A friend of mine recently selected Abraham Lincoln as the worst American president in that Top 5 category on Facebook. That’s a selection that would be jarring to the majority of Americans.
As we near the first 100 days of the current president from Illinois (which 100 days The Onion is humorously documenting), the comparison of Obama to Lincoln, which has been made many times, might need to be met not only with a dose of reality about the consequences of current policy, but with a more sobering look at Lincoln himself.
Front Porch Republic has a well-balanced article on Lincoln that would be a good intro to the not-so-shiny perspective on Lincoln. An excerpt:
The Northern victory, which Lincoln secured by resorting to total war against southern civilians, unleashed a devastating assault on a Jeffersonian version of agrarianism that connected happiness and human well being to real communities and real places. Liberty, as defined in terms of “improvement” and “mobility,” has resulted in a rootless cosmopolitanism that has produced millions of people who claim to “love humankind,” but who do not live in one place long enough to know, let alone “love,” their neighbor. Moreover, the national infrastructure built to connect people and unify the nation economically and culturally has come at the expense of the environment. The result of a “Whig” economy has produced an ever-expanding commercialism that tempts people with products to fulfill their every desire, all in the very American quest to “pursue happiness.” Such consumer capitalism makes it all the more difficult for Americans to practice virtues of self-restraint. (emphasis added)
On a related note, all this talk of secession lately brought about an interesting and accurate response from Ron Paul:
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
You wouldn’t be talking about my rating of Lincoln, would you?
The very same!
“The Northern victory, which Lincoln secured by resorting to total war against southern civilians, unleashed a devastating assault on a Jeffersonian version of agrarianism that connected happiness and human well being to real communities and real places. ”
Just reading a small segment of the excerpt from Front Porch Republic makes me question how well-balanced the article is.
The war from Lincoln’s point of view was initially about preserving the Union… The “Jeffersonian version of agrarianism” may have connected the happiness and well-being of moderately wealthy white farmers to real communities and real places, but what of the other population? The Jeffersonian model was only idyllic for a few.
Beth, he addressed that issue in the last paragraph of the article. (One usually has to read an entire article, not just “a small segment of one excerpt”, to decide if it’s “well-balanced” or not.) That would be a huge critique of mine, and I likely wouldn’t have linked it, had the writer not addressed it.
All I will do is recommend Thomas Dilorenzo’s books on Lincoln _The Real Lincoln_ & _Lincoln Unmasked_.
As someone with a degree in History I think Dilorenzo has done his research well & is not merely engaging in revisionism or conspiracy theories. His research is very thorough.
Travis, you’re absolutely right and I apologise for firing off a comment without reading the entire article. The comment about Lincoln resorting to war against “civilians” to secure a Northern victory didn’t sit too well with me ,although I suppose, in retrospect, it was no different than decisions made regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sacrificing in order to ultimately save…
revgeorge, I will look into the books you mentioned. They sound interesting. I know Lincoln was a more controversial figure in his lifetime than modern/popular history often paints him. I’d be interested in hearing more about why you think him the worst president, but perhaps the books will at least partially answer that question?
Beth, yes, the books should go a long way to answering the questions on Lincoln. But I put Lincoln as the worst president because essentially he destroyed the Union to save the Union. Which means he didn’t really save the Union at all. He saved the geographic political unit called the Union but destroyed most of what it had stood for & basically overthrew the principles on which the Union had been founded.
Unfortunately, the evil institution of slavery complicated the whole issue & gave a causus belli or at least a good cover story after the war was all over, but Dilorenzo shows quite well that Lincoln was never really about ending slavery or freeing the slaves. At least not until it was very politically expedient for him to do so.
I’ll have to get my hands on those books, too.
Beth, I completely understand your initial response, and I get just as fired up when people pine for “good old days when…,” and forget that terrible injustices existed, and the days were only “good” for the privileged few.
I just don’t think Lincoln’s solution was the right one. We remain one of the only (the only? I can’t remember now) nations that needed a civil war to end slavery.