I Would Save the Union: Lincoln’s Response to His Critics
To even the most casual observer, media coverage of President Donald Trump has not been at all the same as that afforded to his predecessor Barack Obama. A steady stream of relentless criticism began before the polls even closed and has remained more-or-less constant ever since.
According to a study conducted by the Media Research Center, 90% of the coverage Donald Trump received in 2018 was decidedly negative. These figures are consistent with earlier studies by the Pew Research Center and by Harvard media scholar Thomas Patterson, who looked at media coverage within the new administration’s first 100 days.
What many contend are simply legitimate policy concerns are routinely sprinkled with ad hominem attacks, vicious personal insults, and wild accusations. To most journalists and media personalities in Hollywood, the President is not only a weak, foolish, and incompetent leader, but a very dangerous man intent on spreading “hate” and destroying the very foundations of our republican institutions.
Most would say that this level of unrelenting criticism is unheard of…yet…
Surprising Similarities
It may come as a surprise to some that no less a revered figure as Abraham Lincoln experienced criticisms that are eerily similar to those President Trump endures today.
“Few presidents suffered more from editorial abuse than Lincoln,” wrote historian Edwin Emery.
“Opposition editors and disappointed favor-seekers accused him in print of vicious deeds… He was falsely accused of drawing his salary in gold bars, while his soldiers were paid in deflated greenbacks. He was charged with drunkenness while making crucial decisions with granting pardons to secure votes, and with needless butchering of armies as the result of his lust for victories. Once he was accused of outright treason.
Typical of his press detractors was the La Crosse Democrat, a Wisconsin weekly, which said of the draft: ‘Lincoln has called for 50,000 more victims.’”
In response to Lincoln’s election, the Memphis Daily Appeal wrote:
“Within 90 days from the time Lincoln is inaugurated, the Republican Party will be utterly ruined and destroyed. His path is environed with so many difficulties, that even if he had the ability of Jefferson and the energy of Jackson, he would fail, but he is a weak and inexperienced man, and his administration will be doomed from the commencement.”
The Original Gorilla
Lincoln also endured a seemingly endless string of vicious personal attacks. Prominent New York Lawyer George Templeton Strong described Lincoln as a “barbarian,” and as a “gorilla.” Abolitionist minister Henry Ward Beecher, ridiculed Lincoln, calling him “an unshapely man” in apparent reference to his modest frontier upbringing.
Supposedly “friendly” Northern newspapers openly called for his assassination long before John Wilkes Booth would bring such musings into reality. Accusing the President of cowardice, popular Army Commander George B. McClellan would also refer to his Commander-in-Chief as “an idiot,” and “the original gorilla.”
Despite the Emancipation Proclamation, prominent abolitionist Elizabeth Cady Stanton called Lincoln “Dishonest Abe” and accused his administration of “incapacity and rottenness.” She would later swear that if Lincoln was “reelected I shall immediately leave the country for the Fiji Islands.”
…sound familiar?
However, unlike Donald Trump and his Twitter account, Lincoln rarely responded to such attacks. In a letter to actor James H. Hackett, Lincoln stressed that he had “not been much shocked by the newspaper comments…” as they “constitute a fair specimen of what has occurred to me through life.”
“I have endured,” he lamented, “a great deal of ridicule without much malice; and have received a great deal of kindness, not quite free from ridicule. I am used to it.’”
Dismissing pressure to respond, Lincoln sagely counseled:
“If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how — the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”
Dangerous Criticism
Although Lincoln rarely answered the public attacks made on him, the publication of an open letter on August 19, 1862 by Horace Greeley — founder and editor of the widely influential newspaper the New York Tribune — was something the President could not ignore.
In his lengthy letter entitled The Prayer of Twenty Millions, Greeley questioned the administration’s policy toward the rebellious Southern States. Specifically, Greeley was enraged that Lincoln — though having run on an anti-slavery platform — seemed unwilling to enforce the recently enacted Confiscation Act. In fact, on several occasions Lincoln countermanded orders from his generals that appeared to be in accord with the Act. An impulsive man, Greeley chose to angrily retort through condescending and disrespectful language:
“DEAR SIR:” began Greeley, “I do not intrude to tell you — for you must know already — that a great proportion of those who triumphed in your election, and of all who desire the unqualified suppression of the Rebellion now desolating our country, are sorely disappointed and deeply pained by the policy you seem to be pursuing with regard to the slaves of Rebels. I write only to set succinctly and unmistakably before you what we require, what we think we have a right to expect, and of what we complain. We require of you, as the first servant of the Republic, …that you EXECUTE THE LAWS. …We think you are…remiss in the discharge of your official…duty with regard to the emancipating provisions of the new Confiscation Act. Those provisions were designed to fight Slavery with Liberty. We think you are unduly influenced by the counsels…hailing from Border Slave States”
The Burden of Command
Although he was planning decisive action that would satisfy Greeley, political necessity demanded that he keep this action secret.
In the late summer of 1862, the Union was in a precarious situation. Embarrassing and costly military defeats had weakened Northern morale and jeopardized the ongoing diplomatic effort to prevent the powerful nations of Europe — particularly Great Britain and France — from recognizing the Confederate States as an independent nation.
Succumbing to the depression that frequently plagued him, Lincoln confided to General Montgomery Meigs, army quartermaster, the desperate state of the Union cause:
“General what shall I do? The people are impatient; Secretary Chase has no money and tells me he can raise no more; the General of the Army has typhoid fever. The bottom is out of the tub. What shall I do?”
By late August, Lincoln had decided to issue his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation and had secretly debated it with his cabinet. A bold political move, the Emancipation Proclamation would free all slaves residing in territories then in rebellion against the United States. Carefully targeted, the Proclamation would exempt the border slave states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri whose tenuous allegiance was crucial to the Union cause.
Assenting to the wisdom of his cabinet, Lincoln agreed to postpone the proclamation until the Union Army had won a significant military victory. This was necessary in order to avoid the appearance that emancipation was the last act of a desperate government facing inevitable defeat… or as Lincoln put it, “…our last shriek, on the retreat.”
In addition, Lincoln believed that it was crucial for him to both reassure his supporters that he was in control and to explain to the people his fundamental purpose in simple and understandable terms.
A Rare Response
On August 25, 1862, Lincoln published his reply to Horace Greeley.
An example of Lincoln’s linguistic genius, the letter rebukes Greeley in gentle, respectful, yet firm language, while at the same time carefully laying out his fundamental goal, framing his understanding of the limits of Presidential power, reassuring the border states, and laying the groundwork for public acceptance of emancipation as a war aim:
“Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I ‘seem to be pursuing’ as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.”
Lessons For Our Time
It is a common belief that the challenges of “our modern era” are somehow unique. This is sometimes true. However, for as often as we experience unique events, we find many others that are very similar to those endured by our ancestors. Their solutions to these problems can provide valuable lessons for our time.
Today, America seems to be experiencing significant polarization. Whether this perception is being created by our media dominated culture remains to be seen. These events seem unique in our limited experience, but the past reveals that our nation weathered far greater storms.
President Trump’s adversarial relationship with the media, though not entirely unique, has nuances common to our time. The media has dramatically expanded its reach and influence due to new technologies whose impact is still being determined.
In addition, we must be wary of the resurgence of old and discredited ideologies that truly threaten the future of the Republic.
Ultimately, however, I believe that from his place in our distant past, during a time of cataclysmic struggle, Abraham Lincoln still speaks to us today. In a world characterized by extremes, a committed citizen of the United States must take his or her role as a defender of our free, and republican institutions seriously.
Freedom’s Reach is committed to this!
Paralleling Lincoln’s immortal words, we must strive to do less whenever we shall believe what we are doing hurts the cause of liberty, and we shall do more whenever we shall believe doing more will help the cause of liberty. We must try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
However…
Although this represents our stated purpose according to our official duty; we must intend no modification of our oft-expressed national belief that all men everywhere could be free.
Originally published at freedomsreach.com on February 25, 2019.
