Why Abe Lincoln was lucky

[garbon]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-abe-lincoln-was-lucky-27424562-165922294.html

It's no wonder audiences are flocking to "Lincoln," the new film about the 16th president. It's a clear-eyed, dramatic, and ultimately inspiring tale that portrays Lincoln not as a saint, but as a hard-nosed, determined political leader who uses all the tools of politics, high and low, to push a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery through a reluctant House of Representatives. From uplifting rhetoric to political threats to temporizing on the issue of equality to patronage to bribery, Lincoln and his allies deploy every weapon at their command to win the battle.

But as the words of Lincoln's second inaugural still echoed in the theater, I found myself thinking that in one sense, Lincoln was lucky. All he had to contend with was ingrained racism, a war-weary nation and daunting political arithmetic. What he didn't have to deal with was...modern media.

He didn't have to wage this fight in a time when every backroom deal, every casual remark, every public assertion or private behavior of an ally was the focus of constant, intense scrutiny--when the often messy sausage-making at the heart of political progress was on 24-hour display.

Suppose the tools of modern political communication were around back in Lincoln's day. What would he have been up against? Well, consider:

"Tonight! New scandals as a desperate President Lincoln finds himself accused of moral degeneracy as his attempt to rewrite the Constitution is on life support—AND new details about the public and private hypocrisy of his radical allies. THIS....is the Vallandigham Report!

"We begin tonight with a shocking revelation of President Lincoln's true moral character. In a just-obtained video shot during what he thought was a private conversation among cronies, the president was captured telling a joke involving a portrait of our beloved Founding Father George Washington hanging in the bathroom of a British aristocrat. We can't broadcast the full audio, but in this coarse attempt at humor, the president of the United States employs a common barnyard obscenity—and then laughs at his own crudity! Bernie, as our media analyst what's your reaction?"

"Clement, like every decent American, I'm appalled. I'm outraged. For our Head of State to resort to such language—well, it's just unthinkable that such language could emerge from a president."

"Thank you, Bernard. This latest stain on the president's moral standing comes as we learn that the president has employed what can only be called blatantly dishonest language to conceal the fact that he is willing to prolong this Civil War in pursuit of his political goals. As we've been reporting, Francis Preston Blair, founder of Lincoln's own Republican Party, has reached out to Confederate officials in search of a negotiated peace. When he was asked if such a group was in Washington—which would doom the 13th Amendment's passage, the president said there is no such group in the capital and 'is not likely' to be here. What he didn't say is that's because he's forbidden them to come here, according to our sources. Mary, your reaction?"

"That's what we've come to call 'typically Lincolnian language', Clement. Just what you'd expect from a political narcissistic sociopath."

"Fair and balanced as always, Mary. And Lincoln's own dishonesty applies to his closest cronies. We've also learned that Secretary of State William Seward has employed the services of disreputable but highly efficient fixers to win the votes of lame-duck Democrats by offering patronage jobs and in at least one depicted case, handfuls of cash. Congressman Fernando Wood—your reaction?"

"Apparently the only way the president and his Radical Republican buddies can win is with 'Postmaster Payoffs' and other cheap tricks. To think his media team calls him 'Honest Abe.' "

"And speaking of his allies, the president's been telling some of those Radicals, like Pennsylvania's Thaddeus Stevens, to soft-pedal their outrageous beliefs about full voting rights for blacks. Well, later tonight, we're going to air a special hour broadcast featuring years of speeches where Stevens actually argues that blacks and whites...are equal!  And as if that's not enough,--Ann, tell us the shocking news you've learned about Stevens' private life."

"Well, Clement, it turns out that for years, Congressman Stevens has been living in sin with his so-called 'housekeeper' who happens to be...a mulatto! His neighbors actually call her, 'Mrs. Stevens!'"

"In other words, Ann, the real goal of these radicals may in fact be —"

  "— Exactly: not one nation, but miscegenation."

"Truly shocking, Ann. When we come back, a look behind the real purpose of The Homestead Act. It gives 160 acres of land to anyone who wants it! Was it a scheme to buy votes with gifts to slackers? We report—you decide."

[Phillip V]

This columnist is an idiot.

[dps]

Can't get much luckier that going out due to a bullet to the back of the head.

Of course one can hope that it's fired by a jealous husband when you're 104 or so.

[garbon]

This columnist is an idiot.

Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way ) the juxtaposition of historical events with modern reporting style.

[dps]

This columnist is an idiot.

Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way ) the juxtaposition of historical events with modern reporting style.

I used to like CBS New's "You Are There" specials. 

Of course, the "You Are There" reporting style isn't exactly modern anymore.

[Barrister]

This columnist is an idiot.

Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way ) the juxtaposition of historical events with modern reporting style.

Weren't the contents and tone of 19th century newspapers even more scurrilous than anything Fox News or MSNBC puts out there?

[Drakken]

This columnist is an idiot.

Not really. Imagine the backlash today if white electors would publicly refuse, in front of the camera, to vote for Lincoln because voting for him would mean slaves would be freed, steal their jobs, and marry their daughters (at best). That was openly argued in negative campaigns against Lincoln by the Democrats, both in North and South, in 1860.

Lincoln was a product of his time, and went into politics into a particularly difficult moment in American society. Of course his discourse and his acts would be unpalatable in 2012, the US were a different society in 1860. I am not certain Lincoln would be electable nowadays, if only because he would be "tough to market" to a broad, modern audience. Today, odds are the contenant matters as much as the content.

[Syt]

This columnist is an idiot.

Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way ) the juxtaposition of historical events with modern reporting style.

They did that once with a Bismarck documentary around 2000, telling his life and events of the time in the format of the then current news magazines/reports of the producing station. It was weird but mildly entertaining.

[dps]

This columnist is an idiot.

Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way ) the juxtaposition of historical events with modern reporting style.

Weren't the contents and tone of 19th century newspapers even more scurrilous than anything Fox News or MSNBC puts out there?

In some ways, but they didn't have the access or reach of modern media.  Also, they were just the written word--the consumers of news didn't hear the politician actually say something stupid in their own voice, so it was easy to shrug off stuff as being made up by the media.

[Drakken]

In some ways, but they didn't have the access or reach of modern media.  Also, they were just the written word--the consumers of news didn't hear the politician actually say something stupid in their own voice, so it was easy to shrug off stuff as being made up by the media.

It was still incredibly easier to smear a candidate in 1860 than nowadays, if only because people only had written news and hearsay of people around them (and over them) to make themselves an opinion on the candidate. Most electors did not have the hindsight or the access to information to take a step back and reflect whether what was presented was true or pure slander.

[Valmy]

Not really. Imagine the backlash today if white electors would publicly refuse, in front of the camera, to vote for Lincoln because voting for him would mean slaves would be freed, steal their jobs, and marry their daughters (at best). That was openly argued in negative campaigns against Lincoln by the Democrats, both in North and South, in 1860.

Or heck it was done after the war to, against just the Republicans of course not Lincoln.  I found it funny the Republican response was not to challenge White Supremacist ideas in any way, which would have been suicide of course, but to 'wave the bloody shirt' and insist that all Democrats were closet secessionist sympathizers and traitors.  Elections were really charming back then.

[Drakken]

Or heck it was done after the war to, against just the Republicans of course not Lincoln.  I found it funny the Republican response was not to challenge White Supremacist ideas in any way, which would have been suicide of course, but to 'wave the bloody shirt' and insist that all Democrats were closet secessionist sympathizers and traitors.  Elections were really charming back then.

Yes, but in defence of the Republicans they were right to use that as a counter, as the South voted almost unanimously for Democrats in 1860, and under MacLellan's candidacy in 1864 they all but promised to open the door to a negociated peace with Richmond (which was all they needed to win the war politically, really).

[Phillip V]

This columnist is an idiot.

Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way ) the juxtaposition of historical events with modern reporting style.

Weren't the contents and tone of 19th century newspapers even more scurrilous than anything Fox News or MSNBC puts out there?

In some ways, but they didn't have the access or reach of modern media.  Also, they were just the written word--the consumers of news didn't hear the politician actually say something stupid in their own voice, so it was easy to shrug off stuff as being made up by the media.

There was no shrug. There was secession.

Lincoln went out of his way to be as moderate as possible, but he was silent in the media until his First Inaugural Address. During that time, the media portrayed Lincoln as an inexperienced radical gorilla nigger-loving buffoon. Thus in the five months before he took office, most of the South had already left the Union.

[Valmy]

Weren't the contents and tone of 19th century newspapers even more scurrilous than anything Fox News or MSNBC puts out there?

Well they had access to fewer personal details but, at least before the war, it certainly was partisan on steroids.  I remember reading two newspapers' response to a speech given by William H Seward in the late 1850s that was very conciliatory and moderate in tone.  The Northern Republican Paper made it sound like Seward had sold out to the Slave Power conspiracy and was little better than a traitor...while the Southern Democratic Paper made it sound like Seward had all but called for genocide of the South.

[Drakken]

There was no shrug. There was secession.

Lincoln went out of his way to be as moderate as possible, but he was silent in the media until his First Inaugural Address. During that time, the media portrayed Lincoln as an inexperienced radical gorilla nigger-loving buffoon. Thus in the five months before he took office, most of the South had already left the Union.

Any candidate whose policy was anything but bending over for the South and head its' interests and policy on slavery was an unacceptable candidate for the South in 1860. Unless a Southern slaver or a Northern Democrat crony was elected, the South was heading straight for secession, Lincoln or not.