Was Abraham Lincoln a divisive President?

[kentuck]

I have never thought about it much. I always assumed he was perhaps our greatest president. He saved the union, right. He freed the slaves, right. But, did he really?

I was just reading "The People's History Of The United States" by Howard Zinn. He has a chapter called "The other Civil War" in the book. In it, he describes the class warfare that was going on from 1839 up to the Civil War. He describes the laws passed by Congress and signed by Lincoln that gave everything to Big Business and the wealthy and how all the history books written mostly dwelled on the elections , slavery, etc.

I have no way of knowing but what I have read about Lincoln. But the victors write the history books. Zinn describes how the slaves were working for .20 cents per day for board but how the poor whites were working for only .30 cents per day. It was class warfare as never before seen in America. There were strikes and labor unrest North and South. However, the War took their minds off of that...

Zinn also mentions that there may have been up to 220,000 political prisoners under Lincoln. We know about the suspension of "habeus corpus". However, it is well documented that 2/3 of all Southerners had no slaves. Interesting read.

[Kickoutthejams23]

1. Yes he was a divisive president.

His election spurred secession and the Civil War. Kinda of a benchmark really.

[yellowcanine]

21. "His election spurred secession"? Even if that were true, it hardly

proves the premise that Lincoln was a divisive president. The South seceeded before Lincoln was inaugurated. How could secession be attributed to his "divisive presidency"???? Besides, the fact that the South did not even wait to see how Lincoln would govern suggests that the election of Lincoln was more of an excuse than a cause for secession. After all, the South was seceeding based on the results of a democratic election. The times were divisive, not Lincoln.


Civil War Timeline
January 1861 -- The South Secedes.
When Abraham Lincoln, a known opponent of slavery, was elected president, the South Carolina legislature perceived a threat. Calling a state convention, the delegates voted to remove the state of South Carolina from the union known as the United States of America. The secession of South Carolina was followed by the secession of six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- and the threat of secession by four more -- Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These eleven states eventually formed the Confederate States of America.

February 1861 -- The South Creates a Government.
At a convention in Montgomery, Alabama, the seven seceding states created the Confederate Constitution, a document similar to the United States Constitution, but with greater stress on the autonomy of each state. Jefferson Davis was named provisional president of the Confederacy until elections could be held.


February 1861 -- The South Seizes Federal Forts.
When President Buchanan -- Lincoln's predecessor -- refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states, southern state troops seized them. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops repulsed a supply ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort. The ship was forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.


March 1861 -- Lincoln's Inauguration.
At Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, the new president said he had no plans to end slavery in those states where it already existed, but he also said he would not accept secession. He hoped to resolve the national crisis without warfare.

April 1861 -- Attack on Fort Sumter.
When President Lincoln planned to send supplies to Fort Sumter, he alerted the state in advance, in an attempt to avoid hostilities. South Carolina, however, feared a trick; the commander of the fort, Robert Anderson, was asked to surrender immediately. Anderson offered to surrender, but only after he had exhausted his supplies. His offer was rejected, and on April 12, the Civil War began with shots fired on the fort. Fort Sumter eventually was surrendered to South Carolina.

April 1861 -- Four More States Join the Confederacy.
The attack on Fort Sumter prompted four more states to join the Confederacy. With Virginia's secession, Richmond was named the Confederate capitol.

[Kickoutthejams23]

26. Divisive isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I mean Jesus was a divisive Jew. It simply means people took sides sometimes violently for or against. I feel Lincoln certainly fits that bill more than anyone. And thank God because of he wasn't who knows how much longer slavery would have lasted.

[yellowcanine]

33. Yes but your reason for saying he was "divisive" is flawed. I would

agree that Lincoln was divisive but secession is not proof of it nor did his divisiveness cause secession. That's all.

[Yupster]

39. Yeah - divisive president

is Lincoln. Civil War and all.

[Caoimhe]

2. Read Gore Vidal's "Lincoln"

It really goes into the details of the Lincoln presidency. There was much corruption. Samuel Chase was quite a character, and of course we all know Abe's wife was crazy. Abe was far from perfect, he really had no interest in granting rights to African Americans (in fact he wanted to send them all to Central America after the war, to form their own colony and get out of the white people's hair so to speak)

I think every figure in history should be judged by the circumstances of their times. So often we hear the good and not the bad, and we hold these people up on impossibly high pedestals, when in fact they were very human, and so often very corruptable.

[kywildcat]

3. Hey Kentuck...always look forward to your posts..anyway

Had American History in college. Our professor spoke of Lincoln playing to both sides of the fence. This professor showed many instances of Lincoln adjusting his speeches to what part of the country he was stumping in. Also said Lincoln was the consumate politician. For whatever reason, this lectured stayed with me all these years because it blew apart everything I had learned in High School about the Civil War and specifically Lincoln.

[kentuck]

6. Thank you wildcat...

What County are you in? :)

[kywildcat]

7. Kenton....you?

[kentuck]

8. Bell...

originally. Now living in Colorado.

[michreject]

42. Cool

I was raised in Middlesboro.

[bryant69]

4. I don't put much stock in Zinn - he has some good points

but needs to be read along with other histories (ones without a political ax to grind).

That said, of course Lincoln was a divisive president. He divided the country - he was a great man, but he was not a flawless man - if he had lived it's unclear what his legacy would be. Unforunately Booth bestowed secular sainthood on him so it is hard to look at him unfiltered.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[SaveElmer]

5. Read more...Zinn is a good historian...but

He is a well known revisionist and contrarian, and is subject to valid criticism...

You need to take a look at works on Lincoln by many different historians and make up your own mind about it...

[Nozebro]

9. How are you defining "divisive"? As an atty, A.L. represented

big business (Railroads). It's unrealistic to expect ANYONE in this country to become President and NOT
be a part of the class warfare struggle that favors the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. Of course, to "get away with that" you have to be a good liar and you need a Rove-like mind (or person) to come up with wedge issues to keep the public's attention away from what you're up to. The main reason why "they" are able to stay ahead in the class war (rich v. everyone else) is the corporate media, and you have to admit they do an outstandingly effective job.

[ryanus]

10. He caused a division

He himself I don't think was divisive, but his position on slavery was. He was anti-slavery, although it is not clear that he had any plan to deal with slavery if he were elected president. Southern states were particularly watchful as to who would be the next president, and when they saw that it was going to be Lincoln, they started to withdraw from the Union because of what they feared an anti-slavery president would do.

It was about slavery, and state rights. Do the states have the right to choose whether they would allow slavery or not? That was it. Slavery did weird things with the economics of some industries, like cotton, because forced labor doesn't fit in so well in market price calculations. But I don't think big business had much to do with the Civil War. If anything, abolishing slavery would mess up the South's economy. Zinn looks at the world in a weird way, in my opinion. I've read some of his books, too. And He's got some good points, but he really tries hard to make history appear to be only about the rich abusing the poor and the rich writing the history books. There are way more dynamics at play than that.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Lincoln Had A Simple Plan - One Which We Can Learn Much From

Lincoln's plan to deal with slavery if elected President was to enforce the Constitution.

Lincoln hated slavery - that could not be more clear from his speeches, and from his being a founder of the anti-slavery party (the Republicans).

However, he loved the Constitution even more than he hated slavery - he considered our Republic and its Constitution to be "the last best hope of earth".

Lincoln had exited politics years before running for the Presidency. He returned as a response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a blatantly unconstitutional act allowed by a corrupt Supreme Court which permitted slavery in the new Kansas Territory.

Lincoln pledged that, if elected president, he would simply uphold the Constitution - new territories would not be permitted to have slavery, but the current slave states would continue to be maintain their status.

The South seceded upon Lincoln's election, claiming interference with state's rights - and the rest is history.

For an incredible book on the topic, I recommend "Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America" by Gary Wills.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Lincoln Had A Simple Plan - One Which We Can Learn Much From

Lincoln's plan to deal with slavery if elected President was to enforce the Constitution.

Lincoln hated slavery - that could not be more clear from his speeches, and from his being a founder of the anti-slavery party (the Republicans).

However, he loved the Constitution even more than he hated slavery - he considered our Republic and its Constitution to be "the last best hope of earth".

Lincoln had exited politics years before running for the Presidency. He returned as a response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a blatantly unconstitutional act allowed by a corrupt Supreme Court which permitted slavery in the new Kansas Territory.

Lincoln pledged that, if elected president, he would simply uphold the Constitution - new territories would not be permitted to have slavery, but the current slave states would continue to be maintain their status.

The South seceded upon Lincoln's election, claiming interference with state's rights - and the rest is history.

For an incredible book on the topic, I recommend "Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America" by Gary Wills.

[IrateCitizen]

11. Zinn is extremely slanted, and not entirely accurate

I very much admire him for telling the "other" side of US history, and he was a primary influence in starting me down the path to becoming a historian myself. However, when it comes to US history of the Civil War and prior, Zinn is not exactly recognized as the foremost historian out there.

Lincoln is an intriguing figure because he wrote and said so little compared to other Presidents. To say he was divisive was an understatement. He was elected President while appearing on the ballot only in the Northern states. He presided over a north that was divided between those who wanted an end to slavery and accommodationists within the Democratic Party (he actually tried to have a Rep from OH "deported" to the Confederacy for his open support of their cause). And within his own party, there was significant division between "free-soil" moderates and anti-slavery radicals.


All of this being said, a better source of information about Lincoln from a historical perspective is Eric Foner of Columbia. His magnum opus is the book Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution. I have read the short version, but plan to wade through the full volume in the near future. But one thing that I have concluded in my limited study of Lincoln is that he was the greatest President we ever had, if for nothing else his humility. In reading his statements, he is completely lacking in self-aggrandizement and repeatedly states that he holds forth the possibility that he could be proven wrong in the future. He displays an inquiring and open mind that, in today's politics, is a rarity. Also, on the issue of his attitude toward African-Americans, an important point of note is the vote he cast against punishing anti-slavery agitators while a member of the Illinois State Legislature -- a vote in which he was only 1 of 6 or 7 against. While Lincoln displayed an appalling racism by today's standards, the truth is that he was willing to go further to work against slavery than most other politicians of his age.

Another thing to remember about his divisiveness is that one of the prominent New York newspapers of the time (I can't recall which one) actually had Karl Marx submitting guest columns on the European perspective of the American Civil War. On January 2, 1863, in reviewing Lincoln's Emancipation Proclimation, Marx declared that the war had passed over into a full-blown revolution. And in studying the Civil War and Reconstruction, I fully agree with that sentiment -- it was, in fact, a social revolution much more than the War of Independence, which did little to upset the existing social order. Keeping this in mind, if you can cite for me a single instance of revolution in which there was NOT significant divisiveness, I'm all ears....

[kentuck]

12. Long time, no see, IC..

:) Was the Emancipation Proclamation meant to "free the slaves" or just a political gimmick in the middle of the war, meant to further divide the South? Just one of the many questions I now ask myself...

[IrateCitizen]

18. It's not that simple of a question...

Lincoln absolutely hated slavery. He viewed it as a gross violation of the "free soil, free labor and free men" principle upon which the Republican Party was initially founded. The reason that the South seceded in 1861 after his election was not because Lincoln indicated that he wanted to end slavery, but because they realized that the spread of slavery would be halted, which would erode southern power in the Senate and eventually end slavery itself. Lincoln said something to the effect that he expected it to end in about 100 years.

Lincoln also expressed his deep-seated disdain for slavery in a letter he wrote to his closest personal friend, Josh Speed, describing the revulsion he felt in having to view men in bonds during a steamboat trip they shared down the Ohio River. He described the experience as reaching to his very core.

It is important to remember that, at the beginning of the Civil War, four slave states (KY, MD, DE and MO) were in the union -- even if in the case of MD it was against their will. For Lincoln to immediately issue an Emancipation Proclimation would have been to lose those states, and most likely the Civil War. It is also important to note that the Proclimation, as written, actually freed NOBODY. However, in my view there is little denying that Lincoln wanted an end to slavery, and once he realized that the political conditions could support such a bold move, he took that step. He also had the opportunity to do so at this time because it was a war measure in his capacity as CinC.

The most important thing that Lincoln's proclimation did was it freed the North to wage total war upon the South. Previously, the goal was reconciliation and bringing the union back together. As of 1/1/1863, the goal became the complete destruction of Southern slave society. Hence, the accuracy of Marx's assessment.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Hey I/C. Welcome Back

How have you been?!?!? Glad to have you back.
The Professor

[liberalpragmatist]

16. Interesting. Thanks!

I'm not a historian, though I like reading history quite a bit. I realize this may not be your area of expertise, but I have a few questions. If you could answer them, that'd be great, but if not I understand.

Were the ways that Lincoln could have avoided the Civil War, such as having a Southerner on his ticket or pledging to appoint Southerners to his cabinet? Or was anti-Republican sentiment so great that there was little he could do?

Second, would you rate the Republican Party of his day better on "class" issues than the Democrats of his day? I know that several Radical Republicans were openly skeptical of capitalism. Also, while it could be argued that the Lincoln Republicans were too linked to the railroads, their development was a huge driver of economic expansion. Business was also in not nearly as favorable a position as it is today. Business and merchants were the middle-class, not the elite, which were mainly the large landowners in the South and the business climate was far more restricted than later. Is my reading of this correct? And which party was better on poverty issues?

Thirdly, do you believe that Lincoln's views on African-Americans changed during his presidency? I know some historians believe that Lincoln was increasingly moving towards the "radical" side of the argument and by the end of his life he had basically abandoned the idea of resettling African-Americans in Africa or Central America and was aiming to see how they could be integrated into American life.

I'd just like your feedback on the topic. Thanks!

[IrateCitizen]

20. I'll try to answer

1. There was no way Lincoln could have avoided the Civil War. He didn't even appear on the ballot in the Southern States. The election of 1860 was essentially a 4-way contest, with Lincoln vs. Douglas north of the Mason-Dixon line, and John C. Breckinridge (Southern Democrat) vs. John Bell (Constitutional Union) south of the line. The fact that Lincoln received the required number of electoral votes w/o a single southerner voting for him helped push the South toward secession.

2. The prevailing attitude of the Republican Party at this time was "Free Labor, Free Soil, Free Men". It was still an era where a person could improve himself through his own labor and effort. It was also still a period in which the frontier was still out there, and additional land was open for the taking. Lincoln helped expand such opportunities through his support of the Homestead Act and the Morrill Act (which established the foundation for state universities). However, this philosophy later bound the Republicans from action when industrial capitalism started growing out of control -- they were loathe to do anything to intervene in economic affairs. Then again, neither party believed in intervention until the rise of the Progressive movement in the late 19th and early 20th century.

3. Lincoln was marked by his openmindedness and willingness to reconsider previous stances perhaps more than any other President in history -- but I do not believe that he was all that radical. His ten-percent plan for the re-introduction of Southern states into the Union was essentially the plan that Andrew Johnson tried to implement, and the Radical Republicans undermined him. However, Johnson's main attributes were narrowmindedness, intransigence and extreme bigotry -- and it is unlikely that Lincoln could have navigated this delicate situation anywhere nearly as bad as Johnson did. But you are probably correct in the change of Lincoln's attitude regarding the place of African-Americans in American society. After all, when he gave a speech at the end of the war alluding to granting them the right to vote, an enraged onlooker reportedly snarled, "That means ni**er citizenship!" That onlooker was none other than John Wilkes Booth.

[kentuck]

27. Also...

Zinn noted that the Republican platform of 1860 was a direct appeal to businessmen. In 1861, they passed the Morrill Tariff which forced American consumers to pay more for American manufactured products. In 1862, they passed the Homestead Act. However, few people could afford the $200 for 160 acres offered by the Act. They also set up a national bank, putting the government into a partnership with the big banking interests. With labor unrest, Congress passed the Contract Labor Law of 1864, making it possible for companies to hire "foreign workers" - whenever the workers pledged to give 12 months of their wages to pay the cost of emigration. This permitted them to break strikes, which were prevalent in the times.

[Yupster]

41. There was plenty Lincoln could have done to avoid Civil War

He could have ran with a VP candidate from the south. This had been traditional until the Republican Party came along. In fact each of the three candidates running against him all chose VP nominees from the other region. Even when the Democratic Party split into northern and southern factions, this tradition was kept alive. The northern Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas reached down to Geortgia for his running mate, and even the southern Democratic candidate John Breckinridge reached all the way to Oregon to find a northerner willing to run with him. Lincoln broke this tradition, though in his defense, the nominee was chosen at the convention.

He could have named noted southerners for his cabinet even if they said they supported another candidate and wouldn't accept the positions.

Even though candidates didn't travel as much as they do today, he could have campaigned in the southern or at least border states like Senator Douglas did, rather than writing off the slave states entirely.

Once elected he could have toured pro-union parts of the south or at least the border states rather than go on his victory tour of the big cities of the north. Was he really needed in Buffalo while pro-union Tennesseeans in Knoxville were trying their best to win an upcoming election to avoid a secession convention?

He could have visited moderate pro-union southerners who were doing their best to avoid secessions like Alexander Stephens in Georgia.

When Senator Crittenden of Kentucky formed a committee of 13 senators to try to work out a compromise to keep the southern states in the union, and the most well known southern senators including Jefferson Davis agreed to stay in Washington over Christmas to try to keep their states in the union, he could have given the committee's Republicans some instruction on acceptable proposals, or at least given them encouragement.

Even after he took office only seven states had seceeded and only one of the five largest (population) slave states had seceeded. Tennessee had narrowly defeated by popular vote calling a secession convention. Without Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina a Confederacy could not pose any threat to a federal invasion. Lincoln should have concentrated on keeping the remaining eight slave states out of the union while he talked to those that had already left.

Instead Lincoln made maybe the biggest blunder in US diplomatic history by giving each state a quota of troops to help him invade the seven seceeded states. This incredibly stupid move made the slave states choose sides and Virgina and North Carolina left. Tennessee had another popular vote and this time voted 80 % to call a secession convention and they soon left. Now you had a southern Confederacy capable of waging war. Imagine if Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, JEB Stuart, AP Hill, Joseph Johnston , Albert Sydney Johnston, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Jubal Early, all fought for the union rather than against it, or at least stayed out of the war. The state that lost the most men north or south in the war? North Carolina.

Finally, Lincoln could have just let the seven states go in peace with the hope that ether they'd rejoin later, move towards a more cooperative semi-independant state, or just be two peaceful democratic neighbors.

There was very much Lincoln could have done to avoid the war. Whether he should have is another topic, but there was certainly much he could have done that he didn't do.

[liberalpragmatist]

13. The Republicans were Still Relatively Pro-Worker...

... compared with the Democrats of the day. Several prominent members (the "Radical Republican" faction) were openly skeptical of capitalism. While the party was heavily influenced by some East Coast business lobbies, in particular, the railroads, other efforts like the Homestead Act were clearly more pro-middle-class than the Democrats, who were far more interested in protecting the rights of large landowners. (Of course, the flipside to the Homestead Act is that it took more land away from the Native Americans.)

As for Lincoln - well, let me point to 2004. I'm not comparing John Kerry with Lincoln, but people constantly said that John Kerry's straddling or "flip-flopping" (it was more of a straddle on some issues, not outright flips) was evidence of a weak leader. In fact, historically, leaders like Lincoln and FDR were master straddlers, even outright flip-floppers. Lincoln vastly changed his tack on slavery depending on who he was speaking to.

Some of Lincoln's more questionable acts were the suspension of habeas corpus, and while he was relatively fair in how he applied it (pardoning several people for instance), it was still a blatant violation of the Constitution and, most historians believe, unnecessary. Also, Republicans in much of the Midwest and Upper South openly rigged elections and intimidated Democratic voters, actions that took place with the tacit knowledge of Lincoln.

That isn't to say that Lincoln wasn't a great president. Nobody is perfect and often great presidents have historically been somewhat dictatorial. Lincoln probably would have justified his inactivity on things like Republican abuses of power in the Midwest by saying he had bigger fish to fry, and he was probably right in that. Ultimately, he did save the Union. And while a reconstruction under Lincoln wouldn't have been perfect either, it arguably would have been much fairer under him or another Radical Republican than it was under Andrew Johnson. Lincoln, for all his belief in resettlement of African-Americans, had towards the end of the war moved increasingly towards a belief that they must be enfranchised with the U.S. He met with Frederick Douglas several times and earned his respect and while he probably still felt that Blacks were, on the whole, less able than Whites, his views on racial integration were relatively progressive by the end of his life.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. I heard that Lincoln initially supported the Dred Scott decision

by C.J. Roger Taney because it preserved the union of the states. As a congressional representative at the time from Illinois, Lincoln was increasingly worried about the slave issue severing the states into two countries and he believed the preservation of the union was paramount to the human/civil rights abuses (which he also believed could be resolved at a later date).

Someone challenge me on this with authority please?

[IrateCitizen]

25. It's not that black-and-white

I'm certain that Lincoln deplored the decision, because he absolutely hated slavery. However, as my professor on the Civil War stated, "Purity of heart is defined as singularity of purpose." For Lincoln, that singular purpose was the preservation of the Union.

In fact, Lincoln said that if he could preserve the union by freeing none of the slaves, he would do so. If he could preserve it by freeing all of the slaves, he would do so. If he could preserve it by freeing half the slaves and leaving the other half in chains, he would do so.

But don't believe that Lincoln really was in favor of the Dred Scott decision, or of Taney. In fact, when Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, an angry Taney charged into the White House and demanded he stop. To this, Lincoln essentially replied, "Go away, old man. I've got work to do."

[no_hypocrisy]

30. Thanks. You added to what I learned. n/t

[jobycom]

17. The only reason he was re-elected was because the majority

of Americans who would have voted against him had seceded. He won the first election by getting a large enough majority in the north to overcome the south's opposition to him, but in the second election, when the south couldn't vote, he still barely got enough votes in the north to win, and IIRC, he even manipulated the election timing somehow to get the military vote. There always seemed something fishy about that election.

That seems to me, though I haven't done any number crunching or in depth analysis, that he lost a lot of his support in the North between elections. So he wasn't exactly popular at the time, even in the North.


I suspect his reputation was much like Bush's in some ways. He was not seen as very bright, he was seen as divisive, and tyranical. He imprisoned Americans for speaking out against him. The reasons for the war were poorly defined, and not specifically about slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation. Read the Gettysburg Address--it's beautiful both in its tribute to the sacrifice of the soldiers and in its complete absence of any mention of what the soldiers ere sacrificing for. "Freedom" and "democracy" are about it. There's a vague reference that probably refers to slavery--dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal--but could just as easily be construed as a reference to the Declaration and the principles on which the nation was founded. It's a beautiful political speech--it inspires, it says nothing, but it means whatever the listener wants it to mean.

For much of the war it was a bloodbath without purpose, in most people's eyes. Many people believed the Confederacy could have been negotiated with, that there was no reason for an invasion, that diplomacy would have settled the matter with far less bloodshed.

Once the war became about slavery, though, Lincoln went from a tyranical president who started a pointless war to a noble warrior for freedom, and when he was assassinated, he became a martyr for freedom. Some will argue he had the vision of freeing the slaves from the beginning, and drove unerringly to that point even if those around him lacked his vision and moral clarity. Others will argue that he was a failed statesman who managed to salvage his greatest failure by freeing the slaves.

I won't argue either. I think he was a complex president, and deserves great praise for some of his actions, and condemnation for others. Too much emphasis is placed on making him an absolute hero or vilain. He was a professional politician who did one great, beautiful thing, and therefore should be remembered as great.

I said he was like Bush in some ways. Maybe he's more like LBJ--whose Civil Rights actions are offset with the Viet Nam War. You just can't judge people like that. You just explain what they did and move on.

[IrateCitizen]

22. Your assessment of the elections is incorrect

See my previous posts on this thread regarding the election of 1860. As for the election of 1864, the main reason he won was because military victories during the summer and fall of 1864 undermined McClellan.

In NEITHER election did Southerners vote for Lincoln. He wasn't even on the ballot in the South in 1860 -- the contest there was between Breckenridge and Bell.

[jobycom]

34. Yeah, maybe. I just crunched a few numbers

My main point, that Lincoln's percentage of the North was higher in 1860 than in 1864, is wrong. Taking out the Southern states from the 1860 election, Lincoln got 49% of the northern votes, and he got 55% in 1864. Though he only had one opponent in 1864. But that destroys my argument, so nevermind. :)

One point: I didn't claim Southerners voted for Lincoln in 1860 (though a handful in Virginia did), I only meant that Southerners weren't voting against him in 1864, thus his margin of victory, percentage-wise and electoral college-wise is skewed. But it's not as skewed as my memory makes it, apparently.

[Greyhound]

19. Zinn's book is a great example of how the ruling class has always

manipulated and re-written history. The consistently recurring theme has been that every time the lower classes start to come together and demand their share, divisions are created and they are pitted against each other to distract them from the real issue.

There are innumerable examples of this in our very short history. The move toward independence itself was primarily motivated by the desire of our domestic ruling class to take assets away from the British ruling class. Of course, it was the lower classes that suffered and died for the cause and afterward were mostly denied what was promised in exchange for their support.

It's the same as we see happening today, our political conflict is basically about which faction of rich people will control the proles. Hopefully, a charismatic populist will appear on the scene in the next year or two and threaten the power structure, thus forcing some of the changes required to restore the fundamental liberty that we have never realized.

[IrateCitizen]

35. Zinn's value is as a revisionist historian, not as a pure truth-teller

And by the term "revisionist," I am speaking in purely the historian sense. It doesn't mean he makes shit up -- it means that he puts a completely different "spin" on the events of the time and forces people to reconsider past events from a different perspective. This is an extremely valuable service.

Zinn does a great job at exposing the way that the political sphere has usually come down on the side of "property-holders" and that we often ignore the uglier side of our history. However, it is good to recognize that he takes this view to a bit of an extreme and presents everything as if it were some grand collaboration every step of the way. In some instances (Bacon's Rebellion is one that comes to mind), it results in some rather slopping scholarship.

Now, if you're interested in some reasons why what you hope for in the last paragraph won't happen, I'd suggest you start with the seminal essay "The Significance of the Frontier in American History" by Frederick Jackson Turner. A prime facet of the American persona is an extreme distrust of government, for a number of historical reasons -- which is why we cannot put our faith in national government solving these problems for us. Furthermore, I believe such a hope of some populist messiah goes against the theme of Zinn's work, which is that popular struggle from BELOW is what moves mountains.

[Greyhound]

36. Wow, and you're not biased at all...

Spin and perspective are not interchangeable. There was nothing about a "messiah" in my post, and it was, in fact, a reference to Huey Long, whom I don't believe anybody considers a messiah.

Further, populist uprisings have happened in the past, and the worse things get for more and more people, the more likely it becomes that it will happen again.

What makes you think that there hasn't been collaboration, grand or otherwise, to divide and conquer the lower classes throughout history?

[IrateCitizen]

37. I actually greatly admire Zinn, and he influenced me a lot

His "People's History" was one of the most influential history books I ever read. In fact, it set me down the path of leaving my previous career and becoming a history teacher myself, among other things.

I did not mean to imply that "spin", as per the PR term, and "perspective" were interchangable -- that's why I placed the first in quotations. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

With regards to a "messiah", I was referring to a populist leader as opposed to a real bottom-up movement. I know full well that there have been populist uprisings in the past, and I also know there will likely be similar ones in the future. However, populism can be a dangerous thing -- it can also appeal to people's worst prejudices, such as George Wallace's 1968 campaign for President. Furthermore, populist movements in the US tend to be short-lived.

Regarding grand collaborations, I will not deny that there have been efforts on the part of the "haves" to divide and conquer the "have-nots". However, my study of history has led me to the conclusion that such trends are not the result of overly conscious collaboration among all the haves to work against all the have-nots, but rather the inevitable result of social and economic arrangements that allow the accumulation of surplus -- which takes us back all the way to the origins of agriculture. In the US this issue has been exacerbated by several factors, chief among them an instinctive distrust of government on the part of Americans, the fact that we always had land "further west" for almost 300 years after the Jamestown colony, and the rise of industrial capitalism coinciding with the ascendancy of Republican "free labor" ideology after the Civil War.

[Greyhound]

38. Oops, great example of miscommunication, my apologies.

I tend to get a little defensive here as a result of the reactions to some of my positions, especially since I'm pretty critical of the establishment Democrats.

I agree 100%. :toast:

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Suspension of Habeas Corpus Was Approved by Congress

Just in case anyone is wondering...

It's true that Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus using his "wartime president" powers. It was only suspended where the courts had become dysfunctional due to the nature of the war.

HOWEVER, this was much different than what Bush has done. Lincoln immediately turned around and asked Congress for its approval - which they gave. Lincoln had suspebded the law unilaterally as an necessary expedient in crisis. He felt that Congress iself needed to act on a change of law as soon as practicable.

By contrast, Bush feels that he can make any law, all by himself. Lucky for him that the most Congressional Democrats only casually disagree. In whispers. And only on alternate third Fridays of the month...

[kentuck]

29. But no soldiers invaded the homes or raped the women...?

or terrorized the citizens...Right?

[MannyGoldstein]

31. I Missed The Part Where I Wrote That

Please apprise.

[kentuck]

32. No, I did not mean to imply that you wrote that...

I was only facetiously asking that question...as a corollary to the habeus corpus response.

[Sapphocrat]

40. Before reading any replies...

Divisive, absolutely. Greatest president? In my mind, he wasn't even all that "great" -- just memorable. Freeing the slaves wasn't borne out of any sort of altruism on his part -- his only goal was to preserve the Union (which, in the long run, may not have been the wisest move -- but that's a hot-button issue for another day). He would have done anything to hold it together -- and did.

And yeah, then there's that habeus corpus thing...