Many of us go through viewpoints about Abraham Lincoln that reflect our view of the world. The first, simplest view is “Lincoln freed the slaves.”
The second is more complicated. It may include facts and opinions that Lincoln was a tryant, that he didn’t care about The Constitution, that he rode roughshod over the rights of Americans, that he waged a war he had no right to declare or continue, and that he was a mass murderer who caused more Americans to be killed than in any other war. Those who have come to this conclusion answer “Villain!” when asked, “Was Lincoln a hero or a villain?”
Those who hold this view frequently embrace the well-known theory that Mr. Lincoln was a third-stage syphilitic medically unable to make sound decisions. These critics say he was driven by the megalomania characterized by the later stages of that disease to fight an unnecessary war. Some agree. Some disagree. Some say, “So what?”
Defenders of Lincoln bring up the usual points. He, as Andrew Jackson threatened before him, would use military force to do defend the union because the seceding states had no Constitutional right to withdraw. Lincoln was also minimizing the number of independent nations on the Continent, ensuring greater peace than that found within a greatly divided, warring Europe of similar size.
Other defenders of Lincoln are aware of the plans and machinations originating from organizations like The Knights of the Golden Circle. That particular group was financed by European bankers to create a slave-based empire occupying all the territory within a 600 mile radius centered on Havana, Cuba.
The Knights of the Golden Circle would have an empire extending as far as St. Louis, taking in the Southern states, the Caribbean Islands, Mexico, and the Northern part of South America. This “Golden Circle” would produce all the cotton, rice, tobacco, and sugar that most of the world needed. At the time, many thought this would be a good idea. Young “Southern gentlemen”, in particular, saw it as a way to provide themselves with their own plantations and slaves. They met in the organizations “castles” that were built throughout the Southern states.
All these things, and many more, may be constantly rehashed. Still, one conclusion may be reached. Before Lincoln, there was slavery in the United States. After Lincoln, there wasn’t. Before Lincoln, there were ego-driven secessionist movements. After Lincoln, there weren’t. It would appear that if slavery and political coherence were important, the question “Was Lincoln a hero or a villain?” could best be answered with “Hero”.
As we get older, we find that such questions recede in importance. As we approach our own Judgment, we realize that we want our opinions to be in line with The Judge. He’s the one who told us to love our neighbor. And, that’s how we should form all our opinions about who’s good and bad in history. Then, we use that as a guide in thinking, speaking, and doing. That’s what history is for.
The answer to the question posed in the above essay cannot be answered via innuendo or emotion, because it is a complex question requiring an in-depth understanding of Constitutional Law and the historical events leading up to the war.
One of the most widespread modern misunderstandings about the war is that it was fought to abolish slavery. Although, it is true slavery caused irritation between Northern abolitionists and Southern slave owners and slavery, as an American institution, ended after the war, this in itself does not prove the war was conducted for this end.
Lincoln, in his July 4, 1861 address to Congress to explain his actions for taking the nation to war never once mentioned ending slavery as an objective or reason for calling up troops. As matter of fact, there is nothing in Lincoln’s 28 year political career that would so much as insinuate that this was his goals, but he said many things over that time frame to clearly prove ending slavery was not his concern.
In his March 4, 1861 inaugural address he reiterated something he said in his first Douglas debate, “I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” In his address he went on to re-affirm his support for the fugitive slave law.
It is true Lincoln denounced slavery as a “monstrous injustice” in his reply to Douglas, but he also defended the right of slaveowners to own their “property” by stating, “when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives.”
Some may argue he opposed slavery extending to the territories, and on October 16, 1854 he explained his reason for this, “Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted with them.”
At this point if anyone still believes Lincoln went to war to free the slaves, Lincoln himself dispelled all doubt in his August 22, 1862 letter to Horace Greely in which he stated, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
In the face of this evidence, some people would hold up the Emancipation Proclamation as proof of his intent, but his proclamation did not free one slave. His proclamation only freed slaves in Southern controlled territory, where Lincoln had no means of enforcing his executive order. Oddly, it did not free any slaves in slave States that stayed in the Union, or even in Southern territory occupied by Federal troops. Slaves were not freed until the passage of the 13th Amendment after the war and after Lincoln was dead.
If judged by modern standards, Lincoln’s view of African-Americans would be considered racist. In the first Lincoln-Douglas debate he said, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.”
In the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate, Lincoln said he was not or never had been “in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.” “Anything that argues me into his [Douglas’s] idea of perfect social and political equality with the Negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse.”
I could list further racist Lincoln quotes, but Ebony magazine editor Lerone Bennett, Jr., said it best when he cited that, “On at least fourteen occasions between 1854 and 1860 Lincoln said unambiguously that he believed the Negro race was inferior to the White race.” Clearly, Lincoln’s own words prove he was not a hero to the “Negro race.”
Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines “tyrant” as “A monarch or other ruler or master, who uses power to oppress his subjects; a person who exercises unlawful authority, or lawful authority in an unlawful manner.” As I will explain, the historical record substantiates that Lincoln clearly fits within the definition, so anyone who argues otherwise does so in the face of historical facts to the contrary.
The “Was Lincoln a hero or a villain?” essayist made the false claim that the Southern States did not have a constitutional right to secede, but this is a misunderstanding of Constitutional law. The 10th Amendment makes it clear the Constitution is an express powers document, meaning that if powers are not specifically delegated to the national government in the Constitution they do not have that power, and if something was not restricted to the States then it is within their authority to do. Secession was not restricted to the States in the Constitution and therefore it does not even matter if the States were induced to secede by “ego-driven” secessionist movements, they had and still have a Constitutional right to do so.
Lincoln himself upheld a State’s right to secede in a speech to Congress as a US Representative on January 12, 1848. “Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements.”
The history of secession in America makes it clear it had been understood and accepted by everyone prior to Jackson’s threat and Lincoln’s actions. Secession was one of the many checks and balances the founders put into our system of government to prevent the national government from overstepping its constitutional boundaries. Without the right to secede, the States must endure overbearing Federal government regulation and unlawful impositions over their authority. Anyone who does not understand the right to secede in the Constitution is either ignorant of Constitutional law or is irrationally clinging to an invalid belief.
To understand Lincoln’s usurpation of power, one need only read the Constitution to see that war can only be declared and Habeas Corpus can only be suspended by Congress. Lincoln did both without Congressional consent or notification. I recommend people read how he had Northern newspaper offices and machinery destroyed and its editors thrown into Lafayette prison for printing newspaper articles adverse to his administration or its policies, he also incarcerated citizens in Lafayette prison for openly saying they preferred peace. There are so many atrocities of this sort conducted against Northern citizens that I do not have the time or room to cover them all, but I highly recommend you not take my word for it, but instead investigate them for yourself!
In keeping our opinions “in line with The Judge” we need to compare Lincoln’s actions against the Biblical Just War Doctrine. The Biblical Just War Doctrine lists six criteria in which all criteria must be met in order to prosecute a just war. They are: declare war under the proper pre-determined authority; have a just cause based on the restoration of justice or the just rule of law; have a right intention to advance what is good according to God and avoid what is evil; have clear aims and goals based on the right intention; only go to war as a last resort such that every other method of restoring justice or the just rule of law has been exhausted; and only go to war if there is a reasonable chance of success, so that a nation does not needlessly cause the deaths of many for a lost cause.
Lincoln instigated the war by sending reinforcements to Fort Sumter knowing full well it would violate the truce the US Government had with the Southern States; he then usurped Congressional power in calling up troops to force the South back into the Union. Although he had a clear aim and goal, it was not based on a just cause or a right intention according to God, because people have a God given right to voluntary association such that no one can force them to belong to a government or any organization that is not in their best interests and they are the sole arbiters of what is good for them. In the hierarchy of covenants, a marriage covenant is of a much higher order than a union of states, and if God, who hates divorce, allows for a marriage covenant to be broken due to unfaithfulness of one spouse, then how much more would He allow a union of states to be broken for a similar offense? Additionally, war was not Lincoln’s last resort, because he did not even attempt to resolve the dispute using other methods before he resorted to provocation of violence, which he used as a pretext to go to war. In summary, Lincoln completely violated the Biblical Just War Doctrine and caused the deaths of over 618,000 Americans, which does not include the civilian causalities he perpetrated through his endorsement of total war upon the civilian population, a gross violation of the biblical doctrine of just conduct in war. Based on the bibles own instructions, I am sure the Supreme Judge of the Universe would not find Lincoln a “hero.”
I recommend two books to better understand the detail behind my response, Lincoln Takes Command by John Shipley Tilley and The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo.
To be fair to Mr. Lincoln, he did sign the 13th Amendment after it was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, but it was not ratified or implemented until December 6 of that same year. From Lincoln’s own words it is obvious that his intent in the 13th Amendment was not to advance the equality of people with different skin colors and from his own words it was certainly not the reason he perpetrated the war.