One Hundred and Fifty Years Ago On This Day

[Charles]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

My thought is that's a malicious pile of punditry. I will elaborate.

For a thing labeled as "about Lincoln" it's amazing how much of it isn't. I see comments about what books people buy. I see comments about what people do or don't know about Lincoln, and much about people's feelings about him. A fair bit at the beginning is about people's opinions (offered with only the scantest allusions to evidence) about Lincoln's possible lack of Christianity. Mencken repeatedly expresses his doubts, an attack by innuendo similar to the McCarthy-era when 'doubting' someone's hatred of Communism was enough to brand them a sinner against America. But actually the opinions and doubts given us, as they appear, contain mainly information about the opinion-holders and doubters, and very little actually about Lincoln. In any case, this first part gives us a good idea of Mencken's malice toward his subject, and the sort of methods he is willing to employ.

Contrasting the views people purportedly hold of Lincoln, compared to Washington, is of course again not about Lincoln, it's about people's views. The bit about not smiling and "cackling" is of course raw ad hominum, again baring the writers malicious intent. There follows in this paragraph an exposition detailing the contrast between an idealized popular image of Lincoln (which of course was not of the dead president's making) and observations of the actual man, which strike me as composed largely of nasty insult (put the women, kids, and clergy to bed indeed.)

There remain two accusations of some apparent substance in the later part of the essay. Mencken, a skilled polemicist, perhaps saves his real argument until after the ground has been prepared by his preliminary bombardment, that is, until after he already has the readers who have stuck with him well in the mood to think bad and worse of Ol' Abe. These last arguments can be summarized as
1) Lincoln wasn't really devoted to freeing the slaves, and
2) the Gettysburg address falsely represents the nature of the war.

Regarding 1), the argument again is mainly that the real Lincoln does not live up to his posthumous legend. Again, that legend is not a fair burden to impose upon him. He certainly never called himself a "messiah." Likewise, he never called himself an 'abolitionist,' a thing Mencken mentions as a reproach for no reasonable reason I can discern. Did Lincoln have some obligation to be a radical zealot on the matter? Would Mencken actually like him better if he were? Here again, Mencken seems to think it valid to contrast the real Lincoln, who was an effective politician, with a imaginary demigod who could of course abolish slavery unilaterally, at a stroke, whenever he wished. Lincoln's policies evolved over time, both to adapt to changing conditions, and to reflect development and growth in his own thinking. And he was never omnipotent, he always had to overcome or finesse opposition from many quarters.

The bottom line on freeing the slaves is Lincoln did it, to include the difficult feat of securring passage of the 13th Amendment through Congress, the final time he tried, after an earlier attempt was defeated. I have my doubts as to whether Mencken actually applauds this deed (and he deserves to be attacked by innuendo here, as he does it so much himself), but in any case, his voiced criticism seems to be that Lincoln should have dione a quicker and better job of it. Well, I wonder how many amendments Mencken ever found a 2/3 majority in Congress for.

If the recent Speilberg movie has the history right, Lincoln could have had a Confederate surrender in advance of the final bloodbaths necessary for the fall of Richmond, if he'd been willing to sacrifice the anti-slavery amendment. He was not, though the question was for a time in the balance. But at the last, he knowingly spent thousands of lives to insure that slavery was done. Mencken's criticisms in contrast strike me as base, unworthy attacks on the man whose responsibility was to wrestle with choices that would drive most men of conscience to despair. This decision by Lincoln should put to final rest any question of his sincere and utter opposition to slavery, at the last.

Second, there is the accusation that the Gettysburg Address was false. Why? Because the invocation of self-determination contrasts with the freedom lost by the southerners as a result of the war. This carping is easily disposed of; Mencken comes close to doing it himself when he compares the southerner's lot to prisoner's in a penetentiary. Freedom is lost in peacetime by criminals, convicted by due process of law, and in wartime, by a people who place their 'freedom' to oppress others above the due process of constitutional government. There certainly were faults and wrongs, on all sides, in the reconstruction era. The irony is that a great what-if of history is the liklihood of a much wiser and more reasonable process, had Lincoln, whom Mencken despises, lived to place his stamp upon it, as opposed to dying in a way that inflamed the North as nothing else might have done.

Your piece is superb. Definitely the most concise and well written argument ever exhibited here, and would stand tall with any argument written anywhere. You Sir, are quite eloquent.

No doubt Mencken possessed a sharp tongue, and took a great delight in deflating idols in tandem with offering a viewpoint which differed from the accepted norm. That was his bread and butter, and although you may take issue with this particular piece in no way detracts from his literary accomplishments.

The man was, and still is highly respected in his field...perhaps for his curmudgeonly aspects, and at times in spite of them.

I am a bit surprised that you mentioned that it took Lincoln two trips to the alter to pass the 13th Amendment with a 2/3 majority. Considering that 1/3 of the population was politically disenfranchised at that point, and that 1/3 would have been the most likely to oppose the 13th Amendment, you're not making a very strong case for the freedom loving Northern states...where slavery was still legal in places.

Another issue I would like to address is whether or not Speilberg got it "right". Has Hollywood ever gotten anything "right".

And the final issue I would like to address is your is your supposition that Mencken "despises" Lincoln. While he obviously despises tin gods, and the fools who worship them, I couldn't detect any personal animosity towards Lincoln on his part.

In closing, I'm of the opinion that Mencken made several salient points. First of all, Lincoln was a politician as opposed to a deity. Secondly, he used emancipation as more of a political tool as a just cause. But perhaps more importantly, the people of the South were fighting for their own self determination. And they had every right to do so.

And IMHO, after 150 yrs we are still unable to respect those who gave their lives for what they thought was necessary. They all deserve our respect, it's time to let it go.

Chas