What Obama Can Learn from Lincoln's Inaugural

Over the past three years, Americans have witnessed Barack Obama's affection for, and occasional obsession with, Abraham Lincoln. He launched his presidential campaign in Lincoln's hometown, has made frequent pilgrimages to the Lincoln Memorial, and quotes or paraphrases Lincoln in most of his speeches. In selecting his Cabinet, he has relied heavily on the model of a "Team of Rivals," the title of Doris Kearns Goodwin's bestselling book describing Lincoln's supposed brilliance at managing his Cabinet. He even will take the oath of office on the same Bible Lincoln used.

Obama has been inspired by Lincoln's graceful resolve in facing personal and political crises. And like his predecessor, Obama will take the reins of a deeply troubled America at a potentially transformative moment.

But before Obama delivers his Inaugural Address which will set an important tone for his administration -- before he draws on Lincoln's example one more time -- he would do well to consider why so many Lincoln supporters lost faith in him after his Inaugural Address. Among these critics, none was as penetrating as Frederick Douglass.

In many respects, Obama is more Douglass' descendent than Lincoln's. Both men are children of one black and one white parent, both rose from the humblest origins to become world-famous before the age of forty, and both are among the greatest orators of their generation. And both men learned early on how to use words as powerful weapons.

As a former slave and radical abolitionist, Douglass never agreed with Lincoln's conservative antislavery views. But he had been impressed with Lincoln's firm stance against a belligerent South in his debates with Stephen Douglas. When Lincoln received the 1860 Republican nomination, Douglass joyously predicted that he would be elected president, since the Democratic Party had split along sectional lines. And on Election Day, Douglass was hopeful that Lincoln could bring the change the nation needed.

During the four months of transition (reduced to two months in 1933 with the Twentieth Amendment), seven states seceded and the Confederacy was formed. Throughout this crisis, Lincoln refused to endorse any compromise scheme that would violate his campaign promise to prohibit the spread of slavery. Douglass was much impressed, and said that "Honest Old Abe" was an accurate reflection of Lincoln's words and actions.

But Douglass' faith in Lincoln evaporated with the Inaugural Address. In fact he was so upset over Lincoln's Address that he planned a trip to Haiti, with an eye toward emigrating there and encouraging other blacks to do the same.

Why? Because the speech was "little better than our worst fears," Douglass complained. Instead of rebuking Southerners as traitors, Lincoln "courted their favor." He vowed to uphold the draconian Fugitive Slave Act, which many Northerners considered unconstitutional. He promised to suppress slave insurrections. And he declared that he would never interfere with slavery in the states. Douglass was outraged and called Lincoln "an excellent slave hound."

Even worse, the Inaugural was a "double-tongued" address, for it renounced Lincoln's campaign promise of working toward the "ultimate extinction" of slavery, Douglass said.

Congress had just passed a new constitutional amendment in the hope of wooing Southerners back into the Union. Although it was never ratified, this "first" Thirteenth Amendment was the exact opposite of the actual one that abolished slavery (in 1865). It was an unamendable amendment guaranteeing slavery in the states forever. Lincoln affirmed it in his Inaugural, declaring: "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Lincoln's inaugural destroyed Douglass' hope for change. Only the Confederate firing on Fort Sumter a month later stopped Douglass from going to Haiti. With the war, he believed, the chance to destroy slavery had "come at last," whether Lincoln embraced that goal or not.

Why did Lincoln defend slavery so vigorously in his Inaugural Address, thus alienating abolitionists and progressives in his party?

His goal was to reach beyond partisan wrangling and national divisions for common understanding. He wanted to appease slaveholders, prevent the upper slaveholding states from joining the Confederacy, and save the Union.

He also made the mistake of heeding the advice of his "team of rivals," especially Secretary of State William Seward. His first draft of the Inaugural was far less conciliatory than the one he delivered. In it he opposed the new Thirteenth Amendment, saying he liked the Constitution as it was. He treated Southerners with a firm but understanding hand, and had he delivered this draft, Frederick Douglass (and many other supporters) would have been far more sympathetic to him and his dilemma.

It was Seward who told Lincoln to "strike out" the sentence that opposed the constitutional amendment protecting slavery. He also told Lincoln to soften the ending, and suggested a final paragraph. Lincoln followed this advice as well. He borrowed many of Seward's words, but had a much better ear than Seward and created with his new ending an elegant plea for reunion. "We are not enemies, but friends," he told Southerners. And he characterized North and South as being irrevocably united by "the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land."

To Douglass, the "mystic chords of memory" ignored the cries of four million blacks in chains. The beauty of Lincoln's language masked the brutality of his content.

Lincoln's Inaugural Address should serve as a cautionary tale against heeding the advice of a "team of rivals." Lincoln accomplished none of his objectives with it, and he alienated radicals and progressives throughout the North. Despite his efforts to placate the South, rebels interpreted the Inaugural as a declaration of war, and the upper slaveholding states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas soon seceded.

Obama's attempt to replicate a Lincolnian "team of rivals" makes sense as way to employ bipartisan politics to accomplish his goals. But he also needs to understand that Lincoln's management of his wartime Cabinet was far more a failure than success, especially when heeding members' advice, as he did in his Inaugural Address.

Seward was not the only Cabinet member who misled him. Lincoln selected as cabinet members men with huge egos who couldn't work together, and three of them resigned. Attorney General Edward Bates left in part because he felt marginalized, and he cited the administration's "open contempt of Constitution and law" and "ignorance of policy and prudence." Treasury Salmon Chase was continually disloyal and even tried to win the Republican nomination over Lincoln in 1864 before resigning. And Secretary of War Simon Cameron put personal interests ahead of his country, resigning in disgrace over charges of corruption.

Over time, Lincoln increasingly made his own decisions rather than rely on his Cabinet. This was especially true in his decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

As a result, Frederick Douglass eventually forgave Lincoln for trying to appease the South while ignoring blacks---his natural allies because they were the Confederacy's worst enemy.

Douglass met Lincoln three times in the White House, and the two men put aside their vast differences and came together as friends. Their friendship was chiefly utilitarian: Lincoln needed Douglass to help him destroy the Confederacy; and Douglass knew that Lincoln could help him end slavery. But by the end of the war, they also genuinely liked and admired each other.

While Douglass was ready to leave the country after Lincoln's first Inaugural, he considered the Second Inaugural one of the great works of American literature. In this speech, Lincoln imagines a wrathful God wreaking vengeance against slaveholders. After the ceremony, Douglass attended the reception at the White House. Lincoln asked Douglass what he thought of his address, adding, "there is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours."

"Mr. Lincoln, that was a sacred effort," Douglass said.

Their profound shift from enemies to friends stemmed in large part from Lincoln's abandonment of his "team of rivals" model of leadership, coupled with his realization that he needed radicals and progressives--especially blacks--on his side.

Douglass' response to Lincoln's Inaugural Addresses thus offers a salutary lesson for Obama: as he tries to move beyond partisan politics, he needs to be careful not to alienate his natural allies and renounce his campaign promise to "bring the change our country needs."

John Stauffer is Chair of History of American Civilization at Harvard University and the author, most recently, of GIANTS: The Parallel Lives of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln (TWELVE).

Comments

[kankankan]

Being a keen study of human nature, I think Abe well knew the secessionists would never voluntarily yield on slavery, even for money, even if US govt/pres did no harm to them. This tendency was obvious given that they were willing to go to war just to be able to keep expanding slavery, as no one was stopping them from continuing slavery, including the Supreme Court. I think he knew the hottest-heads would never be influenced by such rational pleas as in the first inaugural address. However, there were some more moderates that could be influenced, and his strict adherence to law and order, his conciliatory nature, did win over the northern population and border states, and in four short years, he had the northern population much more receptive to the idea of emancipating slaves. Beyond saving the Union, freeing the slaves, Lincoln’s rational arguments from agreed principles and laws changed the culture of America for the better.


And on the constitutionality of his actions, this was very important beyond just its effectiveness towards freeing slaves, it also was an amazing and enduring argument for and demonstration of the importance of the rule of law. He showed even in a time of rebellion and terrible violence that a government could still stay within its principles and that no one, even a war president was above the law, and he constantly gave us eloquent reasons in his speeches why this was so critical.

[libertron]

I'm not a fan of BHO because of his socialist tendancies, but I know he has HUGE support and there is something I really wish he would do to harness that. In WW2 they pleaded with people to buy war bonds and it did finance the victory. Right now, people aren't spending money like they used to and the gov is deficit spending like crazy. All of that consumer money is sitting on the sidelines, while people wait to see if they have a job 6 months from now. Mr Obama should ask people - for the national good - to buy bonds right now, as much as they can. This is a golden opportunity to get Americans saving again, while they aren't spending anyway, and also to keep more of the national debt interest payments here instead of flowing overseas. I'm one of the people who joked about Obama as the "Chosen One" worshipped by the media and 60% of this country, but the upside of that is he maybe has more soft power than anyone else alive. This would be a huge win-win economically if he asked people and they stepped up.

[Swift2]

I read the first Inaugural. It's painful now, but its wisdom is evident. The slave states were seceding, and the threat of military action was upon us. It was important for Lincoln to affirm the constitution and take this legalistic approach. Ante bellum, there was no threat to slavery within the bounds of the original slave states. What was at issue was the expansion of slavery in the territories. That was what Lincoln was firm about. As for the president abolishing slavery, that was impossible in 1861. The president himself had no power to do so, the Congress had no ability to do so under the Constitution, because they could not pass an amendment.

The South was portraying Lincoln as a dictator. If he had tried to say, "I will abolish slavery by presidential fiat," he would have been just that.

But the South fired on Sumter, and the game was at hand. And even then, it took a long while until black soldiers were recruited, and the Emancipation Proclamation was signed.

Those who see Lincoln as the Great Man neglect that he was in a constitutional government, not the executive power dreamed up by Bush and Cheney. Once the South put armies in the field, Lincoln had the power -- and duty -- to resist. And the war granted Lincoln the power of commander-in-chief, which was why he could proclaim Emancipation in the places where the rebellion was active. Once that process had begun, slavery was done.

[kankankan]

Totally agree. We can't know what Abe's intentions were but the Second Inaugural shows his moral bravery to state things like both the South and North deserved this as karmic pay back (imagine a President now saying we deserved our suffering because of the past harm we had done).

If you wanted to end slavery at this time what were your options: be an abolitionist who was morally pure with little power to effect such a change? be a radical like John Brown who is temporarily righteous but ultimately Custeristic? be a slave that rebels but cannot achieve permanent success, (such as slaves in Haiti were able to) due to unique American conditions? be an unabashed abolitionist lucky enough to get elected president and create instant secession of all the Southern states including Border States and major backlash with racist northerners? be a politician and let the Union dissolve so "your" country was slave-free and not bound to return fugitive slaves but with a Confederacy that continued with slavery and created inter-national battles/wars over escaped slaves. I am thinking the only way to end slavery in US was what Abe did. On top of it, it was a way to end slavery and still be honorable, moral, keep alive the hope of the US democracy, the idea of the rule of law, and best of the US ideals and constitution. Any critic of Abe’s first address should show what would have worked better, Stauffer included.

[veracity]

EXCELLENT! commentary, thanks for that, J.S.

ANY well reasoned commentary which so much as _mentions_ "slavery" is a good commentary...
Hillary's invocation of Harriet Tubman's advice in her final speeches (stumping for Obama campaign) were a knock-out, barn-burner for that reason.
("When you hear the dogs barking, and the slave-catchers coming, DON'T STOP RUNNING for freedom" !!)

THIS excellent commentary not only mentions slavery, but exposes a relatively unknown aspect (among today's "popular wisdom" or consciousness) that early in his term Lincoln SUPPORTED the murderously violent institution, and of course he COURTED the radical-right-wing pro-slavery fire-brands were were determined to destroy America, the USA as it had grown to that time.

I never miss a chance to point out the irony (or hypocrisy), that so many of the Reb' soldiers who fought for "FREEDOM!" against (what they saw as) Yankee oppression, had been descendents of victims of the "ENCLOSURES" in England, Ireland, and Scotland, people who hated and despised the ruthless system of English landed nobility that treated them like chattel slaves.
See Jonathan Swift's "A MODEST PROPOSAL",
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
written about the near-famine conditions in Ireland in... 1729, and realize that the _real_ GREAT (Irish) FAMINE didn't occur until the 1840s... over 100 years of genocidal occupation by English nobles and landlords,
.....and THAT was the very lifestyle (ideal) that EVERYONE in the Confederate Army aspired to!

[NABNYC]

When I was a child, I was taught that Lincoln freed the slaves because it was the moral thing to do, because slavery was wrong. Years later, when I studied the history of slavery in the U.S. and the world, I learned that Lincoln freed the slaves reluctantly and only as a war strategy -- the South would be weakened and collapse without the free labor of slaves, so the North would be able to more quickly win the war. So much for the great man theory of history.

Obama seems a bit too shrouded in his great-men affiliation, from Lincoln to Roosevelt. Peanuts for the circus fans. He instead should be imagining his own "great man" of the 21st century, one who enacts policies and programs to begin the real unfinished work of segregation in this country, programs to guarantee blacks and women get 100% the same salary, wages, and opportunities as men. The economic disparity that is an institutional part of this society allows a small group of elite white men to continue to rule the rest of us. The plantations have been replaced by McMansions, but the economic truth is largely unchanged.

[kankankan]

Your take on Lincoln is a current trend to by some to interpret Abe by a few of his early, cringe-worthy statements on slavery and Black people and his political actions to get elected and deal with the seccesion at the beginning of of his presidency. Before you conclude anything in regards to Lincoln, I would strongly suggest reading all his major speeches. I too had the same transformation of Lincoln's legacy in my mind that you describe, but also a further one when I first happened to read the Second Inaugural as a DC tourist at the Lincoln memorial and then read rest of his major speeches. When I read his speeches, which were a more compelling explanation of the times than any analysis historians had ever present ed me, I felt I had been duped on both my childhood history take of Lincoln and the bad things I read about Lincoln as an adult. There is so much more going on with Lincoln than just a compromising racist who dragged his feet on abolishing slavery, and his words alone, show this. His speeches gave me a whole knew way to consider the civil war, and why Lincoln lead the country to a war that killed so many people rather split the country, why he was not a unabashed Abolitionist going into his presidency and the whole of Lincoln's politics.

[kankankan]

After reading Lincolns speeches, if you still think Lincoln was not a great man compared to almost of all our leaders, I'd be surprised, but then I would ask you to also consider the whole of his accomplishments in his short tenure. He did good things on financing including having the guts to issue greenbacks, expanding infrastructure, he was an excellent CEO of the country, and consider how he treated friends and enemies, Douglas himself, women, child etc.. how all conetmporaries considered him honorable and uncorrupted. Consider the even those that hated Lincoln the most, the Southern rebels, wished they had leadership like Lincoln. And alos consider almost everyone who disdained him at an ignorant distance, respected him greatly upon close exposure. Some men are just better than others, and they are worthy of study and emulation. While I don't think we should incredulously swallow trite summations of historic figures fed to us by people biased today by their current ideologies, Doris Kearns included, I also don't think we should avoid intense study of great men and emulation of their best character and strategies.

[bayside]

Lie down with dogs get up with fleas. Good article

[SpaceCadet]

This was an excellent article and more informative than average. I had never heard about the "first" 13th Amendment before (and it would have been a very unlucky 13 had it been adopted). This is the kind of thing they don't tell us about in high school history classes, which tend to be more ideological indoctrination than education -- the great presidents are presented more like demigods than real people with personal flaws and who sometimes make distasteful compromises. Even people who go to college aren't likely to know about this kind of thing, either, unless they're history majors.

[themodernleader]

Lincoln is one of those rare leaders who was possessed of the big picture of the basic issues confronting his Administration. His First Inaugurial Address clarified the issue, the Second Inaugurial dealt with rationally forgiving the ravages and rapine of war dealing with those issues and building a new framework of democracy.
His cabinet was filled with the most extraordinary leaders of his time for the tasks before them. And he used modern leadership methods to exact the best management from those extraordinary individuals.
Franklin D. Roosevelt may not have had the vision of Lincoln. However, he selected a powerful cabinet. During the War he promoted George C. Marshall who articulated a vision of war strategy. FDR was wise in giving him the wherewithal to turn that strategy into action that startled the world.
Obama appears to lack a clear grasp of the financial versus economic functions of a great country. To compensate he must find another George C. Marshall in the economic realm that can bring together grand strategy with a new birth of economic and political freedom.

[Aesthete]

I've heard many debates about Lincoln and his motivation for freeing the slaves or about his relationship with blacks in general. I have always remained mindful that Lincoln was an 1860s politician who first had to get elected and then re-elected by an electorate of the 1860s so I won't attempt to apply today's standards. I do, however, as an African-American, rejoice that for whatever reason he got the job done! The slaves were freed and the union was preserved. There is, of course, no way to know whether or not the period of reconstruction that followed and the ensuing reign of terror, coupled with Jim Crow segregation, against blacks would have occurred if Lincoln had been allowed to live longer.

[Cogitoe]

Excellent article. I can understand Obama's attraction to the Lincoln mantle, but to me his promise of change is far more Jacksonian in scope. If Obama truly follows through on his promises of significantly higher levels of transparency, access and interaction with the populace he promises, it will be a new style of democracy future generations may refer to as Obamanian. The first Internet enabled democracy.

[kankankan]

Thanks oneliberallady, I have thought much about this and wrestled with it more with age and your comment was a nice encouragement that I am making some sense...

[Margary]

this isn't the 18 hundreds, and obama isn't Lincoln! We all admire one thing or another about Lincoln! We simply take the good, and leave the bad! Obama is a smart man!give him credit!

[BlueTide]

We live in a different era than 1861, and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are the only two rivals in the Obama administration. I don't see neither of these two people trying to usurp Obama's power. Moreover, the problems facing today are more like 1933 than 1861.

As bad as the economic crisis is today, it is not the same kind of moral issue that slavery was. What's important is that Obama passes an economic stimulus plan. He needs to be firm and a strong negotiator, but in this case, compromise does not necessary mean giving up the moral high ground.

[stevemarvin]

Thanks for the history lesson. Very apt.

[Jazzcomedian]

Every president faces the problems of the day in his own way. PE Obama has faced life with all it's ups and downs in his own way, and so far it's been both successful and instructive. We'll just have to wait, and watch. I think it's going to be a fascinating presidency to watch as he employs his methods to governing.

[the-lexicon]

If there's anything I can say about Obama's obsession with all things Lincoln...

Please....

PLEASE.....

Stay the HELL out of Ford's Theater!

Can I, as a citizen and supporter, ask just that one little favor?

lexicon