Kate, et al.,

Spin on!

Quote:Was he aware of the damage that he did, as far as respecting (disrespecting, actually) the Constitution, and the precedent it might set for future presidents? Or did he sort of muddle through his presidency and do whatever it took to obtain his goals of abolition and preserving the Union, rather than carefully planning it all in advance? Did he see himself as a sort of Messiah, or handpicked by God, or fated to lead the country through the Civil War and Reconstruction?

First, I have to respectfully say I disagree with your premise. Lincoln no more set precedent for future presidents than Thomas Jefferson did when he negotiated the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson never believed that he had any constitutional authority to buy land, but did so as a buffer against French influence in the region and to keep free trade flowing through the Mississippi. Also, one might say the same of the judiciary branch, specifically the Supreme Court. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention the term "judicial review" yet, when the court heard Marbury vs. Madison (and even before that point) it was practiced. My point is that it is easy to look at Lincoln's self-interpretation of his constitutional powers as having no precedent, but that's not correct. Before William Henry Harrison died in office, there was a question as to whether the vice-president was acting president or whether he assumed the duties as president. Things which are unprecedented sometimes happen that require actions which in other circumstances would have been wrong. Before the southern states seceded, there had never been an internal attempt at rebellion which had gone this far. Lincoln had very little choice if the nation was to survive.

Also, Lincoln's goals at the outset of the war did not include abolition. His only goal, stated or otherwise, was preserving the Union. Lincoln NEVER embraced abolitionism (at least in the sense we understand the concept) up until three years before he was murdered, and even then I think he would have preferred some sort of compensated emancipation followed by voluntary colonization. Lincoln never saw himself as a messiah. That came from others after his assassination.

Best
Rob

Rob, I just love your response! I would like to especially highlight your point that the rebellion of the southern states was unprecedented. As Lincoln didn't have a blueprint for handling this kind of situation, he basically had to improvise almost everything he did.

One thing that non-lawyers routinely do in discussing the Constitution is assume it to be a static document that can have no meaning beyond whatever may be viewed as its literal interpretation. (I see that especially today in people's characterizations of measures taken by our current President.) The Constitution's meaning has been steadily evolving since its adoption to meet the needs and challenges of a growing and developing and modernizing society. This evolution is the work of 200 years of jurisprudence; in our common law system, case law (i.e., decisions concerning lawsuits) has as much, if not more, to say about the meaning of the Constitution than the Constitution itself does within its four corners.

But, as Rob said, Lincoln had nothing to go on in dealing with an unprecedented crisis. And one thing that many Americans don't seem to realize today is that the Civil War was - and still is - the biggest crisis ever faced by the United States. The only thing that comes close to it is World War Two, and even then we didn't have the broad internal discord that we had during Lincoln's presidency.

During the Civil War, we faced an existential threat - a threat to our very existence as a nation and a democracy - and this threat came from within. The United States was literally falling apart. Lincoln just about managed to keep the North together - with the political equivalents of string, glue, and tape - let alone keep the South in the Union!

An excellent book to read on the topic of Lincoln's use of power is Mark Neely's 20-year-old volume, The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties. If I remember correctly (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), Neely argued that Lincoln's use of things like the suspension of habeas corpus and the imposition of martial law were not nearly as "arbitrary" as has often been said and were more narrowly targeted than he has gotten credit for. Unfortunately, Lincoln couldn't be everywhere all the time; his "lieutenants in the field" often got carried away with their authority or what they perceived to be their authority and caused Lincoln a lot of headaches. The most notorious example of this overreaching is, I think, the arrest of Clement Vallandigham, the copperhead politician from Ohio, which Lincoln did not order and which he would have preferred to not have happened.

Another interesting book to read on this general topic is Lincoln and the Press, by an author named Harper, which was published in the 1950s. It's pretty clear that a lot of the trouble that local editors faced were in overzealous local authorities and angry mobs of civilians and soldiers on leave.

Anyway, I think we need to separate our feelings about what we might tolerate in today's environment with what might have been appropriate, or at least understandable, in a time of secession and Civil War. If we can do that, we might be able to look at some of the things Lincoln did in a different light.

(01-09-2013 09:24 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote:Was he aware of the damage that he did, as far as respecting (disrespecting, actually) the Constitution, and the precedent it might set for future presidents? Or did he sort of muddle through his presidency and do whatever it took to obtain his goals of abolition and preserving the Union, rather than carefully planning it all in advance? Did he see himself as a sort of Messiah, or handpicked by God, or fated to lead the country through the Civil War and Reconstruction?

First, I have to respectfully say I disagree with your premise. Lincoln no more set precedent for future presidents than Thomas Jefferson did when he negotiated the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson never believed that he had any constitutional authority to buy land, but did so as a buffer against French influence in the region and to keep free trade flowing through the Mississippi. Also, one might say the same of the judiciary branch, specifically the Supreme Court. Nowhere in the constitution does it mention the term "judicial review" yet, when the court heard Marbury vs. Madison (and even before that point) it was practiced. My point is that it is easy to look at Lincoln's self-interpretation of his constitutional powers as having no precedent, but that's not correct. Before William Henry Harrison died in office, there was a question as to whether the vice-president was acting president or whether he assumed the duties as president. Things which are unprecedented sometimes happen that require actions which in other circumstances would have been wrong. Before the southern states seceded, there had never been an internal attempt at rebellion which had gone this far. Lincoln had very little choice if the nation was to survive.

Also, Lincoln's goals at the outset of the war did not include abolition. His only goal, stated or otherwise, was preserving the Union. Lincoln NEVER embraced abolitionism (at least in the sense we understand the concept) up until three years before he was murdered, and even then I think he would have preferred some sort of compensated emancipation followed by voluntary colonization. Lincoln never saw himself as a messiah. That came from others after his assassination.

Best
Rob

Great discussion-that's why I love this Forum.

I guess I didn't express what I meant very well, and I didn't intend to lay all the blame at Lincoln's feet, for the liberties that some subsequent presidents/politicians took to further agendas that the majority of Americans did not necessarily agree with. I wonder if it ever crossed Lincoln's mind what an influence and role model he might become for other presidents.

Again, I am not a Lincoln scholar; but how do we know exactly what Lincoln had planned for Reconstruction policies farther in the future than "let them up easy?"

Surely, there had been Cabinet discussions on more than the 13th Amendment?? Are there any written records projecting what was supposed to be implemented once the celebration of the war's end was over?

(01-09-2013 12:21 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  I guess I didn't express what I meant very well, and I didn't intend to lay all the blame at Lincoln's feet, for the liberties that some subsequent presidents/politicians took to further agendas that the majority of Americans did not necessarily agree with. I wonder if it ever crossed Lincoln's mind what an influence and role model he might become for other presidents.

Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.

Best
Rob

---

(01-09-2013 12:53 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  Again, I am not a Lincoln scholar; but how do we know exactly what Lincoln had planned for Reconstruction policies farther in the future than "let them up easy?"

Surely, there had been Cabinet discussions on more than the 13th Amendment?? Are there any written records projecting what was supposed to be implemented once the celebration of the war's end was over?

I think there are two different questions here. The first is what did Lincoln want to do and second is what could he reasonably expect to accomplish.

As for the first, I think his 10 percent plan makes more sense than just about any other. Earlier, Bill pointed out his view that Lincoln was flexible enough to consider the Wade-Davis bill, which I guess if you define flexibility as pocket-vetoing it, then maybe I might agree. It doesn't seem reasonable that Lincoln would offer the 10 percent plan to some states and then post-bellum decide that another, more stringent, plan would be required for other states.

As to what he could expect to get accomplished, therein lies the rub. If he pushed hard for the 10 percent plan would he have had enough power to overcome the obvious objections of the radicals? I think so. Even if it required all the sagacity and political skill Lincoln had to muster, he would have been in a far better position than Johnson ever was. I've said it several times before--the greatest thing Lincoln had over Johnson was that he was not Johnson, with all that encompassed. I wrote a review for the current Lincoln Herald on Paul Bergeron's book, Andrew Johnson's Civil War and Reconstruction, and one thing I pointed out is that even though both had similar hardscrabble backgrounds, Lincoln took his and turned it into empathy and consideration while for Johnson it became hatred and loathing. That would have made a difference in the negotiations.

Best
Rob

Other than the 10% plan, this still doesn't answer my question as to whether or not in-print records of pre-planning by Lincoln and the Cabinet exist regarding the first year of Reconstruction, a five year plan, etc.

I would guess that, by mid-1864, the Union had a good idea that they might just defeat the Confederacy. Surely, the leaders in Congress as well as the executive branch would have been working on plans for "binding up the wounds" or "hanging Jeff Davis" and followers and putting those plans on paper. At some point, they would have to realize that achieving a successful reconstruction would need planning by the legislature, the executive, and the judicial branches of our government. Is there any proof that anyone did do reasonable planning ahead of April 9, 1865?

Maybe I'm missing something, but we seem to depend on Lincoln's character, his ability with words and platitudes, etc. to surmise what Reconstruction under his leadership would have been. I guess I want to see more hard evidence. BTW: I have no intention of denigrating Lincoln here (before I get accused of it). I certainly think that his leadership through Reconstruction would have been valuable and less contentious. I just don't see the Radicals adhering to all of Lincoln's thoughts on the subject, and I would like to see what his plans were.

Stanton had prepared a sketch or guide for reconstruction since the military would play an important role in restoring civil authority in the seceded states. This had been presented at the last meeting before Lincoln died.

"When the new President again met with his cabinet, on Sunday morning, the sixteenth, Stanton, as was his responsiblity, brought forward the plan of reconstruction he had presented at the last meeting of Lincoln's cabinet"
from "The Life and Times of Lincoln's Secretary of War" by Benjamin Thomas and Harold Hyman p402

I don't think there's anything out there because I believe the 10 percent plan was what Lincoln would have started with. As for Congress, the Wade-Davis bill would have been the likely starting point since it enjoyed fairly broad support in the legislature. I don't have Eric Foner's book in front of me, so I'm not 100 percent sure there weren't other options discussed. When I got home I'll check.

Best
Rob

Has anyone read the historical novel by Stephen Carter, The Impeachment of Abraham Lincoln? I have not, but a recent mention of it in the current issue of The Lincoln Herald has an interesting perspective.

"Carter states: 'I don't think that we should pretend that because [Abraham Lincoln] was heroic, amd because we admire him so, nothing he did can be questioned.' In his [Carter's] novel, Lincoln survives the assassination attempt on April 14, 1865, and articles of impeachment are passed by the House of Representatives by radicals and his own Republican party in an effort to remove him from office, as they believe him to be too soft on the defeated South. Congress complains about Lincoln's acts during the war, including suspending the writ of habeas corpus and jailing citizens."

If they missed impeachment of Johnson by one vote, the chances of impeaching Lincoln would be about as great as a
snowball in...a hot place!

But then again, that viewpoint won't sell very many books

(01-09-2013 03:07 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  Other than the 10% plan, this still doesn't answer my question as to whether or not in-print records of pre-planning by Lincoln and the Cabinet exist regarding the first year of Reconstruction, a five year plan, etc.

I would guess that, by mid-1864, the Union had a good idea that they might just defeat the Confederacy. Surely, the leaders in Congress as well as the executive branch would have been working on plans for "binding up the wounds" or "hanging Jeff Davis" and followers and putting those plans on paper. At some point, they would have to realize that achieving a successful reconstruction would need planning by the legislature, the executive, and the judicial branches of our government. Is there any proof that anyone did do reasonable planning ahead of April 9, 1865?

Maybe I'm missing something, but we seem to depend on Lincoln's character, his ability with words and platitudes, etc. to surmise what Reconstruction under his leadership would have been. I guess I want to see more hard evidence. BTW: I have no intention of denigrating Lincoln here (before I get accused of it). I certainly think that his leadership through Reconstruction would have been valuable and less contentious. I just don't see the Radicals adhering to all of Lincoln's thoughts on the subject, and I would like to see what his plans were.

Laurie:

There is nothing in writing as to what Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction were other than the 10% plan that Rob mentioned. Lincoln was feeling his way on Reconstruction just as he was in prosecuting the war. Any of his thoughts he kept very close to the vest. He would not have relied much on his Cabinet in all probability because most of his very important decisions were made without the Cabinet's input. (For example, he decided to issue the 1862 Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation and put his first draft before the Cabinet only to get their input on language, but not on the decision with regard to issuing it. He did listen to Seward, though, in delaying its issuance until the Union had a military victory, and Antietam in September - barely - provided that victory.)

Most of the work Lincoln was doing on Reconstruction prior to War's end, with respect to those states or parts of states that had been conquered, he did by himself, through correspondence and meetings with various individuals. I would recommend looking at the New American Library 2-volume set of Lincoln's writings and speeches to get an idea of how he operated. (It makes a great read, anyway!)

However, it was not at all clear by mid-1864 that the war would be won soon. In fact, things were so bad on the battlefield during the summer of 1864 that Lincoln feared he would not be reelected. That all changed in early September 1864 when General Sherman sent news that he had taken Atlanta. Even so, all Lincoln could do concerning Reconstruction was concentrate on the places under Union control, in the informal way he had of working on such things, while he continued to prosecute the war.

Since the war was an unprecedented circumstance in American history, so was Reconstruction. Lincoln did not have a manual to work with and was not in the habit of delegating major decisions concerning policy to anyone. As some have observed -- including David Homer Bates in the book, Lincoln in the Telegraph Office -- Lincoln tended to think things through and write them down once his thought process had reached a conclusion about a policy or a manner of expressing a concept. He had a mathematical mind and relied on his powers of reasoning more than anything else. This is another reason why you wouldn't likely find rough drafts of his thoughts on Reconstruction.

With regard to your last comment about the wisdom of criticizing Lincoln's decisions, I don't think that any of us here would argue that he is beyond criticism. However, it's useful to point out how and why he did what he did.

Sorry Nancy, I don't agree regarding Lincoln's plans for reconstruction. Lincoln worked with Stanton quite a bit on how to handle reconstruction. Stanton was writting - at Lincoln's request - a flexable document about this very thing and the cabinet had discussed changes in the document at their last cabinet meeting. Lincoln knew that what worked in one state might not work in another. No one size fits all.

I'm using as my reference the Stanton biography by Thomas & Hyman. I'm reading the part about reconstruciton now, and since my knowldge is a bit thin, what I'm reading is a bit overwhelming. This book has a lot of footnotes, so I'll see who is mentioned the most frequently regarding this. If anyone has access to Gideon Welles diary, that is refereced frequently by the authors. (Welles didn't like Stanton)

(01-09-2013 05:28 PM)Laurie Verge Wrote:  Has anyone read the historical novel by Stephen Carter, The Impeachment of Abraham Lincoln? I have not, but a recent mention of it in the current issue of The Lincoln Herald has an interesting perspective.

"Carter states: 'I don't think that we should pretend that because [Abraham Lincoln] was heroic, amd because we admire him so, nothing he did can be questioned.' In his [Carter's] novel, Lincoln survives the assassination attempt on April 14, 1865, and articles of impeachment are passed by the House of Representatives by radicals and his own Republican party in an effort to remove him from office, as they believe him to be too soft on the defeated South. Congress complains about Lincoln's acts during the war, including suspending the writ of habeas corpus and jailing citizens."

So Prof.Carter would have us believe that Lincoln would have been impeached by the Radical Republicans for simultanously being too soft toward the rebels and being too cruel toward the civil liberties of the rebels and their friends. How many of these people themselves voted to suspend habeas corpus? Lincoln also owned a very good impeachment insurance policy named Andrew Johnson. I suspect memories of Johnson's behavior on 3/4/65 lingered.

A person can write anything in a novel but historical plausibility has a hugher standard.
Tom