Abraham Lincoln

16. Mahoney, Statesman as Thinker (13 August 2022)

by kurto

Holds up Cicero, Burke, Lincoln, Tocqueville, Churchill, de Gaulle, and Havel as exemplary statesmen, demonstrating excellence of vision and execution through contemporary turbulence. Courage, moderation (temperance and prudence), and magnamity (greatness of soul, according to classic or Christian ideals) in pursuit of justice are the essential attributes of those who would command practical reason in service of ordered liberty. Aristotle’s is the classic statement of a gentlemen-statesman, the opposite of Weber’s charismatic leader. Modern political thought and social science cannot discern the requisite qualities, believing in a false realism: in ascribing every action to naked power, the ability to assess motivation is forfeit and consequently to distinguish the statesman from the tyrant. The study of humanity includes legitimate uses of authority, Aron observed: Napoleon’s tyranny demonstrates greatness unchained from humility. The unbounded will seeks to reshape nature and society, but energy without wisdom is of little use.

Cicero: contending with Caesar, the Roman served as prototype in exemplifying foresight via reflection not ambition or will.

Burke: Reason is to be tested against practical modifications; theory alone will fail: prudence needs principle as much as principle prudence. ‘Ingratitude is the first of revolutionary virtues’ (p. 40)

Tocqueville: a deterministic fatalism (‘democratic history’) cannot illustrate the role of greats in history.

Churchill: Berlin’s Mr. Churchill in 1940 is the consummate statement.

De Gaulle: depreciated ‘Nietzschean disdain’ for the limits of human experience, common sense, law, seeing instead the need for balance, what is possible, and mesure. The Maginot line was morally corrupt – effete. Where Aristotle’s magnamity countenances hauteur, de Gaulle’s great man was Christian.

Havel: the Czech’s genius was to identify and surmount the ideological traits of post-totalitarian (post Leninist-Stalinist) regime, no longer dependent on mass violence yet still repressive.

Reagan and Thatcher receive honorable mentions as conviction politicians.

16. Oates, With Malice toward None (30 Sep 2018)

by kurto

A learned but popular biography of Abraham Lincoln emphasizing the consistency of his vision of the American nation. As an Illinois Whig, Lincoln favored state-sponsored improvement (e.g., roads and technology improvement). He was an eloquent speaker when prepared but not a draftsman of note. Lincoln then served one term in Congress before returning to private pursuits, in which he was known as a railroad lawyer. His rivalry with Stephen Douglas commenced in the late 1830s, rising to its apex in opposing the Democrat’s notion of popular sovereignty, the fudge for extending slavery into the territories. Lincoln ran for the Senate in 1854 but conceded to a compromise candidate in order to keep a Democrat out, consistent with his view of cooperation for the common good. During this time, he appeared in New England and New York in support of fellow Whigs; in the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Scott decision, his decision to jump to the Republicans was a substantial boost for the new party. The famous 1858 debates with Dough elucidated his commitment to the federal union: Lincoln would respect slavery as established by law to preserve the union, but would not countenance expansion. 1860s’s split of the Democratic Party ushered Lincoln to the presidency, which occupies half of Oates’ work. Among the more interesting aspects are the decision to go to war, strong-armed tactics to keep Baltimore as well as the border states in the union, setting aside the fugitive slave law in the occupied south, and the struggle to find an offensive-minded general. Gradually, by 1862, he came to regard emancipation as a war aim, although he was conscious of running ahead of his cabinet, which insisted on a victory (Antietam) before the announcement, and more so popular opinion. Lincoln is presented as quirky, a hard worker and good decision maker, but not necessarily a first-grade Periclean leader. Does he deserve to be considered the redeemer of the Founding Fathers?