Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address is a renowned speech delivered during a critical moment in American history—the final months of the Civil War. In this essay, we will undertake a rhetorical analysis focused on the effective use of pathos in Lincoln’s address. By examining the emotional appeals and empathetic language employed by Lincoln, we can gain a deeper understanding of the speech’s impact on the audience and its enduring significance.
Establishing Emotional Connection:
From the very beginning, Lincoln establishes an emotional connection with the audience by acknowledging the immense suffering and loss endured during the Civil War. He refers to the conflict as a “great civil war” and recognizes that both sides “read the same Bible and pray to the same God.” Through these words, Lincoln appeals to the shared humanity of the audience, emphasizing their common experiences and values.
Appeals to Grief and Mourning:
Throughout the speech, Lincoln skillfully appeals to the emotions of grief and mourning. He acknowledges the staggering death toll and the profound impact of the war on families and communities, stating, “Both read the same Bible and both pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other… The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully.” These words evoke a sense of shared loss and tragedy, invoking empathy from the audience.
Promoting Reconciliation and Unity:
In his address, Lincoln emphasizes the need for reconciliation and unity, even amidst the ongoing conflict. He encourages the audience to “bind up the nation’s wounds” and to “do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves.” By using language that emphasizes the collective responsibility to heal the nation, Lincoln appeals to the audience’s sense of compassion and empathy.
Appeals to Future Generations:
One of the most powerful aspects of Lincoln’s address is his appeal to future generations. He speaks of the war as a divine punishment and cautions against the perpetuation of hatred and division. Lincoln’s use of pathos is particularly evident when he states, “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds…” These words not only convey a message of hope and reconciliation but also call upon the audience to consider the impact of their actions on future generations.
The Impact of Pathos:
The use of pathos in Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address is instrumental in conveying the gravity of the Civil War and its consequences. By appealing to the audience’s emotions, Lincoln creates a profound connection that transcends political divisions. His words inspire a sense of shared responsibility and promote a collective commitment to healing and reconciliation.
Conclusion:
Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address stands as a testament to his remarkable rhetorical skills, particularly in the effective use of pathos. Through his empathetic language and emotional appeals, Lincoln created a deeply resonant speech that acknowledged the collective suffering, called for reconciliation, and appealed to the audience’s compassion. By analyzing the pathos employed in this address, we gain a greater appreciation for Lincoln’s ability to unite a nation torn apart by war and to inspire a sense of shared responsibility in the face of adversity.
Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler are two significant figures in history who had contrasting ideologies, leadership styles, and legacies. This essay aims to compare and contrast these two individuals, highlighting their respective roles and impacts on their nations and the world.
Body:
Background and Rise to Power:
Abraham Lincoln, born in 1809, was an American statesman who served as the 16th President of the United States from 1861 until his assassination in 1865. Known for his leadership during the American Civil War and his advocacy for emancipation, Lincoln emerged as a unifying force during a turbulent period in American history. On the other hand, Adolf Hitler, born in 1889, was a German dictator who became the Chancellor in 1933 and later transformed Germany into a totalitarian state under the Nazi regime. Hitler’s rise to power was characterized by his extreme nationalist and anti-Semitic beliefs.
Ideology and Policies:
Lincoln’s ideology was rooted in the principles of democracy, freedom, and equality. He sought to preserve the Union, abolish slavery, and promote a nation that adhered to the ideals of the Declaration of Independence. In contrast, Hitler’s ideology was based on racial superiority, nationalism, and the establishment of an Aryan master race. He implemented oppressive policies that targeted minority groups, including Jews, leading to widespread persecution and the Holocaust.
Leadership Style:
Lincoln was known for his calm and measured leadership style. He possessed exceptional communication skills and the ability to inspire and unify people, even in the midst of a devastating civil war. His Gettysburg Address and Emancipation Proclamation are examples of his powerful rhetoric and determination to uphold the principles of freedom and equality. In contrast, Hitler employed a dictatorial leadership style, suppressing opposition, and imposing his will through fear, propaganda, and manipulation. His fiery speeches and aggressive expansionist policies incited violence and led to the outbreak of World War II.
Legacy and Impact:
Abraham Lincoln’s legacy is that of a revered leader who guided the United States through a challenging period and ultimately preserved the Union. His Emancipation Proclamation paved the way for the abolition of slavery and marked a significant step towards racial equality. Lincoln’s assassination solidified his status as a martyr for the cause of liberty and the fight against oppression. On the other hand, Adolf Hitler’s legacy is one of infamy and horror. His actions during the Holocaust resulted in the systematic genocide of six million Jews and millions of others deemed undesirable by the Nazi regime. Hitler’s legacy serves as a chilling reminder of the consequences of unchecked power and the dangers of extremism.
Conclusion:
Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler represent two contrasting figures in history. Lincoln’s leadership embodied the values of democracy, equality, and freedom, while Hitler’s regime exemplified the horrors of totalitarianism, racism, and genocide. Lincoln’s legacy endures as that of a unifying and inspirational leader, while Hitler’s legacy stands as a stark reminder of the depths of human cruelty. By comparing and contrasting these two individuals, we gain a deeper understanding of the profound impact leaders can have on society and the enduring importance of upholding moral principles in the face of adversity.
The assassination of President Abraham Lincoln in April 1865 had a profound impact on the Reconstruction era that followed the American Civil War. This analytical essay will explore how Lincoln’s untimely death influenced the course and outcomes of Reconstruction. By examining the political landscape, the leadership vacuum created by Lincoln’s absence, and the shift in public sentiment, we can gain insights into the significant repercussions his assassination had on the Reconstruction process.
Political Landscape:
Abraham Lincoln played a crucial role in shaping the initial phases of Reconstruction through his moderate approach and emphasis on national unity. His assassination drastically altered the political landscape, as Lincoln’s successor, Vice President Andrew Johnson, adopted more lenient policies towards the Southern states. Johnson’s approach, characterized by a lack of commitment to racial equality and a desire to restore the pre-war status quo, diverged from Lincoln’s vision of a more comprehensive and inclusive Reconstruction. The death of Lincoln thus allowed for a shift in the political direction of Reconstruction, leading to conflicts and setbacks in the pursuit of lasting societal changes.
Leadership Vacuum:
Lincoln’s death created a leadership vacuum at a critical moment in American history. As a skilled politician and consensus builder, Lincoln possessed the ability to navigate the complexities of Reconstruction. His absence left a void in both the executive branch and the Republican Party, leaving the nation without a unifying figure who could effectively steer the course of Reconstruction. This void was particularly evident in the face of the challenges posed by Southern resistance and the need to protect the rights of freed slaves. The absence of Lincoln’s steady hand further complicated the already difficult task of Reconstruction and hindered progress towards meaningful change.
Shift in Public Sentiment:
The assassination of Abraham Lincoln also triggered a shift in public sentiment, both in the North and the South. Lincoln was widely regarded as a symbol of reconciliation and moderation, and his death evoked a sense of grief and mourning among many Americans. However, his assassination also fueled resentment and hostility in the South, where some saw it as a retaliation for the defeat in the Civil War. This change in public sentiment complicated efforts to foster a sense of unity and cooperation during the Reconstruction period. The loss of Lincoln, a figure capable of bridging divides, contributed to a hardening of attitudes and increased resistance to the federal government’s Reconstruction policies.
Legacy of Lost Opportunities:
The death of Abraham Lincoln deprived Reconstruction of a leader who possessed both political acumen and a commitment to equality. Lincoln’s vision for a just and inclusive society, as outlined in his second inaugural address, was cut short by his assassination. The subsequent years of Reconstruction were marked by missed opportunities, political struggles, and compromised compromises that fell short of the transformative change Lincoln had envisioned. The absence of his leadership and the inability to fully implement his plans hindered progress in areas such as land reform, voting rights, and economic opportunities for newly freed slaves.
Conclusion:
The assassination of Abraham Lincoln had a profound impact on the Reconstruction era, altering the political landscape, creating a leadership vacuum, and shifting public sentiment. The loss of Lincoln’s guidance and his moderate approach to Reconstruction allowed for a more lenient and less transformative path to be pursued. The legacy of lost opportunities and the challenges faced during Reconstruction can, in part, be attributed to the absence of Lincoln’s leadership. The impact of his assassination highlights the pivotal role that individuals and their leadership can play in shaping historical outcomes and the lasting consequences of their absence.
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are two of the most iconic figures in American history. As the first and sixteenth Presidents of the United States respectively, they played pivotal roles in shaping the nation. This essay aims to compare and contrast the leadership styles, contributions, and legacies of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, highlighting their similarities and differences.
Body:
Leadership Styles:
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln exhibited distinct leadership styles. Washington was known for his reserved and dignified demeanor, commanding respect through his stoic and disciplined approach. His leadership during the American Revolutionary War and his dedication to establishing a strong central government laid the foundation for the young nation. Lincoln, on the other hand, possessed a more approachable and personable style. He was known for his storytelling, humor, and ability to connect with people from all walks of life. Lincoln’s leadership during the Civil War and his commitment to abolishing slavery exemplified his firm resolve and empathetic nature.
Contributions to the Nation:
Both Washington and Lincoln made significant contributions to the development and preservation of the United States. Washington’s leadership was instrumental in achieving independence from British rule and establishing the framework for the American government. His presidency focused on unifying the nation and implementing policies that would strengthen the economy and foster international relations. Lincoln, on the other hand, faced the daunting task of preserving the Union during the Civil War. His Emancipation Proclamation and unwavering commitment to ending slavery not only shaped the course of the war but also set the stage for racial equality and civil rights in America.
Crisis Management:
Both Washington and Lincoln demonstrated exceptional crisis management skills during critical periods in American history. Washington’s leadership during the Revolutionary War showcased his ability to navigate a challenging military campaign while keeping the morale of his troops intact. He successfully led the Continental Army to victory against the British, despite numerous setbacks and hardships. Lincoln, faced with the turmoil of the Civil War, had to make difficult decisions to preserve the Union and end slavery. His steady leadership and strategic decisions, such as the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address, rallied the nation and maintained support for the Union cause.
Legacy and Impact:
George Washington’s legacy lies in his instrumental role in the formation of the American republic. His leadership and commitment to democratic principles set a precedent for future presidents. Washington’s farewell address, in which he emphasized the importance of unity, warned against political divisions, and advocated for a strong central government, continues to resonate today. Abraham Lincoln’s legacy, on the other hand, centers around his unwavering dedication to the ideals of freedom and equality. His leadership during the Civil War and the subsequent passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, transformed the nation’s understanding of liberty and civil rights.
Conclusion:
George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, as two of America’s most revered leaders, made indelible contributions to the nation. While Washington’s leadership laid the foundation for the United States as a fledgling nation, Lincoln’s leadership during the Civil War preserved the Union and advanced the cause of equality. Both leaders exhibited different leadership styles, faced significant challenges, and left enduring legacies. Their contributions to the nation continue to be celebrated and serve as inspiration for future generations of leaders.
By the mid-1850s, Abraham Lincoln was already quite an experienced but almost unknown to the country politician. However, he has managed to gain popularity and become a Republican spokesman. His main opponent in the Democratic camp was a skilled federal politician Stephen Douglas. The document titled Political Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas, issued by the Burrow Brothers Company in 1894, is a full transcript of speeches of political leaders. It provides numerous insights into the history of slavery and the attempts to fight it. Lincoln and Douglas repeatedly publicly debated with each other, but the joint tour of these two politicians in seven Illinois cities during the congressional elections of 1858 gained all-American fame.
Main body
The 19th century’s major issue was slavery – the cornerstone of multiple debates and fights. Meanwhile, the other problem was the sovereignty of the United States. Both politicians reviewed these processes in their disputes; however, their opinions were not similar due to different political perspectives. Prior to discussing the script, it is vital to dwell on the view of the chosen figures. Abraham Lincoln was an anti-slavery proponent and joined the Republican party in 1856, where he became an influential leader. His standpoint on slavery was underpinned by moral principles and the idea that this phenomenon was an impediment to the agricultural economy of the South.
In the meantime, Stephen Douglas was a Democrat whose position on the issue of slavery was ambiguous. On the one hand, he drastically opposed the southern slaveholders and, after the attack on Fort Sumter, was a supporter of harsh measures against them. On the other hand, he achieved the famous compromise of 1850 with the slaveholders due to being married twice to women whose families enslaved people.
During the last round of debates in Alton, Illinois, the politicians had numerous contradictions while discussing the issue of slavery – as a result, Douglas won the election. The Democratic spokesman claimed that Lincoln had committed three errors that led him to failure. He attributed the first mistake to Lincoln’s division of free and enslaved states (Lincoln and Douglas 254). Meanwhile, the government could not endure such differentiation, and Douglas himself offered that states should determine their own sovereignty. The second Lincoln’s fault was disagreement with Dred Scott’s case and its decision that Congress could not prevent slavery. Stephen Douglas believed that the states could be out of this law and decide their freedom on their own.
The last major flaw was that Lincoln considered the Declaration of Independence to be the primary source of equal rights. However, Douglas was of the opinion that the document only applied to white men (Lincoln and Douglas 262). The Democratic representative firmly believed that African-Americans were never alluded to in the paper and claimed that many people from the Founding Fathers were enslavers. Hence, they could not make any decision regarding the halt of slavery.
Despite his victory in the 1858 election, he received less support in the following years and lost to Lincoln in 1860. The Southern Democratic states did not encourage their frontrunner due to his rejection of developing a pro-slavery movement. States’ rights were also argued: the Southern delegates desired that they could rule themselves, while Douglas opposed this idea. As a result, Stephen Douglas conceded at the election.
Even though Douglas claimed Lincoln to be radical in his attempts to abolish slavery in the Southern states, his opponent agreed with some of his statements. For example, both candidates promoted the idea that negros were never treated the same way as the whites. Therefore, they announced that equality was needed to ensure possession of lawful rights. In addition, the politicians wanted to re-establish the importance of the Declaration of Independence so that each person could be equal. They also agreed on the absolute insanity of starting a national war because of inequality. On the other hand, Lincoln claimed that their major difference was the view of slavery as a social institute (Lincoln and Douglas 264). The Democrats were sure that slavery was not immoral; thus, each state could decide its sovereignty, whereas the Republicans considered it morally wrong. Hence, the greatest distinction was the ethical view on this issue.
Abraham Lincoln’s position on the abolition of slavery was radical. He aimed to overthrow the existing order of slaveholders because it utterly contradicted his Republican views. His outlook on this point was conditioned by the widespread violence in the community he resided in. Having experienced and witnessed much injustice and inequality between different races, he decided to make a societal impact. Therefore, his perspective on providing equality seems drastic but efficient.
Summary
In summary, the Lincoln-Douglas debates were prominent in the history of the United States of America since the issue of slavery was put forward. Considering the globality of the problem, Lincoln and Douglas could concisely present their standpoint affected by their experience. The sources’ credibility is justified by the first-person statements and accounts. Thus, this may directly confirm or contradict the facts presented in the secondary sources.
Work Cited
Lincoln, Abraham, and Stephen A. Douglas. Political Debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in the Celebrated Campaign of 1858 in Illinois: Including the Preceding Speeches of Each at Chicago, Springfield, Etc., Also the Two Great Speeches of Abraham Lincoln in Ohio in 1859 (pp. 253-277). Burrows Bros. Co., 1894.
E.B White’s book, Charlotte’s Web, tells the story of a piglet rescued from death from its owner by the owner’s daughter, Fern. Fern appeals to her father’s 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 Freedman’s picture book Lincoln: a Photobiography tells the story of the life and times of America’s 16th 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 Charlotte’s Web is a fictional account, Lincoln: a Photobiography is a factual account of the life of Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth president of the US. Charlotte’s 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, Fern’s 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 Charlotte’s 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 Fern’s 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 one’s 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 one’s 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 Wilbur’s 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 couldn’t 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 father’s 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 America’s Civil War, which characterized Lincoln’s 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 Charlotte’s 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 Charlotte’s Web, fellow animals at the Zuckerman farm spurn Wilbur simply because these animals are envious of Wilbur’s cheerful nature. When he seeks to engage with the lamb, the lamb retorts, “… Go play by yourself! I don’t 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 Wilbur’s 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 Wilbur’s case, Charlotte’s friendship turns out to be most enriching, and Charlotte even saves his life.
In Russell Freedman’s 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 one’s 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, Wilbur’s 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. Charlotte’s Web. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1952. Print
Abraham Lincoln is known as one of the greatest Presidents of the United States. He led the country through the American Civil War, the greatest internal crisis that happened with this mighty state and which required a lot of victims and sacrifices. The assassination of this president was the first one of its kind in the history of the United States and the whole country mourned him. A lot of writers and poets of those times dedicated numerous works to a person who himself was a great writer and who is still remembered for his letters and speeches which were convincing and fascinating. Among the poets who admired Abraham Lincoln was Walt Whitman, an American poet and at the same time an essayist and journalist. He is known as one of not many poets who didn’t rhyme his poems but this succeeded in giving them a melodic character. He thought that Abraham Lincoln was the best president and the country would never have somebody like him as ahead. Walt Whitman admired Lincoln as a person and a president. He dedicated to him his numerous poems though these two people seem to have never met in person: “Whitman–who was a friend of Lincoln’s personal secretary John Hay–stood by, waiting for Lincoln to notice him in a gathering, and then ultimately turned away, unwilling to bother the President but later euphoric at the proximity.” (Bruce E. Fleming, p. 170).
“When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d” is an elegy, in other words, a poem written to mourn somebody who has died. Walt Whitman who loved and respected Abraham Lincoln expresses his admiration to the president trying to express his woe and sorrow for “him I love”. “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d” is Whitman’s expression of private mourning. Though throughout the poem the name of the president is not mentioned it can be easily understood that it is mourning for a public figure as a lot of people “with a thousand voices rising strong and solemn” (Walt Whitman, p. 265) gathered to give their last honors to the deceased.
“When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d” is a very symbolistic poem the theme of which is to immortalize the memory of the deceased president and to express grief about him. Three main symbols which may be observed throughout the poem and which help the poet express his woe are stars, lilacs, and hermit thrush. In this poem, Whitman celebrates Lincoln’s remarkable personality. He speaks about him as an outstanding person, that’s why comparing him with a star he shows that Lincoln’s life stood out from the lives of other people as bathing in the lights of fame the sixteenth President of the United States still remained modest and true to the people who chose him as a ruler. The star is also introduced to substitute for Lincoln’s name. In fact, the poet calls Lincoln “a star” who died “early” which means not in the time he was supposed to and very suddenly like a star that drops in the sky. Calling Lincoln a star Whitman compares him with something as great and eternal as a star and idealizes him as a ruler of the country Lincoln was so devoted to. Heart-shaped left of lilacs symbolize Whitman’s love for Lincoln as well as its color, purple, reminds of blood and thus of a violent death Lincoln died. The bird, the hermit thrush, singing its sad song is used to symbolize reconciliation as well as the grief coming out the deepest corners of the poet’s soul together with this song. The phrase “ever-returning spring” is continually repeated. This repetition is used to show the cycle of life and death, as well as rebirth following death. The thing is that Lincoln’s assassination coincided with Easter, the day when Christ resurrected that’s why rebirth with “ever-returning spring” is the only thing the poet seems to hope for: “Ever-returning spring, trinity sure to me you bring,/Lilac blooming perennial and drooping star in the west,/And thought of him I love” (Walt Whitman, p. 264).
The poem is composed of three parts that are closely connected with each other. The first part comprising sections 1-4 is the description of the setting. It lets us know about the woe of the poet for “him I love” when “lilacs last in the dooryard bloom’d,/ And the great star early droop’d in the western sky in the night” (Walt Whitman, p. 264). The poet notices the bush of lilacs in the yard and being impressed by its smell and “every leaf” which is “a miracle” he thinks that namely, this flower will express his woe and “from this bush in the dooryard,/With delicate colored blossoms and heart-shaped leaves of rich green,/ A sprig with its flower I break.” (Walt Whitman, p. 264). Whitman describes lilacs with special tenderness, the tenderness he felt to Lincoln who he admires and celebrates throughout his poem for his being a leader who freed the country from slavery. Here Whitman also introduces one of the most powerful symbols of expressing his grief – the hermit thrush who is singing the “song of the bleeding throat” helping the poet’s grief come out of his soul. The bird’s “death’s outlet song of life” is a symbol of renewed life and the bird itself can symbolize reconciliation with death. Calling death a “dark mother” and “strong deliveress” Whitman emphasizes that any death is necessary for a new life to be born and that it is a part of the process of revival.
In the second part of the poem, the grief of the poet is most strongly expressed. This part describes the period of time when Lincoln’s coffin is being brought to the place of his burial. The first thing to mention here is that almost every line starts with “O” which resembles the shape of the mouth when a person is grieving. What’s more, alliteration can be observed in some of the lines, such as “silent sea of faces”. In this case, the repetition of the sound [s], which is a hissing sound, resembles the sound one may hear during the funeral when people who are present avoid speaking in loud voices. This alliteration is used to help the reader feel the environment and get imbued with the woe all people were crept over with as well as to show Whitman’s respect to the deceased president. In this part, Whitman gradually moves from personal to impersonal. He starts with mourning for Lincoln’s death and ends up with turning to death itself: “With loaded arms, I come, pouring for you,/ For you and the coffins all of you O death.” (Walt Whitman, 266). Here the poet also mentions soldiers who lost their lives in the Civil War but says that now it is better for them because they do not have to mourn Lincoln and to feel the pain of his loss. By this Whitman emphasizes how special and dear to his heart was the President who rendered such great services to his country. In Whitman’s description of people who watch Lincoln’s coffin passing by them, a sad irony can be observed. People mourn Lincoln and forget about their relatives who lost their lives during the Civil War because the loss of their beloved president seems even more painful to them. This is where Whitman asks the question “What is the worth of a man? Are some men worth more than others?” (Walt Whitman, p. 266).
In the third part of his poem, Whitman expresses his desire to “perfume the grave of him I love”. It is difficult for him to choose the way to honor such a person as Lincoln as celebrating the president for his good attitude towards other people he wishes to do something to immortalize him: “what shall the pictures be that I hang on the walls,/To adorn the burial-house of him I love?” (Walt Whitman, p. 267). The poem ends when the coffin reaches the place of burial and the poet is saying goodbye to his “comrade, the dead I loved so well.” In sections 14-16 we can find the restatement of the symbols of immortality which were observed in the poem before. Here the poet describes that before this day he already “knew death” and heard a bird singing “the carol of death”. This section is followed by the thrush’s song lauding death. Here Whitman describes death as “soothing”, “lovely”, “delicate” and greeted by the bird’s song of “fullest welcome”. It shows that this song got the sufferings off Whitman’s chest and helped him accept Lincoln’s death.
Whitman continues celebrating Lincoln’s courage and self-devotion in another elegy “O Captain, My Captain”. Still, this poem is not expressing the poet’s grief in a way as in “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom’d”. This poem, symbolizing Civil War, shows how proud Whitman and other people were of Lincoln who led them through the war and gave them freedom: “Rise up – for you the flag is flung – for you the bugle trills,/ For you bouquets and ribboned wreaths – for you the shores a-crowding,/ For you they call, the swaying mass, their eager faces turning…” (Walt Whitman, p. 272). Lincoln here is the captain of the ship where the ship is the United States. By representing Lincoln as a captain Whitman wanted to show that he was one of not many presidents of the United States who heading the country was giving himself all up to it and this is what marked him out of other rulers of the country. The uniqueness of Lincoln consisted in his comprising the qualities of a strict ruler and gentle person. In the poem “O, Captain, my Captain” the captain came back from the war but paid with his own life to gain victory. Unlike “When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloomed” where the faces of the people are “silent” and “somber” because they are grieving the faces in “O Captain, My Captain” is “eager” because of the death of the “captain” they take not like something they should mourn but something that was sacrificed because like any war this one also demanded sacrifices and Lincoln, the captain, sacrificed himself in order to make the citizens of his country free: “O the bleeding drops of red,/Where on the deck my Captain lies,/Fallen cold and dead.” (Walt Whitman, p. 272). Both the poems show how courageous and how persistent Abraham Lincoln was in this fight, how much people are proud of him, and how much they mourn him now that he is gone: “Exult O shores, and ring O bells!/But I, with mournful tread,/Walk the deck my Captain lies,/Fallen cold and dead” (Walt Whitman, p. 272) and that they will always remember him and what he’s done for his country: “These and with these and the breath of my chant,/I’ll perfume the grave of him I love.” (Walt Whitman, 267). Their devotion to his country and readiness to sacrifice his life for it and its citizens is what Whitman finds unique in Lincoln who likes no other president of the United States cared about his people.
In conclusion, it will be fair to add that even the death of Abraham Lincoln involved something good and remarkable. This was the contribution to world literature made by Walt Whitman, a person who loved and admired Lincoln and mourned him till the end of his life. His poems “When lilacs last in the dooryard bloomed” and “O Captain, My Captain” perpetuated Abraham Lincoln and celebrated what he has done for his country.
References
Walt Whitman, Justin Kaplan. Leaves of Grass: A Textual Variorum of the Printed Poems,1855-1856. Bantam Books, 1983.
Bruce E. Fleming. “Lincoln and Whitman: Parallel Lives in Civil War Washington”. Parameters 35.2 (2005): 170.
In their book Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787, Christopher and James Lincoln Collier discuss the Constitutional Convention and the ratification of the Constitution.
Rather than describing the events of the Convention in chronological order, the Colliers discuss the major topics the delegates dealt with separately.
This is useful because delegates at the Convention did not always finish addressing each issue before moving on to another issue. They sometimes held off voting on controversial issues until later in the convention to let passions cool. Organizing the book in this manner makes Decision in Philadelphia easier to read.
The book begins by describing the state of America in 1787 and the defects in the Articles of Confederation. The country was unable to even pay interest on its foreign debt, partly because the Confederation Congress lacked the power to raise revenue from the states.
The states often enacted contradictory legislation, and had created their own separate currencies (Collier & Collier, 2007). By the time of Shays Rebellion, nationalists believed that changes in the Articles of Confederation were needed.
We then move into discussion of the Constitutional Convention. The authors provide brief biographies of many of the most influential delegates, including James Madison, Charles Pinckney, James Wilson, George Mason, and Eldridge Gerry.
This is useful in providing background on the main delegates at the convention and their motivations. For example, Madison was a nationalist who even proposed allowing the national Congress to veto state legislation (Collier & Collier, 2007). Pinckney’s main motivation was preventing the Convention from interfering with slavery in any way. Delegates at the Convention were forced to address these conflicting desires and somehow put together a functioning Constitution.
The book then goes on to discuss the major issues resolved at the Convention. While numerous issues are discussed, the two issues discussed at the most length are Congressional representation and slavery.
In some ways, this is an ironic choice by the authors. Of course, the issue of proportional representation versus equal representation for each state was probably the issue that was debated the longest at the convention. By contrast, slavery was discussed much less, and was discussed mainly in the context of avoiding interference with the institution.
The delegates could not even bring themselves to mention the words “slave” or “slavery” in the Constitution. The authors recognize that the representation issue was the biggest issue that was resolved at the Convention. The slavery issue, of course, remained unresolved.
In discussing the representation issue, the authors focus on the main conflict between large states like Pennsylvania and Virginia and small states like New Jersey and Delaware.
The large states naturally wanted representation in the national Congress to be proportional to population. The small states already enjoyed equal representation under the Articles of Confederation, and were in no hurry to give up this right. The ultimate decision was to base representation in the upper house (the Senate) equally for each state, and to base representation in the lower house (the House of Representatives) on population.
This is commonly described as a compromise, but nationalists like Madison actually viewed it as a great defeat. In their view, equal representation was the great flaw in the Articles of Confederation (Collier & Collier, 2007).
The authors discuss several aspects of the representation issue that have not received much attention. They point out that Southern states such as Georgia and South Carolina allied with the larger states to support representation by population, despite the fact that these Southern states were relatively less populated.
There were several reasons for this. The most obvious reason is that under the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise, the Southern states were to have their populations artificially inflated by slaves for representation purposes. However, the states in the Deep South also (mistakenly) believed that their states would soon see an increase in population (Collier & Collier, 2007).
Despite this unexpected support for the large states, the small states were eventually able to persuade the Convention to create a bicameral Congress, with each state represented equally in the Senate.
In large part, this was due to the stubbornness of the small states. Even if the large states had simply outvoted the small states in the Convention, the small states may have simply walked out and blown the convention up.
As a result, the large states were forced to go to great lengths to pacify the smaller states. Several delegates either changed their votes or stayed away from the proceedings to allow the “Connecticut Plan” to pass (Collier & Collier, 2007).
It helped that many nationalists preferred a bicameral legislature for unrelated reasons. Nationalists like Madison blamed the turmoil of the 1780’s on an excess of democracy, and believed that an upper house was necessary to prevent foolish legislation from becoming law.
According to the authors, alliances at the Convention shifted after the representation issue was resolved. The large states were no threat to the small states anymore, so the division between Northern and Southern states became the major dividing line at the Convention.
The authors believe that this was only natural. They point out that the division between large and small states was somewhat “artificial,” and has not been repeated in American history on major issues since the representation issue was resolved at the Convention (Collier & Collier, 2007). In contrast, the North-South split has been commonplace.
Of course, the main issue separating North from South at the Convention was slavery. By 1787, most of the Northern states had already enacted gradual emancipation legislation.
Slavery still existed in nearly all the Northern states, but the North no longer relied on slavery. By contrast, no Southern state had taken steps to abolish slavery. Some anti-slavery sentiment did exist in the South in 1787.
Most Southerners were willing to admit that slavery was wrong, and moderates in Virginia (including Thomas Jefferson) had proposed a gradual emancipation bill in the state legislature. However, the failure of that bill demonstrated the unwillingness of Southerners to interfere with the “peculiar institution.”
This was the context in which delegates at the Convention discussed slavery. Of course, no one proposed immediately abolishing slavery, or even forcing the South to take up gradual emancipation.
Southern delegates were intransigent even on other issues involving slavery, though. Most significantly, the South prevailed on the issue of how to factor in slaves for representation purposes.
Northern states like Connecticut did not want slaves to be considered in determining representation in Congress, but were forced to yield to the South (Collier & Collier, 2007). The result was the Three-Fifths Compromise. To the consternation of some Northern delegates like Gouverneur Morris, South Carolina also insisted on retaining the overseas slave trade for another 20 years.
It is important to point out that Northern delegates did not necessarily have noble motives. Northern states had previously proposed an amendment to the Articles of Confederation that would have taxed each state based on property.
This proposal would have included slaves in the population for taxation purposes. The South naturally objected, and the proposal was eventually changed to factor slaves in as three-fifths of a person (which is where the three-fifths number at the Convention came from). Although this proposal failed, it demonstrates the lack of conviction on the slavery issue by the North in the 1780’s.
The North had been perfectly willing to have slaves counted as “people” for taxation purposes. Northern delegates objected to factoring slaves in at the Convention not out of any great principle, but merely because factoring slaves in would have given the South an advantage in congressional representation.
There are several differences between Decision in Philadelphia and Robert Middlekauff’s The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. The most obvious differences are differences of scope and style.
Decision in Philadelphia focuses solely on the Constitutional Convention, while the Convention is merely a chapter in The Glorious Cause. Middlekauff describes the Convention in a chronological format, while the Colliers focus on each issue separately.
Most of the major events at the Convention are discussed in both books, but the authors sometimes draw differing conclusions from these events. Both Middlekauff and the Colliers concede that many delegates distrusted the judgment of ordinary people.
However, the Colliers probably focus more on the implications of this view. They point out that the delegates created the Electoral College and provided for Senators to be elected by state legislatures to limit the amount of participation people had in the national government (Collier & Collier, 2007).
Delegates feared that the people would be unable to select wise representatives. Middlekauff acknowledges this, but focuses on the idea that delegates were representing the people at the Convention.
According to this view, sovereignty rested in the people rather than the states, and in ratifying the Constitution the people were simply choosing a means of electing representatives rather than having their power limited (Middlekauff, 1982).
The authors also differ on the major split in the Convention after the representation issue was resolved. As noted above, the Colliers state that the Convention divided into a North-South alignment.
As a result, much of the book addresses the slavery issue. Middlekauff spends less time focusing on slavery. Middlekauff also discusses the issue, but does not believe that the Convention was entirely aligned on a sectional basis.
He points out that individual delegates had their own opinions, and that many of the Southerners (such as Madison and Pinckney) were the most fervent nationalists (Middlekauff, 1982).
If slavery really was the only issue these Southerners cared about, it would have made more sense for them to oppose a powerful national government (and possibly even oppose the Constitution altogether). A powerful national government would have been more likely to abolish slavery than the weak Congress under the Articles of Confederation.
In many ways, the creation of the American political system was unique. This was certainly true in 1787, and delegates at the Convention realized it. All the most powerful nations in Europe in 1787 were monarchies.
Delegates at the convention had the opportunity to establish a republic in a brand-new nation. In particular, Madison had spent a lot of time thinking about the importance of faithfully representing the people in a republic.
In large part this was due to his nationalistic leanings. He feared that the people would invade the rights of property without adequate representation (Middlekauff, 1982).
Delegates may have feared the unchecked power of the people, but they also feared placing absolute power in any one branch of government. They recognized the weaknesses of men – including “elites” such as themselves.
The result was the creation of a system of checks and balances. Delegates thought that these checks and balances, along with the large size of America, would protect the rights of minorities. In a nation as vast as America, there are so many factions that it is difficult for one faction to gain absolute power over the others.
Although the Convention obviously established a stronger national government, it did so by grounding sovereignty in the people. In most nations at the time, government granted people certain rights (with the implication that these rights can be revoked when the government sees fit).
n America, the people granted certain rights to the government when they ratified the Constitution. This was obviously unique in 1787, and in some ways it is still unique today.
References
Collier, C., & Collier, J.L. (2007). Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Middlekauff, R. (1982). The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Abraham Lincoln is remembered as the 16th President of the United States of America and the first president of the country ever to be murdered. As the history tells us, “he was mortally wounded by John Wilkes Booth, who was a famous actor and Confederate sympathizer, in the Presidential Box of Ford’s Theater in Washington, D.C., while watching the comedy, Our American Cousin” (Burlingame 31). The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln has become an important historical event, which had its severe consequences. The chronicle of the American nation and the United States itself would be entirely different if the President lived.
When the Civil War ended, the American Society was proposed with two rather contrasting strategies for its rebuilding. The murder of the sixteenth president led to the change in the authority of the country, leaving Andrew Johnson for a new candidate for the President. He was a simple Southerner, had a history of slavery in his family, did not receive any development of knowledge and was rather defenseless and exposed by the time of Lincoln’s death. There were no expectations of him to follow and fulfill the ideas of the former president.
The functionalist perspective
According to the functionalist approach, society is poised of codependent elements applied together in order to fulfill the wants and requirements of the given civilization. Moreover, the individuals reside in permanent social roles, aim their attention on the mutual standards and intellectualized social evidences as social outlines exterior to individual persons. The sociologists that follow the functionalist approach would observe the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and its consequences from the point of view of the social minors, such as blacks.
Almost instantly after the Civil War, the Radical Republicans began to establish numerous laws, also called ‘the Black Codes’ that were diminishing the privileges of the black people. For example, in some states it was forbidden for a black man to marry a white woman; otherwise, he would be punished with a death sentence. Moreover, many others laws established by the Congress led to enacting wide-ranging regulations within the time of Reconstruction. The new President has made numerous attempts towards banning all regulations concerning the black people; however, a few critical codes were enacted. The Congress was able to act as its members were willing to, armed with the support of military Southerners. For the same reason, there had been a sufficient quantity of votes to abrogate the prohibitions of the current President, for example, as it happened in the case of the Civil Rights acts in 1866. The consequences of the Lincoln’s death did not end there, but they escalated into more serious issues.
The conflict perspective
The followers of the conflict approach claim that the individual people are subordinated to the social order; moreover, they devoted their efforts to the explanation of the impact that the capitalism had on civilization and culture. They deliberate the economic body of the social order the most significant effect on what different persons think and how they perform. The followers of this theory would describe the consequences of the Lincoln’s assassination in the framework of the radical republicans and their work. Abraham Lincoln managed to regulate their actions; moreover, he had established a strategy for a reconstruction, where the Southern territories were viewed as a lost brother coming back. The Lincoln’s rebuilding was considered to be a potential healing of a country. The Radical Republicans, on the contrary, observed the rebuilding of a nation as an excuse to penalize the South for the civil war (“How Did the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln Affect Reconstruction” par. 2).
Works Cited
Burlingame, Michael. Abraham Lincoln: A Life. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2013. Print.
How Did the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln Affect Reconstruction? 2014. Web.
Today, April 16, 1865, is the lamentable day for the nation that lost the greatest of her leaders. Abraham Lincoln, the Sixteenth President of the United States, breathed his last at 7:22 a.m. in the house of a Mr. Peterson across the street from the Ford theater where the vicious conspirators’ bullet shot him the night before. The assassin, a Ford actor John Booth fled from the crime scene and managed to escape.
Abraham Lincoln was born in a cabin on the frontier between Kentucky and Indiana. The background the future President ascended from was humble. The Leader was self-educated, a book lover, a joker, and a laugher, a hard worker, a Black Hawk War veteran (Williams & Pederson, 2009).
His family is left devastated over the loss of a loving husband and a caring father of four children. The nation mourns him as children would, for we have learned to rely on President Lincoln, who proved he is worthy of the nation’s trust. This man showed us what Unity is; he inspired us to fight for the ideals that he valued the deepest: democracy, freedom, justice, and brotherhood. He was the first to ever raise his voice and map the path to the death of slavery. What others could never reach with sword and fire, Abraham Lincoln achieved “with malice towards none” (Oates, 2009). His kindness and cold-headedness, his integrity, and clever wit, his benevolence and goodwill make this loss unbearable further still.
Today, the nation is in the deepest sorrow. She will forever remember Abraham Lincoln as the greatest and the best ever since the Founding Fathers and will faithfully discharge her duties and live up to the expectations of the one who has so untimely left her.
April 16, 2015
On this day a century and a half ago, at 7:22 a. m., President Abraham Lincoln passed away from a mortal wound inflicted by pro-Confederate conspirator and a theatrical actor John Booth. Lincoln had a brain wound and, upon his death, became the first President who was assassinated (Roark, Johnson, Cohen, Stage, & Hartmann, 2014).
An eloquent speaker and a talented essayist, the President, clearly stated his goals which would later constitute his legacy. In his second inaugural speech, Lincoln voiced his famous directive which declared charity and goodwill. His ultimate goal was the Unity and freedom of slaves; a brilliant strategist, Abraham Lincoln led the country into a struggle for freedom. He thought the war would last less; although his expectations were not justified, he did his best to prevent outer interference into the War.
Among other things, his domestic policies included the Homestead Act enabling the Eastern poor to purchase Western lands. Also, the National Banking Act stabilized the monetary policy, and the tariff legislation protected the nation’s industry (Johnson, 2012). Owing to Lincoln’s efforts, the Union was preserved. The President did not live up to permanent eradication of slavery, but his Emancipation Act was an important step, at that (Johnson, 2012).
He was 59 years of age when the pro-Confederate conspiracy plan succeeded. His immediate family and close friends, as well as prominent doctors of the time, witnessed his death. Lincoln’s body was buried in the Oak Ridge Cemetery on the 4th of May, 1865 (Oates, 2009). The country was mourning her leader, remembering him as a person of humble character and cast-iron will (The Murder of President Lincoln, n.d.; Welles & Welles, 1911). Today, the Sixteenth President is honored for his achievements and remembered as a person for whom unity, peace, and freedom prevailed.
References
Johnson, M. P. (2012). Reading the American past: Selected historical documents: Volume 1: To 1877 (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Oates, S. B. (2009). With Malice Toward None: The Life of Abraham Lincoln. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Roark, J. L., Johnson, M. P., Cohen, P. C., Stage, S., & Hartmann, S. M. (2014). The American promise: A concise history, volume 1: To 1877 (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.