If you didn't know it already, February 12, 2009, was the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, in Hodgenville, Kentucky. Today is President's Day, celebrating the birth of Lincoln and of George Washington, our first President. Given the near-deification of Lincoln between the 200th anniversary celebrations, and his symbolic adoption by the Obama campaign and now administration, I feel compelled to mention a few things about Lincoln that should be known to balance his iconic status and strike a few small blows for truth.
Was Lincoln a great President? It is probably fair to answer that question "Yes", because he did accomplish the overriding goal of his presidency, which was to hold the Union together in the face of monstrous Constitutional crisis, with the powers of the European world rooting against him. He did so in some cases by pursuing strategies that were the ends justifying the means, and would have been excoriated for doing so were the 19th century media anything like the combative, agenda-driven media of today. There is little question that he was a consummate politician and probably had a clearer understanding of the American people of his era than any other president until perhaps FDR or Reagan. He was an inspiring speaker and demonstrated this skill over and over again.
Lincoln the President did believe in the ends justifying the means, even when the means were illegal 
and un-Constitutional. He suspended the right of habeas corpus early after secession of the southern states, and arrested the Maryland legislature to prevent it from holding a vote on secession. He shut down many northern newspapers that criticized his policies; can you imagine if George W. Bush had tried to shut down MSNBC because it criticized the Iraq War? He declared war without the consent of Congress. And, he declared secession illegal without ever first seeking the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, the sole Constitutional arbiter on such things, on the subject.
Lincoln was clearly against slavery: "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." Yet, in his mind, the Civil War was not intended as a crusade to end slavery. As many historians have recognized, slavery was ended in dozens of countries by legislative effort with no armed conflict. Lincoln himself said, in one of his 1858 debates with Stephen A. Douglas: "I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Rather, historical study of the causes of the War clearly establish that secession, and Lincoln's war to force the South back into the Union, were brought about by the economy and a series of tariffs under which the South felt it was being oppressed and forced to economically support the North. The last pre-War tariff, the Morrill Tariff, was particularly oppressive, yet was supported by Lincoln's Administration. In early 1861, when asked why he did not simply let the Southern states go and be done with them, Lincoln asked, "Who will pay my tariffs?" Later that same year, Lincoln expressed the difficult position in which he found himself by stating, "I find myself facing on one side the rebels, whom I detest, and on the other side the bankers, whom I fear."
Lincoln in 1862, shortly before writing the Emancipation Proclamation, stated, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it....What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because it helps to save the Union." The document many consider his greatest achievement, the Emancipation Proclamation, actually freed no slaves. It purported to free slaves in areas then under rebellion, which DID NOT include territory controlled by Federal armies, and DID NOT include border states, and was thus of no effect. For example, in 1861, Maryland had over 87,000 slaves - none were freed by the document in 1862. It is thus said by some historians that the sole purpose of the document was political, to turn the War from an economic disagreement into a crusade for freedom of the slaves. In so doing, Lincoln is properly seen as a master politician, but not really a "great emancipator."
On the other hand, however, Lincoln was not in favor of black equality. In another 1858 debate with Sen. Douglas, Lincoln said,"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, not to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
So, then, is it fair to say that Lincoln was an abolitionist, i.e., in favor of the abolition of slavery? 
Probably so, although abolition was not his driving force. Preservation of the Union was his purpose, which he pursued with single-minded determination. Yet at the same time, as the term is defined in present-day society, Lincoln was a racist. His beliefs are well-defined in the preceding paragraph. He saw blacks as inferior beings simply because they were black. His grand plan for freed slaves was to send them back to Africa because he believed white Americans would not tolerate integration of freed blacks into society.
It is fair to say that the freeing of the slaves, which took place as a result of the American Civil War, was part of laying the groundwork that resulted in the presidency of Barack Obama. It is impossible to say whether that freedom would have inevitably come, without the sanguinary cost of War. Many Southerners recognized that the end of slavery must inevitably come, but only sought for it to occur in an economically feasible order, not as a result of the destruction of War. We shall never know.
But to laud Lincoln as a champion of black equality quite clearly misses the boat. He could not have envisioned an African-American office holder at any level, much less becoming the 44th President in a long line of which Lincoln was the 16th. Emancipator? Yes. Equalizer? No.
It is also abundantly clear that the Lincoln vision of the Federal Union was a watershed moment that propelled the Federal government, bolstered by the Supreme Court's rulings in favor of the Federal imperative, to its pre-eminent spot in governing our lives. States' rights has devolved into an archaic concept that is mostly expressed in the 21st century as begging for our "rightful" share of Federal money being doled out. One need only look at the lines of Governors and Mayors lined up, hat in hand, for their "share" of bailout money being distributed from Washington, to see the truth of this change.
Before we stand still for the deification of Lincoln in this 200th anniversary of his birth, let us engage in a celebration of the truth. Lincoln was a powerful, strong President who shared many of the social beliefs of his time about racial equality. He was a central figure in the way slavery was terminated in this country, but not the sole cause or leader who made that happen. He stood for the preservation of the American Union, and in so doing inexorably placed the Federal government at the apex of our governmental firmament.
Would I have put Lincoln among the foursome on Mt. Rushmore? No. I would have chosen Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. Is Lincoln among the ten best presidents we've had? Probably so. Should he be deified as is currently taking place in the media, and in, ironically, the Democratic Party (Lincoln was the first Republican president)? No.
Recent Comments