President Abraham Lincoln: Saint or Sinner?

Coming in at Number 1 on John Hawkins's list of The Seven Greatest Presidents in American History was Abraham Lincoln. Before getting into the reasons cited by Hawkins for his decision to rank Lincoln at #1, I thought I would provide some counter points of view to this decision given that some Libertarians, among others, have a less than favorable view concerning Honest Abe.

John Quincy Public, a/k/a JQP, a/k/a Jquip of the blog Job's Goat that I link to on the right, had this to say about the Kentucky-born and Illinios-raised statesman....

"He was largely normal as trial lawyers go. Low men that have no regard for the written law nor anything passing as sound in terms of logic. And they are all as successful as statesmen; which is to say that they've nearly all been really good failures. Which is hardly surprising given that a statesman's job is to find non-violent compromise whereas a lawyer's job is to win at all costs.

But Lincoln the man doesn't exist and he would be hardly remembered if not for a foolish bet made to garrison forts Pickens and Sumter by cover of night. He is instead a central figure of sainthood in the modern religious cult of American politics. And blamed as the Patron Saint to the Chewbacca Defense of Democracy. That the majority rules, and such a majority can be morally constructed by mortal attrition of your opponent.

The proponents of his mythology are seemingly far too comfortable with juntas and banana republics to remain as unarmed as they are. And our continued civil peace relies on the notion that their opponents, heavily armed, will never take the Lincoln religion to heart.

If we are to be a nation of laws then it is of great importance that Lincoln be returned to his place in them as a man and lawyer. If we are to embrace his pedestal then we should be done with it and hold all national elections in a standard caliber and shell casing."

Indeed, such criticism is mild when compared to Vox Day's (who I also link to on the right) opinion of the man.

"Lincoln is a secular saint for the same reason that the Roman Senate deified Octavian Augustus - he was the first emperor of Imperial America. Lincoln was, without a doubt, the worst president [of] the United States of America because he murdered what had been a free and voluntary republican confederation in the name of a Federal Union imposed by violence.

Naturally, the would-be totalitarians of today revere him. But every freedom-loving American, black or white, should mark the end of the Republic by him. Sic semper tyrannis."

Now for the opposing view that Lincoln was one of, if not THE greatest president of all time. Hawkins writes...

"Lincoln is criticized by some libertarians and Paleocons these days because they say he could have avoided the Civil War entirely by buying all the slaves. Even though Lincoln apparently took the idea seriously, the historical evidence suggests the idea wouldn't have worked. Lincoln also gets dinged for dramatically curtailing constitutional rights during the war, but as the old saying goes, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." In a bloody Civil War that could have legitimately meant the end of the union, it was better to break the rules and win -- than go by the book and see the nation that the Constitution was meant to guide split into two hostile halves.

Those issues aside, Abe Lincoln is the father of the Republican Party, the man most responsible for ending slavery, and his leadership was crucial to guiding America to victory in the Civil War. Had Sherman not taken Atlanta when he did, it's entirely possible Lincoln could have lost re-election in 1864 to General McClellan, which could have easily led to the war ending in a draw and a very different history for this country. "

One item that is often cited by those who are critical of Lincoln was his decision to arrest members of the Maryland State Legislature with pro-Confederate leanings. As this md.gov website explains, "For the Federal Government, however, there was no question about which side Maryland had to take. If she seceded, Washington D.C. would be surrounded by hostile states, effectively cut off from the rest of the Union."

I consider myself to be a pragmatist on most matters and I feel that Lincoln's preservation of the Union was, on net balance, a positive thing for the world. I recall how one writer brought up how world history might have been decidedly different had not a strong United States entered World War I (or World war II even) and instead we here on the North America continent were a balkanized lot consisting of North, South and Western, seperate political entities. Additionally, would such seperate countries have had the will, resources and influence to provide an effective counter-weight to the Soviets during the Cold War? We will never really know of course but my suspicions lead me to be thankful that steps were taken to maintain what is the United States as one nation and not several.