I do, however, find myself at odds with your evaluation of Abraham Lincoln. That era, Lincoln's place in it, and the issues leading up to the Civil War, are not only very complex, but raise the great difficulty which a modern person has with any attempt to place himself in the mind-set of a mid-nineteenth Century American. A fair evaluation of Lincoln's life and work requires more than space allows here. Many books have been written about him by such recognized historians as Doris Kearns Goodwin, and the television pundit Bill O'Reilly. This is a summary of the views of those who, like myself, admire Lincoln.
First, Lincoln was opposed to slavery all his life as any reading of his Cooper Union or First Inaugural Address makes clear beyond doubt. Refer also to the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858. Lincoln's anti-slavery position strengthened when he saw the effects of slavery first-hand as a young man working on a barge going from the North to New Orleans. He had been a loyal Whig until the 1850s, and an ardent admirer of the party leader Henry Clay, but left the Whigs in 1854 to become affiliated with the then recently-formed Republican Party because of his opposition to slavery. On that opposition there was never any doubt or vacillation or temporizing at all. He was flatly opposed to slavery as a great moral wrong. The suggestion that he blew hot and cold on the issue depending on changing political requirements is simply wrong.
Lincoln believed, however, that slavery could not simply be abolished by an act of Congress because it was recognized as implicit in the Constitution. He did, however, oppose the extension of slavery into the territories and that was the principal difference he had with Stephen Douglas, who advocated "popular sovereignty", which allowed the territories themselves to decide the issue. His fear was that if slavery were allowed to spread the South would become a slave empire and then detach from the Union. If it could be contained, however, he thought it would wither away over time because of economic contingencies. However, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court in 1857, caused the whole issue to become immediate and critical. Lincoln lost the senatorial election in Illinois to Douglas in 1858 but, of course, won the 1860 presidential election. The stage was then set for secession and war because eleven Southern states were adamant on secession and Lincoln would not accept the dissolution of the Union.
No one ever doubted that the Emancipation Proclamation was a Civil War measure. It allowed Union troops to seize and liberate slaves at will as new lands were conquered. Where slavery already existed in the border states, however, it was unaffected. Lincoln believed that he had no right to abolish slavery completely but, aside from that, he was a skillful politician who understood that if he had purported to do so Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, which were perched on the edge of secession, would have seceded from the Union immediately and the Union would have lost the War. At the end of the War he insisted on complete abolition by the thirteenth amendment, and that is what the movie Lincoln was about. With minor exceptions it is historically accurate. It is admittedly true, however, that he was not interested in social or legal equality with the "Negro" race, as it was then called. A Lincoln enthusiast can argue that he was not opposed to social and legal equality but knew that there was no chance at the time that it would be widely accepted. It is worth noting that Frederick Douglass, a former slave, was among Lincoln's friends and was, in fact, the first African-American to be socially entertained in the White House at Lincoln's invitation. It is apparent, however, that Lincoln doubted whether social equality would ever be a viable arrangement and it is probable that he did not favor it. But in fairness it should be remembered that those were very different times, that with few exceptions such as Douglass himself the newly-liberated slaves were uneducated and that it could appear, at that time, that full equality was not practical. That has obviously not been a defensible position since Lincoln's time and the end of legal segregation in the United States, but people are not perfect and do not always have the gift of prophecy. Lincoln's heart was always in the right place but his precognitive powers were limited.
Lincoln was a great man, one of the greatest there ever was in this world. He was a kind and tolerant man and did not seek harm or disadvantage to anyone. He was not perfect but that hardly justifies dismissing him as undeserving of the eternal gratitude of Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment