Setting the Record Straight on Lincoln, Essay Example

Introduction

It has become common in our contemporary forms of political discourse to engage in two particularly egregious behaviors. The first, and worst of the two is to view virtually every aspect of daily life through the lens of partisan politics. It only takes a few moments of reading through the comments sections of virtually any news story on any website to see conversations quickly devolving into virtual shouting matches between so-called “conservatives” and “liberals.” These labels can be swapped with “republicans and democrats” or “left and right wingers,” but the effect is the same: everything that happens is worth arguing over, every argument has only two ways of looking at it, and woe be to anyone who dares to engage in more reasonable or nuanced discussion.

The second offense, which is nearly as bad as the first, is found in the efforts to revise history by looking at it and analyzing it through the lens of this perverted form of modern politics. Conservatives and liberals accuse each other of revising history to suit their own agendas, and many of these arguments have some basis in fact. One of the larger themes that has come to dominate discussions among revisionist historians is the Civil War. For such revisionists, the Civil War that is taught in most history books was very different from the events that actually took place. There are a range of arguments made in this regard, including the suggestion that slavery was not a central issue in the war and that it was really being fought over stats’ rights and economic issues. In this version of the story, the Southern states were fighting a heroic battle against the tyranny of the federal government, and in some ways that battle is still being fought.

To be fair, it is an oversimplification to say that the Civil War was fought only over the issue of slavery.  There is no question that there were a number of political, social, and economic issues that led to the Civil War. At the same time, it is not just an oversimplification, but an outright lie, to assert that slavery was only a minor issue during the war, or that it was simply the excuse used by President Lincoln to justify his decision to go to war with the Confederate states.   A number of scholars and authors have made the argument that Lincoln was, in fact, a white supremacist, and that the Emancipation Proclamation had little to do with bringing an end to slavery. At the core of such arguments is the notion that the Southern states were victims of Lincoln and of “northern aggression,” and the efforts to rewrite the history of Abraham Lincoln and his presidency are simply a means to the end of winning that argument. Unfortunately for the revisionists, most of what they claim about Lincoln –or about the “real” reasons behind the Civil War- are either entirely false, or are misreading of the facts. It is time to set the record straight on Abraham Lincoln.

The Arguments of the Revisionist Historians

Most of us here grew up learning some basic facts about the Civil War on which we can probably all agree. The presidential election of 1860 saw Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party taking victory. Concerned about the political and economic implications of that victory, a number of Southern states formed a Confederacy and declared their intention to secede from the Union.  There is also not much dispute about the fact that the Northern states and the Southern states were quite different in a number of ways. The northern states were moving closer and closer to a manufacturing-based economic system, while the Southern states maintained an agricultural and agrarian economic system. These economic systems also brought cultural and social differences. For citizens in the Northern states, life often took place in crowded cities and towns, while life in the South was more likely to be lived on plantations and farms.

The Southern states had some legitimate concerns about representation and proportionality in the federal system, and among these concerns was the issue of whether slavery would or would not be permitted in new states as the country continued to expand into western territories. The abolitionist movement had grown fairly strong in the North, and so did opposition to allowing slavery in the new states and territories. Southern farmers and plantation owners, on the other hand, wanted to be able to expand their agricultural systems into the new territories, and the use of slaves was a fundamental component of those systems. That was not the only issue that concerned the Southern states, but it was certainly a significant one. Those that try to argue that the Civil War was about “economics” rather than about slavery are simply ignoring the central role that slavery played in the economies of the Southern states. In other words, it is impossible to have a discussion about the Southern economic systems of the 19^th century without also discussing slavery.

Some of the basic facts about the Civil War may be understood by all sides today, but the arguments made by revisionist historians begin here.  In order to set the record straight on the war, and on Abraham Lincoln, it is first necessary to examine some of the arguments that are currently made by revisionist historians. One of the most well-known of these revisionists is Lerone Bennett Jr., an African American author who wrote a book called “Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream.” In 1968 Bennett wrote an essay entitled “was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist”? In his more recent book, Bennett takes his argument further, and determines that Lincoln was in fact a White Supremacist who did not care about black people and who should not be credited with ending slavery.

There are some things Bennett discusses that do seem –at first, anyway- to support his arguments about Lincoln. Bennett refers to a variety of historical sources to show that Lincoln shared many of the common prejudices white people of that time had about black people. Lincoln was a supporter of abolition in the North, for example, but in the years before the war he still supported segregation between blacks and whites. In his public speech he was known to refer to blacks as “Negros,” which was considered to be the “correct” term for blacks in his day, but he was also known to refer to blacks as “niggers.”  For Bennett, this is evidence that Lincoln looked down on black people and considered white people to be superior. Even more damning, writes Bennett, was the fact that Lincoln actually supported deportation and repatriation to Africa for blacks. It is entirely true and correct to say that Lincoln believed that an end to slavery in the United States might also mean that some blacks would have to be returned to Africa. Again, Benet interprets this to mean that Lincoln was not really a supporter of black people.

Bennett also cites a number of sources that were written by people who knew Lincoln, and who claimed that he was not a wholehearted supporter of abolitionists of the abolition movement. Some of these sources are fairly credible, but at best they only reveal what other people thought about Lincoln’s views. It is true that Lincoln was hesitant to join the abolitionist cause in terms of attempting to end slavery in the South, but he and his party did oppose the expansion of slavery into the new territories. For Bennet, this is evidence that Lincoln did not truly care about the plight of black slaves, and was only concerned with ensuring that the Northern states gained the upper hand in the economic development and political power of the newly-acquired states and territories.

One of Bennett’s central arguments is that the Emancipation Proclamation did not actually free any slaves. And Bennett is absolutely correct about that. In Bennett’s view, the Emancipation Proclamation was really just a tactic Lincoln used to stall the end of slavery, an argument that seems almost ridiculous to anyone who knows history. Bennett goes on to argue that Lincoln’s real purpose for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation was to buy himself time to begin his plans to send blacks in the states to colonies in Africa.

Setting the Record Straight

If we take Bennett’s arguments at face value, it is possible to see that he may have had some significant points to make. Lincoln’s views on race would certainly be considered racist by contemporary standards. On the other hand, it is also just as easy to dismiss him as a crackpot, or at least as an outlier among historians. But he is not the only one who makes these types of arguments about Lincoln. Author and historian Thomas DiLorenzo goes even further than Bennett, and criticizes Lincoln for virtually every action he took during his years as President.  DiLorenzo agrees with Bennett that Lincoln was actually quite bigoted against blacks, and he also agrees that the issue of slavery was mostly a smokescreen Lincoln used to cover his true agenda: centralizing and consolidating power among the Northern states at the expense of the Southern states. According to DiLorenzo, there was no need for a war even if slavery was the reason behind it, because slavery would have ended soon enough anyway.

We saw how Bennett was able to use a number of historical facts and documents to support his claims about Lincoln, and DiLorenzo does the same thing. He cites one example after another that shows Lincoln saying things about black people that would be considered to be incredibly racist today. There are some notable differences between the two books, however. Bennett’s book is concerned primarily with issues relating to race, slavery, and what Bennett believes were Lincoln’s true feelings and true agenda on black people. According to Bennett, Lincoln only saw the issue of slavery in terms of how it could help him keep the Southern states from getting or keeping too much political or economic power. DiLorrenzo takes his arguments against Lincoln to entirely new levels. Because he makes so many claims about Lincoln it would be impossible to list all of them here. It is helpful to consider one of his core arguments against Lincoln: according to DiLorenzo, Lincoln purposefully stated the Civil War solely for the purpose of creating a strong, centralized government, which DiLorenzo claims was in direct opposition to the ideas and ideals the Founding Fathers had about the role of the federal government as described in the Constitution.

So, let’s sum up the main points made by authors such as Bennett and DiLorenzo:

1. Lincoln was not a true supporter of abolition
2. Lincoln was not genuinely concerned with the plight of black people
3. Lincoln was a White Supremacist who wanted to rid the country of black people
4. The Civil War was fought for economic reasons (if you believe Bennett)
5. The Civil War was fought to gain political power (if you believe DiLorenzo)
6. Either way, the Civil War had little or nothing to do with slavery

Now that we have established some of the main points made about Lincoln by the revisionists, let’s look at all the ways that the facts of history prove these arguments wrong.

To begin with, it is important to consider that we have to understand what happened during this period of history in the context of the political, social, and economic realities of the time. It is easy to look back and cherry-pick quotes from Lincoln and say that they prove he was a racist who opposed abolition, but that does not make it true. Yes, some of what he said would be entirely out of place if someone said those things today, but we have to keep in mind that this was the 19^th century, not the 21^st century, and many things have changed since then. What is necessary is to consider Lincoln’s words and actions in the context of his time, and to ask ourselves if they are truly the words and actions of a power-hungry white supremacist.

The answer to that question is a resounding “no!”

Let’s start with addressing Lincoln’s views on race. One of the things that Bennett gets so terribly and completely wrong about Lincoln is his failure to understand or recognize that Lincoln was capable of evolving and learning over the course of his life and political career. Lincoln was born and raised in a time when the common wisdom was that whites were inherently superior to blacks. This was not a matter for discussion or argument; it was something that was simply accepted and taught as fact. So it is hardly surprising that Lincoln was known to have said things about race relations and black people that reflected the prevailing views of the day. What must be acknowledged, however, are the things he did and said in spite of these prevailing views. Lincoln may have supported segregation between blacks and whites on a social level (although such support waned over the course of his life) but social separation is a far cry from outright slavery.

It is also true, as Bennett and DiLorenzo point out, that Lincoln did at times profess support for the idea that blacks should be (or at least could be) sent to colonies in Africa and other regions in an effort to ensure that they had homes in which to live after slavery ended. Does this mean that Lincoln hated black people? Is it evidence that he was a white supremacist? Of course not. If anything, it was simply one of the many things he considered as a means of bringing about a peaceful end to slavery. Lincoln recognized that is tens of thousands of slaves were set free, it would be necessary for American society to find ways to absorb them into new political and economic systems. Should such efforts fail, the results could be catastrophic. So yes, Lincoln did consider the idea that black people might have to be offered the option of leaving America as a means of ensuring political and social stability and peace. This is as far as he went with the idea, however; well before the Civil War had ended, Lincoln had already abandoned any support for colonization.

Lincoln’s supposed lack of support for the abolitionist moment is also not evidence of him being a white supremacist. It is, however, evidence that his primary concern was in maintaining the Union. Lincoln was a true patriot, who loved the United States. The abolitionist movement was determined to wipe out slavery in the South as well as in the North. At the start of the war, at least, Lincoln did not support this, because he knew it would be a guaranteed way to permanently destroy the Union.  What about DiLorenzo’s claims that Lincoln was interested in and responsible for consolidating federal power in a manner that conflicted with the Constitution or the vision of the Founding Fathers? This position is based both on a misreading of Lincoln’s actions and a complete misinterpretation of the country’s history.

This part has to be clear: The Founding Fathers did not have a single, unified vision for the role of the new federal government. Many of the discussions and outright arguments that took place as the Constitution was being written were rooted in the deep divisions between those who wanted the states to maintain the most political power and those who believed that the new federal government must be strong enough to keep the coalition of states from falling apart as quickly as it had come together. This later group became known as the “federalists,” and one of the most important figures I the federalist movement was the man who won the Revolutionary War and earned the name “the Father of our Country.” George Washington was one of the staunchest federalist, and he firmly believed that the new central government needed to have the power to raise taxes, maintain military forces, and guide the young nation with a strong and steady hand. It is DiLorenzo, not Lincoln, whose vision of the Constitutional powers of government conflicts with facts and history.

Summation and Conclusion

The bottom line is that Lincoln’s greatest interest was in keeping the Union, which had survived for a century, from crumbling. And yes, there were moments where his comments about race, or his decisions about black people were entirely pragmatic, and where he put the concerns of free blacks and slaves behind the larger concerns of maintaining the Union. He never opposed the abolition of slavery; he simply wished to ensure that it did not happen so quickly that it tore the country apart. He did at times offer support for repatriation and colonization, but only to the degree that it might help maintain a peaceful nation. He did not rush to war solely to grab federal power; he did so only after the stability of the Union was threatened by secession. None of these things mean that Lincoln was a perfect President, nor do they mean that the Southern states were villains who went to war just to keep their slaves. What they mean is that life then, as now, was often a complicated and messy affair. Revisionist historians like Bennett and DiLorenzo do no one any good by oversimplifying or rewriting the history of Abe Lincoln and the Civil War.

They are, of course, not the only ones who have tried to rewrite Abe Lincoln’s story. It seems as if revisionist historians have been having a field day with Lincoln’s life in recent years. In almost every instance, these historians make some of the same simple but critical errors, including their failure to place facts in their proper historical context.

One of the strangest and most amusing stories being passed around a about Lincoln in recent years is the assertion that he was secretly homosexual. The supposed evidence for this claim includes stories about Lincoln routinely sharing a bed with a male friend when he was a young lawyer who traveled frequently. Other so-called evidence includes letters that Lincoln and his friend wrote to each other, in which they professed their intimate affection for each other. Just as Lincoln’s words about blacks and slavery can be taken out of context to make him appear to be a raving racist, other words and actions can also be taken out of context. In our modern culture it would be highly unusual for two straight men to regularly share a bed or write affectionate letter to each other. In Lincoln’s time, however, such things were quite common. It must be remembered that society was quite different a century and a half ago, and women played much smaller roles in the general public arenas of business, politics, and economic affairs. The very nature of male friendships was markedly different at the time. Lincoln’s words and actions only appear odd to many of us when taken out of their appropriate context; once we realize that it was common for straight men to interact in such a manner, Lincoln’s behavior no longer seems indicative of some great secret about his sexuality.

In fact, such incorrect interpretations of history might seem amusing if they weren’t symptomatic of a more serious problem. In the age of the Internet, as we are overwhelmed with information, it can be difficult to separate myth from truth, and fact from fiction. All too often when we hear something that seems to fit with or support the things we believe –or at least the things we want to believe- we accept that information as fact. It may seem counterintuitive, but having too much information can make it harder to get to the truth. We live in a period of history where discussions become battles, and differences of opinion become full-blown arguments. We have a responsibility to ourselves –and to the truth- to make sure that we do not place ideology above the facts of history. Despite what some revisionist historians assert, Abraham Lincoln was not a Marxist, socialist, racist homosexual bent on usurping the power of the states. He was merely a man who saw the United States of America threatening to come part at the seams, and who did what he could to make sure that did not happen.