Is Obama Lincoln to Hillary's Seward?
Political pundits have likened Obama's oratory, its style and content, to that of Abraham Lincoln. Most recently, Gary Wills has compared Barack Obama's speech on race in America, "A More Perfect Union," with Abraham Lincoln's 1860 Cooper Union address. In fact, like most of Lincoln's great speeches, Obama's speech evokes history and broader political principles to address contemporary racial divisions. Its title too, which calls on ordinary American citizens to perfect their Union, is reminiscent of Lincoln's Civil War speeches. Like Lincoln, who was dismissed for being a "Black Republican" for opposing racial slavery, Obama ironically stands accused of playing the race card by Sean Wilentz, the Clintons' historian in residence, because he opposes the divisive politics of race.
More interestingly, the Democratic presidential nomination contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton bears some startling similarities to the 1860 Republican presidential race between Abraham Lincoln of Illinois and William Henry Seward of New York. In a series of strange historical coincidences, not only do the leading Democratic contenders for the presidency hail from the same states as their Republican predecessors but their political resumes are analogous too. Like Lincoln, who was a one term Congressman and who opposed the Mexican War of 1846-1848 as a land grab for slavery, Obama is a one term Senator and is known for his early opposition to the Iraq war. Like Lincoln, Obama is known for his soaring oratory and vision of change at a moment of crisis. Like Lincoln, voters view Obama as an unknown quantity but are inspired by him. Physically too, the tall and lanky Obama might well be an African American version of the man whose legacy he explicitly invoked when announcing his candidacy in Springfield, Illinois.
Clinton, on the other hand, looks a lot like Seward did in 1860. If anything, he was even more tested by national politics than she. Seward had been Governor of New York, the man behind the short-lived presidency of Zachary Taylor (1848-1850), and the Senator from New York in the 1850s. He was a leading voice of antislavery in Congress and reviled by southern Democrats on a regular basis. Compared to Lincoln, a small town lawyer, Seward, like Clinton, had been close to the White House, Congressional politics and was the more experienced and allegedly able candidate.
In 1860, however, the Republican nominating convention dumped Seward for the dark horse candidate, Abraham Lincoln. Seward commanded the loyalty of the party faithful but his lieutenants in the convention were completely out maneuvered by Lincoln's supporters from Illinois. The unexpected success of Barack Obama's presidential campaign strongly resembles the ultimate triumph of the Lincoln forces. Lincoln came from behind to defeat the front runner whose candidacy, like Clinton's, had an aura of inevitability about it until the very eve of the Republican convention.
A majority of Republicans in the convention viewed Seward, a veteran of many battles over slavery expansion in Congress, as too polarizing a figure. One of the biggest arguments against Hillary Clinton is precisely that she is too polarizing a figure. Over the years, Seward, like the Clintons, had made many political enemies, some within his own party. Some Republicans voted for Lincoln simply because they would rather not vote for Seward. Most Republicans went for Lincoln in 1860 because they wanted to broaden their party base and appeal to the less antislavery lower north. The solidly antislavery upper north was already in their column. That is same the argument that the Obama campaign is making now. No matter who is the Democratic presidential nominee, the reliably blue states will vote Democratic. But Obama might bring some red states and less partisan voters into the Democratic column. Here is the potential to create a new progressive majority that can shift the terms of political debate and transcend the politics of race. Just as Lincoln's election brought decades of slaveholder dominance of the federal government to an end, Obama can turn the tide on conservative dominance of political discourse in this country. Indeed, the Democratic party today is a counterpart to the mid-nineteenth century liberal Republican party, the party of Lincoln, and the Republican party today is a lot like its historical predecessor, the conservative Democratic party with its political base in the solid south.
During the Civil War, the tried and true Seward recommended negotiations with southern secessionists. It was the political novice, Lincoln, rather than Seward who comprehended the momentous nature of the war and moved toward emancipation, the arming of former slaves, and black citizenship. In the end, Seward and his pro-slavery southern Democratic detractors shared a common political world that Lincoln rejected. While John McCain and Hillary Clinton can vouch for each other's jingoistic patriotism, political experience and military toughness, Obama appeals in Lincoln's words, which Senator Edward Kennedy repeated in his endorsement of him, to the "better angels of our nature." Given the historical record, that might just be the quality that makes a great president.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
one difference between Clinton and Seward is we have already experienced Hilliary and Bill in the whitehouse . MAny of us voted for Clinton then, but we watched the promise of a good presidency turn into one debacle and spectacle after another... and that's when times were better in general... i stood with them in those years, but i was glad to see them go.
why on earth would people vote them back for another round?... didn't we have enough? if we think the Republicans have forgotten, just wait till the general election if Clinton is the candidate.
why would we choose that?
Imagine? Intelligence passing for political discourse in this country.
How unAmerican. How foreign. How unusual. And drawing historical analogies? Don't you know that American history only goes back to Ronald Reagan?
Thank You Manisha. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you,Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
I think the comparison is apt.One of the most remarkable events in American history was the nomination and election of Abraham Lincoln. Lets hope the newest son of Illinois repeats the story.
On to the next distraction! Would one of you so called reporters please ask a Question pertaining to the Economy, or health care? We have had enough of the senseless dribble of Rev. Wright. He ain't running for anything. There is a very unpopular war going on,the economy is crumbling beneath or feet, gas prices are going up faster than they can change the signs, truckers are staging a slow down, and all you can talk about is a debate between two candidates that died a hundred plus years ago. Hillary has made her point , she is going to keep running until the democratic party is in shambles. And the winner is John McCain. Then in 4 years she can run against him. She is not showing the people how much she has done for them, but, only her own agenda,to get the nomination regardless of the cost, Why do ex Clinton supporters now get behind Obama?? Is there something that needs to be addressed? I am not saying Obama would be a perfect president, but, Clinton had their chance and we are still paying for it, wake up Democrats before she get rid of anyone that stands in her way.
As an Obama supporter, my ego enjoys this comparison. And, I do enjoy the historical parallels in terms of the election - it's interesting. But, that's where the comparison must end. The man we admire as Abraham Lincoln was forged mostly by the events that come AFTER the election of 1860 - not before. Campaigns are prelude - not epilogue.
Actually, if you study Lincoln's life, the thing that really comes across is that he was someone who was able to learn a tremendous amount about human nature despite his humble upbringing, and was able to apply that wisdom when he took office. Lincoln was famous for having thousands of anecdotes from his earlier life that he was able to use to describe the challenges he faced as President.
The Lincoln/Sewards analogy is apt. I've actually thought the same thing myself a few times. If you read Doris Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" you learn a lot about the personalities of both men, and that Seward (like Clinton) thought himself to be Lincoln's superior.
I did read it and loved it. I preferred Sandburg's Lincoln - if only because it was my first introduction to my favorite American. There are a number of first rate Lincoln biographies to enjoy. And I understand your point - but I think you missed mine. Of course Lincoln's early life created the character of the man who saw the Union through the Civil War. My point is that, it was the circumstances of that terrible war that allowed for those character traits to shine and be recorded by history in such detail. Does Mr. Obama have a strong character and prudent judgment? I think so - but it has yet to be tested on the level at which president's are tested. Given the present state of affairs, it seems possible - if not likely - that he will be given an opportunity at greatness, if elected. But, only time and circumstances can answer if he'll meet the challenge as Lincoln did.
Also, Lincoln was ready "on day one" facing the most daunting challenges in our history up to that point in time. Not bad for a country boy from Springfield, Illinois.
The chief value of Sinha's post here is the Clinton/Seward comparison. There are already many good articles written about the obvious similarities between Obama and Lincoln such as the recent Vanity Fair piece: http://www
The parallel would be a much more effective learning lesson if you stuck to the facts of the original scenario, rather than seeking to make a dramatic point by creating a false analogy. Seward was considered one of the leading candidates going into the convention, along with Chase, and Lincoln was considered a distant third or fourth. The inability for either of the leading candidates to gain a majority of votes at the republican convention--the politics of representation vis a vis slave states versus free states was the main issue in the background--created the opening for Lincoln to emerge as the alternative (or compromise, for lack of a better word) candidate. Lincoln ended up appointed his rivals for the nomination to his cabinet. Seward considered himself much more capable than Lincoln, and accepted the Secretary of State position--after playing hard to get--because he thought he would be able to be the shadow president. Seward actually gave Lincoln abundant advice and re-wrote many of his early speeches--some of which Lincoln accepted and some of which Lincoln improved upon.
The bottom line is that the comparison to Lincoln and Seward suggests that maybe the divided Democratic party needs to find an alternative candidate.
It's worth noting that Lincoln was the more divisive candidate, whose election immediately precipitated succession of the southern slave states, whereas Obama constantly portrays himself as the uniter who can engage his opponents in honest negotiations similar to Seward. By this standard - aggressive versus passive - Clinton would make a better President for those who are passionate as Abolitionists about achieving long-sought goals.
yawn
Not immediatel
Amazing Article ! Your insights are fascinating !
Those who say Obama has no experience are echoing what was also said about Lincoln who's experience almost exactly mirrored Obama.
I also want to speak to those Clintonites who believe that Obama should debate again...
If Clinton were ahead, she would not waste the time if Obama wanted another chance to even the score.
That's the loser's cry and it's best ignored, dispite the rhetoric that always follows the rejection.
Besides, though she's believing the hype of her advisors, she's not a great debator,.. I have never seen a candidate look so stupid as she, when her lies and spin are uncovered for all to see.
That grin brings me back to the school yard when a kid soiled herself and everyone laughed.
The last 'debate' which in reality was a three against one grilling on the witness stand, was a sham, and if anyone actually believes that she 'won',.. it only goes to prove how gullible, biased, blind or uneducated her followers are, and indeed she is.
Lincoln would throw up if he were alive today and compared to Barrak Obama.
Sounds like a Hillary Supporter to me...!!
No, it sounds like somebody who thinks Lincoln would throw up if alive today and compared to Barrack Obama of all people. Lincoln was no socialist-populist and did what needed to get done to win the Civil War. Where is the comparison?
By the by...I like McCain.
Your comment reflects your obvious bias (perhaps racial) as well as your ignorance of American history. You can be against Barack Obama without denigrating him. That's the mark of a very small mind.
"History may not repeat itself, but it rhymes a lot." -- Mark Twain (reportedly).
Twain also said, "Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
And lastly, "You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."
I still don't see anything wrong with Hillary.
She's a fine, decent person.
We all make mistakes, Obama has as well.
She voted for the war to be political---since every major newspapaer in the country at the time was for the war.
Then the sniper fire story---yep she's not perfect.
Its hard to be a politician---going from state to state campainging on particular demographics.
Obama's no Lincoln. He's afraid to debate Hillary for the 5th time. He removes himself from Wright. He's just being political, himself. He's not a man of courage, like Lincoln---standing in the face of all those who hated him.
FIne decent people do not have decades long records of lying like Hillary does...the sniper fire was only the most graphically documented of her many episodes of deception.
Carl Bernstein in what is a SYMPATHETIC biography concludes that she has a difficult relationship with the truth....a
During this campaign-besides the Bosnia incident, she has:
planted fake questions in the audience
lied about obama's record
lied about how she would consider Michigan
lied about what happened to her at the State of the Union address
lied about her role in Northern Ireland
lied about her role in Macedonia
Carl Bernstein's biography is NOT considered to be sympathetic to Clinton. Yes there was a planted question in one incident but consider Obama calling the Chicago media to let them know he was going to be outside various factories or locations in Chicago during the campaign for the Senate. Obama's record??? Is there one? She has been given a good deal of credit from some officials in Northern Ireland for appearing with both Catholic and Protestant WOMEN to discuss the problems there. Not sure what you are referring to about Michigan, but Obama allowed his campaign to push for an "uncommitted" spot on the ballot in opposition to Clinton's name being there. SOFU? The pictures speak volumes about Obama's snideness.
Maureen -
That last debate was an utter sham. Is there anything new to learn about the positions of these two candidates that has not already been discussed or written about?
You are correct that most major newspapers favored the invasion of Iraq, and she did the political thing. But do not pretend for a minute that Hillary was stampeded into this vote. Had she chosen to stand up to the Bush administration, she would have found a lot of political cover from the Left. She chose to drink the Bush-Cheney Kool-Aid, and even at the time, she should have known better.
Now let me take you up for just a moment on Hillary being a fine, decent person. Hillary spent six years on Wal-Mart's corporate board, during which time she never once lifted a finger for oppressed female employees or for the employees' right to organize into unions. Now, however, she crows about how pro-union she is, and a shamefully high number of unions have believed her without properly vetting her. Does a fine, decent person leave such an important part of her resume off her campaign website? Does a fine, decent person spend six years doing nothing for oppressed workers, then claim with a straight face she's pro-labor and pro-union???
For insight into Clinton's vote, you should read the speech she gave in advance of voting; then consider that she was a second-year Senator who had just spent eight years in the White House observing up close how the Senate Republicans had voted to block her husband's intervention to halt genocide in Kosovo. Her perspective was influenced in the direction of giving the current President some options. She was wrong, but her decision was honestly taken.
Obama like Lincoln?????
Frame this article as the 'model' of pandering polemics postulating pompous pronouncements opined to project perfunctory platitudinal projections from the mouth of Sen. Obama as perfect prophetic prognostication ..we don't think so.....
Sen. Obama has his noticeable gifts and graces as a senator, but he is NO LINCOLN and to suggest that just to affirm his adequate skills is to rewrite the history of America and demean the very heritage and sacrifice of President Lincoln that allowed Sen. Obama to stand on the steps of Springfield's State Capitol and announce his candidacy.
Oh, my, and yet we cannot look back objectively, without benefit of hindsight. Before Lincoln was Lincoln, he was "NO LINCOLN."
Think there are lots of Americans who don't know the underlying reasons for the Civil War and part of the reason for that is the way it is taught in middle schools and high schools. Slavery is often given as the number reason for the war. Actrually, it would be more accurate to say that the extension of slavery into the new terroritories had more to do with it because it was a tug of war between the northern small farmers and the southern plantation farmers who would bring slavery with them into the territories. The Civil War began when a small Federal outpost, Fort Sumter, in Charleston, South Carolina, was fired upon by Confederates. Aside from the fact that Charleston was an excellent harbor, it had no real strategic advantage for the Confederates EXCEPT that it represented the federal union. To Southerners the thought of having Lincoln, a small-town lawyer thought to be sympathetic to aboltionists, as president of the enitre nation was abhorent. He was considered to be radical, so against states rights (from debates with Douglas), they thought their very culture would end, especially if not allowed to advance to the territories with their slaves. By 1860, the plantations NEEDED slaves to harvest cotton and tobacco, much more than in the earlier years; fertility was an issue. Meanwhile, the North and increasingly the West, were falling under the influence of the train. Industrialization and big cities would hold sway over this country from that time on.
Hillary Clinton is neither tried nor true, despite her pretenses.
Obama is JFK, no he's RFK, no he's MLK, no he's Malcolm X, no he's Lincoln, no he's Reagan. Are y'all trying to get Barack killed?
Seward also dodged sniper fire with Sinbad and Cheryl Crow.
Obama as Lincoln works, but Hillary as Seward? Try crossing the psyche of Salmon Chase with the character of Simon Cameron, and you'd be a lot closer.
obama is no lincoln ...
he is more like carter and mcgovern ... except he is devious and plays race victim
I'll bet you weren't alive during the McGovern and Carter years, and only repeat Republican talking points.
And he can't be all that devious if someone like you imagines they can see through it.
"And he can't be all that devious if someone like you imagines they can see through it."
Excellent point, Bettysdad. Excellent point,
Barack has NEVER played the race card. He has more integrity than Billary will ever have. Educate yourself and stop listening to the sound bites!
Dude, seriously: WTF?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
