http://news.yahoo.com/why-abe-lincoln-was-lucky-27424562-165922294.html
QuoteIt'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:
Quote"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."
This columnist is an idiot.
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.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 01:09:50 PM
This columnist is an idiot.
Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way :blush:) the juxtaposition of historical events with modern reporting style.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 01:09:50 PM
This columnist is an idiot.
Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way :blush:) 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.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 01:09:50 PM
This columnist is an idiot.
Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way :blush:) 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?
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 01:09:50 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 01:09:50 PM
This columnist is an idiot.
Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way :blush:) 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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2012, 01:22:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 01:09:50 PM
This columnist is an idiot.
Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way :blush:) 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.
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 01:27:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Drakken on November 27, 2012, 01:23:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 01:45:53 PMOr 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).
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 01:27:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2012, 01:22:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 01:09:50 PM
This columnist is an idiot.
Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way :blush: ) 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.
Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2012, 01:22:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 01:51:35 PM
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.
Quote from: Drakken on November 27, 2012, 01:54:38 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 01:51:35 PM
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 not to bend over for the South's 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.
There are many historians (and contemporaries) that argue that Lincoln's refusal to act and give speeches on his moderate ideas and plans in the 5 months until his inauguration led to the unhindered radicalization of the South during that time period. Others as you do argue that the sequence of secession was "inevitable". Unfortunately, neither argument has been significantly settled upon.
Lincoln was lucky because he was a resident of Kentucky for a portion of his life. :showoff:
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 02:02:19 PM
There are many historians (and contemporaries) that argue that Lincoln's refusal to act and give speeches on his moderate ideas and plans in the 5 months until his inauguration led to the unhindered radicalization of the South during that time period. Others as you do argue that the sequence of secession was "inevitable". Unfortunately, neither argument has been significantly settled upon.
Personally, I set with the latter. Secession was part of the Southern political discourse for more than a decade and the North, for better or for worse, set up their policy from the belief that the South was merely bluffing, to blackmail the North into tailoring the country's policy according to Southern interests first and foremost. At first, I believe they were right in believing so, the South had no political will to indeed go through with secession until the late 1850s at least. The ante had reached such a high stake, that no side could bend over and "moderate" its stance without losing face.
What Lincoln "did" was not his personal fault. The new Republican party was ostensibly seen, as a new party, as a Northern party, aimed officially against the South and openly poising to block the South at every turn as a matter of policy. Whether it was true or not, most of the Southern's vocal elite took a Lincoln victory as an official declaration of divorce and a slap in the face.
Both sides have been shrilling for more than years so much that any moderate discourse between the two sides of the borders, aside of personal friends really sticking together, was almost impossible.
Was Lincoln opposed to: Southern seductionists :sleep:
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 02:02:19 PM
There are many historians (and contemporaries) that argue that Lincoln's refusal to act and give speeches on his moderate ideas and plans in the 5 months until his inauguration led to the unhindered radicalization of the South during that time period. Others as you do argue that the sequence of secession was "inevitable". Unfortunately, neither argument has been significantly settled upon.
His plans were only moderate from a northern perspective. As far as the South was concerned any limit to their rights as defined by the Dredd Scott decision and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was unacceptable. They made their point crystal clear when they walked out of the Democratic Convention. It was a point of honor by that point.
And even if Lincoln had made a series of very mild and conciliatory speeches it would have gone like the Seward speech I described did. The Southern Press would have made it sound like he was the respectable face of an army of John Browns that were soon going to be flooding the South.
The OP is badly misconceived.
The "modern media" did exist in 1860, even if the technology differed. Overtly political newspapers and broadsheets were ubiquitous and widely circulated, and if anything the scandal and rumor-mongering was even worse because of the relative lack of media gatekeepers, fact-checkers and eminence grises. Instead of Fox News, Lincoln had Horace Greeley and even worse.
Lincoln would have handled the modern media very well just as he handled the very difficult media of his time very well. He was a gifted and disciplined communicator with a common touch, a superb grasp of rhetoric and style; all those qualities are still important today. How would Lincoln handle a town hall debate? Hell he practically invented the format.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 02:02:19 PM
There are many historians (and contemporaries) that argue that Lincoln's refusal to act and give speeches on his moderate ideas and plans in the 5 months until his inauguration led to the unhindered radicalization of the South during that time period. Others as you do argue that the sequence of secession was "inevitable". Unfortunately, neither argument has been significantly settled upon.
Lincoln wasn't going to let slavery expand (but wasn't going to interfere where it already existed). The South knew that, and seceded because of it. I am not sure what Lincoln could have said, other than completely abandoning the central tenant of the Republican platform, that would have mollified the South.
Quote from: Caliga on November 27, 2012, 02:06:46 PM
Lincoln was lucky because he was a resident of Kentucky for a portion of his life. :showoff:
I never got lucky in Kentucky.
Wait, yeah I did! :yeah:
Quote from: derspiess on November 27, 2012, 03:42:34 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 27, 2012, 02:06:46 PM
Lincoln was lucky because he was a resident of Kentucky for a portion of his life. :showoff:
I never got lucky in Kentucky.
Wait, yeah I did! :yeah:
That's not lucky as you were in Kentucky. :contract:
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 01:27:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2012, 01:22:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 01:09:50 PM
This columnist is an idiot.
Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way :blush: ) 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.
The deep South wasn't going to accept the election of a Republican President, period. It wouldn't have mattered what the media wrote at that point. Heck, they ripped the Democratic party into shreds rather than accept Douglas as the party's nominee.
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 03:43:05 PM
That's not lucky as you were in Kentucky. :contract:
Well I wasn't stuck there. I went home the next day, actually.
But you were there. ;)
Quote from: Kleves on November 27, 2012, 03:41:56 PM
I am not sure what Lincoln could have said, other than completely abandoning the central tenant of the Republican platform
Rent control?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2012, 03:56:49 PM
Rent control?
I was speaking of William Seward, of course. He was quite important to the Republican Party, and one of his central tenets was the prevention of the spread of slavery. :sleep:
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 03:50:41 PM
Heck, they ripped the Democratic party into shreds rather than accept Douglas as the party's nominee.
Yeah the moment they all walked out in 1860 it was all downhill.
Man now that is a convention I wish had been televised.
Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2012, 01:22:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 27, 2012, 01:09:50 PM
This columnist is an idiot.
Possibly. I just liked (I guess in a Timmay sort of way :blush:) 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?
Absolutely
There were about 3700 newspapers in the USA in 1860 and the largest ones had daily circulations deep into the 5 figures. Because of the telegraph, it was possible to turn get out "hot news" in a matter of hours. The US was a highly literate population at the time, although there were regional variations (and most slaves were not surprisingly illiterate). In the largest cities so-called "non-partisan" papers were common but in the smaller cities and towns, partisan papers were the norm.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2012, 06:08:40 PMThe US was a highly literate population at the time, although there were regional variations
:yes:
IIRC it was 90% in the North and 70% in the South among whites
It's incredible how the US population was that literate in the 1850s and 1860s. Compare with France, where 80-85% of the population was still composed of peasants at the same era, most of them illiterate or barely able to count and read, but voting anyway.
And before you mention that France was under Napoleon III at the time, people still voted for the legislative, and Napoleon III insisted in keeping it universal after taking power. For a Bonapartist dictator, Nappy was a nice chap. :frog:
de Tocqueville comments on American literacy in the 1830's, claiming the first time he read some of Shakespeare's plays in some backwoods cabin. So not only could Americans read, but they were often well read. Even on the frontier. I advise any non-American to read de Tocqueville if you want to understand the US and the American people. Despite being over a hundred and fifty years ago his observations on the American character are extremely keen. His predictions are often quite accurate as well, such as the prediction that the US and Russia would one day dominate the world, which occurred about a hundred years after he published his book.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 28, 2012, 02:32:54 AM
de Tocqueville comments on American literacy in the 1830's, claiming the first time he read some of Shakespeare's plays in some backwoods cabin. So not only could Americans read, but they were often well read. Even on the frontier. I advise any non-American to read de Tocqueville if you want to understand the US and the American people. Despite being over a hundred and fifty years ago his observations on the American character are extremely keen. His predictions are often quite accurate as well, such as the prediction that the US and Russia would one day dominate the world, which occurred about a hundred years after he published his book.
Yup, dude was brilliant.
QuoteThere are now two great nations in the world which, starting from different points, seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Americans. Both have grown in obscurity, and while the world's attention was occupied elsewhere, they have suddenly taken their place among the leading nations, making the world take note of their birth and of their greatness almost at the same instant. All other peoples seem to have nearly reached their natural limits and to need nothing but to preserve them; but these two are growing.... The American fights against natural obstacles; the Russian is at grips with men. The former combats the wilderness and barbarism; the latter, civilization with all its arms. America's conquests are made with the plowshare, Russia's with the sword. To attain their aims, the former relies on personal interest and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of individuals. The latter in a sense concentrates the whole power of society in one man. One has freedom as the principal means of action; the other has servitude. Their point of departure is different and their paths diverse; nevertheless, each seems called by some secret desire of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: dps on November 27, 2012, 03:50:41 PM
Heck, they ripped the Democratic party into shreds rather than accept Douglas as the party's nominee.
Yeah the moment they all walked out in 1860 it was all downhill.
Man now that is a convention I wish had been televised.
I'm not sure that it would have made a whole lot of difference if they hadn't violated the first unwritten rule of RPG's. Even if all the votes for Douglas, Breckenridge, and Bell had gone to the candidate of a unified Democratic party, Lincoln would have still won, though it's possible that a unified Democratic party might have run a better campaign. Beyond that, though, the Democratic party before their disastrous convention was about the only institution left in American life that was nationwide.
Quote from: Drakken on November 27, 2012, 09:46:55 PM
It's incredible how the US population was that literate in the 1850s and 1860s. Compare with France, where 80-85% of the population was still composed of peasants at the same era, most of them illiterate or barely able to count and read, but voting anyway.
And before you mention that France was under Napoleon III at the time, people still voted for the legislative, and Napoleon III insisted in keeping it universal after taking power. For a Bonapartist dictator, Nappy was a nice chap. :frog:
He wanted to turn France into a British style government as he was a big anglophile and thought their system was the best. Which is sort of funny really.
He even wrote a book proposing that this was Napoleon I's ultimate goal, or at least the culmination of his legacy. The book is 'Napoleonic Ideas'.
Lincoln's lucky because he was assassinated.
Which is pretty shitty luck.
Quote from: Valmy on November 27, 2012, 04:30:36 PMI'm not sure that it would have made a whole lot of difference if they hadn't violated the first unwritten rule of RPG's. Even if all the votes for Douglas, Breckenridge, and Bell had gone to the candidate of a unified Democratic party, Lincoln would have still won, though it's possible that a unified Democratic party might have run a better campaign. Beyond that, though, the Democratic party before their disastrous convention was about the only institution left in American life that was nationwide.
Well yeah I hear that arguement from Lost Causers that the South taking down the Democrats did not cost them the election but of course that assumes everybody would have voted the exact same way in that scenario. But they may be right because after the Dredd Scott decision the Republican momentum was too strong. Any compromise the Democrats could have proposed would have been in violation of a Supreme Court decision which put them in an impossible position anyway.