The Deification of Lincoln

Ira D. Cardiff

• Publisher: Left of Brain Books
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN: 9781396321375

"Biographies in general are more often the reflection of the passions and prejudices of the biographers than a revelation of the truth concerning the subject."Numerous biographies have been written about President Abraham Lincoln, most of which have highlighted his successes and virtues. Those works mythologized the man while leaving some facets of his personal history and presidential tenure to be lost to history. Much of what has been written about Lincoln has been exaggerated to eulogize him as he was given an increasingly oversized place in the minds of many Americans.If you want a fresh, unbiased examination of America's 16th President, The Deification of Lincoln by Ira D. Cardiff is the perfect resource. Cardiff presents oft-neglected truths for a more holistic picture. For example, he examines how the Civil War was won not by just Lincoln's tenacity and dedication to the cause. Cardiff also sheds light on how the end of slavery was brought about by much more than Lincoln's actions. None of these revelations are intended to discredit Lincoln but to gain a more realistic understanding for him and his role in history. This text sets him properly within the historical context.

INTRODUCTION

Biography is a form of history. It is the history of an individual and his relation to his environment. To evaluate this relation, and from it draw any valid conclusions, the truth should be known and delineated by the biographer. This calls for a mind scientific to the last degree, a mind devoid of prejudice and preconceived notions of its subject, a mind which has respect for the truth and the courage to portray it, a sense of relative values, a mind sufficiently analytical to discriminate between the essential and the trivial regardless of how interesting or sensational the latter may be. It is, of course, not maintained that all matters of trivial character should be omitted, for they often may be used to stimulate interest, also may throw considerable light upon character. Care is necessary, however, lest they detract rather than add to the thesis.

Albert Britt in “The Great Biographers” states of biography, “The beginnings were crude….. Saints and martyrs, of course, were usually the objects of biographical effort and the writer was committed in advance to a process of deification that has not yet disappeared.”

Britt might have added that this process reached its zenith in the last half of the nineteenth century, for English speaking peoples. Also around the pinnacle of this hyperbolic zenith revolved the satellites who perpetrated their fancies and fantasies upon a gullible and defenseless public in the form of Lincoln biographies, so called. This habit of deification mentioned by Britt is an outgrowth of the propaganda which has ever been such a disagreeable feature of the Jewish-Christian Religion and which has contributed greatly to its downfall.

In extenuation, however, it must be pointed out that the biographer is confronted with many difficulties and temptations. Not only is information of his subject often difficult to obtain, but his sources are apt to be contaminated with prejudice, patriotism or propaganda. Also the whole truth is, oft times, unobtainable and the biographer is tempted to supply the missing portion from his imagination. Then, too, he is strongly tempted to produce a work which will please his publisher and yield him financial return. “The curse of art is, it has to be financed.” As the reading public becomes more discriminating, it is hoped that some of these handicaps may disappear.

Concerning Lincoln, all of these and many other crimes have been committed in his name, and the popular mind has formed a complex of such a nature that no ordinary evidence or exposition can hope to correct.

The Deification of Lincoln

Ill-Fated Lincoln! How troubled and annoyed he would be if he could today listen to the animated controversies over his parentage, his religious beliefs, his prayers, his youthful love affairs, his marital troubles, his poverty (or prosperity) in his youth, etc., ad libitum, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Still his annoyance might change to edification, if not entertainment, as he learned of the sterling qualities, mental and moral, of Thomas Lincoln, his supposed father, whom it now appears was quite industrious and prosperous; learned of the chastity of his mother and grandmother; of his own piety and his great interest in “evidences” of Christianity, also discovered that he “spent most of his time upon his knees in prayer while in the White House.” Would he be pleased, or otherwise, to learn of his deification, to discover that whatever he accomplished was a result of the guiding hand of a god and not from his own ability or moral worth?

It might also strike him as somewhat singular, if not remarkable, that people who never knew him, never saw him, some even having been born since his death, should know more about such matters than did his private secretary, his chief of staff, his law partner and most intimate friend, or his wife; in fact more than he himself did. Some readers may also be struck with this remarkable anomaly — some; not many! In fact most readers — and especially listeners — are not at all interested in the truth about Lincoln. They are not interested, in other words, in the real Lincoln. They desire a supernatural Lincoln, a Lincoln with none of the faults or frailties of the common man, a Lincoln who is a savior, leading us to democracy and liberty — though most of said readers (and listeners) are not interested in democracy or liberty — except for oratorical purposes. That this is true is too patent to need any proof; or if proof is demanded, we only need point to the several thousand romancing biographers and biographies. If the public did not buy the latter, they would not be produced. In fact, a biography of Lincoln which told the truth about him would probably have great difficulty in finding a publisher. In other words, the romancing biographer is the one who is read.

It is one of the strange and puzzling features of human psychology that the truth is so often unpleasant and unacceptable, or perhaps more correctly that the truth is unpleasant to so many people, only a small minority being interested in it. Is it the hangover of Neolithic blood still coursing in our veins? Or is it still older, a Simian tendency to play, to imitate, to make believe? Perhaps, in the case of Lincoln, these atavistic tendencies are also accentuated by the mass psychology which has been generated by the politico-religious oratory of the Lincoln Day programs. Most “information” of Lincoln is thus obtained. The orator of such occasions is rarely a student of Lincoln. He is invariably a lawyer or clergyman. If the former, he is primarily interested in advertising himself; if the latter, he is interested in proving Lincoln a devout Christian — and otherwise dispensing propaganda for his own particular brand of religion. In either case, the result is the apotheosis. (Such orators acquire most of their information from listening to themselves talk.) This condition has continued for a couple of generations until the speaker or writer who does not deliver an apotheosis when discussing Lincoln is set down as dull and uninteresting, if not uninformed or unpatriotic. Thus Lincoln has come to be our most abused, most misunderstood public character.

Biographies in general are more often the reflection of the passions and prejudices of the biographers than a revelation of the truth concerning the subject. There is nothing the average individual cherishes so much as his prejudices. The ordinary man will fight much longer and harder for them than he will for the truth. With reference to Lincoln, prejudices have been intense, hysterically acquired and tenaciously adhered to. Pre-conceived notions have predominated in the minds of biographers and readers alike. These, supplemented by the greed of conscienceless publishers and advertisers, have created a deplorable mess concerning our beloved Civil War president.

* * *

Abraham Lincoln was in many respects typical of a rather picturesque portion of early American society, especially the pioneer period of the Ohio Valley. He eventually found his place as a practicing country lawyer of rather ordinary ability and moderate success. He possessed little or no cultural background and an education meagre even for that date. On the other hand, his integrity was far above that ordinarily found in the profession. His mind was analytical and logical, and his personality picturesque and attractive. Possessed of a good memory and some ability for impersonation, he became an adept politician and a rather clever vote getter. His humble origin, his human interest and his rational mentality, stimulated by his readings of Voltaire, Paine and Jefferson, made him a champion of human freedom, an anti-slavery partisan and incredulous and critical of orthodoxy.

Lincoln’s first real education was derived from his law partner, William Herndon, a man of exceptional ability, with an exceedingly active interest in subjects scientific and philosophical. The scientific age was in its infancy, growing, expanding and revolutionizing the thought of the day. Herndon kept in touch with this, and discussed it with his, ever interested senior partner. Then there entered the intellectual life of Herndon the cultured and scholarly Theodore Parker, with his humanitarian and unorthodox ideas, which also secondarily had their effect on Lincoln.

Following this preliminary education, Lincoln was confronted with the opportunity of debating the issues of the day with the erudite and clever statesman, Senator Stephen A. Douglas. The education which Lincoln received in this campaign gave him some equipment for meeting the political problems which followed.

As an administrative head of a great nation in a time of stress, he was not an unqualified success. “The President (Lincoln) is an excellent man, and in the main wise; but he lacks will and purpose, and, I greatly fear he has not the power to command.” (By Ed. Bates, from his diary 12/31/61, relating how he urged Lincoln to be commander-in-chief in fact as well as in name. Bates was Attorney General in Lincoln’s cabinet.)

“The President knows as well as I do, that General Butler’s proceedings to overthrow the civil law at Norfolk, and establish his own despotism in its stead, is unlawful and wrong, and without even a pretense of military necessity, and yet, he will not revoke the usurping orders, for fear General Butler will raise a hubbub about it. Alas! That I should live to see such abject fear — such small stolid indifference to duty — such open contempt of constitution and law — and such profound ignorance of policy and prudence!

“My heart is sick, when I see the President shrink from the correction of gross and heinous wrong because he is afraid ‘General Butler will raise a hubbub about it.’” (Bates diary Aug. 4, 1864 —pp. 393-4.)

Lincoln’s homely ways, his human sympathy, his integrity and sincerity greatly endeared him to many of the people and his tragic death at the acme of his success consummated his popularity. While his passing will ever remain one of the tragedies of the nation, it was only the beginning of the tragedy which was to follow his memory for — there is no telling how long.

The unthinking public (the great majority is unthinking) has ever failed to realize that because a man holds an important office or occupies a highly important position, he is not necessarily a great man. People have a habit of elevating to such positions men who are very mediocre in mental make-up. (In a democracy they are doubtless representative.) The people then expect great things of these men and if, through a combination of circumstances, unusual progress in statecraft or successful war during the tenure of one of them, is made, he receives the credit for these as his achievements; he becomes a popular hero, even though he may have had no more to do with the matter than the bit of driftwood which rides the waves has in causing the wave. If the position be a public office, the man’s friends and political hangers on, by clever propaganda, cultivate this attitude on the part of the public.

If, further, the office holder in question, happens to have had a lowly origin —came from the nobodies of society — there is a deal of satisfaction to the unthinking host. The affair is looked upon as a vindication of democracy and a salutary rebuke to the highbrows who may have at some time been guilty of original thinking — for, after all, no one is more unpopular than a thinking man.

* * *

Lincoln receives credit for the successful prosecution of a great war, for the preservation of the union, for the abolition of human slavery and for telling a good story. To the latter he is entitled to the credit accorded. To the three former — well, let us see. Did the South ever have a chance of winning the war? Never! Pitted against it was a North of immense material resources and wealth, a much greater population than the South, a population more energetic, more resourceful and better educated, thus a larger and better equipped army, officered by several quite superior generals; therefore the ultimate outcome was inevitable.

The preservation of the Union was a natural consequence.

As to the abolition of human slavery; within the century previous, human enlightenment had developed to a point in Europe and America that such a gross violation of man’s natural rights as human slavery had become repugnant to the mass of mankind. At that time, the intense struggles of the American and French Revolutions were fresh in the minds of the people and the thought of a human being treated as a piece of property to be trafficked as a mule or a hog was offensive to all sense of decency — even to most Southerners. In fact, the slave owners of the South were relatively few in number, though powerful politically on account of their wealth and social prestige. The passing, sooner or later, of the atrocious institution of slavery was, therefore, also inevitable.

That Lincoln played an important and serviceable part in these epoch making events goes without saying. That in so doing, he displayed at times great skill and tact, also great human sympathy and tolerance is to his credit, but to say he was the causative agent in the abolition of slavery or the preservation of the union is absurd.

This fact may be further illustrated by an episode related by General Stewart. On New Year’s Day, 1861, General Charles Stewart, of New York, was calling upon Senator and Mrs. Douglas, in their fashionable Minnesota Block home in Washington, D.C. The General says,

“I was making a New Year’s call on Senator Douglas; after some conversation, I asked him,

“‘What will be the result, Senator, of the efforts of Jefferson Davis, and his associates, to divide the Union?’ We were,” said Stewart, “Sitting on the sofa together when I asked the question. Douglas rose, walked rapidly up and down the room for a moment, and then, pausing, he exclaimed, with deep feeling and excitement:

“The Cotton States are making an effort to draw in the Border States, to their schemes of secession, and I am but too fearful they will succeed. If they do, there will be the most fearful Civil War the world has ever seen, lasting for years.’ “

Pausing a moment, he looked like one inspired, while he proceeded: ‘Virginia, over yonder, across the Potomac,’ pointing toward Arlington, ‘will become a charnel-house —but in the end the Union will triumph. They will try,’ he continued, ‘to get possession of this capital, to give them prestige abroad, but in that effort they will never succeed; the North will rise en masse to defend it. But Washington will become a city of hospitals, the churches will be used for the sick and wounded. This house,’ he continued, ‘the Minnesota Block, will be devoted to that purpose before the end of the war.’

“Every word he said was literally fulfilled — all the churches nearly were used for the wounded, and the Minnesota Block, and the very room in which this declaration was made, became the ‘Douglas Hospital.’

“‘What justification for all this?’ said Stewart.

“’There is no justification,’ replied Douglas.

“’I will go as far as the Constitution will permit to maintain their just rights. But,’ said he, rising to his feet and raising his arm, ‘If the Southern States attempt to secede, I am in favor of their having just so many slaves, and just so much slave territory as they can hold at the point of the bayonet, and no more.’”

Senator Douglas was a wise, far-seeing, patriotic statesman. He died during the early years of the war and never received his just deserts historically on account of having opposed Lincoln in their celebrated debates, for after Lincoln’s death and the people became hysterical over him, they could see nothing good in Douglas. He, with other discerning statesmen, foresaw the inevitable outcome of a conflict between the North and South.

In fact if any single individual is to be given the credit for saving the Union, the honor should probably go to Miss Anna Carroll, whose skillful and untiring efforts, between the time of Lincoln’s election and his inauguration, prevented the District of Columbia and Maryland from falling into the hands of the secessionists. Later she furnished the plans (at a most critical time) which resulted in the Union victories at Donaldson, Shiloh and Island Number Ten. Her influence with Lincoln was such that she was frequently referred to as the unofficial cabinet member.

* * *

The United States is a young nation. Its first and greatest crisis was the Civil War. Lincoln occupied the center of the stage during this crisis. While his record as an executive may not have been a brilliant one, he, nevertheless, made few glaring mistakes and his motives were, for the most part, above reproach. After his tragic and untimely death, which occurred at a time when the people were hysterical and unreasonable over national matters, it was but natural for the unthinking populace to more or less deify him. However, the popular opinion or estimation of a person in high position is usually meaningless. Mark Twain puts the matter thus, “To my mind, the bulk of any nation’s opinion about its president, or its king, or its emperor, or its politics, or its religion, is without value and not worth weighing or considering or examining. There is nothing mental in it; it is all feeling, and procured at second hand and without any assistance from the proprietor’s reasoning powers.”

Few prominent characters of history have been more atrociously misrepresented than Lincoln. Few have been more vilified than he. Few have had a fair name and honorable career made more ridiculous with exaggerated praise than the Civil War president. It has fallen to his unfortunate lot to be the victim of a greater variety of picturesque hysteria than any other historical character. In the long record of humanity’s foolish mental capers, there exists only one other comparable to it, namely the psychological contortions in regard to Christ, but since Christ was scarcely an historical character, this leaves Lincoln still victim number one for being the most misrepresented.

The hysteria in regard to Lincoln has been so pronounced, so persistent and so wide spread that anyone attempting to make a sincere and comprehensive appraisement of Lincoln must take cognizance of it, and, if possible, explain it. What, therefore, is the genesis of all this hysteria? It may be grouped under four main heads:-

Lincoln’s lowly origin;

his ancestry;

his heterodox views on religion;

the method of celebrating his birthday anniversary.¹

A brief consideration of these may be worthwhile. Taking them in order, it is interesting to note that up to the time Lincoln was nominated for president, little or none of this hysteria existed. He was a man among men — respected for his tolerance and fairness, for ability some...

Table of contents

• INTRODUCTION
• The DeiFIcation of Lincoln