight, as it did in every other civilized nation eventually. In fact, there is much evidence that it was not too far from that before the war.

The notion of the North as gracious is certainly not shared by the Southern population and yes, had they been more brutal, as history has frequently demonstrated, they would lost the battle for hearts and minds and undermined a fundimental premise for the war; the preservation of a strong union. I am not sure what you mean by the Southern romantic myths but to me the war was much less a struggle for moral decency than a conflict borne out of sectional differences that had festered since the formation of the union. Yes slavery was the rallying cry but the true causes for the conflict ran much deeper. What I have always wondered about is how those would have been resolved had the North let the South be and slavery had died by voluntary means.

Once again Bill but this time by your birth right you are far better placed than me to decide whether Lincoln was the villain of the piece and not the great man of US history.
I bow to your better knowledge.

Reb

 

[theBaron]

I understood Reb's comment about the North being gracious not to apply to the war itself, but to discussions about the war, after war and up to our time.

As to slavery dying on the vine, as it were, that opinion benefits from hindsight, doesn't it? To me, it's of a piece with saying that Truman shouldn't have dropped the bomb, because of what we've learned in the intervening time about the power of nuclear weapons. In 1860, I'm not sure that too many abolitionists were as convinced that slavery would die off, but that they thought rather that the only way to eradicate it was by force of arms.

Having said that, and based on my own belief in states' rights and a small federal government, it's still a net benefit, in my opinion, that we fought to keep all the states in the Union.

Prost!
Brad

 

[theBaron]

I'm also not too sure about the counterfactual that, having fought and won a war to secede, that the Confederate states would at some time rejoin the Union of their own will, once slavery had died off. I think it more likely that, if the split had occurred, a reunification would have been more likely to have come about by force of arms.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Spitfrnd]

I understood Reb's comment about the North being gracious not to apply to the war itself, but to discussions about the war, after war and up to our time.

Yes I took it to apply to all and I stand by the original comment.

As to slavery dying on the vine, as it were, that opinion benefits from hindsight, doesn't it? To me, it's of a piece with saying that Truman shouldn't have dropped the bomb, because of what we've learned in the intervening time about the power of nuclear weapons. In 1860, I'm not sure that too many abolitionists were as convinced that slavery would die off, but that they thought rather that the only way to eradicate it was by force of arms.

Most true believers feel that the only way to eradicate what they abhor is immediately and with violence to any who threaten their objective. True abolitionists were no different. As to hindsight, what isn't improved by that? The question is whether the more informed view based on the facts available at the time should have come to that conclusion and I think there is much convincing evidence that they should. To me the Truman analogy is not apt; I would have dropped the bomb even with hindsight for all those reasons discussed in the thread about that.

Having said that, and based on my own belief in states' rights and a small federal government, it's still a net benefit, in my opinion, that we fought to keep all the states in the Union.

Granted it is a benefit to have all the states united; whether fighting was necessary to effect that end is the question.

Prost!
Brad[/quote]

 

[UKReb]

If there is one thing I have learned on this forum it is never to get involved in a verbal argument that has absolutely no resolution and this particular Lincoln thread has now evolved into the causes of the ACW a topic on which far more learned men than this novice cannot even agree on. Discussions and opinions on Academy Awards, Toy Soldier polls and even WWII Revisionism are after all just personal opinions which don't amount to a hill of beans but this subject is a whole other ball-game and for a Brit to stick his nose into causes of a war that some Americans still feel they are carrying the scars of is just asking for a verbal assault.

There will always be a Southern side and a Northern side to this subject this was the case in 1860 and is still the case in 2008. A good example of this and leaving Lincoln out of the equation is a couple of comments made by the two opposing Commanders at Appomattox. First was Robert E Lee addressing the remnants of his army before riding to surrender to Grant:

"We had and I am satisfied, sacred principles to maintain and rights to defend for which we were in duty to do our best even if we perished in the endeavour"

And Grant wrote that night:

"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and who had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse"

Reb has left the building.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Once again Bill but this time by your birth right you are far better placed than me to decide whether Lincoln was the villain of the piece and not the great man of US history.
I bow to your better knowledge.

Reb

Well rest assured my views are certainly not the majority here. In any event I would never consider Lincoln a villian since that was clearly not his intent. I do not question his goals; only his means. Even then I would freely admit he was dealing with an immensely complicated problem and it may be that he did the best with the cards he had. I just happen to be in the camp that thinks there was a better way. That said, I have no issue with honoring the man for his ideals and the symbol he represents. As he knew well, another lesson of history is that if you fail to heal the wounds of your last war they will nourish the seeds for the next one.

 

[jazzeum]

As with Reb, I didn't want this thread to turn into a discussion of the reasons for the Civil War but to point out what a special person he was and how despite the reasons for the war, whether it was caused by the radicals on both sides or not, he preserved the Union, which I believe in the view of most of us was worth the price. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and he said that if accepting slavery was the price he would do it.

I, too, have left the building.

 

[Spitfrnd]

...There will always be a Southern side and a Northern side to this subject this was the case in 1860 and is still the case in 2008. A good example of this and leaving Lincoln out of the equation is a couple of comments made by the two opposing Commanders at Appomattox. First was Robert E Lee addressing the remnants of his army before riding to surrender to Grant:

"We had and I am satisfied, sacred principles to maintain and rights to defend for which we were in duty to do our best even if we perished in the endeavour"

And Grant wrote that night:

"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and who had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse"
...

Two great quotes mate; I think they illustrate a part of the sad conumdrum that caused the war rather well. Interestly if you believe that the Southern cause was only about the preservation of slavery, you would agree with Grant, otherwise you would agree with Lee. It seems a pity that the great minds of the time could not have worked through their differences in a more constructive fashion but the fact that they did not could not have done anything else but leave some very deep scars. To think the public of today believes our parties are too contentious; ironically they are in an absolute sense but hardly in a relative one.

FWIW, I did not consider this a verbal argument, only an exchange of different views, which I think is always healthy and benefits from informed observations.

Also, it is difficult for me to imagine how you can consider the greatness of Lincoln without dealing in some fashion with the causes of the war that was at the center of the maelstrom from which his claim to greatness derives. I must say it puzzles me when folks introduce a controversial notion and then decry the fact that it generates some debate. How can we ever understand each other if we are afraid to express our honest views?

 

[Louis Badolato]

I am not so sure that the United States really should have stayed united. Having lived in both the North and the South, I have always felt that they were two very distinct cultures, with entirely separate types of economy, with vastly different values, that might be better served by being two entirely separate political entities. Because the two principal customers for Southern cotton were the United Kingdom and the North, both abolitionist entities, slavery would have eventually been forced out of existence via economics rather than mass bloodshed. Were the two countries peacefully independent (rather than kept together or separated by war), it is far less likely that political domogogues could use the religious, moral, ethical and cultural differences between Northerners and Southerners to their benefit they way they have since the Civil War ended. I wonder what would have happened if Lincoln had not won the republican nomination, and a candidate not opposed to sucession had been elected, permitting a peaceful withdrawal?

 

[jazzeum]

Louis,

With respect to your last question, Lincoln's other opponents, who all became members of his cabinet, were William Seward, Salmon Chase and Edward Bates. I believe Seward and particularly Chase would have been anathema to the South and Bates was a long shot (although he would probably the most acceptable to the South). In reality, Lincoln, out of the three principal candidates, was probably the most acceptable candidate to the South but obviously they didn't quite see it that way.

 

[theBaron]

...Also, it is difficult for me to imagine how you can consider the greatness of Lincoln without dealing in some fashion with the causes of the war that was at the center of the maelstrom from which his claim to greatness derives...

I agree, Spitfrnd, I was just going to post the same thing, when I read your post. Lincoln is almost a figure in a tragedy from antiquity, facing events larger than human control, and whose end is not pretty. It is the measure of the man, how he was able to accomplish what he did.

Prost!
Brad