|
According to historian Richard Hofstadter, Abraham Lincoln was “the
exemplar of the self-made man,” having come from a humble background to
rapidly ascend through the political ranks, gaining success and power
but not forgetting humanity and moral responsibility. Hofstadter also
contends that Lincoln was a very simple man and wished to keep it that
way – “[i]t was precisely in his attainments as a common man that
Lincoln felt himself to be remarkable, and in this light that he
interpreted to the world the significance of his career.” The conflict
of Lincoln’s political career, states Hofstadter, is the
incompatibility between his religious beliefs and his goal of becoming
successful – “[t]he motivating force in the mythology of success is
ambition, which is closely akin to the cardinal Christian sin of pride
… [H]ow can an earnest man, a public figure living in a time of crisis,
gratify his aspirations and yet remain morally whole?”
Hofstadter’s biggest criticism about Lincoln is that “he was a
follower and not a leader of public opinion.” The clearest example was
the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, which “contained no indictment
of slavery, … expressly omitted the loyal slave states from its terms …
[and] did not in fact free any slaves.” Hofstadter also criticizes
Lincoln’s “embarrassing contradictions” on the issue of slavery, as in
a speech in Chicago Lincoln preached that “all men are created equal”
while in Charleston he stated that “I am not, nor ever have been, in
favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of
the white and black races.” Hofstadter conveys that Lincoln did not
push his true feelings against slavery, and resorted to conservatism
because the average sentiments of the time were not completely
anti-slavery. This goes along with Hofstadter’s assertion that “[a]s a
politician Lincoln was no maverick,” as on issues like the bank,
internal improvements, the Mexican War, and the tariff, Lincoln would
not dissent, “even at his own political expense.”
Of course, Hofstadter also approves of some of Lincoln’s doings.
Primarily, Hofstadter applauds Lincoln and his constant efforts to
preserve the Union – “Lincoln’s was the masterful diplomacy to hold
such a coalition together, carry it into power, and with it win a war.”
While criticizing Lincoln’s contradictions on the issue of slavery,
Hofstadter approves of Lincoln as a calculating politician, or one who
considered all views on an issue. Hofstadter, while not necessarily
approving of this inconsistency, claims that in politics, “the premium
was on strategy, not intellectual consistency–and the effectiveness of
Lincoln’s campaign is beyond dispute.” Similarly, it’s interesting that
Hofstadter also affirms that “[t]hroughout [Lincoln’s] political career
he consistently held to his position.” Lincoln was clearly opposed to
slavery and his actions back up his view – going back to his days as a
Congressman in 1849, Lincoln gave support to a bill abolishing slavery
in the District of Columbia. In addition, Hofstadter approves of
Lincoln’s view of democracy, citing that Lincoln saw the Declaration of
Independence as “not merely a formal theory of rights, but an
instrument of democracy,” and also that Lincoln was democratic in his
economic thinking, emphasizing the traditional ideals of the Protestant
ethic, including hard work, frugality, and temperance.
In my opinion, Lincoln is the hero Americans make of him, for a few
reasons. First off, he preserved the Union during the Civil War – had
it not been for him, things would have been different then, and things
might be very different today, with the Confederacy being independent
from the United States. Also, he was the “Emancipator” who began the
process of ending slavery in America; while previous attempts to end
slavery had proven unsuccessful, Lincoln was able to do so without
separating the Union. Lastly, Lincoln proved that, with enough
determination and perseverance, even the most humble man could reach
the nation’s highest office.
|
|
|
(0 vote)