Embracing Lincoln on his 200th birthday

Embracing Lincoln on his 200th birthday

KERRY P. TALBOTT/TIMES-DISPATCH

» 31 Comments | Post a Comment
MAP OF LINCOLN's VISIT

In his lifetime, Abraham Lincoln was vilified in Virginia as a tyrant, a fool and a madman. The Richmond Enquirer labeled him an "illiterate partizan" and a "fanatic." The Richmond Dispatch published a biographical sketch of him under the headline, "A history of the gorilla."

And one of Lincoln's own cousins in Virginia, John Lincoln, on seeing his crops burned by Union Gen. Philip H. Sheridan's troops in 1864, exclaimed in a rage that he would "go out and shoot Cousin Abe."

So the Virginians -- the white Virginians, anyway -- who watched Lincoln walk through a smoldering Richmond on April 4, 1865, two days after Jefferson Davis and his Confederate Cabinet fled by special train to Danville, would be shocked, horrified even, to hear Virginians praising Lincoln today.

And yet they are. Some, perhaps, grudgingly. Nevertheless, the merits of the long-boned man in the stovepipe hat no longer are overlooked in the commonwealth.

Wise, funny, humble, magnanimous -- these are the traits widely attributed to Lincoln as the nation today celebrates the 200th anniversary of the Illinois Rail-Splitter's birthday.

But in the dark days of the Civil War, Virginians conditioned by Southern propaganda and a wartime mind set were blind to those virtues.

His humble beginnings? Merely a disreputable background. His folksy speech? Uncouth. And his bottomless well of humorous anecdotes? Tiresome tales told to bore visitors to the White House.

Lincoln has not changed since then. Virginia has.

"If you look at what children are taught, you see only praise for Abraham Lincoln," said historian Edward L. Ayers, president of the University of Richmond. "I would think white Virginians think Abraham Lincoln was the greatest president."

"Virginia by the 100th anniversary of Lincoln's birth had already started coming around to a favorable view of Lincoln," said Phillip Stone, president of Bridgewater College and head of the Lincoln Society of Virginia, purportedly the only organization of its kind in the former Confederacy.

"They never have accepted [Union Gens.] Grant or Sheridan or Sherman, and they probably never will."

. . .

In April 1865, as Lincoln walked through Richmond's streets to the White House of the Confederacy along with his 12-year-old son, Tad, and a small escort of sailors, he experienced freed slaves crowding around him.

Some cried out "Bless the Lord!" and "Thank you, Jesus!"

Today, black Virginians continue to honor his memory. He was Father Abraham, the Great Emancipator. And, though his views on race were less than enlightened, he remains the deliverer from bondage, the bringer of jubilee.

"I know quite a few older [African-Americans] who have a picture of Lincoln, Jesus and Martin Luther King Jr. on their wall," said Lauranett Lee, curator of African-American history at the Virginia Historical Society in Richmond. "He was the president who freed the slaves, very much revered in our schools, our churches and our homes."

Among Southern states, Virginia's relationship with Lincoln is unique. He was born in a one-room log cabin in Kentucky, a state that until 1792 was part of the Old Dominion.

His great-grandparents and grandparents were settlers in the Shenandoah Valley, and his father, Thomas Lincoln, was born in a Rockingham County farmhouse on Linville Creek about 1778. The Lincoln Homestead Cemetery still is there.

Another kinsman, Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, was second-in-command to George Washington at Yorktown and received the surrender sword of Cornwallis from the British general's second-in-command.

It was a Virginian -- Robert E. Lee -- to whom Lincoln turned when he became president: Lincoln needed a general to lead a federal army to put down the growing rebellion of Southern states.

Lee, famously, turned down the offer and became the Confederate States of America's leading general, achieving nearly Old Testament status in Virginia.

The words supposedly uttered by John Wilkes Booth, "Sic semper tyrannis!" or, "Thus always to tyrants," after he shot Lincoln in Ford's Theatre, are Virginia's state motto.

And Virginia was the only Confederate state that Lincoln visited during the war. As Gen. Ulysses S. Grant's army pressed Lee and besieged Petersburg, Lincoln rode up the James River on the River Queen, a steamboat attached to Adm. David Porter's ship, the Malvern.

Stopping at City Point, in what today is Hopewell, Lincoln conferred with Grant and, looking forward to the imminent end of the war, told his general that "there must be no hangings; there must be no bloody work."

. . .

Days later, Lee rode to Appomattox to surrender his army, uncertain whether he would be executed as a traitor.

"That Grant would treat him with such tenderness and dignity, it's such a rich scene," historian Jay Winik, author of "April 1865: The Month That Saved America," once noted. "He was carrying out Lincoln's vision at City Point of no bloody work, no hangings."

Lincoln's character was on display again as he stopped in Richmond. After arriving at Rocketts Landing, Lincoln was rowed by 12 sailors to a wharf near Libby Prison, where he stepped out and found no reception committee, only a Northern reporter he recognized, Charles C. Coffin of the Boston Journal.

Coffin described a scene in which a party of 20 -- Lincoln and his boy, 12 sailors with carbines, four naval officers, Coffin and a black guide -- walked toward the house that Jefferson Davis had vacated recently.

As they stepped through the streets, Lincoln "manifested no signs of exultation," his face a mask of "indescribable sadness" as a great column of smoke rose above the destroyed city, Coffin wrote.

Crowds of freed slaves, meanwhile, swelled around him, praising God and blessing Lincoln, "running, shouting, dancing, swinging their caps, bonnets and handkerchiefs."

Lincoln walked in silence. "It was the man of the people among the people," Coffin wrote. "It was the great deliverer meeting the delivered. Yesterday morning the majority of the thousands who crowded the streets and hindered our advances were slaves. Now they were free, beholding him who had given them liberty."

Finally at Jefferson Davis' mansion, Lincoln sat in the Confederate president's chair and relaxed.

. . .

Five days later, April 9, the day Lee surrendered, Lincoln was back in Washington. Five days after that, April 14, he was mortally wounded at Ford's Theatre. He died the next day.

Then came Reconstruction, a harrowing affair for many Southerners who quickly realized they might have fared better if Lincoln had lived.

"In the long run, Virginians as well as everybody else begin to understand that," said William Miller, a scholar at the University of Virginia and author of "Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography."

Though Virginia may understand Lincoln's place in the pantheon of American presidents, the recognition was a long time coming. Not until 1970 did the state Senate salute Lincoln, adjourning on Feb. 12 that year in honor of his birthday. At the time, Virginia was led by A. Linwood Holton Jr., the first Republican governor since Reconstruction.

But if the sentiment toward Lincoln is warm, it's not unanimous. In 2003, as Richmond dedicated a life-size bronze statue of the 16th president and his son on a spot near the James River, protesters on the edges of the ceremony booed and howled.

One placard read, "Long live John Wilkes Booth," and a small plane flying overhead trailed a banner that read, "Sic Semper Tyrannis."

"I was pretty much taken aback by the jeers and hollers and screaming," said Stone, who was there. Stone said it was then that he decided to form the Lincoln Society of Virginia.

The Virginia General Assembly elected not to create a bicentennial commission to honor Lincoln's birthday. But legislators on the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Commission plan to deliver floor speeches today to commemorate his 200th birthday.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, meanwhile, has issued a statement extolling Lincoln's courage, hospitality and compassion. "We in Virginia," Kaine wrote, "claim him as a brother."

Today, Stone plans to lead a memorial ceremony at the Lincoln Homestead Cemetery, the 34th consecutive memorial at the Rockingham gravesites that he has organized.

Stone said people in the Shenandoah Valley, once put to the torch by Union troops, are almost unanimously supportive of recognizing Lincoln. In the end, he said, Lincoln's strength of character is greater than any regional hatred.

"We admire in America a person who works out of poverty and becomes something," Stone said. "Lincoln was a rags-to-riches story. And he's also the martyr president -- people don't like trampling on a man who's been shot in the back."


Contact Rex Bowman at (540) 344-3612 or .

Advertisement

 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by greta on February 14, 2009 at 10:35 pm

Oddly I can no longer find your comment
in the postings. Perhaps I was not the only one offended by that juvenile attempt at humor.

Flag Comment Posted by up it on February 14, 2009 at 9:39 pm

Poor taste? Greta find a better taste.

Flag Comment Posted by greta on February 14, 2009 at 11:48 am

12steprevenge-Hyperbole is far too anemic a term. It was despicable to use mental retardation in a cheap shot to make a point.
Why would you defend that?

Flag Comment Posted by 12steprevenge on February 13, 2009 at 10:26 pm

Oh, never mind… copies and pasted.

... and Greta, you’ve never read a comment in such poor taste?


Really?


Really??? Of all the comments on here?


Gotta love hyperbole!

Flag Comment Posted by 12steprevenge on February 13, 2009 at 10:24 pm

HJackson, nice original thoughts! You are a real scholar of history!

Flag Comment Posted by hjackson on February 13, 2009 at 9:30 pm

Read the 4 articles below from the bottom up. Sorry I forgot they would be reverse.

Flag Comment Posted by hjackson on February 13, 2009 at 9:25 pm

Little reported and lightly regarded in our history books is the way Lincoln abused and discarded the individual rights of Northern citizens. Tens of thousands of citizens were imprisoned (most without trial) for political opposition, or “treason,“ and their property confiscated. Habeas corpus and, in effect, the entire Bill of Rights was suspended. Newspapers were shut down and legislators detained so they could not offer any vote unfavorable to Lincoln’s conquest.

In fact, the Declaration of Independence details remarkably similar abuses by King George to those committed by Lincoln: the “Military [became] independent of and superior to the Civil power”; he imposed taxes without consent; citizens were deprived “in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury”; state legislatures were suspended in order to prevent more secessions; he “plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people ... scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.“

The final analysis…
Chief among the spoils of victory is the privilege of writing the history.

Lincoln said, “Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.“

Lincoln’s enduring reputation is the result of his martyrdom. He was murdered on Good Friday and the metaphorical comparisons between Lincoln and Jesus were numerous.

Typical is this observation three days after his death by Parke Godwin, editor of the New York Evening Post: “No loss has been comparable to his. Never in human history has there been so universal, so spontaneous, so profound an expression of a nation’s bereavement. [He was] our supremest leader—our safest counselor—our wisest friend—our dear father.“

A more thorough and dispassionate reading of history, however, reveals a substantial expanse between his reputation and his character.

“America will never be destroyed from the outside,“ Lincoln declared. “If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.“ Never were truer words spoken.

While the War Between the States concluded in 1865, the battle for states’ rights—the struggle to restore constitutional federalism—remains spirited, particularly among the ranks of our Patriot readers.

In his inaugural speech, Barack Obama quoted Lincoln: “We are not enemies, but friends…. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.“

Let us hope that he pays more heed to those words than did Lincoln.

Flag Comment Posted by hjackson on February 13, 2009 at 9:25 pm

To provide some context, three decades before the occupation of Fort Sumter, former secretary of war and then South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun argued, “Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the states, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail.“

Two decades before the commencement of hostilities between the states, John Quincy Adams wrote, “If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other ... far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union. ... I hold that it is no perjury, that it is no high-treason, but the exercise of a sacred right to offer such a petition.“

But the causal case for states’ rights is most aptly demonstrated by the words and actions of Gen. Robert E. Lee, who detested slavery and opposed secession. In 1860, however, Gen. Lee declined Lincoln’s request that he take command of the Army of the Potomac, saying that his first allegiance was to his home state of Virginia: “I have, therefore, resigned my commission in the army, and save in defense of my native state ... I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword.“ He would, soon thereafter, take command of the Army of Northern Virginia, rallying his officers with these words: “Let each man resolve to be victorious, and that the right of self-government, liberty and peace shall find him a defender.“

In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln employed lofty rhetoric to conceal the truth of our nation’s most costly war—a war that resulted in the deaths of some 600,000 Americans and the severe disabling of more than 400,000 others. He claimed to be fighting so 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.“ In fact, Lincoln was ensuring just the opposite by waging an appallingly bloody war while ignoring calls for negotiated peace. It was the “rebels” who were intent on self-government, and it was Lincoln who rejected their right to that end, despite our Founders’ clear admonition to the contrary in the Declaration.

Moreover, had Lincoln’s actions been subjected to the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention (the first being codified in 1864), he and his principal military commanders, with Gen. William T. Sherman heading the list, would have been tried for war crimes. This included waging “total war” against not just combatants, but the entire civilian population. It is estimated that Sherman’s march to the sea was responsible for the rape and murder of tens of thousands of civilians.

Further solidifying their wartime legacy, Sherman, Gen. Philip Sheridan, and young Brigadier General George Armstrong Custer (whose division blocked Gen. Lee’s retreat from Appomattox), spent the next ten years waging unprecedented racial genocide against the Plains Indians.)

Lincoln’s war may have preserved the Union geographically (at great cost to the Constitution), but politically and philosophically, the constitutional foundation for a voluntary union was shredded by sword, rifle and cannon.

“Reconstruction” followed the war, and with it an additional period of Southern probation, plunder and misery, leading Robert E. Lee to conclude, “If I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.“

Continued below:

Flag Comment Posted by hjackson on February 13, 2009 at 9:24 pm

Preserve the Union…
Of course, the second of Lincoln’s most famous achievements was the preservation of the Union.

Despite common folklore, northern aggression was not predicated upon freeing slaves, but, according to Lincoln, “preserving the Union.“ In his First Inaugural Address Lincoln declared, “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.“

“Implied, if not expressed”?

This is the first colossal example of errant constitutional interpretation, the advent of the so-called “Living Constitution.“

Lincoln also threatened the use of force to maintain the Union when he said, “In [preserving the Union] there needs to be no bloodshed or violence ... unless it be forced upon the national authority.“

On the other hand, according to the Confederacy, the War Between the States had as its sole objective the preservation of the constitutional sovereignty of the several states.

The Founding Fathers established the constitutional Union as a voluntary agreement among the several states, subordinate to the Declaration of Independence, which never mentions the nation as a singular entity, but instead repeatedly references the states as sovereign bodies, unanimously asserting their independence. To that end, our Constitution’s author, James Madison, in an 1825 letter to our Declaration of Independence’s author, Thomas Jefferson, asserted, “On the distinctive principles of the Government ... of the U. States, the best guides are to be found in ... The Declaration of Independence, as the fundamental Act of Union of these States.“

The states, in ratifying the Constitution, established the federal government as their agent—not the other way around. At Virginia’s ratification convention, for example, the delegates affirmed “that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to injury or oppression.“ Were this not true, the federal government would not have been established as federal, but instead a national, unitary and unlimited authority. In large measure as a consequence of the War Between the States, the “federal” government has grown to become an all-but unitary and unlimited authority.

Our Founders upheld the individual sovereignty of the states, even though the wisdom of secessionist movements was a source of debate from the day the Constitution was ratified. Tellingly, Alexander Hamilton, the utmost proponent of centralization among the Founders, noted in Federalist No. 81 that waging war against the states “would be altogether forced and unwarrantable.“ At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton argued, “Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself?“

Flag Comment Posted by hjackson on February 13, 2009 at 9:21 pm

In 1860, Lincoln racial views were explicit in these words: “They say that between the black and the crocodile they go for the black. The proportion, therefore, is, that as the crocodile to the black so is the black to the white man.“

As for delivering slaves from bondage, it was two years after the commencement of hostilities that Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation—to protests from free laborers in the North, who didn’t want emancipated slaves migrating north and competing for their jobs. He did so only as a means to an end, victory in the bloody War Between the States—“to do more to help the cause.“

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery,“ said Lincoln in regard to the Proclamation. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.“

In truth, not a single slave was emancipated by the stroke of Lincoln’s pen. The Proclamation freed only “slaves within any State ... the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States.“ In other words, Lincoln declared slaves were “free” in Confederate states, where his proclamation had no power, but excluded slaves in states that were not in rebellion, or areas controlled by the Union army. Slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware and Maryland were left in bondage.

His own secretary of state, William Seward, lamented, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.“

The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass was so angry with Lincoln for delaying the liberation of some slaves that he scarcely contacted him before 1863, noting that Lincoln was loyal only “to the welfare of the white race…“ Ten years after Lincoln’s death, Douglass wrote that Lincoln was “preeminently the white man’s President” and American blacks were “at best only his step-children.“

With his Proclamation, Lincoln succeeded in politicizing the issue and short-circuiting the moral solution to slavery, thus leaving the scourge of racial inequality to fester to this day—in every state of the Union.

Many historians argue that Southern states would likely have reunited with Northern states before the end of the 19th century had Lincoln allowed for a peaceful and constitutionally accorded secession. Slavery would have been supplanted by moral imperative and technological advances in cotton production. Furthermore, under this reunification model, the constitutional order of the republic would have remained largely intact.

In fact, while the so-called “Civil War” (which by definition, the Union attack on the South was not) eradicated slavery, it also short-circuited the moral imperative regarding racism, leaving the nation with racial tensions that persist today. Ironically, there is now more evidence of ethnic tension in Boston than in Birmingham, in Los Angeles than in Atlanta, and in Chicago than in Charleston.

Continued below:

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

  • Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
  • Respect others.
  • Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
  • See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Click here to post a comment.

 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Videos
Weekend
 

Advertisement