A Peacetime Lincoln

[pamc153PA]

I was browsing through the NY Times articles archives on Civil War-related topics and came on an editorial by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. entitled "A Pragmatic Precedent," comparing Lincoln and Obama. A line from the article caught my attention:

"A peacetime Lincoln would have been no Lincoln at all."

To me, it sounds too--pardon the expression--black and white, sort of a sweeping generalization. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Pam

 

[Elennsar]

Disagree. Lincoln probably would not shine as brightly - crisis called for him to rise to the occasion and rise he did - but I doubt he'd be "Who?"

Too hard to tell though. What would have happened worth noting if not for the Civil War is a hard question to answer.

 

[Freddy]

I was browsing through the NY Times articles archives on Civil War-related topics and came on an editorial by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. entitled "A Pragmatic Precedent," comparing Lincoln and Obama. A line from the article caught my attention:

"A peacetime Lincoln would have been no Lincoln at all."

To me, it sounds too--pardon the expression--black and white, sort of a sweeping generalization. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Pam

I wonder what the good professor bases his opinion on here? Speculation? Clairvoyance? He does have a Ph.D in English, but not in History.

 

[pamc153PA]

As I recall from the article (don't have it here in front of me), he was trying to make the point that a president needs a national "trial by fire" of sorts, such as Lincoln had the Civil War, in order to be hailed as a great leader. In the comparison between Obama and Lincoln, Gates wasn't saying he wished that on Obama, just that that was his opinion (not mine).

Pam

 

[Glorybound]

"A peacetime Lincoln would have been no Lincoln at all."
Pam

I think the author's kind of putting himself out on a limb to some extent, with no way of knowing what kind of crises would confront Lincoln. The country being as young as it was in 1860, and as small as it was, there are probably numerous domestic, economic, foreign predicaments besides civil war that could have befallen it. Maybe a more established foreign power would want to test this new form of government again, and in an imperialistic impulse, knowing what a small army the young country had for its defense, attack it and try to conquer it.

Regardless of the problem or catastrophy Lincoln would have stepped up and been able to 'Lincolnize' the problem, bring the Lincoln intellect, knowledge, communication skills, patience, to the table, just as he did for the Union in its ordeal.

Freddy's right the prof can only speculate, and it's quite easy to hypothesize 150 years after the fact and try to guess what kind of president Lincoln would have been without the rebellion. I mean, who's going to say he's wrong? The best we can do is speculate too.







Lee

 

[Elennsar]

Well, I suppose you could say that we would only notice he was a great leader if something happened that showed those qualties - to quote Scott Adams: "(T)he only reason for leadership is to convince people to do things that are either dangerous (like invading another country) or stupid (working hard without extra pay)." (Don't Step in the Leadership was published in 1999, for the curious).

That being said, that doesn't mean Lincoln wouldn't do anything worth being remembered for, which was the initial impression I had of what he (Gates) meant.

 

[Leah's Choice]

This is supposition, of course, but I think that war or no war, Lincoln would have managed to put an end to slavery, and for that he would have been, and always will be, remembered.