(01-09-2013 04:42 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  The only action of Lincoln's that I had ever heard of (until yesterday) that even came close to being extra-Constitutional, was his suspension of habeas corpus. But I only took one political course in college, and it wasn't about Lincoln (can't even remember what it was about). In high school, and even in college, I don't remember much of anything at all that I was taught on any subject (almost might as well not have attended).

Had I not been doing considerable research online in the past few weeks, about recent and current political and social, etc., events, I probably would not have been able to see the significance of the extra-Constitutional actions of Lincoln's, and the precedent he set in taking those actions, or any connection between his actions and the political and social mess that the country is in today. I would have passed it all off as being necessary and justified in the noble fight to end slavery and preserve the Union. Lincoln is the very last president/person I would have suspected of doing any harm to the country, whether intentional or not.

Sounds like we went to the same high school

In my opinion you are right. Lincoln took the steps necessary to save the union, and that was his motive for exceeding his legal powers. Just like you have to have an incision to perform surgery, sometimes it hurts to fix what is wrong. As a country we have a few things wrong, and it is going to hurt to fix them.

Gene, you have used much the same logic that my staff and volunteers use in interpreting Lincoln at Surratt House. He did what he had to do in order to protect the Union. We bring out the suspension of habeas corpus, the sending of 10,000 troops into Maryland immediately, etc. and build the discussion (depending on the ages of the group) around constitutionality vs. executive order in times of necessity. The latter has led to some interesting adult discussions based on exactly what constitutes "necessity" in the current use of executive orders.

I read a poll today that ranks Congress slightly preferable to Nickleback, Lindsey Lohan and cockroaches.

Wow, that's pretty low. I'm not familiar with Nickleback-some sort of country-rock band?

(01-09-2013 08:48 PM)LincolnMan Wrote:  Wow, that's pretty low. I'm not familiar with Nickleback-some sort of country-rock band?

Nickleback is a rock band from Canada.
The same poll also listed Congress below root canals and brussel sprouts.

No mention of colonoscopies? I've had 3 of those fun things.

This question has many aspects. Do we think of Lincoln as one of the 'greats' because of his works, or because of the work of others? Was it historians in the late 19th century who lifted Lincoln to an almost sainthood? or his friends? I have always thought that Mary Lincoln helped establish Lincoln's role in history as a sainted figure, but never looked into her letters to study the matter -- until now.

After Lincoln's death, Mary remained in the White House for over a month. Her letters refer to Lincoln as "beloved," "darling," and "idolized." These terms of endearment would be expected in any letter written by any widow. After Mary and the boys move to Chicago, her letters begin to change, and it was the actions of her friends and family in Springfield that caused the change.
The National Lincoln Monument Associatioin was organized for the purpose of building a large monument in downtown Springfield. They purchased land, made plans, and raised money. However, they failed to contact Mary, and she learned of the plans by reading the newspaper. Mary felt that as the widow, she had a say in the matter, and she wanted her husband's monument in Oak Ridge Cemetery. (No need for details - we know who won that battle.)
In a letter to Richard J. Oglesby on June 5, 1865, Mary wrote that the tomb must be "erected over the Tomb in Oak Ridge Cemetery, in accordance with my oft expressed wishes." And if her wishes were not followed, she planned to "have the sacred remains deposited, in the vault, prepared for Washington, under the Dome of the National Capitol."
Five days later, Mary's language was a little stronger. Again writing to Governor Oglesby, she wrote:

"If I had anticipated, so much trouble, in having my wishes carried out, I should have readily yielded to the requst of the many & had his precious remains, in the first instance placed in the vault of the National Capitol - A tomb prepared for Washington the Father of his Country & a fit resting place for the immortal Savior & Martyr for Freedom."

On August 17th, Mary wrote that her "great & good husband's life was sacrificed for his country."

I would never claim that Mary is solely responsible for Lincoln's image, but her words, written to friends, family, and men of power were shared with others. The newspapers began to print the sentiment as well. Perhaps the image of 'sainted' Lincoln did not rise from the works of historians but from the mouths of his Springfield friends.

(01-10-2013 06:43 AM)RJNorton Wrote:  No mention of colonoscopies? I've had 3 of those fun things.

Roger, after being horrified at the thought and putting it off for six years, I had mine done a couple of years ago and greatly enjoyed it, once I was knocked out. When I was awakened, I asked the nurse to let me go back to sleep under the warm blankets because I was onstage at the Ryman Auditorium jamming with Chet Atkins.

--Jim

Your lucky you woke up. Chet died in o1'

(01-10-2013 07:39 PM)Gene C Wrote:  Your lucky you woke up. Chet died in o1'

I KNOW!!! It was such a vivid dream I'll never forget it.

--Jim

On Lincoln's modern reputation, consider this:

Alonzo Taft wrote about the necessities of future history in a letter to his home-state U.S. solon, Senator pro tem Benjamin Wade, on September 8, 1864: “It is to be regretted that history should have to tell so many lies as it will tell, when it shall declare Lincoln’s intrigues and foolishness models of integrity and wisdom, his weakened and wavering indecision and delay far-sighted statesmanship, and his blundering usurpation of legislative power Jacksonian courage and Roman patriotism, but one cannot help it. History goes with the powers that be.”

Senator Wade was highly critical of President Lincoln. Not surprising he would receive such a letter.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASwade.htm
(a short biography on Benjamin Wade)

One has to consider the source-Senator Wade, along with certain other Radical Republicans, were highly critical of President Lincoln (who wasn't?). Yet history has shown that Lincoln was correct in his approach to the war-in that the Union was preserved. As I have mentioned in other threads, if the Radicals had had their way, I think the Union would have been lost.

No one will ever know all the factors that Lincoln used to make his decisions. It's all too easy for critics focusing on a specific issue to lay out their case and ignore pertinent details. IMO, Lincoln had goals he wanted to achieve but the constant changes in the fortunes of war forced him to advance his agenda slowly and only when opportunity allowed.

I believe he would have been successful in blunting the political vengeance the radicals wanted as Johnson did without the animosity that Johnson generated. This, along with the flexibility he was criticized for, would have made reconstruction more of a team effort with a better chance for success.

That's the best answer that I have read so far. Thank you, Jerry.