Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
In looking at some of Lincoln's speeches and the "evolution" of what might have been his thought process, these things stand out in my mind. Certain members here have suggested that Lincoln did indeed evolve, implying of course that he became a better man, a better politician. It is my contention that Lincoln decided much much earlier than Sumter that he wanted war.
Everyone knows that in the political arena, timing is everything. For instance, Lincoln's "House Divided" speech was delivered at 8:00 p.m, 6/16/1858 after he'd been chosen by the Republicans as their candidate for the Senate, around 5:00 p.m. that day. It was considered a very radical speech. http://showcase.netins.net/web/creat...ches/house.htm
Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict" speech was given the following October of the same year. http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~rpekarek/sewardic.html His last paragraph tells us his intentions in no uncertain terms: I know, and you know, that a revolution has begun. I know, and all the world knows, that revolutions never go backward. Twenty senators and a hundred representatives proclaim boldly in congress to-day sentiments and opinions and principles of freedom which hardly so many men, even in this free state, dared to utter in their own homes twenty years ago. While the government of the United States, under the conduct of the democratic party, has been all that time surrendering one plain and castle after another to slavery, the people of the United States have been no less steadily and perseveringly gathering together the forces with which to recover back again all the fields and all the castles which have been lost, and to confound and overthrow, by one decisive blow, the betrayers of the constitution and freedom forever.
When, on the day that John Brown was hanged, Dec. 2, 1859, Lincoln said: "We cannot object, though he agreed with us that slavery was wrong" but if "you" try to destroy the Union unlawfully it will be "our" duty to deal with "you" as John Brown has been dealt with. Did he mean to hang ALL the people in the Southern states? (Please note the use of "you", "our" and "we".) In Lincoln's mind, two full years before secession, the split was complete! Nothing remained but war. In less than three months Lincoln made his "Cooper Union" speech in New York, Feb. 27, 1860, with its ringing "Right makes Might!". The punch line of the speech, "Do our duty as we understand it", how is this to be interpreted? Does he mean destroy the South? http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cooper.htm
What else could these words possibly have meant? To my mind this was a step by step build-up for war. It certainly made no effort to ease the tensions building between North and South.
Compare these words with those of Jefferson Davis, who in 1848 told the Senate, "If folly and fanaticism" bring about a separation of the two sections of the country, "may no wounds be inflicted that time may not heal!"
And when war did come Davis tried to fight a defensive war to prove to the world that the South had no aggressive intentions. Lincoln took a different tact. In his Gettysburg address he implied that the Confederacy was not only trying to destroy the Union but the entire British Commonwealth of Nations. Why else say "testing whether this or any nation so conceived and so dedicated" could long endure? Would "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" (a 400 year old phrase) have "perished from the earth" if the South had won her independence? I think not.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
Thea, considering the circumstances under which the Gettysburg Address was written, I tend to doubt that Lincoln was intentionally trying to use the speech as a major foreign policy address, designed to convince John Bull that the Confederacy had grandiose plans to overthrow the British Empire.
As I recall, Lincoln wrote the speech hurriedly on the back of an envelope. As he said in the speech itself, he did not expect that it would receive much attention or be remembered for very long. When the speech was over, he expressed dissatisfaction with it. He is reputed to have muttered to an associate, "That speech won't scour."
Of course, Edward Everett preceded Lincoln with a massive oration, about which very little is remembered except its length. I'd hate to think about all the things Everett might have said that the Confederates might have found not to their liking.
I'm really suprised that there was suprise to the Federal reaction to the firing on of Ft Sumter. There was plenty of precedent... much of it encouraged by Southern Lawmakers and politicians w/ the Federal reaction to John Browns Harpers Ferry Raid. Is their really reason to believe the US should have reacted differently to the CS than it did to John Brown? Should Lincoln have reacted to an attack by rolling over and allowing the dismantling of the nation he had just sworn an oath to protect? Should he have abandoned and betrayed his oath before God as Jeff Davis had? The steadiness of Lincoln is a large part of the reason I think him to have been a great man. His speches never held a note of shrill invective, he never seemed to panic or lose hope even in the face of the crushing disasters that befell the AoP. Tenacity, courage, honor, and integrity all aspects of Lincoln that made him a superb leader of the United States. He was no Neville Chamberlain.
Neo CSers seem enthusiastic about condeming the action of John Brown and his cronnies, as should any reasonable person as it was clear cut treason against Virginia and the US. Though, when it comes to firing upon Ft Sumter; a clear cut declaration of War, there is shock that Lincoln should react with anything but a thank you very much Mr Davis may I have another. Whether against their own sovereign nation or against a foreign power it was a clear and obvious declaration of War. As was the earlier seizing of numerous forts, mints, commerce cutters, arsenals etc... I believe it to have been more of a "straw that broke the camels back" than a first action blown all out of proportion by Lincoln.
No men were killed during the action from either side; yet territory was seized, men were fired upon w/ intent to kill. If no ships had been sunk and no men killed at Pearl Harbor would it still have been a declaration and act of War by the Japanese?
Calculated political movements? Perhaps, but as I do not believe Davis to have been a novice politician I do not believe he was so easily manipulated by Lincoln. Davis was neither a fool nor naive. In fact I am inclined to believe the reverse and a massive under estimation of Lincoln by Davis and his cabinet is what took place.
Lincolns evolution of thought, maturity and outlook is obvious with any study of his speeches from his earliest work as a lawyer to his last public speech before his death. He learned from his mistakes and his successess; he refused to dwell upon his failures and let them overcome him; instead he built upon his failures and counquered them. He rose from his failures and never seemed to make the same mistake twice.
He was a politician, shocking that there was politics in his actions; but no more so than others and considerably less than some.
I believe the "Our" and "we" references the United States and the "you" references any who would attack her. Thea I believe, at least I hope, you know he had no intention of hanging "all" in the South. Especially, as he was not unaware of the sizeable parts of the south that were pro United States. It was not a cut and dried North vs South conflict as some would have us believe. There were pro CSers in Illinois, Ohio, Iowa and every other state in the Union. There was sizeable pro USers in Alabama, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee and what would become West Virginia.
I have absolutely no idea where it can be construed thet "Right makes might" somehow means that the South must be subdued... is the incense from the Davis shrine in your library clouding judgement more than usual?
""If folly and fanaticism" bring about a separation of the two sections of the country, "may no wounds be inflicted that time may not heal!"" Davis was right, his actions were based upon folly and fanaticism and I do believe time has healed many of those wounds... though there are some that hate so much that they won't let time heal them.
It is ironic that the big percentage of Southern men who actually were on the sharp end got along better with their counterparts on the other side of the line after the war than the stay behinders ever did. It really isn't hard to see why; they had shared common hardships and knew the other side had suffered as they. Yet the stay behinders... there is an interesting theory there that I can't quite put from brain to keyboard. The Southern leadership failed their soldiers and their people, not the Southern soldier. The CS was defeated by two things, their own political leadership and the US Army and Navy.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
The Gettysburg Address indicated somewhere in it's content that the Confederacy was trying to destroy the British Commonwealth of Nations?
Where in that speech did it claim such? Or even implied it?
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I have long been fascinated by President Lincoln as a human being, brilliant lawyer, gifted wordsmith, and political leader of the nation at the time of the Civil War. But I'm particularly interested in President Lincoln as a man and how he overcame insurmountable odds to harvest the most powerful position in the United States of America.
To rise above the asperous conditions that he did as a child (poverty, dismal and primitive cabin life, death of his mother at ten, harsh beatings at the hands of his father) was no easy feat and I have the greatest admiration for Abraham Lincoln in this regard. I marvel at the early thoughts and dreams that must have filled the President's head as a young boy, and what/who instilled the driving ambition and thirst for knowledge that was apparent even at a young age.
To far surpass his early beginnings in life and become a lawyer would have been challenge enough, but to further seek advancement and eventually become the most powerful man in the country, took tremendous determination, intelligence, and focus.
Many biographers agree that President Lincoln's dark moods and depression became worrisome to his friends at times, and he has often been described as a cold man - emotionally distant to the point where he even addressed his wife as "Mrs. Lincoln." But even this is not surprising to me given the President's initial introduction to life.
Having said the above, it is Lincoln's 'evolution' into brilliant and shrewd lawyer, manipulative politician, and the President's few years in office that are mostly interesting to me, because the final transformation was substantial.
I have the same issues with the Gettysburg Address that you do Thea and whether this speech was hastily written on the back of a torn piece of paper or agonized over for hours, is irrelevant. The end result was still a poetic, succinct, and moving speech, which very much served the President's purpose.
I am fascinated by President Lincoln's use of language in all of his speeches and I consider the President's 2nd Inaugural to be his most brilliant masterpiece. Placed in the context of the time, it clearly demonsrated how President Lincoln sought to shape public sentiment through the power of carefully crafted rhetoric, and this speech was not what the public expected. It was essentially a relgious approach to political issues, but I suppose again this was another 'growth experience' for the President, since his early beliefs were very much of an athiest nature. And then there is the timing of the E.P.
But again, with respect to the Gettysburg Address, what I truly can't seem to reconcile is how a nation can be "conceived in liberty" when it is done so at the point of a bayonet.
The noted historian Kenneth Stampp discussed the "Lincoln wanted war" meme in one of his essays in "The Imperiled Union" and found it overblown. During the period from his election through Sumter, Lincoln was remarkably consistent. He said over and over again that he would not allow the seizure and destruction of Federal property. He was prepared to give on many things, but that was not negotiable. Stampp concluded that Lincoln was probably not optimistic that war could be avoided, although he hoped to avoid it by making himself clear. On the other hand, if Federal property were seized, Lincoln was prepared to go to war if necessary.
The lame-duck, Buchanan, understandably waited for Lincoln to take over and did zip while the Confederacy was acquiring Federal property. When Lincoln took office, he put a stop to it -- or at least said, "no more."
He was consistent in his communications directed at the south. I agree that he kept trying to assure those states that he meant no interference with the peculiar institution where it existed. He made that clear in his inaugural, as well as that he would, according to his constitutional requirements, collect the duties due the Federal Government.
For further evidence of his consistency, DO re-read his Cooper Union Address in its entirety. Masterful. He set up a theme and repeated it frequently (the rules of presentation, even in this day of PowerPoint and other visual aids, require repitition and parallel language) for both emphasis and focus on his primary point.
Dawna, this is not manipulative speech. It is clarity -- something for which he ought to get credit. He went for clarity, not eloquence, but he got both.
I actually had the nerve to read some non-Civil War books. Inspired by Cozzens' biography of John Pope, I took a detour to read Robert Utley's volumes on the Frontier (Indian) Wars 1848-1891. Since it's summer, I've also resumed my futile attempts to hit a golf ball.
I've now begun David Potter's classic "The Impending Crisis 1848-1861" -- one of those books you know is magnificent after you've read the first 20 pages. I'm about 150 pages in. His discussions about what caused the War in general and the milestones in the process such as the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850 are simply astounding and eye-opening. I may try to post a more thorough review after I'm finished, but it's already clear to me that anyone interested in understanding the causes of the War MUST read Potter's book. I'll withhold judgment on President Buchanan until I finish!
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
LINCOLN'S MOTIVES ...just a few thoughts 
Linear Mode
