Books: The Life of Abraham Lincoln
H >>
Henry Ketcham >> The Life of Abraham Lincoln
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 | 17 |
18 |
19 |
20
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN."
"Headquarters Armies of the United States,
Culpepper Court-House, May 1, 1864."
THE PRESIDENT:
"Your very kind letter of yesterday is just received. The confidence
you express for the future and satisfaction with the past in my
military administration is acknowledged with pride. It will be my
earnest endeavor that you and the country shall not be disappointed.
From my first entrance into the volunteer service of the country to the
present day, I have never had cause of complaint--have never expressed
or implied a complaint against the Administration, or the Secretary of
War, for throwing any embarrassment in the way of my vigorously
prosecuting what appeared to me my duty. Indeed since the promotion
which placed me in command of all the armies, and in view of the great
responsibility and importance of success, I have been astonished at the
readiness with which everything asked for has been yielded, without
even an explanation being asked. Should my success be less than I
desire and expect, the least I can say is, the fault is not with you.
Very truly, your obedient servant,
U. S. Grant, _Lieut-General_."
There is just here a subject on which there is a curious difference of
opinion between Grant and John Hay. Grant says that, on his last visit
to Washington before taking the field, the President had become
acquainted with the fact that a general movement had been ordered all
along the line, and _seemed_ (italics ours) to think it a new
feature in war. He explained this plan to the President who was greatly
interested and said, "Oh, yes! I see that. As we say out West, if a man
can't skin, he must hold a leg while somebody else does."
There is, at the same time, documentary evidence that Lincoln had been
continually urging this precise plan on all his generals. Mr. Hay
therefore distrusts the accuracy of General Grant's memory. To the
present writer, there is no mystery in the matter. The full truth is
large enough to include the statement of Grant as well as that of
Nicolay and Hay. Mr. Hay is certainly right in claiming that Lincoln
from the first desired such a concerted movement all along the line;
for, even though not all could fight at the same time, those not
fighting could help otherwise. This was the force of the western
proverb, "Those not skinning can hold a leg," which he quoted to all
his generals from Buell to Grant.
When therefore Grant explained precisely this plan to Lincoln, the
latter refrained from the natural utterance,--"That is exactly what I
have been trying to get our generals to do all these years." In
courtesy to Grant he did not claim to have originated the plan, hut
simply preserved a polite silence. He followed eagerly as the general
reiterated his own ideas, and the exclamation, "Oh, yes! I see that,"
would mean more to Lincoln than Grant could possibly have guessed. He
did see it, he had seen it a long time.
It will be remembered that Lincoln had, for the sake of comprehending
the significance of one word, mastered Euclid after he became a lawyer.
There is here another evidence of the same thoroughness and force of
will. During the months when the Union armies were accomplishing
nothing, he procured the necessary books and set himself, in the midst
of all his administrative cares, to the task of learning the science of
war. That he achieved more than ordinary success will now surprise no
one who is familiar with his character. His military sagacity is
attested by so high an authority as General Sherman. Other generals
have expressed their surprise and gratification at his knowledge and
penetration in military affairs. But never at any time did he lord it
over his generals. He did make suggestions. He did ask McClellan why
one plan was better than another. He did ask some awkward questions of
Meade. But it was his uniform policy to give his generals all possible
help, looking only for results, and leaving details unreservedly in
their hands. This is the testimony of McClellan and Grant, and the
testimony of the two generals, so widely different in character and
method, should be and is conclusive. Grant says that Lincoln expressly
assured him that he preferred not to know his purposes,--he desired
only to learn what means he needed to carry them out, and promised to
furnish these to the full extent of his power.
Side by side these two men labored, each in his own department, until
the war was ended and their work was done. Though so different, they
were actuated by the same spirit. Not even the southern generals
themselves had deeper sympathy with, or greater tenderness for, the
mass of the Confederate soldiers. It was the same magnanimity in
Lincoln and Grant that sent the conquered army, after their final
defeat, back to the industries of peace that they might be able to
provide against their sore needs.
When that madman assassinated the President, the conspiracy included
also the murder of the general. This failed only by reason of Grant's
unexpected absence from Washington City on the night of the crime.
CHAPTER XXXV.
LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS.
The duties of the President of the United States include the writing of
state papers that are considerable both in number and in volume. Many
of the Presidents, from Washington down, have been men of great
ability, and almost all of them have had sufficient academic training
or intellectual environments in their early years. These state papers
have frequently been such as to compare favorably with those of the
ablest statesmen of Europe. With every new election of President the
people wait in expectancy for the inaugural address and the messages to
congress. These are naturally measured by the standard of what has
preceded--not of all that has preceded, for the inferior ones are
forgotten, but of the best. This is no light test for any man.
Lincoln's schooling was so slight as to be almost _nil_. He did not
grow up in a literary atmosphere. But in the matter of his official
utterances he must be compared with the ablest geniuses and most
cultured scholars that have preceded him, and not merely with his early
associates. He is to be measured with Washington, the Adamses,
Jefferson, and not with the denizens of Gentryville or New Salem.
Perhaps the best study of his keenness of literary criticism will be
found in his correction of Seward's letter of instruction to Charles
Francis Adams, minister to England, under date of May 21, 1861. Seward
was a brilliant scholar, a polished writer, a trained diplomatist. If
any person were able to compose a satisfactory letter for the critical
conditions of that period, he was the one American most likely to do
it. He drafted the letter and submitted it to Lincoln for suggestions
and corrections. The original manuscript with Lincoln's
interlineations, is still preserved, and facsimiles, or copies, are
given in various larger volumes of Lincoln's biography. This document
is very instructive. In every case Lincoln's suggestion is a marked
improvement on the original. It shows that he had the better command of
precise English. Lowell himself could not have improved his criticisms.
It shows, too, that he had a firmer grasp of the subject. Had Seward's
paper gone without these corrections, it is almost certain that
diplomatic relations with England would have been broken off. In
literary matters Lincoln was plainly the master and Seward was the
pupil.
The power which Lincoln possessed of fitting language to thought is
marked. It made him the matchless story-teller, and gave sublimity to
his graver addresses. His thoroughness and accuracy were a source of
wonder and delight to scholars. He had a masterful grasp of great
subjects. He was able to look at events from all sides, so as to
appreciate how they would appear to different grades of intelligence,
different classes of people, different sections of the country. More
than once this many-sidedness of his mind saved the country from ruin.
Wit and humor are usually joined with their opposite, pathos, and it is
therefore not surprising that, being eminent in one, he should possess
all three characteristics. In his conversation his humor predominated,
in his public speeches pure reasoning often rose to pathos.
If the author were to select a few of his speeches or papers fitted to
give the best example of his literary qualities, and at the same time
present an evidence of the progress of his doctrine along political
lines, he would name the following: The House-divided-against-itself
speech, delivered at Springfield June 16, 1858. The underlying thought
of this was that the battle between freedom and slavery was sure to be
a fight to the finish.
Next is the Cooper Institute speech, Feb. 12, 1860. The argument in
this is that, in the thought and intent of the founders of our
government, the Union was permanent and paramount, while slavery was
temporary and secondary.
Next was his inaugural, March 4, 1861. This warned the country against
sectional war. It declared temperately but firmly, that he would
perform the duties which his oath of office required of him, but he
would _not_ begin a war: if war came the aggressors must be those
of the other side.
The next was the Emancipation Proclamation, September 22, 1862, and
January 1, 1863. This was not a general and complete emancipation of
all slaves, it was primarily a military device, a war measure, freeing
the slaves of those who were in actual and armed rebellion at the time.
It was intended to weaken the belligerent powers of the rebels, and a
notice of the plan was furnished more than three months in advance,
giving ample time to all who wished to do so, to submit to the laws of
their country and save that portion of their property that was invested
in slaves.
Then came the second inaugural, March 4, 1865. There was in this little
to discuss, for he had no new policy to proclaim, he was simply to
continue the policy of the past four years, of which the country had
shown its approval by reelecting him. The end of the war was almost in
sight, it would soon he finished. But in this address there breathes an
intangible spirit which gives it marvelous grandeur. Isaiah was a
prophet who was also a statesman. Lincoln--we say it with reverence--
was a statesman who was also a prophet. He had foresight. He had
_in_sight. He saw the hand of God shaping events, he saw the spirit of
God in events. Such is his spiritual elevation of thought, such his
tenderness of yearning, that there is no one but Isaiah to whom we may
fittingly compare him, in the manly piety of his closing paragraph:
"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of
war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until
all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of
unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with
the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said
three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, 'The judgments of
the Lord are true and righteous altogether. With malice toward none,
with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to
see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in; to bind up
the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have home the battle,
and for his widow, and his orphan; to do all which may achieve and
cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
The study of these five speeches, or papers, will give the salient
points of his political philosophy, and incidentally of his
intellectual development. These are not enough to show the man Lincoln,
but they do give a true idea of the great statesman. They show a
symmetrical and wonderful growth. Great as was the House-divided-
against-itself speech, there is yet a wide difference between that and
the second inaugural: and the seven years intervening accomplished this
growth of mind and of spirit only because they were years of great
stress.
Outside of this list is the address at the dedication of Gettysburg
cemetery, November 19, 1863. This was not intended for an oration.
Edward Everett was the orator of the occasion. Lincoln's part was to
pronounce the formal words of dedication. It was a busy time--all times
were busy with him, but this was unusually busy--and he wrote it on a
sheet of foolscap paper in such odd moments as he could command. In
form it is prose, but in effect it is a poem. Many of its sentences are
rhythmical. The occasion lifted him into a higher realm of thought. The
hearers were impressed by his unusual gravity and solemnity of manner
quite as much, perhaps, as by the words themselves. They were awed,
many were moved to tears. The speech is given in full:
GETTYSBURG ADDRESS.
"Fourscore and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this
continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a
great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so
conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great
battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that
field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that
that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we
should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot
consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and
dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power
to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what
we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us,
the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which
they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for
us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us,--that
from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for
which they gave the last full measure of devotion,--that we here highly
resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain,--that this nation,
under God, shall have a new birth of freedom,--and that government of
the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the
earth."
The effect of this speech was not immediate. Colonel Lamon was on the
platform when it was delivered and he says very decidedly that Everett,
Seward, himself, and Lincoln were all of opinion that the speech was a
failure. He adds: "I state it as a fact, and without fear of
contradiction, that this famous Gettysburg speech was not regarded by
the audience to whom it was addressed, or by the press or people of the
United States, as a production of extraordinary merit, nor was it
commented on as such until after the death of the author."
A search through the files of the leading New York dailies for several
days immediately following the date of the speech, seems to confirm
Lamon's remark--all except the last clause above quoted. These papers
give editorial praise to the oration of Everett, they comment favorably
on a speech by Beecher (who had just returned from England), but they
make no mention of Lincoln's speech. It is true that a day or two later
Everett wrote him a letter of congratulation upon his success. But this
may have been merely generous courtesy,--as much as to say, "Don't feel
badly over it, it was a much better speech than you think!" Or, on the
other hand, it may have been the result of his sober second thought,
the speech had time to soak in.
But the silence of the great daily papers confirms Lamon up to a
certain point. At the very first the speech was not appreciated. But
after a few days the public awoke to the fact that Lincoln's "few
remarks" were immeasurably superior to Everett's brilliant and learned
oration. The author distinctly remembers that it was compared to the
oration of Pericles in memory of the Athenian dead; that it was
currently said that there had been no memorial oration from that date
to Lincoln's speech of equal power. This comparison with Pericles is
certainly high praise, but is it not true? The two orations are very
different: Lincoln's was less than three hundred words long, that of
Pericles near three thousand. Pericles gloried in war, Lincoln mourned
over the necessity of war and yearned after peace. But both orators
alike appreciated the glory of sacrifice for one's country. And it is
safe to predict that this Gettysburg address, brief, hastily prepared,
underestimated by its author, will last as long as the republic shall
last, as long as English speech shall endure.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
SECOND ELECTION.
It was Lincoln's life-long habit to keep himself close to the plain
people. He loved them. He declared that the Lord must love them or he
would not have made so many of them. Out of them he came, to them he
belonged. In youth he was the perennial peacemaker and umpire of
disputes in his rural neighborhood. When he was President the same
people instinctively turned to him for help. The servants called him
Old Abe,--from them a term of affection, not of indignity. The soldiers
called him Father Abraham. He was glad to receive renowned politicians
and prominent business men at the White House; he was more glad to see
the plain people. When a farmer neighbor addressed him as "Mister
President," he said, "Call me Lincoln." The friendship of these people
rested him.
Then, too, he had a profound realization of their importance to the
national prosperity. It was their instincts that constituted the
national conscience. It was their votes that had elected him. It was
their muskets that had defended the capital. It was on their loyalty
that he counted for the ultimate triumph of the Union cause. As his
administrative policy progressed it was his concern not to outstrip
them so far as to lose their support. In other words, he was to lead
them, not run away from them. His confidence in them was on the whole
well founded, though there were times when the ground seemed to be
slipping out from under him.
The middle portion of 1864 was one such period of discouragement. The
material for volunteer soldiers was about exhausted, and it was
becoming more and more necessary to depend upon the draft, and that
measure caused much friction. The war had been long, costly, sorrowful.
Grant was before Petersburg, Farragut at Mobile, and Sherman at
Atlanta. The two first had no promise of immediate success, and as to
the third it was a question whether he was not caught in his own trap.
This prolongation of the war had a bad effect on the northern public.
Lincoln, shrewdly and fairly, analyzed the factions of loyal people as
follows:
"We are in civil war. In such cases there always is a main question;
but in this case that question is a perplexing compound--Union and
slavery. It thus becomes a question not of two sides merely, but of at
least four sides, even among those who are for the Union, saying
nothing of those who are against it. Thus--
Those who are for the Union with, but not without, slavery;
Those for it without, but not with;
Those for it with or without, but prefer it with; and
Those for it with or without, but prefer it without.
Among these again is a subdivision of those who are for gradual, but
not for immediate, and those who are for immediate, but not for
gradual, extinction of slavery."
One man who was in the political schemes of that day says that in
Washington there were only three prominent politicians who were not
seriously discontented with and opposed to Lincoln. The three named
were Conkling, Sumner, and Wilson. Though there was undoubtedly a
larger number who remained loyal to their chief, yet the discontent was
general. The President himself felt this. Nicolay and Hay have
published a note which impressively tells the sorrowful story:
"Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 28, 1864.
This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that
this administration will not be reelected. Then it will be my duty to
so cooperate with the President-elect as to save the Union between the
election and the inauguration, as he will have secured his election on
such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterward.
A. Lincoln."
Early in the year this discontent had broken out in a disagreeable and
dangerous form. The malcontents were casting about to find a candidate
who would defeat Lincoln. They first tried General Rosecrans, and from
him they got an answer of no uncertain sound. "My place," he declared,
"is here. The country gave me my education, and so has a right to my
military services."
Their next attempt was Grant, with whom they fared no better. Then they
tried Vice-President Hamlin who was certainly dissatisfied with the
slowness with which Lincoln moved in the direction of abolition. But
Hamlin would not be a candidate against his chief.
Then the Secretary of the Treasury, Chase, entered the race as a rival
of Lincoln. When this became known, the President was urged by his
friends to dismiss from the cabinet this secretary who was so far out
of sympathy with the administration he was serving. He refused to do
this so long as Chase did his official duties well, and when Chase
offered to resign he told him there was no need of it. But the citizens
of Ohio, of which state Chase had in 1860 been the "favorite son," did
not take the same view of the matter. Both legislature and mass
meetings demanded his resignation so emphatically that he could not
refuse. He did resign and was for a short time in private life. In
December, 1864, Lincoln, in the full knowledge of the fact that during
the summer Chase had done his utmost to injure him, nominated him as
chief justice, and from him received his oath of office at his second
inaugural.
The search for a rival for Lincoln was more successful when Fremont was
solicited. He was nominated by a convention of extreme abolitionists
that met in the city of Cleveland. But it soon became apparent that his
following was insignificant, and he withdrew his name.
The regular republican convention was held in Baltimore, June 8, 1864.
Lincoln's name was presented, as in 1860, by the state of Illinois. On
the first ballot he received every vote except those from the state of
Missouri. When this was done, the Missouri delegates changed their
votes and he was nominated unanimously.
In reply to congratulations, he said, "I do not allow myself to suppose
that either the convention or the League have concluded to decide that
I am either the greatest or best man in America, but rather that they
have concluded that it is not best to swap horses while crossing the
river, and have further concluded that I am not so poor a horse that
they might not make a botch of it trying to swap."
That homely figure of "swapping horses while crossing the river" caught
the attention of the country. It is doubtful if ever a campaign speech,
or any series of campaign speeches, was so effective in winning and
holding votes as that one phrase.
But, as has already been said, the prospects during the summer,--for
there was a period of five months from the nomination to the election,
--were anything but cheering. At this crisis there developed a means of
vigorous support which had not previously been estimated at its full
value. In every loyal state there was a "war governor." Upon these men
the burdens of the war had rested so heavily that they understood, as
they would not otherwise have understood, the superlative weight of
cares that pressed on the President, and they saw more clearly than
they otherwise could have seen, the danger in swapping horses while
crossing the river. These war governors rallied with unanimity and with
great earnestness to the support of the President. Other willing
helpers were used. The plain people, as well as the leading patriots,
rallied to the support of the President.
The democrats nominated McClellan on the general theory that the war
was a failure. As election day approached, the increased vigor with
which the war was prosecuted made it look less like a failure, even
though success was not in sight. The result of the election was what in
later days would be called a landslide. There were two hundred and
thirty-three electors. Of this number two hundred and twelve were for
Lincoln. The loyal North was back of him. He might now confidently gird
himself for finishing the work.
Such was his kindliness of spirit that he was not unduly elated by
success, and never, either in trial or achievement, did he become
vindictive or revengeful. After the election he was serenaded, and in
acknowledgment he made a little speech. Among other things he said,
"Now that the election is over, may not all, having a common interest,
reunite in a common effort to save our common country? For my own part,
I have striven, and will strive, to place no obstacle in the way. So
long as I have been here _I have not willingly planted a thorn in any
man's bosom_."
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 | 17 |
18 |
19 |
20