Was Abraham Lincoln a Racist? (A Podcast Comment)

Was Abraham Lincoln a Racist? (A Podcast Comment)

Message to Phil Lanides 22 July 2017. Host and Creator of ‘History Personified’ Podcast
Re: Episode posted 21 July 2017- The Lincoln-Douglas Debates – Author Harold Holzer

Below is a minimally edited comment I wrote on Mr. Phil Lanides’s Patreon webpage for the episode listed above. I recommend this podcast to the serious and casual History buff equally. Mr. Lanides is taking a break during August (2017), so that would be a great time to delve into his library of past episodes. Pertinent links are provided at the end of this post.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

Hi Phil:

As soon as I heard your announcement of an upcoming Lincoln-Douglas Debate episode, I became impatient for it’s eventual posting. Your wording of the announcement on Patreon parallels topics and arguments I’ve encountered, listened to, and debated over decades. In each of those instances President Abraham Lincoln’s status as “The Great Emancipator”, “Father Abraham”, or the US’s secular saint was being targeted. These arguments are fine if they take place within an academic setting or similar scenario where truth is the ultimate prize. At times, however, the effort is to besmirch the 16th President’s reputation and standing in the public’s eye.

The Charleston debate on 18 September 1858 is the encounter when Mr. Lincoln professes views about African slaves that, while shocking today, was the minimally accepted stance regarding the ‘White’ and ‘Black’ races. It’s the issue of historical context that throw’s many ‘for a loop’. As a thought experiment, I’ve asked my students to think of thoughts they’ve had regarding people, neighborhoods, schools, etc. you were taught to avoid. Consider the substance and nature of those advisories given by friends and loved ones. Would any of those thoughts be ‘shocking’ if made public? Another exercise would be to time travel with our generic thoughts of ‘equality among all races’ from our 21st Century perch to mid-19th C. Baltimore, MD (or Washington, DC; Charleston, SC; Richmond, VA; New York City, NY; etc.). Would you keep your thoughts and views to yourself or publicly profess them?

President Lincoln’s views regarding a personal equality between him and a slave (intellect, politically), in my estimation, is nearly identical to ‘hidden’ biases many Americans bear. Additionally, his views on the nature-based equality that all people’s have, by virtue of their birth, to enjoy the “…fruits of their labor”, is a view many Americans historically (secretly today) question regarding certain groups (immigrants). Evidence of Mr. Lincoln’s moral and political growth is laid bare in the 7 years that follow those ‘shocking’ words in Charleston, Illinois. He would build on and expand his thoughts of ‘equality’ to consider, and then forcefully endorse, a constitutional change abolishing slavery and extending citizenship to African slaves. That is as radical an American thought as any American has ever entertained. You can argue that it was such efforts that led to his assassination. Imagine if he had uttered those views 7 years before in the Charleston debate? Speculation might suggest that he would have been assaulted, if not assassinated, at the time.

Finally, a little bit of geography. If you look at a map of the US and focus on the lower-half of the State of Illinois, you would notice that it lies South of the Mason-Dixon Line if it were extended that far West. Additionally, that portion of the State is bordered by Arkansas, Kentucky, and Missouri- all ‘Southern’ States whose 19th C. sensibilities regarding Slavery permeated Southern Illinois. Charleston falls within that area.

—————————————————————————————————————————————
Further Research
1. Episode: The Lincoln-Douglas Debates – Author Harold Holzer [https://overcast.fm/+GRSIwkMwo]
2. History Research Primer: A Mindmap Portal to Online Resources [https://worldhistoryreview.org/resources/online-resources-mindmap/]
3. Mr.V’s YouTube Channel of History Topics. Within this catalogue you’ll find Prof. Allen Guelzo’s lecture on ‘The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858’ within the “Civil War and Reconstruction Era” category. [http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfMrlSPwbE55OiVZMee89DA]
4. Mr. Harold Holtzer. [http://www.haroldholzer.com]

R03bc_President Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address- Instructions

R03bc_President Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address- Instructions

Where necessary, take targeted notes and keep the notes organized in your notebook. Sources are listed separately at the end of this document.

Our previous discussions since the development of the British colonies, but most recently since the War of 1812, we’ve witnessed the increasing sectional divisions on political and economic issues. But, the leaders of seceding southern states were certain that this Republican president was hostile to their prized institutions. The 1860 election revealed the divisiveness among the electorate as well. Abraham Lincoln won a plurality of the popular vote, but not a majority. The election had to be settled in the Electoral College where Mr. Lincoln became President Lincoln.

What To Do!? What happened?
Imagine, you just won an election to the Presidency of the United States. The major slave-holding states have now severed their relationship with the Union because of your election (States like Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware did not ‘officially’ secede). Those same (seceded) states then form a new and independent state: The Confederate States of America (CSA).

This is an awful position to be in. Though the Civil War begins officially with the bombardment of Ft. Sumter, off the coast of Charleston, SC., we begin in Washington, D.C. and the 1st Inaugural Address of President Abraham Lincoln in March 1861.

Let’s see what President Lincoln has to say.

President Abraham Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address: A Wordle Analysis.

1. Mr.V will provide you a full transcript of the speech via the link below. However, in order to employ an analysis tool, we’ll need to to do something a bit different.

2. Copy and paste the text of President Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address onto a plain text editor (“Notepad” on Windows PC, “TextEdit” on Macs). Remove the paragraph numbers from the text.

3. Select and copy the entire text as it appears in your text editor. Navigate to Wordle (see link below) and paste the text you copied into a blank Wordle page for analysis. If you never used this online tool, read the introductory instructions on the site’s home page.

4. Run the analysis. Take a screen capture of the results of your Wordle analysis for your records. In your digital notebook, identify the frequently used words (they appear largest) and intermediate used words (they appear mid-sized). Disregard the smallest as well as connective words like ‘the’, ‘and’, ‘it’, etc.

5. Based on your analysis of the words, what do they reveal about the speech’s emphasis?

6. Go to a pdf copy of the 1st Inaugural Address embedded just below the text version I provided on the course website (just scroll down). This is a PDF copy of an image of the original printed speech found on the Gilder-Lehrman website (see link below).

a. Read page 1 until the end of the paragraph at the top of page 2.
b. Read paragraph starting at the bottom of page 7 and spilling onto page 8. Just the paragraph, not the page.
c. Read paragraph starting at the bottom of page 8 and spilling onto page 9. Just the paragraph, not the page.
d. Read paragraph starting at the bottom of page 9 and continuing through to the end of page 10.

From these selections, consider the following as you analyze:

A. What is President Lincoln attempting to express in each of these selections?
B. Do any of the sentiments expressed, as interpreted by you, parallel your analysis of the Wordle speech tool results?
C. Do any of the sentiments expressed in these selections support or contradict what you have come to understand as Abraham Lincoln’s stance on these issues? (Think back to assigned readings, your own knowledge of the subject, and classroom discussions).

Resources
President Abraham Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address https://worldhistoryreview.org/2016/12/22/r03bc\_hus-5/
Wordle http://www.wordle.net
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Edited by Roy P. Basler et al.
Accessed 20 Dec. 2016 from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/
Terms of Use found at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/conditions.htm
President Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address (1861). Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History. http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/failure-compromise/resources/president-lincoln’s-first-inaugural-address-1861 [you will need to login to your free, affiliate school, student account. Take the time to create a free account if you don’t have one already.]
Note: Paragraph numbers were inserted by Mr.V into the original text to aid in student analysis.

R03bc_President Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address

R03bc_President Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address

March 4, 1861. Washington, DC.

  1. Fellow-citizens of the United States:
    In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President “before he enters on the execution of this office.”
  2. I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
  3. Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
  4. Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”
  5. I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause — as cheerfully to one section as to another.
  6. There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
  7. “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
  8. It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution — to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause, “shall be delivered,” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law, by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
  9. There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him, or to others, by which authority it is done. And should any one, in any case, be content that his oath shall go unkept, on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
  10. Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well, at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States”?
  11. I take the official oath to-day, with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws, by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to, and abide by, all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.
  12. It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens, have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils; and, generally, with great success. Yet, with all this scope for of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
  13. I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever — it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
  14. Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it — break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
  15. Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution, was “to form a more perfect Union.” But if the destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
  16. It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, — that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
  17. I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
  18. In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion — no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices.
  19. The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper; and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
  20. That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
  21. Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step, while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to, are greater than all the real ones you fly from? Will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
  22. All profess to be content in the Union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted, that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution — certainly would, if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
  23. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government, is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority, in such case, will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments, are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
  24. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?
  25. Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
  26. I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be over-ruled, and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
  27. One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections, than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all, by the other.
  28. Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
  29. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.
  30. I will venture to add that to me the Convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions, originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
  31. The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.
  32. Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope, in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth, and that justice, will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
  33. By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals.
  34. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.
  35. My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well, upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied, hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.
  36. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”
  37. I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
PDF copy of an image of the speech found on the Gilder-Lehrman website follows (source link below)
Source
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Edited by Roy P. Basler et al.
Accessed 20 Dec. 2016 from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/
Terms of Use found at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/conditions.htm
President Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address (1861). Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History. http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/failure-compromise/resources/president-lincoln’s-first-inaugural-address-1861 [you will need to login to your free, affiliate school, student account. Take the time to create a free account if you don’t have one already.]
Note: Paragraph numbers were inserted by Mr.V into the original text to aid in student analysis.

R03bc_Abraham Lincoln’s Young Men’s Lyceum Address-Instructions

R03bc_Abraham Lincoln’s Young Men’s Lyceum Address (Speech) of Jan., 1838.

We begin our studies of the Civil War era by focusing our attention on a major player in the events of the time. We will understand the calamity, that we call The Civil War, all the better if we understand the issues that gave birth to it. This speech serves multiple purposes; it informs us about the man and his times.

1. Read a little about the context of the address (Time, Place, Circumstances) by visiting http://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/lincoln/lyceum-address-january-27-1838/. Be sure to record what you understand to be the pivotal contextual points.

2. Read the Lyceum Address, which can be accessed at https://worldhistoryreview.org/2016/12/20/r03bc_hus/

Your goal is to determine *how Abraham Lincoln uses the circumstances of the times (refer to the context) to express his stance on pivotal political questions*. Attempt to identify passages that reveal Lincoln’s view on…

– The Past (events, people, etc.)
– The Law (its role, purpose)
– The Nation (it’s founding principles, it’s promise, it’s nature, etc.)
– Anything else that you consider of value in understanding where Abraham Lincoln stands ‘politically’.

Use the paragraph numbers I embedded in the document to analyze it in segments and quickly locate pivotal text. If you have the necessary software/ device, download the document and highlight relevant excerpts to aid your analysis. Please ensure that all notes concerning this activity are stored in an appropriate section of your digital notebook. That would include any materials (such as this document) related to this activity.

R03bc_The Perpetuation of Our Poltical Institutions

R03bc_ The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions

As one of Abraham Lincoln’s earliest published speeches, this address has been much scrutinized and debated by historians, who see broad implications for his later public policies. Lincoln was 28 years old at the time he gave this speech and had recently moved from a rough pioneer village to Springfield, Illinois.

William Herndon, who would become Lincoln’s law partner in 1844, describes the event this way: “we had a society in Springfield, which contained and commanded all the culture and talent of the place. Unlike the other one its meetings were public, and reflected great credit on the community … The speech was brought out by the burning in St. Louis a few weeks before, by a mob, of a negro. Lincoln took this incident as a sort of text for his remarks … The address was published in the Sangamon Journal and created for the young orator a reputation which soon extended beyond the limits of the locality in which he lived.”

The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions: Address Before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois
January 27, 1838

As a subject for the remarks of the evening, the perpetuation of our political institutions, is selected.

1. In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American People, find our account running, under date of the nineteenth century of the Christian era.–We find ourselves in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. We, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them–they are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Their’s was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; ’tis ours only, to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader; the latter, undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation, to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.

2. How then shall we perform it?–At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?– Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!–All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

3. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

4. I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny. Accounts of outrages committed by mobs, form the every-day news of the times. They have pervaded the country, from New England to Louisiana;–they are neither peculiar to the eternal snows of the former, nor the burning suns of the latter;–they are not the creature of climate– neither are they confined to the slave-holding, or the non-slave- holding States. Alike, they spring up among the pleasure hunting masters of Southern slaves, and the order loving citizens of the land of steady habits.–Whatever, then, their cause may be, it is common to the whole country.

5. It would be tedious, as well as useless, to recount the horrors of all of them. Those happening in the State of Mississippi, and at St. Louis, are, perhaps, the most dangerous in example and revolting to humanity. In the Mississippi case, they first commenced by hanging the regular gamblers; a set of men, certainly not following for a livelihood, a very useful, or very honest occupation; but one which, so far from being forbidden by the laws, was actually licensed by an act of the Legislature, passed but a single year before. Next, negroes, suspected of conspiring to raise an insurrection, were caught up and hanged in all parts of the State: then, white men, supposed to be leagued with the negroes; and finally, strangers, from neighboring States, going thither on business, were, in many instances subjected to the same fate. Thus went on this process of hanging, from gamblers to negroes, from negroes to white citizens, and from these to strangers; till, dead men were seen literally dangling from the boughs of trees upon every road side; and in numbers almost sufficient, to rival the native Spanish moss of the country, as a drapery of the forest.

6. Turn, then, to that horror-striking scene at St. Louis. A single victim was only sacrificed there. His story is very short; and is, perhaps, the most highly tragic, if anything of its length, that has ever been witnessed in real life. A mulatto man, by the name of McIntosh, was seized in the street, dragged to the suburbs of the city, chained to a tree, and actually burned to death; and all within a single hour from the time he had been a freeman, attending to his own business, and at peace with the world.

7. Such are the effects of mob law; and such as the scenes, becoming more and more frequent in this land so lately famed for love of law and order; and the stories of which, have even now grown too familiar, to attract any thing more, than an idle remark.

8. But you are, perhaps, ready to ask, “What has this to do with the perpetuation of our political institutions?” I answer, it has much to do with it. Its direct consequences are, comparatively speaking, but a small evil; and much of its danger consists, in the proneness of our minds, to regard its direct, as its only consequences. Abstractly considered, the hanging of the gamblers at Vicksburg, was of but little consequence. They constitute a portion of population, that is worse than useless in any community; and their death, if no pernicious example be set by it, is never matter of reasonable regret with any one. If they were annually swept, from the stage of existence, by the plague or small pox, honest men would, perhaps, be much profited, by the operation.–Similar too, is the correct reasoning, in regard to the burning of the negro at St. Louis. He had forfeited his life, by the perpetuation of an outrageous murder, upon one of the most worthy and respectable citizens of the city; and had not he died as he did, he must have died by the sentence of the law, in a very short time afterwards. As to him alone, it was as well the way it was, as it could otherwise have been.–But the example in either case, was fearful.–When men take it in their heads to day, to hang gamblers, or burn murderers, they should recollect, that, in the confusion usually attending such transactions, they will be as likely to hang or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is; and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to-morrow, may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them by the very same mistake. And not only so; the innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty, fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defense of the persons and property of individuals, are trodden down, and disregarded. But all this even, is not the full extent of the evil.–By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit, are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint, but dread of punishment, they thus become, absolutely unrestrained.–Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much, as its total annihilation. While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed–I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last. By such things, the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it; and thus it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak, to make their friendship effectual. At such a time and under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be wanting to seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair fabric, which for the last half century, has been the fondest hope, of the lovers of freedom, throughout the world.

9. I know the American People are much attached to their Government;–I know they would suffer much for its sake;–I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come. Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.

10. The question recurs, “how shall we fortify against it?” The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;–let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap–let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;–let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

11. While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.

12. When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made.–I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay; but, till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.

13. There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law. In any case that arises, as for instance, the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true; that is, the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good citizens; or, it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in neither case, is the interposition of mob law, either necessary, justifiable, or excusable.

14. But, it may be asked, why suppose danger to our political institutions? Have we not preserved them for more than fifty years? And why may we not for fifty times as long?

15. We hope there is no sufficient reason. We hope all dangers may be overcome; but to conclude that no danger may ever arise, would itself be extremely dangerous. There are now, and will hereafter be, many causes, dangerous in their tendency, which have not existed heretofore; and which are not too insignificant to merit attention. That our government should have been maintained in its original form from its establishment until now, is not much to be wondered at. It had many props to support it through that period, which now are decayed, and crumbled away. Through that period, it was felt by all, to be an undecided experiment; now, it is understood to be a successful one.–Then, all that sought celebrity and fame, and distinction, expected to find them in the success of that experiment. Their all was staked upon it:– their destiny was inseparably linked with it. Their ambition aspired to display before an admiring world, a practical demonstration of the truth of a proposition, which had hitherto been considered, at best no better, than problematical; namely, the capability of a people to govern themselves. If they succeeded, they were to be immortalized; their names were to be transferred to counties and cities, and rivers and mountains; and to be revered and sung, and toasted through all time. If they failed, they were to be called knaves and fools, and fanatics for a fleeting hour; then to sink and be forgotten. They succeeded. The experiment is successful; and thousands have won their deathless names in making it so. But the game is caught; and I believe it is true, that with the catching, end the pleasures of the chase. This field of glory is harvested, and the crop is already appropriated. But new reapers will arise, and they, too, will seek a field. It is to deny, what the history of the world tells us is true, to suppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to spring up amongst us. And, when they do, they will as naturally seek the gratification of their ruling passion, as others have so done before them. The question then, is, can that gratification be found in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Most certainly it cannot. Many great and good men sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found, whose ambition would inspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion, or the tribe of the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy an Alexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon?–Never! Towering genius distains a beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored.–It sees no distinction in adding story to story, upon the monuments of fame, erected to the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable then to expect, that some man possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us? And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.

16. Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm; yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down.

17. Here, then, is a probable case, highly dangerous, and such a one as could not have well existed heretofore. Another reason which once was; but which, to the same extent, is now no more, has done much in maintaining our institutions thus far. I mean the powerful influence which the interesting scenes of the revolution had upon the passions of the people as distinguished from their judgment. By this influence, the jealousy, envy, and avarice, incident to our nature, and so common to a state of peace, prosperity, and conscious strength, were, for the time, in a great measure smothered and rendered inactive; while the deep-rooted principles of hate, and the powerful motive of revenge, instead of being turned against each other, were directed exclusively against the British nation. And thus, from the force of circumstances, the basest principles of our nature, were either made to lie dormant, or to become the active agents in the advancement of the noblest cause–that of establishing and maintaining civil and religious liberty.

18. But this state of feeling must fade, is fading, has faded, with the circumstances that produced it. I do not mean to say, that the scenes of the revolution are now or ever will be entirely forgotten; but that like every thing else, they must fade upon the memory of the world, and grow more and more dim by the lapse of time. In history, we hope, they will be read of, and recounted, so long as the bible shall be read;– but even granting that they will, their influence cannot be what it heretofore has been. Even then, they cannot be so universally known, nor so vividly felt, as they were by the generation just gone to rest. At the close of that struggle, nearly every adult male had been a participator in some of its scenes. The consequence was, that of those scenes, in the form of a husband, a father, a son or brother, a living history was to be found in every family– a history bearing the indubitable testimonies of its own authenticity, in the limbs mangled, in the scars of wounds received, in the midst of the very scenes related–a history, too, that could be read and understood alike by all, the wise and the ignorant, the learned and the unlearned.–But those histories are gone. They can be read no more forever. They were a fortress of strength; but, what invading foeman could never do, the silent artillery of time has done; the leveling of its walls. They are gone.–They were a forest of giant oaks; but the all-resistless hurricane has swept over them, and left only, here and there, a lonely trunk, despoiled of its verdure, shorn of its foliage; unshading and unshaded, to murmur in a few gentle breezes, and to combat with its mutilated limbs, a few more ruder storms, then to sink, and be no more.

19. They were the pillars of the temple of liberty; and now, that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall, unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.–Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws: and, that we improved to the last; that we remained free to the last; that we revered his name to the last; that, during his long sleep, we permitted no hostile foot to pass over or desecrate his resting place; shall be that which to learn the last trump shall awaken our WASHINGTON.

20. Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Source
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Edited by Roy P. Basler et al.
Accessed 20 Dec. from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/
Terms of Use found at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/conditions.htm
Text Source (Nov., 2014): http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm
Teacher Note: This document was minimally edited by Mr.V for classroom use. Paragraph numbers were added, sources identified at the end of the document, and font styles were modified to enhance reading and analysis.

A03_HUS- Era of Growth and Disunion 1825 – 1877 (Ch.09 – Ch.12)

A03_HUS-Unit 03: Era of Growth and Disunion 1825 – 1877 (Ch.09 – Ch.12)

Purpose:
Along with class lessons and activities, these assignments for Ch.09 – Ch.12 will help us understand why expansion may have aggravated the nation’s regional and philosophical differences.

The Essential Question is…
How did Westward expansion force the nation to address longstanding, unresolved, conflicts between it’s philosophical bedrock and social/ economic norms?

Themes:
– Economic Opportunity
– Diversity and National Identity
– Immigration and Migration
– Women and Political Power
– State’s Rights
– Civil Rights
– Science and Technology
– Voting Rights

Given:
-Use the The Americans textbook to complete the assignment below.
-Refer to the course calendar to acquire due dates and other instructions.

Task:
We will be using a Cornell Notes Template to gather notes from assigned readings. If you would like a quick introduction to the method, please read ‘Student Note-Taking’ under the ‘Admin’ tab in the upper-left menu bar.

The notes you compile (as Cornell Notes) from your reading will augment your class notes and the Auxiliary Notes provided by Mr.V. You are being provided with a list of ‘Key’ vocabulary from each section of the chapter to help you focus and compile notes efficiently. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO INDIVIDUALLY DEFINE THE TERMS.

These notes (as Cornell Notes) are your “Homework” assignments. They must be uploaded as a PDF file to the ‘Assignments’ folder in our shared Dropbox folder. The files are due in Dropbox before the class period on the due date indicated in the course calendar.

There are four chapters within Unit03. The chapter vocabulary listed below are divided into their respective sections. Your notes (as Cornell Notes) should be compiled for each section. Example: Your first reading Assignment will be from Unit03, Chapter09(a) Section01. We call this first assignment A03aS01. Therefore, you should compile notes (as Cornell Notes) for each section and label that file accordingly. Submit each assignment as a separate file. Label each submitted file in the format 2-digit Pd#_LastNameFirstName-FileLabel (Example: 09_SmithJohn-A03aS01). In this example 9th period student, John Smith, submitted his notes (as Cornell Notes) for A03aS01. Remember, when labeling files, an ‘O’ is NOT a Zero ‘0’. ‘O’ is a letter and Zero ‘0’ is a number.

A03a (Ch.09)
The Market Revolution
S01
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Samuel F. B. Morse
– Specialization
– Market Revolution
– Telegraph
– John Deere
– Cyrus McCormick

S02
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Manifest Destiny
– Treaty of Fort Laramie
– Santa Fe Trail
– Oregon Trail
– Mormons
– Joseph Smith
– Brigham Young
– “Fifty-Four Forty or Fight!”

S03
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Annex
– Stephen F. Austin
– Alamo
– Antonio López de Santa Anna
– Sam Houston
– Republic of Texas

S04
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Gadsden Purchase
– Forty-niners
– Gold Rush
– James K. Polk
– Zachary Taylor
– Republic of California
– Winfield Scot
– Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

A03b (Ch.10)
The Union in Peril
S01
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Wilmot Proviso
– Secession
– Compromise of 1850
– Popular Sovereignty
– Stephen A. Douglas

S02
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Fugitive Slave Act
– Underground Railroad
– Harriet Tubman
– Harriet Beecher Stowe
– Uncle Tom’s Cabin
– Kansas-Nebraska Act
– John Brown
– Bleeding Kansas

S03
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Franklin Pierce
– Nativism
– Know-Nothing Party
– Free-Soil Party
– Republican Party
– Horace Greeley
– John C. Frémont
– James Buchanan

S04
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Dred Scott
– Roger B. Taney
– Abraham Lincoln
– Freeport Doctrine
– Harpers Ferry
– Confederacy (Confederate States of America)
– Jefferson Davis

A03c (Ch.11)
The Civil War
S01
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Fort Sumter
– Anaconda Plan
– George McClellan
– Ulysses S. Grant
– David G. Farragut
– Monitor
– Merrimack
– Robert E. Lee
– Antietam

S02
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Emancipation Proclamation
– Habeas corpus
– Copperhead
– Conscription

S03
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Fort Pillow
– Income tax
– Clara Barton
– Andersonville

S04
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Gettysburg
– Vicksburg
– Gettysburg Address
– William Tecumseh Sherman
– Appomattox Court House

S05
Terms, Names, Phrases

– National Bank Act
– Thirteenth Amendment
– Red Cross
– John Wilkes Booth

A03d (Ch.12)
The Reconstruction and its Effects
S01
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Andrew Johnson
– Radical Republicans
– Thaddeus Stevens
– Wade-Davis Bill
– Freedmen’s Bureau
– Black Codes
– Fourteenth Amendment
– Impeach
– Fifteenth Amendment

S02
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Scalawag
– Carpetbagger
– Sharecropping
– Tenant Farming

S03
Terms, Names, Phrases

– Ku Klux Klan (KKK)
– Panic of 1873
– Samuel J. Tilden
– Rutherford B. Hayes
– Compromise of 1877
– Home Rule

Lincoln delivers Gettysburg Address | History.com This Day in History — 11/19/1863

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/lincoln-delivers-gettysburg-address?et_cid=67575088&et_rid=950877813&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.history.com%2fthis-day-in-history%2flincoln-delivers-gettysburg-address

Lincoln delivers Gettysburg Address

On November 19, 1863, at the dedication of a military cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, during the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln delivers one of the most memorable speeches in American history. In just 272 words, Lincoln brilliantly and movingly reminded a war-weary public why the Union had to fight, and win, the Civil War.

The Battle of Gettysburg, fought some four months earlier, was the single bloodiest battle of the Civil War. Over the course of three days, more than 45,000 men were killed, injured, captured or went missing. The battle also proved to be the turning point of the war: General Robert E. Lee‘s defeat and retreat from Gettysburg marked the last Confederate invasion of Northern territory and the beginning of the Southern army’s ultimate decline.

Charged by Pennsylvania’s governor, Andrew Curtin, to care for the Gettysburg dead, an attorney named David Wills bought 17 acres of pasture to turn into a cemetery for the more than 7,500 who fell in battle. Wills invited Edward Everett, one of the most famous orators of the day, to deliver a speech at the cemetery’s dedication. Almost as an afterthought, Wills also sent a letter to Lincoln—just two weeks before the ceremony—requesting “a few appropriate remarks” to consecrate the grounds.

At the dedication, the crowd listened for two hours to Everett before Lincoln spoke. Lincoln’s address lasted just two or three minutes. The speech reflected his redefined belief that the Civil War was not just a fight to save the Union, but a struggle for freedom and equality for all, an idea Lincoln had not championed in the years leading up to the war. This was his stirring conclusion: “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Reception of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was initially mixed, divided strictly along partisan lines. Nevertheless, the “little speech,” as he later called it, is thought by many today to be the most eloquent articulation of the democratic vision ever written.

Fact Check We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn’t look right, contact us!

Ready to Rumble? A Fight Between Lincoln and the Other Douglass| We’re History


Another great article from the writers at ‘We’re History’.

The We’re History article follows this commentary.

I remember the confusion I battled with as a high school student when attempting to spell the last name of Senator S. Douglas and the former slave, turned Abolitionist/ orator, F. Douglass. Was that two S’s or one?

My childhood mental battles aside, I thought this article was going down a totally unusual path when it opened with a Fox News effort to get former presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to participate in a series of debates. I’m happy to say I was wrong.

The stories of how Mr. A. Lincoln and Mr. F. Douglass HAD to resort to physical violence (fighting, brawling) to move their personal lives forward, further endear these figures to all of us. Mr. Douglass’ battle with the physical abuse that slavery wrought on him is not alien to us today. Surely, the institution that once held 4 million people in bondage no longer exists in our nation, but there are many who still wage a personal battle against abuse. To them, Mr. Douglass’ stand is a testament that even a government-sponsored bully will eventually fall and the innocent can once again take their rightful place among The People.

Mr. Lincoln’s story surely rings true for those of us who have suffered from the un-welcomed attention of bullies. The stereotypical ‘”having sand kicked in your face”‘ description of bullying comes to mind. The gang the article mentions was more a group of hooligans that everyone in town knew about. They were probably more of a ‘Westside Story’ type of gang than the ones we hear about today. The moment came for Mr. Lincoln, as it did with Mr. Douglass, for someone to standup to these bullies. As Popeye would say, “This is all I can stand for I can’t stand no more.” Mr. Lincoln became an unofficial gang member after he beat the best fighter/ wrestler in the gang in a brawl. Mr. Lincoln was targeted by the gang, but he met the challenge. Having bested their best fighter, Mr. Lincoln was accepted and respected by the hooligans who ran the gang. Of course, anyone in town who knew Mr. Lincoln also knew that the “good guy” won and similarly offered their respect to the awkward looking, but amiable, ‘Abe’.

In both cases an individual, unknown to all but a few people, stood up and made a stand against those forces that try to destroy our identity. Both men ‘earned the lives’ they reclaimed. One goes on to personally influence the conscience of the nation and lend a voice to those who were speech-less. The other becomes a secular-saint. Elevated to a semi-divine stature by challenging ‘what could not be challenged’ and winning. To those who fight a personal bout against abuse/ bullying, take heart and emulate the Will, if not the method, of these historical figures.

Ready to Rumble? A Fight Between Lincoln and the Other Douglass

http://werehistory.org/lincoln-douglass-rumble/

Lincoln and the other Douglass

In the run up to the 2008 Democratic primary, Fox News proposed a series of debates between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton reminiscent of the ones between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass 1856. This was certainly not the worst idea ever proposed on Fox News, except that the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates were between Republican Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, Democratic senator from Illinois, not Frederick Douglass, the renowned abolitionist. The Douglass confusion is a pet peeve of history teachers everywhere. “Abraham Lincoln sparred with Frederick Douglass in 1858,” one student wrote recently. Struck by the student’s choice of the word “sparring,” I wondered: what if there had been a violent clash between two figures in American history who were known more for their verbal swordsmanship than their actual physical combativeness? Both men, it would seem, believed the pen was mightier than the sword. But, it turns out, that wasn’t true all the time.

In fact, both Abe “The Railsplitter” Lincoln and Frederick “The Lion of Anacostia” Douglass were not above throwing physical punches as well as intellectual ones.

Remarkable both for his height and physical strength, Lincoln cultivated his public persona as a man accustomed to manual labor and rough living. Not only did he work splitting rails in the Illinois backcountry before becoming a lawyer, Lincoln also gained some repute in rural Illinois as a member of local gang known as the Clary’s Grove Boys. A rough-and-tumble set of young men who were “the terror of all who did not acknowledge their rule,” these rowdies demonstrated their “physical courage and prowess” in numerous public brawls and wrestling matches. The Friday Night Fights of the early nineteenth century, these brawls could get ugly. Eye gouging was common, and a man often gained his reputation by how many ears and noses he had liberated from opponents. These free-for-all battles sometimes lasted days until one man was left standing. This was Fight Club nineteenth-century style. While there is no evidence that Lincoln ever engaged in such brutal contests, the Boys claimed Lincoln was their best man. His membership in the gang also proved salutary for his political career. By the time of the 1860 election, the Clary’s Grove Boys, by then doctors, lawyers, and all around respectable men, became key players in Lincoln’s bid to win the Republic presidential nomination in Chicago.

Lincoln’s physical prowess on display. Although Lincoln’s ax is metaphorical, the cartoon nonetheless draws on Lincoln’s image as a workingman and a fighter. (Photo: Harper’s Weekly/Library of Congress)

Douglass’s fighting past had even more serious implications. As he related in his autobiography, fighting made him free. When he was still a slave in Maryland, Douglass’s owner rented him out to Edward Covey, a man known for “taming” troublesome slaves. After several months of abuse, Douglass decided that if he was ever to become a free man, he must fight back. The next time Covey tried to whip him, Douglass embarked on an epic two-hour battle that left the young slave bloodied but unbowed. Covey never tried to whip him again. Douglass wrote that the fight with Covey, “rekindled in my breast the smoldering embers of liberty…and revived a sense of my own manhood. I was a changed being after that fight. I was nothing before; I WAS A MAN NOW.” Once he finally escaped to the North and became the nation’s leading antislavery spokesman, Douglass often spoke of the need for slaves to “strike a blow” physically for their own freedom, especially as soldiers in the Union Army during the Civil War. With his regal mane of hair and ferocity in the fight against slavery, Douglass became known as the “Lion of Anacostia,” the neighborhood in Washington, D.C. where he lived.

For both men, their experience throwing punches helped shape their public images as fighters for their political causes. As the sectional crisis intensified toward the final split after Lincoln’s election, people on both sides of the slavery issue increasingly sought out men who were willing to fight. Southerners had long appreciated fighting men, as the dozens of gutta-percha canes sent to South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks to replace the one he broke over Charles Sumner’s head attests to. Likewise, John Brown’s violent retribution in Kansas and later at Harper’s Ferry energized many northerners in the antislavery fight. By 1860, many Americans had come to see politics as a physical contest from which they dare not shrink.

4th U.S. Colored Infantry

Striking a Blow for Freedom. 4th U.S. Colored Infantry. (Photo: Library of Congress)

Although Abraham Lincoln never fought (or debated) Frederick Douglass, the culture of manly violence that infused American politics in the mid-nineteenth century would finally erupt in civil war. But as Douglass himself noted on many occasions, it was only through fighting – in the army, not in the boxing ring – that black men could prove themselves worthy of citizenship. The irony that violence brought both the death of nearly 800,000 soldiers and the freedom of over four million enslaved men, women, and children should give us pause as we culminate the sesquicentennial of the Civil War and think about the legacy of that conflict. It is difficult to commemorate the Civil War without glorifying it. But if a fictional fight between two of the nineteenth century’s political giants tells us anything, it’s that glory is also a product of our imaginations.

About the Author

Carole Emberton

Carole Emberton is Associate Professor of History at the University at Buffalo who specializes in the Civil War Era. She is the author of Beyond Redemption: Race, Violence, and the American South after the Civil War (University of Chicago Press, 2013) and is currently working on a book about the memories of emancipation among ex-slaves. Carole has also contributed to the New York Times “Disunion” series as well as History News Network.

Author Archive Page

Mr.V