-
The Prince of Madrid
May 14, 2013 | 3 comments
-
French Fears, French Fantasies
April 30, 2013 | 262 comments
-
The Prince of Monte Carlo
April 23, 2013 | 362 comments
-
Winning and Staying Honest in America’s Game
April 1, 2013 | 1 comment
-
The Kenya Syndrome
March 21, 2013 | 13 comments
Last Call
Abraham Lincoln, Again, and Again
We cannot overstate his importance to America’s destiny.
In the summer of 1864 Lincoln and the Republican stalwarts thought they might lose the November election, and with it the war. The two campaigns were inextricably linked. Without a military breakthrough by Grant in Virginia and Sherman before Atlanta, antiwar sentiment was bound to keep rising in a strong but tired North, while in the exhausted South not losing meant winning. Peace feelers were sent out. The Confederates appreciated their value as instruments of psychological warfare; indeed this was their real purpose. For on substance, the two sides were as far apart as they had been when the war began, with Lincoln defending the abolitionist position and Davis adamant on the bedrock Southern ideology, white supremacy.
In this sense as in so many others—especially, alas, in the way it inaugurated industrial warfare—the American Civil War represents the leapfrogging of the United States ahead of its Old World progenitors. The French Revolution and its war against the monarchial regimes of Europe had invented ideological conflict, as well as mass mobilizations. Waterloo and the Concert of Europe put a brake on this trend but was unable to consign it to the shelf of bad ideas best forgotten.
It may have been, and probably was, a lousy idea, but it could not be forgotten. Too many demons had been let loose. In the American case, a conservative revolution, to secure ancient English rights, was subverted by the institution of slavery and the unwillingness of the revolutionary generation to put an end to it. They outlawed the Atlantic slave trade and hoped, not unreasonably, the expanding continental economy would render the whole wicked thing impractical. Instead, as every schoolboy knows, a man named Eli Whitney invented a machine called the cotton gin and slave labor became economically profitable.
The line from there to the conundrum of the summer of 1864 and its deep and abiding ideological connotations was by no means straight. But we see it that way now. We have to. We make some sense of history, knowing that we do this not because there is any sense in history, but because it is human to do so—otherwise it can only be, as Joyce’s Stephen Dedalus called it, a nightmare from which are trying to awake.
I happen to have been reading James McPherson’s magisterial work of 1988, Battle Cry of Freedom. It is a narrative history, from the Missouri Compromise (1820) to the end of the Civil War, when the American promise was fulfilled. It was fulfilled by the defeat of the Southern slavocracy, the passage of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, and the vision of a “rebirth of freedom,” “with malice toward none.”
It was all so long ago; what meaning can it have to us today? What relevance? What importance?
With understated erudition—he knows everything—and a wonderful story-telling manner, McPherson takes the reader, late in the book, through the hair-raising summer and autumn of ’64, when it really seemed possible that Lincoln would either be repudiated by his own party or would lose to McClellan, the leader of the peace Democrats, and the whole ghastly sacrifice of the past four years would be for naught. It really could have happened. History is not foreordained.
Then Sherman took Atlanta and Lee’s army—or the part of it commanded by Jubal Early—was routed in the Shenandoah Valley by Sheridan in an absolutely extraordinary feat of snatching victory from defeat. The war, in military terms, was over, although it dragged on into the first months of 1865. Lincoln’s re-election was saved, and with it the Union, the end of slavery, and, in fine, America.
What good fortune we had. Had we a James Buchanan or a Martin Van Buren instead of Lincoln, the whole experiment would have most likely crashed and failed.
And Lincoln: “…to General Grant, his skillful officers, and brave men, all [honor] belongs.…” Far be it from him to seek political or any other advantage in a military victory that happened on his watch. In our time, we know what a president does when something good happens despite his helpless, clueless policies, pursued with neither vision nor purpose. In the same speech, Lincoln expanded upon one of the main issues of the forthcoming reconstruction, namely how to integrate the former slaves politically and otherwise. Without rancor and with the utmost common sense, he suggested that white and black find a path toward gradual political equality.
He never played the race card, nor did he ever play the celebrity card. He needed neither, and neither did the country.
About the Author
Roger Kaplan, a Washington-based writer, covers the Middle East and Africa (and tennis) for The American Spectator.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Roger Kaplan
More Articles From Last Call
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/12/abraham-lincoln-again-and-agai
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi| 2.12.13 @ 6:26AM
Another Neoconservative who loves Lincoln. What a surprise. They love a butcher who sacrificed 650,000 young men dead and many more wounded and maimed, while his son was kept safe and out of danger at Harvard. They love Lincoln because he was a lover of big intrusive government. He wanted national greatness at the expense of civil liberties. Our Neoconservative pals want us fighting endless wars for no sane reason, and bring up the ghost of a brutal and criminal Lincoln, as justification. They use his excesses to justify their own criminality. Like Lincoln they want to shredd the Constitution for a better good. Of course they and their kids usually are hidden from any danger of war. War is for minorities and dim witted evangelicals to fight. The Neocon intellectuals like Cheney are to valuble to risk.
Frank Drackman| 2.12.13 @ 7:32AM
JACK YOU...........
umm I can't believe this, I'm actually agreeing with you.
Like they say, even a Homo's clock is right once a day.
Of course maybe listening to tales of my Great Great Great Grand Pappy, Nathan Bedford Forest Menachem Begin Baruch Goldstein Robert E. Lee Jefferson Davis Rosenbaum Maj, CSA, (Ret) has influenced my opinions...
Frank "Madcap" Drackman
Peppermint Tea | 2.12.13 @ 9:13AM
Jack is right. Dammit I hate that when it happens.
Lincoln was a politician. A statesman would have avoided the war, but Lincoln's first month was all about new drapes for the White House.
Michele San Pietro| 2.13.13 @ 8:00AM
Lincoln should be canonized for putting an end to slavery, blacks were simply treated like animals in the South. If we forget his, it means we no longer know who we are, it means that we don't want the truth, that we give up on looking for it.
aware| 2.12.13 @ 7:04AM
"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."
So much for the "He never played the race card" propaganda.
"Had we a James Buchanan or a Martin Van Buren instead of Lincoln, the whole experiment would have most likely crashed and failed."
Or maybe we might never had a horrific war at all? Since you have the gift of knowing what would have happened why not use that power to tell us what will happen now?
"We make some sense of history..." No actually we make convenient myth with a neat beginning, middle, and end. Just like a Hollywood movie. Since when have human affairs been so "neat"? And the sheer arrogance contained in these few words can hardly even be measured. If only we had "wise" people like you then.
Frank Drackman| 2.12.13 @ 7:39AM
"Never Played the Race Card"?!?!?!?!?!?!
What do you call the Emasculation Proclamation? Which "freed" only the Slaves outside of Yankee control, and none of the Slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, (West) Virginia, Maryland, because umm you know, some of the Yankee Soldiers ...
lets just say they weren't exactly enlightened on Racial Equality...
Like MY Great Great Great Uncle Murray Aaron Rothstein Al Capone Meyer Lansky Goldstein Drackman Lt Col USA (courtmartialed) who traded his entire pension for a 400 acre spread in South Georgia, that would have been less than worthless except for the 300 Prime umm lets call them "Undocumented Laborers" that came with it...
Frank
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.12.13 @ 9:24AM
I agree that Lincoln was great, despite the comments of the libertarian and Lew Rockwell loons on this site. However, Lincoln did not support the abolitionist line. Abolitionists were willing to trash the Constitution (a covenant with death, they said), in order to end slavery. Lincoln loved the Constitution too much to follow the abolitionists.
That's why the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the insurrectionary states out of war necessity. Lincoln believed a Constitutional amendment was necessary to free them in the Union states. Would that we had politicians today who respected the Constitution as much as Lincoln did.
AllAmericanAmerican| 2.12.13 @ 12:20PM
So many lies in the first paragraph you have to stop reading. Sherman had a "military breakthrough?" I guess that's what you call waging total war on civilian women, children, old men and (yes) slaves.
The Southern position was white supremacy? Holy flipping cow. Lincoln didn't want slavery to extend out west because he wanted to keep the new territories LILY WHITE. Said so himself.
Good Lord all you Lincoln-lovers CAN NOT SAY A DAMN CRITICAL WORD about Obama. Nothing.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.12.13 @ 12:53PM
What do you mean by "total" war? Are you claiming that Sherman deliberately killed women and children? If so, please provide evidence.
AllAmericanAmerican| 2.12.13 @ 3:45PM
Are you serious man? Do you think the Confederate Army was hanging out in Charleston or Atlanta or Savannah or any and every other place Sherman burned, raped, and looted?
Were they in New Orleans when Lincoln approved General Butler's rape order for the women there?
Good Gawd dude worshiping a myth is one thing, denying reality a COMPLETELY different thing altogether.
C. Vernon Crisler | 2.12.13 @ 6:08PM
How about providing some source documents to prove your assertions about Lincoln, Sherman and Butler? BTW, how many civilians were killed in the burning of Atlanta?
John - The Mighty Fahvaag| 2.12.13 @ 7:12PM
He can't. Sherman's taking of Atlanta, and march both, to the sea, and then north through the Carolinas was a war against... STUFF. His army killed and lost few people, comparatively . His troops burned food stuffs used to support the Confederate troops, they lived off the land, and spent little time dealing with civilians (though their tail of freed escaping slaves was a serious problem and drag on his army's resources.)
Sherman waged war against railroad tracks, fields of grain, farm animals, and manufacturing locations. The numbers of killed and wounded on both sides are open knowledge, and I am not going to spend time linking to them.
Abraham Lincoln was pretty much tied for the greatest President of any century. He held a sovereign nation together even though its constitution was almost shattered by a revolt.
r/John The Mighty Fahvaag
John - The Mighty Fahvaag| 2.12.13 @ 7:13PM
Continued:
The Civil War's proximate, direct, indirect, long term, short term, and overwhelming cause was the Southern Slave States demand to not only retain but spread their reprehensible, evil institution.
Abraham Lincoln was an abolitionist his entire political career. His election triggered the Articles of Secession from each of the rebelling states, and those articles directly state that the reason is the defense of their peculiar institution.
The likes of James M. McPherson, James I. Robertson, and William C. Davis have all stated so, in print. The "Lost Causers" are all wrong, and almost sad.
It's interesting... They're NEOCONS! (Neo Confederates - whose secret desire is that the Copperheads and Peace Democrats would have won, and allowed the South to remain a crippled rural slave state, wallowing in its sinfulness.
I'll take Abe Lincoln any day. We need someone like him again. He saved the nation once. We are going to need to save it again... and I fear soon.
r/TMF
RCV| 2.12.13 @ 7:17PM
There's nothing "AllAmerican" about "AllAmericanAmerican". He's obviously one of those unreconstructed Confederares who hates the UNITED States of America.
Solo| 2.12.13 @ 12:26PM
Lincoln fought the war to preserve the United States.
The south started the war to preserve slavery. Period.
Google "Declaration of Reasons For Secession" and what you'll find is that at least the first 5 southern states to secede stated slavery as their reason and did so within the first paragraph. In some cases within the first sentence.
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
It wasn't about "states rights". IF you still doubt that then read the Confederate Constitution. It required all member states to at least cooperate in the slave trade whether they wanted to or not.
How's that for "State's Rights"?
AllAmericanAmerican| 2.12.13 @ 3:46PM
It's true cuz my history book sez so!!!!!
Good Lawd. Willful ignorance.
Cpm| 2.12.13 @ 12:44PM
Nothing provokes the crazies more than the name "Lincoln", not even Obama. You'd think southerners who weren't even around during the beating would have come to terms with the consequences of their ancestor's evil folly, but they continue to fight the bad fight without learning the lessons of that well deserved thrashing. As for sympathetic northerners, shame on you.
Bob K| 2.12.13 @ 1:18PM
I agree.
I've said it before. These people are the "Minver Cheevy's" of history, pining for a time that never was and never could be,while pissing and moaning about the time they live in and blaming it on the past.
It is, they argue, the past and the age we live in that is out of tune with them.
AllAmericanAmerican| 2.12.13 @ 3:49PM
So setting the record straight means we pine for the 1850s? Wow. Never let it be said that a "conservative" won't stoop to straw man tactics like a good little libtardian statist when one of HIS sacred cows gets the mask torn off of it.
Willful ignorance.
AllAmericanAmerican| 2.12.13 @ 3:48PM
I forget which of Alinsky's rules is the one you just used? You know, name-calling? Ad-hominem attacks on the person instead of addressing the issue?
You gonna watch yer boy tonight?
Cpm| 2.12.13 @ 4:29PM
Lincoln? Obama? Southerner? Northerner?
"Yer boy"? oh, right. Crazy. That's it.
Bob K| 2.12.13 @ 6:15PM
What issues? What happened happened. Live with it!
I won't be watching Obummer tonight but you go right ahead dream boy! Maybe he has something that will solve all the problems the North caused by saving the Union back in bad old Lincoln's day!
Butch| 2.12.13 @ 3:36PM
Lincoln is the godfather of the Leviathan state, and Obama is his direct ideological descendant.
Cpm| 2.12.13 @ 4:32PM
All subsequent presidents are ideological descendants of Lincoln.
Louis Jenkins| 2.12.13 @ 4:36PM
Unfortunately, Butch, you are correct. While Lincoln may have loved the Constitution, he was willing to shred it to keep the United States united. Once his task was finished the great country was united, and could never tolerate separation again, and hasn't. What's worse is Obama who is keenly aware of his power, and how much each state is on the Federal dole.
Jane Chingo| 2.12.13 @ 5:51PM
Lincoln saved the Federal government. He killed the United States. He opened the door for and showed the Shining Path to Wilson, FDR, LBJ, WJC, BOH, and all the others who have done so much to wrap the government around our bowed necks. But you keep right on celebrating amidst the ruins, Mr. Kaplan.
Bob K| 2.12.13 @ 6:26PM
Mr Kaplan,
Next time you write about Lincoln here, do it on a Friday. We can spend the entire weekend laughing at the fools here who think he is the incarnation of the Devil!
Maybe Timmy can even make a contest out of it!
There is nothing like bringing up the name of Lincoln on this web site that will turn turn these dolts; history's half wits, into zombie trolls!
Michael| 2.12.13 @ 6:38PM
Yes, you can overstate it, and you keep doing it. An even greater president was Andrew Johnson, who kept Congress from taking over while cleaning up the mess Lincoln left.
Michele San Pietro| 2.13.13 @ 7:56AM
Abraham Lincoln is to be simply considered holy in my opinion. Thanks to him, the cancer of slavery was eliminated from the south of the United States. And he paid his courage with his own life, since he was assassinated by a redneck just days after the end of the civil war. Thanks, Abe.
RCV| 2.13.13 @ 8:42PM
Amen.
Michele San Pietro| 2.14.13 @ 5:36AM
There's no joking matter... without Abe, there would simply be no United States now.
derfel cadarn| 2.17.13 @ 1:05PM
Yes I would have to agree. Everything that is wrong with American government can be traced back to Lincoln. The Lincoln everyone blathers on about is a figment of their fevered imaginations. What you were taught in school is a LIE. Do some study read his writings they reveal a completely different man. To some up I will use a quote from Tolkein ," the wise speak only of what they know".