Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Abraham Lincoln's Path to History

[24/3 - Partly revised.]

I just came back from my daughter's class field trip to the New York Historical Society where they viewed an exhibition of Abraham Lincoln. That exhibition has been going on for a year since it opened on Mr Lincoln's 200th birthday and examines his Presidency's relationship to New York City.

I did not finish seeing the exhibit and for sure I cannot be mistaken for a scholar of Lincoln. But the exhibition made an impression on me because it reminded me that greatness is a difficult and arduous journey that feels anything but great when traveling on it.

What I learn from the exhibit is that Lincoln was given a political boost and became a political star due to the promotion of certain New York political barons of the (then nascent and comparatively social-progressive) Republican Party who wanted their own non-establishment candidate to challenge the establishment favorite William Seward. They wanted a Westerner candidate for the presidential election of 1860 to propel them out of their narrow political base; some one who would speak credibly about expansion to the West (free land, free labor, free men), lavish protection on industry (tariffs, railways, ports and canals etc.), anti-unions and be mildly anti-slavery. Lincoln proceeded to gave a famous and widely promoted speech at the Cooper Union in New York setting out his vision; which on slavery was actually a compromise whereby the South can keep their slaves but new territories would henceforth be free of slaves. He was not an abolitionist but was only against the expansion of slavery.

Aided by his powerful patrons, Lincoln soon gathered the support of many political forces that were against the Democratic Party: populists (who are anti-business), abolitionists (who are anti-slavery) but also neo-Fascist movements such as the "Wide Awakes" and the Nativist/xenophobic "Know Nothing Party".

The big businesses in New York favored the Democratic Party which was the establishment party; and businesses are wary of the abolitionist movement because they fear any rupture (or worse, war) with the south would mean disruption of business, loss of access to raw material supplies to the mills in the North and markets in the South.

Lincoln won the Presidency with only 40% of the popular votes. But wary of Lincoln's views on slavery, 7 Southern states seceded from the Union even before he took office. His popularity fell even further especially in the major cities of the Northeast.

But when Fort Sumner was attacked, patriotic fervor caused the North to rally around him; but within a year and many battlefield defeats (and war supplies corruption and mounting government indebtedness) later Lincoln found himself deeply unpopular. The newspapers and public opinion were deeply scathing. To raise money for the war effort, Lincoln instituted the income tax and a federal backed US dollar amidst widespread opposition. He strong-armed and wrestled many powers such as the raising and provisioning of armies from the States and into Federal control. His opponents were decrying the end of the United States and against him for trampling on the Constitution. There was huge outcry that he was resorting to dictatorial means. To put down dissent, he imposed martial law allowing detention by military tribunals without trial, which incarcerated 10-15000 people! Amidst all these, he suffered huge electoral losses during elections which resulted in openly antagonistic state governments /governors who were out to thwart him at every turn.

In a bid to recalibrate the reasons for fighting, which initially was about the preservation of the Union, and to get more Union recruits Abraham Lincoln issued the initial Emancipation Proclamation as a military order in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief. It was quite limited in scope at first being limited only to the Confederated States (but preserves slavery in some border states such as Delaware and Maryland) and primarily serve to pressurize the South. Later, it was extended to all lands seized by the Union army hence making abolition a Union war objective. He was also hoping to encourage slave revolts and gather freed slaves into the Union Army.

Granted, there were pragmatic reasons and risks if he were not more gradualist in abolishing slavery. Lincoln was concerned that outright abolition might tilt Northern slave states into joining the Confederacy. Maryland in particular was a concern because it was the crucial link between Washington DC and the North. Lincoln's abolitionist stand became more and more resolute after the Emancipation Proclaimation and in the end, became a non-negotiable term for ending the war.

As a military order, it did not have the force of law that an Act of congress would have. Belatedly, as the tide turned in the Civil War, Lincoln got Congress to entrench it as the XIII amendment to the Constitution, which was not ratified until after Lincoln's death when it was ratified by 2/3 of the states. Mississippi did not ratify that amendment until 1995.

If judged by popularity alone, it would be hard to make any assessment of Lincoln's greatness during his lifetime. For most of 1864 prior to his re-election, he did not think he was going to be re-elected. In fact, only when the tide of war turned in September 1864, two months before the election, before his victory became possible. Nonetheless, despite having only the Northern states participating in the election he was re-elected in 1864 with a respectable but far from heroic 54% of the vote. He would likely have lost the election had the Southern states participated. Especially in the South and amongst those opposed to the ascendancy of Federal government vis-a-vis the rights of the states Lincoln remained a much hated figure even after his death.

It an interesting and telling perspective on how a person is being judged by one's contemporaries as opposed to posterity.

2 comments:

View from HK said...

bro, congratulation on writing a very succinct account of Abe's politcal rise and fortune based on the exhibition, this is a rare talent.

a lot of public figures are torn between having to juggle to live up with comtemporary assessment or judgment in posterity. It is a difficult call and it is also too simplistic to look at it from the perspective of 成皇敗寇.

the question is what matters to the decision maker? what is right now may not be right tomorrow.what is wrong now may not be wrong tomorrow. is there a right answer?

Ask Bush what he thinks of Axis of Evil? would Deng decide differently on Tiananmen? what about asking reagan on finance deregulation in late 2008?

If you look at Mao, he is closest to Abe, at least in the chinese context. Winning a civil war, poetry prowess (Abe's public speech, long march (Abe's serial failure prior to winning presidential election in 1860), establisment opponent in Chiang kaisek (Ed Seward)... But their fortune in posterity are different. But said if Mao is gunned down like Abe after 1949, Mao's place in history will not be assciated with stalin but with Abe.

history does have a lot of fortuitous element.

View from NY said...

Welcome back to this side of the Great firewall. I guess now its official. Even if NYHK was not banned earlier in the PRC, being part of Google by the standards of the Cultural Revolution we are now enemies of the people.

If we look at Lincoln, he had a truly ghastly time in office: Civil war with no victory in sight, death and destruction of his nation, a succession of frustrating and useless generals, bankrupcy, corruption and scandals amongst allies, ceaseless critics, political rivals, death of his favouriate son Willy, wife going crazy, family members fighting for the Confederacy, etc.

I might argue that Lincoln's task was more difficult that Mao's its not just winning at all cost. He had to struggles with greater moral dilemmas of preserving the ideals of US Constitution and the democratic system, the rule of law and the question of moral and deeply held emotive issues of race and slavery.

He made his share of mistakes, of course, and one wonders how history would judge him had he lost the war. But I feel history's verdict was amplified by his moral fortitude and devotion to righteousness even in peril.