 |
| Daniel Chester French’s statue of Abraham Lincoln in Washington, D.C. I love how his right foot is slightly raised, as if he were about to leap up and kick some laggard American ass, like the tireless political operative that Matthew Pinsker details in his excellent new biography, “Boss Lincoln: The Partisan Life of Abraham Lincoln.” |
Well, I can anyway. Many people cling to error as if their lives depend on it. Maybe they do. To me, the ability to admit being wrong is not a flaw but a superpower.
Had you previously asked me to describe the rise of Abraham Lincoln, I'd have said something about young Abe writing letters with coal on the back of a shovel in a log cabin, growing into a lanky, wisecracking Illinois railroad lawyer who shambled into the presidency in 1860 because he was so homespun and wise.
Dumb.
Then I cracked open "Boss Lincoln: The Partisan Life of Abraham Lincoln," by Matthew Pinsker, published last week.
Lincoln was a driven, scheming political animal, "barking out orders, providing advice," scrawling "BURN THIS" at the bottom of letters, abusing the congressional franking privilege to deluge constituents with his speeches, glad-handing every farmer he met.
Then as now, truth was the first victim of the partisan battle royale.
Any biography rests on the fascinating facts it shares, and Pinsker drives home what a mover and shaker Lincoln was, years before the presidency, with this:
"He was a man of consequence, important enough even to have a town named after him," Pinsker writes. "... the town of Lincoln, Illinois, was born in August, 1853" in honor of the skilled lobbyist who had pushed rail lines through Northern Illinois.
We're reminded the past isn't a playpen: They weren't handing out presidencies to whatever Bible-quoting yahoo showed up and asked. At one point, Lincoln himself pauses to mock that thinking:
"Do you suppose that I should ever have got into notice, if I had waited to be hunted up and pushed forward by older men?"
Not anymore I don't.
As we are still arguing who can be sheared of human dignity and under what circumstances (color of skin, then; condition of immigration papers, now) the book is terrifyingly relevant — and offers the comfort of reminding us that our extraordinary times might not be quite so extraordinary.
In 1858, the worry is about immigrants voting illegally. Spying "fifteen Celtic gentlemen with black carpet-sacks" at a railroad junction, Lincoln follows them, spying while the Irish workers hang around a saloon.
To continue reading, click here.
Interesting anecdotes. Lincoln was clever indeed and a pox on S. Douglas. That popular sovreignty though on voting didn't work out too well for SD either. The South didn't trust that and put up their own Dem. candidate for the 1860 election. Breckinridge perhaps. The split vote cert. helped Lincoln win. There was some 4th candid. too but the name escapes me now.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that in all the years that have passed since Lincoln’s death this seems to be the first time that most of this has come to light. How does Mr. Pinsker support his position with verifiable evidence?
ReplyDeleteI asked him about that. He said a lot of these materials were considered beneath interest, with the cataclysm of the Civil War looming.
DeleteWhich may help explain why "The fate of a single subcabinet post — commissioner of the General Land Office — is battled over for nearly 20 pages. The Gettysburg Address merits only three." One can find a whole lot of places to read about the Gettysburg Address, starting with Garry Wills' Pulitzer Prize-winning account. Perhaps few know the tale of the subcabinet post.
Delete"... the book is terrifyingly relevant — and offers the comfort of reminding us that our extraordinary times might not be quite so extraordinary." "Terrifyingly" seems to be an appropriate modifier there -- the fact that these times resonate with the run-up to the Civil War isn't particularly comforting to me.
Regardless, this is yet another timely, well-crafted column tying history to the present. Not to mention back-to-back days with your photo and story highlighted on the front page of the S-T. Very cool! I'm just guessing that, even in your splendid career, that hasn't happened TOO often, though I could well be wrong about that...
Lincoln's pose on the statue reminds the viewer that he was a very tall man. Knees raised higher that hips -- the toe of the right boot extended over the edge of the pedestal. He appears to be a man too large even for a throne.
ReplyDeleteYou state "presided" over the fratricidal war as if he somehow had a choice. That war was in the making from the first meetings of the Constitutional convention. By 1860 it was clear that the southern slave owners would not give up slavery without a fight. My Minnesota ancestors fought in that war to end slavery . Minnesotans still fighting for justice today.
ReplyDeleteAt least the country had enough good sense not to elect Douglas. What can we say of today?
ReplyDeleteClearly remember when LAND OF LINCOLN began to appear on the vehicle tags. Was just a kid, but already knew who he was, and was proud of being from Illinois. Left my native state 33 years ago. Still proud. Regret never having visited Springfield.
ReplyDeleteAnother great snippet from our history, with a good lesson. You've got to hustle for votes to get elected. Moral stances alone don't win.
ReplyDelete"we are still arguing who can be sheared of human dignity and under what circumstances (color of skin, then; condition of immigration papers, now)" Considering it has been stated that we don't want "animals" from "shithole countries," but would prefer "some nice people" from "good countries," perhaps it is still more a question of melanin than documentation...?
ReplyDeletePoint taken. You're right. The documentation is the pretext.
Delete