Hey folks!

We are French students coming from Alsace and we have to do a file for a school project about Abraham Lincoln.

We would like to ask you some questions about him and especially what YOU think as American people. Thank you for responding to our questions

Did the American Nation need a hero (Abraham Lincoln) during the hard period of the Civil War ?
Why do you think Abraham Lincoln is still considerated as a hero nowadays ?

(01-27-2014 04:01 PM)inesclotilde Wrote:  Did the American Nation need a hero (Abraham Lincoln) during the hard period of the Civil War ?
Why do you think Abraham Lincoln is still considerated as a hero nowadays ?

1. Yes, I think we are always in need of heroes, especially in times of crisis.

2. Effective leaders (especially those who win) who serve during times of crisis are remembered favorably for a long time. Especially those who are considered to have high moral standards and a strong faith in God. We still remember Joan of Arc. Both of these leaders did not give in to tremendous pressure, but stuck to their beliefs in doing what they felt was the morally right thing to do. Unfortunately there is a shortage of leaders like that today. That is one reason Abraham Lincoln stands out above the rest.

Under the "Abraham Lincoln Legacy" heading look at these subjects on the second page - Why does Lincoln Still Matter?, and Why Was Lincoln Great?

Have fun.

Above all else, the U.S. needed strong leadership during the most crucial part of our history. I'm not sure that Lincoln would classify himself as a hero, however. I think that designation has been created by subsequent generations and historians. He was a strong leader and surrounded himself mostly with strong personalities who could help him achieve his goals. Last year's movie "Lincoln" is based on Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, Team of Rivals. If you can get a copy, it is very large; but it does explain the rather unique men who formed Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet (i.e. men like Seward and Stanton). Lincoln did not work alone.

Mr. Lincoln also became President at a somewhat opportune time - after a series of Presidents who had been unable to accomplish very much, especially in solving sectional differences among the states themselves and also in addressing the issue of slavery. His unique political skills made him stand out. He also fought a war that brought technology to the forefront, and he embraced it. That helped win the war for the Union, and everyone loves a winner.

After saying this, however, remember that Lincoln was hated by many Americans during this time, both North and South. We have to study what life was like then and put ourselves in our ancestors' mind-set in order to understand the feelings that Lincoln generated in people. It has been nearly 150 years since his death, and we still argue over his rightful place in history.

Was he a hero or was he the anti-Christ? To me, he was neither. He was a brilliant politician who considered all angles and came along at the right time in our history where he could achieve greatness. He did what he had to do in order to save the Union, but not to heroic proportions in my opinion. The men on both sides who fought and died for their respective values and ways of life earned heroic stature also. Lincoln's took a little longer to be evaluated.

I would like to comment on your questions because I find it very cool that you work on this topic, and very smart as well that you chose this way to get information and "first-hand" views. Please note that I can't provide the latter as I'm not American. But maybe it will still help a little.

1. What is a hero? And was Abraham Lincoln viewed as a hero by his contemporaries? I think Abraham Lincoln was not considered a hero by the vast majority of the Americans during the CW. Anyway not by those of the Confederate States, as his election made their decision to secede, but also not on the Union side. Compared to his predecessors, he was often considered a " western backwoodsman". He was mostly self-taught and had less than one year of school education. He had no prestigious family background (only through his marriage, but even this was rather on a local level, and caused even trouble during the war as his wife's family were slave holders). He had comparatively little political experience and had never before held a government office. He appeared awkward to quite many, and not suitable for this office at all. He had been an outsider in the 1860 election, his way to the nomination as to winning the presidency was determined by many circumstances (e.g. the major opponent party, the Democrats, couldn't agree on one candidate and put up two, who had to "share" the Democrats' votes in the election). Also a lot of people, even in his own party, often didn't agree with his policy, or the "speed" at which he moved forward - politically as well as in the conduct of the war (e.g. in replacing unsuccessful generals).
Even his re-election seemed unlikely until short before the election, when General Sherman's "March to the Sea" and his capture of Atlanta totally turned the tide. Anyway, heroes usually become heroes through victories. In the end, the Union won, and Lincoln became a hero, and, due to the assassination, a mathyr in the eyes of many contemporaries.

Nevertheless, after his issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation, he was sure a hero for most black people, and also many people on the Union side backed, appreciated, and had faith in him. He was gifted in making his (political) enemies his friends, his allies, or at least to deal so diplomatically with them that he mostly achieved his goals. At all, he had many useful skills and a personality that served him well. But "hero" is, I think, not the right word for all that. His most heroic qualities I consider his endurance, his ability to work under pressure, his self-confidence and self-reliance (he often made decisions on his own instead of consulting his cabinet), and his capacity for suffering. And from the many accounts of the people who met him I would conclude he had charisma.

I think his skills and achievements were much more estimated, appreciated and honored after his death. Well, your question was if a hero was needed.Sure especially in those times a capable leader and commander-in-chief was needed. As Laurie said, Abraham Lincoln, with his skills and personality, in my opinion, too, proved to be at the right place at the right time to achieve the (for him) uttermost possible extend of "greatness" he would probably not have achieved in other times.

Like so many other Americans, I once thought of Lincoln as a hero, and probably also like so many other Americans, it was not because I knew alot of facts about him. But after learning more about him and doing some research, I'm not so sure that I think of Lincoln as a hero anymore.

Lincoln's publicly-stated number one goal was the preservation of the Union, which he said could not continue to exist half slave and half free. But another goal that was, for obvious reasons, not stated publicly, was to wrest political power from the South and concentrate it in the hands of the North so Lincoln and the Republicans could further their aim of industrializing the country and strengthening the central government (at the expense of the state governments). The way to do that was to attack slavery because that was how the South maintained their dominant political power in the Federal government. Somewhere further down on Lincoln's list of priorities was a desire to help the slaves for no other reason than that he considered slavery to be immoral and evil.

Lincoln was not willing to compromise in any way on the question of the non-exclusion of slavery in the territories before statehood. He knew that would lead to the South seceding from the Union and would be the beginning of a civil war, but he did not know how long and how hard the South would fight for what they regarded as their constitutional rights, and what was, in fact, their Constitutional right. His unwillingness to compromise was for political reasons and was not rooted in any moral objections to slavery (although he did object to slavery, but that was a side issue with him).

So, the question is, was keeping the Union together, or taking away political power from the South, worth the ultimate price that 618,000+ soldiers paid in order for Lincoln to obtain that goal? Why was it so important to keep the Union together? So the South would continue to be forced to pay high tariffs on their cotton exports, and in that way, provide a large share of the Federal government's revenue? Wouldn't anyone with a genuine abhorrence of slavery regard that money as tainted and not want to get anywhere near it? What other reasons did he have? Would democracy have perished from the earth had the Union not been preserved? Did other countries even think of America as being democratic when it lagged behind many countries in abolishing slavery? Why could democracy not have been preserved in a Union consisting of only free states (as it should have been established after the Revolutionary War), and let the slave states secede and form their own country?

If Lincoln's number one goal had been to rid the country of slavery because slavery is wrong, I would consider him a hero. Why do so many Americans still consider him a hero today? I think one of the major reasons is that all one has to do is mention the word "racism" and people shrink in fear because it is socially taboo nowadays. Lincoln is known as the Great Emancipator, so anyone who has doubts about his motives or political abilities is viewed with suspicion. Few people are willing to risk being called a racist because witch-hunts are conducted against them on the flimsiest of evidence, or on no evidence at all. Look what happened to George Zimmerman, who is himself part black and half Hispanic, but it's that white half that gets all the attention from the "non-racist" crowd.

Kate is right, after finishing my previous post I, too, thought that regarding heroism one has also to look at his intentions. Saving the Union and emancipating the slaves is what makes him - globally - a "hero" in the eyes of most people.
The views on Lincoln's views on slavery range from his paramount goal had always been to free the slaves and anything contrary he ever did and said was because he thought his voters wouldn't move faster and he had to walk step by step, to he was a racist and his reasons for ending slavery were solely economical ones in favour of the north. Even his idea of colonialization can be argued from different angles. All different approaches and argumentations seem logical while you read them, I believe the truth is somewhere in between, and one has to keep in mind that Abraham Lincoln was a "product" of his background and era - and he didn't grow up in a globalized world. Regarding this, I believe, as I previously said, his intentions were quite progressive pro-human (rights), and when black people met him (e.g. Frederick Douglass) they reported they were treated and respected like white people.
I believe the more personal experience and contact he would have had with black people, the more that would have changed his mind. Also I think one also has to regard his struggle in adjusting his deep belief in the Founding Fathers, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, to abolition and make it especially go along with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Since we can't ask him what he - beside his words and actions - might personally have thought and intended regarding emancipation (and even that might not have revealed his true mindset - as Herndon said, Lincoln was "the most shut-mouthed man that ever existed") we will never know.

I agree that Lincoln was much freer of alot of the prejudices that people of his time usually had, and I don't fault him for not having 21st-century attitudes on human rights, racism, slavery, etc. What I object to is his using the issue of slavery to further his political agenda, and that that strategy cost so many people their lives, and their families so much pain. Good riddance to slavery, but the end of slavery was certainly not the end of the freed slaves' misery, and that was in no small part because so many of the people claiming to be outraged by the injustice of slavery, soon tired of helping the former slaves once their primary political agenda had come to fruition. I wonder how far Lincoln would have been willing to go to help them during Reconstruction and afterwards.

Today, there is a repetition of the same hypocritical strategy of using accusations of racism to further political agendas. That is not to say that there is no racism anymore (by any and all races), just that the people doing the accusing are not nearly so free themselves of racism, as they imagine they are.

Kate, as I previously stated, I agree on that his possibly good intentions didn’t make 618,000 victims feel better, and this is something that causes me pain, too.

inesclotilde, this is sure far too much for your purpose, but just in case - here are two "scholarly" sites on the topic:
http://www.asjournal.org/archive/53/164.html
http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/...8&CRLI=130

Quote:What I object to is his using the issue of slavery to further his political agenda, and that that strategy cost so many people their lives, and their families so much pain.

Kate,

That is a very serious accusation. Where is your source for this?

Best
Rob

I agree with Rob - wasn't it just the other way round?

Did he not continuously state that his personal view on slavery was one thing but the constitutional facts another matter alltogether and that he would put aside his personal views in order to abide the current laws? ("I bite my lips and keep quiet", from a letter to Joshua Speed).

Getting back to the students second question.

Attached is a link to the last major speach President Lincoln gave, a little over a month before he was killed. It is a short speach. The language is a bit difficult to follow, but read through it and you can tell where President Lincoln's heart and goals are. It was not a popular speach at the time. The north may have won the war, but there were still bitter feelings between the north and the south.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln2.asp

If Abraham Lincoln really meant what he said in this speach, what do you think about him?

(01-27-2014 04:01 PM)inesclotilde Wrote:  Did the American Nation need a hero (Abraham Lincoln) during the hard period of the Civil War ?
Why do you think Abraham Lincoln is still considerated as a hero nowadays ?

Inès and Clotilde, I hope the replies to your two questions are helping you with your 11th grade project.

Here is another link from the My Hero Project that might be useful.

Do you have any other questions for the forum members?

We also cannot put the the death toll or the war squarely on Lincoln's shoulders. The political pressure cooker was about to blow for decades before Lincoln took office. Manifest Destiny, The Mexican War, westward expansion and the already civil war that had erupted in Kansas were not on Lincoln's watch. To use a phrase that has been overdone but actually fits The State of the Union Lincoln was elected to, " I inherited that."
The Civil War also came at a point in history when technology was far superior ( especially in the realm of weaponry)than our Military tactics and our understanding of hygienic field practices. Lincoln cannot be solely responsible for the ghastly number of dead and wounded led to their deaths due to outdated military practices in a new emerging age of modern warfare.
But Lincoln did have the mindset to not allow a ceasefire that would only reignite in the future as it had done for decades before the war. Instead, he used the war to make the changes that this world lives in today. We are a nation today that lives by the principles of the 13th and 14th amendments. We are a nation without slavery. We are a nation unified by the states, clearly defined as ONE nation under God indivisible. We are a nation, thanks to his ability to change, fight, bend the rules, and forgive. We are a nation, thanks to Lincoln.

Mike makes excellent points here. Abraham Lincoln accepted the role that fate had dealt him and led our country through its worst years. He did what he was "hired" to do, and his legacy has come from that determination and spirit. To make him a hero may be stretching it a bit, since his work required a lot of help from others; but to declare him a dedicated national leader in a time of serious crises seems fine.

Lincoln could have avoided the war. "Kicking the can down the road," ala Buchanon. But this is not what Real Leaders do. I cannot imagine the difficulties Lincoln must have faced. An unpopular war. The shocking death toll that, unlike on the battlefields of future presidents, were literally right in his face. Washington D.C. was part of the war zone, surrounded by the enemy, imbedded with spies and Confederate sympathizers. The White House containing Lincoln's family was a target. The president himself, faced the risks of assassination on a daily basis. The hard decisions to further incite hostilities toward him, not only by his enemies but also by supporters, by emancipating the slaves and then again by the 13th amendment shows great courage and conviction.
While many will call Lincoln a hero, or freedmen have called him "The Liberator" or "The Great Emancipator." Some will not. It's ok.
In a world where the word "hero" is now so watered down that it applies to ball players and movie and pop stars; I myself, while in complete agreement with Laurie that Lincoln was what our Leaders should be or strive to be, would be happy to hear my children refer to Lincoln as a hero.