William Lee Miller sets out in Lincoln’s Virtues: An Ethical Biography to rescue our memory of
Abraham Lincoln from the burden of mythology and presentist attacks on his
character to show the sixteenth president as a real man operating in the real
world. Rather than a dry recitation of
events and issues, Miller presents a detailed examination of Lincoln’s life and
career through the lens of ethical and moral growth, and their influence on his
political stances and methods. Miller
takes this tack not only to rescue his hero from modern cynicism about
Lincoln’s goals and methods, but because he is convinced that history is not a
wave of inevitability. A key argument of
Lincoln’s Virtues is that the actions
of individuals matter in determining the course of peoples and nations. In this view, people are rational moral
agents who make conscious decisions that influence history. Lincoln acts as a moral exemplar through
which we can examine American moral life.
Miller argues that Lincoln’s moral reasoning and growth are evident
through an exhaustive study of his speeches, letters, and the recollections of
his closest associates. A detailed
analysis of Lincoln’s rhetoric forms the core of Miller’s presentation.
Reaching back to Lincoln’s youth, Miller argues that his
main dictum was to try to always do the right thing. For the young Abraham, this included not
hunting or fishing, drinking or gambling, and not being cruel to animals. In a theme that pervades Lincoln’s Virtues, he not only avoids these vices in his own
behavior, but urges others to follow his lead.
What separates Lincoln from other moral reformers, Miller contends, is
that Lincoln refrained from claiming his own moral superiority for avoiding
sin, instead exhorting those around him to do the right thing for its own
sake. As a boy this behavior included
telling his friends that they should not torment turtles by placing hot coals
on their backs, while an adult Lincoln would tell temperance societies that
their own abstinence from alcoholic beverages did not denote moral superiority
over drinkers. Similarly, after becoming
an outspoken abolitionist in 1854, Lincoln argued that the United States should
end the expansion of slavery due to its immorality, but did not argue that
slaveowners were immoral. Miller asserts
that Lincoln exempted slaveowners from moral condemnation because they
inherited the institution.
Lincoln did not condemn others for their moral failings
because he did not believe that perfection was achievable. This was the case because Lincoln based his
moral judgments on the fruits of reason rather than those of faith. Miller believes that while Lincoln knew the
Bible quite well, and increasingly referred to Christian theology as he
campaigned against the Kansas-Nebraska Act, he remained unchurched his entire
life. Lincoln accepted the values of
Christianity based on his ability to reason that they were morally correct
rather than out of faith or belief.
Basing his moral judgments on reason allowed Lincoln to avoid the
doctrine of “purity” espoused by many abolitionists, temperance advocates, or
other evangelical reformers.
Miller argues that the moral realism embodied by Lincoln’s
worldview informed the rhetoric he used, policies he advocated, and methods he
used. Moral realism is the source of the
apparent contradiction Lincoln’s modern detractors see between the man and the
myth. He condemned slavery, but not
slaveowners. He advocated for freedom of
the slaves; but not for their political equality. While Lincoln detractors see this dichotomy
as evidence of corruption, excessive pragmatism, or political opportunism,
Miller contends that they represent Lincoln’s understanding of his audience and
the belief that striving for better circumstances as a community should be the
goal.
Despite the apparent hero-worship pervading Lincoln’s Virtues, Miller attempts to
illustrate Lincoln as a real human being, complete with missteps and
failings. Despite Lincoln’s stated
intentions to strive to always do the right thing, he uncharitably describes
Mary Owen, who rejected his romantic intentions, as Falstaffian. During his short tenure in Congress, Lincoln
launched personal attacks on President James K. Polk as part of his
denunciation of the Mexican War, leading even Miller to wonder if Lincoln had
yet reached his moral maturity in 1848.
Lincoln’s condemnation of Polk so soon after taking his seat in Congress
represents his overwhelming ambition to make his mark in the world, and be
reckoned as a great man not only in the United States, but to be known beyond
its borders. In this desire, Miller
shows Lincoln as envious of Stephen Douglas’ international fame, and
illustrates a certain desperation to escape obscurity.
Lincoln also took on the role of party operative. As an Illinois Whig, he pushed his party to
adopt the tactics of the Democratic Party machine, organizing conventions,
voting as a block, and dispensing offices as the perquisite of party
patronage. In contrast to other Whigs,
Lincoln saw these tactics not only as necessary for the Whig’s electoral
success, but as the means for advancing the Whig agenda of national
improvement. The Whig platform of an
energetic government encouraging growth, improving the wilderness, and
sustaining reform efforts was worthy of campaigning for. Miller argues that Lincoln’s choice to become
a Whig rather than joining the more powerful Democratic Party illustrates that
his devotion to national improvement was more important to him than mere
personal ambition.
With the exception of defending the language, form, and
substance of the Emancipation Proclamation as a legal document allowed only by
Lincoln’s war powers, Miller’s analysis ends with Lincoln’s election as
president in 1860. The Emancipation
Proclamation, he says was not cynically designed to convince European powers
that the war was solely about slavery, but the most Lincoln could do to free
slaves before the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. Lincoln’s dedication to America’s founding
law prevented him from doing more.
No comments:
Post a Comment