Much has been written about Abraham Lincoln, including much about his religious faith. I will not attempt to survey all the scholarly literature here. Neither do I claim to be an expert in Lincoln. But, I do claim to be an expert in the religion of Abraham's father Thomas Lincoln. I base this claim on the fact that the elder Lincoln, a farmer-preacher, belonged to those Baptists who rejected the national Baptist denomination as it developed following the Convention in 1814. He rejected both the newly developing structure and the modernizing doctrinal changes as the Baptist mainstream evolved from a sect into an American denomination prior to the Civil War. Without bragging, I can say that I have been recognized as an expert on those Baptists who remained outside the new denominational structure. (For those interested, my book is The Formation of the Primitive Baptist Movement, based on my doctoral dissertation "Self-Definition in the Formation of the Primitive Baptist Movement as Expressed in their Three Major Periodicals, 1832-1848.")
With regard to the understanding of God, while Abraham rejected his father's politics and agrarian life, and rejected his father's religion, he still, by the end of his lifetime, came to think of God essentially in the same way his father did. (More below)
With regard to the understanding of God, while Abraham rejected his father's politics and agrarian life, and rejected his father's religion, he still, by the end of his lifetime, came to think of God essentially in the same way his father did. (More below)
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Today is the anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. America has been blessed with great leadership when we have needed it. So much has been written about Lincoln that I have little to add myself. Later today I'll post on his conception of God. For now, some links.
Short biography from the White House site.
Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project from Northern Illinois University. Contains material from his Illinois period.
The Lincoln Home National Historic Site.
The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress.
Second Inaugural Address from the Lincoln Papers in the Library of Congress.
Short biography from the White House site.
Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project from Northern Illinois University. Contains material from his Illinois period.
The Lincoln Home National Historic Site.
The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress.
Second Inaugural Address from the Lincoln Papers in the Library of Congress.
09/02: Hillary Clinton's Faith
A few days ago I linked to an article from Newsweek on Hillary Clinton's Christian faith. Here. After more mulling it over, I intend to revisit the issue in the future. But for now, a few thoughts about the article itself.
First, the overall tone of the article is friendly, with no criticism of either Hillary or her religious mentor or beliefs. Contrast this attitude to the usual MSM writing about Christianity and conservative politicians. I know, Farmer, you have told us to quit complaining abou the calls and just get on the floor and play, but I want to be the coach who yells at the officials and points to the replay screen in order to get a call later and to work up the crowd. Newsweek published a puff piece.
Second, notice this paragraph:
Precocious and confident, 13-year-old Hillary was an active member of her Methodist church in Park Ridge, Ill., when Jones arrived in 1961 to lead the youth group. Fresh from the seminary, he was anything but stuffy in his red Chevy Impala convertible. He carried the Bible, but also the collected poems of E. E. Cummings. Hillary, politically aware even then, was a budding Republican who took after her staunchly conservative father. In long discussions at the church, Jones introduced Hillary to the left. The young minister was determined to show his white, privileged parishioners the world beyond their suburban town. He took them to the South Side of Chicago to hear Martin Luther King Jr. speak. Jones introduced each of them to the civil-rights leader.
The writer makes a not-so-subtle contrast between Republicans and the Civil Rights Movement. Only by leaving her childhood Republicanism, this paragraph implies, could she become a compassionate supporter of civil rights. There is no historical context here reminding the reader that most of the opposition to the Civil Rights Movement came from Southern Democrats, and that LBJ depended on Congressional Republicans to help pass civil rights legislation. The writer indirectly slanders the Republican Party.
In a few days I hope to address the issue of Hillary's faith.
First, the overall tone of the article is friendly, with no criticism of either Hillary or her religious mentor or beliefs. Contrast this attitude to the usual MSM writing about Christianity and conservative politicians. I know, Farmer, you have told us to quit complaining abou the calls and just get on the floor and play, but I want to be the coach who yells at the officials and points to the replay screen in order to get a call later and to work up the crowd. Newsweek published a puff piece.
Second, notice this paragraph:
Precocious and confident, 13-year-old Hillary was an active member of her Methodist church in Park Ridge, Ill., when Jones arrived in 1961 to lead the youth group. Fresh from the seminary, he was anything but stuffy in his red Chevy Impala convertible. He carried the Bible, but also the collected poems of E. E. Cummings. Hillary, politically aware even then, was a budding Republican who took after her staunchly conservative father. In long discussions at the church, Jones introduced Hillary to the left. The young minister was determined to show his white, privileged parishioners the world beyond their suburban town. He took them to the South Side of Chicago to hear Martin Luther King Jr. speak. Jones introduced each of them to the civil-rights leader.
The writer makes a not-so-subtle contrast between Republicans and the Civil Rights Movement. Only by leaving her childhood Republicanism, this paragraph implies, could she become a compassionate supporter of civil rights. There is no historical context here reminding the reader that most of the opposition to the Civil Rights Movement came from Southern Democrats, and that LBJ depended on Congressional Republicans to help pass civil rights legislation. The writer indirectly slanders the Republican Party.
In a few days I hope to address the issue of Hillary's faith.
07/02: The Party of Abominations
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
During the Early National period of American history, tariff policy (much more so than the question of slavery) plagued Congress as the most divisive issue of the day.
One of the great milestones in the debate over import duties was the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which set an unprecedented standard for protectionism. Historians continue to debate the details of the congressional battle that yielded the legislation. Although this particular tale seems no longer credible to many students of the period, for a long time the standard story involved the opponents of the legislation working to make the bill so egregiously offensive that even the moderate proponents of protection would not dare to vote for the program.
But, alas, the moderates held their noses and voted for the flagrant protection bill--opting for a bad tariff bill over no tariff bill.
A few years ago, Republicans would have hooted at a Democratic Party led by Howard Dean, a Nancy Pelosi-controlled House and a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton. Smart Republicans gleefully rubbed their hands together anticipating the prospect of facing the crazy screamer, a "San Francisco liberal" and Mrs. Clinton in the ultimate battle for the hearts and minds of the American people.
Smart Republicans aren't laughing anymore.
One of the great milestones in the debate over import duties was the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which set an unprecedented standard for protectionism. Historians continue to debate the details of the congressional battle that yielded the legislation. Although this particular tale seems no longer credible to many students of the period, for a long time the standard story involved the opponents of the legislation working to make the bill so egregiously offensive that even the moderate proponents of protection would not dare to vote for the program.
But, alas, the moderates held their noses and voted for the flagrant protection bill--opting for a bad tariff bill over no tariff bill.
A few years ago, Republicans would have hooted at a Democratic Party led by Howard Dean, a Nancy Pelosi-controlled House and a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton. Smart Republicans gleefully rubbed their hands together anticipating the prospect of facing the crazy screamer, a "San Francisco liberal" and Mrs. Clinton in the ultimate battle for the hearts and minds of the American people.
Smart Republicans aren't laughing anymore.
05/02: More Conservative Rock Songs
John Miller listed the top 50 conservative Rock songs a while back. Worth a look. Later he added 50 more. Each song listed has a brief explanation defending its inclusion.
22/01: Civil War Historiography 101
Historiography is the history of history. We are becoming accustomed to the notion that the recording of history is an intellectual battle with winners and losers. Here is an extremely brief note on how the history of the "Cause" developed over time:
With a few notable exceptions, the historiography considering the causes of the war consistently identified slavery as the main artery of conflict. That is, the issues of Constitutionalism, sectionalism, state rights, et al revolved around slavery and drew their emotional power from slavery. To some extent the debate over causation mirrored the sectional conflict and even the course of the actual war—with the Southern revisionism eventually succumbing to the numerical superiority of northern scholarship.
Northern explanations of the hostilities, from the near-contemporaneous account written by Henry Wilson to the initial scholarly discussion offered by turn-of-the-century historian James Ford Rhodes to the mid-century work of Allan Nevins and Arthur Schlesinger, revolve around the immorality of slavery. Transplanted Westerners David M. Potter, Don Fehrenbacher and Kenneth Stampp provided later affirmations of the centrality of slavery.
The three great twentieth-century divergent explanations occurred during the first fifty years. The Dunning School, named after a pioneer historian from Columbia University, unleashed a swell of Southern and Midwestern scholars, U.B. Phillips and William E. Dodd foremost among them, who defined the system of slavery as benign and justified the South’s actions leading to the war.
After the Dunning heyday of the 1920s, the second wave of revisionists declared that a “blundering generation” of politicians mishandled the sectional crisis of the 1850s. The post-World War I generation of historians accused the ante bellum generation of politicians of stumbling into a devastating war that could have been avoided through skillful statesmanship. The underlying premise, of course, was that slavery was not something over which a nation should have fought a civil war.
The other great threat to the “primacy of slavery” explanation came from the Charles and Mary Beard thesis, also offered during the 1920s, in which the Progressive historians pronounced the war to be the “Second American Revolution,” the product of economic transformation, and the ultimate triumph of capitalism over agrarianism. While economic determinism captured the imagination of radical historians and enjoyed a brief revival among some prominent Marxist historians during the 1960s and 1970s, in the end, even Beard himself repudiated this notion.
With a few notable exceptions, the historiography considering the causes of the war consistently identified slavery as the main artery of conflict. That is, the issues of Constitutionalism, sectionalism, state rights, et al revolved around slavery and drew their emotional power from slavery. To some extent the debate over causation mirrored the sectional conflict and even the course of the actual war—with the Southern revisionism eventually succumbing to the numerical superiority of northern scholarship.
Northern explanations of the hostilities, from the near-contemporaneous account written by Henry Wilson to the initial scholarly discussion offered by turn-of-the-century historian James Ford Rhodes to the mid-century work of Allan Nevins and Arthur Schlesinger, revolve around the immorality of slavery. Transplanted Westerners David M. Potter, Don Fehrenbacher and Kenneth Stampp provided later affirmations of the centrality of slavery.
The three great twentieth-century divergent explanations occurred during the first fifty years. The Dunning School, named after a pioneer historian from Columbia University, unleashed a swell of Southern and Midwestern scholars, U.B. Phillips and William E. Dodd foremost among them, who defined the system of slavery as benign and justified the South’s actions leading to the war.
After the Dunning heyday of the 1920s, the second wave of revisionists declared that a “blundering generation” of politicians mishandled the sectional crisis of the 1850s. The post-World War I generation of historians accused the ante bellum generation of politicians of stumbling into a devastating war that could have been avoided through skillful statesmanship. The underlying premise, of course, was that slavery was not something over which a nation should have fought a civil war.
The other great threat to the “primacy of slavery” explanation came from the Charles and Mary Beard thesis, also offered during the 1920s, in which the Progressive historians pronounced the war to be the “Second American Revolution,” the product of economic transformation, and the ultimate triumph of capitalism over agrarianism. While economic determinism captured the imagination of radical historians and enjoyed a brief revival among some prominent Marxist historians during the 1960s and 1970s, in the end, even Beard himself repudiated this notion.
22/01: More Slavery & The Civil War
From my files on the CW, here is a bit more nuanced approach to why the war came and what it accomplished.
For a brief discussion on the who and the when of causal analysis, you may also be interested in "Civil War Historiography 101" (here).
Participation, Equality and the Constitution:
The Issues of the Civil War Era
During the restive middle decades of the nineteenth century, a series of disparate political fevers swept across the national landscape. Two separate but oftentimes complementary impulses, the Age of Democracy and the Age of Reform, produced a national crisis of identity in the form of a sectional division. The Civil War, the point at which the fever of sectional strife reached a near-lethal level, proved to be a defining moment for the American experiment in popular government. Hastened by the question of slavery in the western territories, the war preserved a unified nation and resolved several fundamental questions concerning the nature of the Union. The violence also marked a crossroads in the way in which citizens perceived their political leaders and interacted with their government.
For a brief discussion on the who and the when of causal analysis, you may also be interested in "Civil War Historiography 101" (here).
Participation, Equality and the Constitution:
The Issues of the Civil War Era
During the restive middle decades of the nineteenth century, a series of disparate political fevers swept across the national landscape. Two separate but oftentimes complementary impulses, the Age of Democracy and the Age of Reform, produced a national crisis of identity in the form of a sectional division. The Civil War, the point at which the fever of sectional strife reached a near-lethal level, proved to be a defining moment for the American experiment in popular government. Hastened by the question of slavery in the western territories, the war preserved a unified nation and resolved several fundamental questions concerning the nature of the Union. The violence also marked a crossroads in the way in which citizens perceived their political leaders and interacted with their government.
19/01: GW Bush Library and SMU
SMU appears to be the location for the future George W. Bush Presidential Library, much to the dissappointment of Baylor University, Waco.
Recently some faculty, and other United Methodists have objected to locating the library at the Southern Methodist University. I've spent a little time this morning at the website of the UMC protestors, here, which has as its mission statement
We the undersigned express our objection to the prospect of the George W. Bush library, museum, and think tank being established at Southern Methodist University. As United Methodists, we believe that the linking of his presidency with a university bearing the Methodist name is utterly inappropriate. We urge the Board of Trustees of Southern Methodist University and the South Central Jurisdiction of The United Methodist Church to reject this project.
On the site, however, I cannot find much justification for the objection. Specifically, there are no arguments or rationales offered as to why United Methodists should object to such a linkage. There is a list of references, but most of those appear to be the usual denunciations of the Bush administration over the "War on Terror", the War in Iraq, and the Federal government's handling of the Katrina aftermath. Nothing specifically Methodist.
I miss rational discourse.
Looking at the Southern Methodist University website: I do not even see the word "Methodist" on the front page. The university is referred to simply as SMU. In the "About Us" section SMU describes itself as
A private university of 11,000 students near the center of Dallas . . . And at the bottom of the page Founded in 1911 by what is now The United Methodist Church, SMU opened in 1915 with support from Dallas leaders. The University is nonsectarian in its teaching and committed to freedom of inquiry.
Doesn't sound like SMU is especially Methodist, so I have trouble believing that the opponents of the library wish to preserve the integrity of "Methodism".
Recently some faculty, and other United Methodists have objected to locating the library at the Southern Methodist University. I've spent a little time this morning at the website of the UMC protestors, here, which has as its mission statement
We the undersigned express our objection to the prospect of the George W. Bush library, museum, and think tank being established at Southern Methodist University. As United Methodists, we believe that the linking of his presidency with a university bearing the Methodist name is utterly inappropriate. We urge the Board of Trustees of Southern Methodist University and the South Central Jurisdiction of The United Methodist Church to reject this project.
On the site, however, I cannot find much justification for the objection. Specifically, there are no arguments or rationales offered as to why United Methodists should object to such a linkage. There is a list of references, but most of those appear to be the usual denunciations of the Bush administration over the "War on Terror", the War in Iraq, and the Federal government's handling of the Katrina aftermath. Nothing specifically Methodist.
I miss rational discourse.
Looking at the Southern Methodist University website: I do not even see the word "Methodist" on the front page. The university is referred to simply as SMU. In the "About Us" section SMU describes itself as
A private university of 11,000 students near the center of Dallas . . . And at the bottom of the page Founded in 1911 by what is now The United Methodist Church, SMU opened in 1915 with support from Dallas leaders. The University is nonsectarian in its teaching and committed to freedom of inquiry.
Doesn't sound like SMU is especially Methodist, so I have trouble believing that the opponents of the library wish to preserve the integrity of "Methodism".
16/01: Re-Waging the Civil War
We had so much fun with this yesterday, let's recap and start again with a more honest focus on one of the most resilient and fertile questions of American history: Was the Civil War fought over slavery?
My thesis (and this is key): The North did not begin the war to end slavery, but the South began the war to protect slavery.
The Election of 1860, in which the Republican Party swept 18 out of 18 free states, relegated the South to minority status. For several decades, a vast majority of Southerners had agreed that Northern rule was the end of “liberty” as they knew it. The new regional party, unlike the national parties that had come before, was so far removed from Southern sensibilities that it was not even on the ballot in most Southern states in 1860.
The election of Abraham Lincoln was an earthquake. Even as Lincoln promised that he would leave slavery undisturbed in the places in which it already existed, the South could not afford to accept that pledge. For at least a decade leading up to the watershed election, the South had asked for assurances, and, now, instead, they got Lincoln. The man who saw slavery as a great evil that must eventually be extinguished. “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand.” The Party of “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men” was now ascendant, and “Spot Resolution” Lincoln was at the crest of the wave.
The secession crisis of 1860-61 was not unlike previous standoffs between the two sections. Ten years earlier, the South had conducted furious preparations to leave the Union over the disposition of the slave question in the newly acquired territories in the West. The result of the turmoil then was the Compromise of 1850, on which the South reneged four years later, when Southern leaders demanded slavery be extended into the Kansas territory, in violation of the thirty-four year-old Missouri Compromise.
But the election of Lincoln, and more importantly the unprecedented regional majority, proved the final straw. As a last gasp, the South demanded that Lincoln agree to the extension of slavery into the West. Lincoln refused. And the War came.
Lincoln did not bring the Union into the fight to end slavery. He is famous for saying:
"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."
Having said that, the war did end slavery.
Was the South's fight merely to protect state rights? Again, the great question: What right were the seceding states defending? The right to secede? What right was in danger in the winter of 1860-61? What had changed? What was behind the secession at that moment?
Ironically, the failed secession was the end of state sovereignty as a viable counterweight to the power of the central government. Ironic, that is, because, in effect, state rights theory committed suicide. From the Civil War, the federal government emerged ascendant. No one would ever argue that the states were co-equal seats of authority again. No one would ever entertain the notion that secession was a possibility again.
My thesis (and this is key): The North did not begin the war to end slavery, but the South began the war to protect slavery.
The Election of 1860, in which the Republican Party swept 18 out of 18 free states, relegated the South to minority status. For several decades, a vast majority of Southerners had agreed that Northern rule was the end of “liberty” as they knew it. The new regional party, unlike the national parties that had come before, was so far removed from Southern sensibilities that it was not even on the ballot in most Southern states in 1860.
The election of Abraham Lincoln was an earthquake. Even as Lincoln promised that he would leave slavery undisturbed in the places in which it already existed, the South could not afford to accept that pledge. For at least a decade leading up to the watershed election, the South had asked for assurances, and, now, instead, they got Lincoln. The man who saw slavery as a great evil that must eventually be extinguished. “A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand.” The Party of “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men” was now ascendant, and “Spot Resolution” Lincoln was at the crest of the wave.
The secession crisis of 1860-61 was not unlike previous standoffs between the two sections. Ten years earlier, the South had conducted furious preparations to leave the Union over the disposition of the slave question in the newly acquired territories in the West. The result of the turmoil then was the Compromise of 1850, on which the South reneged four years later, when Southern leaders demanded slavery be extended into the Kansas territory, in violation of the thirty-four year-old Missouri Compromise.
But the election of Lincoln, and more importantly the unprecedented regional majority, proved the final straw. As a last gasp, the South demanded that Lincoln agree to the extension of slavery into the West. Lincoln refused. And the War came.
Lincoln did not bring the Union into the fight to end slavery. He is famous for saying:
"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."
Having said that, the war did end slavery.
Was the South's fight merely to protect state rights? Again, the great question: What right were the seceding states defending? The right to secede? What right was in danger in the winter of 1860-61? What had changed? What was behind the secession at that moment?
Ironically, the failed secession was the end of state sovereignty as a viable counterweight to the power of the central government. Ironic, that is, because, in effect, state rights theory committed suicide. From the Civil War, the federal government emerged ascendant. No one would ever argue that the states were co-equal seats of authority again. No one would ever entertain the notion that secession was a possibility again.
15/01: More Dixie-bashing
Programming Note: Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this vibrant discussion. I invite you to read my latest post, which confronts the question of slavery as a cause of the Civil War in a more direct maner: "Re-Waging the Civil War."
In honor of MLK, evidently, Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, two candidates for the Democratic nomination for president, attended an NAACP rally in front of the South Carolina statehouse in Columbia. Both senators agreed that the Confederate flag, which formerly flew over the capitol dome but still remains on the property, has no place on the capitol grounds (read the Washington Post story here).
The actions of Senators Dodd and Biden strike me as pure demagoguery. Was this the most meaningful message they could have imparted on MLK day? Or was this their best shot at getting on TV and touching a hot-button issue with a vital constituency?
Back over at the Liberty Papers, Kevin makes an argument for dumping the Confederate flag (and the monument to Confederate veterans as well) because "the Confederacy existed for sole purpose of allowing the enslavement of other human beings."
Those Liberty Boys sure are hard on the Confederacy. Lighten up fellas.
Having said that, for different reasons, I agree that the public display of the Confederate flag is problematic and ought to fade into the sunset.
My comment I attached to Kevin's post:
Sadly, the honorable history of the Confederate battle flag is largely irrelevant.
The flag is a negative symbol in the South for two reasons:
1) it was co-opted by the Klan and became a symbol of violence toward African Americans; and
2) it was adopted by the massive resistance that emerged during the post-Brown Civil Rights years in the South. The Rebel flags found their way onto Southern state flags as a symbol of modern defiance rather than an homage to the tradition of bravery among a mostly non-slaveholding force of fighting men during the Civil War.
Too bad–-but that is the reality. There is a time-honored Christian principle of laying down non-essential symbols and practices that offend others.
Southern whites need to forego the flag as a measure of their desire to live in harmony with their neighbors.
In honor of MLK, evidently, Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, two candidates for the Democratic nomination for president, attended an NAACP rally in front of the South Carolina statehouse in Columbia. Both senators agreed that the Confederate flag, which formerly flew over the capitol dome but still remains on the property, has no place on the capitol grounds (read the Washington Post story here).
The actions of Senators Dodd and Biden strike me as pure demagoguery. Was this the most meaningful message they could have imparted on MLK day? Or was this their best shot at getting on TV and touching a hot-button issue with a vital constituency?
Back over at the Liberty Papers, Kevin makes an argument for dumping the Confederate flag (and the monument to Confederate veterans as well) because "the Confederacy existed for sole purpose of allowing the enslavement of other human beings."
Those Liberty Boys sure are hard on the Confederacy. Lighten up fellas.
Having said that, for different reasons, I agree that the public display of the Confederate flag is problematic and ought to fade into the sunset.
My comment I attached to Kevin's post:
Sadly, the honorable history of the Confederate battle flag is largely irrelevant.
The flag is a negative symbol in the South for two reasons:
1) it was co-opted by the Klan and became a symbol of violence toward African Americans; and
2) it was adopted by the massive resistance that emerged during the post-Brown Civil Rights years in the South. The Rebel flags found their way onto Southern state flags as a symbol of modern defiance rather than an homage to the tradition of bravery among a mostly non-slaveholding force of fighting men during the Civil War.
Too bad–-but that is the reality. There is a time-honored Christian principle of laying down non-essential symbols and practices that offend others.
Southern whites need to forego the flag as a measure of their desire to live in harmony with their neighbors.
