This was written for one of my online college classes. We have "discussion" assignments. Since we don't interact in person, we are supposed to post a couple sentences in response to questions posted by our instructor. We can then "interact" with each other. I must say, some of the books I'm reading are incredibly biased (especially regarding the War Between the States). They seem scholarly at first, but then you realize that they spend more time quoting "historians" then they do actual historical figures. And when historical figures are quoted, they are cherry picked to support a particular viewpoint. Anyway, one of our discussions was supposed to be on Abraham Lincoln. Our questions were, "Discuss the role of Abraham Lincoln as a wartime president. Include comments on his evolving stand/actions on slavery. Do you feel he unified the country at this time, or not? Explain your answer." Now, normally, our answers are supposed to be about three or four sentences long. Then we discuss. However, after reading through endless posts by classmates who were talking about how great Lincoln was (some of them comparing him to Obama), I was getting disgruntled. Even the token libertarian who decided to post something semi-critical of Lincoln, didn't do enough for me. So I started typing. My answer is definitely not thorough, but it is short, succinct, and says what I want it to. I'm re-posting it here to raise interest and promote more discussion regarding our 16th president. Some of you who read this may be shocked at first. You've never heard anything remotely negative concerning Lincoln. Believe me, he is a character worth studying. Most of our civil liberty problems today (not solutions) can trace right back to him.
I sincerely believe that Abraham Lincoln has done more damage to the United States of America than any other president in our history. I realize that sounds harsh, but I believe the Civil War was totally avoidable, and it was Lincoln who decided to pursue forcible reconciliation. The Southerners could have been allowed to leave without any bloodshed. Secession was perfectly legal. The constitution delegates secession to the states (10th amendment); the ratification agreements of both New York and Virginia make it quite clear that secession was an option; even New England considered secession at one time at the Hartford Convention; furthermore, the very basis for the government of the United States is liberal popular sovereignty (a concept we fought for when we seceded from Great Britain). Lincoln undermined our liberal values by not allowing self-government to exist in the South. He also undermined the rule of law by suspending habeus corpus, jailing political opponents, and declaring martial law in states to keep them from seceding. More importantly, his insistence on using force against the South by recruiting and mobilizing a Northern army, and by keeping a standing army in state’s that had seceded, cost the lives of thousands of Americans.
Regarding slavery: It is important first of all to understand that Lincoln was a racist. He believed that Negroes were inferior. He stated this succinctly at one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway 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, nor 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 forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." ( Fehrenbacher: 636)
Lincoln did align himself with the Freesoilers, therefore, he wasn’t technically an abolitionist. It wasn’t until the Civil War itself that Lincoln started using abolitionist rhetoric to keep Great Britain and France (who were very anti-slavery) from entering the war on the side of the South, and promoting slave insurrections to cripple the Confederacy. This can clearly be seen in the Emancipation Proclamation, in which Lincoln did not free one single slave in territories controlled by the Union, but instead decided to free the slaves in the Confederacy, over which he possessed no jurisdiction. It was a political move, and nothing more than that.
Regarding unifying the country: Lincoln did unify the country, by violence. At gunpoint, the South was forced to pledge allegiance to the United States, only after being brutally devastated by Sherman’s “total war.” Although his “ten per cent” plan was more lenient than the various proposals put forth by congress, he was not a peaceful unifier by any stretch of the imagination. He wished to keep the South (and their precious tax moneys) in the Union, and that’s precisely what he did.
Lincoln, Abraham. Lincoln Vol. I : Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858. Ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher. New York: Library of America, The, 1989.
Comments (2)
Just a quick clarifying question: did you mean to say that the Civil War was completely avoidable or unavoidable in the second sentence of the second paragraph?
@sprawlins - Good call. That was a major typo. I meant "avoidable"