The U.S. Presidential Election of 1864

President Lincoln understood that his chances of reelection in November hinged on military success in a war now in its fourth year. By the summer of 1864, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant had settled in for a prolonged siege against the Confederates near Petersburg, Va., and Gen. William T. Sherman was making slow progress toward Atlanta. Confederate Gen. Jubal A. Early, meanwhile, had led his troops to the very gates of Washington, D.C. in July, and had attacked a fort guarding the capital city. The war effort seemed to have stalled for the Union, and the public blamed President Lincoln.

Even getting re-nominated was not a given. We may today think of Lincoln as a god, but in 1864, he appeared to be just another failed politician. We want to think of him as this brilliant man and the best president ever, and he was, but in spring 1864, that is not even how his own party viewed him.

The biggest problem was the Radical Republicans, a hardline faction within the Republican party that held the belief that Lincoln was incompetent and therefore could not be re-elected. They had already formed a party called the Radical Democracy Party, for which a few hundred delegates had convened in Cleveland, Ohio, on May 31, 1864. They had even nominated a presidential candidate in the hope that it would drive the main party to nominate someone else.

In modern politics, we tend to think of a two-term president as standard. But in 1864, the last president to have been re-elected was Andrew Jackson in 1832; after him had been 8 one- term (or less) presidents. And before Jackson, the previous 2-term president was James Monroe, who ran unopposed.  So the odds on that basis alone were stacked against him.

Lloyd W. Klein considers the U.S. presidential election  of 1864.

Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson 1864 campaign poster.

The Republican Party Convention

The Republican Convention was held the first week of June, and the delegates who were loyal to Lincoln were so certain that they could not win election that they made a couple of major decisions about their platform and alliances. Moreover, they witnessed one of Lincoln’s cabinet who tried to get the nomination for himself.

The Republican fringe group demanding a stronger position against slavery split off to form the “Radical Democracy” party and nominated John C. Frémont as their candidate. Frémont supported combat without compromise, believed that Congress should strictly control Southern reconstruction efforts, and urged the confiscation of Confederate property. Fremont had been the first Republican nominee in 1856, just before Lincoln, who had to remove him for incompetence if not corruption early in the war.

Republicans loyal to Lincoln created a new name for their party at the convention in order to accommodate the War Democrats who supported the war and wished to separate themselves from the Copperheads, or Peace Democrats. The convention dropped then-Vice President Hannibal Hamlin, a Radical Republican from the ticket, and chose War Democrat Andrew Johnson as Lincoln's running mate. The National Unionists hoped that the new party and the Lincoln–Johnson ticket would stress the national character of the war. In a modern sense, they went after the “swing vote”.

Salmon Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, tried to use his connections within the Radical Republican group to get the nomination. In early 1864 he began a surreptitious campaign for the nomination but hastily ended it after pamphlets intended for private distribution were leaked to the press. He had threatened to resign 3 times during the 4 years of the first term in an effort to embarrass Lincoln. After the convention, he threatened a fourth time and this time Lincoln accepted the resignation.

President Lincoln ran for a second term but replaced Vice President Hamlin on the ticket with Andrew Johnson, a War Democrat. This critical segment of the Democratic Party supported the war effort and the Republicans sought to gain their support in the 1864 election. Lincoln and his running mate supported a quick end to the war, the abolition of slavery and reconstruction of the southern states following the end of hostilities. Lincoln’s opponent, General George McClellan, ran as the nominee for the Democratic Party, which wanted to end the war and accommodate the Confederacy.

The Blind Memorandum

In August 1864, President Lincoln believed he was facing defeat in the upcoming presidential election.  There were no polls as we have today; politicians had to sense what was happening and talk with local men to understand what was going on. And what Lincoln heard must have been disturbing.

Republican insider Thurlow Weed told Lincoln in mid-August 1864 that “his re-election was an impossibility.” Republican party chairman Henry J. Raymond expressed much the same sentiment to Lincoln on Aug. 22, urging him to consider sending a commission to meet with Confederate President Jefferson Davis to offer peace terms “on the sole condition of acknowledging the supremacy of the Constitution,” leaving the question of slavery to be resolved later.

These are signatures of Lincoln’s cabinet members on the reverse of the “Blind Memorandum” dated August 23,1864.  Abraham Lincoln Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

It was in this context that Abraham Lincoln wrote the following memorandum on Aug. 23, 1864:

“This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he can not possibly save it afterwards.  — A. Lincoln”

Lincoln folded the memorandum and pasted it closed, so that the text inside could not be read. He took it to a cabinet meeting and instructed his cabinet members to sign the outside of the memo, sight unseen, which they did. Historians now refer to this document variously as the “Blind Memo” or “Blind Memorandum” because the cabinet signed it “blind.” In so doing the Lincoln administration pledged itself to accept the verdict of the people in November and to help save the Union should Lincoln not be re-elected.

It would be hard to imagine a more profound document in American history, and the fact that this could be so obscure astounds me, and makes me start to compare our contemporary climate. As much as we today think our upcoming election has significant implications, its hard to even compare it to what Lincoln was experiencing.

The Democratic Party Opposition

The Democratic Party still was a strong political force in the North. In August 1864 there were a lot of northerners who were tired of the war and its inconclusive results. The idea of fighting to end slavery, today taken for granted, wasn’t as popular as we might think.  The Emancipation Proclamation and the recruitment of black troops had changed the country, and not everyone liked it. The Democratic Party was generally unified in its opposition to emancipation.

Many civil war histories suggest that the victories at Atlanta and the Overland Campaign changed public opinion from the summer of 1864, and surely they did. But a good part of the reason Lincoln was re-elected was that the Democratic Party self-destructed in the campaign.

Had the Democrats a unified message the soldiers could support, Lincoln might have had serious trouble. But the Democrats were divided. The war democrats wanted to continue the war but seek peace soon while the peace democrats wanted to stop fighting immediately.  Ending slavery wasn’t a priority. Ending the war was.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party had not yet met to make its nomination. This conflict was resolved by nominating a war democrat McClellan with a peace position plank. The Democratic platform declared the war a failure and urged that “immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities,” which McClellan could not fully support. Moreover, once the Democrats nominated George B. McClellan for president on August 30 they saddled him with a “Copperhead” peace Democrat.

There were two factions that existed among the Peace Democrats. For much of the war the Copperheads, led by Clement Vallandigham, had dominated them. The Copperheads declared the war to be a failure and favored an immediate end to hostilities without securing Union victory, either via re-admitting all the Confederate states with slavery intact and legally protected, or by formally recognizing the Confederacy as a sovereign nation and attempting to re-establish peaceful relationships.

But then the Democratic Party blundered. The convention adopted proposals by Copperheads like Vallandigham and Wood calling for a cease fire and a negotiated settlement to the war; but then they selected George McClellan as their candidate.

In 1863, the Peace Democrats started to splinter between the Copperheads and their more moderate members. Moderate Peace Democrats such as Horatio Seymour proposed a negotiated peace that would secure Union victory. They believed this was the best course of action because an armistice could finish the war without destroying the South. The Copperheads continued to advocate allowing the Confederate states to rejoin with slavery intact, however, believing that to do otherwise would merely lead to another Civil War sooner or later.

Its often said that politics is the art of compromise, and at this moment, that was what was tried, but it didn’t work out at all. McClellan was the front runner, so a compromise was struck On the first day of the convention, a peace platform was adopted. McClellan was personally opposed to a peace platform. McClellan supported the continuation of the war and restoration of the Union, but the party platform, written by Vallandigham, was opposed to this position. He inserted a plank calling for immediate peace negotiations.

This was the essential problem at the convention. General McClellan remained very popular and was the obvious choice for the role. But the Copperheads were against it. They tried to induce Horatio Seymour, the Governor of Ne York, to run. But the day before the convention, Seymour announced he would not run. Vallandigham knew he was too divisive. Several men were sounded out for the role, including former President Pierce, all of whom declined. Thomas Seymour of Connecticut received the most votes in opposition.

Representative George H. Pendleton, was the vice presidential candidate. He ran against 7 others, and won on the second ballot. Pendleton, a congressman from Cincinnati,  was closely associated with Vallandigham. He was known to oppose the 13th Amendment and the concept that a state could be compelled to stay in the Union.

The Candidate McClellan

McClellan ran against Abraham Lincoln, a sitting president, our greatest president, as the war was being won; and garnered 45% of the popular vote. Not only isn’t that pretty under the circumstances of voting against a sitting president in a war (the US has NEVER done this), but the Democratic Party of the 19th century was a fundamentally Southern party.  In other words, McClellan got 9/20 votes in a Northern population, running on a platform of stopping the war and reversing emancipation.

Lincoln thought if elected McClellan would be forced by the Copperheads into an early truce. Once he was nominated McClellan repudiated the Democratic Party platform. As a result, whatever message intended to be sent to separate their views from Lincoln was garbled. McClellan’s campaign flailed as his repudiation of the peace plank in the Democratic platform provoked further tensions within his party.

McClellan had different views about race and southern aristocracy then are accepted in modern society and that Lincoln had then: but he was not a traitor, and he did want to win the war, not lose it. McClellan emphasized the fact that he previously led the Union military effort in the War and that he was and remained committed to "the restoration of the Union in all its integrity" and that the massive sacrifices that the Union endured should not be in vain. His central argument was that he could win the war sooner and with fewer casualties than Lincoln & Grant.

The Campaign

By the summer of 1864, the Civil War had gone on for over three years. Over 250,000 Union soldiers had been killed, with many more injured permanently. Victory was not yet in sight. Democrats knew that many of the policies of Lincoln were not popular, including many of those we take today as the reason for the conflict, such as emancipation, the military draft, the use of black troops, and violations of civil liberties. Democrats further suggested that the Republicans were advocating in favor of miscegenation and trying to destroy the traditional race relations. They believed they could win, and Lincoln thought that too.

As if on cue, Lincoln’s fortunes began to change. General Sherman scored a tremendous victory when Atlanta fell to the Union on September 2. McClellan therefore had an ambiguous message against an articulate potus who suddenly was winning battles.

Had the battlefield events gone against the Union, the election would have been much closer. The capture of Atlanta and Hood's burning of military facilities as he evacuated showed that a successful conclusion of the war was in sight, weakening support for a truce. Without the fall of Atlanta early in September, it’s easy to see how the voters might not have flocked to Lincoln.

Finally northern opinion had come around to freeing the slaves and winning a war that had produced so much destruction so that there needed to be a definitive conclusion and a new beginning. In essence, this is what Lincoln was calling for in his Gettysburg Address, which we today take as almost a divine document, but in its essence, was realistically the start of the 1864 presidential campaign.

As late as August 23, Lincoln considered it “exceedingly probable” that he would not be reelected. He thought the copperheads would force McClellan into accepting a negotiated settlement, so he made his Cabinet secretly promise to cooperate with McClellan if he won the election to win the war by the time that McClellan will be inaugurated.

Election Results

History books gloss over the closeness of the popular vote. They cite that Lincoln received over

90% of the total electoral votes (212 versus 21 for McClellan). But a 10% margin is relatively close under the circumstances. McClellan won 48% of the total vote in a bloc of states stretching from Connecticut to Illinois (Lincoln's home state); Lincoln underperformed in 1864 relative to 1860 in several crucial U.S. states (such as New York, Pennsylvania, and Indiana); and that the Republicans lost the Governorship in his (McClellan's) home state of New Jersey. We might well ask if any fool could have come that close. Which makes me wonder, if he wasn’t that stupid, are the accounts of him as a poor general really accurate?

As it is, the popular vote was split 55%-45%, a good but not landslide victory. President Lincoln defeated General McClellan in the election winning twenty-two states to McClellan’s three. Lincoln easily carried the popular vote and won the greatest share of the electoral vote since James Monroe won re-election unopposed in 1820. Lincoln's win made him the first president to win re-election since Andrew Jackson, and the first two-term President unaffiliated with the Democratic-Republican Party or the Democratic Party since John Adams. The National Union ticket was the first and only winning ticket composed of members of two separate parties.

Had McClellan and the Democrats had a plausible, unified peace position that didn’t appear to be total capitulation, they might have had a better shot. He only lost by 10%, which isn’t really a landslide.

Senators Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson from Massachusetts wanted the Republican Party to advocate constitutional amendments to prohibit slavery and guarantee racial equality before the law. Initially, not all northern Republicans supported such measures. Eventually, these would be passed, but at the time, they were considered radical. The problems Andrew Johnson would face as president were starting in 1864.

Fremont might have been a serious third-party “spoiler”, had the newspaper New York World chosen to champion his candidacy (think: FOX News). But then. Frémont was appalled at the Democratic platform, which he described as a "union with slavery". After three weeks of discussions, Frémont withdrew from the race in September 1864. In his statement, Frémont declared that winning the Civil War was too important to divide the Republican vote. He then struck a bargain with Lincoln to remove Montgomery Blair as postmaster general, so he withdrew from the race. Blair had very conservative views on race and slavery.

The 1864 presidential campaign was bitter. More than for just a candidate, voters cast their ballots to determine questions underpinning the broader fate of the Union: Should the war be continued, or should a peace settlement be negotiated? How would the outcome of the war define the role of blacks in a post-war society?

The bloody conflict between North and South loomed over every aspect of American life. The electorate was so divided that some argued the election should be postponed until the war was over. The fact that there was an election in the midst of a civil war is one of the great achievements our country has ever had. Our commitment to fair and free elections, and that the people decide, is our greatest ideal.

Because of the Democrats’ peace platform, the election became a referendum on the war itself. The election tide turned with Union victories during the autumn of 1864 and the masses of soldiers who cast their ballots for Lincoln. The entire concept of soldiers, in the field, voting for who their leader would be, and even if the should be continued, was entirely revolutionary at the time.

Lincoln was highly popular with soldiers and they in turn recommended him to their families back home. The following states allowed soldiers to cast ballots: California, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Out of the 40,247 army votes cast, Lincoln received 30,503 (75.8%) and McClellan 9,201 (22.9%), with the rest (543 votes) scattering (1.3%). Only soldiers from Kentucky gave McClellan a majority of their votes, and he carried the army vote in the state by a vote of 2,823 (70.3%) to 1,194 (29.7%).

Suppose McClellan had Won?

Had McClellan won the election, there is lots of speculation as to whether the war would have continued. The traditional argument is that Lincoln would have remained president until the inauguration, and that by March 1865 the war was all but over. McClellan would have had a victory within 4-6 weeks. He was a soldier and would not have let victory elude him.

But just as plausible is that if Lincoln had been defeated it would have been a huge shock. The Confederates would have declared victory. Would Union soldiers continue to die for a cause that would never happen?

McClellan was in an awkward position. He wrote that he was for restoring the Union. But that was after the war with 20-20 hindsight. However, his party's platform called for the cessation of hostilities and a negotiated settlement (meaning that the CSA would continue as a separate country). His VP was a peace candidate. His speeches at the time say he would negotiate an end to the war not fight it.

If elected, would he repudiate his party and continue the war as vigorously as Lincoln? As president, he could have done so. But the price would have been alienating many or most Democrats. Had he gone the route of disregarding Democrats, he'd have been forced to cooperate closely with the Republicans (almost becoming a Republican himself in all but name).

Alternatively, he could have decided to side with his party and stopped (or slowed down) the war effort --presumably during peace negotiations. The result being the CSA would win its independence.

Moreover, for McClellan to have won, Sherman must fail in Atlanta and Grant must have met some disaster. In hypothetical situations, you can’t just drop McClellan into Lincoln’s shoes in March 1865. You have to account for his being there.

So as with most hypotheticals, it’s too complicated to know for sure. I think the traditional view is much too simplistic. I think McClellan would have negotiated with Davis within weeks of an electoral victory.

Reports of conspiracies between Peace Democrats and the Confederate government to manipulate the election abounded—including a plan, financed with a half-million Confederate dollars, to raise an insurrection among Copperheads in the West with an aim toward creating a western confederacy.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Abranham Lincoln Versus a Polish Count: Slavery, War, and the President in the Eyes of Adam Gurowski

Unlike many other Poles who took part in the Civil War on the Union side, Count Adam Gurowski was not a soldier or a commander, and his actions had no influence on the shape of the Civil War. He was primarily a publicist whose sharp views on the actions of Abraham Lincoln's government were so violent and uncompromising that the US president even treated him as a potential assassin. Rafal Guminski explains.

Adam Gurowski.

Count Adam Gurowski: History and Political Activity in Europe

Adam Gurowski was born on September 10, 1805, into a family of noble origins and a count's title. He was the oldest of seven siblings. His sister, Cecilia, was married to Baron Frederiks, general adjutant of Tsar Nicholas I, and his brother, Ignacy, married the Spanish Infanta Isabella de Borbón, daughter of the Duke of Cadiz, and became a Spanish grandee. As the oldest son, he received a good education. After completing his education at the provincial school, he began his studies in Berlin, Leipzig, Göttingen, and Heidelberg. He studied law, philosophy, history, and classical philology.

After his studies, Gurowski returned to the Kingdom of Poland and joined a political party from the western part of the country, which sought to maintain the status quo and preserve the autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland. The count quickly left the organization, and in January 1829 he was supposed to take part in preparations for the so-called coronation plot, the aim of which was the death of the Russian Tsar Nicholas I. After the outbreak of the November Uprising, Gurowski became involved in organizing the insurgent administration and civil authorities, which, however, ended in failure. The count became a staunch critic of the insurgent dictatorship, and after its fall, he became a member of the Patriotic Society, on behalf of which he demanded the dethronement of Tsar Nicholas I as the King of Poland.

Despite being blind in one eye, he joined the insurgents as an ordinary soldier and took part in battles, for which he was promoted to officer and received the Silver Cross of Virtuti Militari. After leaving the army, he became an envoy of the Patriotic Society to Paris, where in French magazines such as Trubine, François, National, Reformateur, La Révolution de 1831 and Le Globe, he undertook to criticize the authorities of the November Uprising. After the fall of the Uprising, Gurowski struggled with the instability of his political views and a tendency to sharp disputes, through which he quickly alienated people from his closest surroundings.

The year 1834 was special for the Pole because of the radical change in his views and ideas. His statements began to include comments of a pan-Slavic nature with Poland as the unifier of the Slavic world. He also viewed the Polish emigration differently, whose activities for the liberation of the country he had previously assessed negatively. The change in the count's views is best seen in his interest in the postulates of French utopian socialism. The changes in Gurowski's worldview reached even such basic assumptions as nation and patriotism.

The count's new views conflicted him with his family and Polish patriotic circles, but it was only the request for amnesty addressed to Tsar Nicholas I and the recognition of Russia as the country that was to lead the unification of Slavic nations that made Gurowski a national apostate. His stay in Russia turned out to be difficult. The state apparatus of the Tsarist regime forced him to reassess his views once again, and the complete isolation from his family and countrymen began to weigh heavily on him.

A Polish Count on American Soil

In 1840, Gurowski returned to the Kingdom of Poland to sort out his property and family affairs. The attempt to recover his confiscated property ended in failure. Finding himself in a hopeless situation, the count decided to emigrate. In April 1844, he left the border of the Kingdom of Poland forever and went to the West. For some time, he lived in Bavaria, Hesse, and then in Belgium, Switzerland, and Italy. Unable to settle down permanently, the Pole decided to leave the Old Continent and emigrate to the United States of America. On December 2, 1849, Count Gurowski found himself in New York.

The Pole's situation in America was quite stable at first. He had brought a supply of cash with him from Europe, and thanks to letters of recommendation, he had access to intellectual circles from the very beginning. After half a year, the count's financial situation began to deteriorate, which forced him to seek a source of support outside New York. In Boston, he was even offered a chance to lecture on law at Harvard University, but due to poor attendance, his lectures were quickly suspended. During this time, the Pole became keenly interested in the issue of slavery and took an active part in the life of the local intellectual social elite. He managed to get to know the leaders of American literature and poetry: Henry W. Longfellow and James R. Lowell, who, together with Gurowski, had in common a particular aversion to slavery and criticism of that institution.

Eventually, the Pole returned to New York and in 1852 took a job at the New York Daily Tribune. He wrote a column on European affairs, criticizing the rule of Tsar Nicholas I. Despite his continued interest in European affairs, the Pole was fascinated by his new homeland, which he admired in many ways. He traveled extensively in the northern and southern states, and published his observations in “America and Europe”, which was warmly received by critics and praised for its impartiality and insightful observations. The Pole was greatly impressed by his new homeland and in many ways recognized its superiority over European countries. He paid special attention to the unique relationship between power and freedom. In his opinion, in Europe, these two forces competed with each other, while in America, they cooperated for the common good and development. The count was equally impressed by the class structure of American society. In his opinion, the superiority of the American system was the lack of class division dominated by the aristocracy. He noted with admiration that the law was created on the initiative of the people and for the people, and not by a privileged ruling group.

Gurowski's relations with the New York Daily Tribune began to deteriorate significantly, and as a result, the count lost his job. From then on, for four years he supported himself by publishing articles in various magazines. During this time, he continued to write a book on the history of world slavery, which was published in 1860 under the title “Slavery in History”.

Abraham Lincoln under harsh criticism from Adam Gurowski

The Pole, who was increasingly vocal in his criticism of slavery, decided to move to the US capital, Washington, where he hoped for greater understanding of his views. He wanted to seek support from politicians from the radical wing of the Republican Party. Thanks to his work in the New York Daily Tribune and his authorship of the books: “America and Europe” and “Slavery in History”, the Pole was already a well-known person in Washington. He quickly established important acquaintances, including Salmon P. Chase, the future chief justice of the United States, and John A. Andrew, Governor of Massachusetts. After the outbreak of the Civil War, he joined a volunteer unit under the command of Cassius M. Clay, which was to protect and patrol the capital. After the threat had passed, the Pole got a job at the State Department. His duties included reading the European press and preparing reports on articles of interest to the department. However, Gurowski lost his job after his diary, in which he criticized the government, the president, and the Union generals, fell into the wrong hands. Ultimately, he published the contents of the diary in December 1862. Thus began his crusade against Abraham Lincoln.

Adam Gurowski should be considered the most ardent critic of the federal government and the president at the time. Although the Pole spoke positively about Lincoln's inaugural address, the government's lack of decisive action in the event of the attack on Fort Sumter and the riots in Baltimore ultimately confirmed his dislike of Abraham Lincoln. Gurowski stated that the current Union government "lacked the blood" to defeat the Confederacy, and calling up 75,000 volunteers was definitely not enough to defeat the Confederacy. He also believed that the situation overwhelmed Abraham Lincoln, who had no leadership skills and could not compare to George Washington or Andrew Jackson. He considered the president's greatest flaw to be his lack of decisiveness, and he saw it as the cause of the Army of the Potomac's defeats. Gurowski also criticized Lincoln's personnel decisions, especially the delay in dismissing General George McClellan from the position of commander of the Army of the Potomac. However, Gurowski was able to appreciate Lincoln. He praised the president's behavior after the defeat at Chancellorsville. The count accused Lincoln of manipulating election promises and making military decisions through the prism of politics, which was to result in the deaths of many soldiers. However, in the face of the president's re-election, Gurowski showed a shadow of support for him, fearing for the election of the hated McClellan and his pro-slavery lobby.

There is no doubt that Gurowski's criticism of the president was often exaggerated, but in some aspects the Pole's opinion coincides with the contemporary opinion of historians. The count's attitude towards the president was dictated by his views and difficult, uncompromising personality. The Pole's most positive opinion of Lincoln was expressed after the president's death. In Gurowski's eyes, the murdered president became a martyr close to sainthood, who will go down in world history as a great and noble man.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

·       Carter R., Gurowski, „The Atlantic Monthly” 1866, t. 18, nr 109.

·       Derengowski P., Polacy w wojnie secesyjnej 1861-1865, Napoleon V, Oświęcim 2015.

·       Fisher L.H., Lincoln’s Gadfly, Adam Gurowski, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman 1964.

·       Garewicz J., Gracz. Rzecz o Adamie Gurowskim [1805-1866], „Res Publica”, 2 (1988), nr 5,

·       Głębocki H., „Diabeł Asmodeusz” w niebieskich binoklach i kraj przyszłości: hr. Adam Gurowski i Rosja, Arcana, Kraków 2012.

·       Łukasiewicz W., Gurowski Adam, Polski słownik biograficzny, V.  9, Wrocław 1960-1961.

·       Stasik F., Adam Gurowski 1805-1866, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN ,Warszawa 1977.

Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy

In Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War, Jeb Smith argues that the winner writes the history. This is evident in many ways and categories. The North propped itself up and vilified its enemy, the South. Today, we will take a look at Abraham Lincoln and race.

This is part 1 in a series of extended articles form the author related to the US Civil War.

A U.S. Postage stamp issued in 1958. It commemorates the 1858 Lincoln and Douglas debates.

People are taught that Lincoln was a strong abolitionist, a champion of racial equality, and a great emancipator. They portray Lincoln as going to war to free the slaves; Lincoln advocated freedom and liberty for all; he is the savior of the Union and Constitution to boot. Lincoln was a kind, warmhearted, caring person, who never told a lie, and a great leader who united and led America to renown. This image comes perhaps from a desire for who they want him to be rather than who he was. Just as Southerners idolize their heroes, modern statists do the same with theirs, such as Lincoln. What most people think they know about Lincoln is well off the mark. We will look at his views on race below.[1]

"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."

 -Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln-Douglas Debate Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

I understood Lincoln as someone who desired equality for all. Instead, I found Lincoln was a white supremacist who viewed blacks as inferior beings. During a debate with Stephen A. Douglas on August 21, 1858 in Ottawa, Illinois, Lincoln stated, "Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this…We cannot then make them equals." In response to the Dred Scott ruling, Lincoln said, "I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment." At the eulogy of Henry Clay in 1852, Lincoln gave a speech in which he called the declaration of independence the "The white man's charter of freedom."

Fear

Lincoln often used the N-word, and was known for his racist jokes. Abolitionist John Hume described Lincoln as "strongly prejudiced against the black man." According to Bennett's calculations, Lincoln stated publicly, at least twenty-one times, that he was opposed to equal rights for Blacks. Bennett writes, "Lincoln never pretended to be a racial liberal or a social innovator. He repeatedly said, in public and in private, that he believed in white supremacy." Lincolns close friend and biographer Ward Lamon said Lincoln had an "abhorrence of negro suffrage and negro equality." According to Lincoln, God has "Made us separate." Lincoln feared whites and blacks interbreeding. A former slave turned influential abolitionist, Frederick Douglass, spoke of Lincoln as "The white man's president." 

"Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country.…he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defense of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers… he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered." 

-Frederick Douglass Oration in memory of Abraham Lincoln April 14, 1876 

"If Mr. Lincoln were really an Abolition President, which he is not; if he were a friend to the Abolition movement, instead of being, as he is, its most powerful enemy...Whoever lives through the next four years will see Mr. Lincoln and his Administration attacked more bitterly for their pro-slavery truckling, than for doing any anti-slavery work. He and his party will become the best protectors of slavery where it now is...Slavery will be as safe, and safer, in the Union under such a President, than it can be under any President of a Southern Confederacy. This is our impression, and we deeply regret the facts from which it is derived." 

-Fredrick Douglass Douglass' Monthly, December 1860

According to Bennett, for over two decades in Illinois as a lawyer and politician, Lincoln never supported abolitionists, rights for blacks, or their progress in that direction. Lincoln never spoke out against the state laws that did not allow blacks to gather in large numbers, learn to read, or play percussion instruments. In 1848 Lincoln supported the Illinois state law of not allowing blacks to migrate to the state and not allowing blacks citizenship. In 1836 Lincoln voted in support of denying blacks the right to vote, and he also voted for an Illinois state law that taxed blacks without representation. In 1858 Lincoln refused to sign a bill that would allow them to testify against whites in court. In Charleston, Lincoln declared, "I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." and "I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with Negroes"

As a lawyer, Lincoln helped defend the fugitive slave law, publicly supported the fugitive slave law, and spoke out against its repeal. Nathaniel Stephens said Lincoln had a "wholehearted, one might say, serene, support of the fugitive slave law." Ward Lamon said Lincoln was the "steady though quiet opponent of abolitionist Owen Lovejoy." Donald Riddle said: "He did not make any attempt to advocate or support anti-slavery or abolitionist messages." In 1858 Lincoln declared, "I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States to enter into the slave States, and interfere with the question of slavery at all." 

When asked what he thought of having abolitionists in his party, Lincoln said: "As long as I'm not tarred with the Abolitionist brush." Bennett quotes multiple sources, such as Lincoln's close friend General James Wadsworth saying the welfare of Blacks "didn't enter into his policy at all." Donn Piatt said Lincoln "Laughed at the abolitionist as a disturbing element easily controlled." Eli Thayer said Lincoln spoke of abolitionism "In terms of contempt and derision." Abolitionist Sumner said Lincoln "does not know how to help or is not moved to help" and "I do not remember that I have had any help from him... he has no instinct or inspiration." Abolitionist John Hume stated, "The president was in constant opposition" to abolitionism. The abolitionist Journal The Liberator editorial on July 13, 1860, called Lincoln "The slave hound of Illinois" for his support of the fugitive slave law. Lincoln scholar David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered states plainly, "Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist."    

Bennett argues Lincoln has received the glory that the white and black abolitionists, citizens, newspaper editors, churches, members of Congress, and pastors had worked decades for. The most prominent abolitionists in the political sphere were men like Senator Sumner, Senator Lyman Trumbull, Salmon Chase, Wendell Phillips, etc. They deserve the glory that Lincoln was falsely given. Congress were the ones that abolished slavery in the territories and authorized black troops. And the people of the states, both North and South, passed the amendment to outlaw slavery after Lincoln's death.

Forever Free From African Americans

"I wish to make and to keep the distinction between the existing institution, and the extension of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me." 

-Abraham Lincoln Peoria, Illinois: October 16, 1854

Lincoln never intended to end slavery where it already existed, only the extension out into the West. In December 1860, Fredrick Douglass said, "With the single exception of the question of slavery extension, Mr. Lincoln proposes no measure which can bring him into antagonistic collision with the traffickers in human flesh, either in the States or in the District of Columbia." Lincoln did not want the West to become "An asylum for slaves and n******." On October 16, 1854, Lincoln stated, "The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these [new western] territories. We want them for the homes of free white people." 

The West was to be kept for whites to be segregated from blacks' presence, live off Republican federal land grants, and become industrial. Southern agrarians were to be fenced into the South; otherwise, they would bring their despised black slaves along. Robert Fogel summarizes the abolitionist stance by quoting William Seward and Owen Lovejoy, among others, as "They were quite sincere when they assured voters that as "True republicans" they "Cared nothing for the N*****" and that the republican party aimed to make white labor respectable and honorable by keeping negroes, free and slave, out of the West." In Lincoln Unmasked, Professor Thomas DiLorenzo quotes Ralph Waldo Emerson saying, "It is the black man whom the abolitionist wishes to abolish, not slavery."

Western expansion

Ward Lamon said that originally Lincoln was not against slavery in all the western territories, only those north of the 36°30′ degrees line. However, abolitionists threatened to pull support for his election unless he stood against all western expansion. Lamon also tells us that Lincoln would rather see slavery expanded than "See the union dissolved." Lamon said of Lincoln, "It was therefore as a white man, and in the interest of white men, that he threw himself into the struggle to keep blacks out of the Territories. He did not want them there either as slaves or freemen…" Bennett quotes Lincoln warning whites that if slavery was allowed in the territories, "Negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave n******." According to DiLorenzo, Indiana (which voted for Lincoln) despised blacks so much that they gave out a $500 fine to anyone who encouraged blacks to come within their state. And ten years of prison for marrying a black. Illinois senator Lyman Trumbull, quoted by DiLorenzo, said, "Our people want nothing to do with the negro." It seems Republicans believed in a form of secession based on race rather than states.

"We, the Republican Party, are the white man's party. We are for the free white man, and for making white labor acceptable and honorable, which it can never be when Negro slave labor is brought into competition with it." 

-Lyman Trumbull Illinois Republican, United States Senator Quoted in The Imperiled Union: Essays on the Background of the Civil War by Kenneth M. Stampp Oxford U Press 1981

Republicans did not care for equality with blacks, and they wanted separation from them. The Northern whites worked hardest to be segregated from the presence of blacks, while southerners worked with, ate with, lived with, played with,  and went to church with blacks.

"Many of those attaching themselves to the Republican party...were not in sympathy with Abolitionism. They were utterly opposed to immediate emancipation, or for that matter, to emancipation of any kind. They wanted slavery to remain where it was, and were perfectly willing that is should be undisturbed. They disliked the blacks, and did not want to have them freed, fearing that if set at liberty they would overrun what was then free soil."        

-John F Hume The Abolitionists 1830-1864 G.P Putnam's Sons NY London Knickerbocker Press 1905 

The fight over the extension of slavery was political. Northern industrialists needed the West free of blacks and agricultural interests. Dr. Charles Pace wrote in Lincoln As He Really Was, "Lincoln was an abolitionist when it suited him." And "Abolitionist activity was rising fast, fueled by northern capitalist and political interests needing an issue to neutralize the agrarian south." Lincoln and northern whites would fight against its extension into the West when it was politically helpful. Secretary of  State William Seward said: "The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been a concern for the welfare of the white man, and not an unnatural sympathy for the negro." They had less concern with slaves in the South; as John Hume wrote of Lincoln, "He was opposed to slavery more because it was a public nuisance than because of its injustice to the oppressed black man."

"To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration."                                   

-Frederick Douglass Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln April 14, 1876

Before military defeats and public opinion began to change, abolitionists were condemned by the President. When Union general John Fremont emancipated slaves in federal occupied Missouri, Lincoln recalled the orders and relieved Fremont of his command. When Union general David Hunter issued general order number 11, declaring all slaves in SC/GA/FL to be "Forever free," Lincoln revoked the proclamation. Hunter was then pressured into disbanding the regiment made up of freed slaves he had begun to form. Late in 1862, Lincoln supported slavery continuing in Union-held territory in V.A and L.A and encouraging the slave owners to peacefully come back into the Union. Mark Neely JR wrote that in 1861, "He more than once actually forced others who were trying to free slaves to cease doing so." Not surprising when Lincolns' wife, Mary, was from a slave-owning family in Kentucky. In August 1862, Adam Gurowski summer up Lincoln's actions writing in his diary, "The president is indefatigable in his efforts to save slavery." 

Even after the war, Lincoln, the North, and the Republicans maintained slavery in states like Delaware and Kentucky. Lincoln had no problem calling on men from the slave states of the Upper South to suppress the rebellion in the Cotton States. 

"The Republican party does not propose to abolish slavery anywhere and is decidedly opposed to Abolition agitation. It is not even, by the confession of its President-elect, in favor of the repeal of that thrice-accursed and flagrantly unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Bill of 1850." 

-Frederick Douglass Douglass' Monthly, December 1860

In his book Battle Hymns; the Power and Popularity of Music in the Civil War, Christian McWhirter quotes Federal general Phillip Kearny who said, "I think as much of a rebel as I do of an abolitionist." Today we have presented to us the idea of Northern tolerance and southern bigotry, but the reality was something else entirely. 

Abraham Lincoln the Great Emancipator? 

"If Mr. Lincoln had been told, when he entered on the Presidency, that before his term of office would expire he would be hailed as "The Great Emancipator," he would have treated the statement as equal to one of his own best jokes."

 -John Hume The Abolitionists 1830-1864 G.P Putnam's Sons NY London Knickerbocker Press 1905 

"Never did a man achieve more fame for what he did not do and for what he never intended to do," writes Bennett. Today we are brought up to believe the Emancipation Proclamation (E.P.) was part of the desired agenda to end slavery by Abraham Lincoln. Or worse, we are told with this presidential Proclamation; that all slaves were made forever free. Thus Lincoln was the great emancipator who ended slavery. But that story is far from the truth. 

The E.P. did not apply to slavery within the United States, and it did not free a single slave. According to Hume, Missouri abolitionists wanted the Proclamation applied to their state, and Lincoln refused the request. Instead, the E.P. applied only to Confederate-controlled areas and not to the Northern slave states still in the Union. A Confederate state only had to rejoin the Union, and slavery would be protected. Hume writes, "It was not ...intended to help the slave but to chastise the master. It was to be in  punishment of treason…The proclamation, it will be recollected, was issued in two parts separated by one hundred days. The first part gave the Rebels warning that the second would follow if, in the meanwhile, they did not give up their rebellion. All they had to do to save slavery was cease their treasonable practices." William Seward said of Lincoln's proclamation, "Where he could, he didn't. Where he did, he couldn't." The London Spectator, on October 11, 1862, read, "The Union government liberates the enemy's slaves as it would the enemy's cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States." 

The Proclamation would end with the war, and any slave freed by it would become subject to local state laws. The document did not apply to the legality of slavery. Lincoln wrote, it was "Merely a war measure" and "Have effect only from its being an exercise of war power." Lincoln stated, "It would have no effect upon the children of the slaves born hereafter."

The Proclamation was given at the end of 1862 after the North suffered multiple setbacks. Some viewed it as an act of desperation. Lincoln gave the Proclamation as a war measure, "As a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion." The war lasted longer than anticipated, and abolitionists put pressure on Lincoln; states threatened to withhold men and their support unless Lincoln helped the Northern war effort by going after slavery to weaken the South. Lincoln and his cabinet were concerned that a rebellion would start in the North if they did not begin emancipation and certainly did not want to lose some of their most ardent supporters.

Others said its purpose was to encourage slave revolts in the South. To encourage slaves to arise and kill women, children, and masters in a revolution while the men fought at the front. The Harrisonburg Patriot and Union newspaper called it a "Cold-blooded invitation to insurrection and butchery." Of course, many slaves, innocent women, and children would be killed if an uprising happened, but it was endorsed so long as it helped bring traitors under the master's authority in D.C.

The Emancipation Proclamation

The E.P. was not Lincoln’s desire, but he was "forced into glory," as Bennett would say. Bennet quotes Lincoln, "I am driven to it." And he said he had great "reluctance" about beginning emancipation. Abolitionists set up a meeting for September 24 with a plan to withhold support for the war and to call on Lincoln to resign. Knowing this meeting and the growing feeling amongst various state governors and the people, Lincoln issued the preliminary Proclamation just two days before the meeting. Lincoln said on July 12, "The pressure in this direction [immediate emancipation] is still upon me and is increasing." Lincoln said, "For a length of time, it had been hoped that the rebellion could be suppressed without resorting to it as a military measure." Lincoln scholar David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered quotes Lincoln writing an admirer, saying, "I claim not to have controlled events, but confess that events have controlled me." In his diary, Adam Gurowski wrote, "The patriots of both houses... the American people whipped Mr. Lincoln into the glory of having issued the emancipation proclamation." Bennett described the E.P in complete contradiction to how many school children understand it when he wrote, “The high point of a brilliant campaign in favor of slavery not freedom, and was designed not to emancipate all slaves immediately but to protect the emancipation of all slaves." 

As Bennett shows in his book, the E.P. was a conservative pushback against the radicals. On July 17, 1862, congress passed the second confiscation act. This act declared all rebel slaves in the confederacy "Forever free." On September 22, 1862, Lincoln signed the preliminary emancipation nullifying the emancipation act of congress, re-enslaving slaves. The emancipation proclamation did not free slaves in the United States, and it did not free any slave that the confiscation act would not have. It was a reaction to the radical abolitionists in congress. As Bennett writes, "The proclamation had as its purpose and effect the checking of the radical [abolitionist] program." 

Both DiLorenzo's Lincoln Unmasked and Bennett correct multiple false quotes attributed to Lincoln or those taken out of context to claim he was an abolitionist or desired equality among the races. I would recommend both authors to those interested. I will let Lincoln's close friend and admirer Ward Lamon sum up Lincoln's opinions on the emancipation proclamation.

"He did so with avowed reluctance...he never at any time favored the admission of negroes into the body of electors...he claimed that those who were incidentally liberated by the federal arms were poor-spirited, lazy and slothful...he longed to see them transported to Hayti, central America, Africa, or anywhere so that they might in no event, and in no way, participate in the government of his country...he was no Abolitionist in the popular sense."

-Ward Lamon The Life Of Abraham Lincoln From His Birth To His Inauguration As President James R. Osgood And Company, 1872

The Corwin Amendment

As Professor DiLorenzo points out, the previously proposed 13th amendment was called the Corwin Amendment; and it was something Lincoln supported. The amendment would forever allow slavery in the United States and make it unconstitutional to abolish it. It reads:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

In Lincoln's first inaugural address, he supported the amendment saying, "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." According to DiLorenzo, Lincoln then sent a letter to the governors of the states transmitting the approved amendment. He told New York Senator William Seward to advocate for it in the Senate. He also instructed Seward to pass a federal law that would repeal the personal liberty laws in some Northern states used to nullify the federal Fugitive Slave Act. DiLorenzo sees Lincoln's inaugural address as the most pro-slavery speech given by a president. 

"Lincoln's first inaugural address...is probably the most powerful defense of slavery ever made by an American politician. In the speech Lincoln denies having any intention to interfere with Southern slavery; supports the federal Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution, which compelled citizens of non-slave states to capture runaway slaves; and also supported a constitutional amendment known as the Corwin Amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering in Southern slavery." 

-Thomas DiLorenzo The Lincoln Myth: Ideological Cornerstone of the America Empire LewRockwell.com 

Lincoln the Ultimate Segregationist

"Horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once---a thousand times agreed... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation...Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; ... Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be."

-Abraham Lincoln Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 2 Speech at Springfield, Illinois June 26, 1857

Lincoln never wanted slaves freed and made equal. Instead, he wanted to make America white from "Sea to shining sea," as Bennett stated. He promoted the removal of slaves from America back to Africa. In his July 17th 1858 speech in Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln stated, "What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." The same year at Ottawa, he declared, "If all earthly power were given  me...my first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send them to Liberia."

It is true that Lincoln disliked slavery, but not as much as white and blacks living together. So Lincoln spent many thousands of tax dollars on his colonization plan to send the future freed slaves back to Africa. He either wanted them deported or in their all-black state. While in the White House, he held a meeting with free blacks; he asked them to lead by example for future freed slaves. 

"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side….It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated…You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life [as easily], perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country… an extremely selfish view of the case. There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harsh as it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us."

-Abraham Lincoln Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes August 14, 1862, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 5.Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865

Conclusion

According to our "greatest" president, for the good of humanity, free blacks should lead by example and go live in a foreign country. As a member of the Illinois legislature, Lincoln urged the legislature "To appropriate money for colonization in order to remove Negroes from the state and prevent miscegenation." In 1853 Lincoln gave a speech to the Springfield colonization society; his colonization plan would "Free slave holders from the troublesome presence of free Negroes." When pushing for his colonization plan, he said, "Where there is a will, there is a way." 

He promoted three aspects of his agenda. Gradual emancipation, compensation to slave owners, and colonization in Africa or Central America. His friend Henry Whitney said there was nothing besides preserving the Union that Lincoln felt more important. Ward Lamon said Lincoln "Zealously and persistently devised plans for the deportation of the negro." In the diary of Gideon Welles, we read, "Following the preliminary Proclamation, and as part of the plan…was the deportation and colonization of the colored race."

In Lincoln’s first state of the Union address, he suggested free blacks be included in his colonization plan when he said: "It might be well to consider, too, whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization." Lincoln called for three constitutional amendments for gradual emancipation, compensation, and colonization in his second inaugural address. He stated, "I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization." On December 31, 1862, Lincoln signed a contract to send 500 American-born Negroes to an island off the coast of Haiti; many died, and the survivors were brought back to America. Until his death, Lincoln negotiated with European nations to deport blacks to Africa. 

"Mr. Lincoln is quite a genuine Representative of American prejudiced and negro hatred and far more concerned for the preservation of slavery...showing all his inconsistencies, his pride of race and blood, his contempt for Negroes and his canting hypocrisy…Mr. Lincoln takes care in urging his colonization scheme to furnish a weapon to all the ignorant and base."

 -Frederick Douglass The Life and Writings of Fredrick Douglass International Publishers Co 1950

In short, Lincoln was the ultimate segregationist. He didn't just want blacks removed from schools, restaurants, and work areas; he wanted them removed from the country. 

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1] This article was taken with permission from a section of Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War.

Abraham Lincoln and the 1862 Emancipation Proclamation

The 1862 Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln took place during the US Civil War. Here, Lloyd W Klein looks at what the Emancipation Proclamation was and the moral and political motivations for it.

First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln. By Francis Bicknell Carpenter, 1864.

“Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We -- even we here -- hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free -- honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just -- a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.”

Abraham Lincoln, December 1862 Annual Message to Congress

The earth laughs, the sun laughs

over every wise harvest of man,

over man looking toward peace

by the light of the hard old teaching:

“We must disenthrall ourselves.”

Carl Sandburg, From “The Long Shadow of Lincoln: A Litany”

Carl Sandburg the poet, and lover of words, recognized that Lincoln’s use of the word “disenthrall” in this context was intentional and multi-layered. The word means “to set free” or “to liberate” and Lincoln chose this word on purpose. Lincoln’s genius was in his ability to find new solutions to complicated problems by “thinking outside the box”, which is Lincoln’s literal meaning here.  But he was also “setting free” the slaves. Moreover, crafting the goal of “setting free” the slaves into a war aim meant changing the war’s purpose. It meant giving a new reason to fight the war, adding to our resolve to carry it through. Also, we see that by doing so, the country was going to change – we were setting ourselves free from what the country had been before and would become something new; there was no going backward. “A new birth of freedom”, as he would say a year later. And in doing so, we were liberating ourselves from an immoral practice. As a nation that enslaved humans, we were ourselves enslaved to defend its existence, and now we would be “set free” of that burden, America’s Original Sin.

Lincoln, a highly astute and practical statesman, adeptly maneuvered through the political landscape by employing a pragmatic approach to problem-solving. He relied on empirical evidence to determine effective solutions that would not only maintain his position of authority but also garner sufficient support from the public to bring his government along. Lincoln's profound comprehension of the gravity of the situation, coupled with his remarkable skill in articulating his ideas, reverberates throughout history. The Emancipation Proclamation, hailed as a momentous moral decision, also aligns with this interpretation, further highlighting Lincoln's pragmatic political leadership.

Sandburg’s insight is founded on Lincoln’s 1862 Annual Message to Congress, introducing the Emancipation Proclamation:

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”

There is no doubt that Lincoln didn’t solve all of the problems of his, or our, times, especially connected with race. But neither have the next 30 presidents. Lincoln won the war, but that didn’t mean everyone agreed on what should be done after the war; there were as many views as people on that subject. And then, of course, he was assassinated right as the war ended.

What Were Lincoln’s Views On Slavery?

Lincoln's primary objective was to preserve the unity of the nation, a goal he successfully achieved. This accomplishment was unparalleled, as no other individual could have accomplished this feat. Lincoln's journey towards emancipation was far from simple, as it required more than a mere proclamation. The process necessitated a constitutional amendment and political consensus, both of which were absent at the onset of the war. Furthermore, there was widespread disagreement regarding emancipation, with individuals from both the northern and southern regions expressing dissent. Nevertheless, Lincoln devised a strategy to bring about this significant transformation, a feat that undoubtedly warrants immense recognition. It is important to acknowledge that although the Southerners found ways to circumvent certain laws after the war, and true equality wasn’t a reality until the Civil Rights era, slavery did end. Lincoln deserves credit for this achievement. In the northern states, black individuals were granted voting rights, legal freedom, and equality, a truly remarkable accomplishment.

Throughout his public and private addresses, Lincoln consistently voiced his moral opposition to slavery. He made it clear that he held an inherent aversion to the institution, firmly stating, "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." "I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel”, he noted.  However, the challenge lay in determining the appropriate course of action to address slavery's existence and bring about its demise. Slavery was deeply entrenched within the nation's constitutional framework and played a significant role in the country's economy. Consequently, finding a solution to this complex problem proved to be politically challenging.

In addition, there was the question of what would become of the four million slaves if liberated: how they would earn a living in a society that had long rejected and marginalized them. His proposition to send African Americans to colonies in Africa rather than keeping them in America, although criticized, stemmed from his recognition of the deeply ingrained prejudice within the American character, prevalent in both the North and the South. Lincoln believed that African Americans would prefer to return to their ancestral homeland due to the pervasive discrimination they faced. However, it was through his friendship with Frederick Douglass and his acknowledgment of the bravery displayed by black troops that Lincoln came to understand that America was indeed their homeland. African Americans desired equality within their own country and had no desire to be relocated elsewhere. This realization challenged Lincoln's previous notions and highlighted the importance of achieving equality within the United States.

Lincoln also had to balance the necessity and emphasis on saving the Union relative to freeing the slaves. His response to Horace Greely’s editorial calling on Lincoln to free the enslaved people is definitive in this regard; he clearly says that his primary goal is to save the Union, and everything that he does, or doesn’t, do is based on his analysis of that test. The last paragraph states: "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.” Often this response is quoted out of context to suggest that Lincoln didn’t care about slavery. Its intent however is to demonstrate that while Lincoln the man hated slavery, his role as president meant he had to remain focused on what his primary job responsibility – saving the Union -- required.

One month later he released the preliminary emancipation proclamation having determined that freeing the slaves was a necessary goal of the war, which the majority in the Union now supported.

Eric Foner's book, The Fiery Trial, delves into Abraham Lincoln's evolving perspective on race and slavery throughout his lifetime. Foner has said, “I have never called Lincoln a racist. He shared some of the prejudices of his time. Was Lincoln an anti-racist? No not really. Was he an egalitarian in the modern sense? No. Race was not a major concern of Lincoln. He didn’t think about race very much. To ask if he’s a racist is the wrong question. And if you ask the wrong question, you’re going to get the wrong answer.”  While Lincoln always recognized the immorality of slavery and supported the freedom of slaves, his stance on rights shifted in accordance with the changing sentiments of the Republican Party and the North. As a politician, Lincoln strategically positioned himself in the middle ground of prevailing opinions to secure electoral success. It is important to note that he did not lead the way, as Frederick Douglass astutely observed. Despite being influenced by figures like Douglass, Lincoln's stated views on race indicate that he did not truly consider African Americans as his social equals. Foner distinguishes between Lincoln's belief in equal natural rights, his eventual acceptance of legal rights, and his likely lack of support for social acceptance, which he probably never did favor, a sentiment shared by many white individuals in the 19th century.

What was the Emancipation Proclamation?

The issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, marked a significant moment in American history. This executive order, which came at a time of great political turmoil, demonstrated a remarkable display of political courage. It was a decision that Lincoln believed to be morally right and necessary for the nation's progress. The Battle of Fredericksburg had dealt a severe blow to Northern morale, plunging the country into a state of despair. In response to the victory at Antietam on September 22, 1862, Lincoln took the opportunity to issue the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, setting the stage for the eventual liberation of millions of enslaved individuals.

As the commander-in-chief, Lincoln strategically employed the Emancipation Proclamation as a war tactic. By emancipating enslaved people, he aimed to weaken the South's labor force and disrupt their war efforts. However, Lincoln was not oblivious to the potential consequences of his actions. He recognized the deep-rooted racial divisions within the nation and feared the long-lasting impact of his decision. Nevertheless, during his second presidential campaign, Lincoln boldly advocated for the permanent abolition of slavery through a constitutional amendment. The Emancipation Proclamation effectively altered the legal status of over 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the Confederate states, granting them freedom once they escaped their enslavers' control and sought refuge with Union forces.  The 13th Amendment to the Constitution made this the law of the land.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves. It only applied to the ten states that were still in rebellion on January 1, 1863 and did not extend to the approximately 500,000 slaves in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, as well as parts of Virginia and Louisiana that were no longer in rebellion. This has led to debates regarding the effectiveness and impact of the proclamation. Rather than being a definitive act of liberation, it should be understood as a policy announcement that guided the actions of the army and declared freedom as the Union forces advanced.

Lincoln understood that the federal government's authority to abolish slavery during peacetime was limited by the Constitution, which assigned the issue to individual states before 1865. However, during the Civil War, Lincoln utilized his authority as the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy" under Article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. In doing so, he claimed the power to emancipate slaves in the rebellious states as a necessary measure to suppress the rebellion. Lincoln also referenced the Confiscation Act of 1861 and the Confiscation Act of 1862 as additional sources of authority in the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 as sources for his authority in the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.

While the immediate aim of the Emancipation Proclamation was to weaken the Confederacy's war effort, its broader significance was evident. The document signaled that the United States would no longer support the enslavement of individuals based on their race, a practice deeply ingrained in the nation's history. Furthermore, it opened the door for Black men to participate in national affairs on equal terms. Lincoln actively encouraged Black Americans to join the U.S. Army, which traditionally served as a pathway to citizenship, and urged them to work diligently for fair wages. In this way, the Emancipation Proclamation not only sought to undermine the Confederacy but also aimed to redefine the principles and values of the United States.

Political Versus Moral Motivations

Martin Luther King Jr once said that “the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” As previously noted, December 1862 was one of the darkest moments in our history. After two years of battle and hundreds of thousands of casualties, the Union appeared to be losing the war. People were losing hope and disaster loomed. Lincoln at this moment made an extraordinary paradigm-shattering decision to shift the focus of the war slightly from saving the union to freeing the slaves, arguing they were one and the same.

But although it was presented chiefly as a military measure, the proclamation marked a crucial shift in Lincoln’s views on slavery. By declaring emancipation, the focus of the Civil War shifted from preserving the Union to abolishing slavery, thereby setting a definitive path for the nation's future after the war.

The Republican abolitionists in the North were elated by Lincoln's wholehearted support for their cause, which they had elected him to champion. Although the enslaved individuals in the South did not immediately rise in rebellion upon the proclamation's signing, they gradually began to emancipate themselves as Union forces advanced into Confederate territory. Towards the end of the war, a substantial number of enslaved people left their former masters in large numbers. They actively contributed to the Union Army by engaging in combat, cultivating crops, undertaking various military roles, and working in the mills of the North. While the proclamation did not receive unanimous praise from all northerners, particularly white workers and troops who feared job competition from the influx of formerly enslaved individuals, it did have the distinct advantage of dissuading Britain and France from establishing official diplomatic relations with the Confederacy.

Conclusion

The mythological Lincoln on Mt Rushmore is America's greatest president. We desire our heroes to have been just and motivated to do the right thing. The real Lincoln indeed was, but he was also doing the politically intelligent thing as well. Whichever motive you think was primary and which secondary (although his response to Horace Greeley seems definitive in favor of the political), he found the solution by “disenthralling” ourselves from our past.Morality aside, it was a brilliant political maneuver, perhaps the most magnificent achievement in American history, and it saved our country.

The signing of the Emancipation Proclamation symbolized Lincoln’s unwavering determination to preserve the Union at any cost, while simultaneously finding moral virtue. This act held both political and ethical significance, as it transformed emancipation into a war objective. It is crucial to acknowledge that human beings, including Lincoln, are imperfect, intricate, and often contradictory. Contrary to the idealized image of Lincoln, he was not immune to the complexities of human nature. Ultimately, the limitations of Lincoln’s racial perspectives are an indictment of the larger society. To truly comprehend our identity, it is imperative to examine the unvarnished reality of American history, rather than subscribing to an appealing fairy tale. The intricate and inconsistent nature of human experiences provides a more accurate depiction of our racist past than superficial notions. Just as the romanticized portrayal of Robert E. Lee as the "Marble Man" should be rejected,  so should the myth of Lincoln as the "Great Liberator Father Abraham." A comprehensive understanding necessitates recognizing the arduous journey Lincoln undertook to achieve greatness. This genuine narrative, rather than the oversimplified fable, is truly inspiring and represents the authentic story of our nation.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

What if Abraham Lincoln had not been Assassinated?

Few figures loom as large as Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States. His leadership during the Civil War, his commitment to the abolition of slavery, and his enduring legacy of unity and equality have solidified his place as an icon of American democracy.

What if history had taken a different turn on that fateful April evening in 1865? What if Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated?

Terry Bailey considers.

An 1860s painting of President Abraham Lincoln. By George Peter Alexander Healy,

To ponder such a scenario is to delve into the realm of historical conjecture. However, by examining the political landscape of the time and Lincoln's own aspirations, it is possible to glean insight into what might have transpired had his life not been cut short by events.

Firstly, it's essential to consider Lincoln's vision for post-Civil War America. He was deeply committed to the principles of reconciliation and reconstruction, aiming to heal the nation's wounds and forge a path towards unity. In the aftermath of the Civil War, Lincoln sought to reintegrate the Southern states into the Union with leniency and compassion, prioritizing national healing over punitive measures.

Had Lincoln survived, it's plausible that his approach to reconstruction would have been markedly different from that of his successor, Andrew Johnson. Lincoln's conciliatory stance toward the South may have led to a smoother and more inclusive reconstruction process, potentially mitigating some of the deep-seated animosities that lingered in the aftermath of the war and potentially still do today.

Moreover, Lincoln's leadership style and political acumen would likely have played a pivotal role in shaping the post-Civil War era. His ability to navigate complex political terrain and build consensus across ideological divides could have paved the way for a more stable and harmonious transition from war to peace.

Race relations

One of the most intriguing questions surrounding a hypothetical continuation of Lincoln's presidency is its impact on the trajectory of race relations in America. As a staunch advocate for the abolition of slavery, Lincoln recognized the need for fundamental changes in the status of African Americans in society. While his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 marked a significant step forward, Lincoln understood that true equality would require sustained effort and political will.

Had Lincoln lived to see the fruition of reconstruction, it's conceivable that his administration would have prioritized the advancement of civil rights for African Americans. He may have championed policies aimed at ensuring their full participation in the social, economic, and political life of the nation, laying the groundwork for a more equitable society.

Furthermore, Lincoln's continued presence on the national stage could have influenced the course of American politics in subsequent decades. His leadership and moral authority might have shaped the direction of the Republican Party, steering it towards a more progressive stance on issues of racial justice and equality.

Post-war Period

However, it's essential to acknowledge the challenges and obstacles that Lincoln would have faced had he survived. The post-Civil War period was fraught with complexities and tensions, and the path to reconciliation was far from straightforward. Lincoln's ability to navigate these challenges would have been tested, and the outcome remains uncertain.

Moreover, the specter of assassination would have loomed large over Lincoln's presidency, casting a shadow of fear and uncertainty over the nation. The five earlier failed attempts on his life served as a stark reminder of the continued dangers inherent in political leadership, therefore, Lincoln would have to contend with the constant threat of violence.

In considering the hypothetical scenario of Lincoln's continued presidency, it's impossible to predict with certainty the course of history. Countless variables and contingencies would have influenced the trajectory of events, and the outcomes could have been vastly different from those we know today.

However, what remains clear is the enduring legacy of Abraham Lincoln and the profound impact of his presidency on the course of American history. Whether through his leadership during the Civil War, his commitment to the abolition of slavery, or his vision for a more perfect union, Lincoln's contributions to the fabric of American democracy are indelible.

In the final analysis, the question of what if Abraham Lincoln had not been assassinated invites the reflection of not only on the past but also on the present and future of the United States. It prompts the consideration of pivotal moments and decisions that shape the course of history and contemplate the enduring legacy of leadership, courage, and conviction. While it is impossible to ever know with certainty what might have been, it is possible to draw inspiration from Lincoln's example and strive to uphold the values that he held dear: freedom, equality, and the pursuit of a more perfect union.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Moral Principle and Political Reality in US History

An issue that often arises in a detailed exchange on the American experience is equality of opportunity. In many cases, it strikes a dynamic chord with many observers in our society. The essential tension that is inherent in this issue is one of moral principle v. political reality. Here, David Huff considers this in the US by looking at Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and the present day.

Former President Lyndon B. Johnson (on the left) and then Vice President Spiro Agnew (on the right, with sunglasses) view the lift off of Apollo 11 in 1969.

Many societies throughout history have grappled with how to reconcile equality of opportunities with the harsh political of their times. On the whole, societies, particularly in their infancy, have sacrificed equality of opportunity for the sake of political expediency.

In the American experience, the Founding Fathers were more concerned about ensuring the survival of the American Republic than achieving social, political and economic equality in society. The achievement of equality of women, Native Americans and African Americans were left for future generations to undertake.

Fortunately, the United States heeded history's call to action. The patrician reforms of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the civil rights struggle of the 1960s and the continual call for the creation of an adequate and equitable health-care system are indicative of the potent force that equality of opportunity has played in our society.

The Role of Federal Government v. Private Enterprise

Although I concur that people should not be given a free handout, I believe in offering an individual a hand-up. Furthermore, I think that it is the government's responsibility to ensure that if social inequities get our of hand, constructive remedies should be enacted to ameliorate the situation.

Clearly, the accounting scandals in private enterprise during the past forty years underscore that government ought to play a greater role in preventing the gross pursuit of money and power which results in excessive greed and corruption.

A hallmark of a civilized society is one in which a heightened social consciousness for the welfare of others plays a role in shaping a nation's character.  A government that embraces the political mantra that no social obligation is germane will stagnate and erode, becoming frozen by its own indifference and intolerance. If enterprising and wealthy individuals have the rare privilege of escaping the bonds of everyday existence to see life from an entirely different perspective, why not share some of that resourceful knowledge with others in society?

Abraham Lincoln's Role in Shaping American Society

As a nation, we have been blessed by a number of remarkable individuals who played an influential role in shaping the American consciousness. A central figure during the nineteenth century was Abraham Lincoln, who demonstrated tremendous courage and resilience during the bloody and painful struggle of the American Civil War. Determined, shrewd, and tough, Lincoln not only managed to keep the United States together, but also abolished the long-standing institution of slavery. His accomplishments set into motion profound changes that altered the cultural fabric of the American South.

Above all, Lincoln, by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and his memorable Second Inaugural Address in 1865 raised the social and political consciousness of our nation. 

FDR's Impact on American Society

Another figure who played a prominent role in shaping the American consciousness was Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Elected president in 1932, Roosevelt initiated patrician reforms under his New Deal programs, which alleviated some of the human misery caused by the Great Depression. 

Although experimental in nature, his progressive reforms called for the federal government to play an active role in the social welfare of Americans.  The creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps, Works Progress Administration, which generated many job creation programs, the Soil Conservation Service, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Rural Electrification Act, and the Social Security Act, as well as the president's willingness to embrace collective bargaining power for labor, are all indicative of FDR's sweeping reforms that transformed the fabric of American society. 

The Emergence of the Kennedy Family and Lyndon B. Johnson

On January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy became the nation's 35th President of the United States. Both JFK and his wife, Jacqueline, as well as Lyndon B. Johnson played a profound impact on the transformation of American society. During his tenure, President Kennedy created the Peace Corps, introduced Civil Rights legislation and Medicare and Medicaid reform bills to Congress in order to provide greater health-care coverage and basic human rights to African Americans throughout our nation, and signed the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty in 1963.

In addition, Mrs. Kennedy taught the nation about culture and distinction by combining a unique sense of fashion with a strong sense of scholarship. Furthermore, intertwined with Mrs. Kennedy's interest in fashion was her commitment to the preservation of the arts and humanities, her commitment to the restoration of the White House, her push to host a dinner of the Nobel Laureates in 1962 and her avid interest in hosting youth concerts to encourage young people to study classical music. In my opinion, all of her efforts were indicative of her genuine desire that American civilization should be committed to the idea of developing a rich and diverse cultural identify of its own.

On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. It was a tragedy that shook the nation and the world. However, Lyndon B. Johnson, who became the 36th President of the United States, was determined to continue the progressive reform efforts that the Kennedy Administration had undertaken. Under his able leadership, President Johnson pushed through Congress an impressive legislative package, which included the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed the Medicare and Medicaid packages into law in 1965, and provided aid to education, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, and Head Start.

Unfortunately, Lyndon Johnson chose to enlarge significantly America's commitment to South Vietnam in July 1965. The president's determination that the United States could fight a costly war in Southeast Asia while enlarging the social welfare state at home led to the development of a choiceless society. In his mind, President Johnson thought we could adopt a two-prong strategy: conduct a war in Vietnam while enacting major social and economic reforms at home, which he called The Great Society. As a result, his willingness to engage simultaneously in the Vietnam War and The Great Society raised expectations beyond what the Federal Government could promise the American people. To that end, a powerful conservative movement began to take shape under the re-emergence of Richard M. Nixon and the 1966 election of Ronald Reagan as Governor of California. In sum, Lyndon Johnson was a tragedy in the real sense. He was the central figure in a struggle of moral importance that ended in ruin. 

Contemporary America

Now, at the dawn of 2022, that United States is in search of itself. In the wake of COVID-19, political division, economic uncertainty, social turmoil, and an inadequate healthcare system, many Americans realize that we need to revitalize our political, economic, and social institutions in order to provide greater opportunities for our fellow citizens. Only if Americans demand greater corporate accountability, insist that their elected leaders focus on strengthening America's economic infrastructure, push for the creation of a National Commission on Violence to examine the underlying problems that cause people, particularly youth, to choose self-destruction rather personal development, and demand a reduction in the national debt that is approaching 30 trillion dollars can we ever hope to restore our country to a healthy order.

In particular, in regard to the national debt, if the debt continues to climb, at some point investors will lose confidence in the government's ability to pay back borrowed funds. In essence, the higher the debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio, the less likely the country will pay back its debt and the higher its risk of default, which could cause a financial panic in the domestic and international markets. At this point, we will not be able to pay off the interest on the debt let alone the principal itself.

To attain positive change requires people, especially young voters, to play an active role in the political process. Perhaps the answer lies not only in parents instilling a sense of self-esteem and personal responsibility in their children, but also society encouraging youth to pursue higher education, community involvement, and state and federal campaign participation.

We must recognize that it is a matter of personal conscience, historical perspective and the inherit belief that equality of opportunity is a struggle of moral importance that as a nation we cannot afford to relinquish. After all, the future of our democracy, our way of life is contingent upon young voter's thoughtful engagement and passionate participation in the American political system. It is their future and their children's future that hang in the balance. 

Conclusion

Finally, the American people need to remember that our country's destiny is a journey, not a destination. It is a journey the American people have learned to savor, cherish and treasure. Our collective journey is filled with roadblocks and amazing achievements that provide the impetus for us to understand fully ourselves and those we love. With the passage of time. our country must learn to embrace faith that looks through adversity and enables us to flourish and thrive.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

Now read David’s article on Jackie Kennedy’s influence on the arts here.

Robert Todd Lincoln and the Curse of the Presidential Assassination

Robert Todd Lincoln (1843-1926) was the son of Abraham Lincoln and an influential figure in his time. He was also near the scene at the time of three US presidential assassinations spanning over 35 years. Samantha Arrowsmith explains.

A young Robert Todd Lincoln.

There are some figures in history that transcend their time, even if we are sometimes largely ignorant of why it is that we remember them. Cleopatra, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Abraham Lincoln, Einstein and Hitler are all names that echo down the ages, for good or ill, and who even the most history-phobic of us will recognize.

To be the child of one of these would not have been an easy place to occupy, and Robert Todd Lincoln bore the weight of that position for most of his life. He is remembered as an ‘unsympathetic bore[i]’, tainted by his relationship with his successful father and his mentally ill mother[ii]. Yet Robert carried another burden: if such a thing as a curse exists, then Robert was encumbered by one of the worst – the curse of the presidential assassination.

Abraham Lincoln: April 15, 1865

Robert’s first encounter with a presidential assassination was that of his own father, Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States. It was an event touched by coincidence and regret, and one which had a profound effect on his eldest son.

Robert’s relationship with his father is considered by many historians to have been strained[iii]. As the son of an aspiring politician, Robert rarely saw his father during his childhood and their bond was undoubtedly weaker than the one Abraham had with his other sons. Yet it would be overstating their difficulties to say that Robert was estranged from his father; on the day of the assassination they had spent several hours alone together before the President went to a cabinet meeting.[iv] That evening he and his parents had dined together at the White House and he remembered some years later how his father had asked him to come to the Ford Theatre with them. Not attending was one of his greatest regrets[v]. In a 1921 article based on the recollections of Robert to a friend, he believed that:

“My seat must have been placed in the door alcove…which was covered with a curtain…He [Booth] would have encountered a psychological obstacle.…To open the door and fire at an unsuspecting man is one thing, but to fire after he had found his way blocked is another. I do not believe that he would have attempted it if I had been there.”[vi]

Despite being shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth, the President was not killed instantly and was carried to a house belonging to William Petersen where he died at 7:22am the next morning with Robert at his bedside. Despite his previous stoic behavior, The Secretary to the Navy noted that he ‘gave way on two occasions to overpowering grief and sobbed aloud…’[vii].

The event affected Robert not only as a son but also as a future government official, and one letter in particular shows how he was still conscious of the danger to the incumbent president 24 years later:

‘I have no doubt that President Arthur will take care of himself; but he is undoubtedly liable to be killed by some crazy person or by a fanatic who would be willing to do the deed for the notoriety which might be gained thereby.’[viii]

In an ironic twist of fate, Abraham Lincoln had previously had a great deal to be grateful to the Booth family for. His killer’s elder brother, the celebrated actor Edwin Booth, had saved Robert from possible injury or even death at New Jersey train station in either 1863 or 1864. Horrified by his brother’s actions, it gave Edwin comfort to know that he had been of some benefit to the Lincoln family and Robert was able to talk about the incident without any bitterness, recalling in 1918 that ‘I never again met Mr. Booth personally, but I have always had most grateful recollection of his prompt action on my behalf’.[ix]

James Garfield: September 19, 1881

Four months into his presidency, James Garfield advertised his intended plan to move to New Jersey for the summer. He would take the train from Washington’s Baltimore and Potomac railroad station on July 2, 1881 and among the members of his cabinet there to see him off would be his Secretary of War, Robert Todd Lincoln.

Up until that point the only President to have been assassinated was Lincoln’s father, so an attempt on the President was considered both a rare and somewhat unlikely event. James Garfield believed that the President should be seen by the people and he therefore took few precautions when in public. He had once written:

‘The letter of Mr. Hudson of Detroit, with your endorsement came duly to hand. I do not think there is any serious danger in the direction to which he refers - though I am receiving, what I suppose to be the usual number of threatening letters on that subject. Assassination can no more be guarded against than death by lightning; and it is not best to worry about either.’[x]

Unfortunately, Charles Guiteau had decided that the President’s death was a political necessity. His initial anger at being overlooked for a diplomatic position in Paris (which he had convinced himself was his right due to a speech he had written in support of Garfield during the election) gradually turned to paranoia. He was convinced that Garfield disliked him due to his allegiance to the Stalwart faction of the Republican Party and eventually that Garfield was a traitor and dictator.[xi] He wasn’t subtle in his intentions, going so far as to send the President letters and asking for a tour of the prison where he believed he would be incarcerated after the event.[xii] A letter taken from his pocket read:

‘The President’s tragic death was a sad necessity, but it will unite the Republican Party and save the Republic…I had no ill-will toward the President. His death was a political necessity.’[xiii]

Robert Lincoln had come to the station to let the President know that he was unable to join him on the trip as originally planned, but what he witnessed must have brought back terrible memories. Reportedly only 40 feet away from the President, he watched Guiteau step out of the shadows, walk up to the President and fire two shots, one to the arm and the other to the back. As with his father’s shooting, he showed some elements of calmness, attending the fallen President, calling for a gunshot wound specialist, Dry Bliss, and putting soldiers onto the streets to ensure calm.[xiv]

As with President Lincoln, Garfield did not die immediately; in fact, it took 80 days for him to succumb, not to the gunshot wound, but to the septicemia caused by his doctors. In September 1881, Robert Todd Lincoln attended a second funeral of an assassinated president.[xv]

William McKinley: September 14, 1901

The Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo was intended to showcase American achievement with the slogan ‘commercial wellbeing and good understanding among the American Republics’[xvi]. President William McKinley, six months into his second term as the 25th President, was attending as part of his American tour. He was a popular president and the speech he gave there on September 5 was attended by a vast audience[xvii]. The next day, he toured Niagara Falls before returning to the fair for a public reception at the Temple of Music. McKinley enjoyed meeting the public and despite Secretary Cortelyou’s reservations, he was determined to attend, putting the reception back onto his schedule every time it was removed. Cortelyourelented but ensured that there would be ample security at the venue: the President’s own protection officer, George Foster, plus two other Secret Service Agents, the Exposition police, four Buffalo detectives and a dozen artillerymen[xviii]. But the precautions were to no avail. The day was hot and the usual precaution that everyone in the line should approach the President empty handed was abandoned, along with the habit that Foster should stand beside the President. By the time Foster realized that the approaching man, with his hand covered by a handkerchief[xix], was a danger, it was too late and at 4:07pm unemployed factory worker turned political anarchist, Leon Czolgosz, shot McKinley twice in the abdomen.

A few hours later Robert Todd Lincoln stepped off of a train at Buffalo station on his way to the Exposition to be greeted by a telegram reading:

“President McKinley was shot down by an anarchist in Buffalo this afternoon. He was hit twice in the abdomen. Condition serious.”[xx]

Lincoln missed the actual moment of the shooting, but he immediately went to see the President and spent some time with him that evening and again two days later. Lincoln believed that the President was remarkably well given what had happened to him, but eight days later on September 14, McKinley died of gangrene. 

The event could only have brought back more memories for Lincoln and he did not disguise his sadness when he wrote to the new President, Theodore Roosevelt:

“I do not congratulate you, for I have seen too much of the seamy side of the Presidential Robe to think of it as an enviable garment.”[xxi]

A Certain Fatality

When Robert Lincoln died in 1926, there had been three presidential assassinations and he had a connection to them all. As historian Todd Arrington has observed, that might not have been unusual for a man involved in politics as Lincoln was[xxii], but, on a personal level, it must have been a painful situation.  

‘There is a certain fatality about presidential functions when I am present,’ Lincoln is supposed to have quipped. Perhaps the more telling quote is the one he gave to the New York Times the day after the shooting of James Garfield in Washington: ‘How many hours of sorrow I have passed in this town.’[xxiii].

 

What do you think of Robert Todd Lincoln? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Samantha Arrowsmith’s article on 7 occasions Europe changed the time here.

[i] Lincoln: A Foreigner’s Quest, Jan Morris, 2001, p128 

[ii] Meet Robert Todd Lincoln, The Estranged Son of the 16th President who had his mother committed, Lauren Zmirich, 2019 

[iii] Lincoln’s Boys: The legacy of an American father and an American family, Robert P Watson and Dale Berger, 2010

[iv] Giant in the Shadows: The life of Robert T Lincoln, Jason Emerson, 2012, p99 

[v] Emerson, p107

[vi] The Lincoln Financial Foundation Collection

[vii] Emerson, p105

[viii] Letter from Robert Lincoln 28 September 1881

[ix] How Edwin Booth Saved Robert Todd Lincoln’s Life, Jason Emerson, 2005

[x] Letter from President Garfield to Sherman, November 1880

[xi] Killing the President: assassinations, attempts and rumored attempts on US Commanders-in-Chief, Willard M Oliver and Nancy E Marion, 2010, p44

[xii] Oliver and Marion, p44

[xiii] The New York Times 3 July 1881

[xiv] ‘A Certain Fatality’ Robert Todd Lincoln and the Presidential Assassinations, Todd Arrington, 2014

[xv] Funeral of President Garfield: Announcement to the Public

[xvi] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-American_Exposition

[xvii] You can view the President giving the speech at https://www.loc.gov/item/00694342/  

[xviii] JFK assassination records: Appendix 7: a brief history of presidential protection

[xix] The New York Times 7 September 1901

[xx] Arrington, 2014

[xxi] Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site

[xxii] Arrington, 2014

[xxiii] Arrington, 2014

Are the Recent Statue Topplings in the US Mob Rule or Democracy in action? A View from History

The US has recently seen a number of statues being toppled, but are they an example of mob rule or democracy in action? Here, Mac Guffey returns and presents his views by considering events of 1776 and an 1838 speech by Abraham Lincoln.

A painting showing the pulling down of the Statue of King George III in New York City in 1776. This is an 1859 painting by Johannes Adam Simon Oertel.

On July 9, 1776, seven days after its passage, George Washington had the Declaration of Independence read to his troops and the citizens of New York City. In the document, its author, Thomas Jefferson, cited 27 colonial grievances against King George III. After the list of grievances, Jefferson succinctly summarized the end of British dominion in the colonies with “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” (Ruppert, 2014)

Impassioned by the rhetoric of the Declaration, a large mob of citizens, soldiers, sailors, and even some members of the Sons of Liberty raged throughout the city, tearing the British Royal Coat of Arms from official buildings and smashing them and burning paintings of the British monarch. (Ruppert, 2014)

Still angry, the growing crowd marched down Broadway to Bowling Green, a small oval area on the southern tip of Manhattan, where a gilded lead statue of the King on horseback stood. The mob, screaming and yelling, threw ropes around it and toppled the statue erected six years earlier. After breaking up the statue, parts of it were hauled to a foundry in Litchfield, Connecticut and melted down to make 42,088 musket balls for use in the coming revolution. (Marks, 1981)

The raging mob and the statue toppling is celebrated in American history as a symbolic act of dissolving all connection with the rule of kings and the beginning of that grand experiment of a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Mobocratic spirit

Sixty-two years later, on a cold January evening in a small Illinois town in 1838, a newly minted lawyer by the name of Abraham Lincoln was invited to give a lecture at a local lyceum gathering. He titled his talk “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions”. 

That night, Lincoln shared with his audience his concerns about what he perceived as the growing disregard and indifference for the rule of law around the country. He felt this lack of responsible citizenship posed a grave threat to the institutions of that government begun so symbolically by the Founding Fathers in 1776. 

He called it a mobocratic spirit. This spirit he defined as a growing propensity for violence, and the people who participated, he labeled as a mobocracy. The effect of this increasing frequency of violence, he asserted, would be a growing indifference or a numbness by the citizenry as the violence became more commonplace. 

Therein, he cautioned, lays the beginning of the end because the numbness to this increasing violence leads to even more violence by the mobocracy as their fear of the government grows less, and their contempt for it grows more.

The other effect of the escalating violence, he pointed out, is when the numbness by law-abiding citizens to the frequency of violence now turns to fear – fear for the safety of their person and property. Actually, he said, it’s when the citizens believe their RIGHT to be safe in person and property is threatened. For that, he predicted, they’ll blame the government.

So, contempt for the government from one faction of citizens and a loss of faith in the government from the other faction creates the perfect storm of destruction of support or allegiance to that form of government.

That’s when it happens, Lincoln said. From among us, comes a person who promises to fix the problems.

Driven by a desire for power, this person uses the moment of wavering allegiance to stir up support for another way to run things, to tear down the way it is, and to suggest to our citizens a better way to solve the problems in order to maintain their RIGHT to be safe in person and property.

But his intent is to pull down Democracy and to substitute in its place, something selfish - something self-glorifying - something non-democratic.

The solution to this human threat, said Lincoln, is three-fold: One, for the citizens to be aware that THEY are the weak link in a Democracy. Two, the citizens must remain united with one another as a nation, and three, they must continue their allegiance to our way of governing. These three steps, he said, will successfully frustrate that person’s designs to destroy the perpetuation of our political institutions.

History is Now

Abraham Lincoln was concerned that the passions regarding the slavery question to which he alluded that night would lead the citizens of America to destroy the Union, which they did twenty-three years later. Ironically, Lincoln himself was at the helm of our Ship of State when it happened, and because of his genius, character, and personality, he was able to save us from becoming a nation permanently rendered.

Now, we again face statue-toppling protests. This time, it’s against the systemic racism that still pervades our nation even after that horrific civil war, and Lincoln’s fatal efforts make these words of the Declaration of Independence - read to those patriotic rioters that day in 1776 - finally ring true:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Are these statue-toppling protests just mob rule or are they Democracy in action?

I vote for the latter. So would Lincoln.

What do you think of the arguments in the article? Let us know below.

Now you can read Mac’s articles on the 1918 Influenza Pandemic and its lessons for today here.

References

Abraham Lincoln Association. (1953). Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield Illinois January 27, 1838. In A. Lincoln, R. P. Basler, & et.al. (Eds.), The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (pp. 109-116). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.

Marks, A. S. (1981). The Statue of King George III in New York and the Iconology of Regicide. The American Art Journal Vol. 13, 62.

Ruppert, B. (2014, September 8). The Statue of George III. Retrieved June 28, 2020, from Journal of the American Revolution: https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/09/the-statue-of-george-iii/

Abraham Lincoln: The Story of how he Became a Wrestling Champion

Widely considered the greatest President in American history, much has been written about the man, the myth, the legend: Abraham Lincoln. From his acclaimed debates with Stephen A. Douglas, to his creation of the Emancipation Proclamation, to the Gettysburg Address, and finally his tragic death by the hands of John Wilkes Booth after the Civil War, President Lincoln will forever be an icon of US history. Even Lincoln’s childhood and early adulthood has come under scholarly examination. However, what is less spoken of is the strange but prolific wrestling career of the Great Emancipator. Brenden Woldman explains.

A painting of Abraham Lincoln reading as a boy. By Eastman Johnson, 1868.

In the moderately sized city of Stillwater in Payne County, Oklahoma stands the National Wrestling Hall of Fame. Enshrined within those hallowed halls are America’s greatest wrestlers, from collegiate athletes to Olympic champions. But there is one man who was granted a spot within the Hall for his grappling tactics within the ring, and earned him an “Outstanding American” honor.[1] Though his gangly stature became a point of insult for his political rivals and contemporaries, with one man once telling Lincoln that he did not possess the “features the ladies would call handsome,” the future president as a young man was, surprisingly, built from stone.[2]  Lincoln may have been a thin, wiry young man standing at 6 feet, 4 inches and 180 lbs., but years of working manual labor as both a farmer in the Kentucky backwoods as well as a rail splitter helped forge a naturally strong specimen of a man who towered over any and all who stood beside him.[3]

Wrestling fame

Though he had no dreams of sporting grandeur, the future president, like many of his contemporaries who worked manual labor jobs, enjoyed physical activities like wrestling as a leisure activity. But just like in his political career Lincoln was a calculated and ambitious wrestler. Still, conversely to his political persona the young Lincoln was a confident sportsman who could be simply described as cocky. Lincoln’s confidence in his ability stemmed from his mastery of the “catch-as-catch-can” manner of wrestling, a brawling and combative style known for its bull-like aggressive rushes and hand-to-hand combat tactics to the opponent. Nevertheless, this bar fight style of wrestling still needed more than a hint of skill to pin a rival.[4] Lincoln’s rare mix of thin and wiry but broad, strong, and smart athlete made him nearly impossible to beat. His physical prowess made Bill Green, a local store owner from New Salem, Illinois, note that “[Lincoln] can outrun, outlift, outwrestle and throw day any man in Sangamon County,” after the young man beat multiple opponents in one day.[5] Moreover, Lincoln matched his reputation as an in-ring force with his loud public trash talking. After decisively defeating another opponent with a single toss in the ring, Honest Abe being as honest as he could be looked into an entire crowd and challenged any and all who dared to face him. Lincoln shouted, “I’m the big buck of this lick. If any of you want to try it, come on and whet your horns.”[6]Unsurprisingly, there were no takers.

The legend of Lincoln the wrestler continued to grow during the late 1820s and into the early 1830s. But what made Lincoln a local wrestling legend came in 1831, when the Great Emancipator was only 22 years old. Lincoln was quietly tending to the store he worked at as a clerk in New Salem when his boss Denton Offutt out of the blue challenged any of the local Clary’s Grove Boys to a good natured wrestling match with his star clerk.[7] The Clary’s Grove Boys, who were known for their rowdy, fraternity-like attitude toward frontiers life, enjoyed drinking and fighting more than anyone around.[8] After Offutt boasted that no one could beat his employee, the Clary’s Grove Boys’ “champion wrestler” Jack Armstrong took the challenge, believing, that he “had found only another subject by which [they] could display its strength and prowess.”[9] Lincoln accepted the challenge, getting up from behind his counter, and prepared to wrestle the feared Armstrong. 

Confident that he could outmatch the taller but gawky Lincoln, Armstrong felt no fear. Who could blame him? Lincoln had been, and would continue to be, judged by his physical appearance his entire life. However, soon after the match began, the Clary’s Grove Boys champion realized he had bit off more than he could chew. Lincoln from the start was able to control the match due to his enormous reach, forcing Armstrong to fight dirty as a means of desperation.[10] Annoyed by the lack of sportsmanship, Lincoln lost his temper and, according to legend, won the match by grabbing Armstrong by the neck, raising him above his head, shaking him around, and slamming him on the ground.[11] The crowd was shocked by Lincoln’s clear victory, and the rest of the Clary’s Grove Boys were angered by the result. Enraged, the Clary’s Grove Boys began to threaten Lincoln. Luckily, Armstrong bounced back up and defended the future president. Smiling, Armstrong looked at his friends and said, “Boys, Abe Lincoln is the best fellow that ever broke into this settlement. He shall be one of us.”[12]

A very impressive career

Lincoln gained the respect of Jack Armstrong and the rest of the Clary’s Grove Boys. As a result of his victory, the young Lincoln gained the reputation as the champion wrestler of New Salem, gladly taking on, and easily defeating, any and all opponents who came to challenge him. Amazingly, Lincoln was nearly impossible to beat. According to historians who have researched the win/loss record of Honest Abe, Lincoln has only one confirmed lose in allegedly more then 300 matches over the course of 12 years.[13] That sole lose came at the hands of Pvt. Lorenzo Dow Thompson, the St. Clair wrestling champion whom Lincoln met when he was a Captain during the Black Hawk War. Upon hearing of Thompson’s prowess at wrestling, Lincoln was certain in his own ability and “told my boys I could throw [Thompson].”[14] As confident as ever, Lincoln set up a match between himself and the private when both of their regiments had down time from fighting. Unfortunately, much like how Armstrong underestimated Lincoln, Lincoln underestimated Thompson. Though still in his physical prime, Lincoln realized rather quickly after the match began that he was wrestling “a powerful man” in Thompson, and that “the struggle [of winning] was a sever one.”[15] Shockingly, Lincoln for the first time in his career was thrown out of the ring and lost the match. When his men came to the defense of their captain claiming Thompson had cheated, Lincoln laughed and said Thompson won fairly. When asked how did he know, Lincoln simply said, “Why, gentlemen, that man could throw a grizzly bear.”[16]

In retrospect

There is something funny when we read or write about famous historical figures like Abraham Lincoln. For the most part, we think we know everything there is to know about a figure because we have been indoctrinated about the “greatest hits” of these figures. We all know about the stoic Lincoln who unified the Union during the Civil War, freed the slaves, and was assassinated, but we should never think we know everything about someone. Moreover, the importance of Lincoln as a wrestler transcends something more than an interesting tidbit of information about America’s greatest president. Lincoln learned about his own strength and confidence as well as humility through the sport. Writer and historian David Fleming said it best, noting that “when his wrestling skill diminished, Lincoln’s leadership qualities emerged.”[17] Without what he learned from wrestling, Abraham Lincoln would not have been the same man that became America’s sixteenth President.

Do you think Abraham Lincoln’s wresting career was important for his later political career? Let us know below.

 

You can read Brenden’s previous article on US politics: Violence in the Senate – Slavery, Honor and the Caning of Charles Sumner here.

[1] Christopher Klein, “10 Things You May Not Know About Abraham Lincoln,” History.com (A&E Television Networks, November 16, 2012), https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-abraham-lincoln)

[2] Susan Bell, “Lincoln's Looks Never Hindered His Approach to Life or Politics,” USC News (USC, February 19, 2015), https://news.usc.edu/75846/lincolns-looks-never-hindered-his-approach-to-life-or-politics/)

[3] “The Railsplitter: Abraham Lincoln: An Extraordinary Life,” National Museum of American History (National Museum of American History, n.d.), https://americanhistory.si.edu/lincoln/railsplitter)

[4] Bob Dellinger, “Wrestling in the USA,” National Wrestling Hall of Fame (National Wrestling Hall of Fame, n.d.), https://nwhof.org/stillwater/resources-library/history/wrestling-in-the-usa/)

[5] David Fleming, “The Civil Warrior,” Sports Illustrated (Sports Illustrated, n.d.), https://vault.si.com/vault/1995/02/06/the-civil-warrior-on-the-us-frontier-young-abe-lincoln-was-a-great-wrestler-and-sportsman)

[6] Klein, “10 Things You May Not Know About Abraham Lincoln,” https://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-abraham-lincoln

[7] Dellinger, “Wrestling in the USA,” https://nwhof.org/stillwater/resources-library/history/wrestling-in-the-usa/, R.J. Norton, “Abraham Lincoln's Wrestling Match,” Abraham Lincoln Research Site (Abraham Lincoln Research Site, n.d.), https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln48.html)

[8] Norton, “Abraham Lincoln’s Wrestling Match,” https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln48.html

[9] Dan Evon, “Is Abraham Lincoln in the Wrestling Hall of Fame?,” Snopes.com (Snopes.com, n.d.), https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-wrestling-hall-of-fame/

[10] Dellinger, “Wrestling in the USA,” https://nwhof.org/stillwater/resources-library/history/wrestling-in-the-usa/

[11] Dellinger, “Wrestling in the USA,” https://nwhof.org/stillwater/resources-library/history/wrestling-in-the-usa/, Norton, “Abraham Lincoln’s Wrestling Match,” https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln48.html

[12] Norton, “Abraham Lincoln’s Wrestling Match,” https://rogerjnorton.com/Lincoln48.html

[13] Bryan Armen Graham, “Abraham Lincoln Was A Skilled Wrestler And World-Class Trash Talker,” Sports Illustrated (Sports Illustrated, February 12, 2013), https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2013/02/12/abraham-lincoln-was-a-skilled-wrestler-and-world-class-trash-talker)

[14] Evon, “Is Abraham Lincoln in the Wrestling Hall of Fame?,”https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lincoln-wrestling-hall-of-fame/

[15] Ibid.,

[16] Ibid.,

[17] Graham, “Abraham Lincoln Was A Skilled Wrestler and World-Class Trash Talker,” https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2013/02/12/abraham-lincoln-was-a-skilled-wrestler-and-world-class-trash-talker

The Importance Today of Abraham Lincoln’s Perpetual Speech

There seems to be ever-growing division and bitterness in American politics today – but there have been warnings this would happen before. Here, Mac Guffey explains an important speech – the Lyceum Address - by Abraham Lincoln on January 27, 1838.

You can also read Mac’s past articles: A Brief History of Impeachment in the US (here), on Franksgiving (here), the Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War Two (here), and Christmas 1855 in the USA (here).

Abraham Lincoln in the mid-1840s.

One hundred and eighty-one years ago, on a January evening in a small Illinois town, a man talked about the way Democracy will die in America.

It won’t be from another country, he said. “It must spring up from amongst us,” and we, America’s citizens, will be both its author and its finisher, he warned.

The blueprint that he laid out that night for this collapse was two-phased.

The first phase will involve a nation-wide increase of what he called a “mobocratic spirit”. He defined this spirit as a growing propensity for violence, and those people who participate in this violence, he labeled as a “mobocracy”. The effect of this increasing frequency of violence will be a growing indifference - a numbness - by the public as the violence becomes more commonplace.

Therein, he said, lays the beginning of the end for Democracy.

This ‘numbness’ to violence will lead to even more violence by the mobocracy as their fear of the government decreases, and their contempt for its ineptitude grows.

The other effect of the escalating violence, he pointed out, is when the numbness by law-abiding citizens to the frequency of violence now turns to fear – fear for the safety of their person and property. Then he qualified that statement: It’s when the citizens believe their RIGHT to be safe in person and in property is threatened. For that, he predicted, they’ll blame the government.

So, contempt for the government from one faction of citizens and a loss of faith in the government from the other faction creates the “perfect storm” that weakens or destroys any sense of allegiance or support for that form of governance.

At that point, from among us, comes a person who promises to fix the problems.

Driven by a desire for power or fame, this person uses the moment of wavering allegiance to stir up support for another way to run things, to tear down the way it is, and to suggest to our citizens a better way to solve the problems in order to maintain their RIGHT to be safe in person and property.

But this person’s intent is to pull down Democracy - to substitute in its place, something selfish, something self-glorifying, and something non-democratic.

The solution to this human threat, said the speaker, is three-fold: One, our citizens must always be aware that THEY are the weak link in any Democracy. Two, our citizens must remain united with one another and united as a nation. Last, our citizens must maintain their allegiance to and their faith in our way of governing. These steps, he said, will successfully frustrate any person’s designs to interrupt the ‘perpetuation of our political institutions’. [1]

The View Now

In his lecture - that cold winter evening in 1838 - Abraham Lincoln perfectly described the grave threat that currently faces America’s participatory Democracy. As he said then, the responsibility for the perpetuation of our political institutions lies with its citizens. 

Now, it’s up to US to put Lincoln’s solution to work.

What do you think of Abraham Lincoln’s speech? Let us know below.

Works Cited

[1] Lincoln, Abraham. “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions – A speech at the Young Men’s Lyceum”. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln – Vol. 1.New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1953.pp. 109-116.