The Man Who Made Us Whole

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: j.l. stix @ 01/20/2009 8:12:05 PM

    .
    .

    You???ve made history much more interesting than it deserves
    Just kidding???..lol
    That was really wonderful
    You bring it all together
    In a fantastic wordy web.
    Thank you C Hitchens

    j.l. stix

  • Posted By: MikeEttner @ 01/19/2009 10:01:41 AM

    I???ve been reading Newsweek regularly for over four decades. Nowadays the magazine does not match its best period, the 60???s and 70???s. Its current editors know this, and when choosing cover subjects grab at any excuse to resurrect halcyon days. I half expect to see in the next few weeks a cover nostalgically featuring Twiggy, somehow linking the 60???s waif to our thin new President. Still, long-time readers such as myself enjoy the surprise of coming upon quixotic articles such as this small gem of an essay by Christopher Hitchens. For an extended discussion see http://www.mikeettner.com/01/16/2009/hitchens-on-lincoln-in-newsweek/

  • Posted By: MikeEttner @ 01/19/2009 9:59:35 AM

    I???ve been reading Newsweek regularly for over four decades. Nowadays the magazine is a shadow of its best period, the 60???s and 70???s. Its current editors know this, and when choosing cover subjects grab at any excuse to resurrect halcyon days. I half expect to see in the next few weeks a cover nostalgically featuring Twiggy, somehow linking the 60???s waif to our thin new President. Still, long-time readers such as myself enjoy the surprise of coming upon quixotic articles such as this small gem of an essay by Christopher Hitchens. For a longer discussion see http://www.mikeettner.com/01/16/2009/hitchens-on-lincoln-in-newsweek/

  • Posted By: sschwartz32 @ 01/18/2009 11:18:22 AM

    So it was ok for Lincoln to suspend rights in order to prevent secession, but not ok for Bush to suspend rights in order to protect the lives of US citizens from Islamic terrorists? What drivel.

  • Posted By: muskrat @ 01/13/2009 5:32:45 PM

    Very poor essay about a great president. To label him along with Darwin seems a bit absurd. Lincoln was an emancipator, Darwin a theorist. To say that Lincoln used evolutionary, graduated stages makes no sense. He was greatly influenced by
    Frederick Douglas who saw the Civil war as a war against slavery. Lincoln and Douglas became good friends. Why was there no mention of Douglas. You are misinformed. Lincoln was not a evolutionist.

    • Posted By: brydges @ 01/16/2009 3:30:03 PM

      The Civil War was not fought over slavery. Emancipation was a side effect. It was great that it happened but this is the biggest distortion of history tought in our schools.

  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 01/14/2009 3:43:27 PM

    Sorry I missed yours below till now, Alvy.

    Your generosity abounds. . . . :-)

    You are right, of course, that history becomes what was written. But as you point out, adopted beliefs or propagated disinformation do not always prevail. The need to hold them is the curiosity.

    In pidgin: Dis kine Lincoln git plenty pilikia. Da Buggah do um ono.

    The comparison between Lincoln and Obama that I see is that both involve a depth of perception, probably innate and, more importantly, highly developed capacities to understand the broad view while also understanding the intricate relationships among parts, and a commitment to acheive the result that ultimately serves the greatest good without reference to ideology.

    My expectation is that if 100 would-be objective historians were to evaluate all presidents, then Lincoln would rate highly among them. I am of the view and hope that Obama is one of those rare individuals at this complex time of need.

  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 01/14/2009 3:39:18 PM

    Sorry I missed yours below till now, Alvy.

    Your generosity abounds. . . . :-)

    You are right, of course, that history becomes what was written. But as you point out, adopted beliefs or propagated disinformation do not always prevail. The need to hold them is the curiosity.

    In pidgin: Dis kine Lincoln git plenty pilikia. Da Buggah do um ono.

    The comparison between Lincoln and Obama that I see is that both involve a depth of perception, probably innate and, more importantly, highly developed capacities to understand the broad view while also understanding the intricate relationships among parts, and a commitment to acheive the result that ultimately serves the greatest good without reference to ideology.

    My expectation is that if 100 would-be objective historians were to evaluate all presidents, then Lincoln would rate highly among them. I am of the view and hope that Obama is one of those rare individuals at this complex time of need.

  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 01/14/2009 3:39:15 PM

    Sorry I missed yours below till now, Alvy.

    Your generosity abounds. . . . :-)

    You are right, of course, that history becomes what was written. But as you point out, adopted beliefs or propagated disinformation do not always prevail. The need to hold them is the curiosity.

    In pidgin: Dis kine Lincoln git plenty pilikia. Da Buggah do um ono.

    The comparison between Lincoln and Obama that I see is that both involve a depth of perception, probably innate and, more importantly, highly developed capacities to understand the broad view while also understanding the intricate relationships among parts, and a commitment to acheive the result that ultimately serves the greatest good without reference to ideology.

    My expectation is that if 100 would-be objective historians were to evaluate all presidents, then Lincoln would rate highly among them. I am of the view and hope that Obama is one of those rare individuals at this complex time of need.

  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 01/14/2009 3:39:12 PM

    Sorry I missed yours below till now, Alvy.

    Your generosity abounds. . . . :-)

    You are right, of course, that history becomes what was written. But as you point out, adopted beliefs or propagated disinformation do not always prevail. The need to hold them is the curiosity.

    In pidgin: Dis kine Lincoln git plenty pilikia. Da Buggah do um ono.

    The comparison between Lincoln and Obama that I see is that both involve a depth of perception, probably innate and, more importantly, highly developed capacities to understand the broad view while also understanding the intricate relationships among parts, and a commitment to acheive the result that ultimately serves the greatest good without reference to ideology.

    My expectation is that if 100 would-be objective historians were to evaluate all presidents, then Lincoln would rate highly among them. I am of the view and hope that Obama is one of those rare individuals at this complex time of need.

  • Posted By: Arnhart @ 01/14/2009 10:45:45 AM

    Hitchens is mistaken in his claim that Lincoln read Darwin. According to Herndon, Lincoln read Robert Chambers' book THE VESTIGES OF THE NATURAL HISTORY OF CREATION, which developed an early version of the idea of evolution before Darwin published his theory of evolution. Herndon reports that Lincoln was persuaded to accept Chambers' idea of evolution. But as far as I know, there is no evidence that Lincoln read Darwin.

    Nevertheless, Herndon's testimony does suggest that Lincoln embraced the idea of evolution. There are other points of agreement between Lincoln and Darwin, including their moral condemnation of slavery.

  • Posted By: steiffbar @ 01/13/2009 3:51:53 PM

    Masterful piece by Christopher Hitchens but his power punch was, for me, in that last sentence. What a breathtaking piece of writing, and what a spot-on description of Mr. Lincoln. Kudos to you, Mr. Hitchens.

  • Posted By: BOFORCE @ 01/13/2009 7:33:27 AM

    LINCOLN WAS NOT PRADOXICAL HE WAS STRAIGHT FORWARD MAN........HE WAS AGAINST WAR MONGERING MONEY GRABBING SATANISTS THE ROTHSCHILDS AND THEY GOT HIM KILLED......ROTHSCHIDS ARE THE GREATEST EVIL ON THIS PLANET AFTER NEPHILIMS IN THE DAYS OF NOAH.

  • Posted By: fbanta @ 01/12/2009 12:48:08 AM

    Wow.
    Lincoln took no solemn oath to protect the Union, he took a solemn oath to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States (COTUS): as has every President before and since. It is the primary responsibility of the President according to the COTUS. Lincoln chose to destroy the Constitution in order to illegally preserve the Union. Ironically in his famous Lyceum speech in 1838 he warned against precisely the same travesty that he would inflict on the American people.

    Lincoln was elected without a single Southern vote, and combined with his long history of support for "internal improvements", the South knew they would get no respite from their taxation without representation. That is why the South seceded. Secession does not constitute a civil war: the South had no interest or intention of ruling the North.

    Lincoln chose to go to war, killing 600,000 Americans, to keep the Southern states from exercising their undeniable right to secede solely to protect his revenue stream that was essential to finance his intended projects and the ever-growing federal government. Ft Sumter was a tax office, not a slave market.

    Lincoln trampled the Constitution at will to protect his precious Southern taxes. He shut-down 3000 Northern newspapers and jailed their editors or publishers solely for the crime of disagreeing in print with his war plans and policies. Lincoln directed his generals (Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan) to make war on un-armed Southern civilians for their audacity in presuming their right to control their own destiny; applying scorched earth tactics, raping, pillaging, and plundering without restraint. Sherman and Sheridan bragged to Lincoln about each of their armies stealing more than $100 Million in civilian wealth in their sack of the South.

    Lincoln is the father of oppressive federal government. Sovereign citizens should be very concerned that we will have a new President who aligns himself with the ruinous Lincoln and supports the ideal of oppressive government.

    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 01/12/2009 3:24:12 AM

      It is always worthwhile to think and exchange views. It is also permissable to disagree. I choose to do so.

      Perspective is such an interesting phenomenon. I have not considered preservation of this country as a union to be such as you describe. Certainly, there were those who perceived it as you do, and they were willing to initiate a war, kill and die for those 'principles'.

      I do consider that what Lincoln did probably benefitted us now living and many who have passed, including the vast majority of those in the areas that sought to secede. I consider myself among them.

      Those who were freed from the atrocity of slavery might consider themselves greater beneficiaries, even if that was not initially a primary purpose of what Lincoln did. I believe that the bloodshed in that conflict was justified by the emancipation of the slaves then and their progeny, even if that had been the only benefit.

      Was Lincoln's 'oppressive federal government' a greater atrocity than the 'principles' that the secessionists sought to preserve and wage war over? Ultimately, this can be considered a question of situational ethics. History has adopted the generally consensus assessment that Lincoln was one of the great presidents.

      Please explain how you would justify the continuation of slavery in any circumstances or under any set of political or cultural values.

      I posit that your final paragraph is more a function of your perspective than it is based on anything evident in the President Elect's policies or ideals.

      • Posted By: Alvy @ 01/12/2009 12:08:50 PM

        History does seem to follow the estimations of those who actually pen-and-inked it. Lincoln today, is no more than a symbol. Jimmy Carter is a symbol, and although his presidency was a shambles, his ability to re-write how he will be viewed, known and celebrated by our future generation is outstanding. A job well done.

        fbanta is angry it seems to the point where he will judge any negative opinion offered as fact. We've seen how that works during this election period. There were those who painted Obama as a Communist, socialism-minded Muslim, who hates America because he didn't wear a flagpin, while hiding a Kenyan birth certificate as he secretly hated his Grandmother and attended a mixed-cultured church that despises real Americans, after participating in gay, drug induced anarchy-driven side-shows..

        People for reason not known to me - needed to believe that, and made it true.
        Unfortunately, that is the history of history. If one of the flustered writes it, we will have flustered history.

        I posit his second and third paragraph may have meant: He feels that because we have a Constitution, slavery should have taken a bit longer to abolish because we needed to follow the rules of behavior to satisfy those who were not enslaved.

        I'm being generous.

  • Posted By: Harry B @ 01/12/2009 10:02:22 AM

    Hitchens would do well to read "Vindicating Lincoln" to truly understand the man, and actually learn some history, not revisionism.

  • Posted By: Seven degrees @ 01/11/2009 7:05:04 PM

    Mr. Hitchens, many of us are bored silly with you atheist polemics. Lincoln's faith sustained him, just as it sustains us today in the United States. You are fighting a fool's battle.

  • Posted By: Porkov @ 01/11/2009 4:58:04 PM

    It is certainly conceivable that Lincoln, as "an early admirer or Thomas Paine," was a Deist. It is admirable that he avoided the pious charade that no modern politician can forswear.

  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 01/11/2009 1:03:50 PM

    Wow.

    "How nice to see opportunism given such a good name. How fervently may we wish to see the same fusion of courage and pragmatism in our own day. And how impossible it is to forget this craggy and wretched and haunted man, invoking of all things our 'better angels.' "

    Hitchens is a prig and has many unappealing features. But he is brilliant, insightful and provacative... of thought... new thought... new perspectives... other perspectives...

    For those who consider free thinking essential to intellectual integrity and growth, this piece is a worthy exercise.

  • Posted By: LeaderofMarines @ 01/10/2009 9:28:51 PM

    Hitchens you obviously don't know the history of American Statesmen so please stay in your very narrow post-modern philosophical bubble. If you want facts about our founders visit www.wallbuilders.com. Our sixteenth President, declared the Bible "the best gift God has given man." This wasn't just the Old Testament, but its fulfillment through the New Testament which was all about Jesus. He also declared God's providence in freeing the slaves in the same way He freed the Israelites. May God bless you, afterall he created you with the inalienable right of freewill to deny Him.

  • Posted By: bighappy @ 01/10/2009 6:59:41 PM

    Yes, GOP is the party of Lincoln, but in fact it is not much to be proud of. Lincoln preferred to threaten South even before separation instead of looking for compromise, and the war... Overwhelmed Unionists forces were almost defeted by Confederacy volunteers, mostly because selection of the most dumb generals. If not general Grant - we would have had now three or four USAs. And who knows for how long hostilities would have continue if he had not been assasinated.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse