History: Weighing Views and Objectivity

I just finished Six Encounters with Lincoln by Elizabeth Brown Pryor.  It was not the easiest book to read, but it had some insights and I both learned things from it and have had some thoughts.  There's not else to ask from a book, is there? The author seems to want to be critical of Lincoln--and often is--but always comes back to what a great President and man he was.   At times she wants him to be Superman, to fix all the evils of mid-19th Century America.  Besides dealing with the Civil War and keeping the Union together, with the complex problems of slavery and emancipation, with a country full of citizens even more divided than they are today, etc., she is disappointed he didn't provide remedies for Indians, lead the fight for political rights for women, etc.   I was struck by this, never, I guess, really considering it.  "Abraham Lincoln...was never truly President of the entire United States."  And, in fact, he wasn't.  Oh, he never accepted that the Southern states had really left the Union, but the reality is that they did.  (With this in mind, I am reminded of a panel discussion that included two of the best US historians, Joseph Ellis and Sean Willentz.  During the discussion, Willentz made a point.  Ellis went quiet, mulling that over, before admitting, "I didn't know that."  Wait!  Joe Ellis knows everything about early US history......  It was a good lesson for me.) But one of the pitfalls of the book is that the author, in criticizing Lincoln and his policies, seems to give serious credence to all views.  That is, in weighing different sides and their arguments, she makes a mistake in giving equal weight to all of them.  She claims that Lincoln always "missed the point" of the South, as if the Southern position of defending and perpetuating slavery was a valid one.  That Lincoln didn't accept the institution of slavery, just because it was the Southern position, should not be a criticism of him.  He didn't "miss the point," but refused to give credence to it, esp after 1862.   In thinking about giving equal weight/legitimacy to all views, I also wondered about objectivity, particularly in the writing of history. Is a historian required to be "objective?" That is, in writing history, should the author not "take sides?" (I suppose we could also substitute "journalism" for history.) How does/can one be objective when writing history? What does it mean to be objective? And, is being objective a good thing? For instance, how can one be objective when writing about Hitler? What if, in writing an article or book, I describe Hitler as "the biggest monster of the 20th Century?" There are two loaded words in my description. Yes, we can debate whether he or Stalin or Mao was "the biggest." Both of the commies killed more people, but also had more time. But that's a discussion for another day; let's stick with Hitler. The other loaded word is "monster." Is the use of that word being objective? Should I avoid using it? Why? After all, what mother when holding her new-born says, "I hope you become a monster?" It certainly has very negative connotations. But what else do we call someone responsible for the deaths of millions of people and a world war--"St. Adolf?" Do "dictator" or "murderer," even "mass murderer" really tell an accurate story? Does "monster" color me not objective? So, what does being objective mean? I'm not sure. Perhaps it doesn't mean not taking sides, because doing that makes one an accomplice. Maybe it merely means to give each side a hearing. History, Henry Steele Commager once wrote, is "the judgment of the past--and the judgment is important."

"Underrated" Americans

Overrated Americans: John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson..... But we have some underrated ones, too. Several immediately come to mind. Like the overratings, the underratings are likely products of bias, of promotion (self- and otherwise), and ignorance. One of the most underrated of US Presidents is Dwight Eisenhower. He was not all about "me," like some of our most recent Presidents. In fact, one of his aides termed Eisenhower's administrations "The Hidden Hand Presidency." For quite a while, as President and after, he was seen as a nice guy, but no great shakes as President. The term that always comes to mind (at least mine) in describing him is "avuncular." Eisenhower reminded people of their favorite uncles, perhaps always joking, supplying with candy, etc. But as far as doing anything of significance? Nah, he didn't do much. What a shallow and narrow view of Dwight Eisenhower the President! One biographer noted that Ike "kept the peace." And the splended biography, Ike's Bluff by Evan Thomas, convincingly claims that he held off potential nuclear war. The Interstate Highway System and St. Lawrrence Seaway? Eisenhower projects. And he slowly, but surely defused the dangerous Joseph McCarthy, especially after "Tail Gunner Joe" went after Ike's beloved US Army. Our current leaders would do well to study how he quietly, but effectively did this. Eisenhower may not have agreed with court decisions regardng civil rights, but he felt compelled to enforce them in places such as Little Rock Central HS. It was his duty and he took and oath. He did far more for civil rights than, say, JFK. Another underrated American President is Calvin Coolidge. I have seen some historians who blamed him for the Depression! Huh? Cool Cal significantly reduced both the federal buget and taxes on Americans, still sky high after the First World War. He was very fiscally conservative, too frugal say some (but not I). He resisted attempts to expand the scope and reach of the federal government; he fought for limited government. He knew that government involvement in our lives, in the economy, etc. is not benign. Under his administration, as hard as it is to believe since they were here first, American Indians were granted US citizenship. Coolidge's speech on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence is well worth reading. (If I recall, Coolidge is the only President to have been born on July 4th.) He claarly articulates how those twin "charters of freedom and justice," the Declaration and Constitution, guarantee and protect the rights of the individual while also providing the opportunity to pursue happiness as well as require that government power come from "the consent of the governed" (Locke). Amity Shlaes offers far more balanced biography of Coolidge than has generally appeared. Among two of the Founders, I think James Madison and James Wilson have been underrated. Although there have been a couple of recent biographies of Madison painting him in a far more important light, most people don't rank him with Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and even Franklin. OK, I don't think his Presidency was great shakes, but his role in the development of the Constitution was very significant. Originally he was not sold on this new document, which threatened to create what the Americans had just fought a war to eliminate, that is a strong central government. He was astute enough to realize the Constitution was going to happen and he determined to jump aboard so he could steer the direction of it. And steer he did! Not only are his personal notes as close to minutes of the Constitutional Convention that we have (Secrecy was voted.), but he was one of the three authors of The Federalist Papers. (They are often misrepresented. They were written to explain the Constitution, in hopes of drumming up support from skeptical Americans. But many of them were published too late, after ratification votes. Still, The Federalist remains the best single source of the meaning of the Consitution.) Mostly, though, he took the lead in debates, sitting on committees, etc. that determined the foundation of the Constitution. James Madison's portrait on the $5000 bill is deserved. (Ha Ha Ha) Another Founder who is often not just underrated, but underlooked, is James Wilson. After Madison, he might well be the second most influential of the Framers of the Constitution. As much as anyone, he formed the intellectual theory, the underpinning of the document. Specifically, it was his ideas in the Preamble that led to the adoption of the principle of popular sovereignty, that all authority from government stems from the people. (I know, I know.....) "We the People" is a significant phrase, especially considering the times, the late 18th Century. Wilson also created the framework for the modern Presidency in Article II, including the Electrical College (sic). It was a unique office, far different from the previous eight presidents under the Articles of Confederation (and more if we include the presidents of the Continental Congresses). James Wilson, a forgotten Founder, shouldn't be forgotten. There are many more who have been underrated.....

Overated?

There are lots of "greatest" and "best" lists. They can range from "greatest Presidents" to "best all-time baseball players." They are fun to make and read and can spark lively discussion. And some of them can be thoughtful, if one considers factors going into the determination. But what about a "most overrated" list, say, of Americans? I'm not certain I've seen one of these, although I'm sure some exist. Hmmm..... And how about a "most underrated" list? For now, let's consider just "most overrated" Americans. There are probably lots from which to choose. And there are many reasons for such overrated status. Perhaps a person is his/her own greatest publicist, tooting one's own horn. Although he wouldn't be on my list of "overrated" people, William Henry Harrison represents such a self-promoting sort. At the Battle of Tippecanoe vs the army of Tecumseh (although he wasn't there and had left his men under the command of his brother, Tenkshatawana, with explicit instructions not to engage the Americans), the tide turned first one way and then the other. In the end, at best the battle was a draw, with no clear-cut winner, neither side really gaining any advantage. But the politician in Harrison yelled first and loudest, "I won! I won! I won!" It worked and about thirty years later he rode "Tippecanoe" (and Tyler, too!) into the White House. (But he only served a month, catching pneumonia or some sort of bug while delivering his Inaugural Address. He died 30 days later, the first President to die in office and the one who served the shortest term.) Others don't have to be their own publicists. The media and academics do that for them. Immediately coming to mind is Barack Obama. He could do no wrong. In fact, has he ever done anything wrong? Obamacare and its debacle, not to mention that a majority of people didn't favor it? His foreign policy gaffes? Hey, he won the Nobel Peace Prize! (For doing what?) Circumventing/Subverting the Constitution and legislative system? ("I have a phone and I have a pen" or something like that.) Blatant lies? No, he could do no wrong and will likely go down as a top-flight President. Here are a handful of my "overrated Americans." Always on my list of "overrated" is John Kennedy. I do admit my views on him have softened somewhat over the years, if only a little. It's not just his lack of morality. But ask what exactly did he accomplish? He did, admittedly, inspire Americans to do more than they thought they could. That's not a small thing and I have come to appreciate it more than I once did. "Put a man on the moon?" Is he crazy? The Peace Corps and Vista? But concrete achievements are rare, at least positive ones. He was weak on civil rights. In foreign affairs, how about the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and the Berlin Wall? Other than getting assassinated, what did he do that Americans really remember? Kennedy is often identified by the man on the street as "a great President." When pushed to explain why he was "great," in the end what emerges was that he was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. The assassination created a legend, a myth. Franklin Roosevelt is an enigma for me. He surely was an influential President. If that makes him "great," well, so be it. To me, his achievements were largely harmful, if not in the short-run (and surely some were), certainly in the long-run. Yet, frequently he is selected as one of the three "greatest" Presidents. Check your kids' US History textbooks. They are practically hagiographies when it comes to FDR. Try to explain, with facts on your side, to someone that Roosevelt's New Deal really didn't end the Depression. These are the sources of the overrating of Franklin Roosevelt. He didn't necessarily toot his own horn, but fawning (and I think short-sighted) historians did. An early example of an American being overrated is Patrick Henry. "Give me liberty or give me death!" Words that might have moved a lot of people. "...if this be treason, make the most of it!" Well, not exactly. After breaking for the noon time meal, he was convinced it might be a good idea to return to the House of Burgesses and apologize, that is, take it back since it might be considered treasonous. But other than that, what did Henry do? He wasn't a soldier. He didn't write pamphlets. He didn't sign the Declaration of Independence and opposed ratification of the Constitution (thinking it created a government that was too strong, not a terribly wrong idea at the time). But should we lump him with Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, et al? Douglas MacArthur? Paul Revere? Woodrow Wilson? Lots of others come to mind, too. Who are your most "overrated Americans?"

Abraham Lincoln

Happy Birthday, Abe! He'd have been 212 years old today. Coincidentally, I finished Abe a recent biography by David Reynolds of our sixteenth and best President. It's quite the tome, 900+ pages not including end notes! And it's on the expensive side, $40. All that said, I still recommend it, although waiting for the paperback might be a good thing to do. I've read more than 50 books about Lincoln and would rate this one in the top five or six. Its insights into what made Lincoln, well, "Lincoln," are incisive and plentiful. It examines the cultural, social, economic, and religious as well as political aspects of the Ante-Bellum and Civil War years that influenced Lincoln. Despite my studies, I gained an even deeper understanding of the man. I was grabbed by Reynolds early on, in the Introduction, with a quote from none other than Karl Marx. Lincoln was one "of the rare men who succeeded in becoming great without ceasing to be good." Yep. Reynolds shoots down many of the criticisms, contemporary and otherwise, by pointing at the record. By the mid- to late-1850s Lincoln had developed some radical ideas, quite radical for his times. "All men were created equal," including blacks. Freedom and respect for individual liberty had to be meshed with that equality. Justice was there for all. Slavery and all oppression are wrong! Indifference toward that is de facto support for them. Lincoln was wise enough to heed Walt Whitman's words, "Be radical! Be radical! Be radical! But not too damned radical." Part of Lincoln's political genius was that he learned to be radical, to work to bring the radical changes that were needed, but without sounding so. He constantly worked to mold popular opinions, to redirect them toward what he thought were just and fair. This would take time. The calls for immediate abolition, for instance, of William Lloyd Garrison and others either fell mostly on deaf ears or, often, resulted in violent reaction against them, even in the North. Lincoln knew peoplw would not listen to ideas they weren't ready to hear. Jesus was killed for pushing the greatest message the world has ever heard, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." People, Romans, Gentiles, and other Jws weren't prepared to hear that. So Lincoln bided his time, molding often in little steps attitudes that would support abolition, black citizenship, and voting rights for blacks. One instance where Lincoln demonstrated this was with the legacy of John Brown. Brown was excoriated in the South and in much of the North as well for his violent abolitionist actions--Bleeding Kansas, Harper's Ferry. Many of those Southerners and even Northern Democrats likened all abolitionists and the Republican Party to Brown. Lincoln recognized this and, to win support for his radical ideas, distanced himself from Brown's actions while, philosophically and politcally, embracing them--until the time was right. (Reading this section of the book I couldn't help but make a comparison to today, how the Democrats and their lapdog media have been so quick to accuse all Trump supporters and Republicans in general of guilt for the January 6 debacle. I don't know what else to call it, but I won't use "insurrection," not with Mr. Viking Helmet leading the charge.) While I'm at it, here was an important fact I didn't know. Lincoln and his supporters strongly felt the 1858 Senate seat in Illinois was "stolen" from him. It was widely alleged that the Democrats/supporters of Stephen A. Douglas recruited Irish workers, brought them to Illinois and granted them instant citizenship. These new citizens then voted. It wouldn't be hard to imagine which party they favored. I guess Lincoln would be "canceled" for that today, for making such a suggestion. In this way, Lincoln "never went beyond the people" as one his lawyer friends explained. And that was because, in his own view, Lincoln was one of "the people." His long-time friend William Herndon echoed that. "As a politician and statesman, he took no steps in advance of the great mass of people... He made observations, felt the popular pulse, and when he thought the people were ready, he acted, not before." Of course, he worked tirelessly to make the people ready. There is far, far more that feeds my admiration of Lincoln. I've written about some of that before. But Reynolds notes Lincoln's speeches as pivotal. He was generally not a long-winded speaker. He had the gift "to explain much with little." Far from the only two, but The Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural Address were highlighted. At Gettysburg, in about 200 words, not many more, Lincoln succeeded in redefining the ideals of this American experiment. With the Second Inaugural, using fewer than 700 words, he outlined a post-war path to re-unite such a divided nation. Frederick Douglass, in attendance that afternoon, told Lincoln, "That was a sacred effort." What the President did was give a speech that might have fallen "from the lips of [William Lloyd] Garrison." Talk about radical! And many people were now willing to listen. It's too bad most of today's so-called "leaders" know so little of Abraham Lincoln. Happy Birthday, Lincoln! (That's what he preferred to be called.)