Category: Abraham Lincoln

E.B Whites book, Charlottes Web, tells the story of a piglet rescued from death from its owner by the owners daughter, Fern. Fern appeals to her fathers sense of justice, pleading with him that, to kill the piglet just because it is a rant would be most unfair.

Wilbur, the piglet, thus survives and lives an adventurous life, later being sold to the Zuckermans, on whose firm he develops a friendship with a spider named Charlotte, who saves the life of Wilbur again when the owner tries to slaughter him over the Christmas season.

Russell Freedmans picture book Lincoln: a Photobiography tells the story of the life and times of Americas 16^th President, Abraham Lincoln. Using pictures to augment the writings, the book traces the life of Lincoln from childhood to his eventual rise to the pinnacle of US politics  the US presidency. Pictures give a story an extra angle of believability and are an important addition to the words of the text.

While Charlottes Web is a fictional account, Lincoln: a Photobiography is a factual account of the life of Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth president of the US. Charlottes Web, in telling the story of Wilbur, the pig, illustrates the theme of discrimination, as depicted in the life and activities of Wilbur. From the very day of his birth, Ferns father declares Wilbur unfit to live due to his small stature and sickliness.

The picture, on the other hand, portrays Abraham Lincoln as a person who endures a lot of hardships and discrimination, battling discrimination against himself, and discrimination against those whom the constitution gave him power to lead  for instance African Americans suffering under slavery.

In Charlottes Web, as stated earlier, the theme of discrimination manifests itself in the life of Wilbur. At birth, Mr. Arable marks Wilber for death due to his perceived illness; Wilbur was not supposed to live since he would not bring any returns (profit) to the owner.

As Fern questions why her father heads for the pigsty with an ax, her mother explains, One of the pigs is a runt. It is very small and weak. It will never amount to anything. So your father has decided to do away with it (p 1).

This statement leaves Fern mortified and highly disturbed, and she rushes after her father to protest at what she felt to be a serious case of injustice. Fern begs for the life of the pig, promising to look after him, and his father backs down and lets Fern keep the pig as her pet. Wilbur grows to become an active and healthy pig, defying the prognosis that Ferns father and mother had defined for him at birth.

This clearly is a statement by the author against discrimination based on appearance. The author encourages the reader to develop a culture of giving persons the benefit of doubt, instead of condemning them quickly without getting to know them.

In Lincoln: A Photobiography, Russell Freedman portrays a Lincoln who encounters much derision and mocking due to his looks. Lincoln grows to a very tall stature, and thus his gangly frame attracted much negative discussion (p 1). He grows in a society the places premium value on looks.

Lincoln, however, overcomes this primitive judgment of ones character based on looks and successfully pursues his educates to become a lawyer. Abraham Lincoln came from a very poor background, a factor that weighed heavily on his life as he rose up the societal ladder as a lawyer and a congressional representative. He rarely talked about his background (p 8).

Lincoln was of the view that ones background should not be a factor for success as long as a person was determined to rise to the highest levels of the society.

An element explored by both authors is the futility of discrimination based on age, race, gender, looks, and even class. A common thread in both stories is the fact that the individuals discriminated never chose to be of the specific age, race, gender or other such social constructs.

When Fern is pleading with her father for Wilburs life, and her father states that he wants to kill the pig due to the fact that it was runt, Fern states that The pig couldnt help being small (6). This statement pricks the conscience of her father who decides to let his daughter have it her way.

Similarly, Lincoln did not choose to have his looks; therefore, any reference to his looks was invalid. Additionally, Lincoln did not choose his poor background, and Russell Freedman portrayal of Lincoln overcoming the circumstances of his poor background to scale the heights of American politics invalidates discrimination against a person based on the background, which the person had no control over.

Furthermore, in both texts the authors depict the golden rule of treating another person in the same fashion that one would like others to treat him/her. Fern asks her father whether he would have killed her for being small at birth  the very reason that Mr. Arable uses as justification for his intent of killing the piglet: If I had been very small at birth, would you have killed me? (3). She appeals to her fathers sense of justice, urging him to treat the piglet as if it were his own.

Fern, even in her young mind, knew that if her father would realize that his actions on the piglet could very well reflect his actions on a human being, he would not proceed and kill the innocent piglet. Her father later appreciates the fact that his daughter had a keen sense of justice, something he tells to his wife and son.

The Americas Civil War, which characterized Lincolns presidency, intended to reconcile the divergent views on slavery. The North was of the idea that slavery should become to an end, while the South wanted slavery maintained, at the very least in the southern states. Slavery is one of the highest forms of discrimination, and in the US, the slaves were of African descent, and were enslaved because they belonged to a different, supposedly inferior race.

As president, Lincoln was highly critical of the unfairness and highly discriminative nature of slavery, where slaves labored from dusk until dawn, in deplorable conditions and at no pay. In the book Lincoln: A Photobiography, a prologue containing Lincoln views on slavery, presented in his own handwriting states that As I would not be a slave, I would not be a master& (Freedman ix), Lincoln, through this piece of writing, not only opposes to the institution of slavery that had become highly entrenched in the American economic, social and political fabric, but also urges Americans to view slavery in a different manner.

This prologue by Russell Freedman sees Lincoln urging Americans (and readers of the book at large) to put themselves in the position of the person(s) they are discriminating.

In this way, he urges them determine if they would be comfortable in such situations. Therefore, just like in Charlottes Web, the author urges the readers to eliminate discrimination by putting themselves in the situation of the people they discriminate.

Additionally, Wilbur, the pig, overcomes discrimination and isolation at a personal level and in a similar manner, Lincoln experiences hatred and much abuse from his contemporaries due to his political stands on slavery.

In Charlottes Web, fellow animals at the Zuckerman farm spurn Wilbur simply because these animals are envious of Wilburs cheerful nature. When he seeks to engage with the lamb, the lamb retorts, & Go play by yourself! I dont play with pigs (p 28).

The Goose and Templeton the rat also reject his advances. However, Wilbur does not despair, and he eventually finds a fitting friend in Charlotte, the spider. Many of the farm animals feign a sense of urgency or lie that they are busy to avoid the company of Wilbur, an innocent victim of discrimination.

Through Wilburs refusal to be put down by these unrequited advances, E.B White communicates the message that the reader should always stand by their unique and genuine characteristics even in the face of discrimination, and such a stand is usually vindicated in the future. For instance, in Wilburs case, Charlottes friendship turns out to be most enriching, and Charlotte even saves his life.

In Russell Freedmans Lincoln: A photobiography Abraham Lincoln comes under a lot of vitriolic attack from all manner of persons for his opposition to slavery. Freedman posits, During the Civil War he was the most unpopular president the nation had ever known (5).

When Lincoln warns his fellow Congress representatives that the American nation could not survive with one half supporting slavery and the other half opposed to it, they accused him of predicting disintegration of the nation, and earned even more enemies, simply because of his position.

However, President Lincoln did not waver in his commitment to abolish slavery. In the face of huge odds, Lincoln perseveres and abolishes slavery by the end of the four-year Civil War (Dirck 23).

Freedman communicates to the reader the virtues of being firm in ones conviction, that in the end the virtuous person will become validated, as Lincoln has been, occupying Folk hero status among the Americans today for his virtuous and firm leadership during the Civil War.

In contrast, however, both authors deal with the ultimate gain of fighting against discrimination differently. E.B White mainly tackles discrimination at the personal level. Beginning with Fern, White portrays her as the hero who stands up for the right to life of a pig deemed as worthless by its owner (45).

Similarly, Wilburs ability to remain true to his character (despite rejection from friends at the farm) tackles discrimination at a personal level. Russell Freedman, on the other hand, tackles discrimination at a professional and political level. Abraham Lincoln as a president comes under heavy criticism for his political stand on issues like slavery.

In conclusion, both E.B White and Russell Freedman tackle the issue of discrimination and racism. As discussed in the essay, White tackles discrimination at personal level while Russell tackles discrimination at professional level. Noteworthy however is the interconnection between the two  that having convictions at a personal level informs the reaction of a person at professional level.

For instance, Abraham Lincoln was able to stand against slavery at a political level because he was against it even at a personal level. Therefore, through their different works, the authors have spoken against all forms of discrimination and its ills.

Works Cited

Dirck, Brian. Lincoln as Commander-in-Chief. Perspectives on Political Science 39.1 (2010): 20-27.

Freedman, Russell. Lincoln: A Photobiography. New York: Clarion Books, 1987. Print

White, Brooks. Charlottes Web. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1952. Print

Abraham Lincolns speech is probably one of the most famous talks in American history because it was short and powerful. This 272-words long oration was delivered in 1863, amid the Civil War, near Gettysburgs battlefield (Frederick, 2018, p. 100). President Lincoln was an exceptional storyteller with a unique sense of humor (David, 2020). Thus, his charisma in writing this speech was not surprising because he realized the importance of emotional connection with soldiers to raise their fighting spirit (David, 2020). Writing is a complex and mysterious process because it should not only catch the audiences attention with beautiful wording, but it must be appropriate to the specific context (Barton, 2013). Every word Lincoln used conveyed a particular meaning because he knew that his talk should be short, not to overwhelm the tired and scared army but to inspire people.

The nouns and adjectives used in this oration had a special meaning applicable to the battlefield. For example, the word proposition means the Declaration of Independence in this context. The speech states that our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal (Lincoln, 1863, p. 1). It is always critical to state the main points of writing or speech at the beginning to catch the audiences attention (Hacker & Sommers, 2020). Indeed, Lincoln opened his talk by referring to the most essential document in U.S. history and highlighting the cause for which the soldiers were fighting. In this case, the word consecrate means to sanctify a place. Similarly, the hallowed ground indicates a site honored as holy. Lincoln tried to say that people who died on this battlefield for a higher purpose made this ground sacred with their blood, and hence those who remained could only finish their work to honor them.

Although Lincoln could deliver a longer speech, he decided to make it short but effective because he realized that soldiers were exhausted and needed a quick inspiration rather than a lengthy report. He delivered this 2-minute oration during the ceremony of honoring those who died on the battlefield at Gettysburg (Lincoln, 1863). It seemed that the presidents main goal was to remind people what historically happened on this ground. Furthermore, he wanted to honor those who gave their lives for a more significant cause and tell that the only task for everyone who survived was to finish this war for universal equality (Smith, 2019). However, unlike Frederic Douglasss writings, Gettysburg Address could be perceived as an idiom to convince the nation that all the sacrifices are not meaningless. Even though many of Lincolns and Douglasss writings were against racism and slavery, this particular speech had a distinct purpose of motivating the North to continue this fight rather than discuss racial discrimination.

In summary, President Lincolns speech at Gettysburg became one of the symbols of the American nation that had to go through the dark chapter in its history known as slavery. It was a brief oration that intended to raise the spirit of the citizens who came to honor those who lost their lives during the battle at Gettysburg. Lincoln certainly could deliver a longer speech that the audience would listen to and remember. Still, he decided only to highlight the work of the Founding Fathers and the contribution of those who died during the Civil War to convince people that they were on the right track.

References

Barton, M. D. (2013). Rhetoric and composition: A guide for the college writer [eBook]. Wikibooks.

David, A. (2020). Examining the Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln. Enslow Publishing, LLC.

Frederick, J. (2018). The ultimate guide to the Gettysburg Address by David Hirsch and Dan Van Haften.Gettysburg Magazine, 58, 100.

Hacker, D. & Sommers, N. (2020). A writers reference (10th ed.). Macmillan.

Lincoln, A. (1863). The Gettysburg Address. Web.

Smith, J. (2019). Lincolns miniature Bible: Performing sacred history in the Gettysburg Address. Brno Studies in English, 45(1), 171-189.

Abraham Lincoln is one of the most prominent US presidents of all time, occupying the post from 1861 to 1865. He earned this recognition as he successfully navigated one of the darkest events in the countrys history, the American Civil war, and was responsible for the abolishment of slavery. However, not many people know about Lincolns political career prior to becoming the president, during which he was not as popular amongst the citizens of the US. One prominent action of his that drew peoples disapproval was his speech in 1848 addressed to the president at the time, James K. Polk, criticizing the American-Mexican war that started two years prior. The purpose of this paper is to analyze Lincolns declaration in terms of its purpose and aim.

Background Information on Lincolns Speech

In 1848, Lincoln had been occupying a seat in the House of Representatives for two years and was representing the Whig political party. Despite having only recently started his career in politics, the future president took a strong stance against the American-Mexican war, outlining his criticism of the governments actions in a speech. While the address begins with the words Dear Chairman, it is transparent that Lincoln meant for the recipient of his criticisms to be James K. Polk himself. In fact, there are many points in the speech, which specifically call out the US president, urging him to answer the posed questions^[1][2]. However, as the address was public, Lincoln meant for regular citizens to be privy of his conclusions in terms of the American-Mexican war. As the general publics opinion was split in the middle, he hoped to sway more people to his side. Lincolns stance on this issue was not received favorably by his political party, and his career in this area came to a brief halt until the 1850s.

The Summary and Aim of Lincolns Speech

The speech was written after the House of Representatives voted and passed an amendment that undermined Polks reasons for starting a war with Mexico. Lincoln had agreed with this decision, and in his speech, he promised to reverse his vote if the president would answer several questions^[3]. Most of the inquiries were focused on the issue of the location of the first bloodshed. Polk had claimed that Mexican soldiers ruthlessly killed citizens on American soil, which was the grounds for waging war against them^[4]. However, Lincoln believed that the location of this battle was never formally confirmed to be part of the US territories. He claimed that it was most likely part of the inhabited land, which was not under the jurisdiction of either country^[5]. As such, the act of reiterating the first bloodshed as the reason for starting the war, as Polk had been doing in every address, was strongly criticized by Lincoln. Another part of the speech questions the duration of the fight with Mexico, which was initially promised to last no more than four months.

In order to obtain the truth, Lincoln urged the president to answer all of his questions. He put much emphasis on the responsibility of the president of the country to tell its citizens the truth and reminds Polk that he sits in the seat that Washington had once occupied^[6]. While Lincoln promised to reverse his vote, it is evident that he was confident in his stance as he was openly invalidating the presidents reasons for starting a war. As such, the true aim of the address was most likely to make Polk take responsibility for his words and admit to lying to further his own agenda.

Conclusion

While Lincolns decision to speak out against the American-Mexican war resulted in him halting his political career for some years, this act proved to be a good indicator of his time as a president. In this address, one can see the future leader of the US oratory skills and critical thinking. Additionally, Lincolns respect for the presidential post and the responsibilities it entails are apparent as he criticizes Polk for not taking his position seriously enough.

Work Cited

Lincoln, Abraham. 2016. Speech in United States House of Representatives: The War with Mexico (Speech, 1848). House Divided: The Civil War Research Engine at Dickinson College. Web.

It should be mentioned that for an organization to achieve its goals and objectives they need to have proper plans on how to effectively produce, manage the human resource, penetrate the market, handle uncertainties and competition, manage financial resources and last but not least, keep pace with changes in technology. In regards to the case of Lincoln Electric Companys popularity in the world market during the last years, the following question arises, what are the main secrets of the strength of the company?

High quality and low price are the main factors that guarantee success in a world market. The main aim of the company is to produce products of a high-quality for low prices. That is why the main strategy of the company is to concentrate on reducing costs and passing the savings through to the customer by continuously lowing prices. As the result, market share and primary demand are increasing. Lincolns strategy has remained unchanged for decades and it continues to bring success to the company. More than that, there are a lot of incentive bonuses which inspire the workers to work better and do all the best to increase the quality of the products. Employees are rewarded for their productivity, high quality, individual contributions to the company and cost reduction ideas. As the result, some workers have an opportunity to earn $45.000 in a single year. It is considered to be one of the main ways of employees motivation. If the employees are satisfied with the payment for their work, they do their work better and the work atmosphere allows producing goods of high quality. Lincolns philosophy is an individual attitude to every employee. Competition and adequate incentives allow realizing the whole potential of every worker. Compensation policies are considered to be the key point of Lincolns incentive management. The success of the company depends on the work of every employee. Lincoln takes into account the needs and demands of his employees and tries to satisfy them as far as discontent is disastrous for every company. The working atmosphere is a very important factor for the production of qualified products. One of main Lincolns points of view is equality between management and workers in the company which assists frank communication between them. It should be noted that Lincolns plant is quite unusual as far as there are few workers and too much equipment. The quality of the products also depends on the work of this equipment. Lincolns company do not save money on equipment. Lincolns company was the first that used computers in their work. Computerizing the company saved money and increased the degree of control.

Generally speaking, the secret of the success of Lincolns company is Lincolns philosophy and strategy. The philosophy based on the individual attitude to every employee and satisfaction of his needs and demands helps to create a good working atmosphere and guarantee high productivity. The strategy of the company aims at increasing the quality of the products on the one hand and reducing the costs which give the possibility to sell the products for lower prices on the other hand.

When we examine the history of Western civilization in the 19th-20th centuries, it will appear that virtually all of the wars that had taken place, during the course of this historical period, were instigated by politicians who never ceased promoting the concept of military confrontation as the ultimate solution to seemingly irresolvable problems, while explaining their warmongering stance by their dedication to the ideals of morality, civility, and tolerance. Why were British colonists given a carte blanche to indulge in genocidal practices against native Indians in the 19th century? This is because these colonists genuinely believed that they were morally ordained to treat Indians as subhumans  after all, it was them who had a mission of bringing the light of civilization to savages. Why had the population of Native Americans been almost completely wiped out by White Protestants around the same time? This is because these Protestants believed that they were the people of Israel, and as we all are aware of  Biblical God Jehovah explicitly calls for the physical extermination of all the pagans that stood in the way of his chosen people. Why does the American Civil War of 1861-1965 continue to be considered as the bloodiest event that had taken place on American soil, throughout the history of this countrys existence? This is because, prior to the outbreak of this war, many American politicians, such as Abraham Lincoln, had convinced the progressive half of Americas citizens that their slave-owning brethren in the South were nothing but a bunch of rednecks, whose political opinions should not have been taken into consideration.

Nowadays, Abraham Lincolns famous A House Divided speech, delivered to the delegates of the Illinois Republican Party Convention in 1858, is being commonly praised as such that had created objective preconditions for Americas unification within the constitutional framework of a Federation. For example, in his book Lincoln: A Very Short Introduction, Allen Guelzo refers to the ideas, contained in this particular Lincolns speech, as such that were utterly beneficial for the well-being of 19th centurys American nation: Lincoln did not mean that the divided halves would need to resort to violence to resolve the division; what was needed, though, was a national decision that slavery was right or wrong, and then the taking of whatever gradual steps were consistent with that conclusion, especially concerning the territories (Guelzo 2009, p. 77). However, the author never bothers to mention that A House Divided speech had set America on the path of a civil war. Despite the fact that throughout his career Abraham Lincoln never ceased proclaiming his adherence to the principles of democracy, he was incapable of tolerating political opinions that differed from his own. And, the reason for this is simple  Lincoln used to assess surrounding reality through the lenses of Christian dogmatism. This is exactly the reason why Lincolns speech contains referrals to Biblical fables: A house divided against itself cannot stand, etc. Apparently, Lincoln believed that these referrals would substantiate the validity of his speechs foremost argument, which can be articulated as follows: Slavery is wrong; therefore, the concept of popular sovereignty does not apply to Southern settlers right to own slaves in Nebraska.

What made Lincoln believe that slavery was wrong, especially given the fact that the holy book fully condones this practice? A House Divided speech does not provide us with the answer to this question  apparently, Lincoln had simply assumed that his stance on the issue could not be argued with. In the same manner, it never occurs to contemporary American politicians that their promotion of the policy of multiculturalism in America causes this country a great deal of harm  those who raise voices against the process of America turning into the Third World slum, are being automatically branded as racists, sexists and male chauvinists. Therefore, A House Divided speech should be referred to as to what it really is  an example of well-meaning but utterly meaningless political demagogy, aimed at intensifying political tensions within American society of the time, so that individuals like Lincoln, could go about realizing their personal ambitions at the expense of plunging the whole country into a civil war.

In his article Lincoln, Calhoun, and Cultural Politics, John Burt makes a perfectly good point while suggesting that it was namely this Lincolns speech, which had deprived America of a chance to get rid of slavery in a peaceful manner: Lincoln, to serve his own political ambitions, undermined the credibility of the last politician who may have been able to resolve the slavery crisis short of war (Burt 2003, p.143). At the time when Lincoln came up with A House Divided speech, more and more Southern planters were beginning to realize that they had no choice but to stop relying upon slave labor, in order for their agricultural enterprises to remain competitive. Therefore, Stephen Douglas endorsement of the popular sovereignty doctrine, criticized in Lincolns speech, was not aimed at the preservation of slavery as its main objective, but at the preservation of Americas unity in a time when this country was undergoing political tribulations.

Nowadays, many historians suggest that, even without the outbreak of a Civil War, it would only take another ten years for the slavery in Southern states to be completely abandoned  but no, Lincoln and industrialist tycoons behind him actively strived for war, simply because just about any war presents capitalist sharks with the opportunity to make huge money by the mean of supplying warring parties with arms. Today, the American Civil War of 18611865 is being commonly regarded as the event that had brought about the liberation of African-Americans from slavery, which is why the majority of Americans consider this war as such that was dialectically predestined to occur  after all, no sober-minded person would argue in favor of slavery. However, not many citizens realize that the abolition of slavery, was not a true motivation behind American Civil War, but only an excuse Northern politicians had resorted to, in order to legitimize their pro-war stance.

It is important to understand that the Civil War of 1861-1865 did not bring about the abolition of slavery in the South de facto, but only de jure. In fact, it is named after having been liberated in 1865 that African-Americans had realized themselves being deprived of even those illusionary rights and freedoms they were endowed to, while under slavery. This explains why the Reconstruction era in the South, is now being often considered as the nadir (lowest point) of Americas Black history, despite the fact that this period followed the abolition of slavery. During the course of this time, it became a common practice for African-Americans to be indiscriminately lynched and murdered by Southern Whites, simply because these Whites considered African-Americans as the actual instigators of a Civil War, even though it could not possibly be the case.

Moreover, it is because the liberation of African-Americans came as the result of Southern and Northern Whites having indulged in a bloody bacchanalia against each other, during the time of Civil War, that even today the majority of White Americans are being instilled with genetically predetermined animosity towards the Blacks  this explains the existence of racially secluded White suburbias in just about every American city. Therefore, the actual outcome of Lincolns political activities should not be considered the abolition of slavery  slavery would have been abandoned even without Lincolns valuable contribution to the process of slavery becoming economically unfeasible, but 650.000 dead Americans. So much for Lincolns proclaimed goal of preventing the house from being divided.

American Civil War can be compared to the Battle of Berlin in the spring of 1945, when the Soviet Army had lost 350.000 in casualties, within a matter of two weeks, while attacking the doomed city, simply because Stalin wanted to enter Berlin before the Allies. Yet, Soviets could have simply laid a siege around Berlin  the starved city, in which remaining residents considered cats and dogs a delicacy, would have surrendered within a matter of a month. The lives of hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers would have been spared. In a similar manner, had Northern states subjected Southern states to an economic embargo, while demanding the abolishment of slavery, their agenda would have been eventually achieved without the lives of 650.000 Americans being sacrificed on Civil Wars bloody battlefields. However, Lincoln wanted war in 1861 under the pretext of abolition of slavery, just as Roosevelt wanted war in 1941 under the pretext of protection of democracy, just as Bush wanted war in 2001 under the pretext of elimination of weapons of mass destruction. The truth is  it is only Plutocratic moneybags who benefit from wars, not the ordinary citizens. And, since ordinary citizens do not benefit from war, their nation cannot benefit from war either, simply because the nation is nothing but a multitude of ordinary citizens, united by the same interests and by the same cultural affiliation.

In his article The Union: Worth a War?, Doug Bandow provides us with insight into the actual outcome of Lincolns political stance, articulated in his speech: Over 600,000 dead; hundreds of thousands of hungry refugees; mass destruction of agriculture, community, and property in the South; extensive violations of civil liberties in the North; and centralization of national power that has steadily intensified over the succeeding century. The sole genuine benefit of the war  the destruction of slavery  was partially overturned after Reconstruction& Abraham Lincolns role in history may be memorable, but it is not praiseworthy. His most important decision  to plunge the nation into civil war  was wrong (Bandow 1996).

As the famous saying goes  the road to hell is made out of good intentions. There is little doubt as to the fact that most of the ideas, contained in Lincolns A House Divided speech can be best referred to as truly admirable. The same can be said about Marxist ideas  after all, they are based on the idea of peoples equality. However, the problem begins when politicians admirable ideas are being implemented practically. In order to enforce equality in Russia, after the Communist takeover in 1917, Commies could not come up with anything better than deciding to physically exterminate the representatives of the bourgeoisie en masse. In a similar manner, in order to preserve the unity of the American nation, Lincoln could not have come with anything better than encouraging Americas Southerners and Northerners to start hating each other with utter passion. And, as we are all aware of  the legacy of Lincolns uniting efforts lives on even today, with yokels and Yankees continuing to treat each other with an unmasked animosity.

References

Bandow, D. (1996). The union: Worth a war? The Future of Freedom Foundation. Web.

Burt, J. (2003). Lincoln, Calhoun, and cultural politics. Raritan. 23(2), 142-161.

Guelzo, A. (2009). Lincoln: A very short Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Introduction

In modern times, Abraham Lincoln is often viewed as a moral leader and a pioneer of equality for African Americans. If Lincoln’s career is examined more closely, however, it becomes evident that he was not, in fact, a moral leader. Rather, he simply followed the climate of his time period, acting as a moderator rather than a reformer.

Lincoln’s Pragmatic Approach to Speeches

Lincoln did not care about the well-being of the black man, nor was he a dedicated abolitionist. Lincoln’s actions were merely in response to the political climate he was immersed in. Lincoln was not a great reformer, an activist, nor even “the Great Emancipator”; he was simply a convincing politician. One of the clearest signs that Lincoln was far more a politician than a reformer is his inconsistent stance in his speeches. Time and time again, he would alter his positions in order to better attract his audience. Two speeches from 1858 show this. In Chicago, Illinois, a northern city with a stronger abolitionist tendency, Lincoln argued that men of all races should unite and declare that all men are created equal.

Two months later, in Charleston, Illinois, a city that was more supportive of white supremacy, Lincoln argued that he had never been in favor of the equality of the races and that the white race should and will be held superior (Hofstadter 149-50). Clearly, these two speeches contradict in significant ways the status of African Americans and the white race. Had Lincoln been committed to reform, he would have stood by his beliefs for all audiences, but being a politician first and a savvy one at that, he said what was popular in order to rake up votes. Lincoln’s political opponent, Stephen Douglas, called this trait out, stating that he would despise himself if he thought he was procuring votes by concealing his opinions from the public.

Opposing Slavery’s Expansion: A Political Maneuver

This made little difference, however, since the public didn’t care so much about the consistency of Lincoln’s arguments, only that he made convincing ones. This is a key mark of a person who is politically motivated: they say only what is to their advantage, not what they believe to be true. One plan that Lincoln consistently supported was opposing the expansion of slavery into the new territory. From his varied speeches, it is clear that he did not oppose slavery’s expansion on solely moral grounds, as he did not oppose its continuance in the South or deeply believe in the equality of African Americans. Why, then, would he be so consistent on a topic that seems so controversial? The key to understanding why Lincoln took this position comes from understanding the northern political climate of the time. There was a large group of northern abolitionists who opposed slavery as a moral wrong. An even larger set of people in the north, however, were Negrophobes. These people simply wanted to keep African Americans away from their cities.

Reconciling these two groups seemed impossible, but Lincoln found a way: the free-soil argument (Hofstadter 144-6). By opposing the expansion of slavery, Lincoln found a stable middle ground. Abolitionists supported it because they saw it as the pathway to the end of slavery; slavery would fizzle out on its own if not allowed to expand. Negrophobes also supported this, as it allowed them to grow economically. Without slaves in the new territories, poor whites would not have to compete with slave labor and thus would have the opportunity to climb the socioeconomic scale. Lincoln’s plan supported the American ideal of the self-made man, the man who takes advantage of his opportunities and, through hard work, climbs to the top.

Lincoln, by opposing the expansion of slavery, created this opportunity in the new territories and, therefore, could get the votes of northerners from both the abolitionist group and the Negrophobe group–enough to form a political party. The fear of the expansion of slavery by white northerners was perhaps Lincoln’s most powerful tool. It wasn’t simply that slave-free territories would provide new opportunities to poorer whites–if slavery were not stopped from spreading, it would overtake the entire country. If slavery were allowed everywhere, what was to stop poor whites from becoming slaves?

In his famous 1858 “House Divided” speech, Lincoln argued that the free states were in danger of becoming slave states if their expansion was not restricted (Hofstadter 149). However, he was not arguing that slavery needed to end immediately, as he did not care whether it remained in the South. This again shows Lincoln as primarily a politician; He did not propose claims on ethical grounds, only the practical matter of restricting slavery’s expansion.

Flexible Stance on Slavery: Serving Political Goals

For Lincoln, all of the value in discussing slavery came from how it impacted his politics. To him, slavery’s expansion needed to be stopped in order to retain the freedom of northern white people, his political supporters. Lincoln was not interested in helping the black man or fighting slavery; he was only interested in helping his fellow white men. In fact, on multiple occasions, he expressed white supremacist views in order to keep voters on his side (Hofstadter 143, 150). When politics best suited the opposite approach, he spoke for equality among the races (Hofstadter 131, 136).

Lincoln did have political agendas, but on the issue of slavery, he did not invest himself in changing the outcome. Lincoln worked to help his political base, white northerners, primarily by following their lead. Lincoln’s stance on slavery itself was, therefore, secondary and fluid. If supporting slavery would help him support white northerners and, in turn, get their votes, he would speak in support of slavery. If opposing slavery was the way to help his base, he would work against it. Perhaps the best way to summarize Lincoln’s views on slavery is with his own words: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it” (Hofstadter 169).

Lincoln simply did not care whether slavery was abolished or not. Only when it became clear to him that the only way to support his other political interests was to emancipate the slaves would he actually take action in this direction? Lincoln insisted on preserving the Union to show that majority rule must be respected and not simply overthrown, and he insisted on majority rights, such as the American ideals of opportunity and popular rule (Hofstadter 161). It was this, not a desire for justice for the black man, that led to the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. Ultimately, then, Lincoln’s actions leading up to and including his presidency were those of a politician, though an unusually persuasive and thoughtful one. Lincoln likely had internal views on the situation but never pursued his personal moral interests.

Conclusion

Instead, each step was carefully calculated and only taken if he could be sure that enough popular support existed. While Lincoln did not make political decisions solely to gain votes, he made decisions in order to support his central principle, that of the opportunity of the common man. To him, slavery was not of central importance, only an obstacle to his goals. His position on the issue of slavery changed often during his career and was only addressed as part of achieving his other goals. Only when the existence of slavery began to block his objectives did he deem it necessary to end it. Abraham Lincoln was a politician at heart, always working diplomatically and slyly to achieve his goals and the goals of his political base. As a result, he had no attachment to the issue of slavery other than its role in his other political endeavors.

References

1. Hofstadter, Richard. “Abraham Lincoln and the Self-Made Myth.” The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It. Vintage Books, 1989, pp. 131-161.

Introduction

“Throughout the mid to late 1800s, Frederick Douglass was a very prominent figure in American abolitionist and radical politics. He and Abraham Lincoln affected each other’s viewpoints and adapted to each other, forming a companionship and bettering each other. The story, The Radical and the Republican, by James Oakes, explores this in depth. The author of this story describes the views of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln, going into great detail about how Lincoln affected Douglass’ views especially. I agree with the author James Oakes depicting these two prominent men in a way that describes Lincoln as a great statesman and an opportunist, willing to do anything necessary to achieve his goals of ending slavery and bringing the Union back together, and Douglass as a man who will not back down no matter what is in his way, fighting for equal rights and black suffrage, adapting over time. Oakes also depicts Lincoln as a black people’s President.

Turmoil and Racial Struggles

The time period in which the story takes place is one of political turmoil and racial violence. The Civil War also took place during this period. It saw the rise and fall of Stephen Douglas, a prominent senator who ran for President against Abraham Lincoln. The book also explores racism during this period and the radical abolitionist views of the time, mainly from Frederick Douglass and the Republican views on the equality of people who came to power during the period, such as Abraham Lincoln.

His message is conveyed through the use of switching viewpoints between Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln. This method of putting his point across is very effective in the cumulation of the ideas put out throughout the beginning of the story to emphasize the significance of the first meeting between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass in the White House in 1863. Ultimately, Oakes uses this to show how the two created a sort of political relationship between these men, even though Douglass initially was distrustful of Lincoln. These differing points of view on the same subjects became more and more similar throughout the story as Douglass and Lincoln affected each other more and more. It is very interesting to see this because it proves the author’s point of view on how they affected each other to become two heads to the same force, pushing ideas on equality that affected the United States’ social climate throughout the Civil War and Afterward.

Lincoln and Douglass: Opposing Backgrounds and Parallel Lives

While they were very different people, Oakes noted that they did have parallels, such as “Both had grown up in poverty” (90) and were both self-made men. He notes many differences as well, such as in the way they speak, with Douglass “roused listeners with passion” (90), referring to his booming voice, stories, and good looks, while Lincoln used his tactics such as “homely appearance, folksy stories, and self-deprecating humor” (90) to disarm his audience and impress them even more with his combination of “lawyerly precision and simple idealism” (90). This shows how different people they were at the beginning of their careers. Oakes uses this to emphasize the changes in the characters of Lincoln and Douglass and how they become more similar in their views towards the end of the book.

When the book began, Douglass, who began as a Garrisonian Abolitionist, came to the realization that he should not be denouncing the Constitution or calling for Northern succession. Oakes states that it was because of the Mexican-American War that caused the reawakening of Douglass’ interest in politics (16). In addition to this, it was also due to Gerrit Smith, who changed Douglass’ viewpoint towards the Constitution and that of his part to play as a reformer. Using his newfound ideas, Frederick began believing it should be in each and every American’s interests to use “his political as well as his moral power to overthrow slavery.” (20). As the book continued, he started to sound more like a supporter of Abraham Lincoln, giving speeches with the lines, “Liberty and slavery cannot dwell together forever in the same country.” (37).

At the same time, Lincoln was also fine-tuning his views on the abolition of slavery in the US. He came to the conclusion that the one possibility for americans to fight against people who supported having slaves was that they must “build an antislavery coalition, organize it into a mass political party, and take control of the state.” (106). However, Douglass was disappointed with what he believed to be the conservative views on racism and slavery that Lincoln had developed. In 1860, he even proclaimed that he would not vote for Lincoln.

Douglass’s transformation throughout the book is easily shown. Even though Lincoln and Douglass only met twice, Oakes believes that it was during these that Douglass’ transformation happened. After Lincoln died, his perspective shifted, too. After the Civil War, He shifted from being a radical to becoming “the leading voice of black America” and, afterward, into becoming a “loyal member of the Republican Party.” (172). On page 281, Oakes directly states, “Before the war, he was a radical first, increasingly committed to politics but always in the service of reform. After the war, he was a Republican, still committed to equal justice but always by means of party politics.” (281).

Conclusion

At the end of the book, it can be seen how Lincoln is viewed as the black man’s President and a great Statesman, with Oakes repeating how he was a statesman many times on pages 272, 273, 276, and 278 as well as many more. He used Douglass’ views on Lincoln, with him stating that he was “the black man’s President” and “leader of the colored people” (267).

In conclusion, this book describes the change in Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass and how they were affected by each other. It gives the reader a better understanding of the politics and ideologies of the time period and how they were spread from person to person. ”

References

1. “Frederick Douglass: Prophet of Freedom” by David W. Blight
2. “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” by Doris Kearns Goodwin

Introduction

The sixteenth President of the United States from Hodgenville, Hardin County, Kentucky, was Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was in office from 1861-1865. President Lincoln accomplished many great things; he was one of the best presidents of the United States and led the Union through the Civil War. One of the other great accomplishments was that Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery. Without Lincoln, slavery may have never been abolished. President Abraham Lincoln died on April 14, 1865. He was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth.

Lincoln’s Leadership During Crisis

Abraham Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809, in Hardin (now Larue) County, Kentucky. Growing up, Abraham Lincoln had struggles like he’s father losing everything when Abraham Lincoln was young, and they had to move to Perry County, Indiana, where they struggled to get by. As a young man, he worked a variety of jobs, including shopkeeper, surveyor, and postmaster, for a time. Lincoln did not attempt college, but he read a lot at home.

Lincoln won the 1860 election and was inaugurated as President in March of 1861. The southern states did not want Lincoln to be President. They did not agree with his policies. Before he was officially in office, they began to leave the country. The Civil War began on April 12, 1861, at Fort Sumter in South Carolina, just a month after Lincoln took office. Lincoln was determined to maintain the ‘Union’ of the states. He called for an army from the northern states to defeat the south. What followed was a bloody war that lasted four years and cost the lives of 600,000 Americans.

Conclusion

President Abraham Lincoln was shot on April 13, 1865, by John Wilkes Booth while attending a play at the Ford Theater in Washington, D.C. With the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson became the 17th President of the United States 1865-1869, an old-fashioned southern Jacksonian Democrat of pronounced states’ rights views. The Lincoln Memorial National honors the 16th and perhaps greatest President of the United States and symbolizes his belief in the freedom and dignity of all people.

References

1. “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” by Doris Kearns Goodwin

Throughout American history there has been an issue of people following unwritten codes without making the right criticism of the ethicality of the major historical ideologies. However, there have been American heroes throughout time that did outstanding work through finding a different perspective. Their unusual philosophies created a much better world for many of the upcoming generations of people. Their differences and uncommon ideas that go against the norm of their time allowed people to live freely; which wasn’t accepted previously. Standards that consist of slavery which originated from the colonies that were under the control of the United Kingdom. Despite the protection that the British provided for the 13 colonies, they were not satisfied due to their requirements of skyscraping taxations. Which lead to the Declaration of independence in 1776 and the creation of one of the most developed and successful countries in the entire world, America. However, their desire for freedom from the British fabricated a cage for African Americans that were sold by Africa to the united states for the dirty work of the colonies with cheap prices. Which is what began the concept of slavery: the way a person was owned, worked for no money, and dehumanized by their “owner” just because of the color of their skin. When the Africans were brought to the new world, also known as America, they were seen as tools for work and lower than humans whom didn’t deserve any rights nor respect. The idea continued for about 246 years before Americans were forced to recognize the inadequacy of the concept. Furthermore, the force came from the people of color finally gaining the confidence to stand up to their “owners” with the help of some historical figures like Martin Luther King jr. and a powerful white man who had morals like Abraham Lincoln. The never-endingly dark injustice that the founding fathers whom fought the United Kingdom for freedom created until a noble man, Abraham Lincoln, embraced his otherness. He then named his disagreement against the oppression of black men because “all men are created equal.” Despite the majority of the country using this concept for hundreds of years, he bravely went against the very thing that created what he, as the president, was trying to protect and improve. On the other hand, Martin Luther King junior came years after the civil war where injustice still hadn’t ended centuries after the emancipation proclamation due to the continued segregation. However, Martin Luther King junior didn’t just stand by and watch, he took matters into his own hands and protested for acceptance.

For a lot of his vocation, Lincoln accepted that colonization—or the possibility that a greater part of the African American populace should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central America—was the most ideal approach to stand up to the issue of subjugation. Prior to Lincoln’s initiation in March 1861, seven Southern states had withdrawn from the Union. While the Northern states stood with him and fought the southern states to unite the whole country. However, Lincoln was short of supplies and soldiers, so he came out with the emancipation proclamation which had a major effect on the union. To the point where it began “reshaping the cause of the Civil War from the Union to abolishing slavery” says the Biography logo of A&E Television Networks, LLC. Without the support of half of his people he had to turn to someone, and he found people that seek his help at a time that he needs theirs’. The freedom of millions of slaves that he accomplished was more accidental, but still significant to the history of slavery. He used violence and many small battles to reach the support of the country fully. For instance, the Gettysburg national cemetery and he made an address there at “at one of the bloodiest battlefields of the war” (he Biography logo of A&E Television Networks, LLC).

Martin Luther King junior’s first steps towards activism and his journey of becoming a historical figure who was a hero that created more equality and acceptance. Then when another one of his fellow community members as a black woman was arrested for refusing to give her seat up to a white woman. The woman’s , also known as Rosa Parks, arrest gave Martin Luther King Junior the idea of to create the protest known as “the Montgomery bus boycott.” This boycott lasted 380 days, Martin got arrested because the government did not like the boycott nor the massage he was sharing, so that’s how his path of activism started. Martin Luther King’s role in this boycott made him a national figure in the country and one of the best spokesmen of the civil war movement. In 1957 Martin Luther King and around 60 other ministers founded southern Christian leadership best known as S.C.L.C and Martin became the president of the organization. After building the organization MLK and his team started to organize a non-violent protest across the south to promote and bring awareness to civil rights. After all Martin Luther King’s participations to so many boycotts and protests he got arrested again. Moreover, While Martin was in jail, he wrote his famous letter that now best known as “letter from Birmingham jail.” In 1963 over 250,000 people attended from all different ethnicities and colors came together at the national mall at Washington DC to demand justice and equality for everyone. And this is where Martin Luther King gave his famous speech “I have a dream.”

Although the color of Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln skin might be different, they had a lot in common and helped the civil right movement to demolish slavery. Both of them had similar philosophies how everyone should be treated. In many of his writings Abraham Lincoln make his intentions clear that he does not support slavery, more specifically in letter to Henry Pierce he says ‘I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.’ Also, he mentioned in letter to Albert Hodges that ‘I cannot remember when I did not so think and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.’ Compare to Martin Luther King which had a very similar goal, which was to save African people from all the torcher and hatred they would have to face just because of their color. In One of the most famous speeches in the history of mankind “I have a dream” stated “ I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. ” Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln did everything in this power to make this country a country for every race, all ethnicities and cultures. It is because of their hard work and dedication why we have a country now that accepts and treat everyone equally despite the color of their skin.

There are many similarities about Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln goals and what they want out of life. However, the way they achieved and tried to achieve was very different. For instance, Martin Luther King tried to eliminate slavery peacefully, in one of his inspirational speeches he says, ‘Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.’ Martin Luther King did not want anyone to commit any act of violent to accomplish their rights. His philosophy was to approach the problems by peaceful protest and his writings. Even though, Martin Luther King was never aggressive toward anyone he got arrested many times throughout his activist life. On the other hand, Abraham Lincoln was working toward the similar goal, but more aggressive ways. For example, the according to history website “Union casualties in the battle numbered 23,000, while the Confederates had lost some 28,000 men–more than a third of Lee’s army.” He was a leader of the northern states to fight against the southern states to achieve a union. However, the plans changed when the southern states had the upper hand over Abraham Lincoln, and he was desperate for soldiers and supplies. Which he then wrote the emancipation proclamation to trade the freedom of the slaves for support. With this change of plans the entire purpose the war shifted and turned into a war to abolish slavery.

All in all, they both were similar men that changed America forever for the better and created a place where people can be free and accepted. Despite, the sad and disgusting history that the United States has they created highlights and saw through the dark injustice and saw the light at the end of the tunnel. Which is what kept them both going and gave them motivation to do the right thing despite the complications that stood in their way. Such as the long history that slavery has and the things that it has done for this country easier and cheaper. Even though there are many benefits that people like Abraham Lincoln gained for centuries, but he saw past the personal desire and selfishness. He did that through his strong morals and the way that his integrity was leading him through his entire career and decisions. On the other hand, it was different for Martin Luther King junior because he was born into segregation and he only experienced the consequences of the racism. He only saw people like Rosa Parks and was one of them. Which affected the path that he went through to achieve his goal; because he was black and was the person who was ignored and oppressed, he didn’t have the respect, power, nor support from people in power because they were everything he was fighting against. Knowing their power imbalance due to their races and tactics of change, it is becoming clear why they were fighting. They were fighting to tip the power scale to equal out for all men because it is the right way since we are all humans and are the same if we look past the simple differences. They are heroes that saved many people of color and created unity between the oppressed and oppressors. Which created a more peaceful country and acceptable community within all people.

The Lincoln-Douglas sparked when after Abraham Lincoln gave his famous “A house divided against itself cannot stand” speech, his competitor Stephen A. Douglas accused him of being a “radical” and said that he was “threatening the stability of the union”. After Douglas said this, Lincoln then challenged Douglas to the debates. According to Britannica.com, the Lincoln-Douglas debates states: “the two eventually agreed to hold joint encounters in seven Illinois congressional districts”.

The debates focused on the topic of slavery territory after the problem of adequately dividing the slave states, and the free states came back post-Mexican war given that the outcome of the Mexican war supplied the U.S. with two new states to work with. As the Britannica.com article says, “The Mexican War, however, had added new territories, and the issue flared up again in the 1840s. The Compromise of 1850 provided a temporary respite from sectional strife, but the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854—a measure Douglas sponsored—brought the slavery extension issue to the fore once again”. So, most of the debates dealt with that topic. The debates also had a different setup than the ones we use in this day and age. As mentioned in the Battlefields.org article, on the Lincoln-Douglas debates, “the format for the debates between Honest Abe and the Little Giant featured one candidate talking for an hour followed by the other candidate speaking for an hour and a half before the first candidate was given thirty minutes for a rebuttal. Lincoln and Douglas alternated which candidate went first and which candidate responded”. The debates didn’t just focus on slavery territory, though, but it dived into the problem of slavery and human rights. “The main focus of these debates was slavery and its influence on American politics and society—specifically the slave power, popular sovereignty, race equality, emancipation, etc.”. This was the content that the Lincoln-Douglas debate mainly focused on.

The result of the Lincoln-Douglas debates is that in the polls the Republicans beat out the democrats with the popular vote, but the democrats beat out the republicans with the electoral vote. As stated in the New York Times News article, on the result of the debate, “In the 1858 legislative election, Illinois Republican candidates slightly outpolled their Democratic rivals. However, because of an apportionment that favored Democratic districts, Douglas secured a majority when the legislature voted early the next January”. It is also noted that because of the debates Lincoln won a lot of popularity while the popularity of Douglas decreased immensely. It is also stated in the New York Times News article on the result of the debate, “In the long run, however, the debates were favorable to Lincoln and fatal to Douglas. Lincoln gained national stature from his performance and became a serious Presidential contender. Douglas, however, having argued during the debates that slavery in the territories could be barred by local initiative (‘popular sovereignty’), became a near pariah among national Democrats, helped to split the party and thus virtually destroyed his ardent Presidential hopes”. So, these are the major results of the Lincoln-Douglas debate.

References

1. “Lincoln-Douglas Debates”. American Battlefield Trust, www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/lincoln-douglas-debates Accessed 5 Feb. 2021.
2. The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Lincoln-Douglas Debates | Summary, Dates, Significance”.