I've been reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" about the selection of President Lincoln's Cabinet and the brilliance Lincoln displayed in bravely selecting his rivals for the Republican nomination to fill his Cabinet. This excellent, readable history has taught me much about Lincoln and the larger-than-life personalities who made up his Cabinet.
Many things about the rough-and-tumble fighting for the presidential nomination and the whole political system of the mid-1800s, when two political parties (Whigs and Know Nothings) expired and a new party (Republicans) was formed, are similar to today's sharp-edged politics. The difference is that men and women of the 19th century were unfailingly polite, self-effacing, deferential, and considerate. (Of course, sometimes they took grave offense and fought duels.) Americans of 150 years ago were also far better writers and more articulate than today's Americans. They wrote formal letters. They took the time to explain their positions in calm, rational language. There were no Twitter outbursts, no uncomfortable veiled insults in candidate debates, and no accusations of dishonesty or avarice among political rivals.
By 19th century standards, today's Americans are coarse, unsympathetic, uncaring, angry, dismissive of other views, dishonest in describing viewpoints they disagree with, and willing to upend government institutions and the entire political system in order to win a few political points.
President Trump's behavior on his recent European trip would have appalled his forebears of 150 years ago. Calling out allies over their payments to NATO, casting doubt on long-established, essential institutions, confronting other leaders in a belligerent way, publicly telling an Ally's head of state that she is doing her job all wrong, threatening trade restrictions on nations whose leaders disagree with him, cozying up to the leader of an autocratic, expansive traditional enemy are exactly the opposite of 19th century diplomacy and rectitude.
Diplomatic formality has been in decline for decades, but Trump's approach has sent the gradual decline spiraling into a black hole. Sadly, once good manners are trampled, they are nearly impossible to recover. The belligerent appeals to an angry voter base will almost certainly survive Trump's departure from the political spotlight, whenever that might be. Even without Trump, America in the next decade will be meaner, less sympathetic, less considerate, less reasoned, less decent than before.
I don't look forward to future elections or legislating.
Showing posts with label Lincoln. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lincoln. Show all posts
Monday, July 16, 2018
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Abraham Lincoln and Civil War memories
A North Carolina legislator has compared Abraham Lincoln to Hitler, calling our 16th president a tyrant and holding him personally responsible for 800,000 deaths. People like him are running this state's education system?
First, some admissions: Many southerners reviled Lincoln, partly because he threatened the economic system of the South, which was based on slave labor, but also because of his decision to forcefully prevent the Confederate states from leaving the Union. The Civil War wreaked horrendous damage upon the South, where nearly all of the battles were fought, and where federal policy called for destroying the ability to wage war, which included destroying crops and farmland that could support armies and civilians.
An elderly teacher from my childhood told about a Confederate veteran she had known when she was a child. Given change at a store, the old man refused to accept pennies because they bore the likeness of Abraham Lincoln, a man he hated. That is how ingrained and intense feelings toward Lincoln were.
News coverage of the Lincoln-Hitler analogy raised the question of whether secession of states was constitutional. Some "experts" said the states' ratifying of the Constitution made secession unconstitutional. That, it seems to me, is a stretch. There was nothing in the Constitution that forbade secession or made a state's ratification irrevocable. Secessionists claimed, with some validity, that their decision to leave the Union was no different from the Continental Congress' decision to leave the British Empire.
Even if we assume secession was a legitimate course, it need not lead to Civil War. This disagreement could have been fought in the courts instead of on the fields of Manassas, Gettysburg, Shiloh and other places. Secessionists in South Carolina are primarily responsible for turning the disagreement into armed conflict. They fired the first shot, bombarding Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor in an effort to unseat the Union garrison. Lincoln responded by attempting to reinforce and resupply that garrison and by raising an army to enforce Union authority throughout the seceded states.
Small miscalculations often lead to tragedy. The secessionists were certain they could expel federal troops from the South. Lincoln was certain that a show of force would bring the secessionists to their senses. Both were wrong. What followed was the greatest tragedy in American history, but it came with one benefit: It ended slavery decades before that economic system would have died from its own shortcomings and the public's revulsion.
Lincoln did cancel habeas corpus and jailed people without trial, but he was facing imminent assassination and sabotage by Confederate agents and sympathizers. For any errors Lincoln might have made, he gets a pass based on his soaring rhetoric that defines American principles of "government of the people, for the people and by the people," and "malice toward none and charity for all."
His assassination denied the nation an opportunity for more peaceful and amicable reconciliation, with charity for all.
Lincoln as Hitler? Ridiculous! A shameful analogy!
First, some admissions: Many southerners reviled Lincoln, partly because he threatened the economic system of the South, which was based on slave labor, but also because of his decision to forcefully prevent the Confederate states from leaving the Union. The Civil War wreaked horrendous damage upon the South, where nearly all of the battles were fought, and where federal policy called for destroying the ability to wage war, which included destroying crops and farmland that could support armies and civilians.
An elderly teacher from my childhood told about a Confederate veteran she had known when she was a child. Given change at a store, the old man refused to accept pennies because they bore the likeness of Abraham Lincoln, a man he hated. That is how ingrained and intense feelings toward Lincoln were.
News coverage of the Lincoln-Hitler analogy raised the question of whether secession of states was constitutional. Some "experts" said the states' ratifying of the Constitution made secession unconstitutional. That, it seems to me, is a stretch. There was nothing in the Constitution that forbade secession or made a state's ratification irrevocable. Secessionists claimed, with some validity, that their decision to leave the Union was no different from the Continental Congress' decision to leave the British Empire.
Even if we assume secession was a legitimate course, it need not lead to Civil War. This disagreement could have been fought in the courts instead of on the fields of Manassas, Gettysburg, Shiloh and other places. Secessionists in South Carolina are primarily responsible for turning the disagreement into armed conflict. They fired the first shot, bombarding Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor in an effort to unseat the Union garrison. Lincoln responded by attempting to reinforce and resupply that garrison and by raising an army to enforce Union authority throughout the seceded states.
Small miscalculations often lead to tragedy. The secessionists were certain they could expel federal troops from the South. Lincoln was certain that a show of force would bring the secessionists to their senses. Both were wrong. What followed was the greatest tragedy in American history, but it came with one benefit: It ended slavery decades before that economic system would have died from its own shortcomings and the public's revulsion.
Lincoln did cancel habeas corpus and jailed people without trial, but he was facing imminent assassination and sabotage by Confederate agents and sympathizers. For any errors Lincoln might have made, he gets a pass based on his soaring rhetoric that defines American principles of "government of the people, for the people and by the people," and "malice toward none and charity for all."
His assassination denied the nation an opportunity for more peaceful and amicable reconciliation, with charity for all.
Lincoln as Hitler? Ridiculous! A shameful analogy!
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Best qualified presidential candidate ever?
President Obama said it during the Hillary Clinton campaign stop in Charlotte Tuesday. He said Hillary Clinton is the best qualified person ever to run for president. That sort of thing has been claimed before with surprisingly little contradiction -- No one has ever run for president, they've claimed, with more experience than Hillary Clinton.
I beg to differ, not to dispute that HRC has experience or that she is qualified for the presidency, at least in terms of experience. But the most qualified ever? Really?
A few candidates from the not-too-distant past had experiences that could match or surpass the former one-term senator and secretary of state. Franklin Roosevelt had been governor of a large state (New York) and had served as secretary of the Navy. Lyndon Johnson had served in the House and the Senate, had been on congressional staff, and had been perhaps the most effective majority leader of the Senate in the upper chamber's history. He also served nearly four years as vice president. George H.W. Bush had been a member of Congress, ambassador to China, director of the CIA and vice president for two terms. Dwight D. Eisenhower was light on Washington experience, but he had successfully managed the largest, most complex and probably most difficult military alliance in history. Richard Nixon had been a member of the House and the Senate and held key congressional leadership posts, and he served two terms as vice president. (All of which goes to prove that experience isn't everything.)
Some presidents' successful terms help prove that experience isn't everything. Harry Truman had little to recommend him in 1945, when he inherited the presidency after FDR's sudden death. He had been a machine politician from Missouri with a slim record of congressional accomplishments. He had served only a few months as vice president and had been so out of the loop that he didn't even know about the atomic bomb. He was not a college graduate. But many historians now consider Truman one of our best presidents.
And then there's Abraham Lincoln, a one-term congressman and failed candidate for Senate. He was elected president only because of a catastrophic split in the Democratic Party and was so detested by many of his countrymen that they withdrew from the Union before he was even inaugurated. His strategy to keep the country united failed and resulted in a tragic, four-year war that killed 600,000 or more. He second-guessed his generals and frequently fired them. He was expected to lose his 1864 re-election bid (against a general he had fired) and was saved only by a change in battlefield success. Despite all the failures and lack of solid experience, Lincoln is considered one of the two or three best presidents in history.
Let's grant Hillary Clinton the fact that she has experience as a cabinet secretary, a senator and as first lady (which should count for something). But is she the "most experienced ever"? Not by a long shot.
I beg to differ, not to dispute that HRC has experience or that she is qualified for the presidency, at least in terms of experience. But the most qualified ever? Really?
A few candidates from the not-too-distant past had experiences that could match or surpass the former one-term senator and secretary of state. Franklin Roosevelt had been governor of a large state (New York) and had served as secretary of the Navy. Lyndon Johnson had served in the House and the Senate, had been on congressional staff, and had been perhaps the most effective majority leader of the Senate in the upper chamber's history. He also served nearly four years as vice president. George H.W. Bush had been a member of Congress, ambassador to China, director of the CIA and vice president for two terms. Dwight D. Eisenhower was light on Washington experience, but he had successfully managed the largest, most complex and probably most difficult military alliance in history. Richard Nixon had been a member of the House and the Senate and held key congressional leadership posts, and he served two terms as vice president. (All of which goes to prove that experience isn't everything.)
Some presidents' successful terms help prove that experience isn't everything. Harry Truman had little to recommend him in 1945, when he inherited the presidency after FDR's sudden death. He had been a machine politician from Missouri with a slim record of congressional accomplishments. He had served only a few months as vice president and had been so out of the loop that he didn't even know about the atomic bomb. He was not a college graduate. But many historians now consider Truman one of our best presidents.
And then there's Abraham Lincoln, a one-term congressman and failed candidate for Senate. He was elected president only because of a catastrophic split in the Democratic Party and was so detested by many of his countrymen that they withdrew from the Union before he was even inaugurated. His strategy to keep the country united failed and resulted in a tragic, four-year war that killed 600,000 or more. He second-guessed his generals and frequently fired them. He was expected to lose his 1864 re-election bid (against a general he had fired) and was saved only by a change in battlefield success. Despite all the failures and lack of solid experience, Lincoln is considered one of the two or three best presidents in history.
Let's grant Hillary Clinton the fact that she has experience as a cabinet secretary, a senator and as first lady (which should count for something). But is she the "most experienced ever"? Not by a long shot.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
A president needs a vocabulary
Has there ever been a major-party political candidate with a more restricted and infantile vocabulary than Donald Trump? Regardless of what you think of the man's political positions, his use of words is reminiscent of a kindergartner's. Does he read at a second-grade level?
Trump's favorite words seem to be "huge," "beautiful," "big," "bad," "horrible" and so on. These are all vague, nearly meaningless words. As a newspaper editor and occasional journalism teacher, I have reminded writers to use words with concrete meaning, to be precise, not vague, and to avoid cliched, meaningless words. The words from Trump's speeches would earn no better than a "D" grade in a high school English or freshman composition class. Too vague. Too meaningless. Use words that truly describe, not words that mean different things to different people.
One of the tasks of a president is to inspire the nation, and that is most often done verbally — using words that evoke emotions and insight, words that transcend moments and lift spirits. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could do that. Even the sometimes tongue-tied George W. Bush could make his rhetoric rise to the occasion at times.
Imagine Donald Trump standing on a platform in the cemetery at Gettysburg or in the well of the House of Representatives, calling for war against Japan, or standing by the Berlin Wall or on the cliffs at Normandy. Imagine Trump evoking "government of the people, by the people," proclaiming "a day that will live in infamy," telling Germans, "I am a Berliner," or praising these "boys of Pointe du Hoc."
It cannot be imagined.
Trump's favorite words seem to be "huge," "beautiful," "big," "bad," "horrible" and so on. These are all vague, nearly meaningless words. As a newspaper editor and occasional journalism teacher, I have reminded writers to use words with concrete meaning, to be precise, not vague, and to avoid cliched, meaningless words. The words from Trump's speeches would earn no better than a "D" grade in a high school English or freshman composition class. Too vague. Too meaningless. Use words that truly describe, not words that mean different things to different people.
One of the tasks of a president is to inspire the nation, and that is most often done verbally — using words that evoke emotions and insight, words that transcend moments and lift spirits. Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could do that. Even the sometimes tongue-tied George W. Bush could make his rhetoric rise to the occasion at times.
Imagine Donald Trump standing on a platform in the cemetery at Gettysburg or in the well of the House of Representatives, calling for war against Japan, or standing by the Berlin Wall or on the cliffs at Normandy. Imagine Trump evoking "government of the people, by the people," proclaiming "a day that will live in infamy," telling Germans, "I am a Berliner," or praising these "boys of Pointe du Hoc."
It cannot be imagined.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
Booth destroyed South's best hope
On April 14 150 years ago, John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln, who was watching a play in Ford's Theater. It was the first presidential assassination in U.S. history, but it wouldn't be the last.
Booth, a Southern sympathizer, apparently believed that killing Lincoln would aid the Confederacy, whose largest armies had surrendered in the previous two weeks. Lincoln had toured the nearly demolished Confederate capital just 90 miles away in Richmond. The South was in ruins; its armies were defeated; hundreds of thousands of its soldiers were killed; its agricultural economy was ruined, its barns, fields and plantation houses were smoldering.
In killing Lincoln, Booth did exactly the opposite of his intentions. Instead of helping the Confederacy, he hurt it. Weeks earlier, at his second inauguration, Lincoln spoke of how he hoped to bring the seceding states and the loyal states back together after four years of horrific warfare. He promised a post-war policy "With malice toward none, with charity for all," He would work "to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
Lincoln's death changed the post-war policy. The vengeance that Lincoln had opposed was imposed as retribution for his death. Although the paroling of Confederate soldiers and their generals and political leaders was generous and perhaps unprecedented in the history of warfare, little was done to resurrect the South's devastated economy. Its agricultural base was destroyed. The fertile Shenandoah Valley was left in ashes. Its railroads were ruined. Its Confederate money was worthless. And an occupying army of Union soldiers stoked resentment among grieving widows and orphans and frustrated veterans. For nearly 100 years after Reconstruction, Southerners kept former slaves and their descendents subjugated and politically powerless.
Had Lincoln shaped Reconstruction, he might have formed policies that would be more palatable to the former Confederates. He might have helped former slaves and former slave owners to see their mutual interest in redeveloping the South. Had he lived, northern politicians would be less interested in seeing the South suffer for its sins.
But John Wilkes Booth, with one gunshot, hurt the South he loved far more than he hurt the North he opposed.
Booth, a Southern sympathizer, apparently believed that killing Lincoln would aid the Confederacy, whose largest armies had surrendered in the previous two weeks. Lincoln had toured the nearly demolished Confederate capital just 90 miles away in Richmond. The South was in ruins; its armies were defeated; hundreds of thousands of its soldiers were killed; its agricultural economy was ruined, its barns, fields and plantation houses were smoldering.
In killing Lincoln, Booth did exactly the opposite of his intentions. Instead of helping the Confederacy, he hurt it. Weeks earlier, at his second inauguration, Lincoln spoke of how he hoped to bring the seceding states and the loyal states back together after four years of horrific warfare. He promised a post-war policy "With malice toward none, with charity for all," He would work "to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
Lincoln's death changed the post-war policy. The vengeance that Lincoln had opposed was imposed as retribution for his death. Although the paroling of Confederate soldiers and their generals and political leaders was generous and perhaps unprecedented in the history of warfare, little was done to resurrect the South's devastated economy. Its agricultural base was destroyed. The fertile Shenandoah Valley was left in ashes. Its railroads were ruined. Its Confederate money was worthless. And an occupying army of Union soldiers stoked resentment among grieving widows and orphans and frustrated veterans. For nearly 100 years after Reconstruction, Southerners kept former slaves and their descendents subjugated and politically powerless.
Had Lincoln shaped Reconstruction, he might have formed policies that would be more palatable to the former Confederates. He might have helped former slaves and former slave owners to see their mutual interest in redeveloping the South. Had he lived, northern politicians would be less interested in seeing the South suffer for its sins.
But John Wilkes Booth, with one gunshot, hurt the South he loved far more than he hurt the North he opposed.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Casino would desecrate sacred ground
It should be self-evident, as Thomas Jefferson might have said, that a casino should not be built next to the most hallowed battleground on the American continent. But unless concerned preservationists and Civil War buffs can turn back the power of the almighty dollar, a casino might become Gettysburg's newest neighbor. The Civil War Preservation Trust (to which I have given small donations for several years) and other groups thought they had defeated the casino forces when a proposed casino at another site near the Gettysburg battlefield failed to obtain a Pennsylvania license. But gambling profiteers are still eager to tie their gambling tables and slot machines to a Gettysburg address, and another proposal is before the people of Pennsylvania.
A gambling casino would desecrate the site of the largest and bloodiest battle of the Civil War, which marked a key turning point in the war. On July 1-3, 1863, Confederate forces under Robert E. Lee tried mightily but failed to dislodge Union forces under George Meade, who had captured the high ground and never relinquished it, despite concerted attacks that culminated in the legendary "Pickett's Charge," a suicidal advance across nearly a mile of open ground. More than 30,000 Americans died in those three days, and thousands more were wounded. The outpouring of grief resulted in scores of monuments to various regiments and companies who fought bravely there on both sides. The rolling Pennsylvania landscape, a comfortable drive from Washington, D.C., is embellished with those marble, bronze and granite markers, hailing heroes nearly 150 years gone. Hundreds of thousands of tourists visit the battlefield, which is maintained by the National Park Service, every year to soak up some of the solemn history of this hallowed ground. They stand at the marching off point for Pickett's charge and stare at the line of cannon in the distance and that copse of trees that Lee made their goal and wonder what could have inspired men to such suicidal courage. They stand at the spot where the 20th Maine, out of ammunition after repeated attacks by Confederates, held their position on Big Round Top in hand-to-hand combat. They look at the spot where Abraham Lincoln delivered the greatest two-minute speech in American history. No one can go to Gettysburg without being moved.
Anyone who would place a casino on the main road into the heart of the Gettysburg battlefield has no sense of history or of honor. As Lincoln said, "It is for us the living ... to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to the cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion ... ." The dead of Gettysburg did not give their lives for gambling, and no casino should taint their sacrifice.
A gambling casino would desecrate the site of the largest and bloodiest battle of the Civil War, which marked a key turning point in the war. On July 1-3, 1863, Confederate forces under Robert E. Lee tried mightily but failed to dislodge Union forces under George Meade, who had captured the high ground and never relinquished it, despite concerted attacks that culminated in the legendary "Pickett's Charge," a suicidal advance across nearly a mile of open ground. More than 30,000 Americans died in those three days, and thousands more were wounded. The outpouring of grief resulted in scores of monuments to various regiments and companies who fought bravely there on both sides. The rolling Pennsylvania landscape, a comfortable drive from Washington, D.C., is embellished with those marble, bronze and granite markers, hailing heroes nearly 150 years gone. Hundreds of thousands of tourists visit the battlefield, which is maintained by the National Park Service, every year to soak up some of the solemn history of this hallowed ground. They stand at the marching off point for Pickett's charge and stare at the line of cannon in the distance and that copse of trees that Lee made their goal and wonder what could have inspired men to such suicidal courage. They stand at the spot where the 20th Maine, out of ammunition after repeated attacks by Confederates, held their position on Big Round Top in hand-to-hand combat. They look at the spot where Abraham Lincoln delivered the greatest two-minute speech in American history. No one can go to Gettysburg without being moved.
Anyone who would place a casino on the main road into the heart of the Gettysburg battlefield has no sense of history or of honor. As Lincoln said, "It is for us the living ... to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to the cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion ... ." The dead of Gettysburg did not give their lives for gambling, and no casino should taint their sacrifice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
