HISTORY

The Man Who Made Us Whole

Lincoln, himself, was paradoxical—as is the way we see him now. To really know the 16th president, look past the ways in which we remember him.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: guilbertj2006 @ 04/24/2009 2:59:33 AM

    Added to the intimidating patrioitism of Lincoln must be Robert E. Lees': who, smirked Larry McMurtrey, in the proxy voice of Pea Eye in his Pulitzer prizewinning novel, Lonesome Dove, "freed the slaves." It was at Gettysburg that Lincoln, for all purposes, declared the war over, and considerably before Appomatox; and where Lee, who graduated top of his class, West Point; prosecuted the strategy of marching dense confederate formations across a wide-open field concentrated with massed Union Artillery - a designed killing field, if you will.
    Could the Union have been preseved save those solid, spirited, agile, tough battallions been blasted into the void? The answer is axiomatic, as the self-concious apology to posterity that the Gettysburg Address is, echoes.
    The ardor of their sacrifice is appreciated by Lincoln, who, with utter conviction, summarises "this Hallowed Ground", and yet is unfaltering in his conviction that it was worth it. Had he lived he might have been surprised that what may have struck him as apparent, no one in posterity guessed at. Such was the towering charisma of Robert E. Lee, his grasp of the future, and his awful patriotism.

  • Posted By: moby doug @ 02/16/2009 3:15:46 PM

    There IS something Lincolnesque about Obama. And how ironic that he comes back to haunt the bankrupt Neo-Confederacy which has haunted and leveraged this nation since at least the Reagan Administration, and which has its roots in the GOP "Southern Strategy" ("Come on over, Dixiecrats!")instituted by Nixon in the '60's. It's as if Lincoln has been resurrected as a 21st Century black man who must struggle to free the nation from the chains of the Bush/Cheney Neo-Confederacy which eviscerated the Bill of Rights, gave trillions in tax cuts to the super-rich, sought to crush labor, fomented war for profit, ruled by fear, and celebrated perception over reality. In a sense, this nation is STILL fighting the Civil War, and the Confederacy has ruled the federal government for much of the past 30 years. At the same time, Obama, in the spirit of Lincoln AND MLK, is struggling to effect a workable peace and reconstruction, one which recognizes, fosters, and furthers the rights of man...and woman. This versus the previous regime, which sought to make wages slaves of the lower 80% while fooling the faithbased into voting against their wallets. This struggle of light and darkness continues, and the outcome remains in doubt.

  • Posted By: douglaswilson@earthlink.net @ 02/15/2009 3:21:11 PM

    To The Neo-Raven, who believes that the civil war was not fought over the "existance or the abolishment" [sic] of slavery: to quote the superlative Confederate cavalry general, Nathan B. Forrest, "I thought we were fighting to keep our ***." Obviously secession occurred for that very reason. Usually only modern Confederates try to forget that reality and cover up their ancestors' love of and devotion to slavery as a way of life. That unreality leads them to preserve the two most prominent Confederate characteristics: belligerence and supreme certainty that wrong ideas are right.

  • Posted By: PJ Moren @ 02/14/2009 5:53:07 PM

    Thought provoking -- I may not agree with your occasional ranting screeds, but I always appreciate your unapologetic approach to the topic at hand. Despite the piles of Lincoln biographies out there I encourage you to try your hand. Your British upbringing and education permits a less sentimentalized view of U.S history and, as is often the case with conscientious self-made citizens, you take less on faith than us home grown folk do. In a biography of one larger than life but long dead I'm hoping the author has the skill to re-create the time and place of his subject and invite me into it; let me see and smell it. We underestimate just how strange the land of a different time is. If the reader can somehow inhabit it he might begin to understand in a more visceral way the person struggling within it. I think you may have something valuable to add here.

  • Posted By: plutocrat @ 02/13/2009 11:39:25 PM

    Bill smith is an outragous a-hole

  • Posted By: sammy4231 @ 01/22/2009 2:00:01 PM

    On Lincoln's legal right wage war to preserve the Union, he outlined it extensively in his inaugural address before the war. Lincoln extrapolates that, in defending the Constitution, he must bend to the will of The People; and if that will was to keep the Union whole, he had every legal right to do so. There was no provision in the Constitution for those States to leave the Union. The South argued violently and unsuccessfully with his interpretation of his duty. They lost.

    On the issue igniting and sustaining each side's will to fight the Civil War, everything points back to slavery. In that same 1st inaugural address, Lincoln stated clearly that State's rights to continue slavery where it existed would be preserved. He even specifically stated that free states must return escaped slaves to their owners in other states. The slave states secceeded because the majority in Congress (all white males.) made law prohibiting slavery in new states and territories. SLAVES WERE BEING TRAINED IN SKILLED LABOR. FREE SKILLED LABORERS DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO LIVE ON SLAVE WAGES TO KEEP THEIR JOBS. The South saw that as a condemnation of their system and an obstacle to their economic growth. That growth would come from having the cheapest labor on earth. In the hypothetical, near future without war, the free-labor economy would grow exponentially while the South stagnated. Slave holders would lose their financial advantage to pursue the moral argument; and soon lose their elite status.

    Those who argue the war was about State's rights are wrong. Lincoln acknowleged every State's right under every law. Those who argue the war was about economics are wrong. The discord over economics was based on cost of slave vs. cost of free labor. Those who argue that Lincoln had no legal right to wage war to keep the Union whole are wrong. The majority of We the People as represented in Congress and on the battlefield agreed with his understanding of the legality of his orders.

    The South could have accepted change or gone to war. They chose war. They could have won. They lost.

    • Posted By: THE neo-RAVEN @ 02/14/2009 12:26:19 PM

      I agree with most of what you are saying--but you forgot to memtion that the civil war was not fought over the existance or the abolishment of slavery.

  • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 01/15/2009 6:27:57 PM

    The obamamohammeds really want to portray The One as Lincolnesque.....I can find a few similarities....both were tall and gangly. But the most striking similarity is this...Both were married to nasty witches.

    NOBAMA!!!

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 02/14/2009 9:21:45 AM

      What on Earth did Michelle ever do to you?

      I think you may be lying about your gender after all...some of your posts just REEK of catty jealousy.

  • Posted By: Rolandio @ 01/18/2009 8:34:43 AM

    I rarely read any of the garbage that Christopher Hitchens writes, but when it appears in Newsweek I usually give it glance. I am always amused at the twisted spin with which he views the world, politics, history and everything else. He seems to be looking for the athiest in all of us, including Lincoln, of all people. Now I'm sure he is a clever and brilliant man who can hold anyone's attention, both in person, on the tube, or in print. However, if not for his profession of athiesm, he would probably be just another whack job blogging away on some obscure website and churning out his paperbacks for his loyal following. Fortunately he lives in an age where he has the right to declare that 6 billion other members of humanity are apparently wrong in deducing that a higher intelligence than Hitchens exists. I don't understand why he doesn't change his name. What is equally amusing is that your publication, among others, seems to give this guy any journalistic credibility.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 02/14/2009 9:20:54 AM

      Religious bigotry, pure and simple.

      Atheists deserve rights in the eyes of the Church...but some of them will never get it. Police your own yard first.

    • Posted By: Gypsum Fantastic @ 01/21/2009 1:34:30 PM

      Rolandio -

      a) Lincoln's religion is not even mentioned until the last paragraph, and only then to say that he ISN'T an atheist. Evidently you managed to filter out the preceding thousand words or so.

      b) Hate to break it to you, but Hitchens has been an eminent and well-known journalist since long, long before there was such a thing as a website. True, his militant atheism has certainly earned him a lot of notoriety (in the US, anyway - most other Western countries don't care about religion enough for it to be a big deal), but he was an established writer already. I think what you actually meant to say is that he passed under YOUR radar until he published God is Not Great and became the man religious America loves to hate. This is quite a different point, I hope you'll appreciate.

      c) 6 billion? Hmm. A clear majority are certainly religious, although "deducing that a higher intelligence" exists is overstating the case - that implies that every single religious person has arrived at that point after some careful philosophical reflection. What, all of them? Even the children?

      d) Clearly you have an axe to grind here - judging by your misrepresentation of the article's content (see point a), my personal guess would be that you're an angry Christian/theist who decided to google "Christopher Hitchens" in order to leave derisive comments on anything that comes up. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

      In conclusion, your singleminded focus on a topic irrelevant to the article you commented on says a lot more about your own monomania than Hitchens' supposed obsession with "looking for the atheist in all of us". He has earned his journalistic credibility, many times over, which is why I feel moved to defend his writing against knuckledraggers like your good self even though I disagree with a lot of what he says.

  • Posted By: Gypsum Fantastic @ 01/21/2009 1:47:37 PM

    Nice one, Hitch.

    Anyone else find it ironic that the "party of Lincoln" now only has real strength in the old Confederacy?

  • Posted By: Alexisnexus @ 02/12/2009 8:42:47 PM

    President Lincoln and President Obama share Ancestors

    Darwin and Lincoln share birthdays

    http://familyforest.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/happy-birthday-darwin-and-lincoln/

    All of us are interconnected!

    • Posted By: Bill Smith @ 02/12/2009 11:36:08 PM

      I hope every person and their family who supports Lincoln die of some form of cancer.

      • Posted By: Vigilance @ 02/14/2009 9:19:42 AM

        Whoo! May I ask why?

      • Posted By: Hangar#7 @ 02/13/2009 9:43:17 PM

        You speak like a true Christian!

        • Posted By: Bill Smith @ 02/13/2009 11:08:48 PM

          I don't believe in myths.

  • Posted By: lovejusticepeace @ 02/02/2009 12:20:41 PM

    The slaves are free.
    Now it is time to FREE TIBET ! FREE EELAM ! FREE KURDISTAN ! FREE TAIWAN. FREE SCOTLAND !

    • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 02/14/2009 8:54:16 AM

      Liberate Northern Ireland!

  • Posted By: scaredtosay @ 01/11/2009 5:46:06 PM

    Hitchens, you ignorant Brit. Can't you understand that the South fought the North for the same reasons they fought your King George? Could there ever be a constitutional basis for sending American troops against (in Lincoln's view) his own American citizens? Wasn't the formation of the Union predicated upon a voluntary participation in that Union? Secession is the right of a free people, or they are not free. Wasn't slavery enshrined in the original constitution? Was slavery so awful or its fate so perpetual that it warranted the deaths of 600,000 Americans? Were they living better lives in Africa? How about, now, in Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Congo, Liberia, Darfur? Aren't they still practicing female genital mutilation, there? Do you think it was any better in 1861? Slavery was a blessing to the slaves and their descendants who now blast America for its racial oppression. Yes, Lincoln was a tyrant.

    • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 02/14/2009 8:47:10 AM

      Trying to justify slavery by suggesting that the enslaved were better off here than in their own country is something like justifying bank robbery because murder is worse.

    • Posted By: Gypsum Fantastic @ 01/21/2009 1:43:30 PM

      Wow, I was expecting right-wing lunacy in this thread, but a full-throated defence of slavery? Amazing.

      Kindly *** off and die, and leave the rest of us to enjoy the 21st century.

  • Posted By: Bill Smith @ 02/12/2009 4:59:45 PM

    Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has ???lost its way??? and ???gone wrong.??? It has ???diverged??? from the fiscally responsible, small government philosophy of Republican heroes like Robert Taft whom Eisenhower???s handlers finagled out of the nomination for President in 1952. We are told that is why today???s Republican Establishment hates Dr. Ron Paul with such a passion; that they hate him because, like Taft, he is the quintessential Republican. Patriots who say that are mistaken, of course. The reason the Republican Establishment hates Dr. Paul is precisely that he is not a traditional, mainstream Republican, that his platform of freedom is an aberration. The Republican Party didn???t ???go wrong,??? didn???t ???go left.???

    It has been wrong from the beginning, from the day it was founded. From the beginning, the Republican Party has worked without deviation for bigger, more imperial government, for higher taxes, for more wars, for more totalitarianism. From the beginning, the Republican Party has been Red.


    http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan30.htm

  • Posted By: wildechild66 @ 01/13/2009 1:15:50 PM

    Very little in this world is straight forward, however much we may wish it so. Lincoln, while hardly the patron saint of the Union that history textbooks make him out to be, still accomplished much that was moral and worthwhile, and for that, he has my respect.

    • Posted By: Bill Smith @ 02/12/2009 4:54:33 PM

      What did he "accomplish"?

  • Posted By: miltonfriedman @ 01/11/2009 5:44:01 PM

    "The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity." -Abraham Lincoln

    It's a shame most Americans don't know more about one of Lincoln's greatest accomplishments: Debt-free United States Notes (as opposed to today's interest bearing Federal Reserve Notes). Lincoln knew, and sadly may have been assassinated for acting on, the fact that our current fractional reserve system is unsustainable. He would have condemned the Federal Reserve Act as unconstitutional.

    As this financial crisis continues to deepen, Americans need to understand how our current money system is deeply flawed and how it takes away value from the hard-working bright American who create it.

    Here's a 40 min cartoon presenting how the system currently works:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

    And Here's the solution:
    Monetary Reform Act = No National Debt, Accountable Inflation, Lower Taxes
    http://www.themoneymasters.com/mra.htm

    • Posted By: Bill Smith @ 02/12/2009 4:52:18 PM

      Unbelievable the ignorance of the Amerikan sheep. Lincoln used fiat currency and had the printing presses working overtime to finance his war of aggression. I bet you were even "educated" in a government school, right?

  • Posted By: Bill Smith @ 02/12/2009 4:47:46 PM

    http://www.lneilsmith.org/abelenin.html

  • Posted By: SqueakyCat @ 02/12/2009 12:31:20 PM

    Seriously, please do some research before you write your article. LIncoln was born into a cabin in 1809 and lived in Kentucky until 1816. He was only 7 years old when he left. He was not hired out by his father. He was too small.

    From 1816 until 1830 Lincoln lived in a small one room cabin in southern Indiana. Everyone can visit the Lincoln Boyhood Memorial in Indiana to see that site.

    For goog reading I recommend:
    "The Early Life of Lincoln" by Ida Minerva Turbell published in 1896

  • Posted By: Harry B @ 01/25/2009 8:23:25 AM

    "Vindicating Lincoln" stomps on Hitchens & his pathetic attempts at revisionism.
    Remember this is the Hitchens that was vehemently for war, thinks that Hillary as SoS is a "ludicrous embarrassment", and was both for and against BHO.
    Hardly a stable member of the whining class.

  • Posted By: paulae @ 01/24/2009 8:38:11 PM

    Mr. Hitchens, I have to wonder if we'd now have a cure for all cancers if you'd become a research scientist, but I am selfishly glad you are still a thinker, journalist and essayist.

  • Posted By: Chanakya @ 01/23/2009 10:48:14 AM

    Great article, Mr.Hitchens. Thank You.
    Over the next four or eight years, I sincerely hope you continue to enlighten us with your insights into the Obama administration's hits and misses.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse