On the Moral Standing of Abraham Lincoln
Last night, I made a 50-second TikTok video claiming that Abraham Lincoln is not a morally exceptional hero worth worshipping. In context, I was commenting on a tweet made by conservative Missouri state representative Tony Lovasco’s claim that in light of the removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee in Virginia, we should not forget President Lincoln’s failures and remove his statues as well.
As mentioned in my video, while Lovasco’s purposes for criticizing Lincoln are likely very different from my own, both of us can agree on the conclusion that Honest Abe wasn’t as great of a guy as common opinion holds. The state rep claims Lincoln was “reprehensible” for employing conscription policy and suspending habeas corpus. Instead, I claimed that Lincoln wasn’t exceptionally ethical as (contrary to the popular liberal opinion of Lincoln being the morally great leader that saved America from an evil history of slavery) he actually used and viewed slaves as a means to an end, rather than valuing them as worthy human lives.
My claims in the video were expectedly met with mixed reception. A considerable amount agreed to the sentiment, adding more reasons to dislike America’s most popular president. These commenters shared that President Lincoln proved to be one of the harshest presidents in regards to policies affecting indigenous populations, as many had been relocated to designated reservations and dozens of others were condemned to the death penalty under his administration. Other valid criticisms cited Lincoln self-describing himself as someone who holds white supremacist beliefs in extremely explicit language! At the time, Lincoln stated that he had never been in favor of bringing about the social or political equality of whites and blacks, citing “physical differences” between them that will forever prohibit them from living together in harmony.
Other reactions included accusations claiming I was defending the confederacy or that I and the rest of the political “left” would only be satisfied when the rest of the statues, libraries, and all of history, for that matter, are burned to the ground. Some of these criticisms, I believe, were satirical in nature while others can be addressed at a later point, if need be. More interesting allegations, however, claimed that I am guilty of trying to “cancel” figures from the past by holding them to impossibly high contemporary moral standards. This is reminiscent of the same arguments made in the debate over the removal of statues of Robert E. Lee as conservatives claimed progressives were trying to erase history to achieve political success by means of political correctness.
While I personally did not take a strong stance on whether or not statues of Lincoln should be taken down, I did imply that very few, if any, political figures in American history are worth worshipping or honoring as moral superiors. Even still, rather intuitively, most individuals that are keen on fundamentals of American history and political values would likely be in favor of keeping statues of Lincoln up. It’s quite understandable considering Abraham Lincoln is widely taught and viewed as a heroic figure from our country’s past who fought off the evil, racist Southerners, and defeated slavery in America as we know it once and for all. Lincoln is remembered as intelligent, honest, well spoken, and involuntarily martyred for his cause. This is Lincoln’s legacy.
And don’t get me wrong: Abraham Lincoln and his influence were instrumental tools in dismantling institutionalized slavery in America. This was a step in the right direction and perhaps the greatest thing his administration accomplished. All that being said, however, I invite all who are interested to look deeper, and ask, with what intention was slavery destroyed? Was slavery fought over for the purpose of achieving egalitarian goals of equity among all men, including and especially the black slaves suffering under white supremacist masters? Or, rather, was it to fulfill the goal of preserving the Union by using slavery as a means to an end? One need not look further than Lincoln’s own words to find the answer.
I would argue that as morally imperfect human beings that follow generations of other generally morally worse human beings, putting politicians, political leaders, or anyone else for that matter on a pedestal as a hero is unnecessary and ahistorical. In spite of how we paint them in our history books, American political leaders were not and never will be synonymous to superheroes fighting off villains.
Ultimately, I argue Abraham Lincoln, who believed in the supremacy of white people over black people, who hung dozens of innocent people, relocated hundreds of indigenous peoples, and announced to all that freeing slaves was a means to an end rather than an end in itself was not morally exceptional.
