Tag Archives: America

lincoln-debate

Wrong-headed criticisms of Abraham Lincoln

Recently on Fox Business Network, former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano showcased his historical contrarianism by attacking the most revered presidents in U.S. history, including Abraham Lincoln. The judge declared that the American Civil War was Lincoln’s fault: that slavery had been on its last legs and that Lincoln’s decisions actually set back progress by a century.

Napolitano is a well-educated man and obviously came to this opinion after actually studying the topic, but his assertions were not unlike those made by many students of history — at least the ones who don’t dig too deep. Napolitano’s opinions are not accurate, and more indicative of a personal bias toward skepticism. And while skepticism is healthy and good for debate, Napolitano’s limited and factually erroneous views of our 16th president show how a need to believe the worst in people can easily lead to missing out on the whole story.

Napolitano contended, in part, that “[i]nstead of allowing it to die, or helping it to die, or even purchasing the slaves and then freeing them, which would have cost a lot less money than the Civil War cost, Lincoln set about on the most murderous war in American history in which over 750,000 soldiers and civilians — all Americans — died…”

Napolitano’s comments are part of a troubling trend in interpreting the Civil War. In an attempt to seem open-minded and free-thinking, smart people are arguing against the grain. While these antithetical arguments sometimes bring out valid new perspectives, this view of Lincoln and the Civil War does not. Unfortunately, Napolitano is not alone in his “scholasticism.”

On a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, the brash host showed his skepticism about lionized personalities as well by asserting that Lincoln was a racist. Maher’s guest, basketball great Kareem Abdul-Jabar, stood up for Honest Abe, just as Jon Stewart did against Napolitano. To his credit, Maher didn’t press Abdul-Jabar to reverse his position. However, the opinions expressed by Maher and Napolitano are shared by a lot of educated people who misunderstand Lincoln’s actions and ascribe sinister intentions and dark thoughts to one of America’s greatest heroes.

The problem is one of historical comprehension. Lincoln has been apotheosized in the nearly century and a half since his death. This deification is certainly deserved, but it also causes us to attribute superhuman traits to a real man — a man who faced great odds and triumphed. For those of us who study history, this idolization has caused a backlash.

When we see comments made by Lincoln in his pre-presidential Senate campaign debates with Stephen A. Douglas, we are shocked at their racist nature. When we hear about his desire not to end slavery but only to save the Union, we are hit with a gut punch, left wondering if there have ever been true heroes. Unfortunately, this is where otherwise intelligent men like Maher leave the conversation. The problem with this analysis of history, however, is that it only tells half the story.

Let’s first look at Lincoln’s purported racism. The most frequently cited statement in support of the claim that the Great Emancipator was no better than the people of his time is from Lincoln’s debate with Douglas in Charleston, Illinois, in 1858:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause] — that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Harsh. It’s easy to see why some view these words as evidence against Lincoln. But these must be viewed in context.

Lincoln was, before anything else, a politician and a legal scholar. And despite our current attitudes, being a politician is not inherently bad. Many political operatives have been able to use their manipulative abilities to do great things for people. Lincoln was one such operative, and he was using his skills as an orator and a debater to slowly move the center position of the argument about slavery closer to the position of the abolitionists’.

Lincoln learned in his legal career that, by not objecting to every detail of an argument, he could more easily win that argument by only clinging to the aspect that was most important. If he conceded the alleged inferiority of the African race and offered that intermarriage should not be permitted, his argument that slavery should be abolished would be viewed as the bare minimum argument, and therefore, the moderate stance.

The future president was also debating with the shining star of the Democratic Party. Douglas, known at the time as the advocate for popular sovereignty, was pushing his philosophy as a way to answer the difficult questions about the expansion of slavery. When states like Kansas applied for statehood, the U.S. Congress was left gridlocked in debate, time and time again, about whether or not slavery should be allowed there. Douglas’ answer was that the inhabitants of the state should be allowed to choose whether or not the “peculiar institution” could exist within their boundaries. At the time, that was considered the moderate position.

Lincoln had to run against this supposedly moderate man while wearing the label of “Republican,” a party which, at the time, was considered a radical and “black” party. Lincoln, like good politicians of today, had to play down his more “radical” viewpoints in order to appeal to a broader population. As such, he said things that could be construed today as anti-black and racist.

When answering Douglas’ charge about Lincoln wanting complete equality for “the negro,” Lincoln answered: “I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.” By stating his view this way, Lincoln was not saying that there was anything wrong with mixed race marriage — though it is doubtful he cared either way — but was instead making Douglas’ complaints seem absurd and out of touch. By changing the terms of the debate, Lincoln was making the abolition of slavery appear to be a more palatable proposal. Lincoln was nothing if not a moderate, and his political decisions and speeches reflect that.

At the time of Lincoln’s political career, one solution to the slavery problem that was advocated strongly by abolitionists was the colonization of American blacks in Africa. Lincoln supported this venture even through the beginning of the Civil War. This support has been seen by some as further proof of Lincoln’s racism. However, this is another case of not understanding context.

Lincoln’s statements were colored by what actions were politically and logistically feasible. His ideas were pragmatic, and abolishing slavery in the United States when the South held such disproportionate power would have been impossible. The colonization proposals were often made by men who wanted abolition, but who realized that unchaining thousands of men and women after lifetimes of brutality and oppression would lead to great civil unrest and, possibly, ethnic war. By simply removing the former slaves from the continent, the horrendous institution could be destroyed, and former slaveholders would not have to fear for their lives.

However, slavery was the backbone of the American economy, especially in the South, and not even the $3 billion it would cost to buy the freedom of the slaves would be able to persuade the men who profited from the blood and sweat of their fellow human beings. Again, Napolitano’s claim that Lincoln could have simply bought the freedom of the African race is completely off the mark, as the president would have been more than happy to perform such an action had it been possible.

Lincoln’s election as president in 1860 caused an enormous backlash from Southern reactionaries despite Lincoln consistently stating that he had intended to leave slavery alone. Lincoln, in fact, believed he was constitutionally bound to defend the institution despite his personal hatred of it.

“Honest Abe” was very much a constitutionalist and intended to follow the document according to his interpretation, even when he didn’t support what he believed it said. As a result, he promised to honor his duty — to citizens of both North and South, meaning that he had to follow even the laws he despised, like the Fugitive Slave Act. Since Lincoln did not acknowledge secession as any form of legitimate act, he considered himself to still be the president of even those states in open rebellion. And, as treason is a crime, Lincoln responded in the way his constitutional oath required of him.

The idea that Lincoln started the Civil War is absurd. With seven states already in active rebellion by the time he took office, Lincoln had to respond quickly and in a way that would give him the advantage. The first step was to simply wait for the Confederacy to become the aggressors. By sending federal aid to Fort Sumter, Lincoln was directly challenging the South’s claim to sovereignty. The Confederates fell for the trap, firing on the Fort, giving the Union the moral edge, and helping to rally Northerners who were still indifferent toward the secession.

Does this tactical maneuver mean that Lincoln should be implicated for starting the war? No. He was acting in a constitutional manner, doing the job he had sworn to do. The South was actively breaking the law through secession, and Lincoln, as chief executive, was responding. In fact, by waiting for the South to shoot first, the president was taking a much more lenient position than could have reasonably been expected.

Lincoln continued to move the country forward through his moderation. It’s true that the “Emancipation Proclamation” actually freed no slaves, but it didn’t have to; it is not as though its inability to be enforced makes it a less remarkable document. The proclamation, along with the more romantic “Gettysburg Address,” changed the war. It gave Southern blacks something to fight for by granting them freedom when the war would end. The proclamation may not have directly freed anyone, but it removed any doubt that the Civil War was about ending slavery — ironically causing the South’s fears to be realized. Further, it made abolition into a reasonable solution for more of the American population, which set the stage for the complete emancipation brought on by the 13th Amendment.

Napolitano’s criticisms of Lincoln are nothing new. It’s easy to take the Great Emancipator’s quotes out of context, like Maher did, and call Lincoln a racist. It’s easy to call Lincoln a warmonger when ratings or provocation are more important than the facts. But to do so is wrong.

Lincoln had a goal in mind and worked slowly toward it using the means available to him as president. By moving slowly, asserting the “moderate” view that the African race was inferior, waiting for the South to fire first, refusing to free slaves for the first few years, then technically freeing none, he opened up the possibilities for change that resulted in three powerful amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as well as millions of newly freed Americans. Lincoln’s actions changed the world for the better.

If you want to know more about Lincoln, read Gary Wills’ Lincoln at Gettysburg and Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, and watch Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln. Pay special attention to the Cabinet meeting scene in which the president explains why a 13th amendment to the Constitution is necessary. That scene, and the movie on the whole, perfectly captures Lincoln’s moderate philosophy of governing.

“I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal.”
— Abraham Lincoln, July 10, 1858, Chicago, Illinois.

const-signing

No, Founding Fathers wouldn’t agree with you

Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist. Political pundits of all philosophies like to argue they are on the side of the Founding Fathers of the United States. This idea, no matter the purveyor’s political persuasion, is a myth.

The Founding Fathers were not a monolith. They were a collection of incredible — but flawed — men of varying degrees of intellect and a wide range of philosophical, theological, and political beliefs. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson rarely agreed. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were of the same political party and could almost never get along. Benjamin Franklin’s views of the world contrasted sharply with those of the Founding Fathers from Virginia. These men were people with opinions as wide-ranging as our own.

Saying you agree with the Founding Fathers is bold, since even deciding who counts as a Founder can be difficult. For the sake of our discussion, the Founding Fathers will be defined as the men who helped to spark the American Revolution and worked to establish the new government formed in 1787. This includes the men who argued against the Declaration of Independence, like John Dickinson, and who opposed the Constitution, such as Patrick Henry. In my view, the Founding Generation ended with the deaths of Adams and Jefferson on July 4, 1826, only a year after the conclusion of the presidency of the last Founding Father, James Monroe, and 50 years after the date of Independence.

Using this formula, we see that there are 60 years’ worth of leaders included in the Founding Generation. These were men who identified with 13 different colonies, were born across the span of the 18th century, and had very different stories that defined who they were.

Washington, Jefferson, Henry, James Madison, and others were born into the Virginia planter aristocracy. These bastions of liberty were actually men of almost noble birth who expected men of the underclass to defer to their judgement. This view caused some strong personality clashes when Washington led the Continental Army, which was full of Massachusetts men, who were raised in a world of comparable equality and were filled with the “leveling spirit.”

These Tidewater gentlemen evolved over time, especially through the Revolution and the Washington administration, but much of their Virginia breeding was hard to shake. Jefferson, despite being the strongest advocate for the people among the planter class, was still a slave owner after all.

Even during the time of the Revolution, “democracy” was a dirty word and shorthand for what could go wrong without proper leadership. Madison, the so-called “Father of the Constitution,” feared that unfettered democracy would create anarchy. He argued for a grand republic, full of conflicting interests, that would force compromise since a majority would never be attainable.

Adams, who spent his presidency opposing Madison’s new political party, shared a similar view about democracy. He was perhaps the best representative of the Bostonian view of America, which was opposed at the same time to aristocracy and the rabble. It was Adams who pushed heavily for a government of checks and balances to thwart the power of the minority or the majority to oppress their natural opponents.

Adams was perhaps the most devoutly religious Founding Father. Despite this, he is often associated with the Treaty of Tripoli, which he signed in 1797, that stated his belief that the United States was not founded on the Christian religion. Yet Adams was a strong Christian. Other founders were Deists, meaning they believed in a god, but also that this god was not a part of everyday human affairs. Thomas Paine was perhaps Deism’s strongest advocate, but the philosophy also heavily influenced Jefferson and Franklin.

Paine and Jefferson often found themselves in agreement, but Adams and Franklin certainly did not. While there was a strong respect between them, the two personalities clashed greatly when they were together in Europe to negotiate deals for the former colonies. The two giants of the American Revolution were just too different.

Franklin was a unique animal in world history. Historian H. W. Brands has dubbed Franklin the First American; he lived a life that is much more familiar to the modern American. Unlike the Virginia planters, Franklin was not born into privilege, but into the strict, Puritanical society of Boston. Being raised in the Calvinist tradition, Franklin maintained a strong sense of morality in terms of the treatment of others, but harbored a rebellious opinion against entrenched power, whether it be the Penn family, established churches, or, eventually, the British government.

But Franklin did not always oppose the Brits and is a perfect example of how Revolutionary leaders were actually fairly conservative compared to later revolutionaries, like the French. Franklin was, for most of his life, an advocate for a stronger British Empire. He believed that a king and a populist government were not mutually exclusive. Franklin only accepted independence when all other options seemed hopeless. Certainly, this is hard for modern Americans to understand, which is true of many aspects of the Founding Fathers due to the intervention of some 250 years.

Indeed, it is impossible to define the philosophies of the Founding Generation using modern terminology. Alexander Hamilton, who was considered a conservative at the time, supported a strong federal government, advocated for a controlling monetary policy, and pushed his financial system as a way to spawn economic growth for the young nation. Jefferson, considered a liberal, favored an agrarian society of small farmers, free of government intervention wherever possible, and argued that the Constitution granted the federal government almost no powers whatsoever. Yet, on the opposite side of the same coin, Hamilton was considered too pro-business and literally lived on Wall Street, while Jefferson hated big business and supported the struggle of the so-called average man. If you define yourself on either side of the Democrat/Republican divide, you would find it impossible to agree with either Jefferson or Hamilton completely.

Jefferson and Hamilton led the first opposing political parties in American history. It was their philosophies that created the disputing views we hold of the bedrock of our government, the U.S. Constitution. We hold the Constitution to be a sacred document, as though it is the perfect creation of a divine being. Many judges and Supreme Court justices believe that the Founders had an original intent for each word of the document; therefore, the Constitution is a rigid document with specific rules, rather than the vague, evolving document that liberal justices see.

But there can be no “original intent” as there were so many originators of the document. No part of the Constitution can be attributed to a single brain. The Founders were of very different minds with regards to the government they wished to create and run. Henry and Samuel Adams outright refused to be involved with the Constitution-making process. They favored the Articles of Confederation, which held the government together from the time of the Revolutionary War.

The Constitutional Convention, which took place in Philadelphia in 1787, brought together a large group of diverse men with different goals. Some wanted only to adjust the Articles. Others wanted to start from scratch. Madison offered the Virginia Plan, a proposal for a bicameral legislature with a House and a Senate given representation proportionate to population. Others pushed for the New Jersey Plan, which gave representation by state, meaning small states and large states would have equal power in the federal government. Hamilton pushed for an elected monarch-for-life. Every side of this argument combined to give us the mixed Congressional system, balanced by a strong executive, that we have today.

And when the Constitution was completed, almost no one was completely satisfied. So when you say you are “pro-Constitution, like the Founders,” remember that some of them weren’t even in favor of creating the Constitution.

Hamilton and Madison did more than anyone to define what the Constitution would accomplish through their collaboration on the Federalist Papers. Yet for years afterward, these two titans argued with each other over the meaning of the ratified document. How is it that the two men who are arguably most responsible for our Constitution and the way it has been interpreted couldn’t even agree on it, yet men like Justice Antonin Scalia claim to know the original intent of the document?

Our Constitution was created as a compromise and we should govern in that spirit, not claim to know the exact meaning of the text, trampling over others who disagree. The Constitutional arguments we have today have been around since 1787 and were themselves extensions of debates that have raged for centuries about the role of government in general.

If the Founders were alive today, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the Adams cousins would not be able to agree on how to define a pizza, let alone what toppings to put on it. That’s not to say we shouldn’t look to these iconic men for inspiration and guidance. The Revolution and the government they created are magnificent works of human endeavor and compromise. We cannot, however, be bound by their words to a point of paralysis.

And we cannot accept the idea that the Founding Fathers as a whole would agree or disagree with a certain viewpoint. They were men of their times, bound by context and situation. We can say that Jefferson would be a libertarian, Hamilton a neoconservative, Franklin a Democrat, but would those definitions be fair to the complex men we exalt? Absolutely not.

These men (and let’s not forget the contributions of Abigail Adams) spent their lives reading, writing, studying, and thinking, and came to very different conclusions about what America could and should be. We should be inspired by that spirit and begin our own journeys of philosophical discovery to determine what works best for our time and our problems. Otherwise, our minds will continue to live in a generational tyranny, blindly following the precedents set by men who have been gone for 200 years and have no sense of our world. Follow their examples, learn from their wisdom, but don’t be constrained by their works.

capamerica1

Why is Captain America still relevant?

Captain America returns to the silver screen Friday, and in honor of this comic book icon, let us take a look back at the character’s history.

It was 1941. World War II was raging in Europe and the Pacific. Men and women were dying to protect their homelands from invading armies. Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito were guiding their nations toward new world empires. And the United States was enjoying its status as a neutral nation, content with being the Arsenal of Democracy. Some Americans, however, saw that entry into the war was inevitable, and it was important that we be on the right side.

Joe Simon and the legendary Jack Kirby were two such men. These comic book visionaries saw an opportunity to voice their politics and make a few dollars on the way. Captain America, a living symbol of the United States itself, was introduced in Captain America Comics #1, in March 1941 — a rare situation where the publishers had such faith in a character that they debuted him in his own book. The attacks on Pearl Harbor were still 9 months away, yet the debut issue saw Cap socking Adolf Hitler in an illustration still satisfying today. Simon and Kirby, both of Jewish families, used the comic to voice their concerns against the Third Reich. Even if America was officially neutral, Simon and Kirby knew Hitler was a real-life supervillain, and Captain America could stop him.

Captain America is a stunning character. Despite his genesis as wartime propaganda, the character has survived and flourished to this day. How is it that a character so defined by a long-passed era in history is still so relevant in the age of the smart phone?

Captain America does not necessarily evolve like Batman but is not as much of a static symbol as Superman. While both heroes represent the American ideal, Steve Rogers has a much more unique character compared to the Man of Steel, whose character is more defined by brute strength than cunning and tactical mastery.

Steve Rogers was a regular man. He had been a scrawny, naive boy who just wanted to fight for his country, and fight for what he believed was right. Steve was willing to do anything, even undergo a dangerous and untested experiment, to make himself strong enough to fight the Nazis. He represents the person we wish we could be and know we can become.

The Super Soldier serum gave Rogers near-perfect capabilities. Captain America is not impervious to bullets or faster than the speed of light, but is as fast and strong as any human can conceivably become. He is a character who is only as capable as any of us can be.

Cap remained popular throughout World War II, but became an anachronism when the patriotic fervor of wartime died down. As a result, the hero faded away from publications.

Nearly 20 years later, the hero was revived to head up a super-team, the Avengers. In Avengers #4, the old hero was found, frozen in suspended animation. When revived, Cap became a new, more intriguing character. No longer was he simply a symbol of America in a time of war. He was now the living anachronism, a man out of time, a man haunted by the death of his sidekick, with memories of the worst time in human history, trying to adjust to the world of the 1960s.

Cap was the perfect man to lead the Avengers. A team full of hot-headed individuals like Thor, Iron Man, and Ant-Man needed a uniting symbol to rally the troops. Cap was a hero to the heroes, and a warrior of honor to be respected and revered.

Captain America became the traditional leader of the Avengers through most incarnations of the team. His tactical abilities make him an invaluable member of the group, even if his strength and speed can’t compete with his teammates like Thor and Quicksilver. Cap’s abilities are so valued that, even in a rare crossover comic featuring the stars of Marvel’s Avengers and DC’s Justice League, JLA/Avengers, Rogers was asked by Superman to lead the joint effort to bring down the supervillain Krona with no objections made by any of the other heroes.

Captain America’s status as a symbol has allowed him to tackle some of the United States’ most difficult and controversial topics over the decades. The first African-American superhero in mainstream comics, the Falcon, was introduced in Captain America #117 in 1969. The Watergate scandal was handled by Cap, with the hero becoming so disillusioned with his government that he abandoned his longtime moniker in favor of “The Nomad,” to denote his status as a man without a country. Rogers eventually re-assumed the identity of Captain America, deciding he should act as the symbol of the American ideal, not the American government.

In the 1980s, Cap was placed into an impressively progressive story arc. Rogers found his best friend from childhood, Arnie Roth, still alive after all these years. Arnie is, without ever explicitly stating it, obviously gay. This revelation doesn’t phase Cap in the least. Captain America accepted his friend for who he was without ever questioning Arnie or himself. Rogers continued to be emblematic of Americans at our best.

It was only a matter of time before one of America’s icons made a successful venture onto the big screen. Seventy years after his debut, Captain America: The First Avenger did a magnificent job of telling the essential origin story for the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s first superhero. Cap was shown in his element, punching Hitler, fighting Nazis wielding super-weapons, and inspiring his troops to follow his example. He saved the world from nuclear-level catastrophe and sacrificed himself in the process. His actions would reverberate across the Marvel world and inspire generations of heroes.

In the deleted scenes to Marvel’s masterpiece work, The Avengers, Chris Evans’ Rogers character is shown adapting to a world no longer his own. Unlike in the comics, in which Cap was revived after only 20 years, the cinematic Rogers was revived after nearly 70 years and was introduced to a world far beyond his comprehension. It’s a shame these scenes did not make the final cut, as Evans’ acting ability is on full display when he portrays Captain America as a lost soul trying to find his way in a new world. The subtlety in his expressions brings the inner turmoil to light remarkably well.

The success of The Avengers was unparalleled for a movie based on a comic book property, but it is the success of the Captain America standalone movie that is truly astounding. Pulling in $370 million worldwide and receiving a 79 percent approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Captain America proved that Cap is a hero for all ages. But how?

In a world full of cynics and overwhelming use of irony, Captain America seems quaint and ridiculous — an odd relic from a more black-and-white time in which good and evil could be easily defined. Perhaps we yearn for that level of simplicity and can relate to Cap’s struggle to understand a world of deeper conflict. Maybe Captain America speaks to the more innocent times all of us experienced in our lives. He acts as a reminder of our idealism and the world we wish to see. Or maybe we can all relate to the scrawny kid who just wanted to do good. Captain America has always been a man who speaks to what we want to be and is the appropriate surrogate for when times get tough. We may not be able to stop Hitler, but Cap can travel to Germany and sock him on the jaw for us.

When Captain America: The Winter Soldier comes to theaters Friday, we will see the return of Cap, Black Widow, and Nick Fury, along with the introduction of the Falcon and the Winter Soldier. The movie promises to examine government overreach and the military-industrial complex. Cap will again fill the role of the common man working to fix the mistakes of our world. Winter Soldier looks to be a movie that will challenge our view of the world and ourselves — and will look really cool when doing it.