Looking for a more serious Abe

Story here about plans at the Lincoln boyhood site to produce a new play about Lincoln in time for the 2009 bicentennial celebration.

The Lincoln Ampitheater, located near the boyhood site, has for years produced a play called "Young Abe," a quasi-comical musical production. The new play, however, will apparently not be a musical, and will take a more serious approach to its subject (apparently there are also financial considerations, according to this website).

Personally, I've never had the pleasure of seeing the "Young Abe" play, or the Lincoln Ampitheater. I have visited the boyhood site (it's located near Evansville), and found it to be an impressive living history representation of Lincoln's early life. And as much as the "Young Abe" musical sounds like fun, I rather like the idea of approaching Lincoln's early years from a bit more serious angle. This was, after all, a fairly serious, even somber period of his life. His mother died while Lincoln lived in Indiana, and he apparently developed a rather strained relationship with his father while they were Hoosiers. And a visit to the living history site will impress upon anyone the severely simple life he was compelled to lead while an Indiana farmboy.

A Lincoln flatboat trip

The town of Rockport, Indiana has found an interesting way to commemorate Lincoln. Story here about a re-enactment of Lincoln's 1828 flatboat trip from that town. Rockport will construct a 60 foot replica of his boat, and use it to make the 26 day voyage to New Orleans.

This was an interesting little corner of Lincoln's life. He was hired by a local man to help ferry the boat, which carried a cargo of bacon, "hoop-poles," and other bric-a-brac. Along the way, Lincoln and his fellow crewman were assaulted by a gang of African-American thieves, whom they were able to drive off by faking posession of guns. "Abe, get the guns and shoot!" Lincoln's companion yelled, whereby the thieves took flight. Lincoln later said he was "hurt some" in the little fight, but not too badly.

More Abe illness

And the list of Lincoln's maladies just keeps growing and growing.

According to this story, a geneticist believes Lincoln possessed a mutated gene that accounted for his great height and physical characteristics. Oh, and he had cancer too, which was supposedly killing him--he would never have lived out the second term of his presidency--and supposedly also killed Tad; who, according to the doctor, had weak lips. Really.

Or, here's a truly revolutionary idea: maybe there wasn't anything wrong with Lincoln at all. Maybe his height, mannerisms, and ungainly appearance were all simply the result of normal human physical variations. It's not a very sexy or interesting theory, I know, but in the tradition of Occam's Razor, it has the virtue of being more plausible.

Abe-O-Meter and Dubbya

He's not running for re-election, so I suppose he's technically not subject to the Abe-O-Meter. But President made some remarks related to Lincoln and the 2008 election, so what the heck? Story here quotes Mr. Bush thus:

"I spent a lotta time reading about Abraham Lincoln," Mr. Bush said. "Abraham Lincoln had no earthly idea that the Gettysburg Address was a great speech. All he knew is after having given it, he was condemned by a press corps that thought the person that preceded him was much better."

This is generally correct. Lincoln really didn't know just how popular the Gettysburg Address would eventually become (who would have?). And it is true that there were those in the media who felt Everett's much longer, more convential address was superior (Everett himself seems not to have agreed).

On the other hand, the myth that Lincoln thought from the moment he gave the speech that it was a failure--that it wouldn't "scour," according to a popular legend--is not very accurate. He put a lot of effort into that speech, and there's little direct, credible eveidence that he felt it to be a flat failure. Nor is it very accurate to suggest that the prevailing reaction in the press was negative. In fact, press commentary followed party lines, with Democratic papers castigating the speech, and Republican papers generally praising it as a worthy effort.

Still, as far as political uses of Lincoln go, this one's not too bad. I'd give it four stovepipe hats on the Abe-O-Meter.

New Lincoln photo?

We may have a new Lincoln photo. A Civil War historian and photo buff has used 3-D technology to isolate what might be an image of Lincoln at Gettysburg on the day he delivered his famous address. The image was unveiled recently at the Lincoln Forum, and from what I've read, those present were quite impressed.

Links to some good stories about this are here and here. I've also posted the image, but it's pretty useless without 3-D glasses. Apparently with glasses you can see Abe with a hat and white gloves, in a saluting pose.

Life in the Petri dish

I've been fighting a serious flu bug all week, so my blogging (and pretty much everything else) has been a off-kilter.

It's an occupational hazard, I suppose. Universities, after all, aren't really institutions of higher learning, nor are they even--on a more prosaic level--collections of buildings. No, they are actually giant Petri dishes, growing every virus and germ known to humanity. Add to that the fact that, in any given class, I have fifty or so students all breathing in my direction, and...well, my immune system doesn't stand a chance.

Anyway, I've taken the requisite drugs, and should be back blogging away on a more regular basis next week. Meantime, a couple of small observations, Lincoln-wise:

• I saw the trailer for National Treasure: Book of Secrets. I think I'll try to put away my historian glasses when I watch this, and just have fun, because it looks like a real hoot.
• Apparently there's a minor Lincoln reference in this upcoming movie, as well.
• I just read that Fred Thompson would, if elected, become the tallest president in history, slightly over-reaching Mr. Lincoln. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, would be the shortest. Hmmm...so, was she therefore the shortest First Lady? Or did that honor belong to Mary Todd Lincoln?
• Happy birthday to Sam Waterston, a Lincoln enthusiast and my personal favorite Lincoln actor.

Is George W. Bush the new Andrew Johnson?

I normally try to avoid current political issues on this blog, for a variety of reasons. In fact, I hesitated to post this for a while, because I very much do not want my Lincoln blog turned into a forum for the sort of abrasive, divisive political commentary that has become commonplace these days, in the blogosphere and elsewhere. But I saw something a few days ago that I can't help but comment upon, something that made me instinctively draw a connection between our current president and Lincoln's vice president--though perhaps in a not-quite-so-obvious way.

The something--or rather somethings--were two op-ed articles I read in The American Prospect. The links are here and here. (you could also toss in this piece that appeared in The Washington Post, though my point of view differs from Mr. Robinson's). The articles concern serious conversations among some people about whether or not Bush and prominent members of his administration should be impeached.

Now, I am myself quite disappointed in Bush, particularly in his second term. He has badly mismanaged the Iraqi War, has embraced highly questionable policies related to national security, civil liberties and executive power--not to mention his education and economic policies-- and he has proven unable to consistently use the presidential "bully pulpit" as he should.

Still, the overweening hatred felt by many on the Left for President Bush seems to have severely impaired their judgment. In some cases this animosity has caused otherwise rational people to become, well, unhinged. How else to explain the impeachment talk in those two American Prospect articles, and elsewhere? We're not talking the Internet lunatic fringe or the vast wasteland of political talk radio, either; these are serious, otherwise thoughtful people.

Nothing George W. Bush has done rises to the level of a "high crime and misdemeanor." One could plausibly argue that Mr. Bush has acted with incompetence, shortsightedness, reckless disregard, and perhaps dishonesty. But these are not impeachable offenses, and the damage that could be done to the Constitution if they were treated as such would be considerable.

Which leads me to Andrew Johnson. I think Bush acts upon his critics' minds in much the same way that, a long time ago, Johnson caused his critics' political and legal judgment to short-circuit. Yes, Johnson was a terrible president. But his impeachment trial was an unfortunate incident in our nation's political history, undertaken largely by men whose hatred of Johnson was such that they could not see how badly their actions reflected upon both themselves and the government. Even those historians who most vigorously disapprove of Johnson's record also tend to agree that the impeachment trial was a very bad idea.

I hope for the country's sake that those who seem bent on subjecting George Bush to a similiar ordeal pause and consider carefully what they are doing. And isn't it interesting that many of these same people a decade ago narrowly construed "high crimes and misdemeanors" in an effort to clear President Clinton's name? There is a certain cold comfort, I suppose, in realizing that hypocrisy is equally alive and well with some people on both ends of the political spectrum.

On Lincoln and arresting judges

An anonymous comment to yesterday's post about Musharraf raised the question about Lincoln's alleged plan to arrest Chief Justice Roger Taney following Taney's decidedly anti-administration decision in ex parte Merryman. It's a point one hears raised now and again, when Lincoln's record on civil liberties is broached.

I don't myself believe that Lincoln ever issued a warrent for Taney's arrest. Leaving aside Lincoln's general respect for the Constitution, law and order, there are I think, sound practical reasons for rejecting this story. Towit:

• The single primary source document for this claim is in Ward Hill Lamon's reminiscences, published in the 1880s. I think Lamon is a very shaky source. Yes, he is useful for anecdotes about Lincoln's law practice. But when it came to his own wartime activities, Lamon was a shameless self-promoter and is untrustworthy, and his claim that Lincoln gave him the orders to arrest Taney stretches his credibility past the breaking point.



• No copy of an actual arrest warrant has ever been found. This is exceedingly strange; if such a warrent were ever actually written, one would think it would appear in an archives someplace. Moreover, there is no contemporary primary source indicating that such an order ever existed. In the superheated atmosphere of Washington DC in 1861, one would think that an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would have at least spawned a rumor or two.



• It would have been highly out of character for Lincoln to have taken such a hamfisted approach. He was far more likely to look for a way around rather than through a problem, and was patient enough to allow inaction--in this case, merely ignoring Taney--to do his work, rather than precipitate action.



• The political fallout from such an arrest would have been immense, particularly among moderate and conservative Northerners, for whom Lincoln devoted Herculean efforts to remain in the Union. Can you imagine the reaction among Border State types, for example? Lincoln would never have risked the political backlash, especially in 1861, with Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri hanging in the Union by a thread. Indeed, Lincoln was so sensitive in this matter that he omitted mention of Taney's name entirely in his July 1861 address to Congress, referring to the Chief Justice only by implication and innuendo, lest he offend some members of Congress and the Border State press. And yet we are supposed to believe that this same man, who would not even call Taney out by name, wanted to throw him in prison?



• The legal fallout would have been even more immense. Lincoln was always very sensitive to the legal dimensions of his actions. Upon what legal peg might he have hung the arrest of Taney? The all-inclusive "powers of commander-in-chief" would have been thin ice here. He would have found it legally (and politically) very difficult to deny Taney the writ of habeas corpus, even given his suspension orders, and the whole thing would very likely have ended up in a courtroom--where Lincoln almost certainly would have lost. I doubt a good lawyer like Lincoln would have taken this sort of risk.

I suspect that the idea of arresting Taney was bandied about in a cabinet meeting, a meeting in which Lamon may have been present. The idea was likely rejected out of hand by Lincoln; but twenty years later Lamon, in an attempt to burnish his own reputation, chose to recall events in a much more dramatic (and factually erroneous) manner.

Abe in Pakistan?

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf recently tried to justify his imposition of emergency rule by quoting none other than Abraham Lincoln. In this article from a Calcutta newspaper, Musharraf is quoted as saying, "Abraham Lincoln usurped rights to preserve the union, and Pakistan comes first. Whatever I do is for Pakistan, and whatever anyone else thinks is secondary." And here Musharraf is quoted as saying "He [Lincoln] broke laws, he violated the constitution, he usurped arbitrary power, and he trampled individual liberties. His justification was necessity." Musharraf also read a letter from Lincoln in 1864, quoting Lincoln as saying, "My oath to preserve the Constitution imposed on me the duty of preserving by every indispensable means that government, that Nation of which the Constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the Nation and yet preserve the Constitution?"

Politicians over the years have often used and abused Lincoln to support their own ends, for good or ill. I suppose nothing should surprise us anymore in this regard.

Still...

This must stand as some kind of new low. Rarely have I seen Lincoln so violently wrenched from his historical and moral foundation. Surely any reasonably informed person knows how wrong Musharraf is to quote Abraham Lincoln in support of his repressive regime. On the other hand, there are people out there who believe the likes of Thomas DiLorenzo and Lerone Bennett. So, for the record:

• Lincoln never "usurped" anyone's rights.


• Lincoln never broke any laws. Where the habeas corpus issue of 1862 is concerned (and I suppose this is the first incident which comes to mind for his critics), Lincoln never conceded the unconstitutionality of his actions, the Supreme Court never adjudged his actions to be illegal, and Congress supported everything he did.


• Lincoln never took on "arbitrary power." All of the powers he exercised during the war were easily subsumed under his powers as commander-in-chief.


• Lincoln did not trample individual liberties. Anyone who believes otherwise should read Mark Neely's definitive book on the subject.

And, while we're on the subject of Musharraf's own actions, Lincoln never:

• suspended the constitution.


• declared emergency rule.


• ordered the jailing and physical assault of his critics


• suppressed legitimate dissent in the nation's media outlets.


• arrested and jailed lawyers and judges.

Abe-o-Meter

It had to happen sooner or later. With so many presidential candidates floating around (how many people are running for president right now, anyway? A couple dozen, at least), you knew that, sooner or later, Abe's name would begin trickling into stump speeches and campaign rallies.

It's inevitable, really. For better or worse, Lincoln is one of the most potent political symbols in American history. To borrow from David Donald, every politician sees the benefit in "getting right" with Lincoln. I rather doubt that there has been any presidential election since 1864 that did not use Abe in some way. And these political references to Lincoln can either be enlightening or excrutiating, depending upon the circumstances.

So, I thought I'd put my antennae out a little early for the upcoming 2008 election, and track references to Lincoln that appear in political speeches. I'll focus my attention on the presidential candidates--they're the easiest to access--but I'll not exclude other politicians running for the Senate, a gubernatorial chair, etc. I'm going to rate a given politician's use of Lincoln on the basis of validity, accuracy, and general political acumen. I'll call this my Abe-o-Meter, and I'll use a rating system of zero (really, truly awful) to five (interesting, appropriate, and accurate) stars...or, I don't know, let's have some fun and rate them from 0 to 5 stovepipe hats.

Towit:

Hillary Clinton cited Lincoln with approval in a recent speech on government spending, harkening to his wartime support for land grant universities and the transcontinental railroad, saying that Lincoln understood the idea of spending federal money for more than "short term political gain."

3 stovepipe hats: this is a pretty palatable reference to Lincoln, which does not violate historical truth or place Lincoln in an inappropriate light. On the other hand, it does stretch things a bit, in that the contexts are rather different. Lincoln advocated such spending programs at a time when the government wasn't swimming in the sea of red ink that we now find ourselves. Lincoln could afford to support such measures during war because the North's economy was more than capable of supporting ambitious spending programs. I'm not sure this same sort of dynamic applies to our present situation. A more accurate reference might have been made to Lincoln's diehard support of the Whigs' internal improvement programs of the 1850s.